GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am surprised this hasn'the been posted:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/31/11825636/elon-musk-tesla-model-3-superchargers-not-free

No surprise really. Of course there will be cost associated with using the SC network for a $35k model 3 (did anyone expect otherwise? ). He says it will be cheaper than gas, but is vague. Using same numbers for their model S price comparison (2.90/gal at 20 mpg), which would be $43.50 to drive 300 miles for gas and about $12 for electric, so my guess is somewhere in the middle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
Again....


How can giving away Free Fuel for Life ever be a sustainable business model?

I know, I know, you paid for it 1 time, up front, but what about when you use WAY more than $2000 worth of electrons and rising ?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,358 Posts
This is reasonable. Tesla make a little and I save a little. Win-Win and sustainable.

When resources are free, people will take an unlimited amount. This policy encourages daily charging at home (or at destination chargers) and opens up super charging for long distance travel where it is need most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
...>When resources are free, people will take an unlimited amount.
>>This policy encourages daily charging at home ...
These two statements don't make sense, combined.
If I have a Tesla and a Supercharger is on my commute,, why would I ever want to charge at home?
When resources are free,, use them !!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
I hope they don't do a large activation fee to pay for lifetime access. That approach would:

1. Gouge the customers who need access to Supercharging, but will only use them on rare occasions.

2. Once a customer has paid for the activation fee, there would be nothing in place to discourage "abuse" of the Superchargers (i.e., using them frequently for routine, local charging, rather than long-distance travel as they're intended), which would tend to increase congestion and reduce availability of the Superchargers to those who really need them.

I've speculated before -- and I continue to hope -- that they instead institute a pay-per-use system instead, which would avoid both of the aforementioned problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
If Tesla implements a "pay as you go" structure for the Model 3 it will hopefully open up supercharging for non-Tesla cars using adapters to go from Tesla to J1772. Tesla could make and sell the adapters for non-tesla cars with electronics built in to do what ever "handshake" would be required to make the Supercharger limit current to what ever was acceptable for the car that adapter was made for.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Why would TESLA make a SC to J1772 adaptor? The SC is capable of well over 100kW, why would they want to tie up their stations with Volts that could only accept 3.3kW? Even a CHAdeMO at 50kW would be a pain. What is more likely to happen would be for TESLA to allow other manufacturers to place SC compatible units in their cars, and then allow those cars to charge for a fee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
These two statements don't make sense, combined.
If I have a Tesla and a Supercharger is on my commute,, why would I ever want to charge at home?
When resources are free,, use them !!
Is your time free? You really want to stop and charge for 20-30 minutes 1-2x / week during your commute? Maybe if there was a gym right there or something, but otherwise I'd rather go straight home.

I think what saltsman was saying is that having a pay-per-use supercharger makes the most sense for "efficient" use... if it was "free", then locals might clog up the spots. If the cost was the same or higher than what they'd pay at home, it would encourage locals to just charge at home, freeing up SC spots for long-distance travelers who need it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
If Tesla implements a "pay as you go" structure for the Model 3 it will hopefully open up supercharging for non-Tesla cars using adapters to go from Tesla to J1772. Tesla could make and sell the adapters for non-tesla cars with electronics built in to do what ever "handshake" would be required to make the Supercharger limit current to what ever was acceptable for the car that adapter was made for.

Keith
J1772 is an AC-only standard, so you can't just have an adapter to go from Supercharger (DC) to J1772. You might be able to have a supercharger-to-CCS (SAE combo) adapter since they're both DC, though you'd have to figure out how to charge money for it... the Tesla SC standard identifies each car VIN when plugged in, I doubt that capability is in the CCS standard.

Edit: After further reading, it sounds like CCS could be considered an add-on to the J1772 spec, so perhaps it's no longer correct to say it's an "AC only" spec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Why would TESLA make a SC to J1772 adaptor? The SC is capable of well over 100kW, why would they want to tie up their stations with Volts that could only accept 3.3kW? Even a CHAdeMO at 50kW would be a pain. What is more likely to happen would be for TESLA to allow other manufacturers to place SC compatible units in their cars, and then allow those cars to charge for a fee.
Sorry if I was unclear, J1772 CCS. I thought it was obviouse I was talking about DC charging on Tesla's DC only Superchargers...

If it is PAY AS YOU GO Tesla would make money off of letting other cars charge at Superchargers. Also, if only Tesla manufactured adapters work (by doing the electronic handshake Tesla's do without an adapter) then they make money selling the adapters.

Despite what many people seem to think, Tesla is a for profit corporate entity that wants to encourage EV adoption of any kind... allowing pay as you go charging for non Tesla EV's would meet both of these goals.

If they make it a "pay per min connected" rather than "pay per kWh charged" that would encourage slow charging cars to only charge the minimum they needed to get where they are going, and "penalize" them for clogging up the station for long periods of time while adding the Tesla's profits.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Why would TESLA make a SC to J1772 adaptor? The SC is capable of well over 100kW, why would they want to tie up their stations with Volts that could only accept 3.3kW? Even a CHAdeMO at 50kW would be a pain. What is more likely to happen would be for TESLA to allow other manufacturers to place SC compatible units in their cars, and then allow those cars to charge for a fee.
As an amendment to this statement, I think that TESLA will never make an SC to J1772 or to CHAdeMO or CCS converter as that will inevitably clog their SC stations with slow charging vehicles. What they might do is add a few J1772/CHAdeMO/CCS chargers to their stations to pull in other cars while still leaving the SC chargers available for their cars. They might also license other manufacturers to add SC capability to cars such as the Bolt and Leaf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
I am surprised this hasn'the been posted:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/31/11825636/elon-musk-tesla-model-3-superchargers-not-free

No surprise really. Of course there will be cost associated with using the SC network for a $35k model 3 (did anyone expect otherwise? ). He says it will be cheaper than gas, but is vague. Using same numbers for their model S price comparison (2.90/gal at 20 mpg), which would be $43.50 to drive 300 miles for gas and about $12 for electric, so my guess is somewhere in the middle?
To drive (no pun intended) the desired behavior IMO they need to charge a bit higher than whatever the highest tier kwh costs are in that region. Then there would be no financial incentive for locals to clog up the Superchargers.

Hopefully the people who buy these cars are smart enough to realize that even if the charges are equivalent to or even a bit higher than the same energy in gasoline form it doesn't matter because Superchargers are only used on those occasions when doing long road trips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
... They might also license other manufacturers to add SC capability to cars such as the Bolt and Leaf.
To jump from a battery pack that is happy with 50kW DC Fast Charging to one that is 'Capable' of handling 100kW DC is more than just 'licensing'. That would be a serious hardware difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
To jump from a battery pack that is happy with 50kW DC Fast Charging to one that is 'Capable' of handling 100kW DC is more than just 'licensing'. That would be a serious hardware difference.
Superchargers already vary charge rate based on many factors, so I'm sure they could just deliver a 50kW (or lower) rate to a licensed Leaf/Bolt. Whether or not that is a good business idea for Tesla is another issue...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
>.... I'm sure they could just deliver a 50kW (or lower) rate to a licensed Leaf/Bolt.
>>Whether or not that is a good business idea for Tesla is another issue...
>Correct, they always 'taper' the charge rate near the end of the charge. So the kW rate could be set as needed.
>>Correct, This is always what we are yapping about. But it is a 'business idea' that would be Money Coming In,, for a change.

I'm sure we're not seeing the big picture. That one is kept in his special office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,358 Posts
These two statements don't make sense, combined.
If I have a Tesla and a Supercharger is on my commute,, why would I ever want to charge at home?
When resources are free,, use them !!
What I was trying to say is if supercharging were free forever (like it is now), people will continue to charge on the way to/from work/home, thus clogging the infrastructure for long distance travelers who have to wait in line. The newer M3 policy (especially if it is pay-as-you-go) means supercharger access no longer "free" and encourages local drivers to charge at home, thus opening up supercharging for long-distance traveling where it is required most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
I hope they don't do a large activation fee to pay for lifetime access. That approach would:

1. Gouge the customers who need access to Supercharging, but will only use them on rare occasions.

2. Once a customer has paid for the activation fee, there would be nothing in place to discourage "abuse" of the Superchargers (i.e., using them frequently for routine, local charging, rather than long-distance travel as they're intended), which would tend to increase congestion and reduce availability of the Superchargers to those who really need them.

I've speculated before -- and I continue to hope -- that they instead institute a pay-per-use system instead, which would avoid both of the aforementioned problems.
It was $2k on the MS60.

For charging the pay per use model really doesn't work well:
- Because you almost always refuel at home you don't need to use them much, which means that demand is peaky.
- Electricity is subject to demand charges, which means that there is a significant cost overhead that must be borne irrespective of total kWh used.
- Slow refueling means that they can't serve anywhere near the volume that gas stations do, which means that the installation overheads are high relative to sales volume.

If there are other charges, there has to be at least some element of a subscription model.

The advantage of front-loading is that it helps pay for the front-loaded network costs and eliminates the overheads related to account management and continued payment, which lowers hardware costs, improves reliability and lowers management costs.

The disadvantage is that people try to extract maximum value, which would lead to a need for increased capacity, like overeating at an all-you-can-eat buffet. Without payment, sufficient "abuse' would require a "fair use" policy backed by a solid algorithm and enforcement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,674 Posts
During the TSLA shareholders meeting last Tuesday, Elon commented that they were thinking they would offer both pay-per-charge and one-time fee options. He also emphasised the charges would be 'minimal'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
At 2:38:09 in the shareholder meeting video....

Shareholder (Hyden?): "Regarding the free long distance travel and superchargers for life, how long do you intend to act on that, and then once the model 3 comes out and there's upwards of 500K-1M cars out there, how are you going to keep up with that?"

Musk: "To date we wanted to make it really staightforward and easy. That's why the superchargers are set up, at least to date for people who have bought the [model S and X] car as free long-distance for life. Obviously that has fundamentally a cost. And so I think, I mean, I don't want to make this a big news headline but, the obvious thing to do is to decouple that from the cost of the model 3. So it will still be very cheap, and far cheaper than gasoline to drive long distance with the model 3 but it will not be free long distance for life unless you purchase that package.

I wish we could, but in order to achieve the economics it has to be something like that.

I want to just emphasize what Tesla's motivation is, is to make electric transport as affordable as possible. That is what informs all of our actions. So if we do some something, and we charge for this [and] we charge for that, it is not because we want to make things more expensive. It is because we can't figure out how to make it less expensive. That's all."

J.B.: "It also pains us to see people misvaluing their time at supercharge stations so often. You know, it is far more convenient and faster for you overall for you to charge at home, or at work. It takes one second to plug in, you don't have to go to a separate location and wait for the car to be there. And you know time and time again we see people who drive to supercharge stations, sit in their car, wait for 20-30 minutes and then drive to a different destination. And if they do the math and evaluate their time it makes no sense."

Musk: "I think quite a bit is just that people are used to a paradigm where they go to a gas station to fill up, and that's just normal. So they get an electric car and it's like "Oh I need to go to the supercharging station to fill up" because that's what's normal. But actually the best thing to do with [an] electric car is to charge your car where you charge your phone. Like, would you really take your phone into a gas station? No?

(audience laughs)

So I think a lot of it is like people are just kinda, they're used to an odd way of doing things and they kind of do it by default, but As J.B. was saying, driving to a supercharger in order to like maybe get $5 worth of electricity, and spending half an hour for your time, like you know, maybe you're barely at minimum wage? So it's actually just not the best thing for people but they kind of do it out of habit."

Editor's notes: Some of the stuttering and "you know" bits have been omitted for clarity and just to be polite.

There was talk about AC destination chargers, and it was made clear that these are not the same thing as superchargers. What they said about destination chargers was that they were not against owners of companies/stores etcetera installing them and charging customers for their use.

The video can be viewed here: https://www.teslamotors.com/2016shareholdermeeting

During the TSLA shareholders meeting last Tuesday, Elon commented that they were thinking they would offer both pay-per-charge and one-time fee options. He also emphasised the charges would be 'minimal'.
I didn't catch that. Can you point to where in the video that appears?
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top