Tesla Supercharger Network

[cwerdna]

Tesla continues to have production issues, and they've lowered the number of cars they'll be able to produce this year once again. Result: Stock impact. Without moving cars, gross margin takes a hit. They need to win this race, or they'll be a footnote in EV history after running out of cash.

ok, I did not see this other news release this morning. It looks like they were hoping to offset the bad news with good news and have them go out at the same time. Looks like people are still fearful.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/tesla-heres-a-list-of-difficulties-slamming-production-now.html/?ref=YF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last night, when the stock was down 9% in pre-market trading, I'd only heard about the 4.3 million additional shares stock offering. The forecast cut and being behind on production ramp is new news. It's interesting how everything's been timed, to do as you suggest.

A bunch more negative news that I'm just now catching up on... See http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TSLA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, the video at http://www.bloomberg.com/video/tesla-s-slow-lane-selling-another-147m-in-stock-DAH4R8v6ToKVmsw7E19cuQ.html?cmpid=yhoo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-25/tesla-told-to-speed-repayment-of-u-s-electric-car-loan.html?cmpid=yhoo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (re: the DOE loan). Hmmm...

 

[defiancecp]

Yes, it's important for all electric cars to be successful, but it's not Tesla's responsibility to do that. They are looking out for their own customers and want to promote their newer cars, not anyone else's.

That sounds like the most likely reasoning behind the incompatibility -- and it's a negligent, stupid, harmful perspective.
Right now the public is extremely fearful of EVs for many reasons, including perceived lack of charging infrastructure and perceived lack of quick charging standards. This results is a VERY small EV market, and moves like this solidify that constraint rather than lifting it. A small startup like Tesla, frankly, cannot survive with its product exclusively within that market - regardless of whether they grab 1% or 80% of it (and their price restricts them to WAY below 80% of it anyway). The only way Tesla survives is if the EV market expands as a whole. They had an opportunity to help that here, and instead they got aggressively competitive with other EVs??

Idiocy, pure and simple. They reduce their chances of long-term survival for a short-term advantage against the few other EVs on the market. Good decision there guys. :roll:

 

[TomT]

The last thing they (or I ) would want is a vehicle tying up the station for hours charging on L2.

Add a level II and or Level III port and charge for it.

 

[palmermd]

The last thing they (or I ) would want is a vehicle tying up the station for hours charging on L2.

Add a level II and or Level III port and charge for it.

These stations are 150 miles apart. Our cars could not travel on this network if we wanted to. Event the 40kWh Model S could not make it, and this is one of several reasons why they opted not to allow it to have Supercharger access.

 

[adric22]

These stations are 150 miles apart. Our cars could not travel on this network if we wanted to. Event the 40kWh Model S could not make it, and this is one of several reasons why they opted not to allow it to have Supercharger access.

Yeah but a Volt could. And it'd be great to pickup some electrons in the middle of a long trip.

But seriously, the reason it disappoints me the most, even for the 40Kwh Model-S to not be supported is because our charging infrastructure is pitiful. And while these stations are out in the middle of nowhere, I would think that 5 or 10 years in the future you might see more popping up inside of cities for people to use more or less like gas stations. In which case people with Leafs and Volts could take advantage too.

If they added an extra pedestal with J1772, I can't imagine it would affect the ability to still provide a supercharge for a Tesla. After all, if our cars only pull 3.3 Kw and the Tesla will pull 100 Kw, then our cars are just a drop in the bucket.

 

[Electric4Me]

Tejon Ranch is a BIG place. The station is in the Tejon Industrial complex, and he kept calling it Tejon, not Tejon Ranch.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lava...GqneLs6mPSKthGvHA0osMQ&cbp=12,197.37,,2,-4.21

They need to get a new sign added for "Charging Stations Next Exit"!
http://goo.gl/maps/IpqZK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Electric4Me]

Yes, it's important for all electric cars to be successful, but it's not Tesla's responsibility to do that. They are looking out for their own customers and want to promote their newer cars, not anyone else's.

That sounds like the most likely reasoning behind the incompatibility -- and it's a negligent, stupid, harmful perspective.
Right now the public is extremely fearful of EVs for many reasons, including perceived lack of charging infrastructure and perceived lack of quick charging standards. This results is a VERY small EV market, and moves like this solidify that constraint rather than lifting it. A small startup like Tesla, frankly, cannot survive with its product exclusively within that market - regardless of whether they grab 1% or 80% of it (and their price restricts them to WAY below 80% of it anyway). The only way Tesla survives is if the EV market expands as a whole. They had an opportunity to help that here, and instead they got aggressively competitive with other EVs??

Idiocy, pure and simple. They reduce their chances of long-term survival for a short-term advantage against the few other EVs on the market. Good decision there guys. :roll:

I'm sorry, but I really disagree. They are a premium car brand, spending many millions on an infrastructure to benefit their customers and support their own car sales. They are not installing them out of charity, but because it's a good business strategy. If Mercedes offered free oil changes for life to their customers (yeah, right!) would you protest that it was bad for the rest of the ICEs? I wholeheartedly applaud Tesla's actions here and wish I could buy one...

 

[palmermd]

My comments in blue

These stations are 150 miles apart. Our cars could not travel on this network if we wanted to. Event the 40kWh Model S could not make it, and this is one of several reasons why they opted not to allow it to have Supercharger access.

Yeah but a Volt could. And it'd be great to pickup some electrons in the middle of a long trip. No comment

But seriously, the reason it disappoints me the most, even for the 40Kwh Model-S to not be supported is because our charging infrastructure is pitiful. And while these stations are out in the middle of nowhere, I would think that 5 or 10 years in the future you might see more popping up inside of cities for people to use more or less like gas stations. In which case people with Leafs and Volts could take advantage too. These are not designed to charge a city car, they are for long distance travel and are placed as such. Even S85 owners will charge at home every night like we do unless they are taking a long distance trip. The S40 and the Leaf and Rav4 and really the rest are just city cars. We take them to work and to buy groceries and such. When we want to take a trip we need to use something else. ModelS is the only one capable of taking a trip like this.

If they added an extra pedestal with J1772, I can't imagine it would affect the ability to still provide a supercharge for a Tesla. After all, if our cars only pull 3.3 Kw and the Tesla will pull 100 Kw, then our cars are just a drop in the bucket. While this is true, these stations are located at truck stops with plenty of restaurants and gas stations already there. Why not ask one of these other places to put in a J1772? Why must Tesla support these other vehicles. My opinion, they will be putting in some form of other charging at some point, if nothing else something to allow a Tesla Roadster to charge. I think you'll see J1772 there as well, but if not, someone could create a Roadster to J1772 converter. Time will tell.

 

[defiancecp]

Yes, it's important for all electric cars to be successful, but it's not Tesla's responsibility to do that. They are looking out for their own customers and want to promote their newer cars, not anyone else's.

That sounds like the most likely reasoning behind the incompatibility -- and it's a negligent, stupid, harmful perspective.
Right now the public is extremely fearful of EVs for many reasons, including perceived lack of charging infrastructure and perceived lack of quick charging standards. This results is a VERY small EV market, and moves like this solidify that constraint rather than lifting it. A small startup like Tesla, frankly, cannot survive with its product exclusively within that market - regardless of whether they grab 1% or 80% of it (and their price restricts them to WAY below 80% of it anyway). The only way Tesla survives is if the EV market expands as a whole. They had an opportunity to help that here, and instead they got aggressively competitive with other EVs??

Idiocy, pure and simple. They reduce their chances of long-term survival for a short-term advantage against the few other EVs on the market. Good decision there guys. :roll:

I'm sorry, but I really disagree. They are a premium car brand, spending many millions on an infrastructure to benefit their customers and support their own car sales. They are not installing them out of charity, but because it's a good business strategy. If Mercedes offered free oil changes for life to their customers (yeah, right!) would you protest that it was bad for the rest of the ICEs? I wholeheartedly applaud Tesla's actions here and wish I could buy one...

Your Mercedes analogy is completely inapplicable. Buyers are not afraid to buy ICEs because of nonstandardized and incompatible oils coupled with low availability of oils. If they were, and only a TINY fragment of the market was willing to face that fear, then Mercedes went to this very limited market and introduced yet another oil mix that was incompatible in most ways with the existing oils, THEN it would be a comparable situation. And yes, if they did that, the harm they do to ICEs in general with that move would hurt them MUCH more than any gain they might then get from giving that oil away free.

I'm not asking Tesla to be a charity. Just saying maybe they shouldn't shoot themselves in the leg trying to one-up Nissan & Chevy. They need to realize that expanding the EV market as a whole will improve their bottom line MUCH more than trying to take shares of the existing, constrained market from Chevy/Nissan/etc.

 

[GRA]

Note: I hope I've kept the attributions intact; my apologies if they got scrambled.

That sounds like the most likely reasoning behind the incompatibility -- and it's a negligent, stupid, harmful perspective.
Right now the public is extremely fearful of EVs for many reasons, including perceived lack of charging infrastructure and perceived lack of quick charging standards. This results is a VERY small EV market, and moves like this solidify that constraint rather than lifting it. A small startup like Tesla, frankly, cannot survive with its product exclusively within that market - regardless of whether they grab 1% or 80% of it (and their price restricts them to WAY below 80% of it anyway). The only way Tesla survives is if the EV market expands as a whole. They had an opportunity to help that here, and instead they got aggressively competitive with other EVs??

Idiocy, pure and simple. They reduce their chances of long-term survival for a short-term advantage against the few other EVs on the market. Good decision there guys. :roll:

I'm sorry, but I really disagree. They are a premium car brand, spending many millions on an infrastructure to benefit their customers and support their own car sales. They are not installing them out of charity, but because it's a good business strategy. If Mercedes offered free oil changes for life to their customers (yeah, right!) would you protest that it was bad for the rest of the ICEs? I wholeheartedly applaud Tesla's actions here and wish I could buy one...

Your Mercedes analogy is completely inapplicable. Buyers are not afraid to buy ICEs because of nonstandardized and incompatible oils coupled with low availability of oils. If they were, and only a TINY fragment of the market was willing to face that fear, then Mercedes went to this very limited market and introduced yet another oil mix that was incompatible in most ways with the existing oils, THEN it would be a comparable situation. And yes, if they did that, the harm they do to ICEs in general with that move would hurt them MUCH more than any gain they might then get from giving that oil away free.

I'm not asking Tesla to be a charity. Just saying maybe they shouldn't shoot themselves in the leg trying to one-up Nissan & Chevy. They need to realize that expanding the EV market as a whole will improve their bottom line MUCH more than trying to take shares of the existing, constrained market from Chevy/Nissan/etc.

I would normally agree with the 'rising tide lifts all boats' approach, but don't here. In addition to agreeing with palmermd's comments, I think Tesla's announcement has forced Nissan (and soon I expect other manufacturers) to announce that they are going to start installing their own networks of QCs, in the absence of the government-sponsored networks we were all told would be in place by now. I think they are leading by example, and I applaud them for it. Now they just need to build enough cars to get profitable, and then in a few years introduce the $30k car they're talking about, so the masses can comfortably join in.

 

[Electric4Me]

I would normally agree with the 'rising tide lifts all boats' approach, but don't here. In addition to agreeing with palmermd's comments, I think Tesla's announcement has forced Nissan (and soon I expect other manufacturers) to announce that they are going to start installing their own networks of QCs, in the absence of the government-sponsored networks we were all told would be in place by now. I think they are leading by example, and I applaud them for it. Now they just need to build enough cars to get profitable, and then in a few years introduce the $30k car they're talking about, so the masses can comfortably join in.

I was told by Nissan's rep this past Sunday that he is personally involved with bringing ~100 QCs to the SF Bay area in the next year. It won't be Nissan's own network, like Tesla has just installed, but will be public and Nissan is (finally?) facillitating the process.

 

[GRA]

I would normally agree with the 'rising tide lifts all boats' approach, but don't here. In addition to agreeing with palmermd's comments, I think Tesla's announcement has forced Nissan (and soon I expect other manufacturers) to announce that they are going to start installing their own networks of QCs, in the absence of the government-sponsored networks we were all told would be in place by now. I think they are leading by example, and I applaud them for it. Now they just need to build enough cars to get profitable, and then in a few years introduce the $30k car they're talking about, so the masses can comfortably join in.

I was told by Nissan's rep this past Sunday that he is personally involved with bringing ~100 QCs to the SF Bay area in the next year. It won't be Nissan's own network, like Tesla has just installed, but will be public and Nissan is (finally?) facillitating the process.

Exactly what I was referring to. What I like about Tesla's approach is that it shows an understanding of systems integration. Edison knew this, and it was this insight that set him apart, providing the whole generation/transmission/loads as a system, not his development (along with many others) of a practical electric lightbulb. ISTM that Elon gets this too - he recognizes the need for more range, the infrastructure to make that range really usable, and the wish that the electricity be generated renewably, the last because it's a good idea, a smart business synergy for him, and it disarms the "it's all powered by coal" crowd. Oh, and he's got at least as much ego and arrogance as Steve Jobs, with the accomplishments to match! :lol:

 

[GRA]

A couple things I'm curious about - one, are the addresses of these stations posted anywhere? Checking Google Maps in satellite view shows an empty lot at the location in Folsom where the marker is.

And am I the only one who's surprised that Tesla decided to put the station in Folsom along US 50, rather than somewhere along I-80? Admittedly you can cut over to 80 via Folsom road, but if they're going to link up to superchargers in Reno and SLC, I'd have thought they'd choose somewhere around Auburn, or in Sac itself (no doubt much more expensive land there) to cover both routes without having to go out of your way. There isn't any indication on the 2-year and later maps that I-80 will be getting a station west of Reno, and there's certainly far more through traffic on 80 than 50, although for those going to the lake the totals may be similar.

 

[palmermd]

A couple things I'm curious about - one, are the addresses of these stations posted anywhere? Checking Google Maps in satellite view shows an empty lot at the location in Folsom where the marker is.

And am I the only one who's surprised that Tesla decided to put the station in Folsom along US 50, rather than somewhere along I-80? Admittedly you can cut over to 80 via Folsom road, but if they're going to link up to superchargers in Reno and SLC, I'd have thought they'd choose somewhere around Auburn, or in Sac itself (no doubt much more expensive land there) to cover both routes without having to go out of your way. There isn't any indication on the 2-year and later maps that I-80 will be getting a station west of Reno, and there's certainly far more through traffic on 80 than 50, although for those going to the lake the totals may be similar.

The Folsom one is right here. http://goo.gl/maps/KWoQ8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; All the hardware is where the grassy area gets larger. You can see the pictures on the other thread...http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=229660#p229660" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...perhaps this thread should be incorporated, I'm not sure why we have two threads. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=9111" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have not found anything that has addresses yet, but I did put the link to the current station maps on the other thread. it does have a partial address "218-400 Iron Point Rd" just need to put folsom, ca and google will get you there.

I agree that 80 would have been a better choice. Perhaps its because 50 is slower while going uphill and the car will get better efficiency. Or just the cost of the land...who knows. It is also the shortest way to south shore which is where most of the tourists seem to go. Travelling east on 80 would make more sense if you were not headed to the lake.

 

[gaswalla]

here are the supercharger locations

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Tesla+Supercharger+locations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[defiancecp]

stuff

too many embedded quotes

I hope you're right, and I hope that the harm done by yet another set of incompatible quick charging standards is less than the good done by actual chargers out there on the road... I just don't believe that's the case. And it's completely unnecessary - If Tesla had followed a standard, they still could have accomplished the same by simply building standard stations and charging other vehicles for it, but giving their drivers lifetime subscriptions to them. They get the same premium brand bonus, they truly help to lift the stigma of electric vehicles and quick chargers, and they get themselves a little extra revenue on the side as an extra bonus.

I'm just imagining how top gear would portray it, and it isn't pretty... "Well, last time we ran out of charge, but that won't happen again since there are quick charge stations about now - Here we are at a quick charge station, and -- Oh, it doesn't work?" Yes, they would drive right past one that would work to get to the one they know didn't, but it's still the sort of crap the EV opponents LOVE to latch onto, and the general public just tucks away as yet another reason they won't even consider an EV.

 

[TomT]

I don't believe that Chademo or SAE chargers can support the charge rate that Tesla apparently feels is necessary for their vehicles, at least not currently... Plus, I don't think they wanted to risk have their vehicle owners waiting for other non-owners to finish charging...

I hope you're right, and I hope that the harm done by yet another set of incompatible quick charging standards is less than the good done by actual chargers out there on the road... I just don't believe that's the case. And it's completely unnecessary - If Tesla had followed a standard, they still could have accomplished the same by simply building standard stations and charging other vehicles for it, but giving their drivers lifetime subscriptions to them.

 

[palmermd]

I think is is very short sighted that the Superchargers only work with a limited number of Tesla Model S cars (only the 60 & 85 kWh models). No Tesla Roadsters, or any other electric that has a 440v charging port.

Add a level II and or Level III port and charge for it.

It is important for ALL electric cars to be successful, not just Tesla.

Ok, here is an update. I found a video that explains that they are thinking about putting in a HPC (Tesla High Power Charger) for the Roadsters, and potentially ("perhaps") some other charge stations for other manufacurers. It is just not implemented yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz0CRUHB5aw&t=3m5s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[MrIanB]

So you have to pay to play. Buy the more expensive model to get the free supercharger network use? This should be free to ALL their models and need to make the stations retrofit for them. Otherwise, I pass.

Ian B

Good idea , poor execution as is.

Just my opinion.

Ian B

 

[grommet]

MrIanB, the free Supercharger network can be used by any Tesla that is DC charge capable... which is currently the 85 kWh Tesla S (the only one being delivered currently)... and early next year the 60 KWh version.