Supercharger growth

Evbwcaer · Jan 8, 2015

Are people here assuming that these maps are basically reliable? As I understand it they were sort of leaked or made live then taken down?

The Bemidji, MN SC currently shows 2015 construction on the Tesla website, but is not on the maps posted here. It makes me question the reliability of the maps.

The numbers and density the maps show is great, I hope they're legit.

ScepticMatt · Jan 8, 2015

jhm · Jan 8, 2015

TexasEV said:
You would think so, but when we suggest locations we get a boilerplate reply about how they use "precise energy modeling" to determine locations.

That shows me they are thinking about this as an engineering problem and not as a marketing opportunity. They really need to dial back that sort of arrogance and show respect for customers. Stations need to be placed where customers want them.

I'm not sure how some precise energy model tells you its good to leave a gap on I-40 from Asheville, NC to Burlington, NC. That's about 195 miles with substantial elevation changes depending on the precise location of the stations, but more to the point alot of people live in the Piedmont Triad. This is pretty heavy traffic. So while an S85 could do it from an engineering point of view, it is disappointing from a consumer point of view, speaking as someone who used to live in Durham, NC. The marketing message this sends to the millions of people in central NC is that Tesla is not serious about their business until 2017 or later!

Now I'm not trying to be hard on Tesla. They really are doing a great job and are rolling out infrastructure at a phenomenal rate, but they really do need to show excellent receptivity to consumer feedback. For every person who bothers to send a message, there are probably hundreds of potential buyers who just walk away.

RobStark · Jan 8, 2015

jhm said:
The marketing message this sends to the millions of people in central NC is that Tesla is not serious about their business until 2017 or later!

This shows that Tesla is working on a Tesla budget not a Pentagon Budget nor a Toyota budget.

And budgets include salaries not just construction and supplies expenses.

They can't cover everyone to everyone's satisfaction that might strongly consider buying a Tesla.

In any event, they are supply constrained not demand constrained for the foreseeable future.

Tesla has to go where their analysis tells them the most potential customers are and what their needs are as of now.

chickensevil · Jan 8, 2015

RobStark said:
This shows that Tesla is working on a Tesla budget not a Pentagon Budget nor a Toyota budget.

And budgets include salaries not just construction and supplies expenses.

They can't cover everyone to everyone's satisfaction that might strongly consider buying a Tesla.

In any event, they are supply constrained not demand constrained for the foreseeable future.

Tesla has to go where their analysis tells them the most potential customers are and what their needs are as of now.

This is pretty much it. They are focused on key markets and expanding outward from there. People in Russia could say the same thing as people in NC only even more so since they don't even have stores and service in Russia yet... I know it is frustrating to not have chargers where you want them (or feel they are needed) but it will come in time. They are trying to pave the way to a successful Model 3 rollout. With a map like they currently have slated for 2016 it will be MORE than supply constrained by 2017 because almost all major US markets will have charger coverage to just about any destination those people would imagine going to. Beyond that, it isn't like 2016 is the end of rolling out superchargers... More will continue to come. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were all the roads leading there.

That being said, the response from Tesla is a new one. I have always gotten pretty good feedback on Charger suggestions so either you suggested a site that was contrary to where they already had plans or they have had a 180 on being receptive to suggestions.

bollar · Jan 8, 2015

Interesting.

There are massive changes in Texas:

Routes to Little Rock & Atlanta! (Superchargers in Sulphur Springs, Tyler, Shreveport & Texarkana -- guesses of course)
Supercharger routes to Corpus Cristi & beyond to Harlingen! (Three Rivers, Victoria -- also guesses)
Dallas to Amarillo gone (Supercharger in Wichita Falls removed)
Gap in the I-10 route, making travel to El Paso impossible (Supercharger in Van Horn removed)
Still no Supercharger in Baytown, but now one just west of Houston.
Oklahoma City still waits for I-40 completion.

jhm · Jan 8, 2015

I think my earlier suggestion got eclipsed by the maps today. I'd like people to react to my proposal for systematically collecting consumer input in this post:
Supercharger growth - Page 14

TexasEV · Jan 8, 2015

bollar said:
Interesting.

There are massive changes in Texas:

Routes to Little Rock & Atlanta! (Superchargers in Sulphur Springs, Tyler, Shreveport & Texarkana -- guesses of course)
Supercharger routes to Corpus Cristi & beyond to Harlingen! (Three Rivers, Victoria -- also guesses)
Dallas to Amarillo gone (Supercharger in Wichita Falls removed)
Gap in the I-10 route, making travel to El Paso impossible (Supercharger in Van Horn removed)
Still no Supercharger in Baytown, but now one just west of Houston.
Oklahoma City still waits for I-40 completion.

The one west of Houston is a little southwest of the I-10 line, so it's probably on US 59 as a stop on the route to Victoria and Corpus Christi. It's not going to help travel on the I-10 gap from Columbus to Lake Charles. With all these new supercharger sites planned, the absence of one east of Houston to connect Texas to the I-10 route from Louisiana to Florida is baffling.

bollar · Jan 8, 2015

TexasEV said:
The one west of Houston is a little southwest of the I-10 line, so it's probably on US 59 as a stop on the route to Victoria and Corpus Christi. It's not going to help travel on the I-10 gap from Columbus to Lake Charles. With all these new supercharger sites planned, the absence of one east of Houston to connect Texas to the I-10 route from Louisiana to Florida is baffling.

Yeah, strange. Also strange that the only way west from anywhere in Texas is now through Oklahoma City, unless you have an 85 and you're willing to drive something like 55-65 MPH with an 80 MPH speed limit along I-10. I thought that Wichita Falls was a great compromise for a route west (certainly for those of us in Houston & Dallas)

Very happy with the new east Texas and Corpus SC routes, though.

StapleGun · Jan 8, 2015

This new map looks great and will cover the routes I care about in Michigan perfectly once I get my Model 3.

However I am surprised that it doesn't look like I-5 in between SF and LA is getting many (any?) more stations compared to the density closer to the cities. I would think that is the #1 most common route driven by Tesla owners. Perhaps they plan to add a lot more stalls to Harris Ranch? It is an ideal location for the journey, but I would think adding a couple options about 50-100 miles north and south of there would be better overall.

scottf200 · Jan 8, 2015

GIF

Benz · Jan 9, 2015

scottf200 said:
GIF
View attachment 68639

Nice

If possible, it would be better if the slides would change at a slower pace (maybe about 3 seconds per slide?).

physicsfita · Jan 9, 2015

StapleGun said:
This new map looks great and will cover the routes I care about in Michigan perfectly once I get my Model 3.

However I am surprised that it doesn't look like I-5 in between SF and LA is getting many (any?) more stations compared to the density closer to the cities. I would think that is the #1 most common route driven by Tesla owners. Perhaps they plan to add a lot more stalls to Harris Ranch? It is an ideal location for the journey, but I would think adding a couple options about 50-100 miles north and south of there would be better overall.

Generally, I agree, but I did notice that Tesla decided to drop the Jackson, MI supercharger from their plans. That's a serious hit to the usability of I-94 for me. I hope that's an error in the map art, because it would significantly affect usability of a Model 3 for me.

abasile · Jan 9, 2015

jhm said:
Tesla's website includes a Find Us Map where visitors can discover where Tesla has Supercharger stations, destination chargers, stores and service centers. This is one-way communication with prospective buyers.

Let's take this one step further to engage visitors in fully interactive marketing. I propose that Tesla host a "Show Us Where to Grow" Map. In this map, registered users would be invited to place markers on a map indictating where they would like to see Tesla place Superchargers, stores and service centers. The results of marker placement would be visible to all visitors. Registered users would also be invited to share personal information with Tesla that would be kept confidential and used only for marketing purposes. Such information might include things like address and other contact info, Tesla ownership, test drive experience and car purchase intentions, demograpics, etc.

This information would support market research and generate sales leads. For example, gathered database could be queried to discover which SC locations are most frequently recommended by non-converted test drivers in the Atlanta area? This query may indicate that Commerce, GA, is particularly welcomed by this target segment. Next, suppose Tesla does move to open at such a location. The database can be queried again to generate a lead list of all users who recommended that location. Special effort would be made to contact prospects on this list.

Thus, the Show us where to grow map would support two-way communication and integrated marketing. This could be instrumental not only in developing served markets such as the Atlanta region, but also for moving internationally into unserved markets. For example, building up a database on say India could facilitate the decisions on when and how to enter that country. Moreover, when Tesla does enter, it has a rich prospect database to start with. It can better anticipate where demand is and how to lay out its networks. All this would be a huge strategic advantage for moving into new markets.

I absolutely agree that Tesla should warmly embrace input from owners and prospective buyers. Many good suggestions on Supercharger locations will be shared by the "crowd". It only makes sense for Tesla to respond to suggestions in a welcoming, open manner (as appears to already be the case quite often).

That said, there are potential downsides to publicly showing all of the Supercharger location suggestions:
1. This may lead to levels of expectation, both in terms of SC locations and timing, that Tesla cannot meet. Roadblocks and speed bumps can include local bureaucracy, negotiations with property owners, availability of sufficient power, contractor availability and negotiations, etc. Obviously, some SC installs go much more smoothly than others.
2. While many suggestions will be serious and well thought out, and will likely have excellent ROI, others will not. Just because a vocal minority of us emphasize that we'd at some point like to drive the Alaska Highway on Superchargers (I myself would like to) doesn't mean that this should be a priority for Tesla. As much as I might like to drive to Alaska, this will not be a significant factor in my family purchasing a Tesla vehicle.

In evaluating highway corridors for Supercharger deployment, perhaps a reasonable metric could be the volume of premium vehicle traffic, with a weighting in favor of leisure destinations. I think this would be a better predictor of Supercharger interest than overall traffic volume. In other words, which long distance drives is today's Tesla demographic interested in? Mammoth Lakes, California is a good example - it's in a remote part of eastern California far from Interstate highways, yet many people in SoCal will not buy a vehicle that they cannot drive to the Mammoth-area ski resorts. While I'm sure Tesla is well aware of such considerations, I wonder what formalized metrics they actually use.

wws · Jan 9, 2015

The new map shows one in Omaha in 2015. But the rest of I-80 through Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming seems to have gotten pushed off to 2016. They did add a location in Iowa City - which makes the Des Moines-Quad Cities corridor easier for a 60 kw car.

chickensevil · Jan 9, 2015

bollar said:
Yeah, strange. Also strange that the only way west from anywhere in Texas is now through Oklahoma City, unless you have an 85 and you're willing to drive something like 55-65 MPH with an 80 MPH speed limit along I-10. I thought that Wichita Falls was a great compromise for a route west (certainly for those of us in Houston & Dallas)

Very happy with the new east Texas and Corpus SC routes, though.

physicsfita said:
Generally, I agree, but I did notice that Tesla decided to drop the Jackson, MI supercharger from their plans. That's a serious hit to the usability of I-94 for me. I hope that's an error in the map art, because it would significantly affect usability of a Model 3 for me.

It could very well be that things are just not quite there yet for those chargers and that is why it is getting put off. As someone who has followed a couple stations (and associated difficulties) if something fell through on their planning then they sometimes have to scrap a site entirely and shift to a different city and until they decide where that city will be they are left hanging.

For I-10 your only hope is going to be Van Horn... maybe there is no dot there for a reason? It could very well be that they don't have anything scouted out yet that would work for them in Van Horn. Maybe if you live anywhere close you could help Tesla scout that city and find a business who might be receptive to Tesla? I would say the same thing about Jackson, MI. If that dot was removed, I would send an email to Tesla about how much that dot means to you and ask if there is assistance you can provide to help scout it out for them. Make some good suggestions for locations in the area that would be both a good stopping place for owners and hopefully the business would also be receptive to Tesla.

I will state again that there is only so much they can get done in a year's time. I would also expect 2016 to have dots that are not placed yet because they still need to finalize some preliminary information. I expect the number of expected stations for 2016 to rise a decent bit. But even if it doesn't there is always 2017. The coverage they provide by the end of 2016, while not perfect is substantially better than it is today and should meet a huge majority of people's driving needs/wants. As was stated by someone else I wouldn't be surprised if the total number is closer to 500 by the end of 2016. I would also expect that number to possibly double over the next few years thereafter as they continue to fill in holes and increase density where it is needed.

jhm · Jan 9, 2015

scottf200 said:
GIF
View attachment 68639

The longer I stare at this, the cooler it gets. I wonder if you might do this for the Europe maps. In Europe, there is a lot of geographical expansion that would be nice to watch. Thanks!

uselesslogin · Jan 9, 2015

wws said:
The new map shows one in Omaha in 2015. But the rest of I-80 through Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming seems to have gotten pushed off to 2016. They did add a location in Iowa City - which makes the Des Moines-Quad Cities corridor easier for a 60 kw car.

Probably at the request of their account managers at Union Pacific. Apparently they all bought Teslas. I wonder when they will get a service center.

physicsfita · Jan 9, 2015

chickensevil said:
It could very well be that things are just not quite there yet for those chargers and that is why it is getting put off. As someone who has followed a couple stations (and associated difficulties) if something fell through on their planning then they sometimes have to scrap a site entirely and shift to a different city and until they decide where that city will be they are left hanging.

For I-10 your only hope is going to be Van Horn... maybe there is no dot there for a reason? It could very well be that they don't have anything scouted out yet that would work for them in Van Horn. Maybe if you live anywhere close you could help Tesla scout that city and find a business who might be receptive to Tesla? I would say the same thing about Jackson, MI. If that dot was removed, I would send an email to Tesla about how much that dot means to you and ask if there is assistance you can provide to help scout it out for them. Make some good suggestions for locations in the area that would be both a good stopping place for owners and hopefully the business would also be receptive to Tesla.

I will state again that there is only so much they can get done in a year's time. I would also expect 2016 to have dots that are not placed yet because they still need to finalize some preliminary information. I expect the number of expected stations for 2016 to rise a decent bit. But even if it doesn't there is always 2017. The coverage they provide by the end of 2016, while not perfect is substantially better than it is today and should meet a huge majority of people's driving needs/wants. As was stated by someone else I wouldn't be surprised if the total number is closer to 500 by the end of 2016. I would also expect that number to possibly double over the next few years thereafter as they continue to fill in holes and increase density where it is needed.

Jackson, MI has two Meijer stores convenient to I-94. This is a company that has worked with Tesla in the past, and seems very cooperative, so I don't think finding a site is the issue here. It seems weird, too, since it looks to be the only hole that will be left on the Chicago-Detroit-Toronto corridor. Just disappointing to see it fall off the map after two years. I guess I'll just see what the situation is like when the Model 3 comes out (or my Prius dies, whichever comes first), and make my Model 3/Volt decision then.

bollar · Jan 9, 2015

chickensevil said:
For I-10 your only hope is going to be Van Horn... maybe there is no dot there for a reason? It could very well be that they don't have anything scouted out yet that would work for them in Van Horn. Maybe if you live anywhere close you could help Tesla scout that city and find a business who might be receptive to Tesla? I would say the same thing about Jackson, MI. If that dot was removed, I would send an email to Tesla about how much that dot means to you and ask if there is assistance you can provide to help scout it out for them. Make some good suggestions for locations in the area that would be both a good stopping place for owners and hopefully the business would also be receptive to Tesla.

Yeah -- Van Horn was on the old map, but the reality is that nobody lives near there. IMO, as you've seen from past comments I've made, I-10 shouldn't be a priority, as it's one of the least travelled roads in the state. However, if you're going to build out the rest of I-10, one would think you'd want to want to actually finish it.

And for the few who actually do go to West Texas, Van Horn is the gateway to Carlsbad Caverns, Marfa and Big Bend National Park.

Supercharger growth

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Disgruntled Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disgruntled Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

TSLA shareholder

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Disgruntled Member

Similar threads