Would you pay $2k for supercharger access?

[EVNow]

Frankly it would be much more cost effective to take my wife's Ford Escape on these rare trips and eat the $70-100 in gas than pay $2,000 for supercharger access.... A lot of model 3 owners are going to be more cost conscious than the S&X owners. Even though the poll results would seem to indicate more people would pay for Supercharger access I would say that if you're signed up to these forums for a car that hasn't been revealed yet and won't go into production for another 2 years you're probably a little more willing to buy any extras that Tesla is selling vs the average consumer.

This is exactly the group that would also be willing to buy Nissan Leaf 2 or other EVs instead of Model 3.

The other group would be people for whom SC is still too inconvenient - after all SC needs to be much more dense and well spread to compete with the convenience of gas. These people would also assign lower importance to SC and would be willing to get other EVs.

 

[S'toon]

This is exactly the group that would also be willing to buy Nissan Leaf 2 or other EVs instead of Model 3.

The other group would be people for whom SC is still too inconvenient - after all SC needs to be much more dense and well spread to compete with the convenience of gas. These people would also assign lower importance to SC and would be willing to get other EVs.

If the M3 and the 2nd Generation Volt were the same price, but I had to pay an extra $2000 to get the superchargers, I'd have to go with the Volt. It'd be cheaper for road trips.

 

[bwa]

I'm often extremely price-constrained, so I'm open to at least a few software options that I can buy later, like supercharging. But I seriously doubt at a $2,000 price point that I wouldn't eventually get it. There are many months of the year that I tend to travel far and wide.

Speaking of software options, I'd be very disagreeable if Model 3 were artificially crappy in ways that would cost Tesla almost nothing to make nice, just so they can move more people into the Model S zone. For instance, almost all the software options would be pretty cheap to manufacture, such as driving assistance packages, valet parking mode, anti-theft programming, detailed multistop traffic aware trip planning, etc.. As I've said in another post, all the great stuff that is cheap to do and the good stuff that is almost free to do should be done, and all the stuff that is expensive to do should be on the question list. None of this has to do with supercharging; I consider supercharging to be an energy purchase issue.

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly the group that would also be willing to buy Nissan Leaf 2 or other EVs instead of Model 3.

The other group would be people for whom SC is still too inconvenient - after all SC needs to be much more dense and well spread to compete with the convenience of gas. These people would also assign lower importance to SC and would be willing to get other EVs.

If the Leaf 2 passes all the safety tests with superb scores including the "small overlap front crash IIHS", and is safer than the Leaf 1 in every regard by leaps and bounds, then I will consider the Leaf just as much as I consider a Model 3, head to head. As it is, I would already have a Leaf now if it weren't for the failure in the small overlap front crash test. That is by far and away the hugest deal for me: safety. That's one of the reasons I went with a used Mercedes for my current vehicle (locally there's lots of those available used, a status that used to be true for Volvo but no longer is). The only cars I've ever bought were Volvos (3) and Mercedes (2), so far.

I find it bizarre the BMW 3 series is what Tesla is competing with, personally, since I hate BMW in every way. Go figure. (I used to commute in the back seat of one during high school for an hour every week, and it was miserable.)

 

[Twiglett]

If the M3 and the 2nd Generation Volt were the same price, but I had to pay an extra $2000 to get the superchargers, I'd have to go with the Volt. It'd be cheaper for road trips.

I would be the other way around
I would rather have 200 miles EV range instead of 50 and never visit another gas station.

 

[Electric Feel]

Tesla have two big advantages over other manufacturers.
One, they make the best EVs out there. (But that could change if all the automakers get their heads out of their oiled up asses)

And two, they made a network of sc stations.

No one else has done this, and this will probably end up being teslas greatest advantage.

They should absolutely charge people who want to use the networks, but only if they are driving evs that arent teslas.

if you buy tesla, you should get free access. that alone would sway a lot of people towards teslas in the future.

Tesla wants us to charge at home and only use sc's for long distance travel. Fair enough. Monitor our usage. If it gets abused, then start charging us for it.

But dont punish early adopters, and dont punish people who really dont need sc's unless they take a long trip once in a while.

Keep it free for tesla buyers. Dont be greedy dicks.

 

[EVNow]

If the Leaf 2 passes all the safety tests with superb scores including the "small overlap front crash IIHS", and is safer than the Leaf 1 in every regard by leaps and bounds, then I will consider the Leaf just as much as I consider a Model 3, head to head. As it is, I would already have a Leaf now if it weren't for the failure in the small overlap front crash test. That is by far and away the hugest deal for me: safety. That's one of the reasons I went with a used Mercedes for my current vehicle (locally there's lots of those available used, a status that used to be true for Volvo but no longer is). The only cars I've ever bought were Volvos (3) and Mercedes (2), so far.

Interesting - obviously a very large group of people don't care about small overlap front crash test. I think this group is much larger than the one that doesn't care about doesn't care about SC.

 

[MSEV]

I struggled a bit with this issue before buying my MS. I got it, and never looked back.
Without doubt my M3 will have SC capacity, $2000 more or not.
For these reasons: it makes the car more unlimited in range (I passed on a Leaf and BMW i3 because it lacked that), climate change (I believe it it time to decrease CO2 and other gases as much as I can), resale value.

 

[vinnie97]

Sell the hybrid, buy a tesla.

I would actually like to keep it. Even if I had the mind to sell, there's a likely 3-year wait between now and then (in the western US, no personal transport is suicide). In reality, I've got too many irons in the fire right now (heat pump and insufficient PV system payments being chief among them). I also need to have a NEMA 14-50 installed in the garage.

I don't think supercharging access will come in the base price because the SC team will be frantically attempting to keep pace with demand if estimated sell-through is anywhere close to reality.

 

[amoney805]

I seriously doubt they will include SC with the base model 3. At 35k, they likely wont make much profit and may even take a loss with every sale. It should be included as you upgrade since this is where Tesla makes money is with the added options and will have room to include SC.

 

[Ben W]

I highly doubt that the $35k base Model 3 will include unlimited free Supercharging. The decisive factor has little to do with marginal electricity costs, and much more to do with overcrowding of the supercharger stations.

If I were Elon, I would offer two options for the base $35k Model 3:

1. Additional $2k upfront; unlimited supercharging for life. (the Model S60 approach.)
2. Pay-as-you-go supercharging, at $0.20 / minute.

The per-minute approach (as opposed to per-kWh) is critically important, because it would encourage proper and efficient use of the superchargers. I.e. only charge as much as you need to get where you're going, or to the next supercharger. A per-kWh approach, on the other hand, would encourage slow trickle-charging to 100%, and allow cars to hog up charging stalls even after they're done charging. My guess is that a given supercharger station could probably accommodate about twice as many cars on the first system vs the second. (Put another way: if they're being charged per-minute, owners would typically spend about half as much time in a charging stall as they would if it were free, or per-kWh.)

The breakeven for these two options, assuming efficient use of the stations, is roughly 50k supercharger-powered miles, which most owners are unlikely to reach. So I expect a large fraction will choose the pay-as-you-go option. This will actually work in Tesla's favor, because it would allow them to accommodate the rapidly expanding Model 3 fleet with fewer stations, while still providing the benefits of the network to all owners.

 

[ratsbew]

I'd like to see something closer to $1000 that gives you 1MWh/year for free and then pay by touchscreen & credit card after that.

Assuming that a typical charge is 50kWh, then you'd get 20 supercharges per year for "free".

- - - Updated - - -

2. Pay-as-you-go supercharging, at $0.20 / minute.

The per-minute approach (as opposed to per-kWh) is critically important, because it would encourage proper and efficient use of the superchargers.

I really like this idea! The center touch screen could have the accumulated cost on the charging page right along with the accumulated kWh.

As a TSLA investor I'd also be happy to see additional revenue streams.

 

[nwdiver]

I'd like to see something closer to $1000 that gives you 1MWh/year for free and then pay by touchscreen & credit card after that.

Assuming that a typical charge is 50kWh, then you'd get 20 supercharges per year for "free".

Keep in mind the economic structure of EV charging... very high cost for availability... comparatively low cost per use...

 

[Echo Victor Won]

Yes I would pay, if it was offered as an optional extra, if only to preserve resale value, but they would have to install many more superchargers to deal with the extra demand.

 

[Chuq]

If it was an optional extra, I probably wouldn't pay for it, since I'm not expecting there to be any superchargers in my state in the next 2-3 years (assuming the Model 3 will be that far away in Australia). The nearest is a 280km/170mi drive, followed by a 10 hour overnight ferry trip. If we decided to take a road trip I would definitely purchase the SC option, since by 2018, I expect there will be a contiguous network of approx 20-25 SCs across Australia.

Having said that, if SC access was included and there was no option to not purchase it, I wouldn't complain even though I would rarely have the opportunity to take advantage of it.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...2. Pay-as-you-go supercharging, at $0.20 / minute.

The per-minute approach (as opposed to per-kWh) is critically important, because it would encourage proper and efficient use of the superchargers...

Not that it wouldn't work much as you say, but one disadvantage of a per minute approach is that Superchargers will charge at varying rates, depending on whether or not you share one with an adjacent car. It could be frustrating to be paying for a slow rate of charge because someone else is sharing the same paired Supercharger with you. Just saying...

 

[Ben W]

Not that it wouldn't work much as you say, but one disadvantage of a per minute approach is that Superchargers will charge at varying rates, depending on whether or not you share one with an adjacent car. It could be frustrating to be paying for a slow rate of charge because someone else is sharing the same paired Supercharger with you. Just saying...

Sure, but that's fixable. Just scale the billing rate proportionally. So if your car could currently accept 60kW, but it's only charging at 30kW, charge 10 cents for that minute. Or if your car could accept 120kW (battery near empty) but is only charging at 30kW, the cost is 5 cents / minute. From a PR standpoint, Tesla can just say "We take sharing into account, and charge you correspondingly less in those cases." People like being charged less :wink:

 

[physicsfita]

Sure, but that's fixable. Just scale the billing rate proportionally. So if your car could currently accept 60kW, but it's only charging at 30kW, charge 10 cents for that minute. Or if your car could accept 120kW (battery near empty) but is only charging at 30kW, the cost is 5 cents / minute. From a PR standpoint, Tesla can just say "We take sharing into account, and charge you correspondingly less in those cases." People like being charged less :wink:

That idea might be too close to charging per kWh to pass muster in many states, unfortunately.

 

[winfield100]

Sure, but that's fixable. Just scale the billing rate proportionally. So if your car could currently accept 60kW, but it's only charging at 30kW, charge 10 cents for that minute. Or if your car could accept 120kW (battery near empty) but is only charging at 30kW, the cost is 5 cents / minute. From a PR standpoint, Tesla can just say "We take sharing into account, and charge you correspondingly less in those cases." People like being charged less :wink:

and the complexity of billing becomes a nightmare. just prepay $1,500 - $2,000 for supercharger access, which helps pay for additional superchqargers, which increases visibility, which increases membership, etc. KISS

 

[ToddRLockwood]

A $2,000 Supercharging option is a no-brainer for someone purchasing an $70K+ Model S, but for someone buying a $35K Model 3, a pay-as-you-go scheme might be more attractive—even if it's more expensive in the long run. No question about it, Supercharging helps sell Teslas. But when it comes to actually paying for it, Model 3 buyers may opt to lower their initial cash outlay, especially if a pay-as-you-go Supercharging option is offered. If it is offered, I predict that it would not be based on kWh usage, like a gas pump, but instead would allow owners to pay a flat monthly fee for Supercharger access.

 

[MichFin]

The supercharger network is one of the biggest selling points for Tesla and when you finally start comparing cars like the Bolt to the Model 3 it's going to be the difference in 90% of the purchases going to Tesla instead of the Bolt or another comparable EV. So putting a price tag on it actually makes people think about the lack of value $2000 for supercharging is. $2000 will buy you 800 gallons of gasoline and let you drive 24,000 miles at 30MPG. When you do the math it's a horrible deal.

But if the Tesla is $35k and the BMW EV is $33k your definitely going go buy the Tesla because it also includes the supercharger network.