Tesla Supercharger Network

[mbender]

You're misquoting me. I specifically DO NOT advocate or suggest that Tesla water down their Supercharger network.
...

How can I be misquoting you? I'll have to double-check my keyboard's copy&paste functions if that's really the case.

In my mind, "Logical limitations" (at a presumably discounted price) is not the same as all-or-nothing, but I do now see what you're ruling out. In the earlier post, I was honestly thrown by the 'ah hoc' typo.

I did not mean to misquote or mislead (mea maxima culpa).

BTW, nothing I've suggested would "water down their Supercharger network", as far as I can tell. The network would stay the same, strong as it ever was, and continue to grow; one could buy "all-in" or not, etc. But (I'm suggesting that) they'd also offer a third option for those who know they'd only need it once or twice a year. So you're sort of misquoting me, misrepresenting what I said, as well, when you say "water down".

If you really do think that such a third option would water it down, however, I'm honestly/very open to hearing why you think so.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I'd prefer to have common sense, logical restrictions now.

Yes, I think your suggestions to that end were excellent. Gets rid of the unneeded local freeloading and congestion but allows the long distance travel for which the Supercharger network is designed.

I hope that Tesla does do something like that for future cars, especially for the Model 3, but even for future Model S and X production (existing cars would be grandfathered). I wonder if the sort of plan you mentioned is under discussion at Tesla?

 

[GRA]

...I'd prefer to have common sense, logical restrictions now.

Yes, I think your suggestions to that end were excellent. Gets rid of the unneeded local freeloading and congestion but allows the long distance travel for which the Supercharger network is designed.

I hope that Tesla does do something like that for future cars, especially for the Model 3, but even for future Model S and X production (existing cars would be grandfathered). I wonder if the sort of plan you mentioned is under discussion at Tesla?

There is already a bit of an issue, with Tesla building SCs in areas where locals will use them, and Tesla is being a bit two-faced about this. On one hand, they have been saying to renters etc. who can't charge at home, and who've specifically asked them, that using the SCs for their normal charging is fine. There's discussion of this point on TMC in the San Mateo SC thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/47494-Supercharger-San-Mateo-%28under-construction-location-confirmed%29/page8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is also what they've done for SCs outside of the U.S., where they are common in major urban areas;; for example, there are 7 SC sites in each of London, Hong Kong and Beijing. But during the shareholder meeting, Musk also made that comment about locals using them within reason, so much confusion has ensued. Here's what David Noland had to say on GCR, re the long-delayed SC network in New England, the recent (still unlisted or mapped) opening of the Newburgh, NY SC, and Musk's comments:

Life With Tesla Model S: Local Supercharger Joys & Frustrations

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098658_life-with-tesla-model-s-local-supercharger-joys-frustrations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mjblazin]

Is the local usage more an access issue vs. cost issue? I never really understood the SC network as anything more than a marketing tool. Still, if you dramatically increase the number of cars, then local usage, if out of control, could hurt the growing number of vehicles trying to do long distance trips. If the numbers of long distance drivers increases proportionally to cars sold, and those new owners cannot get ready access, then the marketing tool backfires. Consequently now is the time to get locals off the lots.

 

[dgpcolorado]

There is already a bit of an issue, with Tesla building SCs in areas where locals will use them, and Tesla is being a bit two-faced about this. On one hand, they have been saying to renters etc. who can't charge at home, and who've specifically asked them, that using the SCs for their normal charging is fine. There's discussion of this point on TMC in the San Mateo SC thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/47494-Supercharger-San-Mateo-%28under-construction-location-confirmed%29/page8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...

Yes, I found another thread at TMC that also debated the issue. I think that Tony Williams has the right idea about a relatively simple way to regulate local charging. And to make it fair to current S owners who were sold on an unrestricted free-for-life Supercharger policy, they ought to be grandfathered.

While I would prefer that Superchargers not be located in areas that would attract substantial local use, thus solving the problem, the sprawl of some metro areas, most notably LA-SD-Riverside (years ago the Commandant of Camp Pendleton wryly said that the main purpose of the Marine Corps base was to keep the LA and SD metro areas from merging). And it is hard to traverse your Bay Area without at least a few Superchargers located in amongst high population areas filled with local Tesla owners.

Either Tesla greatly increases the number and capacity of urban Supercharger locations or they need to restrict their use by locals. The latter approach seems more practical to me.

 

[GRA]

There is already a bit of an issue, with Tesla building SCs in areas where locals will use them, and Tesla is being a bit two-faced about this. On one hand, they have been saying to renters etc. who can't charge at home, and who've specifically asked them, that using the SCs for their normal charging is fine. There's discussion of this point on TMC in the San Mateo SC thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/47494-Supercharger-San-Mateo-%28under-construction-location-confirmed%29/page8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...

Yes, I found another thread at TMC that also debated the issue. I think that Tony Williams has the right idea about a relatively simple way to regulate local charging. And to make it fair to current S owners who were sold on an unrestricted free-for-life Supercharger policy, they ought to be grandfathered.

While I would prefer that Superchargers not be located in areas that would attract substantial local use, thus solving the problem, the sprawl of some metro areas, most notably LA-SD-Riverside (years ago the Commandant of Camp Pendleton wryly said that the main purpose of the Marine Corps base was to keep the LA and SD metro areas from merging). And it is hard to traverse your Bay Area without at least a few Superchargers located in amongst high population areas filled with local Tesla owners.

Either Tesla greatly increases the number and capacity of urban Supercharger locations or they need to restrict their use by locals. The latter approach seems more practical to me.

Several of us have discussed the need for/methods of limiting routine use by locals, and there's a thread discussing what happens to the SC business case if you don't. Until you work out some method for allowing use by locals who can't charge at home, as is the case in most countries outside the U.S. and in some areas here, while prohibiting use by locals who are just cheap (David Noland being a case in point), it's problematical. Are people going to have to petition Tesla to charge locally beyond a certain number of times/year, and provide proof that they can't at home? Will Tesla have to send someone out to confirm that, and if so, what's the cost? To me, the free-for-life bit is one of the biggest disadvantages of the Supercharger business model, one easily solved by pay-as-you-go. As they've made clear, Tesla has the info to bill people for charging.

 

[mbender]

To me, the free-for-life bit is one of the biggest disadvantages of the Supercharger business model, one easily solved by pay-as-you-go. As they've made clear, Tesla has the info to bill people for charging.

Careful, GRA... pay-as-you-go is a four-letter word (or better, a four-word phrase) in these parts.

Are the superchargers really "free for life" with no qualifications (it's not a crime to be cheap, after all) or are they only free long-distance-travel charging for life? If it truly is the former, as Musk himself has repeatedly asserted, then no mention should have been made publicly or privately about such [ab]use.

I also imagine that Tesla would be given a hard time if they try to change the compact for new Model S (or X) buyers at some point down the road. And what will the offer be to the many buyers of the Model 3 and beyond?

As I commented elsewhere, in trying to correct for one tragedy of the commons (externalized costs of pollution), Tesla has ironically created a kind of its own (misuse of the 'spirit' of the supercharger network). It is a very interesting and tricky problem indeed (especially if/when it gets worse), but one that I hope and trust that Tesla can smoothly resolve.

 

[TonyWilliams]

1) In general, I overwhelmingly support "pay-as-you-go". Yes, the "Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)" crowd will be sharpening their pencils to see if they should charge at home or the Superchargers, so I would recommend that the cost per kWh be slightly higher than whatever the prevailing electricity cost in the area.

Tesla is never going to accept that (maybe post Model 3).

2) I am absolutley opposed to selling cars that don't have the Supercharger cost rolled into the car that can also still access the Superchargers and have access to purely ad hoc charging. Obviously, Tesla agrees with me here.

3) I would recommend that Tesla get rid of the $1900 charge to enable CHAdeMO. People who don't want to use Superchargers (meaning they don't want to pay for the infrastructure, but just cherry pick when they need it).

So, Tony "Musk" would have the Supercharger network capital fully funded, plus ongoing costs covered. People who don't participate can buy a CHAdeMO adaptor.

Locals who use the Superchargers will be fully paying for the privilege.

 

[Zythryn]

...

3) I would recommend that Tesla get rid of the $1900 charge to enable CHAdeMO. People who don't want to use Superchargers (meaning they don't want to pay for the infrastructure, but just cherry pick when they need it)...

I've heard this before and still don't get where those numbers come from, especially now.

The CHAdeMO adapter is all that is required ($500?) for a Model S that is DC charge enabled, to se CHAdeMO chargers.
All Model Ss are now DC charge enabled. When they weren't, there was a fee to make them DC charge capable if you didn't have the car built that way to start with. This wasn't CHAdeMO specific though and applied to a very small percentage of Model Ss.

 

[TonyWilliams]

...

3) I would recommend that Tesla get rid of the $1900 charge to enable CHAdeMO. People who don't want to use Superchargers (meaning they don't want to pay for the infrastructure, but just cherry pick when they need it)...

I've heard this before and still don't get where those numbers come from, especially now.

The CHAdeMO adapter is all that is required ($500?) for a Model S that is DC charge enabled, to se CHAdeMO chargers.
All Model Ss are now DC charge enabled. When they weren't, there was a fee to make them DC charge capable if you didn't have the car built that way to start with. This wasn't CHAdeMO specific though and applied to a very small percentage of Model Ss.

Ah, yes, it does apply to a VERY small number of non-Supercharger cars. In the future, it may be that Model 3 is also offered without Supercharger.

So, again, my suggestion is that is doesn't cost $1900 to allow CHAdeMO access. Just sell them the adaptor!

 

[evnow]

In the future, it may be that Model 3 is also offered without Supercharger.

There is no chance of that - Tesla will not make a car that doesn't have super charger capability. It is their USP - the thing that will distinguish Tesla 3 from Bolts & Leafs & Golfs etc.

Ofcourse, we don't know whether super charger network is like the AOL network - that got drowned out as open Internet took off.

 

[TonyWilliams]

In the future, it may be that Model 3 is also offered without Supercharger.

There is no chance of that - Tesla will not make a car that doesn't have super charger capability. It is their USP - the thing that will distinguish Tesla 3 from Bolts & Leafs & Golfs etc.

Ofcourse, we don't know whether super charger network is like the AOL network - that got drowned out as open Internet took off.

They have to meet an arbitrary price point set by Musk.

My hunch is that the car, with Supercharger, warranty, etc, will cost more to produce than $35k. They aren't going to build 100,000 base Model 3 cars of at a loss.

 

[dgpcolorado]

In the future, it may be that Model 3 is also offered without Supercharger.

There is no chance of that - Tesla will not make a car that doesn't have super charger capability. It is their USP - the thing that will distinguish Tesla 3 from Bolts & Leafs & Golfs etc.

Ofcourse, we don't know whether super charger network is like the AOL network - that got drowned out as open Internet took off.

They have to meet an arbitrary price point set by Musk.

My hunch is that the car, with Supercharger, warranty, etc, will cost more to produce than $35k. They aren't going to build 100,000 base Model 3 cars of at a loss.

Yes, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Supercharger access is an extra cost option for the Model 3, as it was for the S60. Just as AWD will be an extra cost option. It will be tough to hit that $35k price-point in a car that has an EPA range well above 200 miles. At least until economies of scale or improvements in technology bring battery prices down.

If Supercharger access is standard on all Model 3s I will be pleasantly surprised!

 

[TonyWilliams]

Here's some simple Model 3 math:

200 miles / 4.0 miles per kWh (same as a LEAF) = 50.0 kWh usable (55kWh * $200 = $12k)

200 miles / 4.5 miles per kWh (same as a BMW i3) = 44.5kWh usable (50kWh * $200 = $10k)

The Model 3 is not likely to be anywhere as light as a BMW i3, however it will be a lot more aerodynamic!!!

Model 3 may not even be as light as even a steel bodied Nkssan LEAF at about 3400 pounds. The Mercedes B-Class ED (36kWh) and Toyota RAV4 EV (48kWh) are both over 4000 pounds.

So, I'm guessing the vehicle weight with a 50-55kWh battery and a steel body is 3800 pounds at the lowest, or about 80% of the mass of a Model S-85.

Battery pack will weigh about 900 pounds, leaving 2900 for the car (still quite light for a mid-size steel car).

$35,000 at 20% margin leaves 28,000 for all costs. With an $11,000 battery, that leaves $17,000 for the entire car less battery. That is going to be very difficult, and that's WITHOUT Supercharger costs.

 

[GRA]

As of 6/19/15, E. Brunswick, NJ, with 4 stalls is listed and mapped. Total U.S. SCs now 43/193/1,292.

Current list showing all SCs open as of 1/1/15 and subsequent, and full list showing all SCs open from 1/14, can be found here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9111&start=810

Site with a map showing all SCs open, under construction or permitted plus lots of other stuff can be found here:

http://supercharge.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

As of 6/23/15, Newburgh, NY (first use 6/9) with 6 stalls is listed and mapped. Total U.S. SCs now 43/194/1,298.

Current list showing all SCs open as of 1/1/15 and subsequent, and full list showing all SCs open from 1/14, can be found here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9111&start=810

Site with a map showing all SCs open, under construction or permitted plus lots of other stuff can be found here:

http://supercharge.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

As of 6/25/15, Grand Rapids, MI with 8 stalls is listed and mapped. Total U.S. SCs now 43/195/1,306.

Current list showing all SCs open as of 1/1/15 and subsequent, and full list showing all SCs open from 1/14, can be found here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9111&start=810

Site with a map showing all SCs open, under construction or permitted plus lots of other stuff can be found here:

http://supercharge.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[dgpcolorado]

Saw a report of the Supercharger in Baker City, OR, being used today. That one should become official in the near future.

 

[GRA]

First post in the new, improved format, and where in hell is the 'quote post' button, or does it automatically do so now? [Edit]: OK, found it, and what a dumb location.

Anyway, I saw Baker City had been used, but as you mention it's not yet official, so I won't list it until then. There are four or five other sites that are all very close, and we may well get some of those before the end of the month

 

[scottf200]

Tesla superchargers network animation (2.5 years in a two minute video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrjOqDUE4k
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrjOqDUE4k[/youtube]

** would recommend clicking on the YouTube link or "icon" within the video. Lets you click the gear settings icon to change the speed.

Or just go to http://supercharge.info/ where you can do the animation too.