Why won't other vehicle manufacturers take Tesla to the offer and provide supercharger access for their offerings as well?

Why won't other vehicle manufacturers take Tesla to the offer and provide supercharger access for their offerings as well?

As far as I recall, Mr Musk himself told that if competing offerings were to appear in the EV market then Tesla's supercharger network would be a possibility for them to use.

Yet no manufacturer so far has challenged Tesla so far. I don't understand why that is.

After all, what Tesla uses as a plugin standard is what is called Type 2. Such plugs are quite widespread at the moment. As to CHAdeMO, Tesla provides an adapter.

I am thinking here, in particular, about BMW and its i{3,8} offerings; why don't they just discuss supercharger usage with Tesla? It would make their own offers more competitive and make the EV offering more appealing in general... And also Nissan.

I just hope that it is not because of private interests; this can only go so far. I hear rumors that this or that manufacturer wants to implement a worldwide charging infrastructure of their own as well but hey, look: Tesla has done it ahead of time, just use it already, you morons...

Am I too optimistic or what?

vperl | August 20, 2016

Why would any Tesla owner want other vehicles in Tesla stalls?

In a few years 500, 000 more Tesla out.

Tesla could triple the number of stations and still those 500,000 Tesla would need more SUPERCHARGERs .

Let the other guys privately build their own stations, no government help. See what happens.

But, that is just me. Others may want to get in line for hours. Got time?

fgaliegue | August 20, 2016

@vperl Elon Musk explicitly said that other manufacturers were welcome to discuss conditions for their offerings to use superchargers as well. Given the overall goal of Tesla, which is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport, it is only logical that Tesla make this offer.

And frankly, it just makes sense. Sure, the Model 3 is in the pipe; but current owners of, say, BMW i8 or i3 REX would welcome supercharger use wholeheartedly.

fgaliegue | August 20, 2016

Also, kind of unrelated, but from a BMW vendor when I talked to said vendor about the i3 vs Tesla, he (yes, it was a man, but whatever) said that "Tesla was the Apple of cars".

NO. It isn't. Tesla's mission is not to trap its customers into its own customers, but to accelerate the transition to sustainable transport. And the sharing of supercharging fits this policy entirely.

As such, it is even more incomprehensible that no manufacturer as of now has taken up Tesla on the offer of sharing superchargers; it makes even less sense that other manufacturers aim to build charging networks of their own, for that matter.

Of couse, CHAdeMO is another matter: it has existed for a loong time, but then Tesla provides adapters, and I'm quite sure that the reverse can be made as well.

In short: no excuses.

mntlvr23 | August 20, 2016

I assume that the incoming manufacturer would need to pay a steep price to buy into the existing infrastructure - and that this money would go into expanding the network further. This is a win/win solution from the AST point of view, though not necessarily the best from a financial standpoint for Tesla and its shareholders - based on the current exclusivity they currently have - unless there is a very steep premium included in the price.

In any case, my guess would be that once one serious manufacturer buys into the system, it will open the floodgates for the others, who will see that they have to do it to compete.

Jeff Hudson | August 20, 2016

fgaliegue, the Tesla Supercharger ONLY dispenses DC to DC high amperage / high voltage. This nomenclature is normally described as Level 3 DC Fast Charging. The Tesla Supercharger direct competing standard is known as CHAdeMO. It just so happens that Tesla sells an electrical adapter that allows a Tesla to mate it with the industry standard SAE J1772 which is considered Level 2 charging and which dispenses AC ONLY. This is a common misunderstanding of lots of people new to EV charging standards.

To get to the nut of your question, a non Tesla EV manufacturer would need to demonstrate to Tesla that their EV can correctly negotiate the DC to DC charge rate in a Tesla acceptable manner. They would also have to negotiate a mutually acceptable remuneration contract with Tesla.

stevenmaifert | August 20, 2016

If you were thinking about buying a Bolt, would you be willing to pay an additional $2000 - $2500 for lifetime supercharger access and then another $450 for a CCS to Tesla connector adapter that doesn't yet exist. I don't think other manufacturers see any substantial benefit in partnering up with Tesla on their superchargers. Maybe that will change when we start to see more 200+ mile EVs in the market, but for now, it's a non-starter. And, before you get started on a pay as you go supercharger access for non-Tesla cars, remember Tesla would need all that money up front (probably from the manufacturers) to expand the supercharger network to accommodate all the new non-Tesla users.

Jeff Hudson | August 20, 2016

I did not mean to come off as lecturing since I think you understand the basics however many do not.

The most important concept to understand is the importance of DC to DC Fast Charging insofar as providing a viable means of EV long distance travel whereas Level 2 charging enables basically city / county driving ranges at best. This is why Tesla is poised to succeed and other EV manufacturers are not. Only when an actual nationwide / worldwide CHAdeMO (or other standard) competitor steps up to the plate and builds a network will the rest of the industry be competitive with the Tesla EV reality

vperl | August 20, 2016

Never said Elon said anything. My opinion only

Till these manufacturers pop for hundreds if not thousands of extra locations one is going to get in line and wait.

When these guys get serious and build out on their own system.... ten Chevy Bolt and you at SUPERCHARGER, and thirty M3 at a six or 4, maybe a eight stall location waiting for the the Fiats, and the others to finish charging.

Pull a number at the gate and wait. Shades of DMV

Just me, one opinion. Others may vary.

Got milk?

fgaliegue | August 20, 2016

@ticobird I'm afraid I don't understand the basics as well as you credit me to do...

For one, would you please share more information about charging standards? For instance, what engineering effort would be needed so that, say, a BMW i3, BMW i8, Nissan Leaf be able to use the existing (and expanding!) supercharger network?

Also, it seems to me that current Tesla vehicles use Type 2 plugs; and it looks to me as said plugs are able to convey enough information so that, for instance, when plugged into a household plug or supercharger, a negotiation is taking place so as to not either overload the charger or fry the "chargee". I'll try and look up about SAE J1772 but would you be so kind as to give a layman's view in the meantime?

fgaliegue | August 20, 2016

@vperl I believe Tesla's opinion in this matter is that politics cannot be relied upon, at least in the first place; hence this "offer" to share the current supercharger network with other manufacturers of pure EVs. As to the conditions, go figure; note that it is now known that Model 3 owners will have to pay an optional extra, unlike Model S/X owners (details of pricing for supercharger use is unknown).

Among other things, this means that the existing network will have the means to identify VINs at the very least; this leaves a door opened for other manufacturers to jump in. Talking BMW again, it means that for instance i8 owners would benefit over the vehicle lifetime (hey, the i8 is clearly not cheap) whereas i3 owners would have to pay extra.

Anyway, this is a market in the making; and as far as fast charging in general is concerned, it is clear that Tesla is already ahead of everyone else, state sponsored initiatives included... So, meh, let's just reuse that.

johndoe | August 20, 2016

I believe it is not in the best interests of other manufacturers to pay Tesla for access to the supercharger network.
Firstly, most EVs from other manufacturers are compliance cars and make a loss for the manufacturer. They have no interest in losing more money.
Secondly, supercharger does not benefit the manufacturer to an extent to compensate for the cost.

What I believe will make a difference, is for Tesla to allow pay-as-you-go. This means the manufacturer shifts the cost from themselves to the buyer. There is then an incentive for the manufacturer to have supercharger access, and for third parties to build supercharger stations. This is a great benefit to everyone, and drivers sustainable transport which is Tesla's mission. It is one of the reasons I believe Tesla will allow pay-as-you-go.

fgaliegue | August 20, 2016

@johndoe I do believe that Tesla will allow for pay-as-you-go (re: Model 3 supercharger access). While I don't know the technicalities behind this, I believe that superchargers already have the infrastructure in place to differentiate vehicles at least according to their VIN; the very fact that Tesla already announces that not all Model 3 owners will have free supercharger access is already a witness for that.

Therefore, it means that the logic to differentiate between vehicles is already built into the superchargers; and as such there is no reason why they could not be used for other vehicles (ie, non Tesla) as well.

As to the fact that EVs from other manufacturers are "compliance cars"... I don't believe that they are that dumb. At least not when it comes to BMW or Nissan. Therefore they should not only make the effort to go and talk to Tesla Motors, but make use of their influence to make the superchargers part of a transnational EV charging network, too.

It would be a win win for everybody in the long run: consumers, manufacturers and countries.

carlk | August 20, 2016

Because none of them wants to contribute to the transition to EV. They will only do whatever is necessary to keep them in the game but not a bit more. An universal fast charging network is their worst nightmere.

SO | August 20, 2016

I think carlk is right. Even to this day, I feel like other automakers look at EVs as a niche product.

Those other automakers are wrong to think that way for the long term. It is that short sighted thinking that may possibly allow Tesla to be the number one automaker one day. And that is why I plan on ONLY buying Tesla vehicles for the rest of my life. Tesla has earned my respect.

J.T. | August 20, 2016

If every Nissan, Ford and BMW dealership had to install just two Supercharger stalls that would be enough of a contribution to the network to offset the added volume of cars. Let's keep in mind that the huge majority of owners rarely use superchargers on a daily basis, they charge at home. Those manufacturers who are smart enough to see that their main product is obsolete should jump at this opportunity.

Dwdnjck@ca | August 20, 2016

The last Thing you will see at any dealership is Tesla superchargers. Carlk is spot on.

vperl | August 20, 2016

Put twenty 50 amp Level two chargers at all DMV sites, wait get a charge. Be Happy.

Spent 90 minutes there last week, and the place was almost empty.

Ross1 | August 21, 2016

Tesla has plans for a million cars a year.

With other manufacturers looking at 30 000 a year, they may well be like Alfred E Neumann:
What, me worry?

tigardspaz | August 21, 2016

This may come about in the future as more people purchase electric vehicles, but I doubt it. It's more likely that other manufacturers will adopt common charging standards that will encouraged third parties to develop a charging infrastructure for profit.

jordanrichard | August 21, 2016

There is no mystery to this. If i3s, Leafs, Bolt's etc. were able to use the superchargers and there by making their car a viable ICE car replacement, then those owners would see no reason to eventually move up to another car from Nissan, BMW etc. Also, car companies very much care about looking like they are the "leader" in automotive technology and by allowing their cars to use Tesla's superchargers means conceding that Tesla is the technological standard to be followed.

Car companies are in what is becoming a bad marriage with the dealers. The dealers (the real customers) are not going to buy/sell any product from the car companies that doesn't have the same level of revenue (parts and service) as the present ICE products have. Anything made by the car companies that threatens their "bread and butter", will not be tolerated. Nissan clearly knows how to build a BEV (Leaf) and clearly there is a demand for a full size, more expensive EV. So why haven't they built an Altima size EV? Because, it is the mid size cars that Nissan and every other company make their money on. It is not a coincidence that ALL EVs are in the "entry level" size.
VW E-Golf
MB B-Class
Nissan - Leaf
Chevy - Bolt/Spark
BMW - i3
Kia - Soul

What is in common? They are in the entry level category.

teslcls | August 21, 2016

The other manufacturers will not build high speed charging network infrastructure for cars that compete with M3 - only when they compete with MS, MX, or future M? long haul vehicles will they have a need for such a thing. Porsche is talking about an 800v charger for the Mission e and others may follow suit, but these truly are niche markets or testbeds at best. It would be most efficient if others would add to the T network through some agreement on compatibility standards. That would reduce the SC build load on Tesla and provide instant access for others, allowing faster adoption of sustainable energy vehicles throughout the world.

JeffreyR | August 21, 2016

Three main reasons:

1) Technical -- need to support Supercharger protocol; need high-capacity circuitry, cells and pack to charge at 120+ kW
2) Business/Financial -- Tesla would need to be paid to share, so company would need a big cash payout to join; Legacy ICE makers have a vested interest in the status quo, they are making their money from franchises, who make their money from service & repairs
3) Optics/Appearance -- How would it look to admit Tesla has the best charging tech and infrastructure? How would it look to have high-power, high-performance EVs on the same lot as high-maintenance, gas-guzzling ICEV? The nature of instant torque and long-range batteries means an EV can be very quick.

Finally, The Wrong Reason
4) No Rush -- Tesla is defying all odds w/ The Big Ramp Up. And, even if they are successful, they only will be making a million cars per year in 5 years. Legacy ICE makers feel they can wait for battery production to increase, common charging standards to evolve, and EV costs/performance/range/demand to improve. The baby steps regulators are forcing them to take plus the market pressure Tesla's success provides has forced them to react. Nacent programs like the Leaf, Volt, and i3 are evolving into long-range programs like the Bolt and eTron concept. Even though the Bolt's battery + drive train is provided by a third-party vendor, LG (IIRC), GM has developed a testing program that will help them going forward.
I believe Tesla has game-changing advantages that give them a head start that will be difficult to overcome. But, legacy ICE makers obviously do not see an existential threat. BMW's new #WaitOrDrive ad campaign shows that they believe Tesla Model ≡ reservation holders can be lured away by a plug-in hybrid w/ only a few miles of battery range.
It remains to be seen if they are right to wait or drive the transition to sustainable transport.

johndoe | August 21, 2016

The other car companies do not allow supercharger access because they deem it not to be in their short term best interest to do so.

What needs to be considered is what is in the long term interest of the customer, manufacturer, the market as a whole.
Do we really want a situation in several years where there are millions to tens of millions of Teslas on the road, and they are the only one which can use superchargers? Do we really want Tesla to build out infrastructure to cover the entire planet which on Tesla cars can use? The answer should be no, just like it is with access to electricity and petrol.
One way to encourage others to use superchargers is to have pay-as-you-go as an option. This can be done in a way that it costs other manufacturers, almost nothing. It can be done in a way where supercharger stations will be installed by third parties in far flung places where Tesla otherwise would not have done so. It can be done in a way that everyone is better off.

vperl | August 21, 2016

Pay as you go ten K up front, 3k a year . Minimum.

Wanna use it, pay up or use level 2 chargers .

Ross1 | August 22, 2016

I think there are 2 clear issues:

1: Tesla's direct connection is the most efficient way of transferring juice. The induction chargers are way less efficient.

2: Tesla people are purists, and wont settle for less efficiency. But VW et al are not purists and can see that even an inefficient system has desirability to the end user. Not to single out women, but ease of use is important. Park and forget works for most of us.

An autonomous VW Golf is starring in a youtube where it drops off its owner and trots down to charge itself merely by parking over an induction charger.

Induction chargers have a case to be the world standard, but as Tesla is leading the pack, being purists, the game is definitely confused.

Earl and Nagin ... | August 22, 2016

The Inductive -vs- Conductive argument has been fought heavily since the early '90's within the EV community. However, I think you're confusing automatic charging with inductive. There is no reason that a conductive charger can't be automatic as well.
It isn't about purists -vs- others.
We aren't getting the straight scoop on all of the issues from this current batch of inductive proponents. The main push behind inductive charging today is a company that originally made itself by getting patents and convincing companies to commit to standardizing its proprietary, yet poor technology. Once the patents ran out that protected their proprietary technology, their technology died almost immediately. It didn't live up to the claims they sold it on and it was a lot more expensive than they had acknowledged in the selling phase. By the time of its demise, however, they had made many $billions. Now they're trying the same game again by cornering an inductive charging standard and trying to sucker large companies (e.g. VW) who's decision makers don't understand the technology, into standardizing on it by promising all sorts of wild claims without acknowledging its shortcomings.
My first EV Charger, for the EV1, was inductive. The big issues with inductive are efficiency and cost. The EV1's charger was fairly efficient because the 2 induction coils were within a few mm of each other, unlike what's being touted for automatic inductive charging today.
Remember that an inductive charging system requires as a minimum, 2 large induction coils. The amount of energy they can transfer and its efficiency is proportional to their size. From a first order, if the coils are going to transfer as much energy into the battery as the car uses to operate, they will need to be nearly the same size as the coils in the motor. This will make them fairly large and expensive (lots of copper and complex manufacturing to wind the coils). Remember that people complain about having to spend $500 for an HPWC. How happy do you think they'll be spending $1500 for an inductive charger?
I suspect that something more like Tesla's snake, or perhaps something similar but mounted on the floor will probably be a more cost effective long term solution as it will also conceivable work with DC Fast chargers as well as convenient home chargers.
I could be wrong though and, as we saw before: the best solution doesn't necessarily win the standards battle.

vperl | August 22, 2016

Plug an go for me, unless your so lazy you cannot plug in, get breakfast and drive away.

No free loading, other Vehicles, unless they pay a premium. I do not want to be in a
line with the others, Tesla charge others wait.

Each Tesla paid a price for Supercharger access.

Just my opinion. Others opinions may vary

fgaliegue | August 22, 2016

@vperl your argument can be countered easily; see ICEing.

Being a Tesla owner gives you no privileges at all; except for free charging at superchargers, at least for current, and future, model S and X owners. Not all Model 3 owners will benefit from free charging; and the fact that no other currently existing pure EVs can use superchargers is because none of them have the required hardware.

And they could have. Easily. And that's my point.

vperl | August 22, 2016

My state has very single minded ICEing law. Be actually charging, plugged in and actually charging, if not your gunna be seeing a reward upon return to your non EV or unplugged EV. If actively not charging or any non EV in CHARGING spot 500$ love letter.

You may not like the law, others may not like the law...

States will enact ICEing laws as needed, just like Disability parking.

vperl | August 22, 2016

Having the capability to SC ok, but each EV must have Tesla permission. Not free, a premium price

I vote them off the station.

fgaliegue | August 22, 2016

@vperl as I said in the original post, no manufacturer ever has taken Tesla to the offer.

Also, as I said, since it is a known fact that not all Model 3 owners will be able to freely charge using SCs, it means that the technology behind superchargers already allows to differentiate vehicles.

This can lead, for instance, to split electricity bills between manufacturers.

This, or the statement by Mr Musk himself that he welcomes other manufacturers to use superchargers if they want is a lie. And as far as I am concerned, Mr Musk never lies. He may be overly ambitious at times but he does not lie.

vperl | August 22, 2016

Where did I mention Elon?

Where did I challenge any thing he said?

I had an opinion and voiced my opinion, did you read where this was my opinion in previous posts.

Your observations are opinions. Do I care about your opinions when you post, maybe. Your opinions are what they are, yours.

Other opinions may vary.

Great fortune

SamO | August 22, 2016

@ fgaliegue,

Musk has also said that other manufacturers can't do a pay per charge. It's all or nothing. I think they look at it as an all out surrender to Tesla's walled garden.

But Tesla has many gates in their garden.

jordanrichard | August 22, 2016

Elon/Tesla pretty much wants other car companies to follow their business model for supercharger access and that is a one time upfront fee (separate or baked into car price) for unlimited supercharger use.

leskchan | August 22, 2016

It's a simply different business models. Tesla is building game-changing functional EV transportation. Other manufacturers are building "compliance" EV cars. These manufacturers are required by Federal and State mandates to sell so many zero-emission cars per year or risk fines. So they take an existing ICE car and fit it with a electric motor and battery packs, add $30K to the sticker price and call it quit. There are enough die-hard environmental enthusiasts that will buy them. Why would they want to do more?

Tesla Model 3 will change that model but it will take time.

vperl | August 22, 2016

Manufacturers need to meet fleet mileage standards.

Federal fleet mileage standards must be met, ask the big guy at Fiat/Chrysler.... Said so in a interview.

Only sells their EV in California for that reason to meet standards

fgaliegue | August 22, 2016

@SamO quotes, please. I find it hard to believe. How would Tesla issue pay per charge for the Model 3 then?

If Tesla's goal is indeed to accelerate the transition to sustainable transport (and energy, as it turns out), I find it very hard to believe that SCs would be designed for Tesla cars alone. That would be contrary to their very mission.

leskchan | August 22, 2016


That's a compliance car, isn't it?

leskchan | August 22, 2016


You can't really compare Model 3 and S/X as apple to apple. There aren't any technical challenges in making Model 3 an exact smaller version of Model S. There is marketing consideration thou, specifically product differentiation.

Target Customers:
Model S (Prestige): Higher income
Model 3 (Peasant): Budget oriented. This is me, otherwise I would have bought an S already.

Model 3 cannot have the same options, including usage of super chargers (or limited use). They have to maintain certain separation between prestige and peasant customers. This is true for buying a car, some options are only available for higher trim models, even it is exact the same car. Same with Macbook vs Macbook Pro. Flying economy vs. first class, priority boarding, etc.

Haggy | August 22, 2016

Musk said other companies would have to buy into it, and it can't be on a basis with a cost per each charge. They would also have to support high speed charging. It wouldn't be fair to Tesla owners if another EV had to stay parked for four hours to get a partial charge.

vperl | August 22, 2016

Manufacturers need to meet fleet mileage standards. This means an fleet average of all cars sold.

Like five cars have a certain epa rating each different, the average milage of these five cars meet or exceed fleet mileage. So in 2020 the Feds require Fleet average of 32 mpg. One or more under 32, but the average must be above 32 mpg, ( just a example, no puppies were hurt during this terrible explanation) .

As far as I understand number of ev sold is not the standard, but I may have understood incorrectly.


Only sells their EV in California for that reason to meet fleet mileage standards whatever they are .

fgaliegue | August 22, 2016

@leskcan you don't seem to understand what I say; mainly, that Tesla said that not all Model 3 owners will be granted free SC access.

It therefore means that this will be an optional extra for people who want to have free SC access. And again, this means that if this is so, then the existing SC infrastructure already has the means to differentiate between cars with unlimited SC access and cars without.

In order to achieve this, it means that the technology exists; an easy extrapolation from this means that if another manufacturer uses SCs, the same model can be applied.

And this brings back to my first statement. The SC network is quite broad right now, so, car manufacturer x where x != Tesla, just talk things out with Tesla so that your EVs can benefit from SCs as well. Especially since Tesla has made sure that the connectivity is standard (it's nothing else but a type 2!). Doing otherwise, or waiting for who knows what, is downright moronic.

teslcls | August 22, 2016

Until the public is convinced of the advantages of EVs, I agree with vperl that the other manufacturers will only build them to satisfy mileage quotas. If Elon is successful in changing the public's mind and they start clamoring for more EVs, the other manufacturers will start building them to compete. At that point, a decision has to be made for them to either buy into Tesla's network and let Tesla build the extra capacity, or build compatible network stations themselves and offer to share connections with Teslas. Many details to be worked out, I know, but it would be financially silly to duplicate everything Tesla has done for just their brand.

brando | August 22, 2016

product differentiation

Not a concept Elon considers.
He builds the safest, not slow, best products he can.
He has no time for marketing BS.
Elon builds the best product and has often said, if people don't buy/want then the company should probably go out of business.

product differentiation Model S vs Model 3 - size, isn't that enough?

brando | August 22, 2016

Here is a business idea. (Disclaimer: I have no idea if possible, let alone practical.)

Tesla (like they did in the beginning) offers an option for Model 3 SuperCharging.

Enterprising person, designs/builds/buys auto side charger, pays SuperCharger fee to Tesla and sells/installs this
auto side charger with SuperCharge use included to other Electric Vehicles owners.

Might be a great aftermarket product?

PS- Now since this never happened for the Tesla Roadster, I suspect it may not be practical. BUT could it have been more of a regulation problem for the Roadster? In that the government might require something crazy like new crash tests?? I was a little surprised at government approvals being needed for larger batteries. So I obviously don't have a clue as to how these regulations work.

Informed comments would be welcomed. I think I have covered enough wild speculation for this idea.

JeffreyR | August 22, 2016

Roadster does not have the circuitry and battery capacity to handle Superchargers.

dansplans | August 22, 2016

Battery capacity and government approval are due to the instability of lithium ion batteries in general. They may have a limit to battery size in mind, that they will not allow passenger vehicles to exceed. Any time I try to read through DOT reports, I tend to fall asleep before I can find the detail I was searching for. Maybe others have better luck or official info on the topic.

I don't think that Tesla can continue to offer the SC network to competitors. None are interested anyway. If the model 3 is even half the success hoped for, the existing network is going to be severely taxed, and completely overwhelmed in the most popular stations. Tesla is going to have to expand deep and wide, without any money from anyone else. Long wait times could become a PR nightmare for Tesla, if most model 3 buyers pay for the SC option.

In answer to the OP. Others will not join Tesla because they would have to admit that the Tesla option is the best currently available.

Red Sage ca us | August 22, 2016

Pride, Prejudice, and Perspective

Pride in what they do. Being able to design beautiful machines with bodies that stir the soul. Creating fuel efficient vehicles with improved emissions and powerful output by gently massaging gear ratios, shape of pistons, balance and weight of crankshafts. Staying one step ahead of those long haired barefoot unwashed hippie treehuggers by bribing officials to ensure the most stringent of regulations are never actually enacted or enforced. Because no one ever needed more that 12 MPG in a diesel pickup truck with a 55 gallon reserve tank anyway.

Prejudice against EV. They've claimed that electric vehicles were 'inferior', not feasible, unworkable, impossible to manage for so long that they believe their own [BOLSHEVIK]. They have ordered their internal teams to deliver electric cars that follow that narrative for decades, and they did just that. So they got ugly cars that were slow to charge and you couldn't go anywhere in them and they were uncomfortable and lacked features and wouldn't have a snowball's chance to succeed in any market -- because even Californians were addicted to oil -- whether they admit it or not. They fired and blacklisted anyone who wouldn't play ball, that tried to actually improve EVs, or make them workable. They buried technologies or sold them to oil companies to make sure they didn't come to light. They ignored any and all evidence to the contrary at every turn.

Perspective born of decades of experience. Knowing that come what may -- no one really wants to buy anything other than a big V8 and feel that rumble through the floorboards with each tweak of their ankle against the accelerator pedal. The roar from under the hood, the throaty exclamation from the tailpipes. Seeing that the vanishing point, the end of the road for ICE vehicles will never be reached, because 'Petroleum is Eternal'. It has to be. This is a big world, it will still be around long after we are gone. But there is only one life to live, one chance to go for the gusto, so you'd might as well make the biggest mark you can. Weather the storms and come back stronger than ever, as long as everyone can be convinced that gasoline is cheap you'll be able to convince them to keep buying your products.

Basically, they believe they are too big to fail, and that Tesla Motors is too small to succeed. They will not aid Tesla Motors by following suit or playing ball. They believe it is better to starve them out. So they will use lobbying efforts and legal action to place roadblocks in their way. And if that doesn't work, then they'll get... nasty.

Rocky_H | August 23, 2016

@dansplans, Quote: " If the model 3 is even half the success hoped for,[SEVERAL YEARS IN THE FUTURE] the existing network [IN THE PRESENT DAY] is going to be severely taxed, and completely overwhelmed in the most popular stations."

Arggh. It really irritates me how many people repeat this faceplant of a logical failure over and over on these forums as if it is a known axiomatic truth. I see the same thing with people saying, "If all the cars switched over to electric [DECADES IN THE FUTURE], the electric grid [AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW] couldn't handle it!!" You are mashing up the future and the present and pretending that they exist at the same time. Things will develop; things will be built.

Here is an example. On Saturday, we had two birthday parties to go to. One was in Twin Falls, and one was in Boise. So we used the Supercharger in Twin Falls in the afternoon and the one in Boise in the evening. Both were completely empty except for us. They almost always are empty 7 days a week. They will be fine in 5 years. They will be getting some use in 10 years. The same is true for Baker City Oregon and Tremonton Utah and C'oeur d'Alene Idaho.

Tesla had to spend the first few years building these stations that will be rarely used to get the highway routes connected. So in the next few years, with even more revenue from more car sales, they won't need to re-build those stations, which are already done. They will be able to back-fill around the California areas, adding other locations for more capacity 10, 15, 20 miles away from other ones. I know it's crowded in several of those places right now, but they will be building more to ease that in the next few years.

bmalloy0 | August 23, 2016

>>"If all the cars switched over to electric [DECADES IN THE FUTURE], the electric grid [AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW] couldn't handle it!!"

And isn't there a ton of evidence suggesting that the current grid would be basically fine even if every car switched overnight? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading that