Chủ Nhật, 20 tháng 11, 2016

Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015 part 2

  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
    Excellent context. And since I haven't seen it mentioned yet, there's a JB Straubel presentation from January (iirc) where he answers questions about the Supercharger policy and basically said (iirc) that it makes sense from Tesla's perspective with such a small number of cars on the road to stick with this Supercharger model for the next few years (than mess with another accounting and technological challenge). Basically, it is a simple system that saves Tesla time and resources while offering a big perk to Tesla owners (rather really fast charging away from home). But my take is that he implied the model would change with the Model 3. I'd have to go find my article on that (and possibly watch the prez itself again if I didn't quote/paraphrase that part well) in order to confirm the end conclusion. But I remember for sure that he implied the system would change eventually, as I think we all realize it needs to.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    To be clear, I'm not talking about setting a hard limit per car. I'm saying if Tesla is able to control supercharger usage to primarily for long distance/roadtrips (via letters like this one, throttling, or other means), the average will work out to ~10% of travel. Some will travel more, some less, but the average consumption will be sustainable.

    However, under the assumption that daily charging is covered, the average consumption would not be sustainable at only $2000 per car (actually $500 as smac points out). This is because daily + long distance charging pretty much covers all travel (100%). With whatever means Tesla can change this assumption, they really should do so if they hope to keep the superchargers "free" (and it seems they have made it a company-wide goal to do so recently).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Completely agree.

    Yes and I think that statement was a bit disingenuous. An estimate for the predicted cost of the cars was modeled in, then a portion of the revenue notionally set aside, to be drawn out over the next 20 years.

    This meant gross margin in day one per car looked healthy, but there is future liability for SpC provision which must be covered by that revenue in future years.

    Now this might sound like I'm nit picking, but these accounting tricks matter. What I can see happening is this future recognition of realized revenue figure is turning into an ongoing and building reduction against the headline revenue numbers and can't be obfuscated into general operating expenses. This is bad news because it effectively hurts two of key metrics (revenue growth and gross margin).

    It will be interesting to see what the next SEC filings look like. If the provision has gone up, or the accounting basis has changed.

    (Apologies for getting technical)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Interestingly, if this language was inserted by the legal team, whomever inserted it needs help with his or her writing.

    This is the sentence in question: "As a frequent user of local Superchargers, we ask that you decrease your local Supercharging and promptly move your Model S once charging is complete."

    That sentence is actually saying, "since --I am-- a frequent user of local Superchargers, we ask that you...

    There are two problems here--one large and one small. The small problem is that the writer switches from I (singular) to we (plural).

    The much larger problem is that the writer is actually trying to say, "Because you are a frequent user of local Superchargers, we ask..."

    But that's not what the writer wrote. To make my point more clear, look at the following sentence: "As a struggling member of Tesla's Communications department, I ask that you please donate to our 'send a writer back to school' Kickstarter campaign." With the sentence structure used in the letter, and in my example, the "As a (fill in the blank)" is describing the person or people doing the asking, not the person or people the request is being made of.

    So on top of all the other criticism being properly heaped on this letter, I will add my own: it is written very poorly.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    silver surfer
    Zach,

    Having read almost all of your reviews of Tesla (car, company, Elon), I am looking forward to your commentary on this issue. Reviewing other websites and forums, it seems that Tesla is LEGALLY obligated to honor the terms of their offer of "free use of SC system" because it is a binding contract between the buyer and Tesla. Just because Tesla was not specific as to what "free" or "unlimited" means does not mean they can redefine those terms after the contract (the sale) has been finalized. Your article should be a good one!
    And, yes, I got one of those letters because my wife and I like to have a weekend dinner out at our local mall that happens to have a SC. We don't top off but I guess if you use a SC more than twice per month you are considered to be abusing the system. Yes, we're angry for being made to feel guilty about "abusing" something that we paid for. And I paid for the priveledge of using the SC system. Its like eating at a buffet restaurant. Once you pay, you can consume until you no longer can eat. The restaurant makes more money on some people because they may eat like birds and may make less profit (or none at all) when feeding a crowd of teenage boys.
    Looking forward to your respnse
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Panu
    When I first read about free supercharging for the life of the car I couldn't understand how it would be possible. Then I came to conclusion that whenever you buy a new battery for your car that battery will include the cost of supercharging for the next 10 years or so. I presented the idea in this forum before and everybody disagreed. I still think that's how it's going to work. It's quite easy to include $500-$2000 supercharging fee in 25-30K battery price. Of course the same thing can also be done by paying you a bit less for the battery you trade in.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan

    I think you've probably nailed it here, and I hope Tesla is working hard behind the scenes to come up with a new and clear policy if this is indeed a big strain on their finances that they didn't anticipate (because hey somehow assumed people wouldn't abuse "free supercharging for life" -- which is a whole 'nother matter I don't want to jump into). People need to be grandfathered and grandmothered in, and the policy needs to come out explicitly enough to make it 100% clear to new buyers, of course. In the meantime, Tesla could (and probably will) have to say more about this, since the letter was a huge mistake.

    Of course, I think the underlying problem in the case of the letter was that 1) somebody screwed up the algorithm, 2) the people who worked on the algorithm didn't communicate clearly to the people writing the letter that these were by and large not "abusers," or 3) there are just a handful of people getting the letter who shouldn't have (and they are almost all on this thread). My wild guess is a combo of 1 and 2.

    I hope Tesla isn't facing a lot of stress from use of the Superchargers and the issue is being blown out of proportion, but since JB said less than a year ago that this model would be the best solution for a few year, at least, it would be bad news if the problem quickly snuck up on them.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    Understood.


    Let's make a few assumptions: Average driver in the US drives 15k miles a year (I think). Over 20 years (life of the car), that's 300k miles.

    Let's make the math simple and ignore charging losses.

    Let's assume he's using the SpC network solely. Going with 350Wh/Mi assumption per year, he has used 105MWH in his lifetime. Let's assume that Tesla gets billed at $0.49/kwH (commercial rates), that would mean the person used $51k of Tesla's dollars.

    Even if a person roadtrips an average of 10% of the time, that's still $5k worth of electricity. That's a lot more than $500.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
    Thanks a ton. Hugely appreciated.

    Honestly, I think this is a very complicated story, which is one reason why I'm spending hours in this thread, I guess. There are two hug factors here, imho, beyond the communications issue. One of Tesla's biggest competitive advantages is its Supercharger network. When I move back to Florida and "have" to get a car again, I'm leaning toward a Model S, but a big draw is the Supercharger network, since I want to travel around the US with my European-born wife & daughter. This is an anecdote, but many, many people are drawn to Tesla because of this feature, each for their own specific reason. The biggest fear is that this system is wildly unsustainable. If that's the case and Tesla quickly corrects in a legitimate fashion, good. If it takes too long to correct or turns the loving public and many of its owners against it because of a botched change of policy, that would be very bad, imho. I'm a TSLA investor, and am planning to put more money in before the X launches, but if Tesla made a big mistake when thinking about how people would use *free* Superchargers and estimating the cost, that makes me quite nervous as a long-term investor. I think what all of us here really want is for Tesla to clarify its situation and policy... and clean up its communications work.

    (And just to clarify again, when it comes to the letter, I'm still putting most of the blame on the algorithm or the comms between the algo team and the email team. If the intend is to dissuade abusers from abusing, the letter is actually alright. The problem is that the net was cast way to wide for such strong wording.)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    Isn't 49 cents per kWh a really high rate?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    blakegallagher
    They should install solar sooner rather than Later!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    Isn't that what the peak rate in CA is during the day?

    Residential average is 11c/kwh.

    OK, found this, $0.13/kwh for commercial. Not sure how true or accurate it is: California Electricity Rates | Electricity Local

    So that so that's still $1,300 instead of $500 that they assumed for roadtrips. Or $31k for daily charging.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Solar has upfront costs. So it'll take a while to recoup the costs. So it wont be "free" for a while.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
    100% agree with these comments.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't think it was a mistake at all. I think it has done wonders to grow Tesla's brand, sales, and owner happiness and loyalty. I just think a limit needs to be placed on it in a timely fashion. And, yes, if Tesla had initially said, the first 20,000 (40,000... whatev) cars will have "free supercharging for life," that might have been a better route. Of course, the demand/supply "problem" would be greater, but it would also prevent numerous problems.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TexasEV
    Tesla is obligated to provide free access to supercharging, but that doesn't specify how fast it is,or where they're located, or how long you may have to wait for a spot to become available. People can either use it responsibly (meaning for travel and for occasional local use, but not as their primary source of charging instead of using a 240V outlet at home overnight if they're able to do so) or Tesla could find it's no longer worthwhile to continue expanding capacity, or decide to throttle the supercharging rate of frequent local chargers to discourage their use that way. Polls on this forum show it's a very small percentage of people who abuse the availability of a supercharger near their home. If you're not one of those people, keep using this shared resource responsibly and chill out about the email that shouldn't have been directed to you. If you are one of those people, stop talking about legal and rights and contracts, and think about changing your behavior so you don't screw it up for everyone.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AB4EJ
    The fact that some people who have received the letter used a SC only once or twice tells me that the algorithm that Tesla used to select the recipients is simply wrong; once or twice doesn't constitute "frequent use." Surprising, considering how strong Tesla seems to be on other software development (but development of software to run in the vehicle is completely different from this, which was based on a database query).

    I haven't received the letter yet (probably because I don't yet own a Tesla). Or maybe I will, because last week I drove thru the Rocky Mount SC in my Mercedes just to have a look at it. Maybe that will also trigger the defective algorithm.

    Anyway, I would put this down to growing pains for their Communications department and or IT department, and hope that they take a lesson from this and do better.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    The average life of a car in the US is 11.5 years.
    For a Tesla, the battery is going to have to be replaced after awhile, say 150K miles, or every 10 years @15K mi/year. I'm not sure what effect this is going to have on average life for Teslas, are people going to spend $20K on a 10 year old car with 150K miles on it?
    If they do, there's another opportunity for Tesla to allocate a significant chunk of money to support supercharging by just making the battery a bit more expensive, say charge $21K rather than $20K.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    Not according to Tesla's SEC filing. 20 years was stated, so that's the number they used in their math.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    I believe you, but that's also primarily for ICE not EVs. I also agree that the battery might not last 20 years before serious degradation, or the drivetrain (lol).

    I'm just trying to figure out how Tesla got to the $500 supercharging cost number, so I used their numbers to show that just the cost of electricity for roadtrips seems to be higher than $500. That's not including the cost to build out the infrastructure.

    Yes, I made a mistake with commercial cost for kwh, fixed in post #293. But that's still a lot higher than what they're expecting (based on their own numbers).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    eepic
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Panu
    If a car has free fuel forever that car will likely be driven forever. The only way to charge for the "fuel" is to build it in the battery replacement cost.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
  • Aug 13, 2015
    MorrisonHiker
    The average age of a car is 11.5 years. The average life of a car is longer.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Average age != Average life(time)

    Think of it in terms of age of the U.S. population. The average age is around 37 years old but the average life (expectancy) is closer to 78 years.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    liuping
    Not necessarily.

    A Solar install using a 4-5% home equity loan is essentially nothing up front, and the loan payments in some places (like California) are cheaper than the former electric bill. So you pay less for per month while paying off the system, and after that it's completely free.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    I stand corrected.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    When the author and TMC user, Dana Hull, posted in this thread, seeking people to interview, there was at least one post that talked about the media bashing Tesla. Several people, including Nigel, then came to Dana Hull's defense, pointing out that she had always been fair and balanced.

    After reading the article my concern is that if anything, the article was unbalanced in Tesla's favor, as it made no mention of one of the primary concerns expressed by many here on TMC: the fact that the cars were sold with free supercharging for life, without any stipulations or restrictions, and that Tesla is now, apparently, changing their stance on that.

    Whether you agree with this or not is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that is what has a lot of the TMC members Hull writes about in the article annoyed, to use her word, and to not explain that makes us look bad.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    With all the caveats that belong to early poll numbers, the current response suggests that the issue is much smaller than many of us think:
    poll.jpg
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    TMC users taking a non-issue and blowing it out of proportion? Unheard of.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    You posted the above at a time when six people had responded that they had received the letter. Without going back and counting, I'm guessing there are at least five times that many people that have posted in this thread alone, saying they have received the letter.

    I think the main thing the early poll numbers indicate is that people posting in this thread haven't bothered to vote in the poll yet.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AlisoJames
    I am more concerned about people who plug in and then disappear and leave their car plugged in for hours. I travel all over San Diego county on business from Orange County, CA in a 60 and before the SC in San Diego opened there were times I would barely make it back to SJC only to find it completely full. One time I waited 40 minutes until a stall opened up and there were 4 cars there who had been there for more than an hour already (according to another Model S driver I spoke to). I charged for 20 minutes to get enough to get home and handle errands and those 4 still had not showed up. Tesla knows who these people are and they are the ones who are abusing the SC network. I jokingly suggested that if someone does not move their car within 15 minutes after they finish charging then Tesla should start to draw the power back (just kidding but you see the point). I have the Tesla app on my phone and it texts me before the car finishes charging.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    According to BLS, the average age cars are disposed of is 15 years. About 10% of cars are over 20 years old.

    http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/pdf/americans-aging-autos.pdf

    I'm doubtful that the average lifetime of a Tesla will be anything like 20 years, especially given that almost all will have to have their batteries replaced around year 10.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    Source?

    From what I see online, at 100k miles Tesla battery will be about 92% of original (yes, there are outliers of course), so by 150k miles (10 years roughly) that should be about what, 88%?

    Tesla Model S Battery Life: How Much Range Loss For Electric Car Over Time?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    You realize that journalists don't get to decide the length of the story ... I thought it was a fair, top-down representation of the current issue (letters sent to some people who feel they don't deserve them). I can understanding wanting a full summary of all the issues (including those of us, of course, who don't feel the policy is being changed) - but the article was about the letter and did quote one of our forum members who received the letter, but doesn't even have a local supercharger. (Could have quoted one of us who thought people were taking it way too personally, but she didn't.)

    Dana has written stories about Tesla that have not always endeared her to the company. She does her job and is one of the few I trust.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    jerry33
    10% would seem low, unless there are a lot of folks that never travel. I've averaged close to 50% travel vs. commuting. (55K total, 2.5 years * 50*200 days commuting = 25K commute miles). And I don't believe I travel that much compared to some folks. There aren't any local SCs where I live, but if there were I likely wouldn't use them, unless I was really stuck, because charging at home is much more convenient.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    MorrisonHiker
    It's possible that the ability to swap out batteries will actually help to extend the average lifetime of a car. Since EVs are supposed to be low maintenance, maybe all you'll really need in 10 years is to get a new battery (and perhaps CPU and a few other upgrades). Instead of paying $50k in 10 years, imagine only having to pay $10-15k to bring new life to your old vehicle. I suppose most people probably would prefer a new car with all the new bells and whistles (and larger price tag), but a certain number of the population is content to just keep what they already have. My current car is 18.5 years old. I'm sure it could go another 200,000 miles but I'm ready to make the change to a BEV. Once I buy a BEV, I can see keeping it for a couple of decades if I don't have problems with it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    Possibly. I think there'll be more folks logging on after work hours. I did skim through many pages and didn't find that many folks who'd confirmed they were recipients.

    Let's see.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    First page had 4 people, after that I got bored.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I do. I also realize that journalists have editors, which is why I wrote that I thought the article wound up unbalanced in Tesla's favor, without putting that blame directly on the writer.



    The article's headline (which the author almost certainly --did not-- write) as well as the opening paragraph are about Tesla owners being annoyed (irked) about the letter. I maintain that leaving out one of the main reasons the owners are upset leaves the article somewhat unbalanced, with the owners looking bad.



    Quoting one of the forum members who thought people were taking it way too personally would have been fine in a more thorough piece, but as you pointed out, Hull was not responsible for the length of the article. Given the relatively short space she had to work with, she chose just one forum member to quote, and chose one who had received the letter apparently in error. That made sense.

    The criticism of Tesla in the quote is softened quite a bit by Hamilton's conjecture that "Maybe a summer intern ran the programming query." That's what he said, so of course there's nothing wrong with including it. But the quote is, by no means, a scathing attack on Tesla.



    I don't doubt that Dana Hull is an excellent journalist. I just think that for whatever reason, be it what she wrote, or how the piece was edited, space limitations, or some other factor, the result leaves TMC forum members looking bad because one of the main reasons many were upset was completely left out of the story.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    I don't think it made forum members look bad. I know people are upset, ?but there are differing opinions here.

    I'd argue :) that the article was not about 'what did elon mean by his comment', but rather that people are upset over receiving the letter. The majority of people I've seen upset in this thread are saying they don't deserve it. Based on that, the article was exactly spot on.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I think the people who are upset that they received the letter because they didn't deserve it are upset because of the possible future ramifications of being "on the list" and the fact that those ramifications could represent a change in Supercharging policy.

    The possible ramifications need a more complete explanation for the issue to be fully understood. Without that, it just looks like people might be upset that they may have their Supercharging limited. One might read the article and get the impression that the upset TMC members are a bunch of rich, cheap Tesla owners, angry that their free electricity is being taken away. I don't believe anyone thinks that's a fair representation of the members posting in the thread. That's my only issue with the article.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Just wanted to chime in thanks to ZachShahan for several well thought-out and balanced posts in this thread. In a world where people mostly stick to their "guns" and worldview, it is refreshing to see someone take the time to think it through from many perspectives. Thank you.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    We will have to disagree.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Well said, too. And enough said. :)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I guess. You know how much I hate that. I like it a lot better when we agree! :)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    jerry33
    I didn't get the letter (and if I had, I'd be pretty upset because the nearest SCs are 100+ miles away). My opinions are:

    - Abuse consists of charging weekly or more in lieu of home charging, or leaving the car for an extended period after charging is complete.

    - Abuse doesn't include those who have inadequate home charging (no charging or 120V only charging), or those who have a very long commute (over 80 miles one way).

    - The letter was apparently received by some who'd only used the local SC two or three times in total. That shouldn't have prompted a letter--at least not one that started with "As a frequent user".

    - You don't ever send a letter out like this the same day you write it. (That's why a lot of these posts say things that aren't intended--including some of mine.) Reading the letter the next day would have almost certainly caused the letter to be different or the recipient selection criteria to be different. If this letter and the recipients were actually vetted then there is a problem with those who did the vetting.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    So do I :). But doesn't make me like you less, friend.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Thanks, Bonnie! Same here, of course!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Just for clarification here guys.

    Let's not argue if the cars will last 20 years or not. The reason that figure is mentioned/used is really because "lifetime" needs to be associated with something. Past historic legal and accounting precedent, have merely suggested that 20 years is something an auditor would be prepared to sign off on. (think typical length of a mortgage, which comes from the Latin "death pledge" i.e something you pay for all your life to hand on to your kids, i/e the ultimate lifetime contract)

    If you say lifetime, then ultimately what does that mean? The original owner or the car? (I'd argue the car)

    Now ordinarily cars become uneconomic to repair, rust / parts cost/ whatever. As something that is free to run, the Model S is a dilemma. Free "fuel" vs repair bills.

    In the extreme a 100 year old Model S being made of aluminium and having had multiple battery swaps (when in the future a battery costs nothing in real terms) could be potentially driving round "for free" :D

    IOW 20 years is merely convention. Keep good care of your cars and hand them down to your great great grandkids ;)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
    Not shamelessly promoting my work (another hundred or so views really doesn't matter at all financially speaking), but I carried on my side of the conversation in the article below. I already skipped a lot of other things I should have gotten done today because of this thread and story (my own fault), so I'm going to force myself to stay away, but if you want to respond, feel free to do so privately or in the comments under the article, which I'll of course check.

    As is always the case, I'm sure it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I hope most of you approve of and appreciate the story.

    Tesla Letter "Frequent" Supercharger Users Ruffles Feathers & Raises Several Questions | CleanTechnica
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Buckeye2320
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TexasEV
    No. Tesla is installing HPWCs (destination charging) in the garages, not superchargers. It was a poor choice of photo to accompany the article, I assume the editor doesn't know the difference between a supercharger and HPWC.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Johan
    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    IMO I wouldn't get dissappointed or mad at Tesla if they implementet a "Fair Usage Policy" with regards to free (pre-paid) supercharging. This is done for example by cell phone operators all the time: they market a package where you're paying a flat fee for data, but the small print of the Fair Usage Policy says that if you do use very large amounts of data traffic you speed will be reduced after 20 Gb/month. Or let's say you have "free landline minutes" it usually says somewhere in the fine print that there is a Fair Usage Policy that actually means that there is an upper limit at 8000 minutes per month or something like that. People understand this, it's common sense. For all intents and purposes SuperCharging would still be "free" (*when used as intended - also meaning when used as it is used by >98% of Tesla owners). The only ones who would really have a problem with this are the ones abusing the network, and the majority of owners would support Tesla in implementing the policy I'm outlining. I know I would.

    Now what Tesla is doing, sending ut letter accusing people who are not abusing the network of abuse, is just plain rude and counterproductive.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    jerry33
    Tesla has a history of putting in SCs for locals in locations where few have access to home charging. That's different from folks who have home charging but use the SCs instead for local trips to save a few bucks. The problem is that Tesla tends to have poor communication, which leads to confusion and wrong expectations. It will be interesting to see what they do with the Model 3, but a few things are clear:

    1. No electric car will ever be mainstream until it can completely replace a gas car as the primary vehicle in the vast majority of situations (80% or higher).

    2. The Model S and X are mainstream for those folks who traditionally purchase premium cars, however those who purchase premium cars are not the majority of car buyers.

    3. For the Model 3 to be successful it will have to do long distance trips as effectively as the Model S. This means that it will have to be SC enabled.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    Totally agree.

    Tesla is really going to have to come up with a real Supercharger use policy and communicate it to users in a way that people can understand and feel is reasonable.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    cpa
    I believe this whole morass could have been avoided (or at least reduced by 90%) if Tesla did two things before releasing this mass email: (1) They should have generated a small sample of recipients and reviewed their charging logs to determine frequency and duration of "local" Supercharging versus at-home/work/public charging to determine whether these individuals deserved this email. (2) They should have placed some definition at the bottom of the letters like, "We consider any Supercharger located within NN miles of your zip code to be local, and any charge lasting more than MM minutes to be of excessive duration."

    Clearly if they had done some manual review in (1) above, it would have been evident that maybe the selection criteria were wrong, and they could have sent the program back for repairs. And, had they included some definition, those who did receive this email would have better clarity as to why they were selected, whether they agreed or not with being singled out. (Which is another matter entirely.)

    At least if a taxpayer receives a computer-generated notice from the IRS that is wholly or partially wrong, there is a contact address and individual with which to communicate and furnish additional documentation to resolve the matter. Not so with Tesla.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TaoJones
    Agree with pretty much everything you wrote above, but with regard to #3, there is an alternate view:

    Perhaps for the M3 to be successful, it need only be more useful than a Leaf, a Bolt, or an e-Golf. So many people just don't travel as it is. When all of the aforementioned manage to get by without SCs, there's gotta be room for a default M3 without the extra cost of an SC option (whether throttled or unlimited).

    With that said, I agree that an SC-enabled M3 would be even more of a category killer. I just don't know that those would outpace sales of a lesser M3 variant for a price-conscious market segment.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    I don't disagree with the rest of your post but this is the current count on the poll:

    poll.jpg

    Not sure I'd call it a morass or or mass e-mail (so far). I'm happy to take the word of members who say they shouldn't have received it, which means mistakes were made, but this is not something that apparently had a wide distribution.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Owner
    The poll is interesting but is it really all that relevant?

    TMC has a lot of die-hard fans and shareholders and early purchasers.

    Most Tesla drivers do not read the forums.

    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    The poll is of course not scientific but still useful information.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Owner
    I was more discussing in this case that most of us are early adopters. We bought our cars before supercharging was available or as ubiquitous as now, and have likely a huge percentage of us are charging at home at home with HPWCs etc...

    So in many ways we are not the "typical Model S owners".

    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    jerry33
    In the many car shows I've been to, the one thing that people who say they won't purchase an electric car come up with is that you can't travel in it. Even if they don't travel, they want the option to be able to if they have to (family emergency, etc.). If it won't be useful for trips, then it won't provide a better experience than an ICE car and will be just a "second" car.

    I have heard the hypotheses about "people don't ever drive more than X on average so they don't need more than Y range", but using that to justify a short range electric car basically tells potential purchasers "our EV is inferior but purchase it because of environmental concerns--even though it's sub-optimal compared to an ICE car". In spite of all the complaining we do on this forum about how Tesla could do it better, Elon got the main thing right: People will purchase electric cars only if the total experience is better.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    But there have been less than 200K Leafs sold total. If Tesla really is going to meet it's sales targets it's got to be a lot better than a Leaf or a compliance cars.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    Your second statement proves some relevance. Read this thread and you imagine a huge, scandalous mess; see that a relatively small number of folks perhaps inadvertently received the mail, hmmm a mistake but hardly worthy of the outcry we've collectively devoted to it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    jerry33
    Just like virtually every other "complain type" thread :)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ohmman
    But, but.. what else would we talk about?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    Nailed it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Tesla likely assumed 5% (as it is roughly right now for Model S fleet) and $0.10/kWh electricity. That would work out exactly to $500. The 10% I have refers to a Census survey that shows ~10% of miles travelled are trips of 100 miles or longer (I will have to dig up the exact percentage, it was mentioned in other threads).

    Tesla may have assumed it'll be for trips longer than that (maybe 200 miles for example) and that might move the percentage to closer to the 5% it is today.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    anticitizen13.7
    The bottom line for me is that Tesla has to set a clear policy on Supercharger use, and do it soon. With every day, new Model S are driving out onto the roads, and Model X will bring even more people onto the network.

    Sending out vague letters (we don't even know what constitutes a "local" Supercharger, or what is frequent use) is completely unacceptable. The company needs to be held to account for this, and at the very least they owe some people here an apology.

    I very much doubt that the Superchargers will be "free" in the next generation of Tesla vehicles. I predicted more than a year ago that free Supercharging would eventually become a problem for Tesla (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/31598-Sociology-and-the-Supercharger-Nomad) with roving bands of vagrant Tuscan Raiders in used Model S and Model X subsisting off the free electricity.

    This is going to result in unpleasantness at the Supercharger stations.

    Are you really going to want to have to face this when using a Supercharger station:



    Some kind of fee per hourly use will eventually become necessary IMO.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    napabill
    As the one who was quoted in Ms Hull's article, I can tell you I didn't mention any of the so-called issues others have with the intent of the letter as I don't share those views. I happen to support discouraging local use of the Superchargers, where residential alternatives are available. She called me, and I responded with the only issue that I have, and that is with the selection criteria of the letter. To me the letter cheapens the intent of the letter, which is too bad. And I don't think anyone would defend the selection criteria used, or Tesla's lack of getting in front of their screw-up.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TTT
    Tesla will be building SC in Manhattan for city dwellers Log In - The New York Times so does this mean if I live in a condo or apartment it is okay to use the SC if I'm local? Time to move....
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Read the article. These are HPWCs and the electricity is not free (the garage sets the price of electricity). I suggested something similar before using supercharger hardware (call it "urban chargers" or something and charge a fee for it). Any sustainable charging solution for city daily charging will not be free.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I think the issue has been overblown. As of the last time it was tracked, supercharging made up only slightly more than 5% of travel by the Model S fleet. There are a handful of locations that have experienced congestion, but it is not that severe even in those cases (and Tesla has been adding more stations in areas to address this). I think letters like this one is sufficient at this stage of the game (as well as their marketing highlighting superchargers being for long distance use). It is rather unfortunate that they botched it up though.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    anticitizen13.7
    It may be overblown today... but what happens 10, 15... 20 years down the line. A high % of today's Model S and future Model X may still be on the road, and their price on the used car market may make them affordable to nomads.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TaoJones
    Except that it creates unnecessary FUD for many customers of a company already not strong in the communications department.

    Moreover, it directly impacts one of the core features and benefits of Model S ownership.

    A few hundreds posts of feedback and analysis is nothing compared to the damage already done externally. To minimize or to make light of it is to do the company a further disservice - perhaps more so than to overstate the case. And in this case, any lost sale or negative impact is one sale and one impact too many.

    But go ahead and minimize it if it makes ya feel better - there will be no shortage of fanbois/gurls to support your position. Meanwhile, the underlying issues will remain and will eventually be addressed either *by* or *for* the company. As an investor, I would much prefer the proactive *by* rather than *for*, since *for* is usually effected by clueless analysts.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    sorka
    I explained to my sales person that I drive 40K miles / year and that at least half of that would be on the supercharger network. About half my driving is a once a week 260 mile round trip commute and the rest is long distance trips. I really don't have a choice. I always charge up at home before leaving but the rest, especially the long trips, has to come from the superchargers. My entire purchase was based around this. If they want to take that away, they'll need to repurchase my MS from me first.

    I just crossed 200K miles on my Prius after 6 years. I figured I'd drive the MS a little less than the Prius. I now drive the MS most of the time instead of the Prius but only about 80% as much as on the Prius previously.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That's an important distinction because I fully expect it to be for the life of the car and not the purchaser. If they change the policy going forward and try to make it for the original purchaser only, it would lower the resale value.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    Purposely not responding to the rest of the post, but this one point is really becoming a problem on this forum. I've noticed a disturbing tendency to just label people as fanboys when someone doesn't like the point being made. It's such a copout. Either your argument can stand without insulting or it cannot.

    I don't notice the word 'troll' being thrown about when a long valued forum member has something to say that is in disagreement with someone supportive of Tesla. That would be no different, imo.

    How about we all show a little more respect for each other? Make your points. Your argument should be able to stand on its own merit without taking potshots.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Scotty
    I received the email, and will admit I'm fired up about it. (I started reading this thread, but decided to respond before I get even more irritated). It might be Elon Musk's contention and desire for SC's to only be used for distance traveling, but that wasn't in my literature, documents or contracts when I ordered, purchased, paid for and took delivery of my MS 10 months, and 36,500 miles ago. Fast, free and forever was what was stated. Sure, the impediment to mass acceptance of EV's in general is where can I charge when I am not within range of my home (or office). However, I bought my MS because of the promise of SC's. The closest SC was Vacaville, which is about 45 miles away. Manteca opened within the last few months, and it's about 55 miles away. I use the Fremont SC quite a bit, and it's about 100 miles away.

    After receiving that Tesla letter yesterday, I left the area this morning, heading to Monterey today. I topped up at the Gilroy SC (~140 miles away), then heading to Monterey, and returning, with another stop in Gilroy. BTW, the crappy Nav system said to drive slowly from Monterey to Manteca (It predicted 6% remaining). That's the stupidest suggestion. I SC'd in Gilroy to 225 miles, and then hit Manteca to get 220 miles range.

    I can and do charge at home. Tesla sold me the dual charger and HPWC, but the SC network is a convenience, and I have paid for the promise of that convenience. My MS is sitting out in my driveway right now, getting ready to charge from about 175 miles to about 235.

    Tesla, STOP trying to change your story after the fact. I use the SC when I feel it is important to quickly recharge my car. I'm not going to drive it home with little charge remaining, relinquishing it to spend the night being charged at home, and it not being available before the morning, for an unanticipated trip.

    Do you really want to alienate your customer base? I haven't seen a manual on how to piss your valued customers off, and alienate them, but you certainly have started with the first couple of chapters. Nowhere was using a SC labeled as an abuse, until Elon's hint at the letter alleging abuse. I like Elon, and think he's visionary, but ELON, YOU"RE LISTENING TO THE WRONG PEOPLE ABOUT THIS, OR YOU'RE NOT THINKING THROUGH IT. While I love my Tesla, limiting me to using SC's where you deem as acceptable is one way to ensure my leaving the flock, and TO DISCONTINUE BEING A GOODWILL AMBASSADOR OF tESLA.

    Finally, just because you're trying to change your policy of SC use, that policy was NEVER a policy that was between Tesla and I. My MVPA doesn't state any limitation. Should you try to enforce SC use to what YOU deem as acceptable will surely negatively affect Tesla in the long run. Don't be Penny Wise And Pound Foolish!


    Scotty

    (An irritated Tesla owner who was the recipient of the Tesla 'SC abuse letter, includint the stupid assumption that I'm hogging the SC
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    Dude, blowing up something out of proportion spreads fear, uncertainty and doubt. What I've been suggesting is to calmly look at the real size of the issue of mis-communication.

    Sorry, but that's FUD right there. Moves by Tesla to remind folks that Superchargers are intended for long distance travel benefit the vast majority of owners.

    A few hundred posts of feedback and speculation about (sometimes nefarious) motives attracted external attention (media attention, if that's what you're referring to). There's no need to hide anything on TMC but we're also pretty good at getting worked up over things on here.

    As I said above, blowing things out of proportion does the company a disservice; there's been no attempt to minimize anything on my part, just trying to see things in proper context.

    Sorry, that's not worthy of a response.

    - - - Updated - - -

    P.S. I'll maintain again that if folks have been unfairly targeted, and I'm happy to take their word for it, then they should get an apology. But nobody died and the world isn't ending.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NOLA_Mike
    Sorry Nigel but your tone strikes me as condescending and dismissive.

    I realize that it is often difficult to interpret "tone" from written words but your posts in this thread as well as your related thread/poll title "Letter-gate..." leave me with the impression you think this whole discussion is ridiculous - the fact that anyone would even give it a second thought much less be annoyed by receiving said email from Tesla is annoying to you.

    Again, I could well be way off the mark but that's what it looks like to me.

    Mike
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Bet TSLA
    Other than a few complaints about "I shouldn't have gotten this letter", this entire thread consists mostly of doomsayers spelling out their version of doom for free supercharging. This is foolish.

    Tesla has a large variety of technical and social solutions to overuse of superchargers that can get them by for quite a few years. For one thing, Tesla has intimate knowledge of exactly who is causing problems: they know who leaves their car parked when it is done charging and there are people waiting; they know who uses superchargers near their homes and rarely charges at home; they know exactly who is needlessly causing people to wait or leave when they need a charge.

    They are perfectly capable of mitigating the problem in several simple ways
    - consequences: identified violators are informed immediately that they are causing a problem and what the consequences will be (play over the radio "We notice that you are regularly using this supercharger in lieu of your available home charging. If you continue to do this you will be limited to stall 1A for several weeks, and it will charge at half the usual rate. Please call the following number if you think this message is in error." and follow up with similar e-mail.)
    - public shaming: alternative consequence might be installing speakers at the superchargers and playing something embarrassing (Jack Benny skits?) while the violator charges, ceasing charging if the car is left with nobody in it
    - other consequences: "We notice that you have prevented others from charging because you left your car parked after it was charged. This unacceptably reduces the efficiency of this shared resource. If you do this again your car will charge only when you are present."
    - automatic parking at superchargers, along with inviting waiting drivers to remove the charging cable from charged cars so that Tesla can move them out of the way if possible

    There are many other possibilities; these are only illustrative. They can customize their solution to the individual, quite precisely. Notice that none of them renege on the promise of free supercharging, they just enforce politeness through technology. This doesn't require written policy, explanations to people who are too stingy or dumb to understand, nor stupid letters to people who have nothing to do with the problem. It's mostly technology, something Tesla knows how to do very well.

    And I'm sure they've thought of all these things already (and many more), and are considering what they'll implement when, and how they'll do it. I find it bizarre that most of the comments here may as well begin with an implicit "Let's assume that Tesla is very, very stupid and hasn't considered the implications of their technology at all...." Just because they can't write and send a letter properly doesn't mean they can't make a system run like magic.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    So you think being told "But go ahead and minimize it if it makes ya feel better - there will be no shortage of fanbois/gurls to support your position" IS worthy of a response? It was a slam. C'mon. He responded to every actual point in the post.

    I'm missing how Nigel was condescending by refusing to engage it that silliness, but the post he was replying to was NOT condescending by name calling.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Todd Burch
    My thoughts on this:

    1) The letter should have gone out to everyone, and instead of being worded in an accusatory way, just reminded everyone that etiquette is to charge at home when able.

    2) If Tesla changes their policy as to who can charge, when, or how much, that will likely be a very bad thing. Many 85s and Supercharging upgrades were sold on the statement that Supercharging was free for life, without the qualifier that "non-local Supercharging" was free for life. I could very easily see a class-action lawsuit coming from owners if they changed that policy. I'm already a little pissed that they changed their Ranger policy such that I now have to pay something like $2 per mile to have my car transported to the service center--the nearest of which is several hundred miles away. (I guess I will drive it if I can). Worse, I could see so many owners getting pissed off about a Supercharger change in policy that they'd never consider a Tesla again and would not recommend it to others. We don't want that to happen to Tesla...that would be very unfortunate.

    3) If cost of electricity to Tesla is the problem (which I doubt), then they didn't think the policy through, and their only option is to change the policy for future buyers (or get those solar panels up asap). If the wait at Superchargers is the problem, then again they should gave thought that through better and should build Superchargers at an even faster pace to keep up with their own sales.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    One incredibly simple thing Tesla could do to help alleviate the problem of people leaving their cars unattended after Supercharging has completed would be to add notification ability to the android app.

    I understand that the iPhone app can receive notifications as Supercharging nears completion. (If this is not correct, it is certainly something that could easily be added, since the iPhone app --CAN-- receive notifications.) The android app, on the other hand, can't receive notifications at all. The polls that have been done on TMC indicate roughly half the users here use android phones. This is a very large group of people left having to guess when their car's charging is going to be complete if they have left the car unattended.

    This wouldn't, of course, solve the problem being discussed. On the other hand, it's such a simple step that would solve a small part of the problem, why not just do it?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    Telsa obviously sent out emails to people that shouldn't have gotten it. I wouldn't consider what you are doing abusing the system since you can charge at home and always do when you have the time. Use the network when you need to as its intended for. If Tesla does anything more than send an email then get upset but one email could very well be a mistake on their part.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NOLA_Mike
    My impressions are formed by his entire body of posts in this thread and related thread/poll. I made no comment on whether he should have or should not have commented to the post he was replying too.

    You seem to only take exception to what I quoted. I only quoted that because it was the last line in the last message Nigel posted. I accept that you may disagree with my impressions. As I stated in my post, I may have misinterpreted intent.

    Mike
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    Telsa should start charging for every minute your car sits plugged in above 100% or whatever level was chosen for a full charge. That would help with people blocking stations for longer than necessary.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Nevek
    Based on my usage and comments in another thread from Napabill, I suspect that they took the percentage of total supercharger power used versus home or other charging over an unknown period of time without taking supercharger distance into account. That distance element seems like it could be the missing filter that caused some erroneous emails if so.

    About ? of the power I used over the past three months was from (distant) superchargers on road trips to CA. I got the letter, although I don't charge at nearby superchargers.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    I think everyone here agrees that some folks apparently received a notice they shouldn't have. Most of the upset seems me to be from folks that didn't even receive it and now this thread grew to a point where I'm accused of FUD for pointing out the issue isn't as big as many think. There's fear and uncertainty all over the place but not brought by me.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Jeff P
    I'm just another blowhard with an opinion, but while the tone of the letter wasn't great, I assume that the intent was to remind people of the long distance driving goal made possible by superchargers. I pair that with reports here where it's hard to get a charge because of excessive traffic in certain regions, and I get the intent. I've never seen more than one car at my closest charger, but when I do venture out longer distances, I'll be down on the whole thing if I can't quickly charge and go.

    I realize that spending this kind of coin may make you feel a little entitled. I get it. But let's not act like Escalade owners parking in the energy efficient spots at Ikea. :)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    purplewalt
    People:

    Can We all just get along?


    Please?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    deonb

    Tesla basically used one of Elon's very optimistic calculators... you know the one where you save $100 per hour by charging at home.

    Except this time Tesla is the one who has to pay for it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    I agree.

    stopcrazyapps assumptions seem valid, but that's too optimistic for real life.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    anticitizen13.7
    I doubt very much that people will get along, until Tesla clarified the situation by a lot.

    The phrase "can we all just get along" was I believe in response to the '92 LA riots. Well� here we are in 2015 and people still don't get along, as Ferguson unfortunately shows.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    That's perhaps true, but the exact numbers are not the issue. I think my general point still stands. It is pretty obvious that the cost of supporting daily charging+long distance charging is an order of magnitude or two more compared to long distance only. Tesla can cover long distance with some tweaking of how they account for the cost (whether it be the $500 or the $1300). They can't do the same for daily charging ($31000).

    I think that is the crux of the problem Tesla is seeing might develop (the other one is congestion, unrelated to electricity costs).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Electricfan
    Raul Julia's line in "Presumed Innocent" says it all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtcMv4txl6s&feature=youtu.be

    The deep affection of the company's owners is unique among carmakers and they deliberately wiped out some of it with this letter. Hope they figure it out and send an apology email.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I think this may just be some confusion over the timing, blowing up into more than it should be.

    Nigel--Your original post was made six minutes before Mike's. On my phone I can't see what time you updated it, but based on what you wrote elsewhere I'm going to assume it was almost immediately.

    But if Mike had started his response after seeing your post, he wouldn't have seen the update before completing it. The quote he used would have appeared to have been the last thing you wrote.

    So Nigel--I think you should give Mike the benefit of the doubt that he was attempting to quote the last part of your post, and Mike--you should understand why it didn't look that way to Nigel, and thus why he took issue with it.

    You two can still disagree about the other stuff, but I really think the quote stuff was just confusion over the timing.

    Edit: By the way, I only quoted Nigel because I'm posting from my phone and haven't figured out a good way to copy and paste, multi-quote, etc. If I had been at my computer I would have included a quote from Mike too.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    Thanks Andy. We already PM'd and I think we both got something out of it. This is a hot button for many folks and we should avoid dismissing it but also definitely not overcook it.

    I guess when Tesla releases the new firmware, we'll have something else to focus on. ;-)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    MrClown
    This email was clearly Tesla's clever attempt at shifting our focus away from the lane-keeping update. A brilliant strategy!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I'm very glad to hear that!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    perkiset
    To the OP and original notion, a question:

    Obviously, Tesla knows when we're plugged into a wall charger as opposed to a Supercharger. Could it be that the ratio of wall charger to Supercharger is simply off? I did not receive a letter, however I've used a couple specific SCs quite a bit in my early road trips. I'm wondering if, since the vast majority of the time, mine is home and plugged in (I am always plugged in at home), might that be used in a ratio equation to assert that you're spending too much time in an SC and not enough time at home? (Not making a value judgement here, just a question as to how Tesla chose the recipients of the letter)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    What you say is becoming a problem is IMO increasingly just a symptom of the problem: There is a fairly predictable set of posters on TMC that will descend on any topic seen a critical of Tesla with what looks like an attempt to minimize the issue. Many of these people know each other from a long time and will post in support of each other. As someone said: "well that didn't take long".

    People pointing this out is not the same as people not being able to handle disagreement. It is the mere predictability of it all that is anomalous in my opinion. Of course, in response there is now an increasing tendency to call it out.

    Maybe just think about it, is there something that people on your end could also do to listen and take into consideration criticism of Tesla better, instead of seeming dismissive about it. Maybe it really could just be a communications issue, not a real difference in intent, in which case a continued tit-for-tat like this is unfortunate.

    - - - Updated - - -

    While possible, Tesla enforcing a ratio of Supercharging vs. other charging - and putting that under frequent local Supercharging would be very troublesome - equal to Tesla saying don't long distance travel too much.

    This needs to be sorted with a clear policy (and grandfathering as applicable) before more uncertainty sets root.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    bonnie
    "People on my end"? That's a harsh characterization, assumes there are battle lines for some reason, but perhaps that's the scenario you wanted to paint.

    I think there are plenty of examples of people working things out just fine. For instance, Andy and I strongly disagree on a handful of topics yet manage to discuss without name calling. Another two posters in this thread went to pm and worked it out. Without the words 'fanboy' or 'troll' being used. I've also given someone positive rep this evening for a post, someone that I'm fairly sure reported me for a very tame comment within the last couple of days.

    I'm only asking for some basic civility, asking that people not label others because the label itself not only serves no useful purpose in reaching resolution - it's actually dismissive. Let's not make a simple request into something else.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Matteo
    This poll is conveniently misconfigured because "No" includes people who don't own a Model S. In other words, Roadster owners, investors, MX reservation holders, Tesla fans and followers who don't own a Model S are included in the poll to make it look like a lesser percentage of owners received the letter. For this poll to be an accurate representation, the third answer should be "No, but I own a Model S".
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    apacheguy
    IMO, Model S owners are the de facto participants implied by the subject of the poll. If an investor voted in such a poll that would just be plain silly.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    I agree NigelM's comments about putting on big boy pants were indeed condescending and dismissive. Unfortunately condescending comments and ridicule are par the course on dismissing complaints on TMC in general.

    If there is one tip I would give to people who resort to such comments: Just don't. It might be for your own benefit or for those who support your POV, but for the recipient it guarantees further digging of heels and sticking to "guns". Comments about big boy pants and wet blankets do not move conversation forward - they just feel dismissive (whether or not that is the intention).

    Frankly, I'm not sure bonnie and NigelM do any favors to their point of view by supporting each other on almost every thread. It looks more like wingman action than real conversation at times.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What you consider abuse is irrelevant, though, just as it is irrelevant what I think.

    What if Tesla's net and intent on this actually is much wider than you or any of us expected? What if Tesla indeed is trying to lessen Supercharger usage, not simply curtail excessive abuse?
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Panu
    It's interesting that the only thing the user manual says about battery health is to keep the car plugged in when parked. I have always thought that the main reason for this statement is to reduce supercharger use.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    TaoJones
    It appears that Nigel believes that a molehill has exceeded its zoning restrictions. I understand his point - I just don't agree with it, nor do I find helpful the resultant spin imparted to the well-written article in question.

    As others have pointed out, there is a certain clique-ishness and defensiveness espoused by the usual suspects here. It's an unfortunate, tiresome, and somewhat dysfunctional aspect of an otherwise thriving community. Others will undoubtedly take exception, and further diminish themselves in the process. Their behavior is indicative of fanboi/gurlism. Remember, it's not stereotyping IF IT'S TRUE.

    At the end of the day, personalities aside, the next move in the matter at hand is not any of ours, but Tesla's. They created the uncertainty and damage through a poorly-vetted message - it's their mess to fix.

    And that, men and women, boys and girls, fanbois and fangurls, damen und herren, is something upon which perhaps we can all agree.

    Or not - knock yourself out :)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matias
    It is also common to label someone as FUD:ster or recommend someone to close his/hers shorts when someone doesn't like the point being made

    IMHO both are unnecessary.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    I think we would all agree that almost everyone in this forum is supportive of Tesla. However not every supporter is helpful to Tesla. The most helpful forum members approach topics this way: admit when Tesla makes a mistake; empathize and try to help people who have been negatively affect by Tesla's mistake; understand that improving the experience people have with Tesla helps Tesla; come up with solutions and encourage others to contribute to more solutions; submit these solutions to Tesla.

    On the other hand supporters (the usual suspects) of Tesla who are not helpful to Tesla approach topics this way: act as if Tesla can do no wrong; blame the victim; try to win forum arguments as if winning forum arguments helps Tesla; manipulate data; criticise feedback using unimportant details; find every small nuance to support Tesla when they make a mistake.

    If somebody has not read tinm's message, I highly recommend reading it. It is the best forum message in recent times.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Update: The version below was later superseded by version 3 in message #437.
    --------------------------------

    If Tesla has emailed the wrong people, obviously these people had a bad experience with Tesla. The fear is, Tesla will continue monitoring the same people for a few months and then maybe send the legal version of that letter. So what should be done here? Obviously if the algorithm is wrong, they should fix it. Looking at the messages in this topic from people who received it, I think it is wrong. Therefore I have been thinking about what the correct algorithm could be. I came up with this:

    The Correct Algorithm:
    In last 365 days more than 30% of all charging happened at superchargers and more than 10 sessions happened at the same station.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    NigelM
    Being accused of spreading FUD and concurrently being called a Fanboi was a first for me though. :)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    smsprague
    I used the contact link on the Tesla web site.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    NigelM
    I attributed more common sense to members. Sorry if you think I'm wrong.

    The point of the poll, requested by a few members, was to quantify how big the mailing was. The results are clear it wasn't the mass mailing that many were suggesting.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Matteo
    Even if we assume only Model S owners answered the poll, 19 out of 171 people said they received it. Therefore 19/171= 11.11% That is still a large number considering delivery VINs are around 98,500. Somewhere between 6 to 11 thousand people must have received the email. I don't think it matters whether the number is 6000 or 11000 people. The poll shows this was a targeted email and not an email that was sent to every Model S owner.

    Abusers shouldn't be 11%. It should be much less. Like I said, the algorithm I would use is this: In last 365 days more than 30% of all charging happened at superchargers and more than 10 sessions happened at the same station.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    ecarfan
    Yes, and unlikely, IMO. The "No" choice is obviously intended for S owners.
    The poll, while not statistically valid, appears to show that only a small fraction of all owners received the tragically mis-targeted email. Tesla screwed up with the wording and the targeting, and needs to clarify to owners and prospective owners what constitutes reasonable and allowed SC use.
    I doubt this misstep will impact sales or significantly damage the company's image.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    Nope, not the correct algorithm. I did 60% of my charging at 20+ superchargers (in like 6 states?) in the last 2 months. I do a lot of roadtrips. I charge at home the other time.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Johan
    Agreed. Isn't the key word here local? I.e. if you drive a lot and charge a lot at SuperChargers you're using the car and network as intented. If you charge a lot at a local supercharger instead of at home you may be abusing the network.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    Max*
    This is how I see the correct algorithm in Psuedocode, though I likely missed something obvious too...

    Code:
     if(Owner uses superchargers within 100 mile radius of home)    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          end       end    end end
    And then you can easily test the above code through your database, and hand check a few dozen potential recipients to check their usage history to make sure you didn't mess up your algorithm.

    It's not rocket science! (har har, SpaceX, har har)
    �
  • Aug 14, 2015
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Exit from loop to stop the spamming. :p
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)