Tesla Supercharger Network

[GRA]

The presence of new vents on the pedestals would indicate that they've got to get rid of more rather than less heat.

Not necessarily. It may mean that they have decided to run the equipment at a lower temperature.

Could be, but I lean towards the increased power at some future date angle. Tesla has upgraded the SCs from 90 to 120 and then to 135 kW, and will also need to provide more storage capacity on the cars to fully compete with ICEs (I've been somewhat surprised that they haven't offered an S100 or 110 yet, but that's dependent on improved batteries). Providing something approaching 300 miles of freeway range (@ say 75 mph) in a reasonable amount of time during an SC before the taper will require more SC power as well as a bigger battery.

I believe the change from the S60 to S70D was for a different reason; the X wouldn't be able to make 200 miles with only 60kWh, and it made no sense for Tesla (at this time) to produce three different battery packs. Of course, it's possible that the top end Model X will also have a bigger pack, and they'll introduce it on both X and S simultaneously, only offering say 70 and 100 kWh from that point forward, until they come out with a smaller pack for the Model 3. I do wonder if they'll eventually decide to produce a 2WD S70 to provide a lower-cost option, but maybe they figure it would just overlap with a high-end Model 3 and isn't worth doing.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I've been somewhat surprised that they haven't offered an S100 or 110 yet, but that's dependent on improved batteries...

My guess is that Tesla will upgrade the battery in the S/X around the time that the Model 3 is released, to further differentiate the higher-end models from the "mass-market" 3. I don't think that the increased battery size would really need an increase in Supercharger power, although that may indeed happen if the current trend continues.

 

[mbender]

Of course, it's possible that the top end Model X will also have a bigger pack, and they'll introduce it on both X and S simultaneously, only offering say 70 and 100 kWh from that point forward, until they come out with a smaller pack for the Model 3.

How about just making one 35kWh pack, which can be easily "stacked" two or three in series to create 70- and 105-kWh packs? Offer the lowest Model 3 with 35, but allow one or two additional packs (with supercharger access included) to be temporarily rented for occasional regional or national trips. A higher Model 3 and base X or S could come with 70 standard* but even those could add another pack if they wanted more for anticipated weather, terrain or speed "challenges".

No one else seems to like this idea, but I do. It would save a lot on weight, expense and unused capacity/materials, but perhaps it would add undo complexity in business operations for a company that is anything but demand-constrained. At some point down the road it might be worth considering, though.


* Even a Model S with "merely" 35kWh would suffice for many people, as long as they knew they could temporarily upgrade if and when they needed to.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think you like the idea because you predict it will save you a nickel.

Automakers don't like it because it's clunky, expensive, and inhibits sales of higher profit margin cars. Can you imagine millions of dollars of batteries sitting around the world just waiting for the chance somebody will rent it (and scream if the rent isn't near free).

And, of course, not pay to build the Supercharger network, but instead try to get a near freebie there, too. Ya, why wouldn't Tesla be all over this?!?!?!?

Chance of this happening.... ZERO. Chance of cheapskates actually paying the cost of this service instead of Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM).... ZERO also.

 

[mbender]

Maybe the nickel part of it is an unconscious factor, but mostly I don't like the idea of so much weight and excess, unused capacity being lugged around for millions of miles (apparently now 1 billion). Sure, for the wealthy early-adopters of the Model S (let alone Roadster), the extra five or ten grand means next to nothing, but as the vehicles approach mass-market affordability, the $5-10k could make a big difference.

Can you imagine millions of dollars of batteries sitting around the world just waiting for the chance somebody will rent [them] (and scream if the rent isn't near free).

As it is now, millions of dollars (and pounds) of batteries are being carted around the world for no reason, so what would be so bad if, instead, a fraction of them were kept stationary until really needed? Fewer people would "scream" than currently do over the inflated price they now have to pay for largely unused capacity, so I take that as a gratuitous comment.

And, of course, not pay to build the Supercharger network, but instead try to get a near freebie there, too. Ya, why wouldn't Tesla be all over this?!?!?!?

As the SC network approaches completion ("asymptotically") and Tesla grows and grows, possibly to the point of "demand constraint", I still think this could be(come) a good approach.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Musk has commented about too many cars for the Superchargers... his answer is always the same; "we'll build more". Just like gasoline stations. If they get overloaded, somebody builds more.

That big ole battery under my "six" isn't there for show. When it's time to go to work, I just point the car and go. The cycles / depth of discharge are lower on big battery cars (driven the same distance as other cars).

Nobody... absolutely NOBODY is "screaming" about too much battery. Quite the opposite.

The Model 3 will very likely have various size batteries, but a sub-200 mile pack won't be one of them.

 

[mbender]

I get it that you don't like the idea of a 35kWh option for the Model 3, with or without the ability to temporarily add capacity. And perhaps you're right that Tesla will never offer this size and/or scheme, even if there is a market for them. We have a difference of opinion on the merits of the idea.

But as for enjoying your big ole battery and "everyone" screaming for more battery capacity, that has no relevance (again) to what I am proposing. If you want your big-ass battery, by all means buy it. Nothing I'm suggesting would prevent you/one from doing so. Hell, make the 35-kWh packs 'stackable' more than three-deep. That way you could pay for and haul around 140kWh or more all over town, if that's what you or others wish to do (so you can 'point and go').

Only having large-battery options just entails a lot of unnecessary expense, excessive weight, materials, capacity, and energy used to haul all of it around, in my opinion. Fair enough, though: people's opinions differ regarding what constitutes waste how much "convenience" they are willing to sacrifice in order to be less wasteful. But it would seem that that's precisely why giving people more options seems like it would have value, and be worthy of more consideration than outright dismissal.

 

[GRA]

I get it that you don't like the idea of a 35kWh option for the Model 3, with or without the ability to temporarily add capacity. And perhaps you're right that Tesla will never offer this size and/or scheme, even if there is a market for them. We have a difference of opinion on the merits of the idea.

But as for enjoying your big ole battery and "everyone" screaming for more battery capacity, that has no relevance (again) to what I am proposing. If you want your big-ass battery, by all means buy it. Nothing I'm suggesting would prevent you/one from doing so. Hell, make the 35-kWh packs 'stackable' more than three-deep. That way you could pay for and haul around 140kWh or more all over town, if that's what you or others wish to do (so you can 'point and go').

Only having large-battery options just entails a lot of unnecessary expense, excessive weight, materials, capacity, and energy used to haul all of it around, in my opinion. Fair enough, though: people's opinions differ regarding what constitutes waste how much "convenience" they are willing to sacrifice in order to be less wasteful. But it would seem that that's precisely why giving people more options seems like it would have value, and be worthy of more consideration than outright dismissal.

In essence you are arguing Reg's line, that efficiency trumps everything else and that there are large numbers of people who are willing to use add-ons, whether range-extending trailers like Ingineer built or extra battery packs, and accept the occasional inconvenience. I understand where you're coming from, and won't be surprised if someone tries to do as you say; to a certain extent, Tesla's battery swapping was an attempt at that, as I think the idea was that regardless of whether your car had a 60 or 85kWh battery, you'd swap it for an 85.

I think the practical aspects probably prevent it at the moment, but once packs shrink considerably, it might be possible to have packs end to end (instead of stacked), with only the center or both end packs (to maintain weight distribution) used normally, and when you wanted max. range you'd have all three. I don't see that happening until the time when we have really mass-market priced BEVs (Civic/Corolla range, without subsidies) that can handle virtually everyone's routine daily driving (at least 80 and probably 100 miles EPA or better year-round regardless of degradation), and multiple manufacturers agree to use the same battery packs (connectors, weight and weight distribution, voltage, form factor etc.). That's not going to happen for a while, as batteries are a long way from being that mature and standardized for this usage.

And now, back on topic.

 

[GRA]

As of 6/13/15, Buffalo, NY (first use 6/11) with 8 stalls is listed and mapped. Only 6 are currently usable, but the rest should open soon. Total U.S. SCs now 43/192/1,288.

Current list showing all U.S. and Canadian SCs open as of 1/1/15 and subsequent, and full list showing all SCs open from 1/14, can be found here:

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9111&start=810

Site with a map showing all SCs open, under construction or permitted plus lots of other stuff can be found here:

http://supercharge.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mjblazin]

Are there any good statistics on how much driving PEVs do per day? I think it is surprisingly low, with a few road warrior outliers. The failure of the battery swap idea could be one more indicator that charge at home works very well and most people neither need nor want to pay for big honking batteries.

 

[mbender]

Are there any good statistics on how much driving PEVs do per day? I think it is surprisingly low, with a few road warrior outliers.

Agreed. I'd love to know what percent of Teslas have used the supercharger network more than once or twice per year*, and what percent could have performed just fine for an entire year on a mere 35kWh (110 mile?) battery**. The network map sort of gives the impression of all the Model S's in constant motion criss-crossing the country in all directions, but I bet that's far from the case.

Tesla's marketing of (repeated assertion that) the network as "free" is clever, but also a bit deceptive (and I'm a 'fan'). My rough calculations show that an owner would have to drive 50,000 supercharger-fueled miles in order to "get his money's worth" out of the the premium paid for network access. Who here thinks that the average of all Model S's sold will come close to that, even in ten years of travel?

The problem for buyers, of course, is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. You don't buy in, you can never take a long trip. That wouldn't be the case if owners could pay for temporary access when they know they'll need it.

The all-or-nothing model works great for Tesla though, at least while they are selling the premium sedan to well-heeled customers. We'll see if that continues as they break into the mass market. I suspect that some sort of a la carte option will be made available (especially since most of the initial expenses for the hardware will be paid off by then).


[ And no, I wouldn't say that efficiency "trumps everything". But when it combines with $ignificant saving$, it can make a big difference in people's purchasing decisions. ]


* "Once" being loosely defined as several times in a 1-week period, perhaps. i.e., a vacation.

** Especially on the less-expansive half of the country.

 

[TonyWilliams]

They aren't going to be "done" with the Supercharger network just because a new car arrived.

I do think, however, that the Supercharger will be optional just to keep that first news flash at $35k for the Model 3.

Then, throw in optional Supercharger with some logical limitations. That could be as simple as XX minutes charging within YY miles of "home", and no more than ZZ minutes per month at any singular charger.

Folks paying $35k to $50k for a new car that doesn't EVER need gas and can travel anywhere in the USA doesn't need to be diminished to Bolt / i3 / LEAF status (the likely three main competitors). If you need ah hoc power, I'm confident that these other companies will sell you just such a car with a grossly inferior charging network and the lower range and performance that you're looking for.

You get what you pay for.

 

[mbender]

You get what you pay for.

Almost needless to say, I love Tesla. But with respect to the supercharge network, many Model S buyers are getting* far less than what they paid for. And with regard to big-ass batteries, many are also paying for much more than they need.

But the nice thing about early-adopters, technophiles and the "wealthy" in general (assisted by the 'more is better' western/capitalist mentality), is that they don't care about either of these things! And perhaps in this limited econo-system, there will be a little trickle-down benefit to the masses/Model-3 buyers, in that the infrastructure/network will have been built with their carefree spending. (Yay!)

* ok, technically, using far less, but statistically and effectively, many will be getting far less. i.e., they pay the all-or-nothing price because unless they do, they wouldn't be able to make their once-a-year trip at all.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Agreed. I'd love to know what percent of Teslas have used the supercharger network more than once or twice per year*, and what percent could have performed just fine for an entire year on a mere 35kWh (110 mile?) battery**. The network map sort of gives the impression of all the Model S's in constant motion criss-crossing the country in all directions, but I bet that's far from the case.

According to Musk in this recent interview, the energy used by Teslas at Superchargers is 5-8% of the total that they use to charge: Elon Musk and JB Straubel share their vision on energy (2015)

Tesla's marketing of (repeated assertion that) the network as "free" is clever, but also a bit deceptive (and I'm a 'fan'). My rough calculations show that an owner would have to drive 50,000 supercharger-fueled miles in order to "get his money's worth" out of the the premium paid for network access. Who here thinks that the average of all Model S's sold will come close to that, even in ten years of travel?

This makes no sense to me. You ignore the value of having a single car that can do very long trips, in addition to local driving. It isn't about the free charging, although that's a nice bonus for the first Tesla owners (JB Straubel, Tesla CTO, suggested that after the first million cars they might have to rethink the free Supercharging model).

The value of the Superchargers is that BEVs are no longer limited to local/regional driving. And that's a paradigm shift in EV utility. That is of great value to me. $2000 extra? Sold! It is completely irrelevant to me whether or not I get my money back in electricity savings, that's not what I am buying.

 

[mbender]

This makes no sense to me. [...]

You might have missed my earlier posts. I just don't like the all-or-nothing nature of the network, although it may have been necessary at first and possible using money from people who aren't bothered by that. In a Chademo analogy, it would be as if eVgo (and every other provider) only offered one way to be able to use their network -- pay $500 per year or $2000 for life and use it as much as you want, or else... don't use it at all. Can you even imagine the revolt here and elsewhere? Sure, it might be a bargain for some, but for most (including myself, a fairly heavy user), it would be extremely limiting and maybe even a deal-breaker vis-a-vis buying a Leaf at all.

 

[dgpcolorado]

You might have missed my earlier posts. I just don't like the all-or-nothing nature of the network, although it may have been necessary at first and possible using money from people who aren't bothered by that. In a Chademo analogy, it would be as if eVgo (and every other provider) only offered one way to be able to use their network -- pay $500 per year or $2000 for life and use it as much as you want, or else... don't use it at all. Can you even imagine the revolt here and elsewhere? Sure, it might be a bargain for some, but for most (including myself, a fairly heavy user), it would be extremely limiting and maybe even a deal-breaker vis-a-vis buying a Leaf at all.

Not that Chademo is remotely like Supercharging, but that all-or-nothing is exactly what 2012 LEAF buyers faced: buy the SV and skip the DCFC port or pay thousands more and buy the SL and hope that DCFC stations eventually appear (and would be priced reasonably). I bought the SV since I knew that there wouldn't be any DCFC stations in my area for the foreseeable future. How about those who bought the SL and continue to wait for DCFC stations to appear?

So, no, I can't see why there there would be a revolt if eVgo chose a model like you describe. Not even close. If you don't want to pay for them then don't. Many people don't have access to them anyway and don't even have that choice.

 

[mbender]

I said Chademo analogy, and I do think that Chademo:Leaf :: Supercharger:Model S, or at least close enough (i.e., in regions where Chademos exist) for horseshoes.

Aside from that though, everything else you note is a completely separate issue. I'm not arguing that Nissan was right in offering a model to which Chademo could not be added, even if they hadn't corrected that years ago. Nor am I saying that it is right that they have been so absent in expanding their network. Nor did I say that people who don't have access to Chademo chargers "have a choice".

I am saying that a la carte is far preferable to all-or-nothing, and continue to strongly suspect that

• Leafers would revolt if the only network plans were 'forever' or nothing.
• Tesla will also acknowledge this at some point, probably as the Model 3 ramps up.

Even Tony W. granted the likelihood of point 2 above, saying

Then, throw in optional Supercharger with some logical limitations. That could be as simple as XX minutes charging within YY miles of "home", and no more than ZZ minutes per month at any singular charger.

ps. I'm also saying that in an ideal world, people wouldn't be lugging around hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars worth of batteries every day that they are only going to use (along with supercharging) once or twice a year. But admittedly, that is only tangentially related to what you are responding to.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...Even Tony W. granted the likelihood of point 2 above, saying

Then, throw in optional Supercharger with some logical limitations. That could be as simple as XX minutes charging within YY miles of "home", and no more than ZZ minutes per month at any singular charger.

I believe that Tony Williams was referring to the sustainability of Supercharging in the future as more cars crowd Superchargers in high traffic areas. JB Straubel has suggested that the free Supercharging model might be revisited when there are a million Teslas on the road. It would be fairly simple, as Tony says, to implement some limitations that favor long distance travel and limit charging near home; some of the existing congestion at Superchargers in heavily populated areas is due to people using them for free local charging, a purpose for which they were not intended. Tony points out a simple way to get around that. It does not necessarily mean that Supercharging access, in general, would cease to be purchased with the car, although that could be done.

Tesla decided early on that billing for Supercharger use — they figured a typical Supercharger session would be about $10 worth of electricity — was more trouble and expense than it was worth, so they decided to include it free with purchase of the car, or as a $2000 option for the S60 (now discontinued). Over the long term, when/if there are millions of Supercharger-capable cars on the road, I agree with you that some sort of pay-as-you-go plan will come into existence. For now the complexity and overhead of such a scheme makes it impractical and unnecessary.

Your dislike for the free-Supercharging-for-life inclusion with the car purchase has me mystified. I like the simplicity, versus the complexity and hassle of a pay-as-you-go billing system. And the cost isn't particularly onerous; if anything it is a bargain.

 

[TonyWilliams]

• Leafers would revolt if the only network plans were 'forever' or nothing.
• Tesla will also acknowledge this at some point, probably as the Model 3 ramps up.

Even Tony W. granted the likelihood of point 2 above, saying

Then, throw in optional Supercharger with some logical limitations. That could be as simple as XX minutes charging within YY miles of "home", and no more than ZZ minutes per month at any singular charger.

You're misquoting me. I specifically DO NOT advocate or suggest that Tesla water down their Supercharger network.

The "throw in optional" Sulercharger means exactly what I wrote; much like the 60kWh Model S, offer it without Suoercharger, and then offer an "optional" and extra cost Supercharger feature.

Not ad hoc, pay per charge, short term, etc. You either have it or not.

If LEAF drivers would revolt, then I recommend that Nissan continue with the low quality, low power, poorly planned CHAdeMO offering that they do today. Problem solved for all. LEAF drivers happy with their low expectations, and Tesla owners are happy with a premium, world class charging network.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Your dislike for the free-Supercharging-for-life inclusion with the car purchase has me mystified. I like the simplicity, versus the complexity and hassle of a pay-as-you-go billing system. And the cost isn't particularly onerous; if anything it is a bargain.

There's an easy answer to not get prepaid "free" Supercharger access... don't buy it. Buy a LEAF, or one of the CCS equipped cars! Now, there's a business model that clearly works.

I am afraid that no restrictions and one time fee might be a huge mistake long term for Tesla, because I also feel it's a bargain. I'd prefer to have common sense, logical restrictions now.