Join The Community

Elon Musk has mentioned that the use of Superchargers will be free for owners of ALL (future) Tesla EV models (S, X, Gen3, etc.)

I remember having heard him say that in one of his interview's.

But I just cannot remember which particular interview that was (must be several interviews actually).

Therefore I would like some help of you guys to find that particular interview in which we can actually hear him say that.

Thank you for your help

in reply to Benz:

The 40kWh model was never offered with supercharger capability so its existence likely would have had no impact on the supercharger map planning.

The general impression I got was that the 40kWh was only offered as some sort of pseudo compliance model to have an offering priced below a psychologically important threshold. (I forget, $50k?) When very few actually ordered that model they figured the threshold wasn't so psychologically important after all and discontinued it.

I suspect that decision may have been a bit premature as the orders so far have largely been from enthusiasts who will go out of their way to raise enough money to go for the higher models, and the 40kWh would come into its own right only after a year or two when a bigger audience starts to catch on. But, Tesla probably also disliked the 40kWh for other reasons.

We don't know the MS40 order profile - but it was talked down as "bad" (subjectively) as why get a 40 when you need a 60 or 85? Many people don't drive more than 40-50 miles a day routinely. Why are models like the Leaf selling with a 24 kWh pack? Surely people with less mileage needs but who want a larger car wouldn't mind a MS40 at all. I have various suspicions why the 40 was cancelled. I don't think any of them are because the demand was low. If demand for a 40kWh car is low - why is the Model-E coming out with just a few more kWh in its battery size (perhaps 50-55kWh).

@Benz That's why 40kWh was not offered the SC capability.

As for whether future models will have free supercharger I'm sure Tesla will do whatever that makes the most sales and financial senses.


"If demand for a 40kWh car is low - why is the Model-E coming out with just a few more kWh in its battery size (perhaps 50-55kWh)."

The Model E will be 20% smaller and thus will have some corresponding increase in range. 200 miles is going to be the minimum range moving forward and the 40 just didn't make the cut. It was a compromise car.

Maybe it was designed with the intention of eliminating the lowest cost variant, but if there had been a large demand (i.e. more than 400 after 3 years of reservations and building cars) then it likely would still be sold.


I am sure that the demand in Europe for the 40 kWh Model S would have been significant, meaning at least 20% of all Model S sales in Europe.

But there is more (and this came to my attention via Brian H on TMC):

It's much easier to promote a brand and a product when you can say: "all Model S (and future vehicles) are hardware capable of supercharging". And it makes your brand also more premium as well (without the 40 kWh Model S).

I think that when they first decided to offer the 40 kWh Model S, they had not expected that Tesla Motors would be so successful so soon. I mean that they might have expected to be successful of course, but maybe in 2015 or so. And when they saw that succuess came so soon, then they decided to change their course/plan. And that's a wise thing to do, see possibilities and react accordingly.

Also coming soon from tesla:

Reservations required for Superchargers

Seriously if they are going to give every tesla free access to all superchargers at anytime, even once the lower end car for the masses is out, supercharging might become more of a pain. Imagine that one station along the highway on a friday afternoon before the long weekend..... yikes! The charge itself might only take 10 minutes, but you might only be number 6 in line for the next spot


Don't think that the 2015 Supercharger map is final. It will develop further and further. The Supercharger network will grow in line with the sale of Tesla EV's. Not only geographically, but according to the demand each Supercharger station will get more and more charging spaces to allow more Tesla EV's to charge simultaneously. Start thinking BIG.

@Kaboom Tesla is trying to revolutionize the auto industry and lead to a phasing out of the ICE. They are not content with selling 25 thousand cars to folks like us who can afford to pay MS prices. If they don't build up the network to handle the cars they sell then it will flop. Things might take a little longer than they anticipate but I don't doubt they will succeed.

I recall that the demand for 40s was about 4%, but don't recall the source. In order to do streamlined configuration management Tesla seems to trying to keep it's number of possible options low. My understanding is the 40 pack is really a 60 pack and the capacity is software limited. This kept Tesla from having to build three separate packs. This implies that if you have a 40, you should be able to upgrade for a price. My understanding is Tesla made a similar decision with the Supercharging hardware. All cars have it installed, and it's turned on and off in software. If those are true, it should be possible (for a price) to have Tesla take a 40, enable the 60kWh capability. Then enable the supercharging ability. If true, that would be a great option for an owner that loves their car, and wants to pay for the upgrade.

Actually the Model S as a product is a much too valueable and premium product. And for that reason this product should not be offered with a 40 kWh battery pack. For example, you also won't find a Porsche with a 1.6 engine. I know, this is a very simplyfied example, but I guess you get the point.

So there must have been many reasons which resulted in the cancellation of the 40 kWh Model S.

The Model X is also a too premium product to be offered with a 40 kWh battery pack.

The "consolation" 40s are software limited 60s, but the original ones were with their own batteries. One of the reasons for cancellation was that the setup and changeovers it required on the production line weren't worth the candle.

Everyone is ignoring Solar City's role in the SC network. Essentially, they run it and profit from it. They are installing enough associated arrays to earn more from FIT than the cars will consume on an annual basis. As for usage patterns, Fri and Sun evenings are most of the load. Buffering is going on, too; a photo was posted by someone of an incomplete station with a stone wall separating it from a battery housing, to hold 10 packs. This will help store cheap or free power in down times for the peak demands, and cut costs. Remember Elon saying, too, that the stations would still be usable after "the Zombie Apocolypse"? That's how.

I do remember Elon Musk talking about the "the Zombie Apocolypse". Just imagine people still being able to charge their Tesla Model S, while nothing else works (because there is no electrical power available due to some power failure).

Elon Musk is not only active on the vehicle mobility market (car companies). But he is also active on the fuel market as well. What a concept.

I remember having heard him say something that had to do with "first principels".

This is what he said:

"I think its important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy…The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy…"


“First principles” is a physics way of looking at the world…what that really means is that you boil things down to the most fundamental truths…and then reason up from there…that takes a lot more mental energy…

First principles of mobility: vehicles and fuel. But burning Fuel has a very bad side effect for our planet. So, we need vehicles that do not use fuel. How about electricity instead of fuel? And that leads to the EV. Is that how he did it? It couldn't have been that easy.

You guys are underestimating the size of batteries and solar array size needed for an off grid but fully functioning SC serving recharges for dozens of cars a day. How big is an SC array in KW to start? Then, how many KWh are lost converting to charge the battery bank. Next, charging losses from big battery to car. An off grid SC would have to enormous and approach a cost of $millions for the solar and batteries alone. SCTY could install it for cost but it would still be hugely expensive. American modules or would they go with cheap Chinese to save on overall costs?

Buffering is no easy feat. A good SC is a grid supplied SC. Apocalypse recharging is fantasy, really. You would have to guard the station with National Guard to keep people from wanting to use the power for other reasons or just vandalizing. Grid loss is not a pleasant event we ever want to see. Interesting sidebar, Japan just shut off their last remaining Nuclear power plant for maintenance. They are running entirely non nuclear today.

I agree with @bonaire. Take Gilroy - 4 stalls in continuous use 12 hours a day (I believe they are expanding from 4 to 12 stalls).

Assume 100kW for each 2-stall SC, so that would be 200kW. With an average of 6 hours of daylight, the energy source would have to be 400kW - that is 4000 100-watt solar panels to produce the 2.4mWh or electricity needed daily. Don't forget the buffer - a minimal 24 hours to handle a day of rain? That is 2.4mWh of buffer (battery) capacity needed (30 MS85 batteries).

That is current usage. When all 12 bays are in full use 12 hours a day due to additional sales of the MS and the MX - triple the size of the array and buffer.

And that is just Gilroy...

Building an off-grid SC is much more daunting than a grid-connected one with a pretty "feel good" solar canopy.

Can't remeber where I read it...but the idea of "load shifting" and assiting the grid by selling back kwH at peak or on-demand, especially in summer from SC's battery storage arsenals is exciting. This is far more environmentally benificial and certain, in my mind, that debating the actual energy source or hypothetical carbon footprints. Peak shaving saves or defers need for expensive and inefffecient peaking gas turbines, or spinning reserves in cola plants.
Selling peak power in the future could pay all the SC bills! Another example of brilliance associated with these cars we are enjoying....

The SC are not going to be "off the grid" but will "offset the grid" used energy as @slipdrive explained above.

Tesla intends to benefit from Time of Use (TOU) so that it can get credit for kWs during peak usage 10am - 6pm and use energy at low, mid and peak rates. Batteries even allow them to sell kWs that they purchase overnight and discharge during the day. Neat, huh?

They've calculated that the network should balance in electricity produced (net) and electricity consumer by the MS, X and eventually, Model E.

I saw in a journal article I think it was a "station battery" in a Japanese neighborhood where they were trying to store solar generated power in the morning for use during the afternoon peak. The thing cost $50K or something... Not a workable scenario by itself...

A forward thinking (there are a few) electric utility company or two should run to Tesla as a partner in SCs and hug them. Economic battery storage is the holy grail of solar power.

There are better and more appropriate battery solutions already in place for grid stabilization projects but wide-spread usage is decades away for GW type aggregate solutions. A123 was experimenting with some 2MW and larger standby batteries. East Penn Manufacturing is using their UltraBattery (Lead acid + ultra cap combo) with some DoE experimental tests right now and doing well (they make the popular Deka battery and are the nation's largest lead acid auto battery recycler). Grid storage and grid stabilization for frequency and voltage regulation will come along with the right price point.

Gas peaker plants really are not that expensive for the power they generate. The problem is - what happens when the gas runs out eventually?

It will take literally $hundreds of billions to create many GW of standby battery systems with today's technology. But they're all working on it since it is a great solution for intermittancy from wind farms and large solar farms (hundreds to thousands of acres in So. Cal and soon the middle-east who are building multiple GW of solar pv arrays now).

I don't see the linkage between SCs, buffering, and solar panels.

An SC is a load on the grid.
Solar panels are supply to the grid.
Buffering stores power on the grid.

The grid has all these components already. Why is there an advantage of grouping SC, buffering, and solar panels in one physical location?

The genius aspect of the combination of the technology of the Tesla Motors battery pack on the one hand, and the Supercharger technology on the other hand, is that it enables Elon Musk to sell solar power in an extremely big way. This awesome combination of both technologies will make it eventually possible for him to compete with the players in the energy market. Not many people do realise this yet.

Elon Musk is doing the right thing at the right time, step by step.

But that is a very long term vision (2040/2050).

Solar City. Sister company, Elon is Chairman there, too. Connect the dots.

There is energy production on the one hand, and there is energy consumption on the other hand.

Elon Musk is building a bridge between energy production and energy consumption.

People keep quoting "Most people don't drive more than X miles per day" but they keep failing to note, that the number they put in for X is the average day. EVERYONE has a day where they had to run a ton of errands, or that they had to make a trip to a neighboring town for one reason or another. To immediately preclude the possibility of running those errands, or going to a neighboring town without having the ICE backup car, would be foolish.

Sure, long distance road trip travel is still off the table, but those situations are MUCH more rare than the occasional 'day of heavy driving' we all take. In the case of road trips, a rental car makes a lot of sense, not only to avoid range anxiety, but to keep from putting too many miles on your pretty car.

As an example, I live in Colorado Springs, CO. (80 miles south of Denver) If I had the same mentality that "40-50 miles per day is all I drive"... which is essentially true... I would NEVER be able to drive to Denver and back in an electric car that got less than 200 miles on a charge, unless I scheduled a charging stop somewhere in Denver before I came back. Sure, it isn't something I do every day, or even every week, but I do it often enough that renting a car would be ridiculous.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen