Connect with us

News

Top 3 reasons why having to pay for Tesla Supercharger use won’t deter buyers

Published

on

The “will they or won’t they?” argument over Tesla providing free-for-life unlimited Supercharger use is finally receiving more clarity. The company announced that it will provide roughly 1,000 free miles of energy before charging a fee for Supercharger use on cars ordered after January 1, 2017.

But is this the end for Tesla? Will people be lining up in throngs to cancel their Model 3 reservations? Boycotting Tesla and running to buy another car? Nope, not even a little bit. Here are some of the top reasons why this new announcement won’t deter buyers.

1. Pay less for your Tesla

I’ll jump right into arguably the best reason first. The vast majority of new cars buyers have a budget. That reality means having to choose carefully on the options to equip your Tesla with. By decoupling Supercharger use from the price of the vehicle, Tesla is theoretically able to reduce the price barrier to entry.

Plus, you wouldn’t necessarily want to incur a pre-estimated Supercharger energy cost, charged by Tesla, on a vehicle that may not see its fair share of long distance travel and Supercharger use.

Advertisement

Tesla is anticipated to publish details for its new Supercharging program by year end. But regardless of what will be announced, crowdsourced Model 3 reservation data captured through Model3Tracker.info suggests that it won’t even matter. Nearly 80% of Model 3 reservation holders said they were willing to pay an extra fee for access to the Supercharger network. This is even prior to Tesla announcing that it would begin charging for Supercharger use after the allotted 400 kWh cap (~1,000 miles).

2. You have to pay for fuel either way

The Tesla team knew and has repeatedly said that in order to further the adoption of sustainable transport, they had to make a car at least as compelling as its gasoline-powered counterpart. Since the Model 3 will be at least as compelling as a comparable gasoline car, would-be buyers aren’t going to ditch a vehicle that will require paying for fueling in favor of another vehicle that, too, will incur a cost on fuel. This is especially true when the majority of your charging can be done at home, which is infinitely more convenient, and more cost effective, than stopping at a gas station.

Charging at home, in most markets, is very favorable to the cost of gas. Charging on the Supercharger network beyond your free credits will also be favorable and “cost less than the price of filling up a comparable gas car”, according to Tesla. Mix that in with a growing destination program and I’m confident your Tesla road trips will still be economical.

3. Supercharger Credits can be rewarded

When I conceded that Supercharger credits may work after all, I talked about how Tesla could have fun with it. It’s your 1 year anniversary of ownership, take a trip on us! It’s Nikola Tesla’s birthday… You just reached 50,000 gasoline free miles… Aside from the ability to award additional free credits at will, Tesla could also decide to increase the amount of free credits they give per year. I truly believe Tesla is a good company that does right by its customers. For that reason, I think they aimed a bit low with the credit amounts to ensure they can afford to meet the promised amount. I also believe that if they use data to analyze the costs (they will) and find out that they can afford more than they are giving, they’ll do that too.

Advertisement

And remember …

At the end of the day, there’s no free lunch. Reasonable buyers know the truth. Free for life was not sustainable and a bit too good to be true. Model 3 is shaping up to be about the coolest and most important car of our lifetimes. For those of us stateside, an ode to the fighting spirit of America. Supporting a little, unknown company fighting against all odds – especially in light of current events – and completely upending an entire industry is worth every penny.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling

ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.

Published

on

By

ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.

The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.

Additionally,  ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.

SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise

Advertisement

The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.

The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Published

on

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford

Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.

The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.

Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):

“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”

Advertisement

Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.

Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:

“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.

Advertisement

Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.

Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.

Published

on

By

NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.

Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.

Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.

SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket

Advertisement

Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.

The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.

The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.

Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.

Advertisement

The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.

Continue Reading