Tesla Supercharger Network

[apvbguy]

it's more of a wish list than an actual depiction of where they will be in 2016

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I'm not sure Superchargers are a core issue. They may be to a few of us, I certainly appreciate your steady updates on Supercharger progress but I wouldn't be surprised if the "idea' of Superchargers is just as big a factor in selling cars (their core business) as the ubiquity of them. The keynote speaker at the TesLive event in July, Steve Jurvetson, alluded that Superchargers are merely marketing and as far as he was concerned, most Tesla owners would fly rather than drive more than a few hundred miles.
I just finished a 1400 mi R/T from SoCal to Utah, visiting 5 Superchargers twice. It was the holidays. Never saw more than one other Tesla plugged in. Even in Barstow and Primm. Maybe Jurvetson is right.

There are road trips and then there are road trips. Good bet that for most people who buy six figure price tag cars time is more important than money. Southern CA to Vegas is one thing, but seriously how many Clark Griswolds seeking out the world's largest ball of twine do you really think are in this demographic?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown in percentages of people who consider various road trip distances palatable vs household income. I'll bet the numbers really drop off after about 400-600 miles.

 

[Zythryn]

There are road trips and then there are road trips. Good bet that for most people who buy six figure price tag cars time is more important than money. Southern CA to Vegas is one thing, but seriously how many Clark Griswolds seeking out the world's largest ball of twine do you really think are in this demographic?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown in percentages of people who consider various road trip distances palatable vs household income. I'll bet the numbers really drop off after about 400-600 miles.

I make far more road trips than I used to.
I do agree that breakdown would be interesting to see.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I make far more road trips than I used to.

New York to LA? (and back)

 

[Zythryn]

I make far more road trips than I used to.

New York to LA? (and back)

Nope, not that far yet. Minneapolis to Fremont, then back through Arizona and New Mexico.

Tracked down and visited a ghost town my wife visited as a kid, even found the same tree she had a picture of (wasn't too hard, there aren't many trees in Two Guns Arizona).

Happened upon a few other tourist spots I never would have taken the time to stop and see. Great trip and road tripping is now my favored way to take vacations.

Hmmm, sorry, to bring it back on topic...
We travelled about 5000 miles, charged exclusively at superchargers. Approximately 34 supercharger stops. Spent about one hour total waiting for charges and spent $3 on fuel.

 

[JeremyW]

As far as SCs go, it's easy, as they don't require lots of time and money for development, so they don't have the major unknowns.

I think you're underestimating the time, effort, and "gamble" of permitting and siting some of these places. Small government is often slow, corrupt, red tape driven, etc. Not to mention utility work, too, which shares many of the same characteristics. Don't forget these sites can have power draws that rival large commercial buildings and traffic flow that can sometimes rival a gas station.

 

[scottf200]

That's a lovely map!
Lest some of us forget, these Supercharger maps come with this "CYA" caveat from Tesla... The map above is a representation of the corridors we plan to enable and the timing thereof. Exact locations and timing may vary.

Of course but clearly they are continuing at a good pace and you'd think they'd only get more efficient over time. Experience with past utilities and local permitting issues would likely help them overcome obstacles and get those done more quickly.

Click/Turn off "Open" ones to see this. http://supercharge.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

....They need to focus on some core issues, especially in regards to superchargers. ...

I'm not sure Superchargers are a core issue. They may be to a few of us, I certainly appreciate your steady updates on Supercharger progress but I wouldn't be surprised if the "idea' of Superchargers is just as big a factor in selling cars (their core business) as the ubiquity of them. The keynote speaker at the TesLive event in July, Steve Jurvetson, alluded that Superchargers are merely marketing and as far as he was concerned, most Tesla owners would fly rather than drive more than a few hundred miles.
I just finished a 1400 mi R/T from SoCal to Utah, visiting 5 Superchargers twice. It was the holidays. Never saw more than one other Tesla plugged in. Even in Barstow and Primm. Maybe Jurvetson is right.

Preaching to the choir, there. From a post of mine on Dec. 10, 2013 (pg. 41 of this thread):

Zythryn wrote:
It is not solely for Elon's nostalgia. It allows coast to coast travel, and the Midwest owners appreciate it very, very much
While not official, word is there are over 40 currently under construction

The question is whether providing coast-to-coast transit at this early date, as opposed to providing SCs to enable trips between high-frequency city pairs and urban-recreational destinations, makes more sense. Few people will drive cross-country more than once in their life, if ever, even fewer in winter. But many of them will likely drive up to 350 or so miles from home for business or pleasure; beyond that they'll likely fly. So rather than hurrying up installing SCs on I-90 west of Chicago, they should first be building them along I-85 to Atlanta, cover all of Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, Kansas City and St. Louis, the west side of the Florida peninsula, destinations from the Bay Area (like North Lake Tahoe and Yosemite), L.A., Denver (have a decent start on this), SLC (Moab and Blanding are good, need ones around Price and Green River, plus some extending up I-15 to Yellowstone as well as south to cover Bryce, Zion, Capitol Reef etc) and so on.

And if you're going to put in a cross-country route, why on earth would you choose to make the first one on such a sparsely-populated and lightly-traveled route, one which is moreover subject to extremely cold winters? I-80 or I-70 from the east coast to I-15 in the vicinity of SLC, from whence you can proceed due W, SW or NW to either the Bay Area, SoCal or the PNW respectively, would make far more sense as an initial coast-to-coast route, or even I-40 or I-10 if you want something all-weather. Fill in the remaining X-C routes as time and money allow, but for heaven's sake, don't start with a route that requires a detour across the emptiness of Southern Minnesota, South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming just to experience the joys of sub-zero winter temps. It's nuts.

If I were a Tesla owner (and shareholder) in an urban area not served by SCs and needing them, I'd be very pissed that they were putting so much time, effort and money building SCs for Elon's vanity project in the middle of nowhere, rather than where there are significant numbers of people waiting to use one. Fortunately, I'm not!

 

[GRA]

As far as SCs go, it's easy, as they don't require lots of time and money for development, so they don't have the major unknowns.

I think you're underestimating the time, effort, and "gamble" of permitting and siting some of these places. Small government is often slow, corrupt, red tape driven, etc. Not to mention utility work, too, which shares many of the same characteristics. Don't forget these sites can have power draws that rival large commercial buildings and traffic flow that can sometimes rival a gas station.

_I_ am underestimating this?! Please re-read my post from 1/8/14 - You have me confused with Tesla. I've been saying that it was highly unlikely they'd meet their targets, for the reasons you list and others. Which is why they need to get all their ducks (permits) in a row months ahead of time and get the contracts bid and signed, before they put any of this on a map. And then, when something unforeseen does crop up which will cause a major delay, they need to tell people what's going on, instead of keeping them in the dark wondering why the site permitted or under construction has seen no change for three months or more - cf. Greenville, SC; San Juan Capistrano, CA; El Centro, CA; Manteca. CA; Primm, NV; etc.

 

[Deleted member 14724]

I've been saying that it was highly unlikely they'd meet their targets, for the reasons you list and others. Which is why they need to get all their ducks (permits) in a row months ahead of time and get the contracts bid and signed, before they put any of this on a map. And then, when something unforeseen does crop up which will cause a major delay, they need to tell people what's going on, instead of keeping them in the dark wondering why the site permitted or under construction has seen no change for three months or more - cf. Greenville, SC; San Juan Capistrano, CA; El Centro, CA; Manteca. CA; Primm, NV; etc.

I agree with all of this. People who are accustomed to working in markets often have a lot of difficulty working with governments, and if you get really good at working with governments, you tend to lose your ability to function as well in markets. The cultures are very different due to the very different objectives.

 

[scottf200]

I've been saying that it was highly unlikely they'd meet their targets, for the reasons you list and others. Which is why they need to get all their ducks (permits) in a row months ahead of time and get the contracts bid and signed, before they put any of this on a map. And then, when something unforeseen does crop up which will cause a major delay, they need to tell people what's going on, instead of keeping them in the dark wondering why the site permitted or under construction has seen no change for three months or more - cf. Greenville, SC; San Juan Capistrano, CA; El Centro, CA; Manteca. CA; Primm, NV; etc.

I agree with all of this. People who are accustomed to working in markets often have a lot of difficulty working with governments, and if you get really good at working with governments, you tend to lose your ability to function as well in markets. The cultures are very different due to the very different objectives.

They have a couple hundred these installed in multiple countries. You guys don't think they've learned how to navigate this stuff. Seriously, we are not talking about a couple dozen in a couple states! I think your guy's comments are valid in late-2013/early-2014. Crazy talk, IMO.

 

[GRA]

I've been saying that it was highly unlikely they'd meet their targets, for the reasons you list and others. Which is why they need to get all their ducks (permits) in a row months ahead of time and get the contracts bid and signed, before they put any of this on a map. And then, when something unforeseen does crop up which will cause a major delay, they need to tell people what's going on, instead of keeping them in the dark wondering why the site permitted or under construction has seen no change for three months or more - cf. Greenville, SC; San Juan Capistrano, CA; El Centro, CA; Manteca. CA; Primm, NV; etc.

I agree with all of this. People who are accustomed to working in markets often have a lot of difficulty working with governments, and if you get really good at working with governments, you tend to lose your ability to function as well in markets. The cultures are very different due to the very different objectives.

They have a couple hundred these installed in multiple countries. You guys don't think they've learned how to navigate this stuff. Seriously, we are not talking about a couple dozen in a couple states! I think your guy's comments are valid in late-2013/early-2014. Crazy talk, IMO.

Except that, as I've shown, they fell far short of their projections in 2014 just as they did in 2013. People have said they cut Tesla slack because they're doing something new. I cut them all sorts of slack in 2012, and less but still a lot in 2013. By 2014, though, they certainly should know what they're doing when it comes to SCs, and yet they still under-delivered by a large margin. No more slack for them.

 

[Zythryn]

It's like a starving man refusing steak because it isn't filet.

I'm not cutting them any slack either.
On the flip side I want to recognize how much more they have accomplished that much larger, better financed companies have.

 

[Deleted member 14724]

It's like a starving man refusing steak because it isn't filet.

I'm not cutting them any slack either.
On the flip side I want to recognize how much more they have accomplished that much larger, better financed companies have.

I agree with that. Actually, I give them perhaps a bit of slack because talking up what they can do helps to keep the faithful charged and probably helps them to draw investors. Quite frankly, CEOs exaggerate all the time. No reason to hold Musk to some different standard.

 

[GRA]

It's like a starving man refusing steak because it isn't filet.

I'm not cutting them any slack either.
On the flip side I want to recognize how much more they have accomplished that much larger, better financed companies have.

I agree with that. Actually, I give them perhaps a bit of slack because talking up what they can do helps to keep the faithful charged and probably helps them to draw investors. Quite frankly, CEOs exaggerate all the time. No reason to hold Musk to some different standard.

Yes, CEOs and other executives exaggerate, and I'm holding Elon Musk to the same standards I hold other corporate execs. If you'd been following this forum for a while, you'd know just how much I've criticized Nissan for their corporate lack of ethical behavior towards their early customers, and other companies when they did something boneheaded (ELR; i3/REx crippling and small tank, etc.).

I long ago went through the phase where I'd accept hype over substance, which is why where criticism is earned, I won't hesitate to give it. The same goes for praise: Tesla has come in for a generous share of that from me, as have Mitsubishi, Kia and other companies (even Nissan) when they've done something good. But I'm not going to be starry-eyed about any of this; these people are involved in a business which will succeed or fail based on the quality of their products and service, and I'll judge them strictly on those factors. Tesla has done far more right than wrong and I've said as much repeatedly, but they don't qualify for a free pass.

Edit: I see that Tesla has updated their SC web page. They've gotten rid of 'Coming Now', and just have 'Today', '2015' and '2016'. It's notable that the 2015 map appears to be pretty much identical to the '2014' map they deleted. Putting SCs along the vast emptiness traversed by I-94 has now been officially pushed back to 2016, so at least some sanity has prevailed.

 

[scottf200]

http://insideevs.com/tesla-unveils-largest-underground-supercharger-station/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[scottf200]

Got this information in an email this morning:

8 Charging Stalls
3801 S. MacArthur Blvd
Springfield, IL 62704

Illinois
Aurora 4
Country Club Hills 8
Highland Park 4
Normal 4
Rockford 6
Total: 5/26

 

[Zythryn]

Got this information in an email this morning:

8 Charging Stalls
3801 S. MacArthur Blvd
Springfield, IL 62704

Illinois
Aurora 4
Country Club Hills 8
Highland Park 4
Normal 4
Rockford 6
Total: 5/26

Nice! I've been waiting for that one.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I long ago went through the phase where I'd accept hype over substance, which is why where criticism is earned, I won't hesitate to give it. The same goes for praise: Tesla has come in for a generous share of that from me, as have Mitsubishi, Kia and other companies (even Nissan) when they've done something good. But I'm not going to be starry-eyed about any of this; these people are involved in a business which will succeed or fail based on the quality of their products and service, and I'll judge them strictly on those factors. Tesla has done far more right than wrong and I've said as much repeatedly, but they don't qualify for a free pass...

Fair enough. But you have been vigorously, almost viciously, disparaging of Tesla for things that strike me as patently unfair, such as the initial route selection for the Supercharger network. And you seem to favor crowding Superchargers in highly populated areas versus using them to allow long distance travel, which happens to cross lightly populated areas in "flyover country". But that's the whole point of the Supercharger network: to allow long distance travel in a BEV across the wide open spaces. Urban areas don't need Supercharger stations, except a handful of locations on Interstate routes, since the cars have enough range to cross most with ease, save for a few of the largest, most sprawling population centers.

...And if you're going to put in a cross-country route, why on earth would you choose to make the first one on such a sparsely-populated and lightly-traveled route, one which is moreover subject to extremely cold winters? I-80 or I-70 from the east coast to I-15 in the vicinity of SLC, from whence you can proceed due W, SW or NW to either the Bay Area, SoCal or the PNW respectively, would make far more sense as an initial coast-to-coast route, or even I-40 or I-10 if you want something all-weather. Fill in the remaining X-C routes as time and money allow, but for heaven's sake, don't start with a route that requires a detour across the emptiness of Southern Minnesota, South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming just to experience the joys of sub-zero winter temps. It's nuts...

While I have no idea of why Tesla chose that first coast-to-coast route, perhaps they crossed Colorado and Utah for the scenery. Or because Colorado is one of the most EV friendly states in the country (shocking, but true). I-10 and I-40 through eastern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, which you suggest as being better routes, are some of the bleakest drives I've ever done (and you complain about Wyoming and Nebraska?). Perhaps they thought some Tesla owners might be skiers, since there are more than two dozen ski areas in Colorado. Perhaps they wanted to open up southern Utah, one of the highest concentrations of National Parks and Monuments in the entire country. Perhaps they chose the northern route across the Great Plains, as opposed to I-70 through Kansas, to service population centers in the upper Midwest, such as Minneapolis, Madison, and Chicago. Or maybe they just threw darts at a map because one has to start somewhere. I don't know.

My sense is that regardless of what route they chose you would have found something to criticize because it would not be ideal from your personal POV. Right?

 

[GRA]

...I long ago went through the phase where I'd accept hype over substance, which is why where criticism is earned, I won't hesitate to give it. The same goes for praise: Tesla has come in for a generous share of that from me, as have Mitsubishi, Kia and other companies (even Nissan) when they've done something good. But I'm not going to be starry-eyed about any of this; these people are involved in a business which will succeed or fail based on the quality of their products and service, and I'll judge them strictly on those factors. Tesla has done far more right than wrong and I've said as much repeatedly, but they don't qualify for a free pass...

Fair enough. But you have been vigorously, almost viciously, disparaging of Tesla for things that strike me as patently unfair, such as the initial route selection for the Supercharger network. And you seem to favor crowding Superchargers in highly populated areas versus using them to allow long distance travel, which happens to cross lightly populated areas in "flyover country". But that's the whole point of the Supercharger network: to allow long distance travel in a BEV across the wide open spaces. Urban areas don't need Supercharger stations, except a handful of locations on Interstate routes, since the cars have enough range to cross most with ease, save for a few of the largest, most sprawling population centers.

See below.

...And if you're going to put in a cross-country route, why on earth would you choose to make the first one on such a sparsely-populated and lightly-traveled route, one which is moreover subject to extremely cold winters? I-80 or I-70 from the east coast to I-15 in the vicinity of SLC, from whence you can proceed due W, SW or NW to either the Bay Area, SoCal or the PNW respectively, would make far more sense as an initial coast-to-coast route, or even I-40 or I-10 if you want something all-weather. Fill in the remaining X-C routes as time and money allow, but for heaven's sake, don't start with a route that requires a detour across the emptiness of Southern Minnesota, South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming just to experience the joys of sub-zero winter temps. It's nuts...

While I have no idea of why Tesla chose that first coast-to-coast route, perhaps they crossed Colorado and Utah for the scenery. Or because Colorado is one of the most EV friendly states in the country (shocking, but true). I-10 and I-40 through eastern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, which you suggest as being better routes, are some of the bleakest drives I've ever done (and you complain about Wyoming and Nebraska?). Perhaps they thought some Tesla owners might be skiers, since there are more than two dozen ski areas in Colorado. Perhaps they wanted to open up southern Utah, one of the highest concentrations of National Parks and Monuments in the entire country. Perhaps they chose the northern route across the Great Plains, as opposed to I-70 through Kansas, to service population centers in the upper Midwest, such as Minneapolis, Madison, and Chicago. Or maybe they just threw darts at a map because one has to start somewhere. I don't know.

My sense is that regardless of what route they chose you would have found something to criticize because it would not be ideal from your personal POV. Right?

Boy, you have completely misunderstood my rationale for SC locations, and have apparently forgotted several discussions we've both taken part in here over the past year or so. To save me typing, here's the full post from 12/10/13 where I stated my rationale (you only quoted a section of it). This was part of the discussion of why the initial SC route went where it did [A Musk family adventure - if you want the full discussion of that, go back to about page 38 in this thread up to about page 60).

It is not solely for Elon's nostalgia. It allows coast to coast travel, and the Midwest owners appreciate it very, very much
While not official, word is there are over 40 currently under construction

The question is whether providing coast-to-coast transit at this early date, as opposed to providing SCs to enable trips between high-frequency city pairs and urban-recreational destinations, makes more sense. Few people will drive cross-country more than once in their life, if ever, even fewer in winter. But many of them will likely drive up to 350 or so miles from home for business or pleasure; beyond that they'll likely fly. So rather than hurrying up installing SCs on I-90 west of Chicago, they should first be building them along I-85 to Atlanta, cover all of Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, Kansas City and St. Louis, the west side of the Florida peninsula, destinations from the Bay Area (like North Lake Tahoe and Yosemite), L.A., Denver (have a decent start on this), SLC (Moab and Blanding are good, need ones around Price and Green River, plus some extending up I-15 to Yellowstone as well as south to cover Bryce, Zion, Capitol Reef etc) and so on.

And if you're going to put in a cross-country route, why on earth would you choose to make the first one on such a sparsely-populated and lightly-traveled route, one which is moreover subject to extremely cold winters? I-80 or I-70 from the east coast to I-15 in the vicinity of SLC, from whence you can proceed due W, SW or NW to either the Bay Area, SoCal or the PNW respectively, would make far more sense as an initial coast-to-coast route, or even I-40 or I-10 if you want something all-weather. Fill in the remaining X-C routes as time and money allow, but for heaven's sake, don't start with a route that requires a detour across the emptiness of Southern Minnesota, South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming just to experience the joys of sub-zero winter temps. It's nuts.

If I were a Tesla owner (and shareholder) in an urban area not served by SCs and needing them, I'd be very pissed that they were putting so much time, effort and money building SCs for Elon's vanity project in the middle of nowhere, rather than where there are significant numbers of people waiting to use one. Fortunately, I'm not!

As you can see, I've never said that SCs need to be in urban areas, I've said they first need to be located on routes leading out from urban areas with large concentrations of Teslas (like the Denver metropolitan area) to other reasonably close urban areas with high travel frequency between them, or frequent weekend destinations (like ski areas). I have never disparaged having SCs in Colorado and Utah, I've encouraged them for the reasons you state, and would like to see more of them, Estes Park and Granby for a start, plus Colorado Springs/Pueblo, Durango, Cortez, Montrose or Ridgeway, Gunnison, Poncha Springs, etc. Also Albuquerque and Santa Fe or Taos, plus I-25 between Denver and ABQ. Why do you think I've been so vocal here and especially on TMC about the need to get Truckee, South Lake Tahoe, Manteca, Lone Pine and Inyokern, West Springfield and Brattleboro open before the ski season started, instead of halfway or more through it? And why I suggested holding off on finishing I-90 from Ritzville to Billings until spring, to finish in time for the summer vacation season?

It's the diversion of effort to SCs solely along interstates that are many hundreds of miles from urban areas with major concentrations of Teslas and with no recreational destinations in the area (I-94 being a classic case) that I object to. I-90 in the NW being similar, as it's about 600-750 miles from Seattle to Glacier or Yellowstone, and even further from the Twin Cities. Even if you're going to put SCs in along I-90, as Tesla has in Montana, they aren't planning to put any in for when you leave the interstate to go to the National Park destinations you and I both think are important, until 2016 - see the maps here:

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is it more important to install SCs along I-94, a freeway that, in a phrase coined back in the 1870s for the early transcontinentals that were being built in much the same area and which still applies today, ran from "No where much to nowhere at all", and will serve an equivalent number (i.e. next to none) of Tesla owners? Or to instead put them in first in West Yellowstone, Gardiner, Kalispell/West Glacier, Jackson/Moran, Cody etc. as well as along I-15 in Pocatello and Twin Falls and I-80 west of Cheyenne to SLC so that you can actually get to the parks from the nearest Interstate/major urban area using SCs?

Someone brought up the transcontinental railroads (a misnomer: none ran east of Chicago or New Orleans, but we're stuck with the term) a few pages back, and I didn't reply at length to that. I will now. It's precisely because I don't want to see Tesla duplicate the mistakes of the transcontinentals that I've been so vociferously trying to get them to change their approach (not just here, but on TMC and also in emails to Tesla). There are two basic approaches to building infrastructure - you either build it to meet an existing demand, or you build it to create demand, aka 'if you build it, they will come.' Most of the transcontinentals were built with the second philosophy. Unfortunately, most were built anything up to 30 years in advance of the traffic demand that would support them, and even if they hadn't been rotten with graft and corruption, were totally dependent on government subsidies and bailouts to keep going.

Even with the subsidies and other favorable legislation provided by 'friends' in the U.S. and state legislatures, most of them went into receivership, some more than once. Arguably, the Panic of 1893, the worst recession in this country prior to the Depression, was caused by the transcontinentals being unable to pay their bills. In that year the UP, NP and AT&SF all went into receivership, with the CP/SP barely managing to stay solvent through some extremely creative and highly illegal methods. Only the GN, the sole transcontinental to be built without land grants and to be designed as a profitable railroad (thus, it was largely built to meet demand), instead of just a way for the financiers to get rich through diverting as large a % of the railroad's funds into their own pockets, came through without too much trouble [note that the CMSTP&P didn't extend to the Pacific Coast until the 1900s, and it too failed several times]. Prior panics in 1873 and other years had also seen some of the transcontinentals and many other roads fail (the UP for the first time in 1873).

The population distribution of the country in the 1870s looks very similar to that now, except that there is a higher percentage of people in the south and west. See this map:

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ams-usa-population.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where are the large urban areas that will support high densities of Tesla-level income and ownership in the northern tier states? Where are the large nearby urban areas that can provide lots of Tesla traffic to these areas from a reasonable distance outside them? Only SLC and DEN. To sum up, for the next few years at least, Tesla needs to build SCs to meet demand and not try to create it where it doesn't exist, lest they end up like the transcontinentals. Not only is this best for them, it's also best for the largest number of their customers.