Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tesla increases Supercharging prices to the point that gas might be cheaper (techspot.com)
82 points by harshulpandav 26 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 100 comments

It's funny that the article it references for the price hike says, "First off, yes sure it’s a bummer that prices are going up, but it’s still significantly cheaper than gas."[1]

They're also trying to compare NYC an LA Supercharger/electricity prices to "national average price" of gas including, "several regions seeing prices under $2 per gallon." Their comparison is $32-36 to fill up a 100kWh battery back versus 12 gallons at $2.85 for $34.20. I'm not really familiar with that class of car (or electric cars), but I'd assume anything comparable would take premium gas. I found a gas station in Westminster, CA (shown in one of the pics) and a local Chevron is currently charging $3.49 for regular and $3.69 for premium. The gas station I used to go to in LA that's only a few miles away is currently $3.09 for regular and $3.39 for premium. It would have been nice if they're going to make a comparison, try to do an honest apples-to-apples comparison.

The rate hike and how the cost compares to gasoline is worth noting, but the electrek.co article it linked to had much better information.

[1] https://electrek.co/2019/01/18/tesla-increases-supercharger-...

Yes, and it notes the supercharging “rates are significantly higher than what consumers in the same areas would pay at home,” which is actually where most people charge up. Super chargers are mainly for the occasional long distance trip. This doesn’t really support the conclusion of the article that calls into question Tesla’s TCO math. Most people are not doing the bulk of their charging on superchargers.

No car requires premium gas anymore.

I'm sorry, but this is just a ridiculous comment and terrible advice. I was driving a borrowed Mercedes over Christmas purchased earlier that year. When I filled it with gas it clearly said, "minimum octane rating 91." Sure, you can use regular gas and on any modern car it shouldn't cause damage, but it's silly to pay that much for a car and cheap out $.20-$.30 per gallon when it is designed and recommended for it.

I included the cost of regular gas because even that showed the article was being disingenuous about cost even using those numbers.

Per a 2017 jalopnik article[1], any short term gains by using cheaper gas are likely to be lost because of decreased performance. While any short-term problems will likely be addressed by anti-knock sensors, long term problems aren't known. If you're that price-sensitive, buy a car designed for regular octane fuel.

[1] https://jalopnik.com/why-putting-regular-gas-into-a-car-that...

TIL that in the US you use a different octane rating to the UK (and Europe generally). We use RON, while you use an average of RON and MON (called PON or AKI).

Our baseline fuel here is called "Premium Unleaded", despite it being the standard fuel and is 95 RON, which should equate to about 90-91 AKI meaning it lines up with your Premium gas.

We also have "Super Unleaded" at the pumps, which is 98 RON and should equate to 93 AKI in the US.

I guess that means we have no equivalent of your regular gas.

FWIW I've never managed to detect any benefit of using the 98 octane fuel, either in performance or fuel consumption. I've never owned a really high performance car, beyond a tweaked Saab 9000 Turbo running a higher boost, and that seemed to be happier on the Premium. I always assume that the 98 octane stuff is just a way of extracting extra money from gullible people, but I have no more proof of that than the anecdata from all the people who buy it and swear by it (probably because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias )

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. I'm not aware of any modern car that requires premium fuel in practice. All have knock sensors/etc.

You will just end up losing some fuel efficiency or power.

I imagine they're getting downvoted because, while it's technically true in the short-term, it's a terrible idea. If you're trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison between electric and gas, unless you're going to measure and calculate the fuel efficiency loss, it makes no sense here.

If you're paying for a higher-end car, it makes no sense to cheap out $.30/gal. Fuel costs, especially the difference from regular to premium octane, are so little in relation to everything else. While anti-knock sensors should avoid short-term damage, the long term effects aren't known [1].

[1] https://jalopnik.com/why-putting-regular-gas-into-a-car-that...

High compression ratio / turbo gas engines definitively do. Try pushing a BMW M3 ( competition for the model 3 perf ) on 87 and you’ll see how long the engine lasts.

Look up engine knock.

It lasts just fine (Source: I've done it)

The M3 has knock sensors, like everyone else.


If you look up engine knock on wikipedia, it will tell you the same

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking#Knock_detectio...

"Due to the large variation in fuel quality, a large number of engines now contain mechanisms to detect knocking and adjust timing or boost pressure accordingly in order to offer improved performance on high octane fuels while reducing the risk of engine damage caused by knock while running on low octane fuels. "

"...while reducing the risk of engine damage caused by knock while running on low octane fuels."

That doesn't necessarily mean it reduces the risk of engine damage to zero. The engine still has to knock for the sensors to detect it and adjust unless it uses flex fuel sensors. Yes modern engines CAN cope with lower octane fuel than they were designed to use, but you would lose performance and run an increased risk of damage. If the manufacturer states a minimum octane rating you would likely be voiding some parts of your engine warranty by running the incorrect fuel.

Just about every modern car comes with knock sensors and computer controlled knock prevention mechanisms that will compensate for lower octane, especially on high strung, direct injected, twin-turbo cars like a BMW M3. The only real downside is increased emissions for using non-optimal fuel and lower engine efficiency/power.

It'll work just fine, it will however not run at full power.

It will last at least as long as the warranty.

Cars in the US are required to be able to run on 87.

Look up engine knock sensor.

For those not familiar, Superchargers are the exception not the norm for charging your car. You use it to travel long distances, but not typically during your day to day commute. Superchargers are meant to be a convenience to rapidly charge your car on the go if you need it.

If you regularly charge at home, like most people do, you can get extremely low rates at night during off-peak hours. It only costs ~$0.12/kWh for us in SF. Something like $9 to charge the car from 0-100% for ~300 miles of distance.

> If you regularly charge at home, like most people do, you can get extremely low rates at night during off-peak hours. It only costs ~$0.12/kWh for us in SF.

In Palo Alto, this requires also accepting much higher rates during the rest of the day. When I looked into it, I was told that it would raise my daytime rates up as high as 45¢/kWh during the day (nearly double my current rate). Since I work from home and need to use AC/heat, this was not an attractive trade off.

Is it possible to have a second meter installed on a different tariff?

Yes, you can have it installed, and then must use rate EV-B. There is $100 charge + whatever your electrician charges.

The daily meter charge comes out to ~$1.50 a month right now.

In the UK the 2nd gen smart meters will let you automatically switch tariffs every hour, or something like that.

That’s if you own a home in SF with a charger. I doubt most who have the funds for that are worried about the price of electric vs gas.

Same for people that live in Southern California. Charging at home is great!

I thought they were intended to be the exception rather than the norm, but it sounds like many people use them almost exclusively, driving their Tesla to a Supercharger every few days to charge it, instead of just plugging it in every night and charging at home.

I can understand it not being cost effective to subsidise the full fuel cost for a significant proportion of vehicles.


I'm curious, do you typically pay actual "hourly rate x hourly consumption" in a regular US household? Where I live (Europe), even though we have new fancy "smart electricity meters" with resolution of a few seconds, all the deals available from power companies offering electricity are based on "monthly average rate x monthly consumption".

Where I live (Poland) it's possible to opt for cheaper electricity at night (10PM - 6AM), and over the weekends (Friday 10PM - Monday 6AM), in exchange for premium pricing during peak hours.

Example prices (probably a bit outdated, but to illustrate the difference): Flat rate metering: 0.55PLN / kWh, split metering: 0.71PLN / kWh peak, 0.26PLN / kWh night & weekends.

In California, the three largest utilities do charge hourly rate * hourly consumption. There are "Peak" "Partial Peak" and "Off Peak" periods defined by summer/winter and weekday/weekend. Paper bills as well as utility websites will show how much electricity (kWh) are used during each period. Websites will also show hour by hour usage.

How widely implemented is it? I lived in Los Angeles for over a decade, lived in half a dozen places (moving between Glendale Water and Power and LADWP). A few years ago, when shopping for houses all over the LA area I would peek to see if they had smart meters, too. I've only seen a few and never lived anywhere that had them.

There may have been seasonal price changes with dumb meters, but they couldn't have done weekday/weekend without them.

Smart water meters seemed to have decent distribution. Perhaps because of the droughts?

I believe most of Edison moved over to smart meters, and they're the biggest provider in SoCal. LADWP is rolling it out at a snail's pace.

That's good to know. Edison always showed up when looking for programs like solar or a smart thermostat, LADWP never did. I just never lived anywhere serviced by Edison. Looking at their service map, it looks like Edison covers everywhere around LA/Glendale and covers a very large area all the way to the Nevada and Arizona border.

I wonder if there's a better cost/benefit for rolling it out to a sparsely populated (or dense pockets with large areas in between)? Where LADWP may favor new construction or something?

Edison pretty much charges 2-3x more for peak usage, 30% more for "off-peak", and 20% less for sleeping hours compared to LADWP depending on tier. So they made a bunch more money since people don't just suddenly shift all their electricity usage to after midnight. I remember there being a lot of outage when they rolled out smart metering since most people had pretty drastic increases to their electric bill.

I still have this page bookmarked from when we were shopping for a Tesla. It explains it pretty well:


No electric car here, but most of the places I've lived have had dumb meters that get checked manually each month. However, growing up in Florida, there was a rebate program where the power company could shut off one of our circuits whenever they wanted so they could manage load. I'm pretty sure it was wired to our pool pump and maybe a few other things (like our water heater?) So I imagine power management varies by each area's need. I've heard about day/night costs, and that seems like a smarter way to balance the grid, but I haven't seen that widely implemented in the US yet.

I've had "smart" water meters in a couple states. I doubt water has the same day/night load concerns electricity does, but they only varied price between summer and winter. I assume this was to discourage watering lawns.

Where I live (Europe) I can use Tibber which has an api that shows future hourly pricing. This way I can tell the car to charge the cheapest

I live in Japan with a smart meter and we have the option for a rate split by weekdays/holidays and day/night, with different rates for each of the 4 combinations. The rates don't change hourly, just these buckets. http://www.kyuden.co.jp/var/rev0/0156/8971/graph_denkadenigh...

I live in Sweden and hourly billing is available here for everybody with a smart meter afaik.

the European market is, at most, at the quarter hourly resolution, so having a finer resolution would be pointless for the pricing

But don't you get extremely high rates during the day (something like $0.48/kWh) for daytime use in the summer with that plan?

Yes, from 2-9 PM on weekdays during "Summer" May through October, the rate is $0.47151 for PG&E (on the EV tariff). Shifting behavior to only charge EV, run dryer, dishwasher outside of those hours is fairly easy.

Due primarily to surplus solar power, later this year, the "peak" period changes to 4-9 PM and "Summer" changes to July-Oct.

Yes, correct. If you have high energy usage during the day (like family at home all day) it may not be the best plan. Though I do seem to remember their other tiered plan had similar high rates once you break into the high usage tier for the month. PG&E has a calculator online that'll look at your usage and recommend the right plan automatically.

Yeah, I checked them when I lived in PGE territory. Savings on EV are not quite as trivial to realize in real life as they are on a marketing site.

Yes, but only during peak hours, 4-9pm.

Indeed, but isn't that when you might want to actually use it, which is why it is peak?

On an aggregate basis, maybe, but on an individual kevel, not necessarily.

A house might have things that uses more power but doesnt have to be running at peak hours. Examples i can think of are pool pumps and ev charging. Pool pumps need to stay on for 3-5 hours but doesnt matter really when exactly. Same for ev chargers. These "devices" use more in the day than everything else combined.

The peak period is when the highest demand is placed on the grid. In CA, this is typically summer evenings.

This sort of tariff would be ideal if you also have solar and/or a storage battery, as you can avoid paying the peak rate and take maximum advantage of the off-peak one.

In densely populated countries not everyone has the space for their own driveway. In fact most people don't. Its one of the big problems of electric cars: where to charge the damn things.

Wherever there is parking, there ought to be charging.

It’s just a chicken-and-egg problem if your parking is controlled by a council or building management, etc.

Need enough EVs to justify spending money on installing plugs. Need enough chargers for people to buy EVs...

But we’ll get there.

Always weird to see what other people pay for electricity. It's $.08/kwh here in bc until you use too much and it steps up to $.12/kwh.

BC has high abundance of hydro plants.

It's 9c-11c in WA state but it's because we have an abundance of hydroelectric power in our area of the country.

This is probably a good move for Tesla. The reason Superchargers exist is to enable road trips, which are a tiny fraction of most people's driving. For anyone with enough money to afford a Tesla, if you need to use Superchargers often, you're better off with a PHEV or a conventional car, because even with Supercharging, you just waste so much time charging relative to gassing up. Even so, there is a certain profile of person that buys a very expensive car and then can't resist the allure of free electricity or the cool Supercharging tech. With so many new Model 3s, these people will clog up the Supercharging lanes, and make roadtrips in a Tesla even more painful. Simply increase the price ten bucks or so, and the cheapskates and tech enthusiasts will disappear and leave the Superchargers to the roadtrippers that have no other option.

> you're better off with a PHEV or a conventional car

Wait... are you saying the future is not here yet? ;-)

wow that was quite the anti-salespitch...

The truth is that in some areas, superchargers are already behind demand. Superchargers need to have more stalls than peak demand because charging is already slow compared to fueling up with gasoline. The time disparity is fine if there's no wait because it basically fills the need for most people's necessary occasional rest stops anyhow, but adding more wait would turn it into a negative experience.

I haven't yet had to wait for a supercharger, but I have seen full superchargers that I haven't needed to use. With the huge increase in vehicles from the 3's being sold, I expect congestion to increase before it's counteracted by more charging options.

I'll be pretty bummed the day I have to start waiting. Waiting might tip the scale for me from electric being a better roadtripping experience to gasoline. On the other hand, autopilot is pretty sweet.

I hope they don't fuck up supercharging like they've fucked up service. It's a necessary ingredient to a great overall experience.

If you're interested in autopilot in a traditional car, the Acura RLX, BMW 5-series, Mercedes C-class, Cadillac CT6, and Audi A4 have equivalent systems.

For now.

In the longer term, gassing up will end up not so much the norm. Has to. (well, technically not until we find ourselves in a state of extraction where the cost exceeds the returns, which may not be all that long)

Right now, my commute fits roughly into many EV ranges, but the savings is dubious. I can get 40+ MPG in my second economy car.

The first one was an older Corolla. 89, and it got 35 to 40Mpg, if I was careful with it. The newer one is an 01 Honda Accord, and it's roughly the same performance, but I need to be a little bit more careful as that one can actually perform a little. Fine, nice option.

In terms of dollars per mile? No contest. Both cars cost 2K, and I'll get 100 - 200K miles out of them with few hassles. I do most of the work, and will get stuck with the odd thing I need to have a shop do, or want to have them do.

Gas will have to go up a lot to unbalance that equation. And as for environmental... it's still a mixed bag. Lots of ugly rare earths going into those newer cars, right along with all the production energy use.

I predict we will continue to see a decline in new gasoline / diesel car sales as people wait for EVs to gain cost advantages. Used vehicles, perhaps modified some to improve emissions / performance (I do that now mostly myself), will prove increasingly compelling due to the very solid, production proven engineering paying off very nicely right now. It's insane just how long a car can go with a little maintenance and such.

We may see cool things like hydrogen. Toyota is working on that big time right now.

There already is alcohol, and both have advantages and disadvantages, with alcohol basically being a drop in, pretty friendly, reasonably performant, reasonably cost effective drop in replacement for gas. Same stations, infrastructure, etc... all just works.

Many cars can be converted reasonably.

There will be a considerable time where people will own cars longer, modify, refurbish, and trade while EV infrastructure continues to ramp up, and competing tech enters, all the costs get sorted.

My point here is we are entering a more turbulent time. Many of us will have more options. They may be offered up and see some scale, and in some cases, may just be things people choose to do. I could put my wife on a moderate range EV and she may never actually need anything else. Can always use the other car, or rent, for example.

That "anti-salespitch" won't really be seen that way here soon. Picking some options and matching that up to life requirements / needs / wants will seem increasingly ordinary.

One thing I do really think will prove useful a bit too late is how GM chose to implement the Volt.

The Volt is an actual EV, and works like one for short ranges. Too short, just a bit too short. However, it can recharge on it's internal fuel engine, or plug in, whatever.

It's not a hybrid, more like an EV with it's own self-contained recharging option.

Volts, converted to use something very friendly, such as alcohol, may well prove out to be seriously great options for people who have a wide, or dynamic range of driving requirements.

I kind of want one, while I can get one reasonably. Modify it...

We may also see a secondary industry pop up. Take great cars, add on, modify, convert, whatever to make them more receptive to more energy options.

In any case, I don't see it as an anti-salespitch. It can be seen that way by those of us fat 'n happy on whatever fuel we are using right now. That's me for sure. I've got my costs waaaaay down.

Edit: And though my scenario is seriously cheap, it doesn't have to be. I'm just that way, because I can use the dollars for other things. When EV or other options get in the ballpark, or I can get used vehicles, I may well switch over for a lot of reasons. Won't be buying new though. I will modify, or get used and go from there when it makes sense. New vehicles make so damn little sense when it's just about transport. (driving experiences, status, pleasure all that are not to be dismissed! Just not a priority for me at all right now.)

I see it as a little glimpse into the not so distant future. And where there are options, it's gonna get more complicated, but the planet will likely benefit, and people will likely be able to find something that works for them better than gas eventually will not work so well for them.

It's just early man. :D

This article lost me at "Most homes are not wired to handle 120kW chargers, which are likely not cheap to set up."

If the author had done any research, he'd realize that there's no such thing as a 120 kW home charger. (The weasel word "likely" only confirms the lack of research.)

And, of course, you almost certainly wouldn't want the extra expense of one if they were available anyway, because if your car is already at home it's pretty unlikely that you need it charged up again in the next 20 minutes.

I think the main thing electric cars need in order to win, is the ability to recharge anywhere. Slow is fine, but if it can charge during every lunch break and rest stop, that still adds up. I'd rather have a slow charger on every single parking space than a network of superchargers.

It can. You can plug a Tesla into any 110 outlet. (It's just 4x slower than a 30A/220).

I think the spirit is most homes are old and dont have the wiring to handle the load, whatever it may be.

Were they confusing kWh with volts AC?

Electrek are reporting that Tesla have now partly rolled back the price increase in response to the backlash:


A friend of mine owns a scrapping yard. Surprisingly he makes very good money (business is all about logistics and knowing what you should accept (profitable) and what will cause you troubles)

He says he hasn't accepted Tesla battery for 2 years now, because how complicated and expensive recycling is. According to him, there is not a single person that knows exactly how to properly secure used batter how to de-assemble and then properly recycle. He says its a nightmare ready to come true. He said eventually he can imagine some country will allocate yards of lands just for a sole purpose of storing old dead Tesla batteries altogether, just like we store dead nuclear plant rods under sea or high in mountain's caves.

> He said eventually he can imagine some country will allocate yards of lands just for a sole purpose of storing old dead Tesla batteries altogether, just like we store dead nuclear plant rods under sea or high in mountain's caves.

And most probably those countries/regions would not be the rich ones which now purchase Teslas like there's no tomorrow (think Norway, the Bay Area in California), but instead the toxic dump will be passed on to relatively poor areas of the world like the Campagna region in Italy [1] (with the added benefit of generating some extra business for the local Mafia) or the seashore of a sub-Saharan country [2]

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/mafia-toxic-waste-and-a-d...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ivory_Coast_toxic_waste_d...

Honest question: where I live (typical Spanish small/medium city 300.000 inhabitants) most (like pretty much everybody) people live in flats and lots of people do not have a way to plug their cars at night. Anybody knows how this can affect the use of purely electric cars? Even small ones, I mean (yes, neither I nor most people will buy a Tesla).

We have underground parking here in Amsterdam under our block of flats. The owners association discussed installing some charging poles. At 6000 eur/pole it didn't go down very well

Why does charging have to be harder than simply plugging into a power outlet? The building has power, a few extra power outlets doesn't cost much. The hardest part is linking it up to every person's own electricity meter.

That is, in my opinion, what the future should look like. As long as charging poles are expensive, they're not going to be everywhere, yet they need to be.

Standard power outlets, in the US at least, are only equipped to deliver 1-2kW, so fully charging a EV would take days (though if you only used 5-10kWh of charge a day, it might not be a problem). It's putting in the higher voltage, higher current outlets that's expensive.

Good point. I looked it up, and in Netherland, a regular power outlet is rated for 3.5 kW, which is probably still not enough.

For devices that require more power than that, there's three-phase current, also called "krachtstroom" (= "power current") in Dutch, which, from what I understand, can deliver up to 19kW (though intuitively I'd expect it to deliver 3 x 3.5=10.5 kW). We have this for out induction stove. Getting it was a bit involved, because it turned out our house had only a single 35A connection, whereas 3 (usually 3 x 16A or 3 x 25A) is more common, so we had to have our electricity connection upgraded.

Still cost less than $6000, though, and many Dutch houses already come with a connection that can handle this. Though that might not be true for other parts of the world.

I am not your parent but in my city most of the buildings have now underground parking (lots of people park on the streets). This is where I see the main problem, afaik.

6000€ per pole is a ridiculous price. Installing 230V outlets next to every parking lot with a meter shouldn't cost a lot. For overnight charging 3.7kW would be enough for most people.

Yep the government is gonna have to install a metric ton of chargers for it to gain traction. Tesla is very suburbia America.

I always hated how Tesla used gas savings as part of "how cheap" their cars were. It felt dishonest. Just give me the damned msrp without tax credits or gas savings.

Yeah it is somewhat misleading, though they do clearly show the true purchase price vs the "Savings price" on the final page after you configure the car. The first few pages sort of bait you in to thinking it's cheaper though.

In the end, I thought their pricing and buying process was a breath of fresh air compared to my experience with my Audi. By the time I walked out of the Audi dealership I had spent about $6k more than the original quoted price they gave me on the floor. I had about 3 pages of papers that look like excel sheets "explaining" it all. Tesla gave us a half page sheet with maybe 6 line items that clearly explains the costs.

The gas savings really do add up though. One of my previous comments I did a rough TCO between the Model 3 and my Audi A4 and found we saved about $1500 a year in fuel costs. After 5 years the car ended up being about $10k cheaper than my Audi despite it having a higher sticker price

> After 5 years the car ended up being about $10k cheaper than my Audi despite it having a higher sticker price.

This would imply a really huge running cost on the Audi over the Tesla in addition to gas - what's that cost? Assuming it's a new car, I assume repairs etc are covered under warranty?

Much of the savings was from rebate/tax credit programs. I didn't factor in maintenance at all since they are unknowns.

My original comment with more details is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18773680

Also my Audi doesn't have any Autopilot equivalent so I probably should have left that additional $5k out of the cost of the Model 3.

Ah, so if you had compared the Model 3 to a similar-segment petrol car such as the Mazda 3 (4-door), it would be the other way around and the petrol car would come out $10k cheaper in TCO. The Audi A4 is only that expensive because it's a premium segment sedan, the Model 3 is (by design!) not a premium segment sedan.

To clarify, I think you're not comparing "electric car" with "petrol car", you're comparing it with "petrol car for which I happened to pay a $20k premium because it's a status symbol".

Last time I got A4 as a loaner, it had ACC and lane assist, which does pretty much everything "autopilot" does, but without trying to kill you.

Changing oil in an Audi, past a free service period, adds up, though.

Assuming what gas price and what electric rate?

Must've been very loaded A4, too.

Details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18773680

I wouldn't say it was "very loaded". I got the Premium Plus with Black Optics package.

I've priced out 2019 A4 Premium Plus w/o optics but with sport, cold weather, vented seats packages and it comes out to under $47K, and that's for a car that has more meaningful luxury than Model S.

Gas is SF is very expensive, though, but then so is electricity.

I feel like that about America in general. Sales Tax is never included, or they display the price assuming a auto pay discount or some other such 'discount'. Don't get me started on tipping.

Couldn't agree more. I want to know how much money I need to part with today without the mental gymnastics. They do the same in restaurants here in Singapore. List price... then on the bill you get tax and service charge added.

I know the US has an array of weirdly regulated local dealership laws that really mess up the buying market. What is buying a car like in the rest of the world?

Similarly, a few years ago I went with my mom to buy a basic necklace chain for my sister. We went into a few department stores and my brain kind of melted at the mental gymnastics required. Our budget going in was like $30-50 for example. The sticker price would be $80, but the whole store was 40% off! And this rack was an additional 20% off today only! Trying to compare prices between different stores was really annoying and my mom pointed out this was normal. I think the older generation like the gamesmanship of it and younger people are really turned off by the whole idea.

> What is buying a car like in the rest of the world?

For Germany: Go to a dealer, price including all taxes etc. will be listed on the car. Talk to them and you can typically get a little bit off, even some solid discount if models are about to change or whatever. But you will not pay any more than stated (if you don't get tricked into some dubious credit).

The older generation is probably better at doing basic arithmetic in one's head. 80 x .6 x .8 =

I wanted to say this reminded me of those nonsensical word-problems given in school.

I don't understand. Posted gasoline prices are always inclusive of state and local taxes in every state I've driven.

I dunno how in-your-face Tesla is about it, but when buying gas cars I care more about TCO than I do about sticker price (rarely does the cost of gas make that much of a difference, especially within the same class of cars). My wife had an older mini cooper that ran decently well, but the cost of replacing tires (deciding between run flat or going with normal tires without a spare), brakes, and other repairs really sucked as the car became less reliable.

That's not entirely surprising. My BIL got a model 3 a few months ago. When he takes it on trips, he's never found a supercharger that can charge at full speed, because they're either overcrowded or broken or both.

Maybe by increasing the rates they hope to get people to use them less often and they'll have more money for repairs.

Also, the Model 3 can only supercharge at “full speed” when the battery is under the 50% level or so.

After 50%, the charge rate starts to taper pretty quickly.

If the battery is cold then you may also see reduced charge rates. In cold weather, it’s better to supercharge after a long drive, as the battery will be warm.

They charged about 20 cents per kWh in Virginia, and gas is about $1.92/gallon, so that was already the case.

This is caused primarily by extremely low gas prices, though, not just Supercharger pricing.

Even with gas that cheap you're paying $0.06 per mile (30 mpg). At $0.2/kWh you're only paying $0.04 per mile.

<disclaimer>i don't own a tesla</disclaimer>

Wow. No-one pointed out that they strategically need to force people off their super-charging network. Raising the prices and removing the 'free' for their early adopters is an excellent start.

The fact is too many people were using it incorrectly and it's causing them grief as the people who need to use it must queue up to do so.

Eh, so I still get to drive the best car ever made, and I'm supposed to be upset that it's only cheaper than other cars by a little bit? No, not upset about that.

I did not know that having a build quality somewhat lower than a Yugo and a UX that even a Yugo designer would throw up at was part of a "best car ever made" description.

Rent seeking? Probably rent seeking.

How can it even remotely be considered rent seeking to charge for a service you provide?

Rent seeking always involves charging for a service you provide. That’s not the qualifier. Rent seeking here would be to provide cheap/free fuel until capturing enough of the market, then raising the prices to above market price. Not saying they succeeded. But to me it looks like they tried.

Given that they just laid off 7% of their employees due to cost measures I'd say likely not. They're just not longer subsidizing it for owners because they don't need so much of a draw card.

Taxpayers aren't subsidizing them as much anymore either. Quite possible they just couldn't afford dumping electricity anymore.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact