Forums

supercharging

supercharging

what was the final decision?
Would Tesla 3 owners have to pay for super-charging or not?

KP in NPT | March 3, 2017

yes. Just like all S/X owners who ordered after 12/31.

The question is if they will offer the same 400kwh free per year as they do for the S/X.

topher | March 3, 2017

I can't see them offering no free kWh, it is just to good of a marketing win. And 400 kWh is only $80 (retail) in the most expensive state. It might be 300 kWh, to give the same (roughly) 1000 miles.

Thank you kindly.

dchuck | March 3, 2017

Not to mention charging a nominal fee instead of completely free:

1) Is an incentive to charge at home (if the cost is the same why not use the more convenient option)

2) leaves open more supercharger stalls (fewer people stopping for a free charge means more spots available for those that really need it)

3) It means that people who do not have charging infrastructure at home (apartments, etc..) have an affordable place to charge.

4) links the use of Superchargers with the costs to set them up. if a location has super high usage then Tesla can expand the existing spot or put a second location somewhere else. Knowing that the second location will generate revenue to add one someplace else.

5) Other manufacturers can add their cars to the Tesla supercharger network without having to pay for usage. BMW could pay a licensing fee to Tesla to add their electric cars to the network and then BMW drivers will pay for the usage just like Tesla drivers do. it is revenue neutral to Tesla and BMW. Which is a Win / Win as far as i can see.

mntlvr23 | March 3, 2017

@topher - "I can't see them offering no free kWh, it is just to good of a marketing win. And 400 kWh is only $80"

While I tend to generally agree with that - $80/year over 10 years is $800 and starts to be significant compared to the price of the lower optioned cars. Perhaps we will see 300kWh for the first 3 years?

M3forMe | March 3, 2017

I think they will charge a nominal fee which I have no issue with. I will only use SC for long distance trip and I might do that a couple times a year. I like the idea of 300kWh for 1st 3 year or so.

Carl Thompson | March 3, 2017

dchuck:
"5) Other manufacturers can add their cars to the Tesla supercharger network without having to pay for usage. BMW could pay a licensing fee to Tesla to add their electric cars to the network and then BMW drivers will pay for the usage just like Tesla drivers do. it is revenue neutral to Tesla and BMW. Which is a Win / Win as far as i can see."

I don't think it would be a good move strategically. The availability of the superchargers are a huge competitive advantage and differentiator. Tesla's not going to give that up for the good of the world. It'd take a boatload of money.

Carl

topher | March 3, 2017

"Tesla's not going to give that up"

Tesla has *already said* that they are willing to share the Supercharger network. Other car makers just need to make their cars compatible with full charge levels, and pay for usage.

Thank you kindly.

topher | March 3, 2017

" $80/year over 10 years is $800 and starts to be significant compared to the price of the lower optioned cars."

$80/year is what Tesla charges after free is used up (in the worst case). It isn't what Tesla is paying for the electricity. (Nor does it include cost of the Supercharger itself).

Thank you kindly.

Carl Thompson | March 3, 2017

topher:
"Tesla has *already said* that they are willing to share the Supercharger network. Other car makers just need to make their cars compatible with full charge levels, and pay for usage."

If Tesla allows other automakers' cars to use their network and _only_ charges them for the electricity used as you are implying then I will send you $1,000. That is a promise and I will keep it.

Carl

KP in NPT | March 3, 2017

Tesla has said they are open to other manufacturers using the network- but yes they would have to pay. When Elon initially said that, supercharging was free for all, so it was assumed the manufacturers (not the drivers) would pay Tesla a fee for maintenance and use in some form.

Now that there will be a pay structure in place, I would assume Tesla would still welcome other manufacturers, but now the drivers will pay the kWh rate, and maybe manufacturers would pay something to Tesla for the right to have their vehicles on the network, to go towards building out and maintaining the network. That would take care of congestion, as the network expansion to accommodate more cars could be financed through the fees/revenue.

mntlvr23 | March 3, 2017

@topher - (" $80/year over 10 years is $800 and starts to be significant compared to the price of the lower optioned cars." - $80/year is what Tesla charges after free is used up (in the worst case). It isn't what Tesla is paying for the electricity. (Nor does it include cost of the Supercharger itself).

I was trying to get across that $80/year * 10 years = $800 is the opportunity cost over ten years to Tesla for giving away 400kWh/year. Owners would be pay by the charge for everything after that (and not $80/year in the worst case - it would be $80/yr for those who drove 1,000 miles more than the free 1,000 miles - and people who heavily use the SC network would pay much much more).

That said, although new MS and MX owners will get the 400 kWh/year free - I have a strong feeling that it will not carry over to the M3 owners. I think they will either not get any SC'ing for free, or they will get some quantity for free for a few years. I am fine either way - I don't need it for free - I am just happy to have a SC network at a reasonable charging cost.

Red Sage ca us | March 3, 2017

When Elon Musk first proposed that other manufacturers could use the Supercharger network, there were less than 100 locations in the world, I think. It was around four years ago. At the time he seemed to indicate an intent for the "Free for Life!" program to be eternal, as he stated the cost would be worked out in a business-to-business fashion between the manufacturers, in proportion to use, with no cost to the vehicle buyers beyond the cost of the cars themselves. It seems that with no additional support from outside manufacturers, and with none on the horizon showing interest in participation, the Supercharger network will require fees from future users after all in order to maintain their existence. That is a shame.

mntlvr23: I have a strong feeling that in the interest of fairness, Tesla will do their best to make sure the terms for Supercharger access are the same for everyone that purchases a new vehicle from the moment the Model ☰ is available.

SamO | March 4, 2017

@Red Sage,

Since the beginning, Tesla, Elon Musk and JB straubel have been explicit that the "Free for Life" might be changed after the 1M cars sold mark. They are just a bit early. Or are preparing to ramp to 1M cars pretty soon.

I'm glad they continued "free for life" even where it is limited to 400kW every year.

topher | March 4, 2017

"$800 is the opportunity cost over ten years to Tesla for giving away 400kWh/year."

Ok, but the question remains, does that increase or decrease the actual amount that is eventually purchased? I am not convinced.

Thank you kindly.

topher | March 4, 2017

"If Tesla allows other automakers' cars to use their network and _only_ charges them for the electricity used as you are implying then I will send you $1,000. That is a promise and I will keep it."

Great. Now can you address what I actually said? They will pay for USAGE. When you rent a car, do you only pay for the gas you use, or is the usage charge higher?

Thank you kindly.

Red Sage ca us | March 4, 2017

SamO: I concur. I mainly wanted to make the point that the 'segregation' of Generation II versus Generation III Supercharger users that some have advocated is unlikely to happen. That, plus, after four years, it seems no one among competitors was willing to build a car with Supercharger access under the terms Elon Musk offered. Though, I'm sure, they would have accepted if it allowed Ford Fusion Energi and Chevrolet VOLT and Prius PRiME users to clog up Supercharger sites all day. :-D

Carl Thompson | March 4, 2017

@topher

I said:
"The availability of the superchargers are a huge competitive advantage and differentiator. Tesla's not going to give that up for the good of the world. It'd take a boatload of money."

You said in response:
"Tesla has *already said* that they are willing to share the Supercharger network. Other car makers just need to make their cars compatible with full charge levels, and pay for usage."

Now you say:
" They will pay for USAGE. When you rent a car, do you only pay for the gas you use, or is the usage charge higher?"

So now you're saying (not very clearly) that other car manufacturers _will_ have to pay a fee above and beyond the electricity used to buy into Tesla's billion dollar supercharger network? I'm glad we were agreeing all along, then!

Carl

topher | March 4, 2017

@Carl

You said: "It'd take a boatload of money."

I said: "They will pay for USAGE."

So I guess you mean that paying for usage would require a boatload of money. I like bigger boats than you apparently.

Thank you kindly.

Carl Thompson | March 4, 2017

topher:
"You said: "It'd take a boatload of money."

I said: "They will pay for USAGE."

So I guess you mean that paying for usage would require a boatload of money. I like bigger boats than you apparently."

So you think it wouldn't take a lot of money for Tesla to allow another car company to buy into their supercharger network? I disagree but maybe you're right.

Carl

topher | March 4, 2017

@Carl
Why would Tesla need to charge more than their costs (all of them, obviously) plus their healthy margin per car? Lucid motors and other small EV car companies should see that as a way of getting instant credibility, while Tesla gets to become the _de facto_ standard for high speed charging. When people shopping a Leaf ask, 'Can I charge at the Superchargers?' that will be when Tesla becomes the standard in the car industry (not to mention a piece of every EV sold).

Thank you kindly.

Red Sage ca us | March 4, 2017

topher: I think there has been anecdotal evidence that when that question is asked, the salesmen at 'independent franchised dealerships' undoubtedly say, "Yeah, sure! No problem! The LEAF/BOLT/VOLT/SPARK EV/500e/i3 can use Superchargers just fine!"

janendan | March 5, 2017

Does SC damage the electrolyte prematurely?

Badbot | March 5, 2017

no jan just in time.
the 150 KW is divided to the series cells 70 or more paths so you just get a few amps each

Haggy | March 7, 2017

Tesla picked the number so that the average case is reflected and the average user won't have to pay for supercharging. Cutting it from 400 to 300 wouldn't make sense. It might save $20 in the most expensive state, but they lose the advertising value of free road trips for the average consumer.

Those who use above average will pay for the overage. Those who use less than average or nothing at all save Tesla money and there's no rollover. Many people will leave miles on the table.

The average new car includes thousands of dollars of advertising costs per vehicle. Tesla can well afford $800 over the life of the car, but it wouldn't be the maximum. It would be the average, but with a cap of 400 used when computing the average, since it's the average cost of the free part. It might end up being closer to $20-$30/year. Only Tesla knows, but they do know where the reservations are and what current usage is.

dd.micsol | March 7, 2017

@RS-yup-they do that just to sell the car off their lot and pocket their commission.

Red Sage ca us | March 7, 2017

Haggy: +21! Great points! If anything, once shareholders and boardmembers are satisfied there won't be a Supercharger Apocalypse as predicted by so many, the annual amount might be increased to 500 kWh per year as 'free', instead of being lowered or eliminated. The advertising effect of 'free' is certainly worth the effort. Especially since so much range will be left on the table.

Rocky_H | March 7, 2017

I just don't see why they would move it at all. 300 or 500 wouldn't make all that much difference, but it's just complication and difficulty to change it and create cutoff points and categories and exceptions.

Red Sage ca us | March 7, 2017

Rocky_H: Just saying that if the average usage of the 'free' portion turns out to be even lower than expected per Customer, Tesla may see some marketing benefit from offering '25% MORE FREE' even if they know that most will hardly take advantage of it. Those who do use all of it will certainly spend even more on the Supercharger network beyond that amount. Those who didn't use much anyway will enjoy the pseudo effect of 'FREE for LIFE!' by comparison, since they'd never go beyond their standard allotment per year, even without rollover of credits. Of course, I am presuming there really are a bunch of people with the self control to NOT take road trips anywhere near as often as I would! ;-)

topher | March 8, 2017

@Haggy: "Tesla picked the number so that the average case is reflected and the average user won't have to pay for supercharging. Cutting it from 400 to 300 wouldn't make sense."

It would if they figured 'average use case' in miles and the Model 3 was more efficient.
Not that I am arguing for that. :-)

Thank you kindly.