Tesla Supercharger Network

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
jlv said:
GetOffYourGas said:
jlv said:
Ten 72kW stalls.
I had no idea they were installing anything that low power. I thought they were all 120kW or more.
These are the city superchargers they announced in (as a surprise) in September: https://www.tesla.com/blog/supercharging-cities

This is the 2nd of the city SCs in Boston that they've opened.
Right. I list the 72kW SCs as "urban". IIRR, so far the only ones are in Boston and Brooklyn, but I expect we'll be seeing a lot more in downtown and residential areas of major cities.
 
GRA said:
jlv said:
GetOffYourGas said:
I had no idea they were installing anything that low power. I thought they were all 120kW or more.
These are the city superchargers they announced in (as a surprise) in September: https://www.tesla.com/blog/supercharging-cities

This is the 2nd of the city SCs in Boston that they've opened.
Right. I list the 72kW SCs as "urban". IIRR, so far the only ones are in Boston and Brooklyn, but I expect we'll be seeing a lot more in downtown and residential areas of major cities.

Chicago has one. https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/findus/location/supercharger/chicagoneweastsidesupercharger
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
jlv said:
These are the city superchargers they announced in (as a surprise) in September: https://www.tesla.com/blog/supercharging-cities

This is the 2nd of the city SCs in Boston that they've opened.
Right. I list the 72kW SCs as "urban". IIRR, so far the only ones are in Boston and Brooklyn, but I expect we'll be seeing a lot more in downtown and residential areas of major cities.

Chicago has one. https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/findus/location/supercharger/chicagoneweastsidesupercharger
Thanks. Chicago is scheduled for at least a couple more SCs. The NYC and Boston metro areas will get several more, and Miami - Ft. Lauderdale is also getting a ton.
 
jlv said:
GetOffYourGas said:
jlv said:
Ten 72kW stalls.
I had no idea they were installing anything that low power. I thought they were all 120kW or more.
These are the city superchargers they announced in (as a surprise) in September: https://www.tesla.com/blog/supercharging-cities

This is the 2nd of the city SCs in Boston that they've opened.

Ah, I missed that. Thank you. I stopped following Tesla so closely once I came to accept that my next car would not be a Tesla but a Bolt. I haven't been keeping up with the subtleties like this.
 
GRA said:
Right. I list the 72kW SCs as "urban". IIRR, so far the only ones are in Boston and Brooklyn, but I expect we'll be seeing a lot more in downtown and residential areas of major cities.
It was Boston and Chicago originally. I didn't realize there was one now in Brooklyn, but I see it's at the Willian Vale Hotel, where I used the destination charger back in August.
 
There is also an urban Supercharger Station at a Scottsdale AZ mall. It uses the same pedestals as the other urban Superchargers but has the full 135 kW shared chargers like conventional Superchargers. Sort of a hybrid between the two, from what I can tell. Appeared as an unexpected surprise, without being ferreted out by the Tesla community first.

New 16 Stall Urban SuperCharger at Scottsdale Quarter
 
dgpcolorado said:
There is also an urban Supercharger Station at a Scottsdale AZ mall. It uses the same pedestals as the other urban Superchargers but has the full 135 kW shared chargers like conventional Superchargers. Sort of a hybrid between the two, from what I can tell. Appeared as an unexpected surprise, without being ferreted out by the Tesla community first.

New 16 Stall Urban SuperCharger at Scottsdale Quarter
I've chosen to limit my use the term "urban' solely to the 72kW SCs, although there have been and undoubtedly will be other full-power SCs that qualify due to location. But as I'm only going to do this list for one more month (until the end of the year), I don't think it will matter much.
 
GRA said:
I'm only going to do this list for one more month (until the end of the year)

In that vein, where does Tesla stand with regards to their promised expansion for 2017? They made some grand promises, it will be very interesting to see how close they came to realizing them. Tesla has a history of over-promising. Or at least making their promises vague enough that people interpret them as more than they are.

For an example, I can't tell you how many times I've read/heard that the Model 3 will have 300+ miles of range, AWD, Auto-Pilot, and cost $35k. The car may do all of those things, but not at the same time. A Model 3 spec'd like that will cost more like $60k.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
I'm only going to do this list for one more month (until the end of the year)

In that vein, where does Tesla stand with regards to their promised expansion for 2017? They made some grand promises, it will be very interesting to see how close they came to realizing them. Tesla has a history of over-promising. Or at least making their promises vague enough that people interpret them as more than they are.

For an example, I can't tell you how many times I've read/heard that the Model 3 will have 300+ miles of range, AWD, Auto-Pilot, and cost $35k. The car may do all of those things, but not at the same time. A Model 3 spec'd like that will cost more like $60k.
They've fallen well behind even my much more conservative estimate for the U.S. (150) from last February. At the end of last year, they claimed they would double the number of North American SC sites this year. As there were then 340 in the U.S. plus 23 in Canada, the total at that time was 363. As noted in this month's summary, they've only opened 103 in the U.S. YTD, plus another 8 in Canada (and six in Mexico), for a total of 117. So, they'll finish up well below 50%, and probably closer to 33%.
 
GRA said:
At the end of last year, they claimed they would double the number of North American SC sites this year. As there were then 340 in the U.S. plus 23 in Canada, the total at that time was 363. As noted in this month's summary, they've only opened 103 in the U.S. YTD, plus another 8 in Canada (and six in Mexico), for a total of 117. So, they'll finish up well below 50%, and probably closer to 33%.

I don't remember it being worded like this (and wording matters a whole lot here!) so I looked it up. A quick google search found Tesla quoted as saying:

Tesla said:
We started 2017 with over 5,000 Superchargers globally and by the end of this year, Tesla will double that number to total more than 10,000 Superchargers and 15,000 Destination Charging connectors around the world. In North America, we’ll increase the number of Superchargers by 150 percent, and in California alone we’ll add more than 1,000 Superchargers. We’re moving full speed on site selection and many sites will soon enter construction to open in advance of the summer travel season.

https://evobsession.com/tesla-will-double-supercharger-network-2017/

This could be accomplished by both installing new sites and increasing the number of connectors per site. It reads to me that Tesla was talking about the total number of connectors. Where do they stand on that goal?
 
Lot of construction still going on even in northern areas considering it is Dec!

7SuhIVf.jpg


Compare to previous years 2017 was better.

Via www.supercharge.info chart tab
foOk5ze.jpg
 
As quoted by scottf200 from the 4th quarter statement:
we plan to accelerate expansion of the Supercharger network this year, starting with doubling our number of North American Supercharger locations in 2017.
I've added the emphasis. See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9111&start=1400#p486580 and the ensuing discussion. You can read the entire 4Q statement at the link Scott provided in that post; the quote is from the 2nd page, last sentence in the 2nd paragraph. As to number of connectors, have a look at the 'Charts' here: https://supercharge.info/ although this only shows the global total, but as you can see they'll probably end the year under 8k globally rather than the 10k mentioned in your source, so at best 60%.
 
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My Google-foo is weak :)

I read all of these rosy predictions from Tesla. I just assume that they will meet the stated goal but will be behind schedule and over budget. That seems to be their MO. Then again, as an engineer myself, I understand how that happens. We tend to expect things to go well, and do a poor job of planning for the unexpected.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My Google-foo is weak :)
I read all of these rosy predictions from Tesla. I just assume that they will meet the stated goal but will be behind schedule and over budget. That seems to be their MO. Then again, as an engineer myself, I understand how that happens. We tend to expect things to go well, and do a poor job of planning for the unexpected.
I recall from presentations that there are over 300 electric utilities to deal with across the nation. Imagine the local bureaucratic for each village, town, or city, the permits, inspections, deliveries of equipment, coordination of unique installers in each area, etc. It is odd how all this gets overlooked and trivialized. Lot of quarterbacks on the couches ... hahaha
 
scottf200 said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My Google-foo is weak :)
I read all of these rosy predictions from Tesla. I just assume that they will meet the stated goal but will be behind schedule and over budget. That seems to be their MO. Then again, as an engineer myself, I understand how that happens. We tend to expect things to go well, and do a poor job of planning for the unexpected.
I recall from presentations that there are over 300 electric utilities to deal with across the nation. Imagine the local bureaucratic for each village, town, or city, the permits, inspections, deliveries of equipment, coordination of unique installers in each area, etc. It is odd how all this gets overlooked and trivialized. Lot of quarterbacks on the couches ... hahaha
Unfortunately, the people who are trivializing this are Tesla themselves, by repeatedly announcing unrealistic timetables for SC construction (as well as everything else). No one is forcing them to make these nonsensical claims, and yet they choose to ignore their own history of falling short year after year. I don't choose to ignore their actual history of accomplishment, as opposed to their claims. The difference is you do; from last April:

scottf200 said:
GRA said:
Seemed to escape me? You've got to be kidding. Here's my most recent comment on that subject, back just two pages in this topic: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtop...im+seems+unlikely+is+almost+a+British#p486820
Yes, I do need to give you some credit in that general regard.

My point was that you are continuing to compare the past to this year and you don't appreciate how things are VERY different now and why it could easily happen now because their motivations are WAY different than the past ... that you ALWAYS use as examples of what WILL happen. Hope that helps clarify. Thanks for your continued interest.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9111&start=1420#p492639

So tell me, Scott, which method has proven consistently more accurate, mine by forecasting Tesla's likely SC building accomplishments for this (and previous) years based on their past performance, or yours based on "how things are VERY different now and why it could easily happen now because their motivations are WAY different than the past"? ;) It appears to me that things aren't so VERY different after all, and motivations alone aren't enough.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My Google-foo is weak :)

I read all of these rosy predictions from Tesla. I just assume that they will meet the stated goal but will be behind schedule and over budget. That seems to be their MO. Then again, as an engineer myself, I understand how that happens. We tend to expect things to go well, and do a poor job of planning for the unexpected.
Don't worry about it; I'd read much the same claims as you had, and until Scott provided the link to the quarterly report I had the same take as you.
 
GRA said:
So tell me, Scott, which method has proven consistently more accurate, mine by forecasting Tesla's likely SC building accomplishments for this (and previous) years based on their past performance, or yours based on "how things are VERY different now and why it could easily happen now because their motivations are WAY different than the past"? ;) It appears to me that things aren't so VERY different after all, and motivations alone aren't enough.
We have seen an increase in efforts and results in 2017 vs previous years. I thought it would be more but clearly there is a LOT of activity per the construction cones, permit dots, and opened SCs. Like 1.3 or 1.4 times the number in 2016.

Also as part of the changes not being recognized that putting in 40 stall SCs is a WAY different effort than adding 8 to an existing Meijers parking lot!

I see your angle but understand that the premise of things being WAY different was the ramp up of Model 3s being delivered and how many new Tesla supercharging cars would be out there and wanting to fill up superchargers. Obviously the ramp up of Model 3s has not taken place and isn't expected until 1st quarter of 2018.

I do thinking you trivialize and do not appreciate or give credit for the effort of putting in SCs across the diverse and unique regulatory bodies (util company's, local codes, local installers, etc).
 
scottf200 said:
GRA said:
So tell me, Scott, which method has proven consistently more accurate, mine by forecasting Tesla's likely SC building accomplishments for this (and previous) years based on their past performance, or yours based on "how things are VERY different now and why it could easily happen now because their motivations are WAY different than the past"? ;) It appears to me that things aren't so VERY different after all, and motivations alone aren't enough.
We have seen an increase in efforts and results in 2017 vs previous years. I thought it would be more but clearly there is a LOT of activity per the construction cones, permit dots, and opened SCs. Like 1.3 or 1.4 times the number in 2016.
Why yes, Scott, 1.3 or 1.4 versus the 4.0 Tesla announced.

scottf200 said:
Also as part of the changes not being recognized that putting in 40 stall SCs is a WAY different effort than adding 8 to an existing Meijers parking lot!
You recognize that, and I recognize that, although installing more stalls and a bigger transformer is a lot less work than doing all the contracts, permitting etc. for a new site. How is it that no one at Tesla recognized that?

scottf200 said:
I see your angle but understand that the premise of things being WAY different was the ramp up of Model 3s being delivered and how many new Tesla supercharging cars would be out there and wanting to fill up superchargers. Obviously the ramp up of Model 3s has not taken place and isn't expected until 1st quarter of 2018.
The problem with that logic is that Tesla was falling behind their SC goals from early on this year, long before the Model 3 had even entered production, as documented monthly upthread. Even if the shift were based on the delay in the Model 3, none of that excuses the fact that they've also failed to complete many of the major interstate routes they announced, even though most of those don't require large numbers of stalls and their completion is needed regardless of the Model 3's presence or absence. Just to take one example, The I-10 SC in Ft. Stockton, TX, has been sitting in permit status for over a year now, even though it's essential to connect San Antonio to El Paso (and San Antonio itself still lacks an SC).

scottf200 said:
I do thinking you trivialize and do not appreciate or give credit for the effort of putting in SCs across the diverse and unique regulatory bodies (util company's, local codes, local installers, etc).
Every single one of these factors has applied over the 5 1/2 years that Tesla has been building SCs. As I've noted many times before (seemingly every year when I have this conversation with you, Zythryn or someone else who wishes to offer excuses for Tesla), such issues are constant and predictable. In 2012 and 2013, maybe even the first half of 2014 if I want to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, they were still on the steep part of the learning curve, and I wasn't concerned that they were falling short; I expected it. But that doesn't excuse 2015, 2016 and 2017 when the same excuses are being trotted out, during the first two years of which they averaged SC completions of about 60-70% of their announced goals,t he same as in 2014.

Just answer this: How is it possible for a casual, non-partisan unpaid observer with no access to internal plans, budgets or organizational info who bases forecasts on nothing more than the ratio of past SC completions versus announced goals plus the total number completed each year, able to consistently beat Tesla's presumably highly-paid professionals who have access to all that internal info before they announce these public goals? Either they're incompetent or lying. If they were cluelessly incompetent, the errors would be random, some years too high, some years too low, and the % would also vary. But the errors are always in the same direction, and typically 30-40% off (considerably more this year). This requires a different type of incompetence: optimism so divorced from realistic considerations (such as the inevitable 'frictions' you enumerate above) as to constitute nothing more than wishful thinking - "everything will go right, because we want it to and we're saving the world", or similar attitude.

The alternative is that they're simply lying - they know the goals are unattainable in the real world or even worse just numbers picked out of the air, but they choose to support Elon's hype (or leave or get fired, as many Tesla execs do when they are unwilling to try or fail to meet the unrealistic goals). In the case of other companies they may decide to end their collaboration (see Mobileye). Elon has a habit of announcing internal 'best case' (that is, everything goes perfectly) goals publicly as if they were realistically attainable, and most of the time the company backs him up. Am I the only one here who's read Ashlee Vance's bio?

Re motivating employees, when you work people like dogs to meet unrealistic goals and then fire them when they don't, the motivation is likely to be strongly negative.
 
GRA, I appreciated your time, thoughts, and efforts. They are interesting. Generally factual based but frequently skewed to fit your narrative. And, of course, glass is half empty ;)

GRA said:
scottf200 said:
I see your angle but understand that the premise of things being WAY different was the ramp up of Model 3s being delivered and how many new Tesla supercharging cars would be out there and wanting to fill up superchargers. Obviously the ramp up of Model 3s has not taken place and isn't expected until 1st quarter of 2018.
The problem with that logic is that Tesla was falling behind their SC goals from early on this year, long before the Model 3 had even entered production, as documented monthly upthread.
Certainly the planning of impacts to SCs related to Model 3s was considered long before "early on this year". The Model 3 reservations started in March 2016 so they had a solid idea on the massive interest and count of cars impacting SCs.

Clearly they make stretch goals for SCs. It is not an engineering problem but a bureaucracy (planning,permits,etc) and money/investment problem.

1.4 times more in 2017 vs 2016 is HUGE just by itself ... then compare that to what other companies are doing.

Look at this. This is a massive effort over a few short years. Especially for a new and modest sized company compared to GM, Ford, Nissan, etc.
QnBcrDO.jpg

RgoHdoi.jpg
 
Back
Top