Bollinger Asks Tesla If It Can Use Superchargers

AUG 17 2018 BY MARK KANE 83

Bollinger Motors B1 electric truck at a Tesla Supercharger?

That might become a sight in the near future if the startup truck maker gets an answer from Tesla.

Bollinger Motors could become the first electric vehicle manufacturer to get access to the massive Tesla Supercharging network, this biggest plus in Tesla’s arsenal.

Tesla declared several years ago that the network is open for other brands, as long as other manufacturers will participate in the maintenance of stations, electricity, and will comply with charging connector/protocol.

Bollinger took the opportunity to openly ask Elon Musk about Superchargers on Twitter:

There’s no answer from Musk just yet though. And we’re thinking he’s got quite a lot going on right now, so perhaps this Tweet will get overlooked.

The all-electric off-road Bollinger B1 is expected to hit the market in 2019 (initial production). The number of claimed reservations stand at some 10,000.

Bollinger B1 specs:

  • All Wheel Drive
  • Dual Motor
  • 360 Horsepower
  • 472 lb-ft Torque
  • 125 kWh Battery Pack
  • 200 Mile Range
  • Level 1, 2, 3 Charging
  • Electronic Locking Diffs
  • Manual-disconnect Sway Bars
  • 2 Speed HI/LO Gearboxes
  • 4X Torque in Lo Range
  • 15.5” Ground Clearance
  • 10” Wheel Travel
  • 56° Approach Angle
  • 54° Departure Angle
  • LT285/70/R17 Tire
  • 76.5” Width
  • 73.5” Height
  • 115.5” Wheelbase (4 Door)
  • 159” Length (4 Door)
  • 68” Rear Track
  • 4 Passenger
  • Fold Down Seats
  • 13 X 14” Dash Pass-Thru
  • Holds 12 foot long lumber
  • Holds 4 x 8 plywood
  • Air Conditioning
  • 5000 lbs Payload
  • 10,001 lbs GVWR
  • 50/50 Weight Balance
  • Very Low COG
  • Regenerative Braking

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

83 Comments on "Bollinger Asks Tesla If It Can Use Superchargers"

newest oldest most voted

Elon Musk say YES!

Bollinger is the 1960’s EV Ford Bronco, for the Next Millennium. Come on Elon, make it happen!

Access Secured!

I bet if they are willing to contribute $$$ and let TESLA inspect their truck so it doesn’t cause damage it could happen.

Pray to Jesus.

This was a wide open opportunity for every other auto manufacturer. I am assuming there’s going to be a network charge and some annual licensing, but let’s hope this happens. I, for one, welcome our angular off-road overlord!

Tesla has stated that their patents are open. So likely just an access agreement to enable the VINs and not a license fee

Tesla’s terms of service for “free” use of its patents come with a lot of strings, most notably a requirement that the company using them also has to make its patents free for all to use (see link below). That’s a condition unlikely to be agreed upon by most companies.

More likely, Bollinger and Tesla will negotiate a licensing fee. As you yourself speculate in your post below, Nix, it would appear to be to the advantage of Tesla to either waive the fee or make it nominal for the first few years.

I don’t see why a licensing fee should come into the picture at all. This is not about technology; it’s about access to the actual network.

I’ve been interested in 4x4s but don’t have one now because of the terrible fuel economy and emissions associated with them. If Bollinger gets Supercharger access, I wouldn’t even have to trailer it to the muddin’ holes, local dunes, and backwoods trails.

The 4 door version is very new to me. Now I’m waiting to see just how real this truck becomes. It looks perfect for everything I’ve wanted a 4×4 for, and because of the load pass-through for long lumber, also everything I’ve wanted a pickup truck for.

Not only that, I have a very short commute, and I was already planning to buy a used i-Miev or Leaf some time next year.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

That’s not a “Truck” or Pickup.

Who said anything about a pickup?

(It certainly is a truck, though.)

Why would Tesla do that, does the SC network have capacity to spare with Model 3’s currently flooding the market? OTOH, in this case it’s only ever going to be about a low number of cars I suppose.

Because they could make money on it. Just like a gas station doesn’t care if I drive a Chevy or Ford.

The money is in the car sales: people buy Teslas because they know it’s the only brand with credible quick charge support. What they don’t want is to wait at a SC station with other brands occupying the stalls.

Of course if other brands buy themselves into the SC system capacity could be expanded but that might not be possible on all locations so it might be more complex than you think, this really isn’t like gas stations due to the time it takes to recharge a battery.

“Why would Tesla do that…”

Because Tesla would love for the true universal charging standard to be its own, rather than CCS. The more EV makers who join Tesla’s system, the better the odds are that Tesla can make that happen.

“…it’s only ever going to be about a low number of cars I suppose.”

Yeah, Bollinger’s production is almost certainly going to remain very small compared to Tesla’s. And if Bollinger becomes a roaring success somewhere down the line, well then Tesla can ask them to contribute more. Nothing wrong with sharing a pie, as long as the pie is made bigger; big enough for two!

What does Tesla care if their standard becomes the standard, right now they offer a unique support experience nobody matches and when 150KW+ CCS ever gets decent coverage it could offer its clients an adapter and add that option for their customers as well. It’s not like the industry would ever adopt Tesla’s standard anyway, Tesla is too much of a threat, that’s why CCS was invented.

“What does Tesla care if their standard becomes the standard…”

That’s like saying “What does Sony care if BetaMAX becomes the standard, rather than their competitor, VHS?” Believe me, Sony cared when they had to cave in and start making VHS video recorders!

“It’s not like the industry would ever adopt Tesla’s standard anyway, Tesla is too much of a threat, that’s why CCS was invented.”

None of that is true. Back in the day when Tesla was developing the Model S, Tesla was also one of the participants in the consortium which was developing CCS. Tesla only withdrew from that after it became obvious the consortium would not reach an agreement on their charging protocol in time for Tesla to use that in the Model S.

Tesla must see that when a true universal EV charging standard emerges, it will have to start equipping its cars for non-Tesla DC fast chargers. Tesla would obviously prefer that universal EV charging standard to be their own, and not CCS.

All nonsense. There is no Betamax analogy since people will not not buy Tesla’s because it’s SC rather than CCS because SC offers far superior coverage now and comprehensive coverage in the future. Since Tesla’s cars are compatible using an adapter with CCS owners will get whatever high output CCS infrastructure get realized over the next years thrown in as a bonus. From another article on this website: “Tesla can have the best of both worlds — enjoying new Supercharger locations while also taking advantage of other charging networks as they rapidly grow”. It’s like a Betamax recorder that will play any tape even though the video stores (remember those…)offer everything in Betamax and it will take years before substantial amount of titles in VHS are available. …and what does the fact that Tesla was involved with the CCS consortium have to do with anything? The very fact that the CCS consortium came into existence shows there was no interest adopting Tesla’s standard so whatever dreams Tesla may have had once upon a time about the industry adopting SC, it was just never going to happen so instead Tesla ended up offering a premium “Tesla universe” experience which was probably… Read more »

“All nonsense.”

Nope. You’re looking only at the present, ignoring both the future and the lessons of past history. Try taking your blinders off.

“There is no Betamax analogy since people will not not buy Tesla’s because it’s SC rather than CCS because SC offers far superior coverage now and comprehensive coverage in the future.

That’s true today, when market penetration by plug-in EVs is less than 2%. Back when home video recorders were only 2% of the market, BetaMAX was king. Perhaps you need to read up on the history of disruptive tech revolutions?

As plug-in EVs gain more market share, we’ll see CCS chargers springing up everywhere. Wanna bet that in 8 or 10 years there won’t be more CCS fast chargers than Tesla Superchargers?

“Since Tesla’s cars are compatible using an adapter with CCS…”

Not in the U.S. they aren’t! You can plug a Tesla car into a CHAdeMO fast charger with the proper adapter, but not a CCS fast charger.

Next time you’re tempted to “correct” someone, try checking your facts first.

Ah pu-pu, our resident pedantic know it all, quick to accuse others of blinders and lack of fact checking blissfully unaware of the limitations of his own knowledge and his own blinders. For starters you could take those blinders off and bother to properly read my comment and try to understand what I mean when I say that Tesla will have a fully comprehensive network of its own with access to third party networks on top of that, even though there is not much need for that. Already there is the Chademo adapter. About CCS adapter: sources contract each other on the feasibility of such an adapter,some insist Tesla is working on a CCS adpater capable of 350KW. The insideEV article I quoted definitely sees a best of both world scenario here including future access to CCS. But the main point is: there is no need for third party charging networks with all the hassle of having to deal with extra access/payment systems as long as Tesla maintains a comprehensive network with capacity tailored to the needs of its fleet. It’s like all the videostores offer a full range of Betamax movies while Betamax players can play other standards if… Read more »

FWIW, your tone right now sounds worse than his.

“The very fact that the CCS consortium came into existence shows there was no interest adopting Tesla’s standard…”

You get the “invincible ignorance” award for the day, dude.

No “Tesla standard” existed during the time Tesla was participating in the CCS consortium. Tesla would have far preferred to use a true universal standard, rather than having to develop their own proprietary charging protocol. Why do you think Tesla invited all other EV makers to join with them in the Supercharger network, if Tesla wanted it to be “exclusive” and only usable by Tesla customers?

You’re not making any sense at all.

From Wikipedia: Seven car makers (Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Porsche and Volkswagen) agreed to introduce CCS in mid-2012. So that’s when Tesla had already started rolling out the SC network, something the other carmakers clearly were not interested in. Tesla joined CharIN in 2016 so clearly when already substantial SC infrastructure was in place.

Your arrogance isn’t really matched by your knowledge I’m afraid.

“…in mid-2012. So that’s when Tesla had already started rolling out the SC network…”

Mid-2012 was when Tesla started producing the Model S. By the end of 2012, Tesla had installed only a token 8 Superchargers, at least according to Wikipedia’s “Tesla Supercharger” article.

Nothing you have said in any way refutes any of the facts I’ve posted. Someone refusing to admit they’ve lost an argument is not, itself, an argument.

Why does it have to be manufacturer based? Why not just let anyone pay as an individual, cant be that complicated! Network would be funded and just good marketing and meeting vision! Why rely on competitors when you can go straight to the comsumer!

Because the car needs to be able to talk to the charger. EV chargers are not just electricity cables, they create a connection between two computers, which then negotiate the terms of the charging process and monitor it. If your car cannot talk to a Tesla Supercharger, then you can try all you want to plug in, it’s not going to give you a single joule.

And because Supercharger stations belong to a private entity, they have a proprietary protocol. If Bollinger wants to make their cars able to talk to the stations, Tesla needs to give them the dictionary, so to speak.

Tesla has a cable so they can charge on CHAdeMO, I bet they also have a cable, or could do one, that would allow SC to CHAdeMO. The cable would have the smarts and report to SC network for billing. It’s really not that complicated, just needs the will to make it happen.
So Bollinger could either design their system to be SC compliant or they could have this sort of cable. I’d expect they do SC compliance, but we’ll have to see what Tesla response is.

Not sure what your point is. Whether it’s through an adapter or a “native” plug, Tesla needs to allow them into their network.

Omicro implied that only direct connection would work and other car makes don’t have the logic to talk to the SC. I posit that the adaptor has the smarts, so any car can use SC.
If I buy the SC to CHAdeMO adaptor then it is linked to my billing account, I can give it to you if I’m happy to pay for your charging, or you can buy your own.
Tesla already has the CHAdeMO to Tesla adaptor, so I think the opposite direction is at least possible. I personally think any type of adaptor could be made, the limitation might be in how bulky they get, eg: 800V CCS Combo to CHAdeMO might be a bulky unit if there is a big transformer required. I’m not an electrical engineer, so I might not have a good picture of this, but if the 240V power can be reduced to 5V for your smart phone charger, in that tiny package (that probably also works on 110V), then I’m pretty sure we have only touched the tip of the iceberg on what is possible.

Tesla adaptor is just a small computer converting canbus chademo signal in canbus tesla signal , the hardware is very simple and cheap (10 $ or less) doing something similar on Comb CCS is a littlee more complex because combo uses PLC ( Phase line comunication , the same standard that internet extender suses to carry internet over the powerline) the cost of the hardware can be up to 40$ but adapter will probably never exist because european tesla will probably switch to CCS natively in the car for taking advantage of the 350/175kw charging network. From a power point of view non of the adapter do anythig they just let the power wire pass and is just a mechanical adaptation. All the car uses 400Volts system and all the 3 existing standard can provide that voltage ( Chademo from 200 to 400 volts , CCS from 200 to 450 volts , tesla from 300 to 450 volts ) adapters are only for electronic comunication powerwise all the standard are already compatible. the “900” volts cars like the porsche tycan can charge at 900 volts only on CCS2 station ( the 350kw) , but can also accept 450V charging ,… Read more »

I believe what Bollinger is asking is to be hooked up to the Tesla payment system as well.

They can not afford it. The maintenance for all these station is far beyond them. I am surprised they asked! If it was MB or BMW etc then maybe.

I would imagine it would be on a per-volume basis. If Nissan or Chevrolet wanted in, they’d pay more because they make more cars, and Tesla would adjust network expansion accordingly. The B1 is (for now) a niche producer, and by its very nature won’t be racking up many highway miles. But on the few occasions someone wants to take their B1 out to the mountains in the next state, now they will be able to. At first, it probably wouldn’t even put a scratch in Supercharger traffic, but as their business grows, they can chip in more.

Can’t believe how business is conducted nowadays – an offhand Twitter question in lieu of a serious business discussion. One would think that both sides would be interested in preserving confidentiality of the details at this point in time. Very interesting alternatives for implementing this business deal. Any bets that Bollinger eventually says that Tesla’s conditions were to onerous? That said, I think it would be wonderful for this vehicle to have SuperCharging capability, although I can’t envision this being comfortable for cross-country jaunts like Tesla’s S/X/3. After all is said and done, I think this special-purpose vehicle should be just fine with either CHAdeMO or SAE/CCS for most of its applications as higher-power versions of those chargers become available.

It’s a marketing exercise.

I’m sure, assuming Bollinger are serious, they have already sent an official request, or have already been in discussion with Tesla. Tweeting about it however will get news articles all over the internet and more exposure.

Yup. It’s even possible that someone at Tesla suggested Bollinger send out that tweet, which is already adding social media “buzz” for both companies… as witnessed by this very discussion.

If it was orchestrated like that, Tesla surely would have replied to the tweet…

Frankly, this sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.

OT, but it definitely looks like environmentally friendly vehicle that should get more greenwashed taxpayer money :/

To my knowledge, Ford did not get any bailouts. They did get a $5.1B loan from the ATVM moneys granted by DOE, but that’s for R&D, not economic hardship.

Ford gets subsidies, that’s the point. Just like Tesla. Just like everyone.

I realize that – it’s just that the tables do not make the distinction (separate categories).

On top of the $5.9B ATVM loan, Ford got $15.9B in bailouts when the Fed Bank bought up Ford’s bad car loans through a secret Fed Bank program that was only exposed when the Fed Bank was forced to go through an audit.

Spoken of like the true Big Oil Fool Cell shill with all their subsidies that you are zzzzz.

Yeah, the fool cells that you are constantly cheering about are much better…lol.

“…it definitely looks like environmentally friendly vehicle that should get more greenwashed taxpayer money :/ ”

No, that would be the fool cell cars you keep posting your support for. You know, the ones that are supported by Big Oil’s promotion of the “hydrogen economy” greenwashing hoax.

On the other hand, Bollinger’s B1 off-road truck looks like it will be a practical, hard-working BEV vehicle.

Bollinger should understand being allowed to use the Tesla SC Network will come with a substantial upfront cost in addition to participation in the maintenance of stations, funding for future stations, electricity costs, and should purchase vehicle charging connector from Tesla, and pay license fee for charging protocol. If their startup status and lack of funds prevents them from paying Tesla a substantial upfront usage fee, then a partial company ownership, maybe 20%, might be suitable.

Volt#671 + BoltEV + Model 3

There are no upfront costs of any real value, as far as I know. Tesla put their patents out for anyone to use, so they’ll probably license the necessary patents for the supercharging vehicle protocols and vehicle electrical specs for $1 each, and then work out a maintenance deal and/or charging fee structure.

A downvote? Seriously? For what? Spelling out reality?

Your opinion does not equal reality. And we’re allowed to disagree with your opinion just as you’re allowed to express it.

Disagreeing with an opinion is not a good reason to downvote a comment, unless the opinion is obnoxious in some way — which is not the case here.

(I agree though that “spelling out reality” is bold claim for something that is actually conjecture… Even if I personally tend to agree with the conjecture here.)

I doubt Tesla is going to want a “substantial” upfront contribution from a startup like Bollinger. More likely Tesla will want to encourage participation by as many EV makers as possible, so Tesla might make the licensing fee minimal, or possibly even make it free for the first year or three.

It’s not like Bollinger is going to be making large numbers of these trucks, at least not for the first few years. So there won’t be much burden on the growing Supercharger network to support this small number of extra vehicles.

Where does it say supercharger? I hope this happens, because this will legitimize superchargers more so than Chademo.

Chances seem pretty slim this will happen.

This would be a win for both companies. I see no reason why they wouldn’t do it.

If I were structuring the deal I would write it so that Bollinger pays nothing for the first 5000 units with SC access, and then once they exceed that number, or after 3 years pass (which ever comes first) that Bollinger starts to contribute to SC construction costs. Bollinger can recoup those costs by charging a small fee for Supercharger access, the way the GM Bolt has a charge for fast charging. That way Bollinger has a chance to get their feet under themselves before hitting a financial burden. And the number of Bollingers added to the network would be less than a week’s worth of Tesla production and wouldn’t have any real impact on Tesla’s SC buildout costs. While at the same time having future cost-sharing.

I seriously doubt that it would be unlimited charging though.

I absolutely agree. Paid charging like the Model 3.

Hey Nix!

Interesting that we both suggested Tesla might offer a free starting period for Bollinger’s license to use the Supercharger network, and a three year period before starting to charge usage fees!

Great minds think alike (…and so do ours! 😉 )


I am sure Tesla would if the price is “right”.

Currently the SC network shows up in the cost that isn’t part of Gross Margin. So, any way to trim that would be beneficial to Tesla. But it would be interesting to see how much it would cost the “smaller startup” to get the entry to it. I also doubt that it would come with “unlimited SC”.

Tesla might well offer unlimited Supercharger use as an introductory offer to Bollinger, but I can’t see Tesla offering that to Bollinger vehicles on a permanent basis, when they’ve had to end that for their own cars.

Think of the cost to Tesla to collect the user fees. For Tesla cars, the fees are only collected when the car is brought in for service. Tesla would have to set up a billing system to charge Bollinger customers usage fees. For the small number of Bollinger trucks we’re likely to see in the next few years, it would almost certainly cost Tesla more to set up a billing system than they would recoup with the fees.

If more companies join the Supercharger network, then at some point it probably will make sense for Tesla to set up a billing system, or more likely farm that out to a company specializing in that. But so long as there are less than 1000-2000 Bollinger B1’s running around, it probably makes more sense for Tesla to just charge Bollinger a flat annual fee for unlimited access.

Here’s hoping that now that somebody has dipped their toe in the water so to speak, others will follow. But it doesn’t surprise me that another pure EV startup was the first to step forward.

Fascinating and unique specifications! I don’t care for the looks all that much, but as long as it does what they say it can do, and more, then it’s beautiful.

And price will be important. 125kWh battery ain’t going to be cheap.

It will be interesting to see if this goes ahead what the terms are. Customer cost wise we Already see what Model 3 looks like, so that should be the same regardless of the vehicle. You would imagine there are laws that govern this.
The next logical price is a per vehicle cost/licence fee. That could be in the form of having to purchase the SC module from Tesla and/or just a fixed cost.
And then the complicated price of SC maintenance and expansion. That’s anyone’s guess how that could work, and most likely the point where it gets too hard/expensive. Maybe that also comes down to a ratio calculation based on total number of SC and total number of vehicles.
And I bet they have already had private talks and this tweet is after the fact to get some PR happening. I hope so.

We don’t know that the fees Tesla charges actually cover costs — they might very well be subsidised. If that’s the case, it would be perfectly expected that Bollinger’s customers would have to pay more — unless Bollinger would also subsidise them…

I am going to throw a guess as to licensing, cables, software, electricity and other costs for this company to be able to use the Tesla network: $10,000 per vehicle plus an annual fee per vehicle plus a charge per kWhr!! Also, would one of these vehicles block two spaces?

Why in the world would Tesla try to impose a fee that is so high it would guarantee that Bollinger would hastily say “No thanks!” ???

See Nix’s thoughtful analysis above. He makes sense.

“Also, would one of these vehicles block two spaces?”

My guess is “No”. Remember that the Model S is one of the widest cars sold, not counting Hummers.

“There’s no answer from Musk just yet though. And we’re thinking he’s got quite a lot going on right now, so perhaps this Tweet will get overlooked.”

Maybe Elon doesn’t have time to deal with this personally, but my guess is that someone at Tesla Inc. is already in contact with someone at Bollinger. Despite the outreach being in public on Twitter, this is the sort of agreement which companies negotiate in private.

Let’s keep in mind that what Tesla want’s isn’t for other auto makers to merely use their Supercharger network; they want them to contribute to building out, powering, and maintaining the network. That means Bollinger will almost certainly be asked for, at minimum, a usage fee. The details will have to be worked out between the two companies.

* * * * *

I’ve been saying for some time that while no major auto maker would agree to join Tesla’s Supercharging network, because it would put them at the mercy of Tesla, it might be that some small startup might want to “hitch its wagon” to the rising star of Tesla.

Looks like Pushy was right on target here! 🙂

Doesn’t make any sense. It’s easier to find CCS chargers (in some situations it’s even quite cheap with 0.02-0.05EUR/min at full power) and they’re currently coming those with much more power. First 350kW CCS chargers are already installed. I think within the next months, many 50kW CCS chargers will be upgraded at least like to 100kW.
And I never heard that Tesla makes _long-term_ contracts concering using everything that’s necessary to use the SC network, incl. the technology. Without such a long-term contract, a company would be stupid to use something like SCs and its technology.


Obviously it is a Bollinger marketing stunt.

…says the Tesla Death Cultist. 🙄

Franky, its your comment that doesn’t add up – Tesla chargers are very prominent and easy to find, they are super convenient to use.
“within the next months, many 50kW CCS chargers will be upgraded at least like to 100kW.” There are probably close to a hundred CCS charging providers around the globe – what exactly are you talking about? Some stalls by some operator getting upgraded – now that I would believe.
Also – why would it have to be one or the other?

Bingo! Bollinger equipping its trucks to use Tesla Superchargers doesn’t prevent them from also equipping them for CCS charging. CCS uses a charging protocol that is incompatible with Tesla’s protocol, so it might take two separate charging ports on Bollinger trucks, which would be a bit more expensive, but certainly not impossible.

“…I never heard that Tesla makes _long-term_ contracts concering using everything that’s necessary to use the SC network, incl. the technology. Without such a long-term contract, a company would be stupid to use something like SCs and its technology.”

We haven’t heard about it because no other auto maker expressed any desire to take Tesla up on its invitation to join and support the Supercharger network. This would be a first.

You’re certainly correct to point out that Bollinger or any other auto maker would be stupid to tie themselves to a charging network controlled by Tesla without a long-term contract; a contract which would impose stiff penalties on Tesla if it arbitrarily shuts off access.

I think some people have forgotten the idea of a true business partnership, perhaps due to the current unfortunate American political climate. But most businessmen have not forgotten the concept of a “win-win” situation. Contracts get written every day.

Will never happen. Tesla could allow electronic payment or cip and pin but no it has never happened. You don’t need “manufacturers to contribute” owners would pay for usage just like Model 3 owners with and invoice.

Watch and see nothing ever happen on this front. Tesla is a business not a charity.

“You don’t need ‘manufacturers to contribute’ owners would pay for usage just like Model 3 owners with and invoice.”

I’m disappointed to see multiple claims along the line of “Tesla doesn’t need to contract with the auto maker; it can just allow individuals to use the Supercharger network and charge them.”

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about Tesla’s purpose in building the Supercharger network. It didn’t build that to make a profit, and in fact Tesla says its plan is to make the network profit-neutral. Tesla isn’t going to let cars from auto makers which don’t support the Supercharger network clog up the system just to make a few bucks.

Bollinger is approaching this the right way; approaching Tesla openly, and (apparently) with the intent of contracting for use. If Bollinger does join the Supercharger network, they’re eventually going to be asked to contribute to building, powering, and maintaining the system.

Thinking ahead, the Tesla supercharger network could one day be spun off as a separate company.

They are going in the other direction. They are more likely to become a net-electricity generating company US-wide than to become a separate spinoff.

I think you may be correct. There will come a day when the Supercharger network is more of a legacy cost burden to Tesla than a sales magnet. That will happen when there are enough plug-in EVs on the road to create a lot of demand for EV fast chargers everywhere.

At some future time when Tesla sees the Supercharger network as more of a burden than a help, it would mke sense to sell that of, so the no longer have the burden of maintaining and powering the network.

I can’t imagine any Tesla owner would want to park next to something like that either at the Supercharger or any parking lot for that matter.

What planet do you live on? Thankfully, in the real world, most people are not that narrow-minded.

Win Win.