Chủ Nhật, 20 tháng 11, 2016

Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015 part 3

  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Max* and Johan,

    I'm trying to understand how things might look from a user's perspective who does a lot of long distance trips. Can you answer these two questions:

    In last 365 days,
    1. What percentage of total charging happened at superchargers?
    2. What is the maximum number of times you supercharged at the same station?
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Nice catch! Otherwise we'd see a thread as to "why did I get 7 emails from Tesla!"

    - - - Updated - - -

    I've only had my car for 2 months.
    1. 60%
    2. Erm... I've used my local SpC maybe 4 times? it's kinda far (maybe 15-20 miles), but it's next to a mall, so if I need something in the mall, I'll top off.
    O o o and I've used another SpC that's on 2 of my traveled routes probably 4-6 times. But it's about 120 miles from my house.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    mknox
    In my neck of the woods, there is a Supercharger mid way between the city and popular summer cottage/winter ski areas. Lots of people own second homes there. In fact, the Supercharger, I believe, was placed where it is to support travel to/from these areas. If you owned a cottage or chalet and went there on weekends, it is possible you might be at the same Supercharger twice a week, year 'round. Would that be "abuse"? I don't think so, because you would be using the location exactly as intended. But you might get "flagged" for one of these letters.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    mknox,

    I was thinking about the same thing.

    I see my algorithm would include people who do long distance trips all the time. I'm not sure how to exclude them. Assuming somebody is using the Model S only to drive to one location 400 miles away and there is a supercharger 300 miles away from his home, all his trips would be long distance trips. 100% of supercharging would happen at the same station. 100% of all charging would be supercharging. We should exclude this user but I'm not sure how.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Panu
    In previous discussions most people including me seemed to agree that if you always plug in at home you are not an abuser. Those who got the letter: have you not charged at home or have you charged only to 50-60% at home so you can top off at supercharger?
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    PaulusdB
    Thanks for the clear illustration of the fact that designing the correct 'SuperCharger Abuser Algorithm' is no trivial task.

    Even the ground rules for SuperCharger are not explicitly clear (to me).
    And given that even the top percentile of owners, investors and dedicated fans of the brand/car (here on TMC) cannot come up with this algorithm, please don't assign this task to the next summer intern.

    My suggestion:
    if Tesla Motors were to convey the ground rules for SuperCharging, possibly this group effort will lead the world to a solution acceptably close to what Telsa Motors and we deem a 'fair' SuperCharger Abuser Algorithm.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Update: The version below was later superseded by version 3 in message #437.
    --------------------------------

    OK, I think I have an idea that might work. I picked a user who has a weekend location he visits regularly. At the same time this user is abusing local superchargers near home and near his weekend location. I think the following system would differentiate between long distance trips and local top ups. The idea is to look where the car is parked overnight before and after supercharging. Here is an example that shows a record of 5+ hours parking and supercharging events

    8.5 hours parked at home (GPS location A)
    Supercharged at station 1
    8.5 hours parked at home (GPS location A)
    Supercharged at station 1
    8.5 hours parked at home (GPS location A)
    Supercharged at station 1
    8.5 hours parked at weekend location (GPS location B)
    Supercharged at station 2
    8.5 hours parked at weekend location (GPS location B)
    Supercharged at station 2
    8.5 hours parked at weekend location (GPS location B)
    Supercharged at station 2
    8.5 hours parked at home (GPS location A)
    Supercharged at station 1

    As you see whenever the user drives from home to weekend location, those supercharge sessions would not be flagged because he doesn't park for longer than 5 hours at same location before and after supercharging.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*

    Cough

    Might need a few extra if-statement for some corner cases. Might be as simple as changing 100m radius to 50mile radius (I don't expect many (any?) person to drive 50miles to a SpC to charge to avoid home charging and then drive back home for 50 miles. you're essentially cutting the car range by 50% doing this). That might weed out most corner cases too.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Johan
    For me, about only 20% is SC but of that 95% is at the same SC which is about 300 km from my home. This is because virtually all road trips I do are to my hometown in Sweden. This is likely pretty common- there's one or two SC where most Supercharging is done. Humans are creatures of habit.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    smac
    Completely agree.

    Even if we do come up with a clever algorithm, how on earth do you then communicate this in English (Norwegian/Geman/...) to current owners, and more importantly Legalese for future buyers.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Slight tweak.
    Code:
     if(Owner uses superchargers within 50 mile radius of home) //doing a 50mile x2 (100mile) roundtrip to supercharger to avoid paying home fees is reducing your car range by 50% roughly! No sane person would do this.    if(Owner uses superchargers more than home charging) //weeding out the occasional local top offs       for(1:length(Superchargers used)) // check every SpC he used          if(SpC stop NOT followed by another Spc stop within 6 hours) //ignore roadtrip cases             send politely worded letter             return;          end       end    end end
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Panu
    Btw. is this SpC close to your destination? The idea might be that you are not allowed to supercharge if you can charge in your destination (which sounds much too strict to me).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    There is no evidence that a summer intern did it, lol.

    Why do you need to convey it to anyone? Tesla needs to write the algorithm, implement on their side, and send out letters. Current owners will read the letters addressed to them, for correct reasons, and act appropriately (ignore it? stop abusing the system? etc.).

    Superchargers were free for life, no contingencies. You can't change the ground rules for current owners. You can ASK people to not "abuse" the system, sure.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Not fair either. My MIL only has 120V charging, and only a 100A panel. There is no way I can install a NEMA 14-50 in her garage (for a reasonable cost). I trickle charge in her garage and use the local SpC to top off when we visit.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Max*,

    I was having trouble defining home. Therefore I avoided using it in both algorithms. We can not use an address that was declared. That could be wrong or changed. Also a person might live in more than one location. Therefore initially I came up with +20% supercharging and 10+ same station criteria but that would incorrectly flag somebody who has a weekend location. So I came up with GPS location of where the car is parked for 5+ hours before and after supercharging. If you define home according to overnight parking location, then we would end up saying the same thing. I'm not sure what you had in mind to define home. By the way I realized that my second algorithm would fail if somebody is using the Model S for 24 hour tax service with multiple drivers.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Johan
    It's closer to my destination than my home. And I can't rely on destination charging, at least not for shorter trips.

    Clarification: I didn't receive any letter. (Did anyone in Europe?)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    RobinF
    I wonder how they will word the next letter explaining how they screwed up the determination of who to send the first letter too. And do they send it just to the people who should not have gotten it revealing their ability to develop a better algorithm, or a blanket notice? ... I see a recursion coming on. :redface:

    P.S. I did not receive this letter.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    techmaven
    I think it should boil down to this...

    If I have more than enough charge to get to my destination where I can charge easily in time for my next trip, and I'm taking up a plug at a Supercharger while someone is waiting, I should give up the plug so that they can charge. Since, well, I would want someone to do that for me if I were the one waiting and absolutely needed to charge.

    This whole thing should have been phrased as etiquette because we're all in this grand movement together and we need to work together to make this work as smoothly as possible.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    I'll play ball, you're right. I assumed Home was defined and accurate in the nav.

    Tesla also has your home address based on your registration (yes, the person may have moved or has multiple homes <-- fringe cases).

    The point of the algorithm is to be "good enough", perfect is the enemy of good enough. Using home as either what the nav uses or based on what was registered with Tesla, might have a few false negatives (you didn't send a letter to the person with 2 homes, or you didn't send a letter to the person who moved), but I don't believe it'll have any false positives. And that might be good enough.


    If you want to go above good enough, you may start to introduce false positives. How do you define home? What if someone doesn't have a home and lives out of his Tesla? What if you're staying with your inlaws for 6-months? etc. You can adjust the definition of home daily/weekly/etc. but that may lead to more false positives --> what if you're on vacation and the hotel doesn't have a plug?.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Panu
    OK I thought you received the letter. Probably no one in Europe did.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Max*,
    Your algorithm would fail if somebody has a weekend location. Imagine Home to supercharger is 49 miles. Supercharger to weekend location is 190 miles. The person is using his Model S only to drive from home to weekend location. He has a smart EV for city driving at home and another smart EV for city driving at weekend location.

    Home......................Supercharger.........................................................................................Weekend Location
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Yeah. I assumed all road trips require 1+ SpC stops. Weekend locations/small trips might only require 1 SpC stop.

    I'll think about it, I'm stubborn, I'm sure I can find something that's close enough.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    smac
    I think we both agree that the deal as presented has always been free for life with no contingencies. I was personally at an event where EM stood up and said "Imagine never having to pay for fuel again" (London Launch) I don't know how much clearer a statement anyone needs, that the intention was it was completely without restriction.

    So right now there is simply no guidance. By definition if there are no rules then there can be no abuse of the "rules".

    As it stands the algorithm should look like this (I'll use C# to mix things up):
    foreach(var customer in Customers)
    {
    // DO NOTHING;
    }


    If Tesla want to add rules they really should be in plain English and mailed to EVERYONE first. Only when the situation is cleared up (no matter how painful that is) should they codify the rules into an algorithm and start sending warnings.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Minus the whole changing the rules after the fact thing, considering new owners only: I can agree with this.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    LetsGoFast
    I wonder if they intended to send the letters to more people and halted when they saw the reaction here or if their code to select recipients was just poor. If the letters were intended to pick out abusers, it seems to defy belief that they mailed it to people whose nearest supercharger is 60+ miles away. I know that I received an email inviting me to a supercharger grand opening more than 24 hours after other people reported it on the forum, so I'm guessing their mass mail process is relatively slow.

    I rarely use superchargers, but I'm sympathetic to the position of those who do. Based on the battles here in the past about the intended purpose of superchargers, it was ambiguous prior to Elon's press conference and this letter. Obviously, it is no problem for Tesla to write to people and ask them to change their behavior and rely on them to react appropriately. However, should they proceed to taking any punitive action against "abusers" I think they would be on very shaky ground both legally and more importantly from a PR perspective.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Did you see my new solution here. If you agree I would like to see a code version. We should change it to within 1 mile radius of GPS location because each night the user might park at different locations on the street and then walk home.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    scaesare
    Again you make it appear that if two folks are of like mind on most topics, that must imply agenda. There are a boatload of forum members, of course there are going to be folks that tend to think along similar lines.

    I happen to find myself agreeing with the viewpoints of several people time and again here. It's often after I read the post that I realize it's once again somebody I've agreed with before.

    Why don't you determine if a post has merit based on it's content, rather than casting aspersion on the post or poster by calling in to question who else voices a similar sentiment?

    Incidentally, they aren't the only ones who voice support for other's posts:

    Interestingly all of these "complimentary" posts happen to be to people voicing an opinion that generally supports your stance.

    (Of course I expect you to explain this away by saying it's not a pattern of the SAME person, etc... which will once again ignore the crux of the issue: look at the merit of the post, not the poster.)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    I did, in your case you're assuming you don't know what Home is, correct? If so, then your algorithm would break if I'm visiting a hotel (#1)

    Also, there is a member here who does like 1500 miles a week for work. He would supercharger at the location closest to his house, then go back home and charge there to get back to 90% (he's still parked at home overnight), your algorithm would break (#2).

    I take a day trip to visit family 200 miles from my house. I charge at SpC1 before leaving, drive 100 miles, spend the day with them, come back use Spc1 again because I wont have enough buffer to get home, and sleep at my house, this would cause a false positive (#3).

    Those are 3 off the top of my head, I can probably think of some more corner cases where I see it failing. You can add a condition that he's at home and not charging, but I can find a case where that'll break too (someone who doesn't charge evrery night, and does the occasional long day trip), etc.


    My algorithm would also break if someone is going to work daily, and only using 1 SpC. I think the main flaw is the 1 SpC case. I'll think about it, should be solvable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I added a 1 supercharger contingency.

    Code:
     if(Owner uses superchargers within 50 mile radius of home) //doing a 50mile x2 (100mile) roundtrip to supercharger to avoid paying home fees is reducing your car range by 50% roughly! No sane person would do this.    if(Owner uses superchargers more than home charging) //weeding out the occasional local top offs       for(1:length(Superchargers used)) // check every SpC he used          if(SpC stop NOT followed by another Spc stop within 6 hours) //ignore roadtrip cases             if(Not Home -> 1 SpC -> Home within reasonable timeframe (72 hours?)) //ignore 1 supercharger case, if it was used within X hours of arriving back home.                send politely worded letter                return;             end          end       end    end end
    When it comes to algorithms, the goal is almost never 100% PD (probability of detection) at 0 FAR (false alarm rate). I think this algorithm has a decently high PD with a relatively low FAR, which is what most strive for. I'm sure there's some corner cases which aren't covered, but I think this is good enough start to prove that putting in a few days of work can get a good algorithm together.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Max I'm not sure I understand your latest version. More specifically how it flags A but doesn't B. It looks like you have not flagged anybody.

    Flag this:
    A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.

    Don't flag any of these:
    B) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
    C) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
    D) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    smsprague
    Well 48 hours have passed since I emailed Tesla Ownership. I have received no response. Just crickets.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    Even that algorithm is flawed. Someone may like within 10-20 miles of a supercharger but have a very long 220+ mile commute. I can get to work fine. Getting home though on that full charge at highway speeds is difficult at best, especially if other stops are needed. Therefore it necessitates 100% use of "local supercharging" per your definition. You can't simply do it by distance to supercharger and % use of that supercharger.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    It definitely doesn't flag B-D, right?

    As for A, hmm... crap, I forgot what the original intent was, I trying to weed out B-D. Maybe I wont give up just yet...

    - - - Updated - - -


    I realized that after Matteo pointed it out.

    Also, your case wont get flagged. Because you're using 100% local SpC, but coming back home. Which leads to what Matteo said, I forgot what the original problem is, and I wont flag a local abuser either, lol

    I'm done playing with the algorithm for now, maybe I'll tweak it some more later. I think this is good enough start (an hour from 2 people?) to prove that putting in a few days of work can get a good algorithm together fairly easily.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    PaulusdB
    Maybe now you can apply for that internship at Tesla Motors, Max?
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I almost without exception get caught up on a thread before responding to a post, to make sure others haven't already said what I'm planning on saying. I'm four or five pages from being caught up on this thread, but need to comment on this now:

    I strongly disagree with the quoted comment above. For starters, Bonnie and Nigel don't do that. Sure, there are threads on which they agree, and one will support the other, but I don't see that happening nearly as often as you suggest.

    More importantly, I, and I believe most other TMC members, have a great deal of respect for both Bonnie and Nigel. I've only been around less than a year, so I'm not the best judge of the long-term history of TMC, but from what I can tell I'd be hard-pressed to come up with two people who have done more for the good of the TMC community than those two. I value both of their opinions very highly. There is no doubt in my mind that each speaks their own mind, and if they were to disagree, they would say so. The fact that they agree much more than they disagree is just a testament to the fact that they are both very smart people who have been around a long time, know a lot about Tesla, and want the company to succeed. (This is one of the reasons I dislike it when I disagree with either of them.)

    I imagine as I read through the next five (or by now possibly six) pages of this thread I'll find other comments along the lines of mine. (At least I hope I will.) I just couldn't continue reading posts in this thread without responding to this myself.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Nah, I did algorithm development for 10 years at my previous job. I moved on to something less stressful and more interesting.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    PaulusdB
    So maybe the time for algorithms has gone.

    What about all users reporting what they deem abusers in the Tesla app?

    After Tesla Motors explicitly lays out the ground rules for supercharging in that same app, that is...
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    A criminal wouldn't report another criminal!

    (i.e. the best way to know someone is abusing the local supercharger is if you're abusing it too!)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    OK. I have a new idea that largely passes the test below. It fails for a subsection of C if the station is close to weekend location.

    Algorithm v3:
    1. Measure kWh added at supercharger
    2. If 50% of kWh added is consumed within 12 hours, OK, otherwise flag user.

    Flag this:
    A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.

    Don't flag any of these:
    B) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
    C) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
    D) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    OK, I lied, I can't give up. I need to get help...

    An abuser is a person who uses a local supercharger and sticks around, right?

    Code:
     if(Owner uses superchargers within 50 mile radius of home) //doing a 50mile x2 (100mile) roundtrip to supercharger to avoid paying home fees is reducing your car range by 50% roughly! No sane person would do this.    if(Owner uses superchargers more than home charging) //weeding out the occasional local top offs       for(1:length(Superchargers used)) // check every SpC he used          if(SpC stop NOT followed by another Spc stop within 6 hours) //ignore roadtrip cases             if(since using that SpC, Owner doesn't drive out of a 1.25x radius of SpC around his house) //if SpC is 50 miles from your house, and you stick around within ~65 miles, you're in trouble!                send politely worded letter                return;             end          end       end    end end
    Probably needs to be recursive to adjust for % supercharging while excluding roadtrips (i.e. run once, figure out that the person does 65% roadtrips with 1+ SpC, take those out, rerun to figure out % remianing used on SpC, then look at only those SpC usage patterns)


    This addresses someone who uses local superchargers for daily driving (if you're sticking around within a 65 miles of your house, you should be really charging at home)
    If you're going to work, and your job is within 65 miles, you shouldn't be SpC all the time (occasional top offs are excluded)
    If you have a weekend location that's 1 SpC away, and you drive 10 miles to the Spc, the weekend location better be more than 12.5 miles away. If you drive 50 miles, the weekend location better be more than 65 miles away.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That's clever, I like it.

    The only downside, I SpC, come home and leave the car to go on a business trip. You can argue that I abused the SpC nonetheless by overcharging in the first place.

    Found another down side, when I visit the inlaws I SpC nearby and I don't use 50% within 12 hours.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    MyJoule
    2nd post about this e-mail....

    I don't know what algorithm Tesla used to determine who got the email, but I own Model S's- one has supercharged 30+ times the other never- One car is in my name, the other in my wife's name. Only got one e-mail- addressed to me- So I can only presume they used some number of Supercharge events to determine who got the e-mail- Like others in Tucson, the nearest supercharger is in Casa Grande, and while I've used it multiple times, it's always been to complete a trip - I have never charged more than a few minutes at Casa Grande- just enough to make the 55 miles home. I think as many others have said in this thread, Tesla's communications skills need to mature to match the size of the company and to not upset their best source of advertising - their loyal customers...

    I haven't e-mailed ownership about the e-mail, although I thought about it. I like many others was put off by it's wording, I've chosen to ignore it and move on ...and continue to enjoy driving our cars both locally and long distance when desired. Charging at the superchargers as necessary to support that long distance driving- which in my opinion is the one major differentiator for Tesla from it's upcoming 200 mile competition. Even if at some point in the future, they have to start monetizing the superchargers, until someone else either joins the network or creates their own fast charging Superchargers, Tesla is the only practical BEV for a total ICE replacement.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20

    how about something much simpler:

    Code:
       if(Owner frequently skips charging at home and prefers using superchargers instead)[INDENT]send politely worded letter[/INDENT] [INDENT]return;[/INDENT]   end
    - - - Updated - - -

    it's also worth noting that when south jersey was hit with a tornado a few weeks ago, the "100% local supercharging" is what allowed me to continue to commute to work daily since we were out of power for 5 or 6 days.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    You need to define each of the steps, right? What are the constraints for "frequently"? How would you define "skip"? What if I forget to charge tonight, I'd get a letter tomorrow?

    Or what if I drive 150 miles one way for work, I SpC in between twice a day. On my way home I SpC extra long to get home and only need to charge for 20RM. Am I abusing the system? Maybe.

    On the KISS side, I thnk Matteo's implementation is very clever.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Yes that was my idea. Let's say the station is 30 miles from home and somebody returns from a trip and supercharges at that station before driving home. This system allows them adding 60 miles charge. Plus they have any buffer they had when they arrived at the station. However I noticed v3 would fail when Tesla is used as a taxi or Uber car. I have now added another criteria.

    Can you compare my v3 and your last version? Also maybe add more information what home means in your version and possibly integrate that to code.

    Flag this:
    A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.
    B) If Tesla is a local taxi or Uber car fuelled with superchargers

    Don't flag any of these:
    C) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
    D) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
    E) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    I like your version, it's very KISS. I'm a big fan of KISS. My version may or may not work better, but it's a lot more complex.

    Also, your version is missing one thing I later added -- I often overcharge when I visit my inlaws, because they only have 120V charging, so I'd get a letter each time I visited them. They have a SpC nearby. Am I abusing the system? That's debatable.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Max, actually find the code confusing. Can you use IF, AND, OR instead if you write more versions? I love excel :smile:
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    My wife had the same fear, that one day we'll lose power and if we had 2 EVs we'd be stranded (we have an EV and an ICE). Gas stations don't work without power either, but you can more easily find a working gas station than a working Tesla SpC nearby (on the east coast).

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm a MATLAB / C++ person :p

    Excel does If's also
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    leafarmer
    I received the letter, and have a driving pattern that's not very common. Most of my charging has been at superchargers, and most of that has been across the country, so I am using it as intended. However, for the past six months or so my pattern has changed.

    My car was purchased in Texas, and the address for that car is still there, but I've only used Texas superchargers five or six times since they opened, so "local" isn't based on where my car is addressed. Recently I've been traveling between the San Joaquin valley and Mendocino county in California two or three times per month. The one way distance is 175 miles, so it is possible to do this on one charge. At one end of this commute I can charge rather quickly, but not at the other. However, the Petaluma supercharger is directly on my route, and happens to be at the supermarket where I shop. I've now used it many times, typically for the duration of my shopping, 20 to 30 minutes. It's very convenient, and means I'm not stranded with a nearly discharged battery at my destination.

    I'd like to know what this community thinks of my supercharger usage.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*

    Is this easier to read? Same logic, just formated differently.

    Code:
    #define Owner = someone who has a Tesla  if(Home stored in nav)    Home = nav home; else    Home = median(GPS location for the past 365 days); //will work in most cases end   If (BOTH of the below criteria)     1. Owner uses superchargers within 50 mile radius of home //doing a 50mile x2 (100mile) roundtrip to supercharger to avoid paying home fees is reducing your car range by 50% roughly! No sane person would do this.     2. Owner uses superchargers more than home charging //weeding out the occasional local top offs Then //The above rules out 90% of people, so that we save runtime    Loop through all superchargers Owner has historically used       1. IF SpC stop followed by another Spc stop within 6 hours //roadtrip cases          THEN do nothing //could also add recursive to take this out of the list, and restart the whole algorithm       2. IF Owner drove out of a 1.25x radius of SpC around his house          THEN do nothing // if you supercharged locally, but drove far enough away (similar to your 50% kwH example), then do nothing          ELSE send politely worded letter; return;
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    scaesare
    I'm going to post complimenting you on your excellently thought out and cogent post, just to see who fails to see the irony in that so I can get me some Friday lolz... :wink:
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    dhanson865
    If location A is home and location B is work I might spend more than 5 hours at both locations. Not everyone moves their car at lunchtime everyday. I could specifically game this algorithm by having my lunch delivered or getting a ride with someone else for lunch.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    That's because you know the algorithm. In Tesla's case, the algorithm would be a black box. And it's pretty hard to reverse engineer something when all you get is a letter at what seems like random.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I think the idea is that is that it is okay to have false negatives. The goal is not to match every abuser, but to avoid sending letters to non-abusers (as seem to have happened in this case).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    PaulusdB
    Yes, let's get back to that original puzzle.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    TexasEV
    I can't imaging anyone having a problem with that.
    The only local use that is being criticized (and appropriately so) are those who could charge at home overnight but choose not to, and those who park at a local supercharger for extended periods of time, such as shopping for hours or dropping off their car for a charge and coming back later to pick it up.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*

    lmao!
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    supratachophobia
    So let me get this straight, you've just come up with an query for Tesla that more or less accurately identifies (or at least far better than what they actually did) the exact demographic they want to identify so they can send polite emails to said identified persons to remind them about supercharger etiquette and intended supercharger use so they can voluntarily change their habits in the hopes of making supercharging better for everyone?

    Doesn't Tesla PAY people to do this? I mean, it literally boggles my mind they they have a staff of communication/marketing experts that had trouble with this. I'm so blinded by the absurdity, the letter itself isn't even registering with me.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I think the general definition is if you took advantage of every home charging opportunity you had, it is not abuse. If you purposefully don't charge at home even when you can (this includes not installing a outlet to do charging at home even when it is trivial to do so) with the main goal of using superchargers to save money (not the convenience or because you had no other practical choice) that is considered abuse. Easy to put in English, but in algorithm form it is not so easy.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Mine isn't perfect, there are some corner cases I missed. But I did this in a couple hours juggling real work with this. Eh, I like a challenge. I'm sure someone who spends a full day, un-distracted, can get it near perfect (high PD/low FAR is acceptable, no one is aiming for 100% perfection with exactly 0 false positives/negatives).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    Eh. Not much apparently lol looking at the avg software engineer salary on glassdoor it's very very low for that area. Hard to keep around good talent IMO unless you pay them more.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Andyw2100
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    No if they were smart they'd look to see where the car was parked for a majority of the night instead of looking where they set home as in the nav.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    You're right (103k - 123k for those without an account). That coupled with likely extra long work hours...
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    Also I'm surprised nobody's screamed "big brother" and "invasion of privacy" yet.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    You're not wrong. It's easier to reverse engineer something when you see the code, but you're right: that's one easy way of avoiding the whole thing.

    At the same time, if someone is resourceful enough to change their home location and too cheap to not pay for home charging, don't you think he could find a loophole in nearly every algorithm?

    Tesla can also use DMV records, if they so incline. Tesla can use the else part of that statement (median of gps history, though wouldn't work for workaholics who spend most of their time at work instead of at home, etc.)


    I think the goal is to email as many people correctly as you can, while emailing as few letters to the people who did nothing wrong. If I were Tesla, I'd aire on the side of caution (i.e. if you only properly nail 80% of the abusers correctly and <0.1% of the non-abusers, you did well. If you hit 90% of the abusers and 2% of the non-abusers, you didn't do so well).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I actually thought of that, but I'm pretty sure most people already signed that away with their owner's agreement. A lot of the car's functionality (automatic settings as you get home for example) as well as troubleshooting when there is a problem (which definitely has happened at superchargers) requires Tesla to have that data.

    Also if this is done by an algorithm instead of manually by a person, I think people find it more acceptable. However, I do wonder if Tesla needed to do some manual pruning, what people's reaction to that would be.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    deonb
    You won't know how much they get in stock options based on that.

    I'll work for 123k if they give me 50'000 options at $200...
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    True. But considering they're a public company, and these are software engineerings not VPs/C-suite, I don't expect it to be too lucrative.

    It could also be structured like wall street. Your salary is $50k, your bonuses (based on company profits) are $250k (also doubt it, but hey, anything is possible).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    there is a MASSIVE difference between collecting data for accumulating statistics and improving software vs collecting data and individually calling people out on their usage. the latter is clearly a major violation of privacy of which I doubt anyone here would knowingly volunteer for.

    - - - Updated - - -

    glassdoor includes reporting bonus's like that and the average stock bonus for engineers is a measly $5k ....
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I can't say on the ability to always find a loophole. I was just trying to help close a pretty big one that had been pointed out in another thread. I'll add that no one saw any code to reverse engineer in that case, but were rather guessing at how Tesla would choose to know where "home" was. What's set in the NAV is a pretty obvious guess, and the workaround is pretty simple. With all the work you've already done on your algorithm, I think closing that particular loophole would be worthwhile, but then again, you're the one doing the work for Tesla for free! :) (Actually I guess I am now too, though clearly not nearly as much!)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    ggies07
    @Max* and @Matteo - It was fun reading the back and forth on the algo you guys came up with. I try to create algos all the time for fun when situations get complicated and I was right there with you guys the whole time, excellent work.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    I know Tesla reads this board, but I don't expect them to actually use anything I did. This was more of just for fun, can I figure out something that will work reasonable well. And I think I did, it'll work reasonably well (not perfect). This is close to what I used to do for a living, so I enjoy it.

    I might add a few lines of psuedo-code later to test the median gps history location, which seems like a pretty good way of checking where someone lives. This can also give the top 2-3 median locations, i.e. someone's home, work and vacation property/inlaws/etc.

    - - - Updated - - -


    :).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I guess in terms of reaction maybe, but legally both have probably been signed away. However, judging from this thread, it seems people aren't overly concerned about that. I think everyone already knows Tesla collects this data, so whether it is used to display statistics on use, troubleshooting / customer support, offering new features, or in this case sending letters probably doesn't really matter that much. It's just a different way of parsing the same data by Tesla themselves. If they gave that data to a third party or the government that would be a different story however.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    I don't care. Google already collects this and a lot more from me. They have my emails, call history, chat history, text history, calendar history, work location, home location, music preference, video preference, search history, etc. etc. etc.

    I can see WHY people care. But I'm the camp of -- take whatever you need, keep it anonymous (for the most part) and improve what you can offer me. Yeah, yeah, I know there'll be security experts who completely disagree.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    SteveS0353
    Interestingly, I've not seen any new posts recently, after the initial batch triggered by the OP, claiming to have received the e-mail. I think Nigel is correct. It was not a mass mailing. Perhaps Tesla noticed the erroneous selection algorithm and pulled the campaign. Perhaps Tesla caught the inappropriate accusatory phrases and pulled the campaign. It seems that the storm may have passed for the moment, but the "mop-up" in near 500 posts and climbing is extraordinary.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    AmpedRealtor
    With a 200+ mile real-world range, it will be even if it has nothing else.

    - - - Updated - - -

    +1. Tesla sent emails about the premium console being canceled in all trims but Piano Black, but that didn't apply to everyone even though everyone was up in arms about it. **** happens.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Well, Tesla promised "free supercharging for life", they did not promise "free and unlimited supercharging for life". Not wanting to stir up a hornet's nest, but that could be an important distinction that we'll find out about when Tesla sends a 2nd, followup email in a few weeks or months...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Cell phone companies and internet service providers do this all the time in order to determine whether your use of their network is appropriate. Why is Tesla's managing its network of Superchargers any different?
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Kshira
    New here and I admit to not reading every page of the thread but as of now (1:44 p.m. EDT, August 14, 2015) Tesla's Support/Supercharging page still says "How much does it cost to use the Superchargers?
    Supercharging is free for the life of Model S, once the Supercharger option is enabled." Nothing about "...unless we change our minds". I'd love to see what the Agreement of purchase and Sale (or automotive equivalent) says.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I pointed out the same thing, but I was accused of being overly defensive of Tesla. That doesn't really change the fact that such a distinction exists. However, I don't really see Tesla using that to do throttling. The whole idea of sending a letter is to do soft measures to encourage Model S owners to voluntarily reduce abuse and improve supercharger etiquette. As I put elsewhere, the situation has not reached a point where throttling is necessary.

    I don't anticipate reaching that point until Model 3 production is well under way (JB said ~1 million cars). If most people do heed to the letters and Tesla marketing does a decent job of changing the perception of superchargers being used to offset daily charging, throttling would not be necessary at that point either.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    omarsultan
    I hope this thread and the sister thread over on the Tesla Motors site finally convinces Elon to burn some headcount on an actual corp comm team. Instead, they have taken a position that I think the vast majority of owners would support (discouraging locals from apparently hogging SCs) and handled it a way that needlessly pisses off customers and creates FUD for current owners, potential buyers and detractors, and undermining one of the key selling points of Tesla. The self-inflicted wound was unnecessary.

    For the record, I do not think they will make material changes to the Supercharger network: Tesla recognizes ubiquitous, dependable, predictable infrastructure is a key to successful adoption (look at all the fun FCEV owners are having, or the lottery that is the Nissan Dealer-based Chademo network). Its a huge marketing win for them and, IMO, a great tool in helping first-time buyers overcome range anxiety.

    Quite a few folks have mentioned cost-containment. I do not think that is that case. Quoting from the latest 10Q (emphasis added):

    Looking at it another way, there is a reserve of $36.4M for "Supercharger access" which works out to a reserve of about $460 for each of the ~78,000 Model Ses sold (yes, I know not everyone has Supercharging, but I am being conservative). At $0.1055/kWh (average price for commercial service in the US per EIA) and an efficiency of 320wh/mi, that's over 13,000 Supercharged miles per car. For most of you, that would be more than a year of driving. I would argue the typical owner will flip their car before they burn through their reserve and the outliers (high/low milage and long/short ownership) will balance each other out.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    brianman
    Should be "const Owner&" for the helper function. No need to sully the owner, nor check for null-ness.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    A typical owner might sell the car after 5 years but supercharging is attached to the car, not the owner. After you sell the car, the car continues to have free supercharging. Most current Model S cars that have free supercharging for life will end up as taxis and Uber cars. They will get old and restored multiple times. Future Tesla buyers will pay for the fuels of these cars for decades to come. The problems are just starting. Over time there will be more superchargers near dense areas and used Model S cars will be cheaper. It means people looking for opportunities will buy a Model S to start a business.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    Or Tesla could say free supercharging doesn't transfer just like the service plan and extended warranty don't transfer.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Too late. Online literature says it's free supercharging for the life of the model S.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    They could do that but resale value of Teslas would drop and it would upset lots of owners and scare away potential buyers.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    Heh, touch�. But is that "life" as in prison which is like "15 years"?
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*

    No. They can't. Supercharging is free for the life of the Model S. The ONLY argument they can make is that when they claimed the life of the model S, they were referring to the 20 year estimate they put in their SEC filing. But they can not take away supercharging for resale to the next owner.

    Supercharging | Tesla Motors

    - - - Updated - - -


    Great minds. Same post time. See above.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    MorrisonHiker
    If a car has Supercharging enabled, the new owner of the car is still be able to charge it unless you are expecting Tesla to charge each subsequent owner for the right to access the Superchargers.

    Or did you mean typical owners will actually flip their cars (upside down), rendering them useless and removing them from the pool of active Supercharging-endabled cars? j/k ;-)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Max* I agree with you however I watch lots of Tesla stuff (see topic in my signature) and in one of the videos I happened to come across a Tesla sales advisor who argued otherwise. They were doing a test drive and the sales advisor said to the potential buyer that Tesla might cancel free supercharging for the second owner if the car is sold.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    yobigd20
    I wonder if that'll be the case with their CPO program. I can't imagine they'd sell a used one themselves and say "oh yeah you have to pay to use superchargers". That'll kill those sales.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you. :) Not on contributions and deserved respect for NigelM and bonnie, those are not doubted, but in the IMO fact that they tend to complement (and compliment) each other on threads in a way that seems like speaking for, feeding of one another. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I was wondering out loud if it hurts their cause more than helps - the latter of course just being my own musings.

    And frankly, I find it somewhat sad that you'd feel so bad about disagreeing with someone as you have on this thread. Nobody should have such a position that we should feel bad about disagreeing with them.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    That's interesting...

    I know people here are going to argue that the sales advisers know as much as we do (and in most cases that might be accurate, but I've also seen cases where the sales advisers have accurately predicted what's going to happen).

    IANAL, but I don't think they legally can. They can change it going forward, but I don't think they can legally take away SpC on the Tesla's already sold.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
  • Aug 14, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Of course I voice support for people I agree with. I don't do it to the same people on many threads, though. You also quoted my compliments to Zach, whom BTW I do *not* agree with - but truly appreciate his contributions. I also compliment a lot of folks that make a good case or post, even if I don't agree.

    My point wasn't about agenda, I don't think there is one, it was about perception. NigelM and bonnie complement each other on a lot of threads and I wonder if that helps or hurts their message. It is quite predictable and often contains insider references and winks and nods that them and maybe a few old timers understand, and it is hard to converse with that.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Six
    Well based on a quick scan of this thread I will be in the minority. But my opinion is:

    - I am very glad the e-mail went out. I don't want to be doing a long distance trip with no other charging choices and have a supercharger filled with local owners trying to save $10 on charging a $75K-$130K cost car. They have a choice of home charging. On a long trip my only choice is Supercharging.

    - If you got an e-mail and were not local charging on a regular basis or have no way of home charging (ex: apartment) just ignore it, it was misdirected at you by accident or bad algorithm or did not know your circumstances, etc.

    I frankly don't care at all about the arguments about what was promised. If you can charge at home rather then inconvenience others do so. If you can not charge at home or were not charging at a local superchargers repeatedly ignore the e-mail.

    Based on the several pages of comments I read (I certainly did not read 50 pages of comments) many/most here will disagree with me and I respect your views but don't feel compelled to agree with them.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    jayman
    I agree with you wholeheartedly
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Panu
    One possibility that occurred to me is that Tesla is negotiating with other car maker about participating in supercharger network. That other car maker has said that the superchargers are already too occupied. Maybe Tesla told them "we'll build more when we get your money" but they said "no, you need to something about these frequent chargers first". Pure speculation...
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    ohmman
    Likewise.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    omarsultan
    Perhaps, but there is a lot of unproven supposition in your comment--I really don't envision fleets of 20 year old Tesla's driving around in the future. Since Supercharging is standard on all their cars now, why would you deal with the maintenance headaches of a 10 or 15 year old car (not to mention forgoing the technical advances that have occurred in the intervening time)? The folks with the empirical data don't seem to be all the concerned with the the incremental costs of Supercharging--heck, they are bundling it in with CPOs now so they don't seem all that concerned with lifetime costs. If you want to look for signs of stress in the system, view the Supercharger reserve the way you would the warranty reserve for each car. If they start increasing the Supercharger reserve per car, then you have an indication that costs might be ahead of projections.

    However, I am also going to stake out a contrary position and suggest adding more Supercharger-capable cars helps the strengthen the system. It seems to me that heavy users are in the minority so the Supercharger model is built to create and maintain a structural surplus (i.e. most drivers will not use their reserve), in which case, the surplus should climb nicely as sales increase.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Not everyone is a 1%er (5%er, 10%er, whatever).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Scotty
    This idea of 'abusers' in the letter is my problem with EM and Tesla. Unlimited supercharging was what was promoted, and never were restrictions mentioned. Now it's going from a desire of Tesla, to stated policy. Supercharging was promoted as fast, free and forever, and that anyone who bought a Tesla could use any Supercharger that's accessible, and as often as they wish. Imagine the uproar if these limitations applied to gas stations owned by a single oil conglomerate.
    I use a SC whenever possible, because DC charging is fast, and I don't necessarily want to cancel a sudden trip in the evening because I limped home with a low range remaining, and my MS now has to spend the night charging to become uesful again.

    I agree that if you park in ANY charging stall, you need to move your vehicle as soon as charging has finished.

    Scotty
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    dsm363
    mod note: These subtle jabs at Bonnie and Nigel need to stop. Yes, they are stated in such a way to not be an overt attack but you know what you are doing. Stick to analyzing both sides of every argument as I think that will go over better with people who respect what Bonnie and Nigel bring to the table.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Panu
    Because new cars from some point on probabaly will not have free supercharging forever.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Basically he is just saying "I don't know" which seems to be quite often the case with Tesla employees.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    ohmman
    I think the latter point is the more important of the two. My view is that the automobile environment in 10-15 years time will be drastically different than it is today. To me, this means a historically high depreciation rate on not just MS, but on all currently equipped vehicles. I'm comfortable with it because I'm buying what gives me value today, not what might give me value in the future. However, I don't think the Supercharger situation in 10-15 years is going to be a concern for Tesla because, like omarsultan, I don't think the demand will be there for the vehicles that offer this benefit.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    AmpedRealtor
    Tesla has a VP of Communications. Send him an email. His name is Ricardo Reyes. He is in charge of handling owner communications. Seems fair to put this on his doorstep.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The extended warranty DOES transfer to a subsequent owner.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Are you sure about that? I don't recall Tesla ever offering unlimited Supercharging. What they offered was free Supercharging.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    tinm
    Do we know for certain he's "in charge of handling owner communications"? I know the Bloomberg article that broke the news he was leaving Square and returning to Tesla for a second run mentioned he'd oversee PR, customer communications, and Tesla's online presence, but it seems kind of odd to me. Did Reyes say he had the customer-facing role as well, when speaking at TMC Connect last month? Typically a Vice President for Corporate Communications role is responsible for public relations which means handling media communications -- strategizing on, managing, and delivering on-brand message to the media who in turn get it out to the public. Seems unusual to me for such a role to ALSO be dealing with customers. Then again, Tesla is an unusual company.

    However as I'd said umpteen times, Tesla's got a lousy batting average when it comes to communicating with its customers, imho. And I've not seen any evidence that Reyes is doing any better than other heads of comms at Tesla.

    I see a big disconnect between the user experience / UI / design people in Tesla, who are off in their own lofty ivory tower, and the communications team. So much of the experience of owning this space-age futuristic computer-car depends, especially given its frequent changing (e.g. software updates, new features/upgrades) on the customer keeping on top of things in order not to miss something that might be and is occasionally actually important.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    bonnie
    I know for a fact that this statement is not true. There are a large number of owners that they actively engage with, some of the team are owners themselves.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Sometimes Tesla's advertisement is overly optimistic and sounds better than what they are actually offering. For example the order page says "8 year, infinite mile battery warranty". "Infinite miles" sounds great. It sounds like you can drive as much as you want and not worry about the battery for 8 years. In reality, the warranty doesn't cover degradation. If the battery degrades a lot because of high mileage, that is not covered under the warranty. Technically if the car moves, the battery is fine. The warranty covers only failure. In fact, the warranty specifically says it doesn't cover degradation. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla says they meant free but not unlimited or free but fair use applies or face slow speeds.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    mspohr

    Will it always be free?

    Yes, Superchargers will be free to use for Supercharging-enabled vehicles for the life of Model S.
    -----
    Customers are free to use the network as much as they like.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Sasmania
    I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but won't a lot of these issues work themselves out? In other words if some locals are "abusing" the network, at some point the hassle of waiting would drive those to home charge more and SC less wouldn't it? At least it would me...

    Another point to make as I'm now at SC #107 on my 25,000 mile road trip... 90% of the chargers are totally empty when I arrive, and I may see 1 other car if I'm lucky. Of course, I haven't hit California yet... but that's what it's like everywhere else...
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    tinm
    Bonnie I was speaking figuratively not literally. I know some of the UI people like Brennan and have had good conversations w/ em.

    My point is that I am not aware of a strong integration between the car UI people and Reyes' team if in fact the latter owns customer communications (a big chunk of which is management of customer expectations from "just browsing, thanks" to "I'd like to order" to configuring the car in the Design Studio, to placing the order, to waiting for the delivery, to delivery, to ongoing ownership).

    I would love to see evidence of deep interconnections between those two silos. I so far haven't seen much, nor do I have much evidence such exists based on personal S ownership experience, so I will reluctantly continue believing they are indeed silos.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I've addressed this specific point probably the 10th time already across various threads.
    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/51482-Supercharging-letter-from-Tesla-8-13-2015/page26?p=1108889&viewfull=1#post1108889

    The first line says free, it does not say unlimited, so it does not address the point.

    The second line is taken out of context. Here's the full quote:
    "How often can I Supercharge, is it bad for my battery?
    Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."

    All that says is there is no limit to using the network in terms of your battery warranty. This is as opposed to the 2011 Nissan Leaf battery warranty where it says you can't quick charge more than once per day.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    andrewket
    This is not local supercharging. If you need it to reach your destination (or even round-trip), go for it. The issue is with people who use the SCs despite having charging facilities at home for their daily needs, or don't bother installing an EVSE because they think charging all the time at a supercharger is ok.

    I realize Tesla's communication on this topic has been terrible. But I implore everyone to think of others and the future of the network. I leave contact info on my dash every time I'm at a charger when there is a chance charging may complete before I return. If everyone showed this level of courtesy, the network will scale much further and ultimately reduce our costs. It may be you next time on a road trip with the kids in the back, wanting to get in and out as fast as you can and back on the road.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    andrewket
    California is a mess, but there is contention elsewhere. Have you been through Newark, DE or Chicago yet? 25k mile road trip? Do you have a blog somewhere? I've done one 3500 mile and one 4500 mile trip, but 25k is a different class altogether.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Johan
    I thought your point was: It's free [within normal limits]
    As opposed to: It's free and unlimited [charge however much you like. But do Know all that driving and charging will eventually degrade your battery, something our unlimited miles guarantee doesn't cover.]
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Canuck
  • Aug 14, 2015
    omarsultan
    That's not what I meant. Every car has a point where it no longer cost effective to maintain it. While I have no doubt the drivetrain will last forever, the other mechanical bits (pumps, compressors, suspension, wheels, steering, windows, door handles, etc) as well things like the MCU have a designed duty cycle and will start failing eventually. Matteo's example was that used Tesla's would go into fleet service (Taxi, Uber) where these problems and costs would get exacerbated. Businesses like predicable costs, and maintaining an aging fleet and having to set aside a significant reserve for maintenance is not a winning strategy.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    jerry33
    Well, if you drive an ICE car a lot, you'll eventually need an engine rebuild which won't be covered either, and may not perform as well after the rebuild, depending upon the skill of the rebuilder and the state of the engine before the rebuild. A replacement battery in a Tesla is likely to be as good as or better than the original. I don't believe this is an issue, but we'll know in ten or so years.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Teslas are already used for UBER and taxis and some of those use superchargers. Also I expect much sooner than 15 years. I expect free supercharging to end in 2018 when Model 3 goes into full production. If MS and X had free supercharging and Model 3 didn't then it would make Model 3 look second class. It would make Tesla look like they care more for the rich. Elon wouldn't like that idea. In 2018 used Model S cars that still have free supercharging will be popular and they wont be so old.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Johan
    This I agree with. But stills in people's minds [free] and [free and unlimited] are two different concepts. Which one has Tesla been communicating? The latter.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    You already noted the caveat that was added "for long distance charging". Also that is a slide at a presentation to some kind of energy company meeting, not in the ads. No where in the advertising does it headline "unlimited" as a feature. I believe someone also dug up a reference to unlimited in some software update notes, but other than that, unlimited is practically never referenced.

    That's why I have been saying the oft repeated AT&T example does not apply to Tesla. AT&T advertised "unlimited" data in big bold letters for their data plan. Tesla never did the same, only the "free" part. That's why I say that Tesla is unlikely to be able to start charging money for supercharger usage, but they can do throttling if necessary (not that I want them to).
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    smac
    After reading all this thread, and trying to be somewhat constructive, we seem to be going round in circles. So being completely blunt:

    My take is Tesla or Ego Musk need to man up or shut up.

    Publicly state a policy on what is or isn't acceptable. What defines long distance? What defines abuse? (constant commuting beyond range, shift operated taxi service, cross continental trips where before a sane person would have flown, topping off on "occasion" for contingency, holding of a week of home charging because you are planning on a mall trip at the weekend, 51/49 SpC/Home, Condo Dwellers, 25 SpC sessions per year....)

    Now all of these seem fine with most as not "abuse" but we have zero guidance from the very company determining the very provision of service.

    Come on TM just tell us!!! This "soft" education message is frankly weak management of a situation of your own making.


    If Tesla aren't prepared to do this they should simply stop warning people they aren't using the system as intended!!
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)