Sep 2, 2016
Bimbels Following the speculation regarding the supercharger credits discovered in the source code regarding the Model 3 - Electrek has now published this:
Tesla to introduce new �Supercharger Credit� system to reduce entry price of Model S & X�
Sep 2, 2016
msnow Sure hope the continue the rapid build out of the SpC network to accommodate all this.�
Sep 2, 2016
X Fan Sorry--can't get on board with other brands using SC network.......�
Sep 2, 2016
mknox Even though Elon has always pushed for this???�
Sep 2, 2016
chris5639 I personally really love that Tesla is offering this option. I thinking giving people the choice to pay as you go makes sense and I actually believe will help to reduce congestion (now or in the future) at sc locations. People will use the superchargers because they need to and not simply because they can save $2-$10 vs. charging at home. I get the appeal of "free for life" but ultimately the math still works out to some cost per charge.
I think the abrasion of paying at the pump has been more about having to have a membership card and worse, having that card not work. However, Tesla's approach is probably going to be more like Uber or prepaid mobile plans. You have the convenience of simply using the service and the payment is worked out behind the scenes.�
Sep 2, 2016
rypalmer The more cars using the network, the more ubiquitous the network will become. Paying their fair share is a condition of use!�
Sep 2, 2016
schonelucht It's going to happen. Tesla is hiring for a new coordinator. Job description reads
�
Sep 2, 2016
Festerfeet I have no problem with other brands using SC network as long as they pay for it as Elon suggested, but that is why no other company wants to do this. If they have to pay, they will be making Tesla stronger.
My concern is that the build out of the SC network continues, there are still large areas of the US that are not covered and as for China, there is just too much country and too few Tesla owners currently.
I will be rectifying this slightly next week when we pick our Model X�
Sep 2, 2016
McRat No matter what Tesla Motors does, the DCFC network is growing, and some people with Teslas use non Tesla charging today because the SC network needs more expansion.
Somebody is eventually going to make money by owning EV infrastructure. Today, the SC network is a 'cost center'. It does not generate income to support it's expansion. Money for the expansion will come from the Tesla Motors warchest. So would you rather have more money invested in the cars while accelerating the SC expansion, or get slower development of the cars and slower expansion of the network?
Tesla Motors can either be run like a Church, or a Business. Running it like business will benefit mankind, running it like a church will benefit existing Tesla owners. Make no mistake:
Most cars do not require remote charging, and most gas cars do not require gas cans to venture into areas where fuel stations are rare.
There will be a nationwide non-Tesla grid. It happening. Already, L2 charging is coast to coast.
10 years from now, when the DCFC grid is populated, who will be getting the profits from it? Hopefully, it's Tesla since they have the head start.�
Sep 2, 2016
f-stop look at the bright side - at least a BMW i8 won't be hogging a SpC stall for long while charging its 7.1kWhr battery
anyhow, I think the idea generally makes sense, maybe it will help fund the expansion of the supercharger network�
Sep 2, 2016
chris5639 I don't mind this as long as in doing so, it does not push Tesla to cater to the lowest denominator when it comes to the experience. Tesla has the ability, through direct communication with its cars, to automatically track charging and hence billing. Non-Tesla cars won't have this ability built in. However, I could imagine that it could be built into the adapter. Make the adapter wifi and/or bluetooth enabled and load the adapter with kWH credits using your phone. If the adapter runs out of credits, charging stops.�
Sep 2, 2016
Bimbels I believe that Elon said that automakers would be welcome to use the network but would have to build cars to do it - meaning charging capability (not currently possible with Tesla SCs) and I would assume, a way to identify for billing.�
Sep 2, 2016
chris5639
Yep, I read that as well. Perhaps he's taking this approach to make it harder/more expensivefor other makers. My approach would put the control back in Tesla's hands and would be a bit more ubiquitous. Tesla can make such smart Chademo and CCS to Tesla adapters and roll it out faster than the other makers.
�
Sep 2, 2016
andrerodpt Actually doing so, Tesla almost guarantees it will be here forever. If all other EV brands need Tesla to quick charge their cars, and paying some sort of royalty to Tesla, it would be a major income for them.
And remember that getting some sort of standard quick charge it's a major stepping stone for accelerating the EV "revolution".�
Sep 2, 2016
McRat Something to understand about Capital. It never sleeps.
Every SC that is not pumping electrons this minute is wasted capital. These are 24/7/365 capable systems.
I'd exempt the SC locations that exhibit full loading from other brands. Only the underutilized locations should allow other brands, and they should pay a premium. Just like gas cost more in remote locations, so should DCFC since the capital costs per day will be higher due to underutilization.�
Sep 2, 2016
dss33 It seems funky at first, but if you think of Tesla as an energy company (which is how they view themselves), it makes perfect sense...just as someone like Exxon extracts, refines, and sells oil/gas, Tesla is in the best position to do the same for the coming transition to electric cars.�
Sep 2, 2016
andrerodpt Let me add just one more argument to this with a question:
How many Teslas are not bought today because people are far from a SC?�
Sep 2, 2016
dss33 I think the larger issue is distance from a service center. The closest supercharger to us is 100 miles so I guess that's reasonable, though having one even closer didn't factor into our decision to purchase. My guess is that if someone is more than 200 miles from a super charger, they're much farther away from a service center, which is a much bigger issue because you can't get service in your own garage, whereas you can get a nightly charge.�
Sep 2, 2016
RogerHScott Unfortunately, history shows that we're usually punished for early standards. E.g., how's that QWERTY keyboard workin' out for you?
While the generalization and unification of charging infrastructure is inevitable, and no-doubt for the betterment of the world at large,
it seems likely to be mostly downside for current, privileged Tesla owners. Arguably we've got it "unreasonably" good right now, so a
return to normal can only hurt us. Once other brands are entangled in the SpC system I don't see how the pace of innovation there
can do anything but slow down. Soon graying engineers like me will be sitting around at standards committee meetings in exotic locales
arguing about minute compatibility details.�
Sep 2, 2016
andrerodpt Well put.
That's why I admire (with massive envy) those that bought a MS here in Portugal, considering the price of the car, if they what to service it, have to transport it to France. And of course no SC around, yet.�
Sep 2, 2016
John Stuckey We have an SC very close to where we live. Except for a demo once in a while (5 minute charge) we have never used it. We have used SCs on trips across the country and they are great. No need for them at home since we charge at home.
But for those that do not have home chargers the issues get muddy very quickly.�
Sep 2, 2016
Cosmacelf This is a great move. Will sell more cars, will help monetize the SC network, will reduce SC utilization (on a per car fleet wide basis), and will enable Tesla to offer the SC network to other car manufactures, which will give Tesla yet another unbreakable barrier to entry for something really valuable eventually - a worldwide charging network.�
Sep 2, 2016
msnow It's only a cost center if they didn't allocate the built-in $2500 per car cost properly. As far as M3's and future cars go the model will work but there will be some loss in revenue by deducting the $2500 (or whatever it is) and rely on the new cost structure.�
Sep 2, 2016
Dynastar There is? Man I wish I had known that when I drove my Leaf across Montana last month. Would have made my trip soooooo much more enjoyable.
The truth is from California it may look like we have a coast to coast network but there's still a long way to go. In a lot of "flyover country" Tesla is the only game in town, and even then their coverage has a ways to go. Want to drive to Malta in the winter? Good luck with that. I think Tesla can do quite well by charging for access, especially in the more remote parts of the country.�
Sep 2, 2016
McRat Every station that is underutilized is a cost center regardless. Capital has time value. Each inverter that is not used, it becomes a piece of furniture in an empty office.
Say you have a SC in Lusk, Wyoming, that never gets more than a single car at a time, and even days go by without a visitor.
3 of the 4 outlets are never necessary, ever, even if your $2500 "paid" for it. It is a 'cost center' until the 3 outlets are necessary for the cars sold.
Only 'necessary' outlets could even be argued as 'profit' centers, and only if the building of one actually increased the sales.�
Sep 2, 2016
RogerHScott Why is this a good thing, given that, system-wide, the SpC system is grossly underutilized right now? I'll bet if you look
at the SpC system cost per-charge today it would be something astonishing.�
Sep 2, 2016
SomeJoe7777 I'm wondering if certain states will have a problem with this approach. I'm sure Tesla has considered this, but I'm wondering what their game plan is.
In Texas, your company has to be regulated as a public utility corporation if you want to sell power by the kWh. That's why all public chargers here are either free or they charge by the minute or by the session.
I'm thinking that Tesla is going to make an argument that the power sale is occurring in California, since that's where the credit card will be charged, and that Tesla is actually the consumer -- buying power from a local utility which is then theirs to do what they want with it.
However, it's been seen far too often that Texas lawmakers have their own interpretations and agendas that sometimes bear no resemblance to reality.�
Sep 2, 2016
Eclectic This seems like the natural evolution of Supercharging to me. Early adopters took a risk in buying a new product with the possibility of it flopping and they've been rewarded with, among other things, no additional fee access to fast charging. There's no way that model can work with sales at the volumes Musk predicts unless one of two things happens. Either the cost of the charging network is embedded in the price of each car sold, whether or not the owners use the network, or the cost is borne by only those who use the network, and the unit price of each car no longer has to cover the cost of the charging network.
Maybe some people really believe that they can get things "for free", and I'm sure they'll be disappointed, but I think most consumers understand that you pay for what you get, and if you don't want something, you shouldn't have to pay for it.�
Sep 2, 2016
McRat The 7? SC stations in Montana are too far apart for Leafs right now. You'd have to use 240vac service to cross through.
The way I'd plan non-Tesla's using the SC sites:
You'd rent an adapter from Tesla, with a deposit equal to retail price. You pay per month for the adapter.
You'd also create a "special" outlet in Tesla Format that is actually L2 only for cars that don't support DCFC.�
Sep 2, 2016
mspohr SC stations drive sales even if they are never used. People buy the car because they know they're available even if they never use them.
Also, the incremental cost to add another charging stall to a Supercharger station is very small. Once you negotiate the space, install the transformer and charging equipment, it's almost "free" to add another plug. Right now, the only Supercharger sites where I regularly see lots of cars are in California. For the rest of the country, I'm usually alone.�
Sep 2, 2016
Cosmacelf It is a good thing from the point of view of Tesla owners who will have slightly less crowded SCs going forward than they otherwise would have.�
Sep 2, 2016
msnow No, I'm only talking about the paid money already allocated to the infrastructure. That would be $2500 x the number of cars built that included that cost.
I think you're talking about future investment.�
Sep 2, 2016
davewill They wouldn't be too far apart for the Bolt or the 2.0 LEAF or an i3 with Rex.�
Sep 2, 2016
Az_Rael I will be very curious as to how this plays out with regards to CPO cars. If the intent is to decouple supercharging from the car, I could see Tesla selling CPO cars with these new options instead of the rolled in lifetime supercharging they come with now.
Or, does Tesla just set some cutoff date? All VINs built prior to XX date have lifetime supercharging with the car, all VINs afterwards are the paid option. Good luck sorting that out on the used market.�
Sep 2, 2016
krazineurons what does it mean for existing orders? we get a $2500 discount? also how much would it cost to charge over a lifetime, given it is per KWh so it really depends on mileage one is getting to calculate it.. would it be cheaper to get lifetime super charging or pay per charge?�
Sep 2, 2016
MorrisonHiker I've seen several posts stating that only utilities can sell power by the kWh. Technically, does that mean a company could change the units and legally sell power by the Wh or MWh?�
Sep 2, 2016
MP3Mike It would actually be $2,000/car. (The extra $500 was a change fee for the original S60 to add Supercharging after the fact.)�
Sep 2, 2016
Az_Rael Electrek is now reporting that the expected discount amount would be $2000 from their source.
All speculation, but I am guessing if you have an existing order, the lifetime supercharger price was already rolled in. I suppose you might be able to remove supercharging from your order, but you would then be subject to the change fee, so the discount would be less.�
Sep 2, 2016
McRat
If I have $2500, I can either invest it, or spend it. If I spend it, I permanently lose it's income. It's sometimes called the Cost of Capital.
Even if Tesla stops making cars, the money they spent on SC's, could have been making income.
It has to do with managerial accounting.
In any case, if I spend the $2500 today on ice cubes for a party in 2018, I lose money even faster. 3 of the outlets in Lusk, Wyoming are ice cubes for 2018. However, if I can sell those ice cubes today, I'm better off.�
Sep 2, 2016
RogerHScott Tesla, of course, wants you to be asking that question and most likely wants you to conclude lifetime super charging is cheaper -- even if it isn't. Companies typically price bulk purchases to be more expensive on an equivalent per-use basis than per-use would be for most
typical customers. Think of all-you-can-eat buffets: are you really a voracious teenager?�
Sep 2, 2016
mspohr It really depends on how much you use the SCs. If your primary use is only occasional trips and most of your charging is at home, it may be cheaper to pay as you go. If you do a lot of long distance traveling or you don't have a local charging option other than SC, then it's probably cheaper to go all-in on the bulk purchase.
I still think it's not worth it to SC for local use if you have home charging. You might get $5-$10 "free" electricity at the SC but it will cost you at least an hour of your time... this is about minimum wage (or less).�
Sep 2, 2016
RogerHScott You're assuming that I don't have reason to be in the vicinity of the SpC. The rare occasions when I use my local SpC are when my car happens to need a non-trivial charge and I plan to go to either the grocery store in whose parking lot it is located or to a nearby restaurant.�
Sep 2, 2016
mspohr I do the same thing if I have some reason to be close to the SC but I don't go there just to charge.�
Sep 2, 2016
ggnykk Not the best idea. Power user will still pay up and get "all you can eat" package. Tesla owners who only travel outside the city once a while will opt for paying kwh block as you go.
Not a very good idea if we want everyone to chip in to build out the supercharger network, I think the current pricing structure is better.�
Sep 2, 2016
msnow How would it generate income if it's use is already committed to those of us that paid for it.�
Sep 2, 2016
mhan00 People aren't rational and don't value their time the same way you do. There will be people who go nuts for something that's "free" or a "deal". Just look at Black Friday stampedes with people camping out, sometimes a week or more in advance, just to get a barely adequate flat screen TV for 200 bucks off.
There are a couple of free chargers (level two) in my area at a nearby bank and I see people in their Leafs, iMievs, Volts and even a Model S sitting in their cars, charging. The spots- well, spot now, since one of the chargers is no longer working - are constantly full, many times with people sitting inside their cars. I'll pass by hours later and see them still there. Never under estimate people's desire for something "free". It's even worse if they think they've paid for it. The way people act at buffets shows that.�
Sep 2, 2016
ohmman The thing to remember about Tesla opening the chargers to other manufacturers is that the chargers are still Tesla-branded, and will still be primarily Tesla-occupied. Imagine driving your Accord to a BMW-branded fueling station, with logos and BMWs everywhere. For BMW, it would be valuable from a marketing perspective.
I'm sure I'm showing my bias here, but if I drove an i3 up to a Supercharger and parked next to a Model 3, I'd probably be hitting submit on the design studio the next day.�
Sep 2, 2016
TMobe I was thinking the exact same thing. The possibility that CPO's from tesla or private party. They may decide the lifetime charging would be limited to 1st owner or non transferable. If they still included lifetime charging only for Tesla sold CPO's they could get a higher sales price.
Food for thought�
Sep 2, 2016
johnnyS When we were at the Lusk supercharger in May, there were 10 Teslas there. Of course we were all headed to the Custer rally. While in Custer, we heard that two of the Lusk chargers were down. With 60 Teslas in Custer that made many of us very nervous about the return trip. I called Tesla before returning and the person on the telephone said they had 25 calls about the Lusk supercharger.
So Lusk may not be busy a lot of time, but it is a vital link in the cross country route.
Once Tesla commits to building a supercharger station, the cost per stall must go down as stalls are added.�
Sep 2, 2016
theslimshadyist I have to believe that the higher end Tesla's will continue to use the SpC's for free?�
Sep 2, 2016
deonb As long as you pay for it, if will be free.�
Sep 2, 2016
Reeler Why not sell a Tesla to Chademo adapter (or other L3 standard) that has an UID so that the Supercharger can hit your account when you use the adapter to charge your non-Tesla car. That would take the competiing car companies out of the equation. Not that my LEAF could go cross country with the current network, it would be far better than current charging networks.�
Sep 2, 2016
Canuck I don't buy the argument that this is about lowering the price on the Model S/X by $2,000. That's simply an excuse. Good one Tesla, wink, wink, But let's look at this logically people. This is the start of no more "free supercharging for life of the vehicle" (for long distance travel only -- as if they could ever enforce that part!) so they must ease us out of this model. Why? Because this model no longer makes sense. Why? Because we will soon see used Model S's fall below $25k once the Model 3 comes out (with used X's to follow -- longer after, of course, but we must look to the future here) and it won't be long until you get a 2012 60 S with high mileage but free supercharging for $25k and lower, especially when comparing it to a new Model 3. Isn't it now patently obvious that Tesla simply can't continue to pump out vehicles with free SC for life because it will be very appealing to people with superchargers down the street, around the corner, etc. as they build more and more, to buy a used Model S for $25k or lower and never pay a dime to drive? And that's not too far off. So they need to limit the used vehicles that can do this, and this is start. In a couple of years or less, supercharger credits will be the only option for new S and X vehicles and it will be the only option for every Model 3 vehicle made.
So, you say, why not "free only for the original purchaser of the vehicle". Because that's a headache in reality. Tesla would then have to track the sale of its vehicles to turn it off, plus how do you determine the price for that? So I think Tesla has ruled it out.
It's just my opinion, but please feel free to flame me and dislike it. It's more fun when people say I'm out to lunch than when they agree with me. Especially since I can come back here and I said I told you so. (Well, except when I said AP 2.0 would be out by the end of 2015!).
Not true, in Canada at least. I know for a fact that parking lot owners who lease to Tesla get a monthly fee from Tesla for every single space, but that's probably nominal compared to the power that Tesla pays for. Adding superchargers to existing sites are not "almost free" at all. Tesla has to pay for the rent and power, not to mention maintenance and upkeep. And when you say it's only California that's busy, you're just looking at the future of Tesla for everywhere else, today.
Supercharger credits are not only coming for the Model 3 - they are coming as the only option for all Tesla vehicles.�
Sep 3, 2016
sorka ....and what does the charging taper look like with a battery that small?�
Sep 3, 2016
Footer Although California may skew the curve up, let's say the average cost for power at a supercharger for a typical Tesla is $0.05/mile. So with the $2500 built in to the cost of my Tesla, the break-even point for Tesla is 50,000 miles, not counting infrastructure costs. My break-even point is 52,500 miles including WI sales tax on my original purchase. I'm never going to rack up 52,500 miles on Superchargers in this car so I would have been better off paying on a per use basis. Maybe subsequent owners of my car will put on more supercharger use during its lifetime but it looks like Tesla is the winner for my car.
I think charging for charging is a better way to go, even for Tesla. I would gladly accept a $2500 reduced price on my next Tesla in exchange for pay per KW. The real selling point is access to the supercharger network when needed. I'm sure any day now we will go to Design Studio and see an across the board $2500 price drop and unlimited supercharging removed.�
Sep 3, 2016
u00mem9 Tesla is giving up on their original and excellent concept because they desperately need to increase sales volume.
The cost of supercharging is not $5-$10. That is the cost of the electricity (almost). Of course you won't likely use $2500 worth of supercharging. The money IS needed to build the supercharging network. Letting buyers opt out of paying their part of the network will kill it. That would be like letting people pay for insurance after they are sick.
They need to build the network...otherwise the network fails to function at model 3 volume. They know this.
This is a move of desperation�
Sep 3, 2016
ChadFeldheimer I disagree.
The capital/infrastructure costs of building out the supercharger network are insignificant in comparison to the gigafactory and fremont, and the gigafactory and fremont will be paid down with incremental future revenue. Why can't Tesla do the same with the supercharger network?
Bundling supercharger access into the base price of the car made sense at the beginning, when (1) Tesla did not have relatively easy access to working capital and (2) it was unclear what supercharger utilization rates would actually be. It was basically an experiment and a marketing point (long distance driving IS viable in an EV). Today, it seems clear that the supercharger network provides significant value and is viable by itself. Unbundling access allows Tesla to better align revenue with the value derived from the network.�
Sep 3, 2016
jelloslug Your argument falls apart with the fact that supercharging use to be optional (or not available at all) on the Model S.�
Sep 3, 2016
RogerHScott @Canuck, compared to the (expected/hoped-for) volume for the M3, how do you figure the supercharging behavior of MS owners, new or used, even registers? Tesla needs to defend the (large) price differential between M3 and MS and built-in free supercharging is one
way to do that. I can't see how they'll do anything but lose money by giving MS buyers a choice of up-front ("for life") or pay-as-you-go,
since most people choosing the latter will likely come out ahead. It would make zero sense for TMC to completely unbundle
supercharging from the MS.
One concern I have about the shift towards a pay-per-use model is that it disincentiivizes TMC to build SpCs in little-used locations and
to expand or even maintain those in lesser-used locations. Basically each individual SpC now becomes a profit/loss center in the eyes of
the bean counters. Maybe they can come up with some sort of compromise where charging at more obscure locations costs (pay-per-
use customers) more in order to support an SpC at that site at all. Come to think of it, that's actually an advantage of opening SpCs to
other kinds of cars: having more users of the sites in lower-traffic areas justifies having more such sties in the first place, which is good
for everyone.�
Sep 3, 2016
RogerHScott That's not necessarily a good thing for TMC, right? The goal of a business is not to align revenue with value -- it is to have revenue exceed value by as much as possible. This unbundling seems likely to reduce the revenue TMC generates from the existing value.�
Sep 3, 2016
u00mem9 Why can't they indeed? As you know, they have failed to meet plan for new SC in 2016. That wasn't an accident, it was necessary to conserve cash to keep up appearances for the capital markets.
Are you seriously suggesting they can build out a network of nationwide superchargers every 100-150 miles (across Texas, etc.) for $5 per use?�
Sep 3, 2016
ChadFeldheimer When I say "better align revenue to value", I don't mean making them equal. That would obviously not be a good thing for Tesla (although it may well be a better situation than exists today!). Instead, what I mean is accrue more revenue from customers that routinely use the superchargers versus those that do not.
There are reports that Tesla will lower the base price of the S as a result of the unbundling. This will certainly make the car more appealing to consumers that would infrequently supercharge, thereby allowing Tesla to sell more cars. Selling more cars is certainly good for Tesla.�
Sep 3, 2016
ChadFeldheimer Of course not - $5 per use wouldn't even cover the cost of electricity!�
Sep 3, 2016
theslimshadyist ...�
Sep 3, 2016
Garlan Garner I think that uncoupling the SC from the MS price would be interesting.
I wonder if you could still order the lifetime SC option from the Tesla Store as it stands today.
How much do you guys think the store SC option will cost? $2500 or $2000?�
Sep 3, 2016
MP3Mike I think it will be just like it was with the original Model S 60. $2,000 if ordered with the car, $2,500 if added after delivery. (Tesla likes their $500 change fees.)�
Sep 3, 2016
Garlan Garner Good point.�
Sep 3, 2016
u00mem9 I estimate it will cost: the company's primary advantage in the market, and ultimately its future.
But we gotta bail out cousin's solar Ponzi scheme, amiright??!�
Sep 3, 2016
Garlan Garner No - comment.�
Sep 3, 2016
MP3Mike How do you figure? They remove the lifetime Supercharging from the car, lower the price by $2,000, and then make lifetime Supercharging a $2,000 option. So for the person that wants lifetime Supercharging the cost is exactly the same. For the person that doesn't need Supercharging, or only needs it occasionally, they save $2,000 on the car and use some kind of pay as you go plan when they need to Supercharge.
Sounds like win-win to me. More people can buy a Tesla, and people have been asking for this for a long time.�
Sep 3, 2016
Garlan Garner Its a win - win in my book. I'm going to buy it, however this way...not everyone is forced to.�
Sep 3, 2016
Garlan Garner The problem I see is that $2000 or so isn't keeping people from buying the MS. IMHO
The MS is an expensive car. Based on the average price of all cars across the board.�
Sep 3, 2016
MSEV Forgive me, but many of you writing on this thread sound new to Tesla and the Model S. I have had my 85D for 18 months. When I ordered mine, like all ordered at that time, it came without SpC. It was, I believe, $2,000 extra to have it "enabled," with lifetime use of the SpCs (which I did). My point is that they did this before, not so long ago, they know how it works. The moved to a different model of sales by having it be a part of all the Model Ss. Tesla's reasons for going to "all have it" and going back to "it is an option" are theirs to make, for their own reasons. And they know how it works to have some cars able to use the SpCs (like mine) and some that don't (the ones not enabled) because that currently exists. Or maybe I am missing the point. My 2 cents.�
Sep 3, 2016
goofygrin As someone that could afford whatever... I don't want to afford or pay for things I don't value.
I was specing out a lightly equipped 60d before the p90d sale... And would have been happy (and not bought) for the option of unlimited SC.
The 60 cars, I feel, are marketed as mostly city cars, so they will sell more at 2k lower... Look how many people placed deposits when the 1200 delivery fee was waived.�
Sep 3, 2016
Canuck Doesn't it get a little tiring predicting the downfall of Tesla and the solar industry? I'm sorry to tell you this, but Tesla is here to stay and coal is a thing of the past. Period - end of sentence. There's going to be rough patches for both Tesla and solar companies, but something tells me you still don't travel by horse and buggy. It's better to embrace the future than complain about it. Plus, the ride to the future is so much more fun in a Tesla powered by solar, hydro, wind, or even coal, than an ICE powered by OPEC.�
Sep 3, 2016
ohmman I have a feeling that the new lifetime plan is going to:
I don't have any data to back that up, it's just an inkling.
- Cost more than before (My guess is $3000)
- Be limited to a single owner
�
Sep 3, 2016
Az_Rael If Electrek's source is correct then the phrase "ensuring that the value of the Supercharger network is better represented by the pricing model" sure sounds like management-speak for a price increase to me.�
Sep 3, 2016
u00mem9 Downfall of tesla and the solar industry?!? That's totally the wrong conclusion about my perspective. EV and PV are here to stay and in 5 years you won't be able to give an ICE car away. I'm already dreading the phase where we get to pay a rider on our electric bill for the demolition of their coal powered plants (much like we get to pay for them not to use the nuke plants they built 30 years ago).
My opinions are based on a concern that Elon Musk is putting what the engineers from Tesla have created in long term jeopardy for personal interest (financial or ego). Solarcity is a straight up scam business model...bad for customers, worse for investors. Now everyone knows that, and in a final desperate move, Musk is willing to gamble Tesla in an effort to mask that.
Here is the short version from where I'm sitting:
Tesla has 2.5-3B$ cash, basically enough to get gigafactory and model 3 to production
Capital markets are potentially closing based on lack of results
Suddenly they want to use the cash to help with Solarcity burn rate
Need more cash
Need to meet delivery numbers at all costs to go back to the capital markets
Willing to make short term decisions like selling 75kWh cars for 60kWh price and delete SC charges
At present, Tesla is adding risk to an already challenging plan.
BTW
If Solarcity disappeared tomorrow solar future wouldn't suffer, it would be better off. Their business model is deceptive and apparently extremely unprofitable. Do you think PV's future dominance will be any less certain without them?�
Sep 3, 2016
Panu Do you all think that there will still be a lifetime plan? With lifetime plans congestion caused by locals need to addressed as more and more Teslas are sold. There could be an algorithm deciding when you supercharge locally but it can never be perfect and people get mad. Easiest solution is not to offer lifetime plan any more.
If it will be offered I also think it will be around $3000 and limited to long distance travel by algorithm. It could also be for the life of the battery instead of life of the car.�
Sep 3, 2016
Troy I have to agree with this statement. Many people don't realize that the cost of superchargers to Tesla is more than $2500/car. Let me show you a detailed calculation:
1. Supercharger hardware:
According to this source, in May 2015 Tesla said each station costs $270,000. At the end of May 2015, there were 2870 stalls in 479 stations. That's an average of 5.99 stalls per station. Therefore, cost per stall was 270,000/5,99= $45,063. The reason I'm calculating stalls is because today's stations have more stalls. Therefore cost per stall will be more accurate.
At the end of Q2 2016, worldwide, Tesla had 4009 supercharge stalls and 136,652 deliveries. Some S60's and S40's don't have supercharging. So let's assume 132,652. That means 4009/132,652= 0.0302 stalls per vehicle. In other words, the cost of supercharger hardware is 0.0302*$45,063= $1,362/car
2. Vehicle hardware:
I have no idea about this. Let's say $200/car.
3. Electricity:
66% of all Teslas were sold in the USA. So I will use USA prices. The average price is $0.12/kWh.
Assuming each supercharge session is from 25% to 90%, that's 65%. Assuming average battery is 85 kWh, that would be 0.65*85= 55.25 kWh, which would cost 55.25*0.12= $6.63 per session.
According to this survey with 243 owners, on average Tesla drivers supercharge 27.1 times/year. So that's 27.1*$6.63= $179.67 per year. For the lifetime of the car, let's say for 12 years, that would be 12*$179.67= $2,156/car
Total cost of supercharging = $1362 (for supercharger hardware) + $200 (for vehicle hardware) + $2,156 (for electricity)
= $3,718/car�
Sep 3, 2016
Canuck This is what you said:
If this will cost Tesla "ultimately its future" then I don't know how I reached a wrong conclusion. I'm just going by what you said.
Then you said this about SolarCity:
Ponzi schemes are all doomed for ultimate failure. Again, I'm just going by what you said.
Granted, you now state that the solar industry itself, and EV vehicles itself, will survive, based on your clarification. But I still take issue with your premises that this supercharger payment change will cost Tesla its future and that Solar City is a Ponzi scheme, as a such also doomed for failure.�
Sep 3, 2016
u00mem9 All correct. As I attempted to summarize, the real reason we are talking about pay-to-play SC network on model S/X is to sell more cars at all cost. That puts Tesla at greater risk long term. All because it turns out, it's not profitable to borrow money, install solar, take the incentives, and sell the contract for future revenue to the open market. Solar city has 13,000 people working on an invalid premise.
Obviously, I want that trouble to stay far away from Tesla.�
Sep 3, 2016
brkaus I think unbundling is the right thing to do.
1. The cheapskates won't buy it and excessively use local superchargers. Tesla won't have to add as much local capacity and can focus on the buildout elsewhere and long distance travel.
2. Not sure it is good to have a liability on the books "for the life of the car". What happens if electricity goes way up?
3. I'm not convinced $2k is enough to support superchargers and not loose money.�
Sep 3, 2016
TMobe Exactly! May only be an option for the fully optioned out. Like the 100 is only available for the P90D at the time.
1 owner makes sense as well.�
Sep 3, 2016
Apricot I wonder if there will be a reservation scheme in the future. My only concern about the SC build out is running low and not being able to get a spot when I need it. It's already happening with Level 2 chargers for other EVs... The small number of spots were almost always available three years ago, but now there's a chance they will be full.�
Sep 3, 2016
TexasEV No, you didn't pay extra. EVERY 85D came with supercharging in the base price, as did every 70, 75, 85, and 90 (D or not). The only car to have a $2000 option to enable supercharging was the original 60.�
Sep 3, 2016
TaoJones Since ZEV credits have pretty much paid for the SC network so far and will continue to do so, making up a cost per car to support SCing seems unproductive.
Especially when the majority of cars (Model 3 deliveries will dwarf Model S/X deliveries once the ramp is complete) will have this prepaid per kW plan.
As long as they keep the payment process away from the pedestal, I am a half a happy camper. I'll be a whole happy camper once speculation is replaced with facts and details with regard to any transition of the S/X to a non-lifetime SC usage scheme.
It makes little sense to step away from what's been working for the S/ X in part because it will keep more, let's call them "legacy" cars on the road rather than having those owners buy new.
I will be highly disappointed if they jettison the free for life model for the S/X. Again, look at how many BMW 7-Series are sold relative to 3-series. Not a lot of cars from that perspective.
So, we shall see how complicated and convoluted this will get. Hopefully not at all. Providing an entry-level car with prepaid (again, not poo-poo at the pedestal) is fine - but sacrificing the incentive to move up (by leaving it included with the S/X) does not make a lot of sense.
Especially when one removes the FUD and realizes that 97% of the network is fine and that the entire network is less than 50% complete. Remember that only a fraction of 3/S/X use SCs to begin with. There is no coming onslaught. Half overseas, most domestic in CA/NY, and the remainder leaves about 1,000 cars/state/year. Not at all scary.�
Sep 3, 2016
Canuck How would Tesla track sales of used vehicles years later and turn it off? Is there anything comparable today to this? The only thing I can think of is when Sirius offered a lifetime subscription, but that isn't the automaker but a separate service, and it survives transfer of the vehicle unless the new owner calls Sirius if there is problem - then they might turn it off. But I can't think of anything else.
I just can't see this being a workable option but even if it is, it seems like a huge problem for Tesla to try to enforce. As such, I don't see it happening.
Yes, and $2,500 if you didn't order it with the car:
Tesla � Enable Supercharging
I've yet to see a Model 3 use a Supercharger.
Yes there is. I've heard over and over the other side of this argument, telling us how underutilized the Supercharger network is, how there's no concern making it free for life with the Model 3, etc., etc.
Don't you find it strange Tesla doesn't appear to feel the same way? We've gone beyond the argument that it will be free for life with the Model 3, calling my comments about that FUD, to now talking about credits for the Model S/X. I wonder why?
I remember not very long ago my daughters going to the mall and there was never a concern about getting an EV spot to plug in the Leaf. Now, they're crossing their fingers to find a spot and they make sure they can still get home without a charge because full EV spaces is now common.
The onslaught is coming. Tesla understands it. It's not FUD. With proper planning and execution, it can be handled. But to put blinders on and say everything is fine does us all a disservice. At least in my opinion.�
Sep 3, 2016
TacC I'm not so sure so I'll play devil's advocate here.
Free lifetime Supercharger access was promised to all who paid a not insignificant price for their car. I think the current model simply rewards early adopters and is no different from offering Founders edition vehicles or the ability for existing owners to jump others in the manufacturing queue. As Elon said, loyalty begets loyalty.
As far as where they would add capacity, it seems most rational to add in dense urban areas. Most non-Tesla EV owners would need a substantial network build out before they would consider long road trips so any revenue gained there will come at a huge cost. On the other hand, Tesla owners who can't charge at home would likely pay a premium for the ability to charge faster.
I think solar panels solve your 2nd and 3rd issues.�
Sep 3, 2016
ohmman This is a good point that I didn't consider initially. (I did say I had no evidence or data, just an 'inkling'!) I was thinking only about CPOs, which would be easy for the obvious reasons.
For fun, let me dig my unreasonable man-heels in and propose a way this could be done. Tesla could grant lifetime Supercharger access to your Supercharger "credit" account. The one on "My Tesla" that was leaked. That's in your name, for your VIN, with your credit card. Obviously once you sell the car, you'd dissociate your VIN with your account, and you'd be done. That VIN would no longer have the unlimited access.
There aren't exact correlatives for this scenario, I agree. But granting the owner a lifetime Supercharging credit account for a specific VIN would be easy enough to track. There may be some desire to game the system and sell the car with the existing account tied in, but I can see that getting ugly (especially with idle fees), and don't imagine it's something a seller would want to tie themselves to.�
Sep 3, 2016
RogerHScott There's no way Tesla is paying residential retail rates for their electricity, but I agree with you overall analysis that TMC doesn't break
on the entire SpC system by charging $2500/car.�
Sep 4, 2016
WannabeOwner is that corporate, large user, purchase price? Seems on the high side to me ... plus Tesla could diversity into generating electricity (e.g. Solar) to add-value to that parameter.
EDIT: Sorry, hadn't seen that @RogerHScott had already made that point.
how about "10 years" (or whatever) instead of current-ownership period?�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex I'd vote for that as long as BEFORE accepting such L2 cars, Tesla scales the number of supercharing stalls to account for the slow charging. If today's stations assume an average 100KW charging rate, you'd have to scale that accordingly for 6KW. So for example, a SC location that today has 8 stalls, would need to have 133 stalls or more (the "more" part is to account for increasing number of cars by accepting all the new cars to the network). I think every Tesla owner would be happy to share if that meant every supercharger has 100-200 stalls or more.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex If that was true Tesla would have added 20 or 30 stalls to each of the SC in CA that get overloaded on long weekends and holidays (after all 20 stalls x almost_FREE = almost_FREE). What I think you forgot to consider is:
1. Dedicated parking space costs
2. Power capacity costs - at 120KW per car that is a lot of capacity you need from the utilities, they need to plan for that and have it ready whether you're using it or not (waterfall doesn't stop flowing just because you don't need electricity - that is why in a lot of places electricity is much cheaper at night). One SC stall is equivalent of ~6 residential homes, so 10 stalls would be like a small neighborhood in terms of utilities planing.
So no, it is not almost FREE, not even close.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex Why would that be a problem? It's an option like pano roof or other options. Just because it came included with some cars it doesn't make it more difficult to sort out. You'll likely be able to see whether the car has that option by looking at the 8.x charging screen. CPO market has dealt with it with S60's and there you actually have to call Tesla to verify (or plug into a SC).�
Sep 4, 2016
David_Cary That survey was not scientific. I am an enthusiast and I've not even seen that. Do you really think the average owner is on there filing that out? I just asked a fellow owner - P85+ - purchased 2.5 years ago. Never supercharged. I have done about 8 - in 16 months. We have superchargers in 5 directions 50 - 70 miles away. Why not go by Tesla's numbers which are far less. I believe it is right around 10% of total miles. I'd go with 15k miles/year or 1500 miles or 10 sessions. (I actually think Tesla says 9%)
So then with your other assumptions - and you get really close to $2000.
I know it is hard to believe in CA, but wholesale electricity is about $.04 per kwh. But Tesla may pay significant demand charges. But they probably don't plan on doing that for 10 years. Additionally, electric companies are super excited about EV's and may help subsidizing the stations with good electric rates.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex Tesla SC not designed (number of stalls) for slow charging. Even Chademo maxes out at 50KW, but a lot or cars use less (say 20KW). So if Tesla's charge on average at 100KW, then to accommodate 20KW cars you need 5x the number of stalls.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex Why is everyone here assuming the charging credits will be what the electricity costs? A vast majority of people (as mentioned by few people here) will never use anywhere $2000 worth of electricity from superchargers. HOWEVER, it would make total sense if the "charging credits" for pay-as-you-go were some multiple of electricity at home, say 3x to 10x. If you had to pay between $0.30 and $1 per KWh then for some it would still be worth to use pay-as-you-go, but others would pay $2000 for the lifetime plan.
My guess is that the charging credits will be some multiple like this.�
Sep 4, 2016
Troy My guess is Tesla will end the current free for life system before the end of this year because it prevents them from opening lots of city superchargers in places like China and Hong-Kong where there is high demand. I have even seen forum members asking for paid superchargers because the free ones are always full. HERE is an example.�
Sep 4, 2016
brkaus True. Free for life would be in conflict with high density superchargers. More accessible, more "value" people want to get out of them. If Tesla made a supercharger at every McDonald's, nearly all miles put on many cars would be paid for by Tesla.
Would not expect any ICE company to offer free for life fuel for $5k.�
Sep 4, 2016
Az_Rael Because when you commit to buy a CPO from Tesla, you don't get to see the car in person until delivery day. Even Tesla sales reps don't always know the full set of options on the car. So you don't find out for sure until delivery day, which a pretty high stress day to be rejecting a vehicle if you had expected the option or to try and negotiate that Tesla add it on the due bill.�
Sep 4, 2016
RogerHScott .. you'd be paying significantly more per mile than driving in ICE at today's gas prices. Not the strongest marketing point.
I could see maybe capping that at equal to current gas-based per-mile prices, so the story would effectively be "cheaper for
your typical around-town driving, and same as ICE on the highway".�
Sep 4, 2016
MSEV It looks like I stand corrected. Hard to believe, that I don't remember that correctly, but the evidence is there. I think what I did, a couple years ago, was I started out thinking I was going to buy a 60. To add the SpCing was $2000. I eventually ordered an 85 (no D option yet at that time). Then D came out, Tesla allowed me to upgrade (with an added few months more waiting). So I did not add an option of $2000 to get SpC to the 85D. I think I believed that I paid for that option included in other options (likely, in my mind, for the $10,000 upgrade from 60 to 85). So I did not, as I have just now with help figured out what I did two years ago, order an option for SpCing, mine came with the upgraded model I ordered.
So I believe I was correct in stating Tesla has had models without SpCing that also could be ordered with it and even updated aftermarket (for additional cost later). They do have some history of how this has worked.
But I was incorrect in what I said about adding a $2000 option in ordering an 85D and how I said it and hope I haven't confused anyone.
I also believe I paid for that feature (to have SpCing) elsewhere in my costs, that Tesla didn't give it to me for free.
Am I incorrect in that assumption?�
Sep 4, 2016
MP3Mike Easy, when the new owner ask Tesla to move the car to their account. The only way to avoid that is if the seller gives the new owner the account with the car. Which if the seller had multiple Teslas could be a problem.�
Sep 4, 2016
Cloxxki For new cars, Tesla could restrict SC access to chargers closely located to the car's "home". A simple algorythm could be written in GPS input to decide which SC is the (off-limits) home base. This forces people to have home charging set up, obviously an impossible hurdle to some.
Another option is to make the local SC's accessible only a number of times per year, for eventualities.�
Sep 4, 2016
Panu They should be accessible of course but you would have to pay per kWh for local supercharging. The algorithm cannot be perfect and there would always be owners going mad because they have to pay $1 for supercharging near home when returning from a road trip etc. That's why Tesla may decide to stop offering the lifetime plan.
But if the algorithm would be applied I don't see any reason why current owners would be treated differently.�
Sep 4, 2016
Canuck I don't see it as "easy". Why would the new owner have to ask them to move it their account? They probably won't even have an account. The seller can simply change the email associate with their account to that of the new owner. Since people could likely get a lot more money for an old Tesla if it had unlimited supercharging I bet they will become creative in ways to try to game the system. That's why I see it as a problem that Tesla would like to avoid.
I liked the answer posted above of active for 10 years but even that would piss me off if I planned to own my car more than 10 years. Maybe after that time you have to provide Tesla with your registration papers to keep it active? Again, though, just more problems and headaches for Tesla to administer.�
Sep 4, 2016
ohmman I think Tesla's going to require an account to have access to Supercharging, free-for-life or not. Idle fees need to be charged somehow. So yeah, I think this would still work and be "easy".�
Sep 4, 2016
stopcrazypp I think the debacle with the local charging warning letter scared Tesla away from doing that. There would be a lot of complaining if there is a false positive (even with that letter, some people were offended; a complete ban would bring a lot more outrage), and I don't think Tesla has confidence they can get even close to eliminating all false positives.
This plan neatly solves that headache. Personally I'm more in favor of making some stations (the most congested stations that locals would use) paid and keeping the long distance ones free. This plan doesn't eliminate that possibility, but chances might be slim given the extra complexity.�
Sep 4, 2016
dgpcolorado At the present time all CPOs are Supercharger enabled, so far as I am aware. That could well change once lifetime Supercharging becomes optional on new S and X sales, but it isn't the case now.
I could see all cars taken in for the CPO program in the future having lifetime Supercharging offered as an extra cost option even if the car had been grandfathered into the old "free for the life of the car" system; once Tesla buys it back they can do what they want with the car. The rationale is the same as for new cars: if you want unlimited Supercharging you can buy it, otherwise you can use the new (pre)pay as you go system.
The problem, as several others have mentioned upthread, is that the lack of the big upfront option fee reduces the capital to pay for expanding the Supercharger network. That being the case, I would expect the charge per kWh to be significantly more than the cost of electricity. Even PPU customers need to pay for the building and maintenance of the Supercharger network.
I mentioned in another thread awhile back: Supercharging access isn't about fuel cost, it is about the greatly enhanced utility of the car in that it can take long road trips, unlike other EVs. That's a paradigm shift in EV utility and it has a value over and above the simple cost of the option or the cost per kWh.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex First, are you serious? So when you buy a CPO it's the proverbial "cat in a bag"? Sounds like a bigger problem than figuring out supercharging - having to track this option on all cars rather than only S60's is not going to make things any worse. Second, lifetime supercharing is probably the easiest for Tesla as it is a software only option, so if they advertise the car with it and it doesn't have it, all they have to do is a quick software upgrade. Alternatively they can strip this options from all CPO's and simply make it a CPO add-on option.�
Sep 4, 2016
ohmman Yes, yes, yes.
I do, however, maintain that a portion of the margin on each vehicle sold will be earmarked for Supercharger buildout, regardless of the plan chosen. As you mention, it does reduce the size of the balloon of capital received up front, but I am confident that they'll make sure to continue the expansion at the same rate.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex When I look at paid chargers (L2 and even Chademo), a lot of them work out to be $0.50+ per kwh, so this marketing perception issue already exists. That said, I agree that equivalent to ICE may be a good idea ($0.30 to $0.50). At $0.50 it would take 2 coast to coast round trips to break even on the $2000 option.
PS> If figuring out "equivalent to ICE" they ought to consider not just price of gas, but also additives like CA has which have caused all my cars in the past to burn 30% more gas (I used to live there, whenever I filled up outside of CA, my gas consumption went down noticeably).�
Sep 4, 2016
Canuck What do you mean by an "account" if it's still free for life? I look at the word "account" as having a payment option so it's tied to a credit card or other type of payment. If it's free for life then no payment is needed and isn't that what we already have. Tesla knows my "account" with them whenever I plug my car into a supercharger, and they even send me an alert when it gets close to full. The app is also tied to my account. Why can't I just transfer that "account" to the new owner when I sell my car...? How can that be easily stopped?
You've lost me on this one but I'm all ears since I really hope there will be free for life option on my next Tesla, like my current one. I just can't seem to reconcile how then can do that "easily".
(As I type this from the Blue Moose coffee house during my travels while my car is supercharging... the only one when I arrived at the 6 supercharger station in Hope BC, on a long weekend... who said there's a concern of full superchargers?!�
Sep 4, 2016
ohmman What I'm saying is that I think that we're going to see a change. Based on the leak, we know there could be a thing called an "idle charge". How will they charge that if you don't have an account? Do lifetime Supercharger owners somehow get a pass on it? Maybe they do, but I doubt it. I think they'll make all of us have an account to pay for potential idling. By the fact that they require an account, it means they can track ownership very easily.
To facilitate this, 8.0 might have the functionality to check if a VIN has an account associated with it. Supercharging wouldn't proceed unless it did.
I want to reiterate that this is pure speculation, and none of it might be true, or some, or all. But probably none. I'm just trying to show how it could be "easily" done.�
Sep 4, 2016
whitex As one example, go check out how TiVo handles their subscriptions including lifetime. Seems pretty easy and straightforward. You can pay monthly, annually, or buy a lifetime which stays with the hardware box, but whoever buys it from you needs to register it on their own account to keep using it for free.�
Sep 4, 2016
stopcrazypp I've made a similar point elsewhere. From Tesla's SEC filings, build out of popular stations is funded entirely from a cut out of the margin, while stations in low demand areas are funded as advertising (which indirectly comes out of vehicle sales anyways). So no matter what, Tesla is taking a cut out of the car sales revenue anyways for supercharger purposes. What the "unbundling" might do is introduce a lower margin entry level vehicle, which might have an effect on the overall average margin Tesla takes in, but given those stripped entry level models typically don't sell very much, I doubt it has that huge an effect overall.�
Sep 4, 2016
Footer According to WK057 there is 1 bit in the program code that is switched on to give you supercharger access. That bit will stay on for the life of the car for those of use who already have lifetime SC. If the car is ever sold to Tesla, they can switch the bit off if they wish.
Tesla can write an algorithm that can do almost anything you can think of to switch the bit on or off for those cars than don't have lifetime access. They are already monitoring every car individually so it would be easy to change the log, or the appropriate part of the program code, to add supercharger credits, credit card info, or whatever they need to enable and disable access.�
Sep 4, 2016
stopcrazypp That would be an entirely client side solution. There is also speculation if they would do anything server side. Currently the vehicle transmits VIN information to the supercharger, but the supercharger doesn't do anything with that information. Tesla can also implement a blacklist or whitelist or some other realtime authorization on the supercharger side.�
Sep 4, 2016
Footer Doing something on the supercharger side would solve problems a loss of internet might cause.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét