Jun 10, 2016
Booga Why? Superchargers are absolutely a capital expenditure.�
Jun 10, 2016
ohmman Have you seen my avatar?
<---
I think you're mistaking disgust or fear for respect.
�
Jun 10, 2016
JoRey One thing is for certain, Tesla needs to build a whole lot more supercharger stations. Especially in Socal and other heavy populated areas. I like many others would prefer pay per use, because i cannot justify spending so much on something i will never use. Likewise, only half of the population live in private homes. So Tesla is going to have to start building superchargers to cater to this demographic. Most importantly, if i or anyone buys charging adapters to use CCS or Chadamo. I expect to be able to use said adapter, with ought having to pay for Supercharging.�
Jun 11, 2016
diamond.g On the original S60 they offered the ability to turn on just DC charging for 1750? Which included the chademo adapter. It is possible they could do something similar if it costs extra to enable supercharging.�
Jun 11, 2016
jgs I'm a little confused. First you say "Tesla needs to build a whole lot more supercharger stations". Then you say those stations are "something [you] would never use". If you would never use them, why do you even have a dog in this fight? I guess maybe you're using "never" hyperbolically, to mean "not very often"?�
Jun 11, 2016
zenmaster Personally, I'd rather pay per use and I'd bet most of the people wanting pay-up-front, unlimited access would be using it frequently. And among those using it frequently, I'd bet most are using the local chargers. This is what I see at my local SC which I can easily prove. Obviously, the equitable model would have cost contribution tied directly to usage.�
Jun 11, 2016
ccutrer I'm getting an X with supercharging enabled for the family vehicle. Then a Model 3 that will be mine. I doubt I'll use supercharges with it, but if the price is right for a lifetime package ($500 seems pretty good), I'll probably spring for it just cause. I'd rather roll $500 into the loan and never use it than worry about the headache of pay per use.�
Jun 11, 2016
ThosEM There's a basic fallacy here, in that the initial payment is to equip and enable the car for supercharging and not to pay for the supercharging use or energy (check your sales agreement, which is the only legally binding document). Since the initial payment is now wrapped into the price of the car, and likely will be for all future models, the only issue is whether or not to pay for supercharging use and energy, per use or by subscription.
That will be decided by Tesla on whatever basis they choose, but I sincerely hope they choose to charge for it per use based on any type of credit card on file with them. That will eliminate all motive for driving to a supercharger when one could be charging at home, and also any excuse Tesla may have for failing to market a vehicle to grid interface that would allow us to use the car for a residential backup power source.�
Jun 11, 2016
jgs No, there's also the battery warranty "excuse".�
Jun 11, 2016
zenmaster To me it wouldn't be a headache as I plan my long-distance trips. Not sure how you get $500 though.�
Jun 11, 2016
ohmman @ccutrer highlights an interesting case for a cheaper unlimited price. That is, there's a point at which the unlimited option is so appealing, enough buyers will choose it regardless of whether they will use it. If the revenues from buyers who purchase but don't use the service are high enough, they would subsidize other users who utilize more than their "fair share." This goes back to my insurance example from earlier. We normally pay premiums higher than our claims for the luxury of not having to pay out of pocket when we have big claims, or a big year. And in doing so, we pay for the others who are utilizing the insurance system to a much greater degree. So it would be a similar model.
I don't know how low that price would have to be to encourage enough adoption, but high enough to provide a surplus of revenue over cost. But it's an interesting thought.�
Jun 11, 2016
ChadFeldheimer 20 (or 50) million charging sessions each year certainly sounds like a lot. But I assume a typical Model ? will have a lifespan far longer than one year. For example, if you assume the average Model ? has a lifespan of 10 years and 500k are sold each year, then the 20 (or 50) million charging sessions only works out to 4-10 per car per year.
Unless you're suggesting that Model ? owners will pay $500 per year? Then your math works out.�
Jun 11, 2016
ChadFeldheimer Regardless of what should or could be done, in August 2015 Tesla Motors raised ~$700M from selling stock. This was what they told the investing public the funds would be used for (emphasis mine):
We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering to accelerate the growth of our business in the U.S. and internationally, including the growth of our stores, service centers, Supercharger network and the Tesla Energy business, and for the development and production of Model 3, the development of the Tesla Gigafactory and other general corporate purposes. See �Use of Proceeds.�
So they've already had to reach out to capital markets to accelerate the growth of the supercharger network. Maybe this will change in the future... if so, it would be with a headwind from lower (per car) margins, perhaps offset by a tailwind in not needing to expand the supercharger network as much for coverage.�
Jun 11, 2016
JoRey It's quite simple i cannot justify paying 2k for Supercharging. Not when i rarely leve socal and will therefore rarely use Superchargers. However, in cities like socal, half of the population lives in apartments and say half live in houses. In order to be able to capitalize on this market Tesla needs to install Superchargers in places were people can charge using a pay-per use model. Strategically placed Superchargers would allow people to own a Tesla without owning a house. It would be the equivalent of a electric gas station and, would only really work in urban areas. That said, Tesla has found out it can capitalize by making all cars with the same hardware and, then unlocking the software for a fee or when it resales the car.�
Jun 11, 2016
JoRey The real question is. Should Tesla allow customers that buy a Chademo adapter the ability to use said adapter if they did not pay for Supercharging software? The hardware is already built into the car, but should the software be included with the adapter.�
Jun 11, 2016
Ben W Do you mean that Elon's promise of "free supercharging for life" is not legally binding for existing owners? The amount of blowback Tesla would receive if they tried to renege on that would be mind-boggling, so I think it's something that existing owners can confidently count on.
The initial payment ($2k for S60 owners, or wrapped into the price of the car for other S/X owners) was intended to cover the hardware costs as well as the prime-location SC buildout and electricity costs, I believe. Seldom-used SC's were considered a marketing expense. The cost of the SC hardware will be baked into the sticker price of all future cars, true.
Good point that pay per use eliminates V2G arbitrage problems, where users might charge up at the SC for free and then drive home to power their house. I would suggest that once Tesla has a pay-per-use mechanism in place, that they should make V2G _itself_ pay-per-use (e.g. $0.50/kWh), so that it could also be used by owners who have unlimited SC access. For instance, if I could connect my Model S to a PowerWall to supplement its capacity in an emergency, and if Tesla were to charge $0.50/kWh for such usage, that would be a fantastic solution IMO. The fee would prevent arbitrage, and would also cover the extra wear and tear on the battery pack.�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage Waitasec... If you never intend to use Superchargers, what does it matter to you how many there are, where they are, and what the payment means would be?�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage What makes this 'obvious' to you, exactly? I would be charging at home most days, weeks, months of the year. But every chance I got, I would be on the road -- because I love to drive. The freedom of doing so without pay-per-use, or billing is extremely attractive to me. Once again, using the Superchargers does not equate to abusing them. They are meant to be used for charging cars, not as modern art to decorate parking lots.�
Jun 11, 2016
zenmaster Ah, but It DOES equate to abusing them and I can prove it.�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage You aren't buying an iPod. The iTunes music store isn't going to run out of copies of any particular song or album because 'too many people' buy it. Tesla Motors has no compelling reason whatsoever to turn Superchargers into vending machines for electricity. There is no existing or impending situation that will require that Superchargers become a profit center. Stockholders are always happy, for a little while, with the notion that companies have regular, captive subscribers. But that only works when your audience has no other choice. Electricity is everywhere and is easy to acquire.
So, once again you want to punish every single Tesla owner for the imagined transgressions of someone who has done nothing at all. People who do stupid, inconsiderate things don't need any motive to do so. They just do stuff to make other people's lives miserable because that is their purpose in life. Every attempt to deter a supposed 'abuser' will result in pissing off ordinary, regular users first.�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage [CONTINUOUS STREAM OF EXPLETIVES DELETED.]
Oh, really? Pray, tell... How is that?�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage Yes.�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage You keep writing what you want Tesla Motors to do, but you aren't actually saying WHY. Please explain why you believe a particular group of people, who have already bought the car, must have a DIFFERENT means of accessing Superchargers than those that live much further away from them. What problem exists, is impending, or can be avoided by separating Tesla Motors' buyers from each other in the way you suggest? Why must this be 'capitalized' to begin with? WHY? Is it because you have a feeling it would be a good idea? If so, please say so. Finish the thought. Be complete. Otherwise, statements such as yours assume facts that are not in evidence and will draw objections. Geez.�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage Yeah. Perhaps you noticed at the end of March 2016, when Elon Musk stood on a stage in front of a bunch of Tesla owners and said they intend to double the Supercharger network by the end of 2017? Could be they knew of their intent to do that as far back as August 2015. I'm not surprised. I predicted way back in 2014 that the Supercharger network would be aggressively expanded ahead of the release of the Model ?. My points in other posts have been about continued, ongoing expansion of the Supercharger network during and beyond the release of Model ?, and how I believe that car's sales will contribute to it. Yes, it costs money to do things, and stuff. Anything else?�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage The point is that the amount of charging sessions that might be paid for at only $500 per car sold each year, is far more than the number of charging sessions that are actually used each year. So, those funds roll over to continually replenish the coffers year-after-year. Over the years, even as sales continue to grow, the amount of dough available to pay for charging is greater than the draw on actual use of Superchargers. And what moron would want to pay $50 per charging session anyway? They'd might as well be using Chargepoint instead.�
Jun 11, 2016
zenmaster By #1 showing my local SC consists almost entirely of local users - i.e. license plate same county of and #2 showing that they leave their cars in the stalls longer than the charging time.�
Jun 11, 2016
JoRey �
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage I have annotated multiple times why the cost to activate 'FREE for LIFE!' Supercharger access for the base Model ? might be as low as $500, instead of the oft quoted $2,000 amount. Basically, it is a proportional amount of the presumed 12% profit margin on Model ? as compared to the assumed 25% profit margin on a Model S. So, instead of saying half of the $2,000 amount for a $69,900 Model S 60 in 2013, or $1,000 as a Supercharger access fee... You would use a $17,475 profit margin to determine that $2,000 is 11.4% of that amount. 12% of $35,000 would be $4,200... and 11.4% of that is around ~$480... Which I just round up to $500 as the Supercharger access fee. Simple.�
Jun 11, 2016
JoRey Because, at some point i want to go on a road trip. Because, i and many people like the idea of being able to go anywhere they want to in a electric car. At that point i fully intend to pay 2500 or 3k for supercharging. That is what makes Tesla's great, you can always unlock features.�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage Waitasec... So... You are one of those EV Charging Cops, I've heard about, then? So, how many local Superchargers do you frequent, that you keep seeing other locals using the same local Superchargers that you are using, to give you 'evidence' that it is a widespread 'problem' because they are doing the same thing YOU are doing? How long do you sit there charging, playing chicken with all the other locals who have nothing better to do than sit there charging, to see how long it will take before they leave, or if they are still sitting there when you (FINALLY) leave? Do you make sure to have them come by your gated checkpoint and sign a logbook of their recent travels, current home address, and state of charge at the time of arrival via notarized affidavit? [FLOCK].�
Jun 11, 2016
Red Sage Oh... So, I am to think that when you say you will 'never' use Superchargers, that is actually shorthand for saying you would 'never' use them regularly? But, if you are going to, at some point, go on a road trip... Why not just borrow your Friend's hybrid... Or rent a car... Because 'everyone' says that the Supercharger network isn't worth the expense in time or money and 'can never work' anyway... Right? Or is it that you just don't want to share the Supercharger network with... THOSE people... you know the ones...? Make up your mind already. [FLOCK].�
Jun 11, 2016
JoRey I have a hybrid, i have a Volt. Now "never", should be rarely. I never said that the Supercharger network should not be built. The Supercharging network is what makes Tesla the best electric car company on the planet. Please do not twist my words. All i am saying is that a pay per use model, makes sense for individuals who rarely charge at superchargers. It also makes sense for individuals who dont have access to a plug at home. Plus, it is great marketing. Then again, Tesla probably relies on activation fees to fund the network and people who rarely use the network fund the network for people who over use it.�
Jun 11, 2016
zenmaster You are way over complicating it. I go to my local one only, and notice same cars on way out after over 2 hours at the theater. I've done this at least 5 times over the past 3 months.�
Jun 11, 2016
JoRey If that is the cost, i am sure that the majority of the tesla Model III fleet will opt to have supercharging. What are the chances that supercharging cost will remain proportional?�
Jun 11, 2016
ohmman Approaching zero. I'm not sure where it'll land, but proportional to vehicle cost makes little sense. Proportional to estimated sales volume might make a bit more sense.�
Jun 11, 2016
stopcrazypp Talking about a big absolute number of charges and not scaling it to the cars is very misleading. I did an analysis of this before, but using $ per kWh costs for Tesla to cover assumed usage.
At $500 per car, 8 years of 10% (1350/13500 annual miles) supercharger usage averages to only $0.14/kWh available to pay for electricity, not anywhere near $0.25/kWh.
It gets drastically worse as you tweak the assumptions a bit, for example using a 11.5 year (average age of car in the US) and 20% supercharger usage, that leaves to only $0.05/kWh to pay for electricity.
Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion
And this doesn't even begin talking about network maintenance and installation. I highly doubt putting it all on Model S/X will work, given Model 3 is projected to be 3-4x the volume of those cars (then we also have Model Y later).
Tesla says cost are negligible vs the overall revenue of the company, but not that it's negligible such that it can be hand-waved away (Elon's recent Model 3 supercharger comments are proof of this). It has been alluded to before with the "Ponzi" comment, but the current costs are not readily apparent in Tesla's balance sheets because it is amortized over 8 years (or more). Given the company is doubling revenue about every 2 years, it's not going to show up much. However, as the company reaches closer to steady state, those costs are going to be more apparent.�
Jun 11, 2016
jkk_ I don't see V2G as a problem in any way since Elon and JB hinted that they don't want to do V2G at all. It was during the last shareholders meeting IIRC.�
Jun 11, 2016
Ben W Really? I'd be interested to know what they said. I'm surprised they wouldn't want to, because if Tesla did offer V2G, I would immediately buy a PowerWall to use it with. Without V2G supplementation, the PowerWall would be sort of meaningless for me. I'm not surprised that they wouldn't want to connect the Tesla directly to home power, but using the PowerWall as a go-between (with per-kWh billing for V2G, to compensate for wear and tear on the car battery) seems to me like an obvious win-win.�
Jun 12, 2016
Troy916 It was talked about in the Tesla Motors 2016 Annual Shareholder Meeting, the question is at the 2:46:14 mark, answer starts at 2:47:30 in the video.�
Jun 12, 2016
jkk_ What he said (didn't check times):
�
Jun 12, 2016
Fourdoor Why would you want a power wall AND V2G? If you are trying to smooth out your power consumption because you have a time of use metering system from your power company then you would need one or the other of these to take advantage... not both. In fact, unless you have an ICE car as backup I wouldn't use V2G at all.
I am not trying to be argumentative here, I am wondering if I am missing something.
Keith�
Jun 12, 2016
Big Dog Perhaps in a generation. If Tesla can only produce say, 400k cars/yr, and 90% of them are sold to the home-owner market segment, it would be a waste of money to develop a bunch of urban Superchargers in the next few years.
Based on your example, if half of SoCal residents are home owners, I would think Tesla would be mighty happy to sell to them only, as long as they continue to sell.
Tesla has a bunch of really smart folks working there, and if the cost of new customer acquisition (for renters) requires a huge investment in SC, they may decide to do that later (when they can raise the price from $35k).�
Jun 12, 2016
Ben W Thanks for this. I'm not sure Elon/JB completely answered the question though. They referred to regulatory issues and electrocution risks, but if the car were solely recharging the Powerwall using its DC connection (and not powering the house directly), it may not incur the same issues and risks. The point about daily vs weekly cycling is sort of disingenuous; if it's used this way only for backup in emergencies, there wouldn't be enough cycling to make any difference. And if the V2G were billed per-minute, there wouldn't be any advantage to using it this way continuously or often. The PowerWall has enough capacity run the house by itself for 3-4 hours at a stretch (so both house and car could be used at the same time), and then when the car comes back it can top up the PowerWall. If this happens once a day, it's a complete cycle for the PowerWall, but only a small fraction of a cycle for the Model S.
I guess a more significant question is whether it is even technically possible to do this with the existing Model S, or whether there are hardware safeties in place to prevent current flowing out through the charging port. A completely ridiculous (but possible) solution would be to mount the Model S on a dyno, leave it on cruise control at low speed, and generate power directly that way�
Jun 12, 2016
Ben W Because the PowerWall only has a small amount of capacity. In an emergency (24-48h without power, say after a bad storm or earthquake), it would be nice to be able to supplement this capacity with energy from the car battery, rather than having to buy 10 PowerWalls.�
Jun 12, 2016
Ben W Tesla has essentially no control over whether its buyers have home charging capability. Vast numbers of owners without home charging ability are going to be placing orders for the Model 3, whether Tesla likes it or not. So it's inevitable that the existing SC network will be overrun unless Tesla takes significant steps to address it: either by building out a LOT more capacity, or by implementing pay-per-use, or both. An overrun SC network would be a disincentive to ALL buyers, including Tesla's high-margin S/X buyers, so they will work very hard to avoid this situation. Refusing to sell to owners without home charging is simply not a viable option, IMO.�
Jun 12, 2016
diamond.g I don't understand why folks would buy a vehicle that they couldn't charge.
On the other hand I am sure GM is annoyed that they can't get vast amounts of people to order their Bolt/Volt without having the ability to charge them at home. Clearly affects the Bolt more than the Volt.�
Jun 12, 2016
Ben W Oh yes, the Model 3 buyers will be able to charge them, at the SC's! (Ironically circular, isn't it?) That will be their default backup plan until such time as they can line up home charging; I know at least a few Model 3 preorderers who are in this situation. Trickier with the Volt, since it doesn't support DC fast charging, and needs to be charged at more frequent intervals (well, at least to avoid using gas). No idea what GM's plan with the Bolt will be. OTOH, GM is only planning to make ~50k Bolts per year (GM manager Kevin Kelly stated earlier this year that even if Bolt demand rose to 50,000 cars a year, GM & partner LG Chem could satisfy that demand), vs ~400k Model 3's. I predict that many prospective Bolt buyers will end up switching to the Model 3 instead, precisely because the SC network exists as a backup charging plan.�
Jun 12, 2016
stopcrazypp Straubel touched on V2G also in the below talk:
Tesla CTO JB Straubel on Autonomous Vehicle and Battery Tech
Basically they don't see V2G making sense with the density optimized batteries they are using nor for energy storage in the future with used batteries. Basically they are expecting the cycling optimized batteries to get cheap enough that it doesn't make sense to use the energy density optimized batteries in a car for such applications.
The unspoken thing also is the warranty risk Tesla has to incur. While Tesla's warranty doesn't cover degradation, it does cover defects/operation and has "unlimited miles" but does have a 8 year limit. V2G allows you to put drastically more cycles on the battery than driving. They could add something about a daily cycle exclusion, but that will probably lead to people analyzing it negatively in terms of degradation in the auto application. Just having a complete V2G ban seems to work better, given few people care about this functionality today.�
Jun 12, 2016
Garlan Garner LOL. Thanks for looking. Panel 2.1.5 has the vent from my furnace right next to it. That vent blocks sunlight.�
Jun 12, 2016
Big Dog And this is where we disagree. I don't see apartment dwellers purchasing a M3 unless they have a convenient charging station (home or work).
But I've been wrong before.
It will be interesting to see if they complete the purchase, or if their 'situation' changes in the next two years.�
Jun 12, 2016
stopcrazypp I don't think it'll be "vast numbers," but I know of a few already in this forum. For me personally, I plan to rent a garage with at least a 110V plug before getting a 3, so it won't be as big a deal. For an apartment dweller without a garage with charging, they can make it work out with weekly DC charges (assuming they have a few in their city).�
Jun 12, 2016
Mkorpal I'm one of those apartment dwellers who has a reservation. I do think I will have periodic access to a 110 t work, which should handle my very short daily commute. Beyond that, I imagine I can piece together public charging and the rare supercharge. Plus, I still have a year and a half to figure it out and let local charging options expand.�
Jun 12, 2016
zenmaster According to this post Tesla would be actively encouraging local Supercharger use for apartment dwellers:
"Tesla's message has been pretty consistent. Please get charging at home or work, if possible. Some large portion of the $100,000 automobile owners have one or both. But, if you don't have a garage or even access to a parking space especially, please use the Supercharger." How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?
What percentage of Model 3 buyers would be apartment dwellers? If local SC is the only means to charge, then local stall occupancy goes up something like 15x over travel-only use, correct? The Model 3 will sell 5x more than than MS, right? So how to accommodate in an equitable manner? From Tesla's actual perspective, as opposed to the land of make believe one, the Supercharger network is designed for long-distance travel, not for daily charging.
Charged EVs | Elon Musk: Supercharging will not be free for Tesla Model 3 owners�
Jun 12, 2016
Big Dog
I don't disagree with any of this. I question the market from the buyers side. Upthread, someone suggested that they would be willing to drive say, 5 miles out of the way, to access a SC on the way home. In Tesla's home of PA, for example, it can easily take an hour to drive 5 miles during rush hour. (And it's only gonna get worse.) I just don't see purchases in major urban centers, particularly since, once the driver gets to the SC, they'll have to wait for at least 30 minutes.
Outside of early adopters, the lack of charging convenience will become a major detriment to purchase to those without access to a garage with a 120v, IMO.�
Jun 12, 2016
JoRey While it does no make immediate sense do install superchargers in Socal at the moment. China and New York city are prime places to test such a model. How long do you guys think it will take for Tesla to seriously consider such a model? At some point demand will slow dramatically, because potential customers wont be able to charge the car.
Personally, i had to make a 120 to 240v @ 30 amps adapter using schematics from "Engineer." For the simple reason that my landlord could not be bothered to install 14-50 plugs and that my apartment was built in the 1950's. As such, the power going into my house is limited to 40Amps @ 240V. I was lucky enough that my parking spot overlooks my window.�
Jun 12, 2016
zenmaster If the charge lasts basically a week, wouldn't the weekends be used to avoid that traffic? That's where I came up with the 15x number. Long-distance travel ~3 times a year vs local charge ~52 times a year.�
Jun 12, 2016
Ben W No doubt that the car batteries are not ideal for continuous or regular V2G applications. The point is that they would work in a pinch, and would be extremely helpful in that pinch. (Insurance is worth quite a lot, even if you never or very rarely have to use it!) After Tesla sets up pay-per-use billing for the SC's (a safe assumption I think), they could trivially implement pay-per-use billing for V2G as well; both to discourage regular use, and also to cover wear-and-tear for any owners who use it more than sparingly. $0.50/kWh should more than cover Tesla's costs here, and/or the kWh used could be counted against warranty somehow. (Each 5kWh takes a day off the warranty?)
The more important question is whether this is actually feasible to retrofit in hardware, and what sort of regulations it would run into. (for trickle-charging the PowerWall only; not powering the house directly.) If it's physically impossible to adapt the existing fleet to do this, then it's a moot point. I seem to remember hearing about a case of a Model S being plugged into a malfunctioning SC which quickly drained the battery pack; if that actually happened, then obviously power can be directly pulled from the car. (And how do they do the bleed test when the car is serviced?) It's possible that this is something they're still considering for the future but aren't ready to announce yet, so they're trying not to drop hints. Who knows, if GM gives the Bolt this capability, Tesla may have to follow suit and do it as well. Time will tell!�
Jun 12, 2016
JoRey The biggest problem with such a setup is how do you pay for the electricity. Also, while 120V is perfectly fine for cars like the Volt. In a full electric car you really need 240 @ 30 amps, approx 6.6Kw. My thought is that as time progresses big apartment complexes will be forced to install electric car stations that many individuals will share. Hopefully using chargepoint to charge on a per kwh or hour basis .�
Jun 12, 2016
Red Sage I like to drive. I will be doing <em>'long distance travel'</em> at least 40 weekends a year. And probably even LONGER distances the other 10-to-12 weekends.�
Jun 12, 2016
ccutrer 40 + 10 weekends in a year? What kind of time warp do you live in?!�
Jun 12, 2016
stopcrazypp 120V gives 3.5mph at 12A and 5mph at 16A. That's enough for 30-60 miles of daily driving (depending on how long your car is parked overnight). Anything extra can be supplemented by public chargers. Obviously, if you drive more than that, then that may not work.
Or if you live in a large city, there will be DC chargers available (like CHAdeMO or CCS) which you can use to do weekend charges.�
Jun 12, 2016
JoRey At 120V my Volt charges at approx 12amps*120 say 1.4kw per hour charging. I have a 10Kw battery and it takes about 8 hours to charge the car. That is enough to realistically go 33 miles in the highway and 45 miles in the city (I average 4.3 kw/m). Without access to superchargers or access to other netw
At 120V my Volt charges at approx 12amps*120 say 1.4kw per hour charging. I have a 10Kw battery and it takes about 8 hours to charge the car. That is enough to realistically go 33 miles in the highway and 45 miles in the city (I average 4.3 kw/m). Without access to superchargers or access to other networks it dramatically limits your range. Assuming the Model III has a 55kw battery, it would take approx 40h to charge. The bare minim a electric car realistically needs is 3.3kw or 13amps @ 240V. Charge time is a very important factor. Any DC charging is going to require adapters or for the individual to pay for Supercharging access. Even in Socal there are not enough chargers to meet the demand. All these calculations dont take into account all of the energy lost by the charging process and are rough approximations. Although a bigger battery solves the range issue, at 120V the car would have to be connected every time it is not in use.
Do It Yourself: 240v from two 120v sources - My Nissan Leaf Forum�
Jun 13, 2016
Fourdoor OK, I thought people were trying to figure out a way to smooth their power load to lower their power bill instead of using a power wall... if we are just talking about using the car to power essential loads during a blackout there is no need for any fancy systems.
The Tesla has a 12 Volt DC system for non-propulsion loads. At the main breaker box in the house, flip the main supply breaker off and connect an inverter to the Tesla's 12V system and supply your home with that in blackout conditions. The on board 12V system will be supplied by the on board high voltage system, the 12V system powers the home via the inverter. People in areas prone to power problems who own a Chevy Volt do this all the time, and for people who don't want to figure out how to do it on their own there are kits. The only problem I can see with this is if the Tesla on board 12V system is not as "robust" as the Chevy Volt... I don't own a Tesla yet, so not going to research it myself.
Keith�
Jun 13, 2016
zenmaster That's an anomaly and one where at least the initial charge is not intended to be drawn from a local SC. And of course, if everyone behaved like this we couldn't have nice things.�
Jun 13, 2016
Bimbels I'm sure the answer to the question of "what you would prefer" depends on your driving habits and if you expect to use superchargers regularly. OR, if you believe you should contribute to supercharger expansion for the greater good of all owners and the company regardless of your individual use. I think the option purchase is the obvious way to fund supercharger expansion.
My husband and I share our Model S - we both have long commutes (185/300mi) and use superchargers regularly. So, we would prefer there to be a supercharger enabled option at purchase that is reasonably priced. (I think it will be less than 2K but have no basis for that belief.)
That said, I recognize that our driving habits are not the norm and not everyone wants to fork out money for something they might only use occasionally. So I hope Tesla offers a hybrid option - you can pay up front if you choose, and Tesla can throw in a small number of "free" supercharger sessions a year for those who choose not to add the Supercharging option.
It has been said many times, but it is true that many owners find excuses to drive their Teslas. Where we used to be passengers in other's cars on road trips, now we are the ones driving because we want to drive our car and our friends want to ride in it. I expect there will be a number of Model 3 owners who realize they should add supercharging after purchase because they drive so much more than they expected.�
Jun 13, 2016
Big Dog That's a fair question, and I'm sure Elon is hoping that the answer is, Yes. Personally, I think the inconvenience of having to plan to go sit somewhere for 30+ minutes every weekend is too much for most. Sure, over time, coffee places and the like (laundromats?) will install electric charging stations if they can forecast an increase in their business, but that will take years, IMO.�
Jun 13, 2016
diamond.g All of this pay per use talk will do no one any good if the Model S/X owners do not change their use patterns. Especially as the used market for S/X picks up (unless Tesla disables SC on used vehicles).
Still don't understand how making 3 owners pay per charge is going to help expand the network.�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner I vote on making it an option to M3 purchasers - not mandatory or built in.�
Jun 13, 2016
ChadFeldheimer Step 1: Raise money (e.g. from loans or from issuing more stock) to expand the network. This has already been done, and will likely continue.
Step 2: Introducing a marginal fee for charging has two effect. First, existing charging resources will be used efficiently. This is an effective expansion of the existing network. And second, it provides a revenue stream to support step 1 (funds for past, present, and future expansion).�
Jun 13, 2016
diamond.g Now how is that going to reduce the number of S/X using the SC stalls?
Seems like the S/X owners would potentially ruin access for the 3 owners, since they don't have to have PPU, they can just hang out with no impetus to leave (other than being seen as a not nice person). Which would make getting the revenue from 3 owners harder, no?
Again, with the Xmas SC implosion thread, I am not seeing how making 3's pay will make that situation any better.
EDIT: I would rather pay upfront, but understand if that option isn't possible for Tesla.�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner I don't think there is a problem with the number of S/X using stalls. I've never seen an over used location.
My post is simply to say that if you don't want SCing ...then don't pay for it. Make SCing something only for those who want it.�
Jun 13, 2016
Bimbels Except that doesn't really happen. S/X owners don't just hang out because they can. They tend to have better things to do with their time, and for the most part are courteous to others. I use SCs regularly and ICEing is much more of an issue than current owners abusing SCs. I rarely see another Tesla charging with me, and only once, on a holiday weekend, did I have to wait (10 minutes) - and that was at a location with only 2 SC stalls. And lets not forget that SCs are being expanded to keep up with more Teslas on the road.
There are exceptions - owners have been known to do bonehead things like blocking several chargers, or parking but not charging. But they are in no way the norm. For sure we all need to be cognizant of charging etiquette, (I actually think Tesla should remind us of it more - and maybe they will when the Model 3 arrives.) and owners who disregard it should be called out. But lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.�
Jun 13, 2016
ChadFeldheimer For better or worse, the existing S and X fleet has been granted lifetime (long distance?) supercharging. Tesla has to live with that. Helping them with that is that S has average gross margins of ~$20k. That essentially pays for lifetime supercharging (infrastructure and electricity). Excepting extreme outliers like Red Sage, of course =)
Moving to pay per use also makes the up front cost of the cars cheaper. This accelerates the transition to EV's by bringing more appeal to users who have independent access to charging infrastructure, while still providing a path forward for those who do not.�
Jun 13, 2016
diamond.g Understood. I asked why another DCFC provider, like blink, hadn't put stations in high traffic areas (thinking all of CA, lol) and was told that they would lose money when there is little to no traffic. So if Model 3 folks didn't have to pay (SC upfront) then 3rd party providers would likely not see any traffic when there is low SC usage (most of the year). The few times SC usage is high, they may make some money, depending on how much they charge. Of course maybe the Bolt will change that.�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner I have to fully agree with this. It appears that folks that have money consider that their time is more valuable than money ( or saving money ). They tend to charge at home. Maybe that's why I'm always alone while charging at SC's.
However, I suppose I have broken than mold. I have an S and I have no money. LOL
As a matter of fact I was traveling through Effingham Il. and I found 6 SC's. Totally empty.�
Jun 13, 2016
Skotty Might not be as uncommon as you think. I have to make frequent business trips for work, averaging about 1 trip per week. Each trip requires at least 1 supercharger visit. That's in no way abuse. It's what I need to go about my daily life. I'd be happy to pay for each visit, but that's not how it is currently handled. Instead, my above average supercharger use is subsidized by those of you who use the superchargers less than average. To those people, I offer my thanks, and my promise to switch to pay per use if and when it becomes available.�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner I can't imagine that Tesla could beat my in-home KWH price. However for apartment/condo dwellers, there might be no other option.�
Jun 13, 2016
ccutrer I know correlation is not causation, but it sounds like cause and effect to me�
Jun 13, 2016
Red Sage I really like to drive. What do you do with your weekends? I like to get in the car, pick a direction, and GO. It is nice to see things with your own eyes, instead of on a computer screen. There are still too many places I haven't been yet. I look forward to going to see them while driving fully electric.
As for it being a 'time warp'... I'm not sure what you mean by that. Lemme check my math... Hmmm... 365 days per year... Divided by 7 days in a week... Comes to 52 weeks... So, if I hit the road every weekend... That makes for at least 50 weekends of GO time.
I really like to drive. Yeah, I know that most people don't. They consider cars to be naught more than a conveyance of necessity or conveyance. A means to get from a given Point 'A' to another Point 'B'. People who drive in tight circles between home, work, store, church/temple/synagogue -- and nowhere else, all year. That's why leasing firms and insurance agencies figure most only drive 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Their loss. If I only needed to travel around 1,000 miles per month, I wouldn't need a car at all. I'd walk, or take the bus.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
"Perhaps one day you will join us, and the world will live as one..."�
Jun 13, 2016
Booga What it really comes down to is that you'll get a huge benefit from electric power vs gasoline and that alone makes it an even cheaper car for you, economically.�
Jun 13, 2016
Fourdoor Actually, your supercharging cost rolled into the purchase price is what is paying for the Supercharger that is being built in Meridian Mississippi... that Supercharger (much like the one at the Meijers in Terre Haute Indiana) will sit empty and un-used 95% of the time, possibly more... but when someone is coming through on a road trip they will bless you to the stars and the moon for ponying up the dough for the infrastructure expansion.
People ask me why I didn't like living in Hawaii... the answer was that unless you like to drive in circles there was nowhere to GO without getting on an airplane and being miserable for several hours... and then not having your car when you reached where ever the plane was going. I was fine for the first 6 months but then I was sick and tired of not being able to just hop in the car and go somewhere.
Later,
Keith�
Jun 13, 2016
Red Sage I've only been to Hawaii once, years ago... I spent a long week there, nine days straight over two weekends. I had a rental car, and enjoyed driving the loop around Oahu. But yeah, as much as I loved it there, I knew it was a place I should only visit. Not a place I should live permanently. Man, though... The tour through the Dole plant sure spoiled me for pineapple though... Even here in California, it is never -- EVER -- anywhere near as fresh.�
Jun 13, 2016
ohmman Well, the Model 3 will be doing the driving. So you'll probably be on a computer screen anyway.. posting here.�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner OOHHHH NOOOOO.
Shame on the police. They should be charging at the police station... They shouldn't be using SC's.
I'm calling the Police!!!. Hmmmmmm.. Wait, they are the police.
LAPD Model S spotted Supercharging at Tesla Design Center
Will someone in this forum please go get the LAPD and tell them to login and vote on this thread? I want to know their opinion. LOL�
Jun 13, 2016
ohmman Well.. they have a legitimate reason to be Supercharging. I get the feeling they do a lot more local miles than some others...�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner
Cabbies too? Uber?�
Jun 13, 2016
ohmman They're commercial. There's a clear distinction.
Admit it, GG - you're at a SC right now, aren't you?�
Jun 13, 2016
Garlan Garner LOL. Now that's funny.�
Jun 13, 2016
Ulmo Agreed.
Herein is a similar thing: I want to pay per use because that would allow me to SuperCharge even for local use. I assume that's the way it would work: at cost or cost + profit for Tesla. Of course, if the SC network is subsidized, then that wouldn't be allowed, and then I'd want the prepay method. I need more information.�
Jun 13, 2016
Red Sage If your battery pack is at 70%, and you are five miles from your house when you plug in, and three cars pull into the parking lot at a full location, you probably shouldn't be at a Supercharger. But if your battery pack is below 20%, and you need to go somewhere far away immediately, it is probably OK if you use the Supercharger when your house is around the corner, down the street. I believe the idea is to be courteous, and balance personal need versus convenience for others. No need for pay-per-use, so much as courtesy per charge.�
Jun 13, 2016
stopcrazypp I'm surprised no one pointed it out that this is a straw man. No one is against local occasional use (in fact, Tesla's letter said that this is perfectly fine). It is frequent local use that is the problem that Tesla targeted.�
Jun 14, 2016
zenmaster The strawman and hyperbole reveal the weakness and desperation of the position.�
Jun 14, 2016
Rocky_H Bull. Have you SEEN the arguments on this in both forums? You assume a level of reasonableness across the board that isn't there. There have been plenty of people who have been suggesting forbidding or punishing for ANY local use at all. And they have been describing "local use" even by within 50 miles(!) if someone's home location.�
Jun 14, 2016
Garlan Garner Yep. I'm getting criticized personally for my local SC'ing. This criticism doesn't bother me as long as I'm not getting letters nor anything from Tesla.�
Jun 14, 2016
stopcrazypp I knew someone would take issue with the "no one" terminology, but there is a subtly you missed. I haven't seen anyone clearly/vehemently opposed to occasional local use. Even the ones suggesting the 50 mile bans (I'm not one of them) say there should be an allowance of a couple of times in a year to allow for exceptions. Basically, I don't think anyone has suggested you should be crucified for doing local charging a few times a year.
You can find an example if you want and ask the person that posted for their views on this, and I bet they would say a few times a year would be fine by them. I don't want to point fingers, but there is a clear example here that many people are opposed to that clearly isn't just a few times a year.
Where there is a difference in opinion is there are those who feel all frequent local use (outside of exceptions above) be banned even for the less popular stations, while some only feel this should only apply to the congested stations. I subscribe to the latter (my personal suggestion is PPU only in urban stations).�
Jun 14, 2016
Rocky_H My dad was a part-time freelance writer, in addition to being a teacher. He taught me early on that the way to avoid sticking your foot in your mouth like this is to use what he called "weasel words", rather than absolute statements, so you will not be inaccurate. Some examples of these are:
"hardly anyone"
"almost never" "almost always"
"rarely" "usually"
So by using non-absolute terms, you can say how you think it is, without it being a false statement that someone can call you on.�
Jun 14, 2016
stopcrazypp Well in this case, I'm comfortable using "noone" because I think if you asked even those suggesting the local ban if they would be okay allowing someone doing a local charge a few times a year for exception cases, they would say yes. It just isn't necessarily pointed out in their arguments. My main point however, is that the bulk of the concerns related to this is not about occasional use.�
Jun 14, 2016
ccutrer +1 weasel words. Also, try to frame things in the context that the other person isn't "wrong", but instead how they could be right when you don't consider certain points. Less emotional response when you're not directly attacking the other person or their views.�
Jun 14, 2016
ohmman Also minimizes the amount of crow you find yourself eating. Depending on how much you hate the taste, you can learn these lessons pretty quickly.�
Jun 14, 2016
ccutrer Yup, always leave the door open just a little bit that you might be wrong, or that what you are stating is definitely an opinion, and not fact.�
Jun 14, 2016
jgs Then again, people willing to stick their necks out are the ones who write memorably. (I suppose you could substitute almost any activity for "write".) I guess it all depends on what your goal is.�
Jun 14, 2016
Red Sage Well, you say this as a reasonable person. There are those who are entirely unreasonable. They don't want local use of Superchargers at all, even if someone has paid for the 'FREE for LIFE!' option. They want EVERYONE that uses a Supercharger in an urban area to both: 1) Be charged a fee per use; and 2) Be penalized for being plugged in for 'too long'. All for the sake of preventing the antics of 'abusers' while penalizing everyone else.�
Jun 14, 2016
stopcrazypp Point me to one such example in any of the various threads discussing this, and we can try my suggested experiment of asking them for clarification.�
Jun 14, 2016
Red Sage No. Not gonna do it. First, because I am on my mobile phone and it would be a nightmare doing such research using it. Second, because in my personal opinion, every single excuse or demand for pay-per-use as the primary means of Supercharger access, or sole means in urban areas, or only means for Tesla Model 3 buyers, is absolutely unreasonable. And finally, because I am sick and [FRELLING] tired of being challenged by folks on this page asking for a 'source' when all they have to do is pay attention to those who voice a dissenting opinion to mine. Just state your own opinion as to why you disagree with mine and move on, please.�
Jun 14, 2016
stopcrazypp My basic point is that for people saying that my "no one" claim is wrong, at least point out to one counter example where I am wrong. I personally haven't read a comment in the threads that suggests that the person would be unwilling to allow for any exceptions at all for occasional use. Basically, similar to my original "strawman" comment, I want to make sure we aren't attacking a position that literally no one has take up so far.
I'll give a counter example that supports my claim, for example here is someone proposing a radius limit:
Note the highlighted part about exceptions for occasional use. Now, I'm sure there some posts that don't explicitly mention this, but if I asked them if they would be willing to accept an allowance of a few times a year (or even a month as above), I'm pretty sure they would say yes.�
Jun 14, 2016
stopcrazypp Okay, I found the 50 mile comment you referred to:
Note the highlighted exception, which is exactly as I describe. People suggesting a radius limit allow for occasional local use!�
Jun 15, 2016
Pando I didn't read the whole thread, but here is my opinion.
>> ~$2k at purchase. 'Free' forever.
First, 2k purchase for SC access isn't "free". It costs 2 grand. Upfront.
Second, if someone wants to pay that for unlimited SC usage, that option should be available. Perhaps for convenience's sake. Perhaps to feel good they've funded Tesla's buildout. Whatever. Perhaps this can include an added perk such as having an express charging slot or two in a SC station that the pay-per-use folks can't use.
Third, if my circumstances make absolutely no financial sense to pay 2k for unlimited SC access, I won't. However, I should have the option to use SC "Pay Per Use" if I'm traveling. I want to pay for what I use, and then go on my way. Make it more expensive than home charging, that's fine. It's my time sitting around doing nothing waiting for the charge that costs here, not the electrons.�
Jun 15, 2016
Red Sage Hence, why I often refer to the policy as the extended phrase 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!' Because that is what it really means. The convenience of traveling without worrying how many minutes you have left, or whether or not you need to recharge your account, or if you have to keep track of which credit card you used to sign up and what its expiration date was... Freedom from all that makes things easy.
No such added convenience will be necessary. Superchargers do not need to be segregated or divided in any way. Just buy a car, and you can use them. Easy.
The problems with offering the 'option' of 'pay-per-use' are numerous. Better to include limited Supercharger access to all, and unlimited Supercharger access as the option. That way, those of you who don't want to pay more for 'FREE for LIFE!' access, get what they want simply by buying the car. Easy.�
Jun 15, 2016
Pando I think every Tesla owner should have SC access. Whether it's unlimited, limited, or pay-per-use.
I still fail to understand why pay-per-use creates such negativity, or what "numerous problems" you are talking about that modern commerce hasn't figured out a long time ago. I use, I pay. Just like anything else we consumers do every day.�
Jun 15, 2016
Fourdoor Hey Red Sage,
Would you personally be interested in (and how much would you pay) for free for life [life of the purchaser, not the car] supercharging?
I am talking about you pay one fee and from that day forward any Tesla you purchase is supercharger enabled, and on cars where supercharging is rolled into the price of the car you get a free upgrade worth $2000?
Keith�
Jun 15, 2016
Pando Your idea to "be courteous" might work for a limited, exclusive, high-end luxury item (such as Models S and X), where people who can afford them are in a higher income bracket and generally more educated. Once those 500,000 M3s hit the streets it will be a different ballgame altogether, and your idea of "being courteous" will be replaced with simple economics. There will be abusers left and right who will game the system as much as they can and don't give a hoot about being courteous.
For that reason, pay-per-use, with additional pay-per-minute charges for overextending your stay plugged in beyond the allotted time will be the reasonable outcome.�
Jun 15, 2016
metier At what income bracket and level of education does being courteous start at?�
Jun 15, 2016
Pando Are you implying that there is no relation between considerate behavior and level of income/education?�
Jun 15, 2016
jgs I wouldn't be interesting in debating it extensively, but that isn't a proposition I would accept as self-evident.�
Jun 15, 2016
Jeff N Less than $100,000 and no more than 5 years of college?�
Jun 15, 2016
JeffK I would argue that I've become less courteous as my education level increased. I've become far less tolerant of news media spreading lies or people believing internet rumors and old wives tales... some of which are about EVs and/or Tesla as a company.�
Jun 15, 2016
Fred Thompson If you select the model S vehicle from the Tesla site and go to the "Charging Estimator" section, Tesla list the cost per mile for electricity. Tesla should use this listed price for charging per use of a super charger based on the miles added to your vehicle battery. Charging more than their listed price would be a contradiction to their published cost.�
Jun 15, 2016
JeffK You might of missed the previous posts where we talked about this not being possible and that Tesla would have to be regulated like a utility company if they charged per kWh.�
Jun 15, 2016
stopcrazypp That calculator would just be an estimate of costs for charging at home based on assuming $0.12 home electricity on a 90D (it says right there in the fine print). In fact, there is a more detailed calculator in the "charging" section where the cost changes when you switch between the various socket options and electricity prices in Tesla's charging calculator. There is no option for supercharger in this calculator, but I don't see why superchargers have to cost the same as home charging. There are extra perks (speed of charging, parking, Tesla handles maintenance/repair of equipment) that puts extra value above home charging.�
Jun 15, 2016
Jersey Shore Tom I am sorry to say it, but the regular bashing of future Model 3 owners as
not educated enough to be courteous or;
as people who will be abusing left and right or;
will be buying cars we really can't afford and will need charge at superchargers because we can't afford electricity;
is starting to make me wonder what I am getting myself into.
The idea that a significant percentage of posters beleive low income people (who ironically can't afford a $35,000 car) are low class is revolting.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét