Thứ Hai, 21 tháng 11, 2016

How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging? part 4

  • Jun 16, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    LOL yes. as long as I get unlimited charging.

    My only desire is "unlimited" charging. no pay per use.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Fourdoor
    Listing a bunch of things that are unlimited after paying a fee, or re-occurring charges is not an argument showing that it is the perfect way to do things. I can list all kinds of things that you purchase with limits... a car lease has mileage limits! How ghastly! Good thing Tesla doesn't do things like that on their leases! Oh.... wait.... what?

    Also, my house tax is based on how much time I spend there. If it is not my primary residence it goes up by a huge amount.

    From a tech standpoint...
    Itunes:
    Nook books:
    Kindle books:

    Virtually all "physical" items....
    Gasoline: Pay per gallon, not a fee when you purchase a new Ford that gives you free fuel at "Ford" branded gas stations for life (with proprietary nozzles so nobody else can use them).

    Anyway, I don't know how big Apples complaint department is, but they don't seem to be going broke from the "antiquated" way Itunes does things. I think Tesla is smart enough to do things similar to Itunes without screwing it up...

    Keith
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    stopcrazypp
    I was referring to this:
    http://gizmodo.com/5553418/att-just-killed-unlimited-wireless-data-and-screwed-everybody-in-the-process

    Actually, browsing a bit, I see what you were referring to, this is a new plan called "unlimited". However there are major new restrictions vs the older unlimited plans that were killed:
    "After 22GB of usage, reduced speeds may apply. Tethering and Mobile Hotspot use prohibited (except for Connected Car)."
    Get the AT&T Unlimited Data plan when you have AT&T wireless and DIRECTV

    This basically follows the model some have suggested, which is to throttle or ban local use on the supercharger network (which I'm sure you would not support).

    Also, I should point out, that Tesla promised "free long distance for life" but not necessarily unlimited. There is a difference. To use the mobile analogy, see T-mobile's limited "free data for life" plan:
    T-Mobile Reiterates Free Data for Life Details | T-Mobile Newsroom
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    stopcrazypp
    Abuse were those that tethered their phones and then downloaded multiple TBs worth of torrents every month.

    AT&T actually was not that nice, they started throttling data for those on the older unlimited plans.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    My only point is this. Companies are offering more unlimited products than every before. Why? For the consumer? Absolutely not. Because - Its more profitable.
    Period.
    I'm not just listing stuff. I'm making a point that companies are moving in that direction and that the reason is that it's profitable. Is everything unlimited - no. However there are a record number of unlimited widgets out there.

    Its a non arguable truth.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Fourdoor
    Ummm, you realize that article is pure speculation? Could have been written by anyone from this thread, and as condescendingly as it was worded I suspect it may have been!

    You linked to this page multiple times as if it were the words of Prophet Elon given from on high rather than being just another internet opinion...

    Keith
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    LOL. We'll see.

    Less than 18 months to go.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    Once again, I reminded of the saying, "This is why we can't have nice things."

    Those who participate in fraudulent activity are relentless. They absolutely will not stop. EVER. Until they go to jail. Before that point, once they find out something works, they'll tell all their sleazy friends. Each of those guys will spread the word to two or more unsavory characters. And they will all descend upon your firm like locusts to get anything and everything from you as is possible.

    Combating that sort of activity is costly.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    ~*SIGH*~

    A 'small fee' per use would deter legitimate needs to charge long before it did so to so-called 'abusers'. They do what they do because that is their mission in life. They live to make the lives of others miserable, any way they can. Anywhere they can.

    On Xbox LIVE, years ago, when it was first allowed to play online in team-on-team matches using headsets to communicate with team members... Guys on the opposing team would do really annoying things, like have some guy running around yelling incoherently, or spouting racial epithets, or sexual slurs, or playing really loud music that sucked, just ruining the whole thing for everyone else. It was... a strategy. When it worked, everyone on the opposing team would get sick of listening to the bum and would mute the sound. Problem was, originally, that would mute EVERYONE, not just the opposing team, but also your own teammates. So you couldn't effectively communicate with each other on your own team. Eventually the guys at Microsoft fixed it, so you could mute just one guy.

    This type of deterrent would have a terrible effect. Please. Don't worry about it. Everything will be fine. Without pay-per-use.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    ~*SIGH*~

    So, you seem to want a solution to a nonexistent problem before it appears. Don't worry about it. The solution already exists. Buy a Tesla Motors product. Use Superchargers as often as you like. Wherever you like. Watch in joy and excitement as Tesla Motors continues to expand the Supercharger network to cover both Distance and Density. Sorted.

    Elsewise, when using a Supercharger, charge only as much as you need to reach your next stop, plus a buffer of 30% or 50 miles, whichever you prefer. Then, move your car from the Supercharger stall immediately to do your part toward preventing crowding. Get used to the actual range of your car so that you always arrive at a Supercharger with 10% to 20% State of Charge remaining. If you must charge at a Supercharger that is local to you, due to an emergency of some sort, please be courteous of those who may be traveling long distances so as not to inconvenience them.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    This amounts to 'simply' overbilling those who arrive at a Supercharger with greater than 30% State of Charge, or those who must use Superchargers during extremely cold weather, or those who must use paired Superchargers on busy days.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    The 'per mile added' metric varies due to weather conditions, terrain, and driving style. So no, it would not be appropriate as a measure of billing either. Someone who likes to 'Drive It Like You Stole It' will probably get a bit better cost efficiency than someone who chose to 'Drive It Like a Hippie Tree Hugger'.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    No Segregation. No premium, reserved charging spaces. A Tesla is a Tesla, is a Tesla.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    Meh. Naysayers will attack Tesla Motors no matter what. It's what they do. They can't help it. To do otherwise would be logical or something. That is not allowed among the Naysayer contingent. :D

    The only mention on the Tesla Motors website that gives some vague clue as to what 'normal' use would be is the phrase, "...10% charging on Tesla's Supercharger network enabling free long distance travel..." That could be interpreted different ways, though.

    Does it literally mean that Tesla Motors expects you to use a Supercharger no more than 10% of the times you plug in? So, assuming you plug in every night, 365 times a year, that would amount to 90% of your charging... Out of a full 406 times charging per year... And that you could use a Supercharger about 41 times per year.

    Or, does it mean that only 10% of the miles you drive per year would be 'fueled' by a Supercharger? So, if you drove 15,000 miles per year in total... You would be able to add up to 1,500 miles worth of Supercharger 'juice' to your car per year... before being determined an 'abuser'.

    Here the thing is, though... The EPA uses the parameter "Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15,000 annual miles..." to form its calculations of efficiency and cost of driving. If one considers that the 45% highway driving equates to 'long distance' driving... Then someone who drives 15,000 miles per year could use Superchargers to cover 6,750 miles of it without issue, each year.

    So, there is a pretty big gap between those so-called 'average' drivers, and someone like me, who really loves to drive. I already know that I can drive over 35,000 miles per year... And I suspect I might do as many as 50,000 miles per year with Supercharger access... I really believe I'd easily do more than 3,500-to-5,000 miles on Superchargers per year. I might not do quite as much as 15,750-to-22,500 miles using them, though. A bunch would be at home, at residences of Friends and Family, or using Destination Chargers instead.

    But would any of this make me an 'abuser'...?
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Fred Thompson
    It will be interesting to see what Tesla finally comes up with for supercharging the M3 for those that don't want to pay for the unlimited use.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    One can only hope that Tesla Motors' Delivery Specialists are able to drive home the point that a Supercharger location does not equate to being a collection of reserved parking spaces for 'Tesla Only'. They exist to charge cars. The cars should be moved immediately upon completion of a charge, just enough to reach your next destination or Supercharger on your route. Most people should only plug in when the car is below a 30% State of Charge. If they begin practicing now, while Model S and Model X are the available products, they should have it down by the time the Model ? arrives.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    Wait... Hunh? What?!? And here I thought that simply breathing was grounds for being shot in Chicago...

    ~*DUCKS*~
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    I can only go with my personal hopes... That there will be limited Supercharger access (included in the base Model ?), and unlimited Supercharger access (as a paid option, or with higher capacity battery packs). That would be fair, I think.
    • Those who could live with the limited Supercharger network have no great out-of-pocket expense.
    • Those who only want the base version of the car and don't need more range than it offers can opt-in to full Supercharger access without upgrading to a higher capacity battery pack.
    • Those who want maximum range will get full Supercharger access by default.
    I like that. This way there is no pay-per-use, no credit cards, no subscription plan. Simple. Easy. Sorted.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    EVNow
    Yes. Using ideal miles charged would be a good work around.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    These types of logs are already gathered by your car, accessible by the Tesla Motors Mothership anytime. But the Big Brother spycams and whatnot probably are not. Different States have varying laws about filming/recording activity in private/public places. Yet another level of regulation that should be avoided instead of embraced in order to avoid potential litigation.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    I doubt the fee will be that high for Model ?. My guess is that it could be as low as $500. It was only $2,000 for the original Model S 60 upon its initial release, if requested while ordering. The fee was $2,500 if you requested the feature after the car was Delivered. That Model S 60 was Discontinued at one point last year in favor of the Model S 70D, which was joined by the Model S 70 a few months later, and each of those came with Supercharger access enabled by default. The current, recently added Model S 60, costs less than the original, and has Supercharger access included, without restriction.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Red Sage
    C'mon, MAN! Really? You want to blame Tesla Motors for the fact that ineffectual, poorly run, badly placed, often nonworking chargers from third parties aren't expanding faster than Supercharger locations? Do us the favor of pointing out the third party that intended to set up a nationwide system of Level 3 DC fast chargers to rival the capabilities of the Supercharger network at any point during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. Also, show us the cars they intended to power with those chargers. Geez, this reminds me of 'The Little Red Hen' all over again.
    ESPN_-_C'MON MAN.jpg
    �
  • Jun 17, 2016
    SSD420
    Offering unlimited is a way to real people in. When the company makes changes, the consumers are so used to having unlimited that they often opt for the more expensive, less restrictive plans. Or stay in old outdated plans just to keep their unlimited status.
    �
  • Jun 17, 2016
    alseTrick
    Completely agree.

    That "article" can be summed up in two sentences:

    "Tesla continues to build superchargers. They aren't going to add a pay per use option because, well, because I don't like it."
    �
  • Jun 17, 2016
    Fourdoor
    The problem is that a third party with "standard" J1772 CCS operating only from investments and proceeds from the chargers can not compete with a proprietary charging network supported by crap loads of $$$ from investors and vehicle sales.

    If we go back to the gas station analogy where Ford motor company provides proprietary filling stations with free gasoline to Ford vehicles only, and the majority of gasoline powered cars on the road are Fords... how well would an independent gas station compete with the Ford fueling network? The only customers likely to use the non-Ford filling stations are the other gasoline powered cars on the road, so your customer base is automatically cut to less than 50% of all available customers... then you add in not getting expansion money from vehicle sales and no non-Ford fueling network can hope to expand as rapidly. Back to reality and EV's, even in areas with "good" coverage, you get one ChadeMo and one non-ChadeMo (some CCS, some just the DC plug) vs a Tesla Supercharger with 8 or more charging stations.

    Sad thing about this is that if GM had the will, they could have a charging network that rivaled the Tesla Supercharger network in one year, and able to blow it out of the water in less than 5... the amount of money GM has available makes putting chargers at each and every Chevy dealership a trivial expense... but they refuse to do so.

    Keith

    PS: the "more than 50% blah blah blah is based on projected sales of the Model 3 plus other Tesla models in my "ford filling station" analogy above.
    �
  • Jun 17, 2016
    Vic4Model3
    I plan on using Super Charging only a few weeks each year so if unlimited SC is more than $1000, forget about it.
    The rest of the time, charging will be done at home.
    �
  • Jun 17, 2016
    Weezer Fan
    I will only use the Superchargers from Denver to Kansas City once or twice a year. Doesn't make sense to spend a large upfront cost to do that. And if I can't Supercharge, I can't drive to KC. If they charge over $1K for Supercharging, this is a deal breaker for me.
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    Garlan Garner
  • Jun 18, 2016
    Garlan Garner
  • Jun 18, 2016
    ChadFeldheimer
    Strawman. Doesn't have to be nationwide or rival the Supercharger network to be useful. The supercharger network is fantastic, but still far from perfect. For example, there's obvious areas for improvement in density, but near impossible for others to justify investment because they would always serve as a second source.

    The big picture is that I'm not assigning blame at all. I can see how the existing model currently makes sense. I can also see that it won't make sense indefinitely. I estimate that 80-90% of the supercharger network's cost to date has been in infrastructure - with the balance in electricity and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, as it turns out, total cost to date per vehicle delivered rings in right around $2000. When they started the network, they had a clear path to ~$20k gross margins per car. So it made sense to charge for infrastructure and sweep the cost of use under the table.

    Moving forward, as the population of vehicles ages and network coverage completes, costs will shift towards electricity and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, margins will be lower as the product mix shifts towards mass market. There will be pressure to change the model.

    Back in the early days, there was a chicken and the egg problem with respect to charging stations - especially for long distance travel. I applaud Tesla for solving this problem and support them in their efforts (e.g. by buying a vehicle and not using the network!!!). Unfortunately, while they've solving the chicken+egg problem for themselves, they haven't done it for anyone else. I think the supercharger network is a huge overall positive thing - I want to be clear that I'm not assigning blame.

    But I'm also not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore how it could be better.

    Pay per use would be better.
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    diamond.g
    This is why I am curious to see how Chevy is going to handle the Bolt and long distance charging.
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    melindav
    they have offered to share the SC network with other car makers. It's not up to Tesla to push it on others after they've been told "thanks, but no thanks".
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    ETravel
    I plan on buying and not leasing M3. I usually keep my cars for a long time. A pre paid price $1000 or less works for me since I will be charging at home most of the time. Everyone in the forum who already owns a Tesla says they drive more than they use to. So who knows a cost greater than $1,000 ,may work for me. Since options are cheaper at time of ordering I will a purchase the option then if it is priced right for me.
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    JoRey
    It seems like the issue comes to price and what people can justify to pay towards the car. Pay per use, is being proposed for individuals who at most are going to be traveling a couple of times per year. Charging for pay per use has already been solved by evgo, blink and charge point. In each and every state in the union where there are charging stations. I cannot understand why people are so opposed to such a model. When they are in no shape or way affected by it. People must understand that the Model III buyer is an average person. As such, they are substantially more limited in the amount of money they can spend. Pay per use also makes sense in places like china. Where most people who can afford a model iii, live in a apartment. I personally like the idea of making the currrent chargers for long distance driving. Establishing some locations as local, for Tesla owners who do not live in a house.
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    N5329K
    Tesla will know what my car is doing, and where it is. It will know when I pull onto a SC stall and plug in. It will know how long I am there, and when the car disconnects. that's why I would like a monthly bill from them to cover my occasional SC use. They can add a surcharge to handle billing and for convenience.
    Otherwise, the car will charge in my garage.
    Is this really so difficult?
    Robin
    �
  • Jun 18, 2016
    Shopaholic
  • Jun 18, 2016
    melindav
  • Jun 18, 2016
    ArtC
    @melindav +1
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    SageBrush
    I could readilly believe that post was thrown out just so you would have something to munch on.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    SageBrush
  • Jun 19, 2016
    zenmaster
    This info is already being collected, regardless of billing arrangement. The SC receives a unique ID from the car.
    But despite that, there's also the car's radio connection and GPS?
    Not sure what you're going on about.

    Besides, monthly billing is not a solution to pay per use for the SC network, when the intent of the network is to facilitate long-distance travel and most people do infrequent long-distance travel.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    Fourdoor
    My Mother is old enough to remember "rural electrification" when the national power grid was being established, and it really made no sense at all to put in the infrastructure to provide electricity to people in rural areas... huge expense for small customer base. The power companies didn't provide free power... the provided free lightbulbs! A standard free lightbulb from back then lasted multiple times as long as a modern incandencent bulb, and if one did burn out you just called up the power company and they provided a free replacement. A few years after the grid was complete the free lightbulbs went away.

    Other car makers know that the business model of the supercharger network is not sustainable. Sure, GM could put a Supercharger port on the Bolt... then Tesla would make some $$$ on enabling it. Not many car companies want to put $$$ into the pocket of a rival.

    Pure Speculation Below:

    I wonder if Tesla would be willing to install and enable supercharger charging ports into existing non-Tesla electric cars? That is another potential revenue stream they could exploit. Looking at current aftermarket charging systems (like Plugless charging) they don't seem to have any issues with battery warranty... but the power is routed through the standard on board charger, not multiple times the "normal" charging rate. I can see a company voiding your battery / charging system warranty for getting a new charging port installed.

    Keith
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    Jersey Shore Tom
    Please explain why the business model is not sustainable. Numbers would make the explanation more persuasive.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    diamond.g
    Based on GM's Fleet guide Chevy isn't even including a Level 2 charger with the Volt, let alone a DC charger (both are 'options'). I am finding the conversation about paying (per use) for DCFC in a Tesla somewhat amusing.
    Tesla is building their network because no one else wanted to, and the 3rd party places that do have DFDC don't have it in a high enough power, so you end up waiting a long time to get a decent charge. It isn't surprising none of the third party charging options set up shop near the congested Super Charging stations as those places aren't congested all year round so it currently isn't likely they could make their money back. As it is now, vehicle sales are allowing SuCs to be placed in places that are low traffic and are not likely to return a profit if they were pay per use.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    melindav
    Not so much low traffic as long distance traffic (as is the intention)
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    diamond.g
    True, maybe one day Tesla would make a heat map that shows utilization of the Super Charger network. It would be real interesting to see the usage of the SuCs in 'rural' areas.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    melindav
    The two close to me (90 miles to the north and 40 miles to the south) are both on the interstate in towns that I doubt have many resident owners if any, but a ton of traffic going by. Both were also in the first wave of supercharger installed in 2013 (if I remember something like #12 and 13 or #13 and 14 installs) so back when Tesla was truly looking at the locations to meet long distance spans and no cater to the populated areas (not to say that's what they are doing now)
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    N5329K
    What I'm suggesting is that all the information needed to bill owners for charge time already exists. All Tesla needs to do is issue a Tesla-branded credit card to Model 3 owners (wouldn't that be cool?). SC time can show up on the account and be billed monthly, as in any credit card. No modifications of the SC network would be needed, no attendants, no point of sale. All done OTA. Never use a SC? Never see a bill. The proscription against selling watts could be finessed by calling it a facility fee, or a parking fee. The entire operation could be structured to pay for itself and then some.
    Robin
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    zenmaster
    That would work for me, although I'd rather just put the appropriate use-fee amount into the SC account sometime before the trip. I bet that could be handled through a phone app or through a car's UI. I'd also like the app to tell me which chargers on my nav route are most likely to be available at that time of day.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    ohmman
    Tesla has a really cool Supercharger dashboard at the Hawthorne design center which shows network-wide and charger-specific statistics. We have all been wanting that data to be publicly available as a customer-facing webpage, but it hasn't ever happened.
    [?IMG]
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    zenmaster
    Only 66 cars charged in a 24hr period among all global SC sites?
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    ohmman
    That view is zoomed to Hawthorne. And it was in 2014.

    Here is a thread on TMC with a couple of shots of the dashboard.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    diamond.g
    Yeah, that! That would be sweet as a web based option. I wonder if that would give away too much to competitors.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    TaoJones
    Indeed. Cluttering the SC network with ppu (pay per use) is a miserable idea. Even subscriptions are pushing it. What exactly is the FUD now? Saturation network-wide? Not gonna happen. Today, 97% of the network does not come close to reaching capacity.

    So ppu is the recommendation to address 3% of the network? Talk about overkill. Tesla has already committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE for 2 years now. The elegance of the network is in large measure due to simplicity. Minutes matter. The only thing that approaches the worseness (sure it's a word) of ICEing by our own (or ICEing by ICEs) is delaying charging due to ppu problems. It's the very definition of introducing friction into a frictionless system.

    I've visited ~150 SCs in less than 18 months. With the exception of holiday periods at chokepoints due to an as-yet incomplete buildout (a point that the FUDslingers tend to gloss over), maybe a handful of SCs have been saturated - and that means less than a handful outside of California.

    Tesla is more than capable of solving a 3% problem without kludging any kind of ppu solution - that goes for now, and for 5 years from now with 10x more cars on the road. Remember that to date, the entire network has essentially been paid for with ZEV credits.

    With that said, this does leave a gap - people who buy a Model 3 without the SC option to save a few bucks who then decide they want to take a few trips. Well, you can't have it both ways. But you can have a Chademo adapter.

    On a slightly more serious note, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla floated a one-time 30-day SC trial period of which new owners could avail themselves (similar to the recent AP trial offer). Remember that we still don't know what Tesla will charge for the one-time SC activation - so again, all of this support for ppu could be a mountain of effort for a molehill of savings over the life of the car/term of ownership.

    Or just a colossal effort at finding a solution in search of a problem. That happens to potentially complicate matters for the rest of us.

    Again - 97% of the network is fine today and will be fine tomorrow. Tesla has committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE. Tesla welcomes the non-garaged, and as much as it's easy to try to castigate garaged locals and livery, neither contingent presents a statistically significant impact. Most owners do not use SCs today, and most will not use SCs tomorrow.

    All will be well. Cue the Animal House screenshot and remember to vote for Senator Blutarsky.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    jkk_
    You seem to have a few typos in your post, I believe what you meant to say was:

    ;)

    But in all seriousness, great post and great information, thanks!
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    JeffK
    See now if this was customer facing we'd know if there was going to be congestion before we possibly exit the freeway to stop at a supercharger.
    �
  • Jun 19, 2016
    SageBrush
    THAT is awesome. They even know the car color ;-)
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    Red Sage
    Quoted for TRUTH.

    [?IMG]
    [?IMG] [?IMG]
    [?IMG] [?IMG]
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Wow....if there is a way to put folks down...you did it.

    I'm an above average person that lives in an above average house. I set my own standards of what average is.
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    When you (JoRey) are talking about 400,000 people, saying "they are..." is almost certainly wrong. Whatever you say in that "..." is almost certainly wrong => such as Black people are...Women are....Model 3 buyers are.... [pretty damn offensive opening isn't it]
    Perhaps you are "..." and HOPE the rest who are doing one similar thing are identical in all other ways.
    If YOU can't afford an EV bill, don't push that on others who are different than you.
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    SageBrush
    Time for us Peons to unite ;-)

    Personally, I think JoRey was having a Marie Antoinette moment: "Well ... if they cannot drive Ludi's, give them a Model 3. "
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    MiamiNole
    Barney told me that everyone is special, everyone in his or her own way.
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    And to the whole forum world - I'm having a bad day and lashed out on some threads in an unusually aggressive/pessimistic tone. Perhaps accurate, but not the tone/mood I wish to share. Please forgive my mood swing.
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    Rocky_H
    Let�s see, where do you live? Oh, Anaheim California. That explains a lot. Speaking of explaining, I�ll explain a bit to you. Your perception of this is skewed by your living in an area where housing prices are OUTRAGEOUS, compared to most of the country. I get that in your world, people who can buy the ridiculously expensive houses have tons of money, and can buy an $80K+ car (or two). People in that area who can�t afford the houses but live in apartments still buy $30K to $50K cars.

    You are apparently unfamiliar with most of the middle of the country, where housing prices and incomes are much lower. Most people, regardless of where they live can�t even consider an $80K+ car. People who are doing well do mostly live in houses, but a $30K or $40K car is still quite significant. Most of the lower income people who do live in apartments in those areas are more considering $15K cars�generally used.

    Seriously, go read through a lot of the comments on Tesla�s posts on Facebook. People laugh and make fun of the idea that people are using the word �affordable� to refer to the Model 3, because it is out of reach at $35K+. Many people frequently ask for Tesla to make a $15K or $20K car so that regular people can get one.
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    Red Sage
    I read, and write, an ellipsis as a pause. What exactly do you read it as...?
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    Red Sage
    Barney must die.
    �
  • Jun 20, 2016
    Red Sage
    I often agree with you, and that line of chastisement may well have been deserved, but I wanted to comment about this paragraph in particular...

    About 25 years ago, the average price for a new car was right around $15,000 to $17,000. That was a long time ago. The majority of cars sold today cost in the $22,000 to $24,000 price range. The average sale price of a new car is over $31,000 today. With these market conditions, anyone asking Tesla Motors to offer a mass market car at under $15,000 might as well be asking them to build a car to be sold at under $10,000 or to be given away for free. The result would be the same: failure, and bankruptcy.

    Most major manufacturers have already abandoned the sub-$15,000 price point for entry-level cars. Those are companies that build millions of vehicles per year, and they have determined that even they cannot provide new vehicles at that price point any longer, despite their deep pockets, influence with suppliers, and extreme capacity. Before long, those traditional automobile manufacturers will have abandoned the sub-$20,000 market as well (reports are that Dodge/Chrysler already have). Just watch. It is unfair to expect a relative newcomer to sell vehicles at a price point that cannot hope to be profitable, even for long established players.

    See, while people may ask for 'cheap' cars to be available... They don't buy them. Typically, 'cheap' cars are outsold by cars that cost twice as much or more. People who buy new cars want to buy what they want to drive.

    During the month of May 2016, only one of the top 20 best selling passenger vehicles in the US cost under $15,000 as a base price. The Nissan Versa at #14 does show a base price of $11,990... The Kia Forte has a $15,990 base price currently, and comes in at #19. The Nissan Sentra starts at $16,780 and reached #9. The Mazda 3 is $17,845 to start, and was #18 in May. Chevrolet Cruze #11 is $16,620 as a base price.

    More telling perhaps, is the Year-to-Date sales in the US. Hyundai Accent at least cracks the top 25 at #24, with a $14,745 base price. As above, the $11,990 Nissan Versa makes a decent showing at #14.

    From a certain perspective, a $35,000 base price is indeed affordable, considering what the Model ? will be. It is a car that would have been literally impossible to build 30, 20, 15 years ago. Naysayers have claimed it was impossible since well before Tesla Motors was founded. It is something that skeptical folk will still proclaim is 'impossible' even when the cars are driving around their local neighborhoods. It will be a $35,000 car with the Performance to rival a $46,000 BMW 340i Sedan while not using a single drop of gasoline or diesel fuel. Running on electricity, its cost per mile drops significantly, resulting in what will probably be 100+ MPGe. Because of that, it will have a likely cost of ownership that puts it in line with a Midsize sedan that costs around $25,000. Possibly even less if a buyer qualifies for Federal and State incentives. And the more you drive it, the more affordable it will be.

    Further...? Until someone actually manufactures long range electric cars en masse... And sells them to people who WANT to own them... There won't be a potential market for them among used cars that are 'affordable' to those who cannot, or will not, buy a new car. Los Angeles is covered with used car lots that offer BMW 3-Series or GMC Yukons for 'cheap'.
    �
  • Jun 21, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    �
  • Jun 21, 2016
    melindav
    To add to @Rocky_H point that housing costs vary significantly regionally, many places (The NW specifically) rent has shot up so much in the last five years that you can buy for less than you can rent. So basing economic judgements on if one rents vs owns no longer works.
    There is a lot more to someone's finances than how they pay for their home. I have friends with houses and more debt from other bills than their house is worth and renter friends with zero debt and everything thing in between.
    �
  • Jun 21, 2016
    Rocky_H

    @Red Sage , I love ya, man, and I enjoy your posts on both forums, but you are arguing against something I am not saying because you missed the point.

    Your very long comment would be pertinent if I had said Tesla should offer a $20,000 car. I never said that. I had said that is what other people have asked for, just to indicate that for much of the country, $10K or $15K or $20K is really all they can afford to spend on a car. Tesla is CLEARLY not going to do that. They CAN�T do that right now because battery prices just aren�t that low, and I have told those people who ask for it repeatedly that it�s NOT going to happen. Sure, people want it, but reality is tough.

    My point was about people in the Tesla forums mistakenly treating a $40K car purchase as if it�s pocket change because their perception is shaped by the ridiculously wealthy areas of the country they live in. They extrapolate from the really general statistic of wealthier trending with higher ratio of houses to see that people around them in houses have Porsches, Tesla Model Ses, Mercedes S500, etc. and they think, �Oh, the Model 3 will be cheaper, so that�s what the poorer people will get.�

    Yes, the average new car price is now about $31,000, but that is of course the mean, not the median, so that $31,000 mean is pulled up by the cars that are $60K+, while a lot of cars sell in the mid 20�s, below that average.

    So my real point is that in most of the country, the upper income homeowners can afford Model 3, but lower income people still can�t and just buy used cars. Cars are pretty well made these days and last a while, so they are the cars that were $30K new and are selling a few years old for $15K.
    �
  • Jun 21, 2016
    JeffK
    When you go to price a new car look only for the ones that fit families... and they are all pretty expensive.

    When Elon says 50% of the population should be able to afford the Model 3 he's also talking about the eventual used car market. As richer people get hardware upgrades they are going to be selling off their older Model 3s.
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    Red Sage
    A good point, but I tend to make it a different way. I never rest on the concepts of 'purchasing power' or 'adjusted dollars'. I see those as financial constructs that have no actual value in the real world.

    To me 'affordable' means that you can buy something without feeling broke afterward. Someone who is 'able to make the payments' is not necessarily getting something they can afford. I believe more in liquidity than credit ratings. Better to buy things outright whenever you can, and pay no interest on anything if you can get away with it.

    It may be considered 'smart' in the modern world to 'carry a balance' and never pay things off -- but it seems like a surrender to the notion of being eternally in debt to me. Enough have given that surrender that the concept of having 'good credit' now means you have proven your willingness to remain in debt.

    If you can buy a $15,000 used car and still have $30,000 in the bank, you are in good shape. If you have less than $1,800,000 in assets, it probably isn't a good idea to buy a $150,000 car. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck just to 'make the payments', you are undoubtedly living beyond your means. Find the ratio that works best for you.
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    Red Sage
    Pardon me, but in the midst of your chastisement, it didn't seem as if you were arguing as a Devil's Advocate. My point is that for people who actually buy new cars, the Tesla Model ? is every bit as 'affordable' as every other new vehicle on the market, and to the very same audience. Those who are not, or won't be, on the market for a new car, are not, and shouldn't be, a concern for Tesla Motors. IF you are able to responsibly consider a purchase of a new, top-of-the-line Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Chevrolet Malibu, Nissan Altima, Hyundai Sonata, or Kia Optima (cars that each sold over 150,000 units in the US during 2015), but would NOT have gone 'upscale' to a Lexus IS, BMW 3-Series, AUDI A4, Cadillac ATS, or Mercedes-Benz C-Class...? You may very well find the Tesla Model ? to be 'affordable'.
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    tsla007
    Why not have both options at time of purchase? I don't understand this question at all.
    I would just put do you want lifetime sc at time of purchase-if they answer yes 1500.00 more.
    If not they will have to pay whatever at the charger. Paying at the charger is not for me.
    We all have opinions. I believe the cost should be absorbed by all Tesla purchasers no matter how
    much you use it. It seems the only ones concerned about it are those in Cali where the chargers are always full
    and a waiting line and that will only get worse before it gets better.
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    Your rules of financial management are rock solid. Years ago, I bought a car and made payments (say $300/mo). After I paid off the car, I kept the car and continued to make payments to myself at $300/mo. Rather than pay the bank 5%, I earned 5%. Next time I bought a car, I had the cash, but continued to pay myself $300/mo. This car account still pays insurance/tires/depreciation/deductibles, etc. Years ago, I needed that separate account to help me stay focused on what a car costs. Now I can do it with a spreadsheet. I watch car commercials advertise "payments of only $300/mo" and just cringe at the distraction from true cost. There are simpletons that buy that way, which is why the ads keep coming. I too have tried to explain finances (to otherwise quite bright folks)...but some just can't get Present Value concepts.

    That being said ---I can now make an even better calculation ---should I borrow $60,000 at 1.49% APR, or should I pull money from my investments (pay cash). Will my investments return more than 1.49% over the next few years? Nice to be able to evaluate Opportunity Cost. If only my crystal ball was clearer than a bowling ball I could determine if my investments will rise or fall over the short term. Over an intermediate and long term, the market has always been rising.
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    Fourdoor
    If the investment you speak of is your home, and you can either re-finance or take a second mortgage at a low interest rate I would prefer that over taking equity out of a stock portfolio, taking equity out of the home doesn't hurt it's potential growth like taking equity out of a stock. Also, since the interest is tax deductible on a mortgage, you may have an effective interest rate lower than 1.49%.... up to you to do the math to see if that is correct for your situation :)

    Keith
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    Thanks Keith. I paid off my home loans quite awhile ago, so resurrecting them would have some front end cost -appraisal, loan origination etc. I could also Margin my stock portfolio - quick but interest rates are not 1.49% fixed for 72 months. I could cash in some stock winners and ensure a tax bill, which can go into the $7500 tax credit. I could transfer from Trad IRA to Roth IRA and generate the tax bill, but not capture the cash and still need a loan. I could turn my mattress inside out and find dollar bills.
    Its nice to have options, and the time/talent to weigh them. Some folks are not equipped to perform Opportunity Cost evaluations.
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Equity in a stock portfolio? Who's stock portfolio has done anything in the past 5 years? Mine hasn't. LOL
    �
  • Jun 22, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    Sorry to hear that. I just bought DJIA and S&P index funds and sat back [ and my favorite is BRKA ]. Yes, some chatter, but up nicely. I don't chase the dips, buy and hold. Its worked for me.
    �
  • Jun 23, 2016
    cpa
    Keith, ya gotta be careful about deducting home mortgage interest on your personal tax return. The regs are tricky when someone pulls cash out of their home and does not use that money directly for home improvements or for investment purposes under the tracing rules.

    I am not saying that pulling cash from the equity in your home is wrong, and the interest cannot be deducted; I am saying you better watch where you step. Talk to a professional or read the fine IRS publication that concerns itself with deducting mortgage interest.
    �
  • Jun 23, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Hmmm. This forum vote is really close: What is the SolarCity merger going to do for this discussion?

    SolarCity.png
    �
  • Jun 23, 2016
    alseTrick
    Interesting idea. I would hope they'd design it to maximize chargers and not keep the inefficient gas station layout though. Is that pic from an article, or just "fan art" from somewhere?
    �
  • Jun 23, 2016
    Garlan Garner
  • Jun 23, 2016
    stopcrazypp
    Probably nothing. Elon's pitch for Solar City is about bundling solar panels and home batteries with the cars, not really about solar panels for superchargers. So far there are only a handful of supercharger locations with solar panels and that is unlikely to change until the network has matured (money is currently better spent on expanding the network rather than on installing panels).
    �
  • Jun 23, 2016
    ChadFeldheimer
    Offering to share the SC network is just a feel good PR move (just like the open source patents offer). It makes no sense for other manufacturers to pay Tesla money so that their customers can plug their non-Tesla cars into Tesla Superchargers.

    If Tesla were serious about sharing the SC network to accelerate the adoption of non-Tesla EV's, they would create adapters (e.g. the reverse of the Tesla CHAdeMO) for non-Tesla EV owners to buy and use.
    �
  • Jun 23, 2016
    Fourdoor
    I don't have the education or time to self educate on picking my own investments, my $$$ is in a 401K set up with a retirement date far in the future and "high risk" strategy switching to medium risk about 5 years from retirement and low risk 2.5 years from retirement. No gain over the last year or so, but the previous 4 years before that had good growth for me.

    Interesting, banks advertise to get people to do second mortgage / refinance all the time with no mention that the interest may not be tax deductible... but they are in the business of selling loans, not helping customers :)

    Keith
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Red Sage
    It is precisely because Tesla Motors IS SERIOUS that they don't do such a thing. This would cause the very Supercharger Apocalypse that so many Tesla Owners are afraid the Model 3 would bring on. Because you would end up with Supercharger stalls clogged with plugin hybrids that need throttled down charging rates to protect their tiny little battery packs that provide only 9 to 20 miles of fully electric range.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    ohmman
    mod note: moved a couple of posts to snippiness.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Red Sage
    One of the poll options above was:
    In case I haven't mentioned it already, maybe sixty or seventy times, in this thread already...? Here in Los Angeles, that would be more like $9.00 to go 150 miles instead. Even gas stations make their money from food, drink, and convenience items, above and beyond the cost of the gasoline or diesel fuel they provide. I believe that in order for electric vehicles to be universally accepted, they must be immediately, demonstrably, entirely less expensive to own and operate than comparable ICE vehicles. In order for Supercharger access in a pay-per-use, or per month, or per hour, or per kWh situation to equal the profitability of a gas station, so that Tesla Motors could become 'The NeXT EXXON!!!' it would be necessary for the fees that cover that Supercharger access to cost more per mile than gasoline.

    There is no reason to charge incremental 'at the pump' fees for Supercharger access unless your intent is to either: 1) discourage use; or 2) make a profit. The notion that it would be done to 'break even' is simply ridiculous. I believe Tesla Motors wants to encourage Supercharger use. I believe that an attempt to profit from Superchargers in a direct monetary fashion would backfire, eroding the perceived advantage of driving electric that Tesla Motors has worked so hard to establish. Yes, even if it ultimately 'cost less' than paying for gasoline -- which as noted already, I do not believe can be done profitably.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    stopcrazypp
    No one says the PPU rate has to be profitable. The supercharger network is not profitable today anyways as a unit (it is subsidized as a split between car sales and advertising expense). All PPU does is provide a bit of extra revenue, give more options to the buyer, and provide a way to control usage. You may be opposed to it, but from the polls obviously a lot of people want that option.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    The vote is pretty much 50/50. "A lot of people do and a lot of people don't". With that said..... "There are obviously a lot of people that Don't want that option".
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    wallet.dat
    Bitcoin
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Garlan Garner
  • Jun 24, 2016
    stopcrazypp
    Yes, but Red Sage has continually argued that PPU shouldn't even be an option. A 50/50 split shows that is not consistent with the wishes of many others. It would be a different story if people overwhelmingly voted for a one time fee.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I agree with that statement 10000000%.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    zenmaster
    I'm thinking they'd much rather produce a car with longer range if they could. The number of costly SC stations required is inversely proportional to the car's range. I don't see the benefit for Tesla to create that type of dependency for long-distance travel as it's more of a necessary evil.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Two weeks ago Elon stated that its amazingly simple to create a car with a 300+ mile range. They could eliminate the frunk and trunk and fill it with batteries. Also, the MS would have 0 options and only 1 motor. The question at a$100K price point...who would buy a $100K car with no options and only 1 motor? That price point wouldn't work.

    One of the primary benefits for Tesla concerning SC's is that they are the only one in the game doing it. States/Cities/Countries are loving the all-in-one EV profile. You can buy their car and charge at their stations and get anywhere in the US that you want. That sells!!! Most people that are able to purchase an MS/MX loaded are seemingly more concerned about convenience than price. Tesla is providing convenience which is in turn selling cars. Their SC's are selling cars.

    Tesla loves Spain in return with Supercharger expansion across country
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    TaoJones
    Hrm? The 120kW battery (5 years of 5-10% battery improvement per year, figured at the low end) will provide all of 350 miles range. No loss of trunk or frunk or AWD necessary.

    Now, 500 miles... at this point a different story but who's to say what will be in 10 years? Porsche will probably offer such a battery along with, say, a network of 4 800A SCs just to say they did. Not all that practical, but if you've ever tried to option a Porsche, you're used to it :).
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    JeffK
    He said this about 500mi+ last November
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Did he? WOW. I suppose that's par for the course ( If you know what I mean).
    I wonder if its worth taking a poll as to who believes there will be a 2017 delivery. LOL
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Fourdoor
    Sure there will be a late 2017 delivery, it will be a $60,000+ version of the model 3 and only 5 of them will roll off of the assembly line. And by roll off of the assembly line I mean they will be hand built for delivery to the people rich enough to be put at the head of the list for the "affordable" Tesla :)

    This is why I plan on leasing or purchasing some other BEV while I wait for the Model 3 to actually be available to the public in large numbers in 2019 or thereabouts.

    Keith
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Well that raises my hopes because I plan on getting a maxed out M3. unfortunately I live in Chicago Il.....sooo as I hear....California is first
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    Red Sage
    Considering that you can already buy a Porsche Panamera that costs over $260,000...? I wouldn't doubt that if a Mission-e actually ever is built it will start at around $300,000 and go up from there. And any 'network' for charging would be an option for the people who bought the car to install at their own expense on land that they acquired themselves.

    As for the mythical 500 mile range battery...? Elon Musk noted that could be done way back in 2014. The fact of the matter is that most people who got one would only use it to drive 350 mile stretches at a time. They would be happy to arrive at a Supercharger with a 20% reserve as a buffer, then recharge to 90% while having lunch. I think that for now, Elon and JB Straubel would prefer someone who knows they are only going to drive 350 miles between stops to be content with a 380-to-400 mile range instead of carting around the extra 100+ miles of capacity without due cause.
    �
  • Jun 24, 2016
    TaoJones
    I know I'd be happy with 70% (usable/used between 20% and 90%) enabling 350 (even rated) miles from a 500-mile battery. Even better if it was a 600-mile battery software-limited to 500 miles, but I didn't bring enough for everybody :).
    �
  • Jun 25, 2016
    JeffK
    He did yeah, but he always mentions it with the caveat that it's not cost effective or efficient until capacity per unit mass is increased so you aren't carrying around extra weight and it's actually affordable.
    He says 250 - 300 mi is a reasonable goal for now and will work for the majority of people.

    I believe Elon will work his butt off to do his best to make 2017 deliveries happen... (not for 500+ mi versions of course )
    �
  • Jun 25, 2016
    jkk_
    And to be honest, 300 real world miles, not EPA or NEDC useless miles, would be perfect. That would have enough range so that one doesn't have to worry about it even in the worst kind of conditions.
    �
  • Jun 25, 2016
    jgs
    For an additional fee to be named later, Porsche will have a helicopter carrying a large genset meet you wherever you are and recharge you. It will be free for life, once you've paid the up-front-fee. For a modest additional charge, the chopper will follow you so you don't have to wait for it to arrive, just stop your car near a large flat area.
    �
  • Jun 25, 2016
    Red Sage
    I believe that Elon Musk and JB Straubel also noted that the 'sweet spot' will be around 350 miles of usable 'Real World' range.
    �
  • Jun 25, 2016
    Red Sage
    I get the impression that Elon Musk and JB Straubel would prefer to build cars that have what they perceive as 'enough' range in the near future. That is, I don't believe they agree with the folks that claim a 200 mile range is 'too much' or that the performance characteristics of Tesla Motors vehicles are 'unnecessary'... But they do want to strike a balance between the quantity of vehicles they build and the battery pack capacity each one holds, so that they can make the absolute most of Gigafactory output. I just hope that given that attitude, they are aware it has thus far always been the vehicle with the highest available battery pack capacity that was their best seller since 2012. I rather expect that to be the case for Model ? as well.
    �
  • Jun 25, 2016
    Red Sage
  • Jun 27, 2016
    greenemg
    I'm wondering if they will be bundling the Supercharging with an upgraded battery and/or bigger charger to ensure that they both cover the costs of the energy, and to minimize the time to charge.
    �
  • Jun 27, 2016
    RobertF
    Whatever system it should, in my opinion, contain some kind of incentive that rewards trip use and penalizes local "free lunch" abuse. Some kind of free outside, say 50miles, of an owners home and pay per use inside. Not sure how Tesla would charge, maybe just a bill.
    �
  • Jun 27, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Wait a minute.... WHAT???? ONLY 3 times in 60 days were there 2 cars at a SC overnight. They NEVER competed for a charging spot?
    Where in the world are you guys congested SC's? pictures of congested SC's? These folks never ran into congestion.
    Is this congestion thing a farce?

    Electric Route 66


    We primarily used Tesla�s Navigation tools on our dashboard. We visited 42 Destination Charging spots. It was like home, when away from home; every morning the car was fully charged. What a strategic fit for B&B�s and forward-looking hotel chains. Most had two level 2 chargers, one being Tesla�s charger. Only 3 times in 60 days did we have two cars charging overnight at once. We never competed for charging spot. We had a full, 243 miles of range, on most days. Our days consisted of a couple fluid exchange stops, a lunch at a Supercharger Station and then an early (3 PM) stop, often at a Destination Charger location � surprise lodging.
    �
  • Jun 28, 2016
    ChadFeldheimer
    I wonder if Tesla could account for this by, say, implementing a payment scheme where users pay for time spent in a stall. That way, each user pays in proportion to resources consumed and also contributes to further expansion!

    Remember, to accelerate the transition to sustainable transport, we want to be INCLUSIVE (to all EVs). Not EXCLUSIVE (to only Teslas).
    �
  • Jun 28, 2016
    ChadFeldheimer
    FYI, it seems pretty clear that they didn't overnight at SC's - they used destination chargers.

    Personal anecdote: I've only supercharged once. I didn't have to wait, but when I got back to my car I found someone waiting. They pulled in immediately after I left. This was in Aurora, IL (only 4 stalls).
    �
  • Jun 28, 2016
    Red Sage
    Here's the problem with setting up that type of 'payment scheme'... With Lithium-ion batteries, you must taper the amount of charge over time. Otherwise, you will damage the battery pack. In certain weather conditions, charging will be slower. At a busy Supercharger, paired charging stalls will operate at a slower than maximum rate. All of these factors affect the amount of time that someone will spend at a Supercharger. These are limitations in the technology. There is no way to automatically determine whether someone is spending a lot of time at a Supercharger because of 'abuse'. The Customer should not be penalized for that by being forced to pay additional fees.
    �
  • Jun 28, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I can imagine that to be true. There are a lot of affluent folks around the Aurora / Naperville area. I work in Warrenville. They can afford MS's. It may be more feasible for Tesla to install more SC's in those areas. There are over 20 out where I live and I can assure you that our Country Club Hills SC's ( south east of you) will never be full.
    �
  • Jun 28, 2016
    zenmaster
    I'd be surprised if the charger didn't know when the charge was complete, regardless of charging speed.
    �
  • Jun 28, 2016
    jgs
    Ah, but is "abuse" overstaying a 100% charge? Or overstaying enough of a charge to get you to your destination? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question intended to illustrate that "abuse" is a slippery slope.)
    �
  • Jul 25, 2016
    JeffK
    It'll definitely be cheaper to manufacture at least.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)