Connect with us

News

Why are Tesla Superchargers Only for Long-distance Travel?

Published

on

Liquid-cooled Tesla Supercharger in Mountain View, CA

Liquid-cooled Tesla Supercharger in Mountain View, CA

Before going on vacation around July 4th holiday, PlugInsights sent a short survey to me with questions about Tesla supercharging procedures and also about recent comments by Elon Musk. About half way into the short survey, it delves into Elon Musk’s supercharging “overuse” comment regarding some daily Tesla commuters relying on the free charging stations in southern California.

My first thought, this again. Musk’s comments made some waves last month but why dredge this issue to the surface in the form of a survey from PlugInsights, a division of RECARGO.

1507plulginsight002

Is something afoot at Tesla? Why is the company worried enough to conduct a survey about this topic and especially Musk’s comments at the annual shareholders meeting. One question from the survey actually discusses the actual comments by Musk. “Before today, were you aware that Mr. Musk recently made these statements?”

Below are Musk’s comments at the recent annual shareholders meeting held in June:

(paraphrased via the survey)…”that superchargers are meant for free, long-distance travel” and “that drivers who aggressively use the network for local charging may receive an email reminder that it’s ‘cool to do this occasionally but it’s meant for a long-distance thing.’

So why did Elon Musk comment on this relatively small issue? Ashley Vance recent biography on Elon Musk points out that Musk usually doesn’t get involved in PR, unless an issue threatens one of his companies. So how could this threaten Tesla Motors? My speculation is the very real possibility of  battery capacity loss and drastically reduced range with multiple instances of DC fast-charging on a daily basis.

Could these patterns lead to drastically reduced battery packs ranges by year three or four of ownership and possibly lead to Tesla replacing a lot of battery packs, due to their warranty coverage?

My speculation centers around 120 kW of DC energy flowing into the battery pack on a daily basis. Did Tesla test battery packs for multiple, daily DC-charging usage? Maybe not.

Advertisement
-

Musk mentioned at the annual shareholder meeting that fast charging was intended for destination traveling and implied it wasn’t for daily use by commuters.

The Idaho National laboratory conducted a study on DC fast-charging and its effects on battery packs some years ago and released findings in 2014. Using 2012 Nissan Leafs, the study compared the effects of different types of charging: level 2 charging (3.3 kW) and DC fast-charging (50 kW).

The study revealed after 40,000 miles of testing that there was little loss of initial capacity and that the DC-fast charging battery pack had only lost 3 percent more than the other Nissan Leaf using level 2 battery charging.

Survey on usage of Tesla Superchargers

Screenshot of PlugInsights survey to Model S owners

However, Tesla Superchargers are dishing out 120 kW DC versus the Idaho study of 50 kW, more than 2x the amount of electricity coming into battery pack. That’s a lot stress on the battery management system to keep heat levels down, plus these car owners are supercharging daily, maybe doing it twice a day?

Many automakers have said that DC fast charging is fine on the battery pack, as long as it’s not done excessively. It seems twice a day could be considered excessive and cause concern for Tesla execs. This could be leading up to some proviso with excessive supercharging and the battery pack warranty, hence the PlugInsights survey on usage and expectations.

What about you, any other thoughts on why this is such an issue for Tesla?

** My other mild theory is Tesla’s rising electricity costs for owners employing supercharging only mode. The results of PlughInsights survey showed that 26% of Model S owners polled have used Tesla Superchargers as a free local alternative to home charging.

Advertisement
-

 

"Grant Gerke wears his Model S on his sleeve and has been writing about Tesla for the last five years on numerous media sites. He has a bias towards plug-in vehicles and also writes about manufacturing software for Automation World magazine in Chicago. Find him at Teslarati

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Advertisement
-

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

on

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Advertisement
-

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading