Jul 27, 2016
dgpcolorado Last I checked, the Sub Zero package was heated steering wheel, heated mirrors, heated wipers and heated rear seats. Of those, only the heated steering wheel is of interest (and I really miss having that) but it isn't worth $1000 to me. Do you really get much benefit from the other parts of the package? If carrying passengers in the back seat I suppose it would make sense to have heated rear seats. But heated mirrors and wipers really aren't something that I've ever needed in my climate, which is probably not as wet and icy as yours. Coldest it gets here is typically -20�C or so, a few times a winter, but I once saw -30�C. -10�C to -15�C is pretty common, but usually at night, with warmer daytime temperatures.�
Jul 27, 2016
S'toon As you say, anecdotal evidence. That's the exception, not the rule. Heck, where I live there are no superchargers within driving distance of any Tesla on the market. That's my anecdotal evidence.�
Jul 27, 2016
eisbock I mean, there's a whole lot more on top of the $300k installation. Rent, electricity, maintenance, ongoing R&D.
Also, for a car company whose primary source of revenue comes from selling cars, losing $20k per car is pretty obscene. I'm sure once the supercharger network is adequately expanded, they will undoubtedly turn a profit, but the additions of superchargers and stores and all that jazz require money, and that's something Tesla clearly needs right now.�
Jul 27, 2016
eisbock Um... okay? If you don't want to supercharge, nobody's forcing you to pay for the network. That's the beauty of offering it as an option. But clearly people value supercharging since you just told me it's a massive advantage, so people will pay for it and should be excited about paying more because it means a larger network.�
Jul 27, 2016
ecarfan Incorrect. The Tesla Supercharger network build costs are self-financing based on vehicle revenue. The ongoing cost of electricity at the Superchargers is literally a rounding error in Tesla's annual budget.
It costs $150,000 to $250,00 (in the US) to build a Supercharger location that can charge hundreds of cars a day. It's more expensive to build a new gas station.
In addition, the very existence of the rapidly expanding Supercharger network is a sales driver for Tesla as well as a marketing tool. ICE owners see a Supercharger and Teslas parked at it charging and it sparks interest. Plus it is a huge competitive advantage for Tesla since no other EV manufacturer has anything like it, and won't for years.�
Jul 27, 2016
JeffK Remember they don't actually "lose $20k per car", they simply spend more than they are making into other investments. They are generating > 25% gross margins on the current vehicles. Their revenue is over 4 billion dollars, they report a loss due to spending and rightly so if the Model 3 sells as expected, it should more than make up previous losses.�
Jul 27, 2016
vinnie97 I'm calling it, $1k for Model 3 lifetime supercharging.�
Jul 27, 2016
FlatSix911 Close but ... the correct answer will be $2K for for Model 3 lifetime supercharging
Why would Tesla charge less than the current fee for legacy Model S 60kW owners?�
Jul 28, 2016
AustinPowers I never contested that, did I? Actually I completely agree that offering it as an option on the Model 3 instead of factoring it into the price (which Tesla might do, at least partly, anyway, we will never know for sure) is the best way to go for their mass-market offering.
What we were discussing was the possible actual pricing of that option and whether that option would be worth it to us at said price.
Not so sure about the "being excited about paying more", but other than that, yes, sure, a lot of people value supercharging, and rightly so. Just because people like me don't need it doesn't mean it is not a great offering.�
Jul 28, 2016
Shawn Snider I say its required because the defrost vents in the dash aren't there if you don't get SZ package.�
Jul 28, 2016
No2DinosaurFuel What about maintenance cost for you to use those stations when needed? What about the cost of the equipment? What about the construction and land cost? What about the fact that this is a free for life of the model s which can theoretically be really long in the future whether you are still using the car or not. Used model will still have free supercharging. So I think the $2500 is actually a discount for many.�
Jul 28, 2016
lklundin I think that in at least some jurisdictions, the direct association of a payment with a delivered amount of electricity (i.e. the per-per-use model) will be a serious mistake.
In the current model, you prepay for SC access i.e. the technical gadget in your car, the electricity _and_ the infrastructure.
If instead Tesla charges a price for a specific amount of electricity, they may very well be deemed an electricity supplier with each sale being subject to all kinds of taxes.
And since it has already been pointed out that in the current model the actual electricity cost to Tesla is a tiny fraction of the total cost, I would not be surprised if their future sales will have only unlimited(*) SC access prepaid, possibly as an option.
(*) Maybe this became 'unlimited long distance SC access' for some definition of 'long', per an Elon Musk statement.�
Jul 28, 2016
T3slaTulips 1. Because they are selling to a different market.
2. Because a Model 3 is more efficient (requires less energy for the same amount of distance.)
3. Because Model 3 sales volume will be much higher than S/X.�
Jul 28, 2016
Winston Wolf Because as with everything Model S/X...it's paying to make the Model 3 more affordable to the average consumer?
I too think that the introduction of the Model 3 will come with a lower SC cost, and when it does that will become the new cost for the S 60kwh owners as well.�
Jul 28, 2016
eisbock Darn, I thought I had implied this when I said "I'm sure once the supercharger network is adequately expanded, they will undoubtedly turn a profit." Oh well.�
Jul 28, 2016
eisbock Right, but we don't need to build any more gas stations. Sure, it costs loads of money to build a gas station, but that's a moot point. Those are also independent and turn profits, so there is incentive to build gas stations for the owners. Once a supercharger is built, there is zero tangible return.
The cost to build a hydrogen station is astronomical and that will certainly be a challenge for hydrogen car adoption. The one thing EVs have going for them is the cheap cost of charging stations, but they're still damn expensive. If they truly were self-financing, Tesla wouldn't be losing money right now. Tesla is hoping to stay in business long enough until the network is adequately built-out, but until then, they'll be losing money.
Sure, factories and stores and other expansions also cost money, but when you're dropping $200k per week on building new stations, it puts a damper on the ol' finances.
I understand that it's well worth it to have a supercharger network for the reasons you mentioned, but that doesn't stop the fact that it costs money, and that money comes from customers who pay more than the cost of electricity to enable supercharging, which is what this entire discussion has been about.�
Jul 28, 2016
MiamiNole Economy of scale? As has been stated many times before in this thread, the primary cost of SC isn't necessarily the cost of electricity. It's building out the SC network. Given the considerably greater amount of Model 3's that will be on the road, Tesla probably won't necessarily need the same SC option price per car to continue to build out the SC network at the same rate. I'm looking up now as I type this and see that other responses have pretty much said the same thing. I would also think that Tesla would also want to reach a price point to maximize SC revenue from Model 3 sales. Regardless of how many Model 3s will use SCs and how much they will use them, Tesla will still need to build out the SC network.
Also, as someone else pointed out, as Model 3s hit the road, I can see the SC option cost for the few non-SC enabled S60s brought down to be equivalent to the Model 3 SC option cost.�
Jul 28, 2016
tsla007 Tesla only needs 3500 more charging stations so that would be a max of 1b to finish that 300k each.
Now they will want another giga and manu plant (China for one and probably India ($7b))
I think Tesla should pause and make/pocket some cash. Don't forget to pay the shareholder who also made this possible. If Tesla can pull in 20b ish from mdl 3 sales and pocket about 7b and invest future cars/r&d 7b and payout 5b to shareholders-That would be ideal. 1b to sc network is petty cash for them. I think when mdl 3 is out in the public that sales will pickup again (after they pickup again after unveil 2) 750k by 2019 is not that far of a long shot (if all the parts are available). At this point profits should be around 38b or more. Thanks everyone for your comments. We all have opinions on this and it is nice to see people really thinking about it. Personally, I'd take a package of 20 yearly charges for 300.00 and that is being generous from me as I probably will only use about 10 super charges/yr. That's 15c/mi.
If this kind of thing isn't offered-I won't want SC at all.
Again, because I have free energy I won't want to buy sc for life-ever. 95% of CO2 from autos is from the commuter driver. Long distance-I'll take the Prius or Porsche.�
Jul 28, 2016
MassModel3 Something else you're missing is that you stated inaccurate information regarding AAA.
"Due to declines in gas prices and finance charges, the annual cost to own and operate a vehicle has fallen to $8,698..." "In the United States, a driver can expect to spend 58 cents for each mile driven, nearly $725 per month, to cover the fixed and variable costs associated with owning and operating a car in 2015."
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/annual-cost-operate-vehicle-falls-8698-finds-aaa-archive/
That's total cost for ownership, to include ownership, maintenance, and gasoline.�
Jul 28, 2016
FlatSix911 Wishful thinking ... I hope you are correct, but it is all speculation until Tesla announces pricing next year.
�
Jul 28, 2016
BlairC Um, what? Tesla's without Sub-Zero package don't have defrost vents? I don't own a Tesla yet, and have only driven an S 1x. But I have a hard time believing they don't have defroster vents for the front windshield. That would mean I'd have a difficult time driving my Model 3 here in North Carolina many days, and it doesn't even get THAT cold here compared to the climates of other posters here - maybe down to mid 20's F.�
Jul 28, 2016
JeffK They have defrost vents...
in this pic it's a solid mesh.
Windshield Mesh Grill - Defrost Vents - Changed Again
Also I should note that it's a regulation:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations�
Jul 28, 2016
vinnie97 Because the the base price is nearly double that of the Model 3. And I would hope that like the S, upgrading the battery to maximum range would make it unnecessary to add any supercharging upcharge.�
Jul 28, 2016
littlecloudy Oh, OK. So what's the cost to own and operate a Tesla excluding possible supercharger cost?�
Jul 28, 2016
TexasEV ALL S batteries include supercharging now. There is no upcharge.�
Jul 28, 2016
vinnie97 All the more reason for the the upgraded battery option on the 3 to include the same. ;D�
Jul 28, 2016
Az_Rael Ahhh, there is a good question. We don't know the answer for the 3, but the S requires a brake fluid replacement every 2 years/25k miles and a battery fluid replacement every 4 years/50k miles. Plus the usual tire rotations, cabin air filters, etc.
Right now Tesla charges $400 for the minor service (the cabin air, inspections, tire rotation), $700 for the brake fluid service interval and $900 for the battery coolant interval service.�
Jul 29, 2016
Shawn Snider Guess that was just on the first couple years the S was out, they didnt have sufficient defrost vents and it reeked havoc in winter! Good to see they fixed that *sugar*! I'll still be getting the SZ package, Canada gets a LOT colder than 'Murrica!�
Jul 29, 2016
NoMoreICE For me the only way supercharging works is if it's "pay per use". I will do 99.9% of my charging at home and only seek out a supercharger on a road trip which will be at most twice a year for a few days. Let's say I use superchargers a total of 6 times a year. I can't see spending substantial money on something so infrequently used.�
Jul 29, 2016
diamond.g Yeah in your case you are probably better off getting the chademo adapter (or borrowing one from a TMC member), assuming that Tesla doesn't lock DC charging behind the Supercharging access fee (they did on the 60 so there isthat).�
Jul 29, 2016
MP3Mike They didn't lock CHAdeMO capability behind Supercharger access, but they did lock it behind enabling the DC fast charging hardware. (Which is $600 cheaper than Supercharger access if I recall correctly.)�
Jul 29, 2016
diamond.g True. It appeared super expensive on the site cause they bundled in the adapter as well.�
Jul 29, 2016
MP3Mike I don't think the adapter is bundled. It is $450 for the adapter + $1,900 for enabling the DC fast charging hardware for the original S60s that don't have Supercharging enabled. (You may not need the adapter if you got one elsewhere or only using a CHAdeMO station that has one available for you to borrow.)
I remember somebody complaining about it because the Valet at his office couldn't get his S60 to charge on the CHAdeMO that was available. (They had an adapter for the station.) And it would have cost him $1,900 just to enable the DC fast charging hardware.�
Jul 29, 2016
MassModel3 Dude, how do I know???
But I overlooked your per car edit, so my bad...�
Jul 29, 2016
diamond.g Okay that is weird, I swear the site showed the adapter + the activation for 1900. Otherwise you are just better off paying the additional 200 bucks and get SuperCharging turned on.�
Jul 29, 2016
MP3Mike Unless you aren't near a Supercharger and need the CHAdeMO adapter and capability. Like if you wanted to travel the Oregon coast until just recently. (Since Tesla just started putting Superchargers on the coast, but there have been CHAdeMO chargers for a long time.)�
Jul 30, 2016
Red Sage Why? A couple of reasons. Please note that the original Reservation Fee for Model S was $5,000. By February 2014 it had gone down to $2,500. And then, when the Model ? was revealed, its Reservation Fee was $1,000 -- 1/5th the original amount.
A different market, with a different manufacturing rate, designed with the purpose of being 'affordable'...? Will require a different fee structure. Proportionately speaking, a fee to activate Supercharging on the base version of the Model ? may well be as little as $500 to activate 'FREE for LIFE!' access.
$2,000 or maybe even $1,000 might be a reasonable amount from the perspective of some... But making the activation fee for a 'free' service twice as high or equal to the Reservation Fee seems a bit punitive. At $500, or included with higher trim levels by default, it just becomes another option package.
Think of it this way... For a $69,900 vehicle, a $2,000 activation fee represents less than 1/35th the cost of the car -- about 2.9%. And sure, a $1,000 activation fee would be equivalent to 1/35th the cost of a $35,000 Model ?. But if you presume there was a 25% profit margin on the $69,900 car, then $2,000 is about 11.44% of that profit margin. And, if you presume there is a 12% profit margin on a $35,000 car, then 11.44% of the $4,200 profit margin is ~$480 or so. And, really, it is pretty fair to round that up to a nice, even, $500 as an activation fee. Which, coincidentally, happens to be 1/5th the amount the OP suggests.
Yeah.�
Jul 30, 2016
Red Sage Actually? I strongly believe that 'FREE for LIFE!' Supercharger access may not be available as it is for Model S. Meaning, it will not be for the life of the car, so much as it is for the term of ownership by the original purchaser. Thus, if you sell the car, someone else will have to pay the activation fee for Supercharger access again, if they want it... At least, on the base version of the car. Those who purchase a car at a trim level with Supercharger access included by default will get it 'FREE for LIFE', without any further rigmarole, if they resell it later. My guess is that on trade-ins that become CPO cars, Tesla Motors will simply unlock them to their full potential for resale, then set prices accordingly.�
Jul 30, 2016
Red Sage Even without presuming an amount, roughly equivalent to 11.4% of profit margin per car, being set aside to provide for Superchargers would easily take care of building them all... Your statement is utterly ridiculous based upon the notion that the entire worldwide Supercharger network could have been financed strictly from using funds garnered from the sale of ZEV Credits earned thus far. Tesla Motors has several earnings reports published over the past three years that specifically point out that the cost of operation for Superchargers is all but insignificant. So claiming that the company is in any way 'losing money' because of today's Supercharger network lacks any and all validity.
Tesla Motors is a rapidly expanding company. Their supposed 'losses' are the result of that highly recommended and absolutely necessary expansion. Research and development, to offer newer, better products, also contributes to their expenses. If the firm did not have the vision and competence needed to move their operations forward into the future to face the challenges that await them, they could have cried 'UNCLE!' well before deciding to even mention a Gigafactory publicly.
They could have been perfectly satisfied with selling seven years' worth of the Model S in only three-and-a-half years. They could have remained a niche manufacturer of 'Toys... for the RICH!' for the next three decades. And their next product offering would not be a Model ? and there would be no plans for a Pickup Truck, or Semi Truck, or Automated People Mover to arrive... SOON. Instead, their product line would have been fleshed out with a Tesla Model Z Hypercar and a Tesla Model L Pullman Limousine. Oh, and regular quarterly dividends would have flowed to stockholders like milk and honey through all of Silicon Valley.
Dude. Money spent on ensuring growth and maintaining survival is not a 'loss'. That is an INVESTMENT.�
Jul 30, 2016
Red Sage Please note that originally, the fee charged to Model S 60 owners was $2,000 at the time of order, and $2,500 after Delivery -- for the DC Fast Charging Hardware that allowed the car to use Superchargers. The Supercharger network itself was always meant to be FREE of additional fees, for LIFE, the life of the car. So, no one was paying for the Supercharger network. They were paying to access it, by paying for the DC Fast Charging Hardware and its installation.
At some point it was determined that it was easier to simply include the DC Fast Charging Hardware in every car at the time of manufacture. So the fee became a software unlock instead of a hardware installation fee. And ever since, each and every Tesla Motors product has included the hardware to Supercharge, even if it were not active.
Remember: Tesla Motors expected to sell roughly 15,000 of the Model S per year, worldwide, if they were lucky, back in 2012. Their first full calendar year, they sold 22,000 worldwide. 31,000 in 2014, and another 50,000 in 2015. So, over the course of 3-1/2 years, they sold the equivalent of 7 years worth of cars. I believe that well over 95% of those included the DC Fast Charging Hardware. So that technology has paid for itself several times over already. Since the same basic hardware will be used in the Model ? -- a car they intend to build as many as 500,000 units per year of -- then YES, no matter your protests, that means the economies of scale involved will be far less than $2,000 per unit.
Something tells me that come the end of 2020, if Tesla Motors has sold 3,500,000 units of Model ? worldwide already, in only 3-and-a-half years, Elon Musk is going to be very happy.�
Jul 30, 2016
FlatSix911 The consensus at the GF event was that the Model 3 will use a subscription based model to pay for use.
�
Jul 30, 2016
TexasEV Actually all of the cars have it. It became a software unlock rather than a hardware installation fee before the first 60s were delivered.�
Jul 30, 2016
Az_Rael The consensus amongst the attendees?�
Jul 30, 2016
FlatSix911 Not exactly ... drawn your own conclusions.
�
Jul 30, 2016
Red Sage Uhm... Didn't I say that in the second paragraph you quoted?�
Jul 30, 2016
Red Sage Nice pictures. But methinks 'consensus' does not mean what you think it means.�
Jul 30, 2016
JeffK I personally would not be interested in a subscription model at all, but hey if it's only $50-100 a year I might go for it.�
Jul 30, 2016
Az_Rael With Elon using the word "plan" in his tweets/comments, a subscription of some form is the natural conclusion.�
Jul 30, 2016
TaoJones I wouldn't touch a Model 3 if subscription SC access was the only option.
Most of the poo-poo* contingent evidently do not own Model S/X now. You can visit 30-40 SC per week when traveling - easily.
Even a seasonal SC subscription, given that reality, would soon cease to be cost-effective relative to a simple one-time, up front cost amortized over, say, 3 years.
A subscription for "occasional use" wouldn't be cost effective relative to, for example, AeroVironment's existing $19.95/month unlimited use plan for full-strength, fully-functional ChaDeMo.
So... what's the point other than to introduce friction into a frictionless system to address, at most, a 3% problem solely in areas of density? Triple the impact and it approaches being a 10% problem. Bleh.
As I've typed before, I wouldn't be surprised if they offer trial 30-day packages similar to DriverAssist (AP) now.
Here's one for the other side - even though 2/3 of homes in the US have garages, and even though 4 years on, the network is 97% fine and the other 3% is fine the majority of the time, at what point do the poo-pooers predict network saturation? Put some dates around the doom and gloom and let's see how it shakes out.
* poo-poo = ppu = pay per use�
Jul 30, 2016
Az_Rael Elon confirmed the existence of a "lifetime plan" for the 3. We just don't know the details yet.
His last tweet on the subject said they would be revealed "soon", but he forgot to declare that was in Elon Standard Time and we needed to do the reverse dog years conversion.�
Jul 31, 2016
Red Sage Descriptors and qualifiers. So many focus on a single word when 'quoting' Elon Musk, always carefully leaving out the words before, or after, that particular word. I don't understand the need to constantly 'interpret' what he says, when he has already described and qualified it with his statements. Then someone wants to say what he 'plainly' means, without noting their own plainly obvious omission. C'mon, MAN!�
Jul 31, 2016
TexasEV Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. "And ever since" sounded like you were saying some cars were produced without supercharger hardware before that decision.�
Jul 31, 2016
AZ Desert Driver The cost of car ownership does indeed included tires and windshield fluid, but the bigger costs are depreciation and insurance. Those dwarf the fuel cost. From my unscientific look at 3 year old "S" - they have depreciated about $1,000/mo. Its tough to follow exactly, as newer models have desirable features that the older fellows did not have (AP) but this seems to be in the ballpark. In context, two months of ownership = price of SC.
I see no reason why the M3 would depreciate any different than other cars on the street. Its desirability may dampen the decline, but its charging issues may heighten the decline. I call it a draw and will allocate $800-1,000 /month decline.�
Jul 31, 2016
ohmman Elon has confirmed a lot of things that didn't come to fruition. Look at my tag under my avatar. That's in reference to the next generation Roadster that Elon implied would be coming soon. The part deux came out and it wasn't mentioned as the next model (and sensibly, it shouldn't be). At the GF event he wound up admitting it's probably very, very far in the future. Heartbroken is too extreme a description for how I felt, but I was definitely disappointed. I suppose one of my 3 reservations will execute as whatever ludicrously sporty model is offered.
I'm not changing my tagline, though!�
Jul 31, 2016
SuperOmega Next year...less than 6 months away, LOL. If news could get in by end of December 2016 (if not earlier) that would make it so much easier to plan finances.�
Aug 1, 2016
eisbock Did he say "plan" or "package"?�
Aug 1, 2016
ModelNforNerd
I really think the timeline is falling in to place where we get Reveal Part 2 in early December.
Configurator "go-live" in April/May.
Suppliers due to be ready to go on July 1.
Employees and West Coast current owners start seeing their 3's next September/October.
And full ramp can begin after any early kinks get worked out.
Q1 2018 is my best guess for many of us seeing our cars.�
Aug 1, 2016
Az_Rael You are correct - "Package" was the term used.�
Aug 1, 2016
eisbock "Package" seems like the go-to word used for options on cars, so I would think that implies a one-time cost over some sort of subscription or pay-as-you-go model.
I'm betting you'll be able to choose if you want a lifetime package, subscription plan, pay-as-you-go, whatever. There will be choices because having choices costs Tesla nothing extra and makes the car more accessible. I'm sure anything that's not the lifetime package will also spill over to current classic S60 owners.�
Aug 1, 2016
Red Sage Once again, processing multiple financial transactions per car over the course of years will cost more than processing a single one at the time of purchase.�
Aug 1, 2016
ModelNforNerd "package" usually implies a bundle of some sort.
Until I hear otherwise, I'm just going to assume the "package" includes the bigger battery. So honestly, nothing would change from the current model.
You pay for the "package" of the battery and Supercharging up front, for the life of the car.
Sometimes, I've noticed we like to come on here and make things more complex than they need to be.�
Aug 1, 2016
dsvick Hopefully, if it's a package it will be something along the lines of a 75D version, that includes SC for life. If it's in the $8,000 range I'd probably bite.�
Aug 1, 2016
ModelNforNerd
With the per kWH manufacturing cost of the batteries coming down, and Elon already being on Twitter saying the AWD will be "less than $5,000" it's maybe not too insane to think the bump up from "base battery w/RWD and no Supercharging" to "xxD w/Supercharging" would run in the ~$7,500 range.
I'm partially basing that on Elon's expectation that the "average transaction price" for the Model 3 will be ~$42,500�
Aug 1, 2016
hingisfan Maybe they should have just said...."Sorry guys, we came in a bit above the 35k, it's 37.5k but that includes lifetime supercharging!"�
Aug 1, 2016
ucmndd What possible upside is there for Telsa in that scenario? Or the consumer for that matter?
Tesla gets raked over the coals by the media for over-promising and under-delivering, missing their target.
Consumers lose a choice. Why not keep the base price of the car low and allow people who WANT specific options to pay for them?�
Aug 1, 2016
ucmndd While true, this is an essentially meaningless metric. If a "multiple transaction" model incentivizes more people into using the SC network and paying for the privilege than would have otherwise, increased card processing fees are clearly beneficial to the business as a whole.
I don't know why people think it's going to be so ungodly complicated and cumbersome for a company like Tesla to set up a merchant/billing system. This is one of the most, if not THE most, commoditized aspects of running a business. It's a long-solved problem.�
Aug 1, 2016
Red Sage ~*If*~. It won't 'incentivize' anything at all. 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!' is an excellent, proven motivator -- because it strikes a clear and meaningful difference between methods of doing business.
What I don't understand is how so many don't realize it isn't about credit card processing fees. It is about dealing with the ridiculous customer service dispute issues that will undoubtedly arise as a result. There are a lot of people who have never done well with either reading or comprehension but will never admit that fact either publicly or privately. Those people love to blame other people for the issues that arise out of their own refusal to learn information that is put before them, but gladly sign on the dotted line anyway. They are the people who are used to being the wheel that squeaks loudest and getting greased as a result. And they are an absolute nightmare to deal with in every business under the sun, no matter how accommodating of their needs you may attempt to be. That is the expense that Tesla Motors would incur and endure with pay-at-the-pump, pay-per-use, credit-card-on-file, deferred payment, and subscription based poo-poo services attached to Supercharging. And that doesn't even count all the regulatory issues and legal injunctions that would come along when someone accused Tesla Motors of being a re-seller of electricity, and effectively a utility company.
Tesla Motors is the constant target of critics who are perfectly willing to set snares, or outright lie about their business practices. There are those who are desperately waiting for Tesla Motors to do something that they can attack as being 'bad' somehow. Those people will do anything at all to make it seem as though Tesla Motors is 'breaking a promise' or whatever. Best to avoid those situations with deft evasion techniques and move on with something that works instead.
"Best block: No be there." -- Mr. Miyagi�
Aug 3, 2016
ummgood My take on this is if they charge me $2500 just for DC fast charging or supercharging or both then I'll probably cancel. We have two cars and 3 kids. When we go on longer trips we take the minivan almost always. The only time I have needed to take my ICE car longer than 200 miles is when my wife and I manage to get someone to watch the kids for a week and we go on a couples trip. This has happened 2 times since I have moved to Texas in 2005. Both times we needed to get to Galveston or Dallas, etc... We can't take the van because the people watching the kids usually use the van.
Given that I really only need supercharging every other year or so it makes no since financially for me to pay $2500 up front to get the capability but at the same time I need some way to use it if I need it. Now if that is PPU or some other method for charging like a one month pass or something I would be ok with that. I flat out can't buy this car if I know it is stuck to a 70 mile radius of my city.
Now if they fold the supercharging into a package with other things like a bigger battery or other things then I probably won't have an issue with it but I won't buy the car without some supercharging capability AND I am not willing to pay $2500 for supercharging alone. I do plan on buying the larger battery so if it comes with that I'll be fine. Some might say they are going to bake the price into the battery and I guess I'll blindly pay it in that case but I have trouble paying for it as a $2500 stand alone option.�
Aug 3, 2016
MP3Mike Even when they were charging for Supercharging on the originally S60 it only cost $2,000 at the time of purchase. (The $2,500 was for after purchase which includes the $500 change penalty fee that Tesla tacks on to everything.)
DC fast charging hardware, i.e. CHAdeMO support, for the original S60 is currently $1,900, which we can probably safely assume include the $500 penalty, so it actually costs $1,400. Put that together and Supercharging only costs $600.
My guess is that the DC fast charging hardware will be enabled on every Model 3, as they have probably brought the cost of it way down from what it was, especially with it being designed from the start to be in every car where on the Model S it was originally going to be optional. (Though you will still need the $450 CHAdeMO adapter to use it. And there may be a CCS adapter as well.) And I think that the 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)' Supercharging access will cost $600. (Or maybe they will lower it to a nice even $500.)
Chances of the 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)' Supercharging be included in the larger battery? 99.9999999%�
Aug 3, 2016
S'toon And once again my reply would be "Why should I pay more for supercharging than the S owners?"�
Aug 3, 2016
lolder Because the car's less than half the price. The supercharger use was factored into the price of the S at about $500. So far S owners have been using superchargers enough so that the amount should have been $1000. They need to limit free supercharger use for all S's to more than 50 miles away from residence and charge a nominal $10 fee per use for 3's.�
Aug 3, 2016
TaoJones The base model will be able to charge via ChaDeMo presuming you have a ChaDeMo adapter as is the case today.
Got a minivan or SUV for the long trips as many families do? Great. Don't pay for supercharging and have that ChaDeMo handy just in case around town even though you'll rarely need it. The majority of owners today have garages and don't use SCs. Same will be the case for M3 owners - although perhaps less so (so 30% instead of 10% who use SCs at all).
Big deal - 500,000 * 50% US * 30% = 83K by the end of 2018 at the very earliest and the SC network will double by the end of 2017 and grow from there. There is not nor will there be a systemic capacity problem.
But do realize that poo-poo schemes are simply unrealistic for distance travel. You'll visit SCs almost 20 times just driving from Los Angeles to Portand and back and sightseeing for a few days while there.
Poo-poo schemes are also wholly unnecessary for density, to which Tesla has committed for years now. The network is less than 50% complete and 97% underutilized.
And yet to save $2500 up front, the pied pipers of poo poo want to promulgate pestilence in the form of introducing friction into the one frictionless fast charging network on the planet. Not productive.
Especially when AeroVironment leads the way for ChaDeMo by offering 30-day unlimited use of their full-strength, fully-functional ChaDeMo for $19.95. That's as close to free as it gets and is a lot cheaper than what any subscription model from Tesla will cost.
Have a little faith in Tesla to manage capacity and demand. Poo-poo is a solution for a problem that does not systemically exist.
For every 1 SJC, there are 50 SCs that are veritable wastelands. Even SJC and FV are often empty, but there's no handwringing in that. Darn those 2/3 of American homes that have garages and the majority of families that don't travel outside a 100-mile radius.
It would be much more productive to focus upon the present problem which is that of ICEing by our own. As seen in Reno recently, and at FV as well, there is no better way to adversely affect capacity than to not leave when the charge is complete. Not 5 minutes later but when it is done. Which means getting back to your chariot a few minutes early. I would like to see more nagging from the app along with public shaming of the worst offenders. Along with some mechanism for the car to emit unpleasant noises (think campfire scene from Blazing Saddles).
This doesn't have to be hard and there's no reason why a solution for an *actual* challenge can't be fun. And we certainly do not need to create problems with faux solutions such as poo-poo.�
Aug 3, 2016
MP3Mike How do you know how much the S owners are paying. The cost is 100% hidden in the MSRP. For all we know it could be $5,000.�
Aug 3, 2016
MP3Mike Are you 100% positive of that? Has Tesla said that? The original S60 either had to pay for Supercharging or to enable the DCFC hardware to use CHAdeMO. There are still S40s and S60s running around that can't use CHAdeMO even though the hardware is in the car...
I assume that the DCFC hardware will be installed, and unlocked, on all Model 3s, but I haven't seen Tesla actually say that. (Well we know the hardware will be installed but it might not be enabled.)�
Aug 3, 2016
S'toon One...more...time. The only Model S which charged for supercharging was the original S60. The charge was $2000 if it was ordered at the same time as the order of the car. The price of $2500 was if it was enabled after delivery.
That $2000 was included in the price in the higher battery option cars.�
Aug 3, 2016
kzod You guys are hillarious. In other threads people talk about how they will happily load the car up with most options, for some speculating that they may pay up to $70k for a fully loaded model 3. You will gladly pay thousands extra for certain paint choices that you never get to see when driving the car. But everyone gets hung up on supercharging costs. I don't know how much it will cost or even if it's free. Personally like many others have stated I can't imagine using the SC network more than a few times a year (if that). I would never use even $1,000 worth of electricity / fuel costs unless I keep the car going for decades. Pay per use would be my preferred choice. But, if it was only available as a $2,000 option I wouldn't hesitate to take it. That has much more value to me than spending an extra $20,000 just to get an extra 60 miles of range and ludicrous speed! The cash you spend on Supercharging access isn't about electricity costs. It's about adding the option to go on long distance trips without undue misery (at least in a perfect world). It's the main reason most of us will patiently to get the Tesla but wouldn't even think twice about getting a BMW i3 or Bolt that's available no (Even if they were nice looking cars).
The bigger concerns isn't what it will cost us, but can they run an efficient charging network that will have reasonable access to a charger when we need it. 30 Minutes to charge my car is reasonable, waiting hours to get a charger wouldn't be.�
Aug 3, 2016
TaoJones I am 100% sure that shipping base Model 3s enabled to use ChaDeMo and not enabled to use SCs is an absolute no-brainer to reduce demand for SCs.
I doubt that a (phone) call to ownership will have to be made to enable ChaDeMo usage. Using SCs requires validation that is unrelated, in other words.
Besides which, the $491 cost of a delivered ChaDeMo adapter is enough of an investment.�
Aug 3, 2016
dsvick I disagree, and I agree
I would only need SC access once or twice a year, other than that though it will be a perfect day to day car for me, so not being able to use it 4 or 5 days a year is not a valid reason for me to cancel. By the same token though, 4 or 5 uses a year isn't enough for me to pay $2000 or more to enable SC, but I won't cancel, I just won't activate SC. Especially since destination charging will, no doubt, be expanding all the time. It might take a bit more careful planning but I'll bet I can figure a way to make it work without SC.
Like you said though, if it's part of a package like larger battery or dual motor, I'll pay the baked in price for it.�
Aug 3, 2016
ModelNforNerd To the 1st part I've cherry-picked....
I thought the same thing. But then I've realized that it would probably be more. Most of my family is within 1/2 a battery, out-and-back, so not as big a deal. Some of the wife's extended family is close to 150-ish miles out, meaning I'd probably need some juice on the way back (and luckily they're all near existing SC's), so I'd NEED it probably closer to 10 times/year. Then the semi-annual MA-to-VA-and back trips. That's 4-6 SC stops round trip, depending on conditions. Suddenly I'm up in the 14-16 SC's per year range. Then you factor in the "just cuz" trips you might not do in an ICE. Wanna go "leaf peeping" in the fall? Jump in and go. Want to just drive aimlessly on backroads for a few hours? jump in and go. Now I'm probably at 20 SC's/year
So for the sake of argument...I'll use my wife's car as the example: 2014 Impreza wagon, CVT, 14.5 gallon tank, gets 36mpg HWY, takes ~$31 to fill these days (can run off 87 octane).
20 full tanks of gas comes to ~ $620. So IF....IF...Supercharging came to $2500, I'd regain the value of that in around 4 years of driving.
But there are some other variables, such as my car....if we were to use my car... 2015 A3, 14.5gal tank. 33 mpg HWY, needs at least 91 Octane, now the savings of using the Supercharging network instead of the Audi becomes $750/yr, and I'd recoup the price of SC in just over 3 years.
And that's not even factoring in-town EV vs. gas use, daily commute, errands, etc. I've only done a napkin-math case study for long distance.
And to your second part....about it being baked in as part of Dual motor or bigger battery, all that much more cost-effective, depending on what vehicle you're coming from. Seeing as your tag says you're from NE Ohio, you're likely looking at Dual motor anyway, as am I. So if they "give" me Supercharging as part of something I've already labeled as "must-have", then it carries even more value to me, psychologically AND financially.
But while we're here waiting for crumbs from Elon, and overthinking this, it's likely already decided what they're going to do...and if it's not, they're waiting to see how partnering with gas stations and restaurants like Ruby Tuesday works out. If they're meeting or exceeding their rollout plans, then we likely won't see any difference in how we "pay" for Supercharging than S or X owners went through.�
Aug 3, 2016
vinnie97 That seems like a bit of a broad brush. I'm sensitive to the pricing of all options.�
Aug 3, 2016
FlatSix911 Another data point here in California ... the local Supercharger in Mt. View is crowded 24/7.
The 12 stalls are always full and Tesla is providing a parking attendant to direct traffic and monitor usage.
I am afraid this will be the future for all owners once the Model 3 is in production unless we have 10X capacity.�
Aug 3, 2016
Az_Rael That would be quite the leg up on all the competition, since the Bolt and the Leaf all charge extra for DC Fast charging capability.
The consumer in me thinks that would be awesome, whereas the shareholder in me thinks Tesla should charge the same as the competition if that is the current standard.�
Aug 3, 2016
ModelNforNerd
I won't get too critical of the TL;DR part of your post, because I'm going to check a lot of boxes on my Model 3, but I'm not nitpicking over the cost of Supercharging (especially since WE DON'T KNOW what it is yet)
When you say you'll never use $1,000 of electricity, do you mean charging away from home? Charging at home? Will you be donating your Model 3 to a museum?�
Aug 3, 2016
TaoJones Indeed, except that their ChaDeMo is our SC.
Conversely, ChaDeMo to Tesla is an afterthought.�
Aug 3, 2016
ModelNforNerd
For those of us who don't currently have a Tesla, all I can say is: relax.
If the Model 3 is your first Tesla, you're not going to see it for another (at least) 16+ months. And that is WILDLY optimistic, unless you're a Tesla employee.
Point being: Look at all of the movement going on, not only with Tesla, but the EV industry as a whole. The White House just worked with a coalition of utilities and EV makers to free up billions to look into a more robust and efficient charging infrastructure. Tesla has signed a deal with Ruby Tuesday, they're exploring deals with gas stations, and they've quietly boosted the charging power of their SC's to 145KW, greatly reducing the time a Model S90 has to sit recharging.
Things are moving and happening, to the point where today's reality in the trials and travails of Supercharging will be completely different by the time you have your car.
If you want to hear how bad some people have had it...talk to some of the early East Coast Model S adopters who had their cars well before the Supercharger network started to trickle its way out here.�
Aug 3, 2016
Matteo Hi,
When Elon talked about this he said "if users select that package", meaning there will be multiple packages. Therefore I would expect at least two options, lifetime supercharging and pay per use.
According to the stats page of THIS survey with over 200 Tesla owners, average supercharger use is 27.6 times per year per user. It's possible to do some calculations based on that.
Another interesting detail is Chademo DC fast charging. Buyers who don't purchase any supercharging package will get the hardware for free but because they didn't pay for it, DC charging might be disabled by default. That's what Tesla did with the old S60's. Chademo doesn't work on S60's that don't have supercharging enabled. To summarise, I would expect at least these two options:
- Lifetime unlimited supercharging: $2500
- Pay per use: $400 hardware activation fee + $15 per session
�
Aug 3, 2016
MP3Mike Not entirely true, you can enable the DC fast charging hardware, for CHAdeMO, on an original S60 for $600 less than enabling Supercharging. I like where you are going but given the current costs: $1,400 (DCFC hardware) + $600 (Supercharging) + $500 change fee= $2,500 to enable Supercharging after purchase on an original S60 I would think something more like this:
Of course the problem with that is it certainly doesn't follow the KISS principle, and it really makes the poo-poo plan unattractive. And then if you change your mind after purchase add $500 as a change penalty to all of those. Want to upgrade from DCFC to poo-poo capable? That will cost you $600. (Yes that is more than it would have originally cost, but changes always cost more.)
- DC fast charging hardware activation only: $400
- DCFC activation + poo-poo plan enabling: $500 + $30/use
- DCFC activation + Supercharger: $1,000
Of course there will be multiple packages. You can probably add the PUP, premium upgrade package, to a base Model 3 and that won't give you Supercharging, but if you opt for the larger battery/AWD package you will get Supercharging included.�
Aug 3, 2016
ohmman Except that you can't attribute that value solely to Supercharging. It's possible that $3k of the S60 revenue was attributable to Supercharger buildout/"marketing expense" even if the buyer didn't select Supercharging. The $2k just made up the difference to put it on par with the 85, which had $5k attributable to those expenses.
My numbers are made up and probably quite high, but my point is just that you can't assume that because $2k was charged, that's how much Tesla set aside for Supercharging expenses. It's quite possible it was higher than that.�
Aug 3, 2016
JeffK While there are certain locations like this, there are a great many others that sit virtually unused. Tesla will simply have to use data to determine where to expand to fulfill the most need.�
Aug 3, 2016
Saghost This is a point I think a lot of people miss when they try to evaluate the effect of doubling the number of pedestals.
To date, Tesla has mostly been expending coverage, with some strategic improvements in capacity in California and a few places on the east coast.
However, they don't need twice as many locations to get solid ~100 mile interval coverage throughout the continental US and much of Canada.
Most of those new pedestals are presumably going to be capacity expansion in the heavily loaded parts of the net instead. This means that doubling the number of stations may have more like a three or five hundred percent increase in system capacity, without even getting in to the queueing theory discussions I've seen here (I don't entirely understand it, but apparently having twice the capacity reduces the likelhood of hitting a line by a lot more than that.)�
Aug 3, 2016
S'toon So, do I put you in the "Tesla will charge Model 3 owners more than Model S owners to enable supercharging" camp? Don't you think that'd cause a whole lot of cancellations?�
Aug 3, 2016
Chuq I continue to struggle to see how a "per session" fee will be worked out.
- They can't reasonably charge per session because someone who plugs in for 5 minutes and then leaves will be charged the same as someone who is there for an hour and a half.
- They can't reasonably charge per minute because people get different charge rates depending on what state of charge they are at, what stall they are plugged into, and many other variables.
- But... they also can't charge per kWh because this puts you into the category of an electricity retailer, which varies per region and has a lot of regulatory overhead.
�
Aug 3, 2016
Red Sage
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me." -- Frank Herbert, 'DUNE'?�
Aug 3, 2016
FlatSix911 Thanks for that ...
What has been your experience at the LA area Superchargers?�
Aug 3, 2016
Red Sage Passing by them. The closest I've been was to walk through the parking lot at the Tesla 'D' Event at Hawthorne. Valets were parking the cars as they arrived, or taking them to the Supercharger as needed that night. I've been tempted to go see if there was any 'local abuse' but decided not to bother. I am told that the one in Burbank is brutally packed all the time though. I rather hope that for traffic along I-5 that new locations in Buena Park and Santa Ana will relieve a bunch of clutter between Burbank and San Juan Capistrano.
�
Aug 3, 2016
ohmman I suppose it depends on how you define it. Model S and X owners have had Supercharging fees coupled with the base price for a long while now. Tesla's (Elon's) statement has been that they'll decouple it for the 3.
If you're asking - will Tesla charge Model 3 owners more than Model S owners over the base price - then I guess yes. That seems to be exactly what Elon said.
If you're asking - will Tesla charge Model 3 owners more than Model S owners based on actual accounting value - then my point stands as above. I don't think we know what the S owners pay/paid overall. We know that for a while it could be added for $2k to an already profitable vehicle, but it's very possible that wasn't isolated accounting.
For people buying a car in 2017, Model S owners will get free for life Supercharging (probably) and Model 3 owners will pay for free for life Supercharging (probably). So I guess if I'm in a camp (I'm not) it would be the one you mentioned. But I don't like the phrasing and I don't think it's clearly defined as a problem.
Final note - I don't think any of us know what Tesla's going to do anyway. They have a tendency to be hard to read on this kind of thing.�
Aug 3, 2016
MP3Mike But third party CHAdeMO chargers charge a per session fee, and people are using them. And not everyone charges for the same length of time. I think you have hit the nail on the head why some of us say that the poo-poo plans just won't fly.
On the other hand some third-party networks charge a flat per-month fee. For example $19.99/month. Which works out to ~$240/year or ~$1,200 for 5 years. So maybe that is how Tesla will do it in addition to the "lifetime" plan. But I would think it would need to be a contract for at least a year at a time, not individual months at a time. (Otherwise you end up with people paying ~$40 for two months of heavy use during the vacation season, which doesn't seem fair to support the network.)�
Aug 3, 2016
TaoJones If people want to save the $2,500 SC fee or whatever it's going to be, then great. But don't clutter up a perfectly good, best in class fast charging network with hinky poo-poo schemes.
Go get a ChaDeMo adapter and use ChaDeMos via, hopefully in your area by then, a nice $19.95/month unlimited use plan.
Let's say you own the car 5 years. And you plan 2 trips a year of 2,000 miles round trip each. That's roughly 200 SC visits, including sightseeing while at yer destinations.
Poo-poo won't save you nearly as much as you think. Subscription-based or poo-poo based.
There's a reason why people will gladly order their M3s without SC access. It's because they won't use SCs.
As long as the cars come with the hardware and as long as it is unlocked such that ChaDeMos can be used, there is no justifiable reason to add friction to a frictionless system of SCs.
If you want the fastest charging, then pay for it up front or enable it later for a slightly higher fee.
If you really think you will only use fast charging "once in a while", then for you, there are ChaDeMo. $491 for the adapter (delivered, with tax if in CA), and either $19.95/month or per session.
I'd guess 70/30 would be the split for/not, but we can't really guess until the SC enablement cost is known.
For a family with a perfectly good minivan and a garage in a town without SCs, paying for SCing won't happen.
An apartment dweller in Burbank would probably opt for SCing and for the up front cost.
It's not rocket science. It's capacity management and Tesla's commitment to density as well as distance has done just fine so far. Other than for persecuting locals, poo-poo serves little purpose.�
Aug 4, 2016
JeffK Totally agree
See here's the deal, if a monthly plan exists then a great majority of people would only need/want it for the times they normally travel long distances such as vacations and holidays. Even then, I technically only want it for a handful of days throughout the year where I'm doing the actual driving. A PPU or even monthly fees for me would feel just like being stuck addicted to gasoline or a cell phone plan. I want it to "feel" free.
For my use case I'd rather it be bundled in the cost of something else so I don't "see" it. Psychologically, it'd "feel" more like free and free for life.�
Aug 4, 2016
melindav To add my 2cents... I do have various alternate cars and live where there are no superchagers nearby (closest that I occasionally drive past is 90 miles away), have a garage to charge in, 90% or more of my driving is local and I will enable SCing.
To me, it is just part of the cost/benefit of a Tesla. If it is a $2000-2500 up front cost, and I personally only use a SC 10 times or 200 times a year, its worth it for the ability to use the network at all. Chademo is not much more widely installed (at least currently) around my location and the clunky adaptor does not make it appealing at all�
Aug 4, 2016
ModelNforNerd
Boy, am I glad I live in a townhouse with my own 1-car garage, and the freedom to make internal modifications.
It will likely cost me less than $5/month to charge my car at home at night. I take the commuter rail into the city every day, so I only drive ~ 8 miles/day. It's probably not even really worth charging my car until Thursday or Friday night, so I have enough juice for weekend joyriding.
a $19.95/month plan would not be something I would be looking to buy in on.
I'm sticking to the "have Supercharging included with the bigger battery/Dual Motor" plan.�
Aug 4, 2016
T3slaTulips A per minute cost while not 100% perfect (SoC variable) is still certainly reasonable. Every minute you are connected you are utilizing the service and potentially preventing someone else from doing so.
Hopefully the SC lifetime activation will either be a less than $1001 option or bundled with battery upgrade options and render the ppu discussion moot. But if it's separate, and costs $2k I believe there will be a lot of unhappiness about it.�
Aug 4, 2016
ummgood Help me out here. I am naive on the CHAdeMO. I think for this to work for me I would need to understand how long it would take to charge at CHAdeMO and I would need to be comfortable that there are reliable chargers on routes that I would need to take like Austin->Dallas, Austin->Houston/Gulf Coast, Austin->New Orleans. What are the differences between supercharger and CHAdeMO charging besides cost? This probably won't be an issue I am guessing because I plan on buying the bigger battery.
I think you have a little bit of a utopia outlook on car purchasing. Initially Tesla can get away for charging everyone thousands for this charging network because there are a lot of early adopters. Frankly I'll be tempted even if I won't use it much. That isn't to say though that they can't come up with some ingenious way to do "poo-poo" without causing a bunch of issues. I think it is far fetched to say that the average car buyer would be ok with paying the money upfront knowing they won't drive it much outside of the city. Eventually Tesla is going to have to win over more than just the enthusiasts. That might not be the first 2 or 3 years of Model 3 production but if they want to keep up mass production of a car of this cost they are going to have to come up with options for these types of things.
Here is an example... Say I put $200 credit on my account. Think iTunes. Then whenever I go charge they charge me per minute (I know there are arguments against this). Let's say it is $0.50/minute. I plug in for 30 to 40 minutes and I pay $15. They just automatically deduct it from my account. If I have a credit card on file and don't have a credit they charge my account directly. There is no additional time requirement at the supercharger. You just plug in and go. Let's say I only use the superchargers in this way every other year or so because of my use of this particular car. Then I have spent $1k over the lifetime of my 10 year old car but at the same time haven't
Regardless of the end cost I am going to analyze each option to see if it is "worth it" to me. Yes I might not see the paint from the outside while I am driving but I will see it as I walk up to the car or when it is sitting in my driveway. I love to admire my clean car quite a bit actually. Black and White aren't options for me and I would be willing to pay a bit more for another color since I do have to look at it every day. The other thing is bigger battery, leather seats, performance package, are all things that I can appreciate on a regular basis when I am commuting on my car every day. I do have to live with the car every day and I plan on keeping it for 10 years so I am willing to spend more up front. Now with that said it is hard to spend $2500 on something (I know it is speculation) that is costing me way more than the value I'll get out of it. But at the same time if I don't pay for it I feel like I am 'crippling' my car. Yeah I try to future proof and I don't know what life will have for me in 5 years so if I buy this car now and pay it off then I have a sudden life change and I have to be in the car more then the car becomes an issue. That is what I am having trouble swallowing. Any other ICE car and this isn't a concern and I don't have to pay $2500 extra just in case I need to make a long distance trip. If they provided a way where I know I could pay "poo-poo" if I need it then that would solve the concern.
That is what I am hoping for. I am pretty sure I'm getting the bigger battery just because I live in Texas and everything is so spread out. Plus I want the performance package so if it is like the Model S it will be a requirement for that. I probably don't have to worry about cancelling but at some point I have to be realistic if this is really worth having those large payments for. This will be the most expensive car I have ever purchased. I am usually buying loaded Accords etc...�
Aug 4, 2016
Red Sage In order for something to be considered reasonable, it must also be verifiably fair as well. Beyond the State of Charge is the simple fact that there are inherent technological limits to charging that are not the responsibility of the driver and completely out of their control. If someone arrives on a cold day, well below freezing, charging will be slower. If someone reaches an 8-stall Supercharger and 7 stalls are filled when they arrive, once they plug up, charging will be slower. Also, in certain conditions, the car won't even begin charging until after the battery pack has warmed up, or cooled down, that is in no way the responsibility of the driver. Elon Musk would not want to penalize his Customers for something he is unable to 'fix'. Because of these inherent issues it would be positively unfair, and therefore entirely unreasonable to assess fees based upon the time connected to a Supercharger.
In terms of 'potentially preventing' another patron from using the Supercharger? Such a remedy or penalty should only be implemented if a car that is fully charged remains connected, for an extreme amount of time beyond which they reached the 'full' State of Charge. And then, only if it is a busy location with a queue of drivers waiting to use a stall. Maybe not even in that situation, if it turns out a connector is somehow locked into place and cannot be removed from the car.�
Aug 4, 2016
Red Sage CHAdeMO is a DC Fast Charging standard that has the potential to be very good. Unfortunately, that potential is largely locked away, because traditional automobile manufacturers don't actually want electric cars to be successful at all. So, while CHAdeMO is certainly faster at charging than just about any widely distributed charging method other than Tesla Superchargers, the installations are typically only the bare minimum to be 'faster' than Level 2 charging, and not set to deliver its maximum capability, which is about half as fast as Tesla offers. Thus, the amount of miles you would add through CHAdeMO in one hour might be roughly equivalent to what a Supercharger would do in only 20-to-30 minutes, at best. And most CHAdeMO chargers are not set up to deliver their best experience.
Another fast charging system is called CCS, affectionately referred to as the FRANKENPLUG. It's maximum DC Fast Charging capability is higher than CHAdeMO, but still slower than a Tesla Supercharger. It's distribution is next to nil to begin with, and even those are mostly GIMPED to speeds that barely match the slower CHAdeMO chargers. Again, for the reason noted above, traditional automobile manufacturers do NO actually want electric cars to be successful. They would rather convince the buying public that even the best available solution for refueling an electric car is inconvenient and unworthy of consideration. You may expect distribution of FRANKENPLUG to pick up over the course of the next five years, as State and Federal programs begin to distribute them along designated 'Green Highways' or whatever.
Please understand, the initial premise of the original post and title of this thread is completely wrong. There is no way in [HECK] that Tesla Motors is going to assess a $2,500 fee to use Superchargers. Many of us believe the base version of the car will use a software limited battery pack. So, anyone who chooses to unlock the full capacity of that battery pack will probably get Supercharger access "FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!" as part of the deal.
I would be very surprised if people chose to keep the minimum capacity, but asked for Supercharging to be added alone. In that case, it still wouldn't cost very much, perhaps $500 or so to activate. Not thousands, and not for 'everyone', only those who make the choice. There is the possibility that without the battery pack upgrade, the Supercharger access would only be available "...for a Limited Time!" instead of "...for LIFE!" I figure three, four, or five years.
The 'average car buyer' will be getting an Accord, Camry, Malibu, Fusion, Altima, Sonata, Corolla, Civic, Focus, Elantra, Sentra, Cruze, or whatever. I have long protested the notion of the 'commuter car' or 'city car'. I cannot think of a single example of such that is truly successful or desirable to the US public. People may well buy cars as a convenient means of transportation between a given Point 'A' and Point 'B' and nothing else. There are certainly people who drive in a tiny, predictable loop of 1,200 miles or less per month. But there is no way that those are the majority of NEW car buyers year in and year out. Someone that thinks of cars as a mere appliance are going to buy used instead. They are of no concern to Tesla Motors at all. The vast majority of those who purchase a new car will want the freedom to go anywhere with it, as a baseline minimum expectation, even if they won't actually go on long road trips with any frequency. There is a reason why traditional automobile manufacturers don't choose to sell 'cheap' cars with only a five gallon fuel capacity. Even a so-called fuel efficient 'commuter' or 'city' or 'economy' car should carry more than a day or two worth of fuel. Someone in Los Angeles CA may not intend to drive a Yaris to Bozeman MT, but if the need arises, they certainly expect the car to be able to make the trip.
I assume that sentence wold have ended with something like, "...spent anywhere near what the up-front cost would have been." That's an interesting theory. I expect it is incorrect though.
Ultimately, in order to 'sell' an upgrade to "FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!" it would be necessary for it to be readily obvious that using any type of subscription or pay-per-minute or pay-per-use type plan would have some type of disadvantage that revealed itself well before ten years passed. Probably less than five years, and hopefully less than three.
I have no argument against any of this. This seems to be a prudent and frugal means of determining what is best for you. That is what is important. Buy the car that you want, instead of getting something for the next owner.
I look at it another way. I wish someone had pointed out to me ahead of time the additional expenses related to buying my first car. No one ever did. Because everyone assumed I already knew. I probably would have put off the purchase at least another six months, while I saved more money up front, had I known. Car payment and insurance is pretty straightforward, sure... But until you actually look at it, paying for gasoline, oil changes, smog inspection, registration, car washes, brakes, tires, windshield wipers, bulbs for headlights and tail lights... All of those recurring fees add up to quite a bit more than one expects ahead of time. Each one contributes to the actual cost of ownership.
Many of those are eliminated by purchasing an electric car. Others are continuing expenses of similar cost. To me, knowing ahead of time that certain monies would have been spent anyway contributes to my being OK with paying the costs up front instead of 'over time'. Especially when the up front amount is in total less than the amount 'over time'. I would have to be absolutely certain that I would NEVER need to drive long distance AT ALL to consider NOT purchasing the Supercharger option up front, either as a separate line item, or included with an upgrade to a higher capacity battery pack.
The fact of the matter is that I already KNOW full well that I enjoy driving. And that I would drive at least 45% of my miles on the open highway each year. And that the Supercharger network would be pivotal to achieve that goal. And that if I wanted to, I could pick a direction and GO, then find myself in Bozeman MT some day, on a whim.
The most expensive Honda Accord of recent memory cost more than $5,000 over the entry level price point for Tesla Model ?. At $40,570 the 2014 Honda Accord Plug-In Hybrid offered a big huge honking 13 miles of fully electric range, and a total range of 570 miles. That was only about 173 miles less than the 'ordinary' hybrid version of the Accord, which cost over $5,000 less. This is yet another example of how traditional automobile manufacturers, even Honda, continue to impress upon the public at large that simply adding a plug to a car means you have to automatically give up both a big wad of cash, and useful driving range. Whatever you end up spending for a Tesla Model ?, you will get a lot more car than Honda ever would have delivered to you.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét