Aug 14, 2015
Johan This is likely what they've communicated in written text. Emotionally and in talks they've communicated the unlimited part a lot.�
Aug 14, 2015
omarsultan We do not know that, in fact Tesla's moves have been in the opposite direction. Its gone from an option on some models to baked into all models, including CPO. I would expect the MX to follow the same approach, although I might expect the M3 to go back to offering it as a $2K option to help hit the $35K price point.
It might be helpful to step back and ask why they would stop offering Supercharging as a baked in option considering it helps close business. I can think of two reasons:
1) It is costing too much: this does not seem to be the case, in their own words, the costs are not material (see my quote from the latest 10Q up-thread). I suggest that this is turning out like the powertrain warranty, where, once they had some real world data they felt comfortable rolling out the 8-year, unlimited mile warranty. I am sure $2K was an informed guesstimate, but now, with ~3years of operational data, they have a better handle on actual usage and how well their model is built.
2) They are worried about crowding: There might be something to this, at least as a short term problem. Again from the 10Q, they say "We plan to continue investing in our Supercharger network for the foreseeable future." They note that ~5% of their capital outlays over the next 12 months are for Supercharger expansion, which is not much, given everything else they are doing (Gigafactory, ramping up for MX and M3 production, etc) and they will increase the network capacity by 50% this year. To me, this means that expanding the Supercharger network is not particularly capital intensive, but as we have seen, construction does take time. Interestingly, they state the book value of the 480 global locations is $139M--I am not sure if that includes anything beyond the capital cost (and maybe depreciation) of the equipment.
At the end of the day, its a business decision--as long the the incremental revenue (i.e. additional car sales) generated by Supercharging is greater than the associated program costs, I don't see them messing with it.
- - - Updated - - -
Working on it...�
Aug 14, 2015
Matteo We know because JB Straubel said so. Watch from 13:25
The Future of Transportation t=13m25s
Below is a projection based on modest yearly increases. According to that we will hit 1 million Teslas in 2020. I said 2018, not too far.
year production that year running total 2012 26,500 26,500 2013 22,442 48,942 2014 31,655 80,597 2015 51,000 131,597 2016 86,500 218,097 2017 128,250 346,347 2018 192,375 538,722 2019 288,563 827,285 2020 432,844 1,260,128 �
Aug 14, 2015
AmpedRealtor All I know is that in the articles I've read, they wrote that he would be responsible for customer communications.
- - - Updated - - -
That's not true. You can have degradation due to one or more failed modules, and that would be covered under the battery warranty.
- - - Updated - - -
Your quote is disingenuous because you took the last line out of context. In fact, that line does not even appear under this question/topic. Now I question your credibility.
- - - Updated - - -
The above is a Powerpoint slide from a presentation by JB Straubel. Hardly a customer-facing advertisement, and not something that would really set policy.�
Aug 14, 2015
NOLA_Mike Bill and Nigel are both quoted in this article about Tesla's recent email. And, Ricardo Reyes declined to comment.
Tesla note irks some Model S owners
�
Aug 14, 2015
mspohr I think this is the problem. Many people have interpreted the web site and statements by management to mean "free unlimited" but now we have a letter which seems to imply "not unlimited" but does not give any rules or guidelines. A lot of people are confused.
If Tesla is trying to communicate "not unlimited" then they should issue some clear, simple guidelines (and also try to reconcile these with their prior statements which stated "free unlimited").
If they are just trying to promote good etiquette (don't hog the SC, share with others, etc.) that is one thing. If they are trying to walk back their prior "free unlimited" statements then a lot of people may be upset and may feel they have a contract for "free unlimited"... get out the popcorn.�
Aug 14, 2015
Matteo Explain that to Kevin Sharpe, the Roadster owner from the UK. His lawyer asked Tesla to provide detailed data and the data Tesla gave them shows he has a faulty brick that was misbehaving before he took delivery of his new car. Details. News article. You can contact him if you want to know more. Let's not hijack this topic.�
Aug 14, 2015
Canuck �The company is passionate and the customers are passionate, and sometimes that�s a double-edged sword.�
That's a great quote from Nigel in the article.�
Aug 14, 2015
scaesare For who's benefit?
Bonnie and Nigel are big boys and girls. They are capable of managing their own message and perception.
The other members here are smart enough to have managed to join ths forum, and are assumed to able to draw their own conclusions regarding other posters.
The mods are selected for their abilities to manage the issues and personalities here... they don't need to have such pointed out to them.
If it's an altruistic motive, why not a PM directly to those you are concerned with rather than posting your musings in a thread where that's not on topic... unless it's to shape opinion about those folks?
Not only is it unwarranted, it's inappropriate for the forum & topics at hand.
(And yes, I realize this is a public response. Had the comments regarding other forum members not been public to start this, my response would have been PM)�
Aug 14, 2015
roblab I guess some people don't get it.
I have encountered people who will push in line at a bank or other venue, and everyone in line gets ticked off, but it's not expressly forbidden, so what's the complaint?
I know there are people who will push the envelope in charging etiquette, by sitting at a charger while it fills up to 100% (hard on the battery) while eating at a restaurant, or using the SC because it's "only 5 miles from my house, and it's free!," or other boorish behavior, and these same people feel it is wrong for Tesla to remind us all to be kind and thoughtful.
Sure, it's not what everyone has been taught. Sure, it might be nice to leave your phone number on the dash, but I don't want to be bothered. Sure, I can use it all I want, until everyone gets irritated and supercharging gets to be an issue.
Please, folks. Be kind. And thoughtful. Don't push and shove and take advantage.
Thanks.�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger The problem is: Tesla isn't singling out queue-cutters or people who park at Superchargers - or at least not just them. They have an (increasingly) wide net of "frequent local Supercharging" that seems to include far more than people who hog the charger down the road. They also seem to target people whose local Supercharger is actually quite a bit away and is used in moments when most of the chargers are empty, thus hindering nobody.
If it is about the cost of the electricity for Tesla, they should just say so and limit accordingly (grandfather where policy changes for existing not possible). All this talk about people cutting lines and parking at Superchargers means nothing if it actually isn't the problem. How is that guy charging at a multiple free stalls Supercharger a problem? Unless the problem is the cost of electricity for Tesla.�
Aug 15, 2015
deonb How very 'Scott Meyers' of you...
But nowadays you should utter 'const auto&' in that context.�
Aug 15, 2015
scole04 My issue is that I have many young friends that have bought the tesla and are not homeowners. Condo boards have not been allowing the installation of charge stations. When I've taken my friends to tesla they explained the situation and people at the stores said it was fine. They wanted the sale. Now we have a problem.
Teslas letter should have pointed to a specific issue like cost or overcrowding. After spending the kind of money some of us have I think we deserve and can handle knowing the reason.
If overcrowding is an issue and tesla doesn't want to put multiple superchargers in a small area then they can mark certain superchargers and limit use reasonably at only those. It is ridiculous though to throttle at every supercharger if this is the issue.
If money is the issue I wouldn't mind if tesla just was honest and came up with the real price for supercharging as what we paid isn't enough. Every telecommunications company out there is tiering there services and tesla might have to do the same if its reasonable. Some believe that we are grandfathered in but if the price is reasonable I wouldn't mind.
Hope tesla handles this right. My condo friends now feel weird supercharging period even though we paid a fee for it.�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger I agree one of the biggest issues with Supercharger marketing has been the pitch of Tesla sales people being very liberal compared to how Tesla now words their message. I'm sure they have now been instructed to pitch differently, but the problem remains with existing purchasers - and of course the question what does this mean for Tesla's policy on condo-dweller rich metropolitan areas where local Supercharging has been previously accepted and even marketed.
A clear policy statement from Tesla, with clear limits set, would do well to alleviate this uncertainty. Whether or not people need to be grandfathered in is another conversation, of course, but in any case going forward it would help with these feelings of uncertainty.�
Aug 15, 2015
Matteo This is not unique to supercharger marketing. On Tesla website the Model S page, order page and supercharger pages have lots statements that give a different impression. These are related to how autopilot lane change will work, what autopilot features are available now, what the range of Model S is, what the supercharge times are, what horsepower the car has, how much the car costs, what battery warranty the car has, ... All of these have statements that give different impressions than what it actually is. Some of these will cause disappointments, some will cause more money, some will cause accidents. Let's just say, Tesla has great opportunities for improvement regarding information on their website.�
Aug 15, 2015
Oba Amazingly, all of this gets fixed with a fee for use at Superchargers for FUTURE OWNERS:
1) $X token fee to plug in
2) $X per minute (per kWh is not legal everywhere for non electric utility)
3) $XXX blocking spot, whether plugged in or not, but not charging, with 10 minute window
4) $XXXX towing fee and storage
5) $XX administration fee because you're a pain in the ass
Now this problem just became a revenue source. Letters sent will be to ENCOURAGE MORE use of the Superchargers! There can be Time Of Use incentives (charge at midnight to 6am for half price!), surcharges for truly busy times / places to relieve congestion (Friday night / Sunday night at "cross road" sites, major event locations, etc).
The Superchargers won't be full of top-off-free-loaders, overnighters, general inconsiderates dopeishly blocking spots when not charging.
Existing folks are grandfathered, but the "rules" are clarified:
1) Blocking a spot can get you towed, and fees assessed. Superchargers are not parking spots
2) Please help the system by charging at home, if possible.
3) If you don't have at home charging, please contact us to help find a way to make that possible!
4) Commercial operations (Uber, taxi, limo, livery) are handled in whatever "new" way they deem fit�
Aug 15, 2015
roblab I think they are concerned when they have a hundred times as many cars on the road. Once someone gets it in their head that the supercharger is their own private supply, and I have more right to charge here even if I only live 5 miles away, and 4 people are waiting for long distance charging, someone is bound to get ugly. Or uglier. I am waiting for one owner to key another owner's car that has been sitting at a charger over an hour with the owner nowhere in sight. There will be words.
And no one wants to leave a cell number on the dash, which would help. Or some other information. Toyota RAV4EVs used to have a placard for the dash that would state how much charge needed, and when started, so a new arrival could guess when the car might be done. For some reason the new drivers seem to think that is an invasion of privacy, or else they just can't be bothered.
The letter may not have been the best idea, many other ways it could have been done, but this opens communication.�
Aug 15, 2015
Oba The folks who are truly a problem won't be swayed by suggesting that they are any of the above. I find in life that these of life long methods, and unlikely to significantly change without a big disincentive. Money, even a quite modest amount, would likely correct 80% of the problem.�
Aug 15, 2015
sorka I've never needed an engine rebuild on any car I've owned. I keep cars an average of over 10 years. I just sold my Lexus SC400 last year with 334K miles on it. At 300K miles, I scoped the cylinders with my fiber optic borescope. All the original honing cross hatches were still visible with no scoring. Compression was 174 to 175 psi on all 8 cylinders with only a 1 psi variance. The engine had never been repaired. Others have gotten over 600K miles. It's rare for car trouble these days to related to engines needing a rebuild. Of course there are notable exceptions with certain German cars that have self destructing motors like the M3, M5, and Cyan Turbo.
- - - Updated - - -
I like all of these ideas and would even support some of these fees now for existing Model S owners like a blocked stall per minute fee starting 5 minutes after you've finished charging if you don't move by then.�
Aug 15, 2015
Krugerrand There is no problem (unless you're someone bound and determined to make a problem). A fantastic post from roblab imploring people to be kind and considerate to others and a little less self-centered, and all those other things we're suppose to try and achieve in life to be better, and you see a problem. Rather than just take what he said at face value, you twisted his words and intent so you could have 'a problem' to chew on for infinity. Here's a set of thumbs up for your continued ability to add fuel to a fire that didn't need more.
For those who got the letter: if the shoe doesn't fit, then stop trying to jam it on your foot. Push the little trash can button and go pick something meaningful to be all offended about.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, the communication some people keep complaining about that Tesla doesn't do, and now that Tesla does it, let's complain about how they did it. After that we'll find some other facet of Tesla communication to complain about because that's what we do best.�
Aug 15, 2015
smsprague I find this attitude interesting. I agree that the letter is not the end of the world, but I would like clarification. I see no reason why Tesla should go out of it's way to insult a supporter like me. I hope they respond to my enquiry asking what they think I am doing wrong, especially since the nearest Supercharger to me is a 150 mile round trip. Plus I have only used it about 5 times in the last 12 months coming home from a trip.�
Aug 15, 2015
Owner I also don't see why it is so hard to write a official policy, and let all users know. If they want to backtrack from free-forever-whenever and specify it (only if you can't charge at home in your condo) and (long distance traveling and what is long distance), they need to professionally and courtesy do so.
It seems like they are hiding behind some (faulty) algorithm in an attempt to weasel out of direct communication. I think that's why this and the earlier post shareholders thread was so long.
�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger I have absolutely no problem with roblab's message, other than pointing out it is his opinion - not that of Tesla.
This thread is full of people implying to know what is Tesla's opinion and intent, roblab included. I'm pointing out they don't know, because Tesla isn't talking and their actions - the letter - is at odds with what little they have said. After the letter, you can't say Tesla is only after very specific major offenders. Their net may well be a lot wider than that. Now, I agree it also may NOT be wider, but the problem is we don't know yet.
A lot of what is here regarded as non-abusive use of the Superchargers is local conjecture, not from Tesla.
That's why asking Tesla to publish a policy on this, IMO, is useful. Is it just about targeting those few people who park at nearby Supercharger every night - or is Tesla after lessening the Supercharger use of a far larger populace?
- - - Updated - - -
I agree Tesla could possibly prefer to avoid a clear policy change and thus would like to keep the message indirect and vague to an extent - and that irks a lot of us, as it seems that way. At worst, it could look like it could be about affecting policy change in such a manner, which would be worse.
So, here's hoping Tesla clarifies this soon and puts such thoughts out of our minds.�
Aug 15, 2015
Krugerrand I find the attitude that Tesla went out of its way to insult you, a supporter, interesting.
I once received one of those 'Final Notices' in the mail from the electric company. I was like...!?!?!?....where's my 'friendly reminder notice'??? Then I was like....!?!?!?....I paid that bill early like I have done so for my entire life!!!!!! Then I was like....**#*#%)Q)!_$_#%)#%(%@, who do they think they are!?!?! That took up a full 15 seconds of my life.
I then came to my senses and dug out my check book and the bill to confirm I had indeed paid the bill. (Being human and getting older sucks and sometimes the mess up is my fault. Fortunately this time I didn't need to see that spousal smirk my husband lives for to do.) Then I signed onto my Internet banking to see if the check had been cashed and it had, but only the day before. It became clear to me that check had gotten temporarily lost between the mailbox and the person at the electric company that enters that information, and that in between the computer had been date triggered to automatically generate a Final Notice. Damn computers all to hell!
I then had the most delightful conversation with the electric company employee that had next to nothing to do with the Final Notice I'd received. But hey, next time maybe I'll seek out an electric company forum and look for some of that misery loves company stuff to keep myself riled up over nothing.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, his post was more than opinion, it was a look at how some (I'd say a lot) of people behave. It can be applied to much more than SuperCharger use and was a much broader appeal to all of us. But I understand why you want to make it about something entirely different. That's what you do.�
Aug 15, 2015
smsprague
Interesting analogy. Not sure I see your point.�
Aug 15, 2015
Krugerrand Since you think Tesla went out of its way to insult a supporter such as yourself, I can understand my inability to convey my point to you.�
Aug 15, 2015
smsprague Sounds like we have a failure to communicate - no big deal. Let's move on.�
Aug 15, 2015
Krugerrand We're communicating just fine, but as long as you are intent on thinking that Tesla went out of its way to insult you, I don't have the words to tell you they most surely did not intend that even a teeny, tiny, itty, bitty bit.�
Aug 15, 2015
cpa Kruger,
Your situation is one of a question of clearly defined fact: Either you paid your bill or you did not. You easily proved your payment by referring to your bank statement and discovered that there had been some snafu between the time you mailed off your payment and the time your payment was posted by the utility. Moreover, you have recourse in that you can always telephone the utility and speak to a real human being to get your situation clarified and resolved, whether you paid them or inadvertently forgot.
Not so with Tesla's email. There is no clearly defined fact. Tesla did not disclose to the recipients their charging habits or durations over whatever time period they deemed appropriate. Since it appears that only a fraction of owners received this email, Tesla could easily have added some wording at the conclusion of this email like, "If you think you have received this notification in error, or you are uncertain as to your Supercharger usage, please call Joe Doe at [this number] to leave a message with your name and Joe Doe will return your call within X hours with a full explanation."
At least give us some ability to understand our alleged transgressions and make an attempt to cure. (Which is what your utility company did by sending out a "final notice.")�
Aug 15, 2015
yobigd20 Free to use is a major selling point. If they take that away it'll hurt sales and they NEED sales.�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger Your analogy to electricity company, in itself, is perfectly reasonable. Like I said already in an earlier post, I find the letter - and reactions to the letter - fairly trivial in themselves. I wouldn't get worked up by them, nor do I think Tesla is set out to insult anyone. Some people, quite certainly, have gotten the email in error too.
Now, what I *do* have a concern with is what is Tesla's real goal of this Supercharger policy juggling. The letter adds to this concern. On the poll, currently, 68% of the letter recipients say they didn't deserve it - yet there has been no retraction by Tesla. As others have pointed out, these changes in how Tesla communicate their Supercharger policy are quite vague.
My concern is with understanding Tesla's real intent. Are they trying to curtail Supercharger use in general, perhaps lessen some percentage amount of electricity cost, which would support the idea of keeping the message and the pressure a little vague (and the net of people targeted far wider than expected at TMC), or are they merely looking at those nightly local Supercharger parkers and packed up full Supercharger issues and made a mistake targeting those.
With this kind of communication, it is very hard to tell what their full intent is. I think it would be in Tesla's interest to clarify and set a clear policy.�
Aug 15, 2015
smsprague I sent Tesla ownership a polite email 3 days ago with my phone number. No response yet.�
Aug 15, 2015
RobinF I'm not sure it's the responsibility of Tesla to solve individuals' domicile charging issues. Tesla makes the HPWC (and other options) with the expectation that the new EV owner provision according to their needs. Potential customers should be smart enough to think ahead as to charging their new baby and not just see the SuperCharger network as their savior. Apartment dwellers have known that EVs are problematic for a long time and Tesla has not offered a solution. It DOES need to be addressed however if their Model 3 sales are to be healthy. This is when crunch time happens at the Superchargers and Tesla knows this. There has to be some acceptance on the part of condo boards and apartment managers that provisioning for Tesla charging is a good thing. Supercharger installations cannot be the answer.
Obviously the Supercharger network will never be built out into suburbia. Its express reason for existing is to enable long range travel on Tesla EV's to remove that reason for not buying one. It accomplished that goal and it doesn't really cost Tesla that much to do it. The (ham handed) email notices I think were a well intentioned (but incompetently executed) method of reminding people of that fact. Basically Tesla is saying 'if you have a choice between charging up at a supercharger or at home, choose your home.' That's it. To those whining that they don't have a charging option at home I have no sympathy. They should not have bought a Tesla. Should Tesla itself be that blunt? Maybe, but marketing departments are loath to tell potential customers that they should not buy a Tesla.�
Aug 15, 2015
Krugerrand It makes no sense to me that you think the reactions from the letter are 'fairly trivial' - we've got people here with their noses severely bent out of shape - and yet you're still on and on about how Tesla has changed their policy (they haven't), how they've been vague (they haven't) etc., etc... And no, please don't clarify for me any more. I'm all clarified out on the topic. Of course, feel free to clarify for others if you think they need it.�
Aug 15, 2015
scole04 So what is the lesser of the two evils. 100k car purchase or supercharger use. Tesla needs to pick one. Look at the big picture. Most superchargers outside of California have zero overcrowding issues. If money is the issue we can solve that. Tesla should just be up front. Tier the service. Road trip service (free) vs. Unlimited (a reasonable charge). If you only do road trips then keep doing what your doing.�
Aug 15, 2015
AZbba Tesla doesn't want clear limits set. If you say, no regular local supercharging, then they're going to alienate buyers who live in apartments/condos. If you say go for it, supercharge as much as you want, then you're going to have people charging every day, clogging the chargers. They will need to have a better plan for the model 3, but right now I think they are just looking at trends. The best scenario is that they scare the people who are using superchargers for daily charging, and don't scare off potential buyers at the same time.
In the next few years though, this is going to be an issue that apartments and condos are going to have to figure out.�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger That's a plausible, yet a seriously uncomfortable theory. I hope you're not right, but it has crossed my mind too.�
Aug 15, 2015
NigelM That's the point. The policy is clear; Tesla wants (needs) owners not to abuse the system. We all know inherently whether we're being fair or not so why all the clamoring for clarification? Tesla trusts us and putting down strict rules on # miles from your house or # of times supercharging would just be an indicator of distrust. Some superchargers are, on occasion, becoming overcrowded and Tesla needs our help to alleviate that problem; yes, they could have used a better algorithm (I'll take the word of those people who say they shouldn't have received the letter) but some TMC'ers tried to come up with an alternative yesterday and it doesn't look as easy as folks would imagine.
BTW, kudos to the folks who declared on the poll that they maybe did deserve to receive the letter.�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger Wow, just wow.
- - - Updated - - -
By fairly trivial I didn't mean other people necessarily found it trivial. I meant I found it trivial, as in not really the pertinent point (the pertinent point not being offending customers but the question what is the Supercharging policy going forward). I certainly agree some were offended by the letter, but I don't think that's necessarily the important part. Insults are subjective and blow over, but policy can affect lasting implications.�
Aug 15, 2015
smsprague So for fun while watching the PGA Championship, I called Tesla support. I selected the call me back option. About an hour later I talked to a pleasant young man who was unaware of the letter going out to people who may have not deserved it. Anyway I gave him my Supercharging history and asked him to to create a ticket for the software guys who created the algorithm. It was interesting that he was completely unaware that the letter had go out to quite a few non abusers.�
Aug 15, 2015
smac OK here is my take on the problem from an accountancy POV.
Having already used the data points in the SEC filings to take into account how Tesla are treating the future liability incurred through SpC, one thing I found very interesting was they used a deferred income method to represent this rather than a provision for the future cost liability.
It is pretty clear from the two filings where SpC's have been included, the set aside is $500 and drawn down over 20 years.
So what does this mean?
For every car sold (Tesla don't seem to have excluded non SpC'd S60s) $500 goes into a "future pot", and $500 is removed from this years revenue. A portion (1/20th) of this "pot" is drawn down every subsequent year, to recognize Tesla have delivered more of their obligations on the original sale.
In year 1, the revenue is: number of cars sold in yr1 * (average selling price - $500 deferral).
In year 2, the revenue is: number of cars sold in yr2 * (average selling price - $500 deferral) + (1/20th * $500) * (number of cars sold in yr1)
In year 3, the revenue is: number of cars sold in yr3 * (average selling price - $500 deferral) + (1/20th * $500) * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2)
In year 4, the revenue is: number of cars sold in yr4 * (average selling price - $500 deferral) + (1/20th * $500) * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2 + yr3)
In year 5, the revenue is: number of cars sold in yr5 * (average selling price - $500 deferral) + (1/20th * $500) * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2 + yr3 + yr4)
In year 6, the revenue is: number of cars sold in yr6 * (average selling price - $500 deferral) + (1/20th * $500) * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2 + yr3 + yr4 + yr5)
.....
etc. etc.
This is great. In an ideal world Tesla should be building a base revenue stream, even if they didn't sell a car. (OK a small one relative to vehicles prices themselves, but it's gravy)
However now let's look at the flip side of this on the cost side
Year 1, the expenses side is: total cars sold yr1 * average build cost
Year 2, the expenses side is: total cars sold yr2 * average build cost + average cost supercharging per car * (number of cars sold in yr1)
Year 3, the expenses side is: total cars sold yr3 * average build cost + average cost supercharging per car * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2)
Year 4, the expenses side is: total cars sold yr4 * average build cost + average cost supercharging per car * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2 + yr3)
Year 5, the expenses side is: total cars sold yr5 * average build cost + average cost supercharging per car * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2 + yr3 + yr4)
Year 6, the expenses side is: total cars sold yr6 * average build cost + average cost supercharging per car * (number of cars sold in yr1 + yr2 + yr3 + yr4 +yr5)
IOW Every year there is additional cost burden from cars already on the road, however we should be seeing more revenue to cover it, as our deferred income pot keeps getting added to right?
So what happens if average cost supercharging per car is > $25 per year (1/20th $500). Hmm... Houston we have a problem.
As you can hopefully see from the above, unless average usage across the fleet goes down, Tesla are incurring a bigger and bigger head wind on gross margins for every year that passes. So while we may see Tesla have made a great GM on the cars in the early years, it gets harder and harder as time goes by because they have ALREADY overstated the profit. It's really not helped because there is simply no way to bound the potential future costs.
I know this is boring geeky accountancy analysis (and maybe should go somewhere else?) but this is why I _personally_ think Tesla are trying to address the situation, and why I think they have been motivated to send the letter.
(N.B. there is a whole heap of other stuff I've ignored/simplified here, for example I've completely ignored inflation on electricity prices, the fact that a portion of SpC will become due in year of manufacture, etc. etc. I simply trying to illustrate a point that is probably very subtle in layman's terms of what is considered profit)�
Aug 15, 2015
AnxietyRanger Interesting math. Thank you for taking the time.
That would be very different from the Supercharger congestion reason that is offered on TMC most often as their motivation.�
Aug 15, 2015
Matteo This quarter for the first time Tesla has lost more money than they have spent on R&D. In the past Elon said if Tesla didn't spend money on research and development, they would be profitable. That was true for previous quarters. However this quarter they spent $182 million on R&D and they lost $184 million, meaning that even if they didn't spend any money on R&D, they would have made a loss. This is not good. They have to reduce expenses. You can find the profit and loss statement in 5 Aug 2015 shareholder letter here.�
Aug 15, 2015
dsm363 Roblab isn't the official spokesperson for Tesla? I'm so glad that was clarified[emoji3]�
Aug 15, 2015
NigelM I like the analysis but...
1. What's the average cost of Supercharging per car, per year? I'm sure there's both ends of the scale, plenty of folks doing cross country road trips and I know plenty of local folks here who've never supercharged. We've used a supercharger 4 times in 3 years of ownership and none of them required a full charge, I'd be surprised if the cost in my example was $25 over those 3 years.
2. Even if the average was 50% higher than the accounting $25 per car the total additional cost is relatively immaterial. Less than one small-medium ad campaign for example.
3. Saying Tesla sent their mail for cost reasons implies that they were being economical with the actualite. If it was for cost reasons they surely would have sent a differently worded mail with a much wider distribution; what they were asking is for local folks to move out of the way to let the long distance traveller in.�
Aug 15, 2015
smac Maybe we are at cross purposes Nigel,
This isn't about now. This is about anywhere between 5 and 19 years time. It was sort of the point of the analysis, sorry if I wasn't clear.
Right now your car is doing minimal supercharging and that's great. Unfortunately in it's year 5 when it's in the hands of an Uber driver, it probably won't be.
Interestingly I do know nearly 5% of all UK sales have gone to one Taxi firm, and no doubt all those upgrading from P85 to P85D will leave cars that are likely to be picked up for exactly that sort of duty
It sounds like you and I both love our Tesla's, and actually the ABILITY to supercharge is fantastic even if rarely used (my case is different as I'd be in the Sea if I drove the range of my car in one direction!). We are both early adopters too (mine was in the first batch of UK cars) buying more for tech/eco/novelty (delete as appropriate) than cost reasons.
However I'm certainly noticing a change in buying motivation with more and more who people ask online the feasibility to use the car as a long distance business tool, often gobsmacked they'll never have to buy diesel again.
As for Tesla being economical with the truth, I think they have to be. They've nailed their colours to the mast, to admit something wasn't working is a real problem for their shareholders. It's a tricky situation all round. (I get a feeling Tesla are becoming more and more driven by stock price than customers right now, the timing of D now Ludicrous, probably indicative of the X delays if I'm honest. We can only hope after the X comes out things stabilise.)
Yes congestion is an issue in a few key sites (actually ones near airports where the taxi transfers are ironically). I don't think we can simply disregard cost issues either.
My view is Tesla will probably lance this particular boil around the X launch, attempting to bury it under a good news story.�
Aug 15, 2015
Matteo I can provide data about that. In the survey in my signature (here), we ask Model S owners about frequency of supercharging and 117 people selected the answer you see in this table. This is 117 unique users. To make stats accurate we count only the last entry from each user.
That means 3242.5 / 117= 27.7 sessions per user per year
Supercharging frequency means times per year Number of users who selected this answer Supercharge sessions A) daily 365 1 365 B) twice a week 104 9 936 C) weekly 52 14 728 D) twice a month 24 32 768 E) monthly 12 30 360 F) a few times a year 6 13 78 G) once or twice a year 1.5 5 7.5 H) never 0 13 0 Total
117 users 3242.5 sessions
Assuming each session is from 40 to 180 rated miles. That would be 140 rated miles.
If 265 rated miles equals to 75.9 kWh
Then 140 rated miles equals to X
X= 40.1 kWh
27.7 sessions would be 1111 kWh per user per year
If we assume $0.12/kWh (might be a little optimistic), Supercharging costs Tesla $133 USD per user per year
This is more than 5 times Tesla's reserve.�
Aug 15, 2015
deonb The Supercharger dashboard shows 500kWh per car per year on average. That would put it at $50 per year minimum on average already - and this is before Supercharging is even available to everyone. (From smac's original post on this again.)
Upping the reserve from $25 to $50 or even $75 per car isn't that big a deal. Let's say an extra $1000 to $1500 per car over 20 years.
However, overstating income in an SEC filing is somewhat frowned upon.
So either Tesla would have to fix the reality to match the filing, or they would have to do a retroactive correction for the filing - which isn't going to make them popular in the press. Or say nothing and hope nobody notices or cares enough to report them to the SEC. It's not like Tesla has any enemies, right?�
Aug 15, 2015
Blue_Model_S I would think that since each of us paid $2,500 (or so) for supercharging capability, there should be enough to cover this average supercharging cost. If that $2500 is invested in a high return stock(e.g. TSLA) then there would be even more.
�
Aug 15, 2015
Poskozim I received this email as well even though I rarely use our local Supercharger, which is 30 minutes away. My family did take several long rode trips this summer from Chicago to Duluth, Philadelphia, Wisconsin, Orlando, and Virginia and had to Supercharge, but I would argue that I used the network as it was intended to be used, not abusive. Furthermore, instead of sending me an insulting email they should have asked for my personal experience about taking long distance road trips with a Tesla since this seems to be one the biggest fears of new buyers. I am very disappointed...�
Aug 15, 2015
TexasEV If your local supercharger is 30 minutes away, that's not even a local supercharger. You're one of many who received the email by mistake. Don't take it personally. It was just a communications screwup. The letter was aimed at the owner who lives 5 minutes from the supercharger and uses it every few days instead of plugging in at home. Forget it and enjoy your Tesla.�
Aug 15, 2015
Krugerrand I believe the letter clearly defined what the problem was that existed with the recipients. And like me with the final notice, some appear to have received the letter in error. Mistakes happen. It's really not the end of the world or worth all of *this*. There are plenty of ways to contact Tesla even without there being a specific name, number or e-mail attached to the letter, though I concede that means more work on the letter receiver's end. I can think of several reasons why that information wasn't attached...none nefarious.
It seems to me that some are putting a whole lot of effort into finding fault and being offended. Half that effort to examine their Supercharger usage, determine if they fit the criteria or not, and then either let it go because it does not apply to them or stop/reduce Supercharging locally because it does apply to them. If unsure or circumstances such as apartment living require local Supercharging, contact Tesla to discuss. Do that and we wouldn't have this thread full of negativity and ill-will over something that just isn't important in the scheme of things.�
Aug 15, 2015
dsm363 This was obviously a form e-mail to many people and their criteria sounds like it wasn't well thought out or they sent e-mails to the wrong people. I wouldn't be insulted by the e-mail as you used the network as it was intended.�
Aug 15, 2015
dhanson865 He lives in Chicago (which has like 4 superchargers ringing the city plus 2 more very close out from that), 30 minutes in what traffic? Specifically his profile says Des Plains. It might only be 10 miles from there to the nearest supercharger. Looking at the map I'd call his local supercharger "local" and could see him hitting several others that might also qualify for some definitions of "local". (see supercharge.info I'm assuming he is going to Highland Park)
In my case I live about 7 miles from a supercharger but it'd take me 15 minutes to get there from home due to lights and traffic assuming it's quiet, much longer if there is any traffic worth talking about. (it's in a shopping development with only two ways in or out and who knows how many hundreds of cars per minute on those routes).
I have no problem with him supercharging at any of the Chicago superchargers. Doesn't affect me directly and as a shareholder I don't even mind the electricity cost. I'm just posting on the concept of "what is local?".�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger The bolded part is mere popular conjecture on TMC, not an official statement from Tesla. All we have from Tesla is communications that have increased in the summer to highlight "free for long-distance" (from website text to sales people pitch), Elon's vague comments at the general meeting and now the letter that was sent to a far wider net than was expected here on TMC.
We don't know if Tesla is only targeting those who charge daily or weekly at the local Supercharger, until Tesla offers a clear policy, a retraction or we learn more of the actions they are taking. We can't discount the possibility that Tesla isn't just about reducing congestion, but may actually be looking at lower Supercharging electricity costs, in which case they might target a wider audience than was expected on TMC.
- - - Updated - - -
Indeed, it really shouldn't be hard for Tesla to spell out a clear policy - and not leave it up to others to speculate for them (one way or the other).�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan 
�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger Classic. Derailing serious conversation with "funny" pics.�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 If you could review the other posts in this thread and bold what is conjecture and what is a statement from Tesla too that'd be great. Thanks.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger I'd rather move to storage area B than do that.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan Tongue in cheek yes, but seriously: that would be great.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger Ouch! The insults just keep flying.�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 You have a habit of ascribing motive to people's posts and now you are bolding sections just to let people know that it is the author's opinion and not a press release from Tesla. Probably not necessary.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger That, of course, is perfectly fair game for argument. Personally, I see my response e.g. to TexasEV par the course for conversation - and the bolding was just a quoting tool.
I was pointing out a weakness in an argument to move the discussion along towards, what I presume is what we all want, further collective knowledge. I think it is an important distinction to make: Tesla has not specified what is appropriate local charging and their wide distribution for the letter doesn't help determine that, quite the contrary. When people say, like TexasEV said, quite affirmatively that the "letter was aimed at the owner who lives 5 minutes from the supercharger and uses it every few days instead of plugging in at home. Forget it and enjoy your Tesla.", I thought it is important to separate it from information, it is just an opinion. We do NOT know who the letter was aimed at, not really. If the recipient believes an opinion as a fact (thinking that we here on TMC might have actual insight into Tesla's intent on this, beyond what is public) and later gets into trouble with Tesla for "forgetting about it", that helps nobody.
I for one thought it was a pretty popular opinion on TMC to point out what is not official information and mere speculation. I was trying to do that in that case.�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 You can do that without quoting someone and correcting them. Your technique tends to derail a conversation instead of move it along if that is your stated goal. Just so you are aware.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger I get your opinion, I think, but I find it difficult to fathom a constructive conversation where we couldn't correct each other - or at least propose corrections and hear the counter-argument to see if the correction sticks. Challenging the views of others, and vice-versa, and hashing it all out is what generates improved information. Smalltalk doesn't do this.
But I do get it that some would prefer forums to be a place where they can say their piece and move on satisfied, and hope others leave it at that too. These people are not so much interested in dialogue, than just expressing themselves and maybe hanging out. I understand there is a portion of membership on any forum that would prefer that, instead of a deeper dialogue, and that when these clash certainly there can be issues.
I know I am in the "deeper dialogue" group.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan I officially removed you from my ignore list.
I'm glad you found the image funny. But my point is not just for fun: I seriously mean it would be really great if Tesla just published a Fair Usage Policy for free Supercharging and be done with it.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger That's nice to hear. I appreciate the opinion, your post - and agree.
I apologize for misreading your post.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan I think Tesla would have no problem with defining and implementing a sensible Fair Use Policy. They wouldn't have a problem legally nor PR-wise. The policy must be such that a very low percentage of owners become labelled actual "abusers".
Look, consider how Tesla has publicly always but emphasis on how the SC is for road trips and how it unlocks one of the final obstacles to wide spread EV adoption: long distance travel. If someone legally challenged a Fair Use Policy limiting obvious misuse (everyday local charging) they'd likely not win in court. Judges often possess common sense.
And PR wise, owners for the most part also possess common sense. Especially if you bundle an announcement of the policy with pointing out how a few abusers are leaching on a common valuable resource that all owners together have bought and paid for.
I know I would feel better knowing that I myself, as well as the vast majority, is using the network as intended and that now there was a tool to weed out the small fraction of users abusing it.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger That's a good post. I think such a fair use policy is needed, especially now that Tesla has started softly enforcing some boundaries for Supercharging. I agree.
What I'm not quite sure is, the legal aspect of current owners. Tesla's sales people seem the weakest link, having promoted Supercharging fairly liberally it seems - and the rest of the company PR was not all that clear either. It might be a coin-toss Tesla would prefer to avoid. I would recommend grandfathering existing owners in instead.
Finally, any fair use policy will come to the question of the urban/condo charger: Tesla has even built Superchargers with these people in mind in some markets. How would that be expressed in a fair use policy. Would it, for example, be legally enforceable to (positively) discriminate customers based on their home charging potential?�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan I guess you could just add a passage that states this policy is in effect with the exception of Superchargers designated as "Urban chargers" or some such label (Tokyo, NYC, London, Hong Kong etc).
I disagree about grandfathering old owners: it would send the message that the intentions for the SC network has changed but it hasn't. It always was supposed to be like this, they just hadn't defined it precisely in writing yet.�
Aug 16, 2015
Spidy I would say not having it defined precisely in writing is a pretty big legal issue, especially considering the points listed above.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan Well that's kind if my point: there was always a policy intended or assumed and now it's up to Tesla to define it in writing. If their definition of proper use includes 99% of owners and users and single out only say 1% as abusers I honestly don't see them having a problem with it legally. It's normal in the eyes of the law to use common sense and exclude fringe cases in all kinds of situations.
There are many situations in both public law as well as when it comes to private contract law where common sense comes in to play. Another way to put it, that most would agree with, is: even if it's not specifically forbidden it may still be illegal/ disallowed if it's obviously wrong/unethical/abusive/etc. Courts for example very often talk about "common sense of justice".�
Aug 16, 2015
LetsGoFast My guess is that Tesla doesn't want to have to establish a clearly defined policy with limitations spelled out. Whatever the problem is that they see (presumably superchargers that are at 100% occupancy), they hoped that a friendly letter asking people to be courteous and to scale back their use would suffice. If the letter doesn't improve whatever the perceived problem is, then they will consider writing a policy. An actual written policy with teeth is going to create more bad PR than this did, so they would prefer not to have to do that. It would have been easy to write such a letter in way that didn't make people feel like they were be singled out unfairly and then the whole tone of this conversation would have gone far, far better for them. If the letter didn't strike a falsely accusatory tone, I think the overwhelming majority here would have supported it.
In fact, I have no problem with the letter's tone for people who really are using the superchargers excessively. The only issue I have is that they apparently sent it to a fair number of people who shouldn't have received it. Particularly people who actually don't even have a local supercharger. I find those situations quite baffling, unless there is more to the story like that they commute 70 miles to a location near the supercharger, where they charge daily.
Perhaps it was just buggy code in the mailing list generator. If so, perhaps they could find the bug, re-run the list and send "oops" emails to those who weren't intended to receive them. I remain puzzled at how they can be so good at press-facing communication and so bad at customer-facing communication. It really isn't that hard to do.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan Agree to a large extent LetsGoFast!
Where's Ricardo Reyes? I think how they handle this in the next week or two will be very telling as to whether or not their PR department is able to rise to the challenge.�
Aug 16, 2015
PaulusdB Now we're back on track to resolving the root of this issue.
(Tesla Motors defining their SuperCharging policy.)
That would help resolve the discussion about another cormer case, overhere in The Netherlands. Commercial vehicle use.
Basically some owners feel that the SuC in Amsterdam has become some kind of hangout place for SuC-ing taxi drivers.
Superchargers Amsterdam - Taxi Hangout
In case you wonder why the Amsterdam Suc with 8 stalls (+2 inside the SeC) is the worldwide Top-1 on some days, that's why.�
Aug 16, 2015
AnxietyRanger I agree that re-labelling some Superchargers as Urbanchargers or similar could help with the discrepancy. Even then I think Tesla might have a hard time finding a wording that wouldn't hurt sales to condo dwellers in other parts of the world where they may have relied on non-urban Superchargers and even been pitched that by sales.
As for grandfathering, I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree, but would still like to mention the possible legal liability of Tesla sales people pitching liberal Supercharging. I can see a sufficient group coming up with stories how they were sold the car under different pretences and this is something I think would be best avoided for all. Grandfathering in would help sort that out both legally and morally.�
Aug 16, 2015
tinm Doesn't the cost of running superchargers decrease when Tesla installs the stationary storage and solar collection at the site? I thought that was the long term goal, that the power would be generated/stored from the sun, with grid as backup or for peak use, and the cost of the electricity would be cheap?
Come to think of it, when was the last time Tesla added a solar canopy and stationary storage installation to a supercharger site?�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 They did in Rocklin, CA with solar.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan If you're an apartment dweller and your purchase decision hinges on there being a close by UrbanCharger, but there isn't, well then a Tesla is not for you I guess. It's better for Tesla to be honest about this and build out the UrbanCharger network with time, just as they're doing with their long distance Supercharger network. If Tesla isn't honest about this they may end up in a situation with lots of unhappy buyers being told they didn't purchase what they thought they did.
With regards to grandfathering let's agree to disagree, and yes: it's a judgement call.�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 If Tesla just sought to break even with Urbanchargers then it'd still be a viable option and cheaper than gas just not free which is a huge draw right now for some.�
Aug 16, 2015
smac Exactly what I think will happen. I'm not a trained accountant (though running your own business, especially one that faces income in advance style accounting, you do pick things up).
It won't be long before someone with letters after their name picks this up and runs with it. The policy they used was aggressively trying to pull as much revenue forward into the current year as possible. I face the opposite problem, I want to push as much back as possible because it effects my corporation tax bill, and the "optics" of profit matter far less without external shareholders. In either case you inevitably have a "negotiation" with the auditors as to how far you can push things whilst they are still prepared to sign off your yearly accounts.
Now these things are subject to interpretation, but ultimately the auditors / your own accountancy team have to be able to stand behind models in case it was ever picked up to an extent they went to court.
If there's ongoing and historic proof that the model was too aggressive (which it is starting to look like) their will be reticence on the behalf of the auditors, and their hand will be forced.
To really watch for this a good pointer would be to look for a widening divergence between GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin.
(Going full on conspiracy here
FWIW The SEC have already questioned Tesla over Supercharging, and I felt Tesla's response was pretty weak. I wouldn't be surprised if the next question is much more specific asking for OPEX figures, not "cost" which TM have replied with asset value, and projected CAPEX:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312515017866/filename1.htm�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan Ahem... "Free". In effect prepaid.
You could have SuperCharger enabled cars (for long distance travel purposes) and this option could be standard or come at a cost (like the original S60). SC as a paid option mighty be likely at least for the more basic models of Model 3, to keep base cost down.
Now, you could have SuperCharging including UrbanCharging[tm] as another, more expensive option, since those buying it will likely rely on it and use it a lot.�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 I didn't comment on these being retroactive
to current owners or not. Tesla could always 'close' or reduce the number of urban Superchargers then reopen more then as paid Urbanchargers if they needed to.�
Aug 16, 2015
smac The problem with this theory is it really is expensive vs petrol if you just want long distance Road trips as the original owner.
I recently did a 4k mile trip in a 3.5l V6 supercharged ICE. I recorded every refuel, and I'd have to do this annually to recoup the fee charged on Supercharging my S60 over my intended three year period of ownership.
IOW The only way I could justify the fee as a new owner is by "abusing" the system, and as I paid for it, I would.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan It doesn't work like that. If you want an EV for your only/primary car then paying that much to enable long distance travel might make perfect financial sense condsidering all the other savings you're getting with an EV. So that overall you come out way in the green, with say a Model 3.
My point is if you're buying a car at $35k that's not long-distance enabled, and therefore need to keep your old ICE but you could pay $37,5k and sell the ICE you likely would pay, gladly, an addition $2500 as a one-time fee. Especially considering people will think that this increases the second hand value of the car accordingly, which it does, since SC free is for the life of the car, not the owner.
People understand this intuitively, doesn't need to be explained more than once.�
Aug 16, 2015
TexasEV You're not going to come out ahead by comparing supercharging activation fee in a now-discontinued 60 to gasoline prices for an ICE. Most 60 owners found it worthwhile to pay it because they wanted to drive their Tesla long distance, because it's fun to do so. If your goal was to save money most people wouldn't have bought a Model S in the first place.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan But, as I argued in the post above, for price sensitive Model 3 buyers it might make perfect sense to pay quite a lot to enable supercharging, if that allows them to get a Model 3 as their only car.�
Aug 16, 2015
AmpedRealtor He declines to comment on a lot of things. Seems like communication is not his strong suit, even though he is VP of Communications at Tesla. Mission Control, I think we have a problem.
Actually you don't know this to be the case. Not at all. Why are you saying things that are patently untrue? You have no idea what Tesla considers a "local use".
For all we know, Tesla may consider a local Supercharger to be one that is within the roundtrip driving range of your vehicle. That would cast a wider net, and could explain why so many are getting this letter. For 60 owners, local could be up to 100 miles away. For 85 owners, local could be up to 130 miles away. The point is, nobody really knows. Not even you.�
Aug 16, 2015
smsprague 4 days since I asked ownership for clarification in a polite email. Still nothing but crickets. So much for a response within 48 hours.�
Aug 16, 2015
AmpedRealtor Looks like Elon has another round of firings on his plate... Maybe he should just put Jerome in charge of everything, since nobody else at that company seems to have their **** together like Jerome. I can't believe the one senior executive who made owners happy was demoted and is now leaving the company (or is being pushed out). It would seem, from recent events, that Elon prefers screw-ups to people who work to make sure Tesla has a great reputation.
Elon hires someone from Burberry to head US Sales, and when he's asked about it, he puts down his new hire by saying "he's just one guy, who happens to be from Burberry" or something to that effect. Why not, instead, get behind the guy you just hired and say some nice things about him, and use that opportunity to introduce him to the world? I'm sure the new head of US Sales really appreciated being referred to publicly as "just one guy". What an awful thing to say.
Elon may be a visionary, but he's a damn poor manager.�
Aug 16, 2015
NigelM Expectations of Tesla are extremely high here, in the media, and among analysts. Every step and mis-step is analyzed and critiqued (see this thread as an example). If I was that new guy I'd be very happy with Elon's introduction, let me get in, get my head down, get to work and prove myself through actions; it would be setting the guy up for massive critique/criticism if Elon introduced him as the guy who was going to fix everything. Finally, if the new guy was lacking in self-confidence he probably wouldn't have applied, or been appointed to the job, in the first place.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan When it comes to a head of regional sales there's one metric that overshadows most others: sales numbers. But being referred to as "just one guy" could be condescending, however we shouldn't assume it is without context.
I do agree a lot with Amped though about their VP of Comms. Hello, anyone home?�
Aug 16, 2015
AmpedRealtor Don't you think that it's still a lousy thing to say about a high profile hire? The media isn't looking to this new person to fix anything, the question was asked because Elon said a few months ago that he was hiring a sales head for each region. Articles have been written that Tesla specifically hired someone from Burberry to enhance the car's appeal to luxury buyers. I think that if you were just hired as VP of Sales for North America, you would have already proven your worth through previous accomplishments. I just think that such a high level position should be treated as such. Tomato, Tomahto.
I'm expressing my personal, visceral response to what Elon said. The fact that he demoted Jerome, and is effectively pushing Jerome out of the company, tells me something about where Elon's priorities are... They don't seem to be with existing owners. If they were, Jerome would still be there. And who has filled Jerome's shoes? Nobody, apparently, and with the Model X release around the corner. Tesla is screwing up big-time on communications, ticking off owners with service policy changes, and I can't help but think that we may not be looking back on this time as a positive period in Tesla's growth story.�
Aug 16, 2015
Krugerrand Or, he's been told not to make a comment at this time. Seems you like to make a lot of assumptions about people and situations you have no firsthand knowledge about.
He wasn't demoted and for all we know asked to change positions. The current public information we have is that he's on a leave of absence. Until otherwise stated please stop stating the above as if it's a fact.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't. It actually relieves pressure from the individual of thinking they have to be some sort of savoir. It also lets all other employees know that they are just as important. Elon has always been very consistent on the subject. There's no reason to find insult where none is likely intended.�
Aug 16, 2015
NigelM With all respect that's also personal opinion/speculation and not "fact", unless you know something we all don't. This speculation is the reason why yes, I'd be quite happy to keep a lower profile and avoid all the distraction. But perhaps that's just me.�
Aug 16, 2015
AmpedRealtor Fine, then let's forget this particular situation, what about the rest of Tesla's communications problems? You don't feel that he holds any responsibility for communications as the VP of Communications? You don't think he had some involvement in writing and/or approving the email that went out to owners, given his position, or authoring internal guidelines for dissemination of customer-facing communications?
Tesla's latest filing states that Jerome's new position no longer carries SEC filing requirements. That means he was removed from a senior executive level, where SEC reporting was required, to a lower level where such reporting is not required. That is a de-facto demotion.
I know enough about how executives operate to know that Jerome has been pushed out of the company. I've played at that level, and these kinds of things were commonplace. What I say comes from experience. It's really quite obvious. Clearly you disagree, but trying to shut me down isn't the proper approach simply because you disagree with my conclusion.
The fact that nobody has been named to replace Jerome, even on an interim basis, also speaks volumes. It doesn't sound like Musk wants someone in that position, to be honest with you, and if he did, shouldn't he be concerned that nobody is tasked with taking his place at a critical time when the company is about to launch a new vehicle that is going to come with its own set of problems and owner issues?
- - - Updated - - -
I certainly believe it to be true. Jerome's leave is through the end of the year. Let's reconvene this topic on January 1, 2016 to see who was correct. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.�
Aug 16, 2015
Johan Amped: this is pretty off topic but c'mon, it could be that it's actually true that Jerome took a leave of absence for personal reasons or from being over worked, and that it's still unclear if and in what position he might return.
It's also possible, like Krugerrand said, that Reyes is being ordered not to comment. This though points to a possible problem: management not allowing executives to properly fill their respective roles. Also, the letter was sent out. Either this happened without Reyes knowing, which points to a problem. Or it happened under Reyes' control which also points to a problem. Either he is not kept in the loop or he's bad at his job. Either way Tesla as a company need to get their PR together.�
Aug 16, 2015
AmpedRealtor I understand that folks may not agree with my conclusions, and that's fine. We have other threads for this, it wasn't my intention to take this thread in a different direction. What is or isn't happening with Jerome is not really germane to this topic, I was simply bringing it up as a possible data point to a larger trend at Tesla.�
Aug 16, 2015
Krugerrand I said nothing about his job responsibilities of being VP of Communications. He chose to not comment concerning the article in question. His reasons for doing that can be many and varied, none of which would reflect negatively on his responsibilities or his ability to do the job. We simply are not privy to what happens behind closed doors at Tesla, including what role he may or may not have had with the e-mail in question. I have too much life experience to fall into the trap of making assumptions (particularly negative ones) about others I have no firsthand knowledge of/experience with because more times than not it makes one look like an idiot, which I can do quite easily without stacking the deck.
As for the general topic of Tesla's communication issues...it's been discussed here for years. There appear to be issues. Considering your own communication issues we're currently discussing, you might want to stop throwing stones.
Regardless of your background you don't get a pass stating assumption (or belief) as fact. Unless you've been in direct communication with Jerome...
Just because you expect Tesla to run in a fashion you're familiar with doesn't mean what Tesla is currently doing is wrong or bad or that there's cause for concern. I've come to expect Tesla to do things differently, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.�
Aug 16, 2015
stopcrazypp Bingo. It does not benefit Tesla, nor the community to have a clearly defined policy. The reason is there is so many gray areas to take into account of that it's impossible to have it be clear cut. Just trying to come up with an algorithm already shows this. The good thing about "soft" measures like the letter is that the consequences are low when you get things wrong (some owners got pissed off, but there was no disruption to their use of superchargers). When the time comes for a policy, it would have to be really well written to accomplish the given goals. Given how Tesla messed up something relatively simple as this letter, I have doubts it'll be done right. The other issue is that Tesla's goal is not to ban all use of supercharger networks for local charging, I think Tesla is perfectly fine with occasional use and a soft measure lets them allow for that.�
Aug 16, 2015
cpa I am decades removed from auditing and expressing opinions on financial statements. I know enough today that some of what I learned has changed slightly; also, SEC reporting has slightly different rules from private companies in selected areas.
The only two situations that I can recall when financial statements must be restated is when the company (or the auditors) discover the dread "correction of an error." This leads to massive disclosures and restatement of prior periods as if the error was accounted for correctly in the proper accounting period. The second situation concerns adopting the obsolete "pooling of interests" method for accounting for business combinations.
Next up is the "change in accounting method" from one acceptable method to another. This could be for the change in depreciation method to/from declining balance to straight-line, LIFO/FIFO for inventory, and others. When this occurs, the cumulative effect going back to day 1 is calculated and presented/disclosed in the financial statements as a current period expense or benefit.
Finally we have the "change in accounting estimate," which is what the Supercharger liability accrual is considered. Financial statements are full of estimates. When circumstances change, or hard data prove that the calculations are materially incorrect, then the change is a current period item, and prior years are not restated. If the dollar amount is material, Tesla likely would disclose in a footnote (or management discussion) something like, "Supercharger usage over the past twelve months has exceeded our estimates by approximately $X per Model S sold. Accordingly, we have revised our revenue deferral per unit sold from $Y to $Z. We charged to operations approximately $AB,CDE,GHI in the current period to reflect this change in estimate."
Whether their "estimates" could run afoul of SEC requirements and invite scrutiny by their staff is something that I have no experience with in my professional career.�
Aug 16, 2015
smac Am I correct in assuming you think this is the likely outcome? (Assuming of course there is a mismatch!) I hope this came across as my working assumption here. I didn't intend to say there was an "error" in the accounting, or they have changed an accounting basis. Only the assumptions used to form the estimates have potentially been proven wrong as the available data has started becoming more statistically significant.
If this is the case, and the "change in accounting estimate" for period X to reflect the issue, wouldn't this by necessity be required to be considered in future casting of estimates?
(This is a genuine question, we operate under FRS right now, and I know there are differences between GAAP, UK GAAP and FRS)
I'm also intrigued to know your opinion on how you would forward cast these changes. My experience of deferred revenue is such that we don't have any exposure that runs over more than 12 months. So would you represent them as a singular one off correction in this year, or try to spread these corrections over future years?
BTW I'm lead to believe there are changes coming which mean both UK and US companies, floated or non-floated are all going onto IFRS. It will certainly help me when I try to reconcile personal experience of an SME to how listed firms run... Who know's I might learn some tricks�
Aug 16, 2015
TexasEV I also agree with this and the post by Letsgofast that this was replying to. If there was a written policy regarding supercharger use, it would have the opposite effect of encouraging some people to increase their use of superchargers right up to the limit, to "get their money's worth". Better to ask people to use them responsibly and trust that will cause people to think twice about using local superchargers when they don't need to. Most owners will try to do the right thing and Tesla can deal with the small number of abusers individually. Bottom line is:
1. Don't use a local supercharger regularly as a substitute for charging at home, if you can reasonably charge at home.
2. Move the car soon after you get the charge you need.
I think almost everyone would agree with those two broad guidelines, even if a written policy can't cover every situation, and I think if owners followed these two broad guidelines, however you interpret it for yourself, Tesla would be satisfied.�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 I do agree with starting to charge people per minute after charge complete after a short grace period. It would still be free charging but would encourage people to move their car at least.�
Aug 16, 2015
LetsGoFast Even that is sort of variable. I once allowed the car to charge to like 99% because I was literally the only Tesla at the supercharger and I wasn't done eating. In that scenario, I don't actually see a problem with staying connected. Virginia superchargers are very lightly used...�
Aug 16, 2015
smac I agree it would help. But getting back to the thrust of the letter, it is aimed far more at not using Supercharger's at all.
Let's disect it a little:
It starts off with some waffley PR spin to remind you how good Tesla are as a business, then get's into a very strong selling message for home charging. Then we have a relatively small portion that has caused offence being somewhat accusatory (or indeed the idea here was to highlight how you personally might be "lucky" to have had this pointed out to you) immediately after it tries to soften this with an appeal to your conscious about common good of all users.
However it then gets straight back onto the sell side message of home charging. Finally attempting to clinch the deal with a a call to action. (I.e. click here for special home charging offers)
It's classic classic classic sales pitch/presentation strategy.
Maybe they got an intern to write the mailshot selection query, but the content and structuring of the letter itself was obviously written by someone that knew exactly what they were doing, and what they were trying to sell. In this case they are selling overall usage reduction not congestion reduction.�
Aug 16, 2015
PaulusdB And/or Home Chargers.�
Aug 16, 2015
bonnie Yeah. That's definitely a profit center for them.�
Aug 16, 2015
smac Is it not outsourced in the U.S.? (It certainly is here)�
Aug 16, 2015
Scotty I see several different directions that this thread is heading.
Tesla changing it's tune about supercharging, after selling quite a few MS with no implicit limits on supercharging use. Before ordering my MS, my contact at the Rocklin Center promoted using the SC when it's convenient to me.
EM stating that there are 'ABUSERS' of SC's. No, while I heavily use the SC network, I have a HPWC, and ordered my MS with dual on-board chargers. However, I do not subscribe to limping back home to plug in overnight, and waking up in the morning to a 'charged' MS. That assumes that after arriving home, I won't need to use my MS again until the morning. This is another usage for the term 'Ludicrous'. Charging on AC at 80 Amps at 240 VAC is a whole different ballgame than DC fast charging at a SC at 375 Volts at 325 Amps. I am a 'USER' of SC's, not an 'ABUSER'. Is this analogous to the other team trying to change the rules of the game in the 7th inning, 3rd period, or 4th quarter?
Poor communications and misguided policy abounds. Collision repair prices, minimal-to-no support of salvage titled Tesla's, no direct parts sales, no service manuals, no diagnosis equipment/tools available, no right to repair (except in MA), convoluted ESA (different from other luxury car ESA's), now the 'SC Abuser' letter.
Maybe Tesla is taking the Consumer Reports Car Satisfaction Poll for granted. Do you wish to alienate your fan base? It's up to you.... you may reap what you sow.
Finally, I'm getting more and more concerned. Any talk of tiers or fee for charging is against what I signed up for, when Tesla and I agreed on me buying this MS. I have always been concerned about expanding the SC network. One only has to look at fossil fuel stations to know that the proliferation of EV's will MANDATE the proliferation of rapid charging solutions.
Yeah, I'm fired up about this letter. I don't care if the algorithm is flawed or not; I received the email, and I'm not conceding that Tesla and I agreed on SC limitations, or that using certain 'local' SC's regularly makes me an abuser. The closest SC to me is 43 miles away, but I do quite a few miles, and extensively use the SC network (10 months and 37,000 miles)
Scotty�
Aug 16, 2015
dsm363 Are you saying when you get home you don't plug in? If you plug in when you get home and use the Supercharging network when you need it then I doubt Tesla considers that a problem. Your HPWC can fully charge your car in under 5 hours so easily overnight.�
Aug 16, 2015
stopcrazypp I thought the gist was that both is required to keep the network sustainable. And by usage reduction it's the reduction of users offsetting home charging by using local superchargers. The main goal of the network from the start was to enable trips that otherwise would not be possible in an EV. Thus Tesla is very clearly not targeting long distance trips for usage reduction, as the superchargers are necessary for that. Even the city chargers are about necessity (people who have no choice but to use superchargers for daily charging). But the home charging offsetting Tesla obviously would want to reduce if not eliminate.�
Aug 16, 2015
arnolddeleon Behavioral Economics: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/
arnold�
Aug 16, 2015
PaulusdB Hello. I'm not the summer intern that wrote the letter.�
Aug 16, 2015
tinm I would go another route. I would provide positive reinforcement for people who do the right thing, and provide a Hall of Fame on the Tesla Site for people who are best at doing the right thing.
For example:
Every time you charge at a supercharger, you're rewarded for the shortest amount of time it takes from the time the charge is done (hits the charge limit you've set) and the time it takes for you to actually pull the charger out of the chargeport, return it to its supercharger tower, get in your car and clear out of there so the space is available to someone else. (It might also factor in that you didn't charge to the max, that you had the Trip Calculator active and so the car knows roughly how much you need to charge plus a safety buffer and you kept to that.)
If you do this, the car or the app or Tesla via email could send you a message congratulating you and thanking you for a quick turnaround. And maybe you get points for how fast you do the turnaround. If you're slow, you get no points. If you're pretty fast you get "Sport" points. If you're really fast you get "Insane" points. If you're (you know where this is going) ridiculously fast, you get "Ludicrous" points.
Then each time you do good at a supercharger, you keep rackin' up more points. Perhaps if a supercharger site is very busy like San Juan Capistrano, and every stall is in use, there's even a "bonus" multiplier factored into your score.
Perhaps for privacy's sake, Tesla keeps the score tallies private until you get to a top-ten spot, when it invites you to share publicly via social media your achievement, and it also asks permission to include your name or your My Tesla screen name in the hall of fame list.
Bottom line, make this whole ugly scold-the-hoggers approach go away and replace it with something positive -- a praise-the-courteous approach -- that also increases engagement with the car, the website, the app, your friends and family, and the brand, and is fun to boot. I have a hunch would be pretty cool for everyone.�
Aug 16, 2015
jerry33 That is one really good suggestion. They might even add a t-shirt for the top ten people each month.�
Aug 16, 2015
tinm Bingo. Exactly.
We all know who'd have the most t-shirts. He makes lots of YouTube videos and he lives in Scandinavia but hey, more power to him!�
Aug 16, 2015
smac
I'm not arguing about the intention of the network, and in fact I think you are right that the intention was to remove the EV stigma of inability to make such trips, but I thought I was clear in the dissection of the message....
Tesla are clearly targeting more home charging, presumably to take off SpC load (Though I admit there is a slim chance Bonnie and PaulusdB are right and it's just Tesla drumming up HPWC sales).
TBH this hasn't changed. When I picked my car up it's exactly what the DS said. "Home charging is best". Maybe this message hasn't been re-iterated to newer customers. Maybe the mix of people buying Model S's has changed to those doing >30k per year to justify the savings, maybe...
The point I was making is the "sell" wasn't towards not parking in a SpC bays and causing congestion, which is where I replied to.. If it was the message would have been different if that was the goal.
IOW Tesla are selling "Don't use superchargers, use home charging". not "Don't leave your car in a Supercharger stall"�
Aug 16, 2015
TexasEV Something is missing in the translation from English to English. Bonnie was being sarcastic when she said "Yeah, that's definitely a profit center for them". Meaning it's not a profit center.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think anyone would see a problem with that. That's an example of why I said guidelines, not hard rules of a written policy. We're expected to use common sense as well as courtesy.�
Aug 16, 2015
Spidy I think he meant that if could make it home, but would arrive on a very low charge, he rather charge up at a supercharger on the way home so the car is still ready in the evening in case something comes up, worst case maybe a emergency.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét