Chủ Nhật, 20 tháng 11, 2016

Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015 part 1

  • Aug 12, 2015
    Jhall118
    Of all the horrible things in the world, this upsets people? Compared to calling out a shoplifter? Really?

    It's a letter, being emailed by a bot. This is really worth getting your panties in a bunch over? There are plenty of legitimate things to hassle Tesla over. A mass email reminding people the intent of the Supercharger network hardly seems like one of them.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Max*
    You can do it, but expect TMC members to jump all over you about how unethical it is, blah blah blah.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    TexasEV
    This appears to be the letter Elon talked about recently, and someone screwed up and forgot to filter the email list for those frequent users of local superchargers that it was intended for.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Seems like this one's criteria were limited to 1=1.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    mikeash
    I don't think so, as long as you're not causing people to wait to charge.

    I wonder what Tesla's motivation is, here. Are they trying to save on electricity costs, or are they trying to prevent overcrowding? I have to assume it's the latter, since their electricity costs are negligible.

    If that's the case, then rolling up to an empty 8-stall SC and plugging in just because you can (as I do once in a while at Woodbridge) isn't causing any trouble.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    TaoJones
    No, it would not. Perhaps if it read "if you are a frequent user of local Superchargers and can or have installed a home charging alternative...", then it would not have a) alienated every non-garaged owner/investor, b) produced uncertainty concerning Tesla's next move as related to local supercharging, and c) created the additional requirement for a clarification to be communicated ASAP.

    They did include the helpful reminder to exit the space once charging is complete - and that applies to all who use SCs, regardless of circumstance. Failure to exit immediately is as bad as ICEing from the perspective of the person waiting. This particular point/best practice *should* be periodically emphasized via newsletter distribution.

    Castigating non-SC users as frequent local users, and worse, castigating non-garaged owners *who were told specifically during the purchasing process* that unfettered use of local SCs as necessary *is perfectly acceptable* are not good uses for a periodic newsletter.

    There was and remains a need for clarification, particularly with regard to the non-garaged, before Elon's comments, after Elon's comments, and especially after this embarrassment of a communication has been sent.

    The non-garaged are easy enough to identify in a database, as are garaged owners who choose to not charge at home (the real problem here, along with an undefined solution for livery). However, it does not exactly inspire confidence that Tesla can manage the filtering when they send out a poorly-worded letter to an undefined subset of ownership.

    Newsletter sent periodically: Great idea. Thanks.
    Reminder to exit the stall immediately once charging is complete: Great idea. Thanks very much. Please keep
    doing this.
    Failure to clarify that non-garaged owners can continue to use local SCs *as necessary*: Unacceptable.
    Failure to clarify that very, very few owners of any type use SCs on a daily basis, and that most of those are commercial/livery: A missed opportunity.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Zarwin
    Wonder if something stupid happened like there was a list of criteria that needed to be met to auto-fire the letter, "A AND B AND C AND D" and someone plugged int "A OR B OR C OR D" instead.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Skotty

    Not entirely implausible.

    query += "where "
    if (rarely-ever-happens-condition) {
    query += " something = ? and "
    }
    if (incorrectly-coded-condition-that-never-happens) {
    query += " somethingelse = ? and "
    }
    query += "1=1"

    Which gets us back to the algorithm used to determine who to send the email to. Most of the time, such algorithms are okay, and it's a bug in the coded implementation of the algorithm that screws it up.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Max*
    Why is it OK for a non-garage owner to use the SpC but not OK for a garaged owner who chooses not to charge at home to use a SpC? That's hypocritical.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    MorrisonHiker
    I think we have a few possible scenarios concerning this email:
    1. It was accidentally sent to everyone instead of a select number of individuals.
    2. It was intentionally sent to everyone but accidentally included the phrase that should've only be sent to a select number of individuals.
    3. It was intentionally sent to everyone but the choice of wording wasn't the best.

    It is possible that Tesla's definition of "local" is very different from our perception of local. Some might think it means "same town or metro area" or "within 10 miles". Perhaps Tesla considers "local" to be within 100 miles. From everyone who has posted so far, it sounds like they have all actually used the Supercharger network (even though the charger might've been 50+ miles from their home address). Do we have reports of anyone receiving the email who has never Supercharged or who has only Supercharged more than 100 or 200 miles from home? Knowing this would help determine if it was an email accidentally sent to every owner. It would also be helpful to know if any non-Supercharger enabled owners received the email.

    I'm thinking the email could've been intended for all owners but the sentence about frequent charging at local Superchargers should've been limited to the select group of individuals that it really applies to.

    Obviously a mistake was made somewhere. Before doing mass mailings, I always run the code against a copy of the production database and confirm it sends the intended number of emails. If I saw it sending 50,000+ emails instead of 50+ emails, I would've fixed the code. If I expected 50,000+ emails to be sent, I would've confirmed via a random sample that only ones that should contain the conditional text actually contained the conditional text.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    NoMoGas
    100% Spot on. Let's also remember that the superchargers are not free. We paid for those. Either in direct payment to Tesla motors of $2500 or in the price of our upgraded vehicles. Quincy drop i let's also remember that the superchargers are not free. We paid for those. Either in direct payment to Tesla motors $2500 or in the price of our upgraded vehicles.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    JST
    I haven't gotten the letter, but I wouldn't be *offended* so much as I would be mildly concerned. There's no overt threat in the letter, but the very fact that they are sending it out suggests that maybe somewhere down the road they will take some sort of corrective action (e.g., limiting SpC speeds, or charging you for local use, or whatever). If I received one and was not a "frequent Supercharger user" I'd be a bit concerned that they would also (unfairly) target me for whatever corrective action came next.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    rlang59
    I was in for service last Saturday and there were a few different people taking delivery during the time I was there. The Tesla folks actually spelled out that the Superchargers are not for local charging and when they should be used to these people during the signing of the paperwork.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    bluefuego
    I received the letter this morning, and I admit it ruffled my feathers. I have used my local supercharger exactly once, so yes I took offense at the wording.

    After some contemplation time I'm mostly over it, but I might still send a constructive criticism email to express my disappointment.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    NoMoGas
    Because one person has the capability to charge at home and the other does not. Not really hypocritical there it's just kind of common sense. That being said, that is not how Tesla market to superchargers and they are now paying the price for their own desired to hype the ease of charging without making clear limitations that they wanted to have on it.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Max*
    Both people have the capacity to change their situations. The person without a garage can just move, no? (Extreme: yes. But both people have the option of having the capability of charging at home). The person with a garage can install L2 charging.

    Both should either be considered as OK (which they are, because it's free supercharging, not free supercharging only if you don't have a garage) or both should be not OK.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I think this is a huge, huge stretch. Someone that has to move (maybe sell their property) to charge at "home" and someone that can just plug in (or in worse case install an outlet) but choose not to is not in any way the same.

    And in many cases (like the city superchargers in crowded cities like Hong Kong or London) they would have to move out of the city to get garage charging. All that does is encourage sprawl (assuming it is even possible) and not at all a reasonable suggestion.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Max*
    I said it's an extreme. But both people have an option to charge at home, that was my only point.

    And as such I don't think (what my original comment was to) it's fair to say that it's OK for someone without a garage to use a SpC, but it's not OK for someone with a garage to use it.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    That's not true at all. The first person does not have the option to charge at home. They would have to move to do so (and change the definition of "home"). The second person does have the option to charge at home (and in many cases without needing to install anything either, even 120V is an option).

    At any rate, Tesla had an explicit policy that people without home charging could use city superchargers for all their charging (which is what is happening in Hong Kong). By your argument that number of people should be zero, but it obviously isn't, using any reasonable definition of home charging.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2015
    Max*
    Not all garages have outlets*. So both people have the OPTION to charge at home (one person by selling their home, the other by installed an outlet). I stand by my original point. Both people should be able to SpC or both people should not be allowed to SpC. Singling out the garage vs. non-garage owners is wrong.

    *My MIL's garage has no outlet. She has this weird lightbulb thing that converts the socket to a 2-prong outlet, so the Tesla obviously wouldn't charge there. I run an extension cord from the laundry room when we visit.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Spidy
    I didn't. But spending a lot of time on reddit.com/r/Futurology I can tell you a lot of people did. I got downvoted every time I suggested the current Model is not sustainable.

    I mean people didn't even believe me when I told them it's probably at least a $2500 upgrade on the Model 3 if at all. There are a lot of people who just consume those big headlines "Free supercharging" "Ranger Service" "Autopilot" "No dealerships" etc., but don't go into Tesla forums and read about changed services or delays...
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Good anecdotal evidence of how Tesla changed the message, being reflected in what the lower-level Tesla employees communicated before and after the change.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Whatever you do, if you choose to attend, DO NOT CHARGE there. :D
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    The email, in itself, is quite uninteresting (although the accusation is poorly worded and the filtering is terrible, unless intentionally terrible). More interesting is what is behind all this. When all this was a mere Elon soundbite at the general meeting, the concern was still fairly easy to dismiss (just don't be a daily abuser, nothing will change etc.), but after a concentrated effort on changing the Supercharging message since, it begs the question: What does it all mean? Changing Supercharging terms for future car sales is of course OK, less so bait and switching current cars. But beyond the legal terms discussion, what does all this mean regarding Tesla's mission, are they finding the Supercharger somehow more unsustainable than previously thought and might be contemplating even more changes to the system?

    The media and the competition are bound to take note, as Tesla will be forced to limit their marketing message on the Superchargers. In the meanwhile, users who receive the notes or do their Tesla research may be a little less overjoyed and a little more anxious as they pull up to the Supercharger. That pride and joy, that I'm sure many owners marketed to others quite a bit, is perhaps now a bit less that. Will I get a letter? Something more? Will the system soon change for the worse and hinder my EV use? That, I think is the real beef, with these changes. Personal annoyance at an accusation is trivial. It will blow over. Bigger question is: What happens to the Supercharger system over time?

    A couple of good posts below, emphasis mine:

    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    Tesla could send someone an email every hour to remind them but still offer free and unlimited Supercharging. If they just send reminders and don't do anything about it then I don't see the harm. All this talk of bait and switch by some is a little early.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Not to put a too fine a point on it, the bigger concern isn't another letter: It is what might happen next after sufficient number of letters.

    That's the problem when things happen and the motivation isn't clear why they happen. Why are these changes happening? What is the criteria Tesla is using to single me out? What exactly is the policy I bought into? What exactly is the policy Tesla is enforcing, is it the same I bought into and does it remain the same over time? What will happen if I don't comply? How will I even know if I am in compliance, if the terms aren't clear or are in change? How predictably or unpredictably will the Supercharger system evolve and impact me and my Tesla buying choices?

    It was widely assumed on TMC prior the recent events that Tesla would only single out very specific over-abusers and change some language to make sure they can legally do so. Even that got us into a big debate on legality and morality. But now that isn't all there is - now there is also the concern, the change impact on the Supercharger system is quite a bit more than just on such outliers. Tesla is continuing a fairly large-scale PR message change on the Supercharger system and the question remains: Why and for what endgame?

    It is still possible it is just to cut out those outliers and rest is just Tesla bumbling. But the scale of change is such that IMO reasonable concern has surfaced it all might be more than that - and concern is Tesla might be just keeping such a change close to their vests for the time being.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Personally I think this is going the way of the battery swap.

    It was motivated by hype and spin after someone pointed out how pointless the self parking would be if you had to unplug the car yourself. Elon in Elon style promised something overly ambitious, motivated more to gain column inches with a futuristic looking device than to solve the technical problem. My view is this too will end up being a communication cock up in a few years time as Tesla try to back track.

    Question is what else will end up in this situation? My primary guess is autonomous driving, somewhat skewed by the fact Bosch had to add $90k's worth of extra hardware to achieve a working prototype.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Matteo
    Given that Tesla has tested reducing supercharge power, I would expect they will limit power if you consume more than X kWh per month. If you go beyond the limit, supercharging is still free (legally they fulfil their promise) but speed is reduced and if you want full speed you can purchase extra quota.

    Those who are suggesting it is fine for Tesla to support free city supercharging, have you done any calculations? Do you know how much that costs? Let me show you a simple calculation:

    In Germany electricity costs 0.36 USD/kWh (1). On average Model S drivers in Europe drive 105 km/day (2) and consume 219 Wh/km (2). That means daily consumption is 23 kWh and yearly consumption is 8395 kWh. It would cost 3022 USD per year. Assuming a Model S will last 10 years (JB Straubel said the battery was designed to last at least 10 years) that's 30,220 USD per car. That means Tesla is losing $28,000 USD per car. This is not sustainable. Then there is taxi drivers who drive 322 km /day in Europe. That means their electricity consumption will be 92,675 USD in 10 years.

    (1) Electricity pricing - Wikipedia
    (2) Tesla Battery Survey
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    That would accomplish nothing other than pissing a lot of owners off and drastically increasing wait times. They'll never do this.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Has this been proved? (It was my speculation, too)

    I did a break down of the financials in another thread. By using standard income in advance accountancy practise the allocation per car is $500 over 20 years.

    It's not so much the actual cost right now, but the projected cost using accepted accountancy that for me is a bigger concern. The model will need to be changed and will take a lot of explaining in the SEC filings if they try to go non GAAP on future SPC liabilities.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Parax
    @nola_Mike I wonder where is your old P85+ (Vin 13226) lives these days? does it happen to live at a tesla store next to a SC?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    vdiv
    Ok, still no letter today. I've had my 70D since May 23rd or for 82 days. Wasn't made aware that I would have to keep track of my supercharger sessions, time, and energy usage and compare that to an unspecified and apparently moving thresholds, but here is my best recollection at least of the sessions so far:

    Supercharger
    		 Distance from
    Home [mi]    		 Number of
    Sessions
    Haggerstown, MD 64 3
    Woodbridge, VA 35 3
    Bethesda, MD 18 2
    Glen Allen, VA 111 2
    Burlington, NC 300 2
    South Hill, VA 197 1
    Charlotte, NC 410 1
    Newark, DE 114 1
    Total:
    		15
    What is a local supercharger anyway? One that is less than half the 70D's range apart?

    With the exception of the South Hill, VA and NC superchargers the rest could be considered "local" by that definition, but they are essential for any long distance trip from where I live. I'd use them more than the ones further along as I fan out in any direction.

    Supercharging anxiety, indeed! Thanks Tesla!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    void executeMessyEmailCampaign(text)
    {
    vector<Owner*> owners = db.loadOwnerList();?
    for (int i = 0; i < owners.size(); ++i)
    {
    ?
    Owner *owner = owners;
    if (isFrequentUserOfLocalSupercharger(owner))
    {
    ?

    owner->sendEmail(text);
    ?
    }
    ?
    }
    ?
    }

    ?

    ?
    bool isFrequentUserOfLocalSupercharger(Owner *owner)
    {
    return ((rand() % 2) == 0);?
    }
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    That would have an interesting effect on long-distance travel for frequent travellers, if applied using the same filter as the email campaign has been. How would it work? Supercharge too much vis-a-vis an unknown limit/filter set up by Tesla and face random consequences of throttling on the road? Factor that into your drive time or will the car's navigator do it automatically? Would there be an appeals process if Tesla mis-identifies you? I hope nothing of this sort happens.

    I can see this kind of fear putting people off from Supercharging, with "better not risk it" thinking. Frankly, I can see this letter alone already making a lot more than daily "abusers" think what kind of Supercharging would be acceptable to Tesla and what they might view under the now suddenly extended-seeming umbrella of "frequent local Supercharging". Maybe that is the intention, of course, we don't know what is Tesla's motivation on this one since they've stuck to the notion they are merely clarifying old policies a little.

    If Tesla feels they can't sustain their previous free model, then IMO they would do better coming up with clear guidelines (and grandfather old buyers in as applicable) before Supercharging anxiety becomes a real thing. I don't mind Tesla setting limits for new buys, or even charging for Supercharging for new buys (my own next Tesla included), but I do fear a random-seeming process will hurt both users and the company. Just be upfront and clear about it and it will be fine. Don't - and it won't be.

    There's a nick available: AnxietySupercharger. Any takers?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    nwdiver
    If the thoughts, 'Why am I sitting here when I could be charging at home' or 'Is this really worth my time when I could be charging at home' never enter your mind then you have nothing to worry about...

    If you can charge at home then you should charge at home...
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    That's our conjecture, though. Can we really conclude that from Tesla's letter or comms? Is Tesla using such a policy and an algorithm and can we trust that in all circumstances their understanding of our usage patters and subsequent action would match our "thoughts"? As long as their data and the filter they use are unknown, we can't be sure of that, as this letter campaign seems to point out.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    And it's really that simple. That's the goal of the email to attempt to get adults who could afford a $70,000+ car to play nice in the same sandbox. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    vdiv
    The reason why I have a car in the first place is so that I can go to places other than home. If home is where EVs have to be to charge then they kind of miss the point, don't they?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    That's our conjecture, though. It was a more plausible scenario when we assumed Tesla would be almost hand-picking few individual offenders and reeling them in.

    Since then, they have instead embarked on a rather massive corporate message change (reflected in comments what sales people have said e.g. spring vs. summer 2015) and now a mass-email campaign targeting far more than few major offenders.

    It seems possible there is more to this than just "play nice you really bad people, you". Perhaps Tesla is targeting at lowering the overall Supercharger usage, not just reeling in a few bad guys? If so, it could have implications beyond just the excess outliers.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    dsm363
    I didn't say "you really bad people." They could simply be letting know the people they consider abusing the system and those who are heavy users and they can't tell one way or the other the intent of the network as they see it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Yes in a world of fluffy unicorns!

    My view is this is just going to get worse. Used cars are bound to end up as taxis or bought by people that can't afford a $70k car justifying it via fuel savings.

    I have never liked the whole concept TBH. It's an absolute classic mistake in retail food business, normally caught because there is no "lifetime" aspect to the deal, sooner or later the offer either finishes once you've gained reputation or the all you can eat price goes up. Why should this be any different?

    Pair banned from all-you-can-eat restaurant for eating too much - Telegraph

    It's not the first time a tech company thought they were geniuses for coming up with an unlimited unending offer either. Last time I can remember was O2 and their unlimited data plan. Sure they "bought" market share very quickly and at firs at all seemed good, then the hordes came and they paid the price in subsequent years. Fortunately for O2 the lifetime of an iPhone is much shorter than a Model S.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    Obviously I was making a point, not quoting Tesla. The only source I know of to say anything about Tesla's intent is Elon - and he referred to "quite aggressive" local Superchargers:

    Something is amiss here compared to the mass-email now. It can be a mass-email mistake, of course - but given the fairly wide scale message change at Tesla at all levels when it comes to the Supercharging message, it leaves the question that other motivations and more change (and thus uncertainty) might be in the air than just avoiding "quite aggressive" local Supercharging.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    GlmnAlyAirCar


    LOL. I also can appreciate anyone who can write decent C++ code.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Vgsllc1
    You can tag #localsupercharging and take picture while charging.

    I felt left out so went ahead and charge at local superchargerlast night. I want the letter!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    :) I was hoping for something more subtle. C++ with an out by one error / or pointer arithmetic problem ;) (maybe that would have been to geeky for general audience though)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    I expect you and lots of other people who started this rumor will be disappointed. Tesla advertised that it self-park (likely with you in the car), and pull your car from the garage to your door on private property.

    Considering the current suite of hardware can't detect soft objects (pedestrians, animals, etc.) how do you expect the car to repark itself at a crowded supercharger when you're not around, and park in a properly designated spot?

    Sometime in the distant future? Of course. Sometime soon? I strongly doubt it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    Breathe people, breathe....

    It's not a mass mailing, there's plenty, plenty folks out there that didn't receive it.

    It is obviously an error, either syntax or selection criteria.

    There are plenty of examples where Tesla hasn't done well at communicating (sorry to my friends who work there, but we know this stuff happens when you're trying to change the world) so we don't need to work up nefarious conspiracy theories when we see one more mis-step. Anyone who's been around for a while shouldn't feel offended, insulted or criminalized.

    Let's all put on the big-boy pants, point out to Tesla they messed up (pretty sure they know that by now), and put down the pitchforks.

    Peace.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    qwk
    Yes. I pointed this out long ago, and this is definately coming, and sooner than people think. The biggest problem Tesla has is that common foresight is non existent at the management level. The vast majority of their problems were/are easy to see and nip in the bud, but instead they let them continue so long that it finally blows up in their face.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    My "intelligent navigation" directs me to locally supercharge twice daily sometimes more. If they want people to stop using local superchargers daily they need to fix their software first.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    ced78c0e9db2bc4492a0264fbc0fcdbd.jpg
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TexasEV
    Do you really not understand? The superchargers are to get to places you want to go to, but that place shouldn't be your local supercharger. When EVs are home they should be charging rather than sitting there overnight doing nothing, assuming you live in a house where you can install a 240V outlet.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Matias
    LOL
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    scaesare
    Very well put.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NOLA_Mike
    That's an interesting question that I hadn't thought of. After I traded it in (in Houston) it was trucked back to California (I tracked it all the way to Costa Mesa) where it sat until I lost contact with it. Recently I had someone at Tesla look up the VIN and I'm guessing it is being used as a "loaner" in LA because it has about 2,000 miles more on it than when I traded it in and it is still owned by Tesla.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    AnxietyRanger
    What do you think of the speculation if Tesla's changes could be aimed at lowering overall Supercharging levels - not just controlling frequent local charging?

    I get the sense that Tesla's message on Supercharging has a certain discouraging tone to it. They know they need it, they will continue to build it, but do you think they might worry about overall Supercharging levels, not just about daily local chargers?

    Could they for example have a percentage point in mind they would like to reach on average per-car Supercharging?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Matias
    Gas savings calculations in Finnish design studio presumes, that you do 30% of all charging in superchargers.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    mknox
    Not going back to look at everyone's profile information, but it seems to me that everyone, if not the large majority of folks who got the letter are in California. This is also where most reports of Supercharger congestion are coming from. Maybe we need a Poll by Region where these letters are going.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    vdiv
    Thought I did understand until people started jumping up and down with "charging etiquettes" and "needs" and all kinds of nebulous "rules" and "assumptions" of what one "should" and "should not do", often conflicting, that one has to follow in order to drive an EV.

    Should I also wonder why some are so hesitant to get an EV and others are actually giving them up and going back to ICE?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Soolim
    News on the Net: Tesla is partnering with parking facilities in Manhattan to provide paid charging to owners having difficulties with apartment charging. if successful this might be a step forward for some apartment/condo owners.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    That is great news, and much better than hogging SpCs.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    NigelM
    The first page of this thread contains owners from California, Tucson AZ, New Orleans and Seattle. California has so many owners that you'd expect to see some data skew that way in any case. There's also receipt claims from folks who's nearest SuperCharger is 70 miles away from them - proof (IMO) that this was an error.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    mknox
    It would make sense for Tesla to beef up their Destination Charging program with some sort of Condo/Apartment Charging program. It is a big problem in Toronto too, where a lot of condo dwellers would love to buy a Model S but can't get approval from their condo boards to install an outlet or a charger. There are no by-laws requiring it here. I know of several people who told me they were ready to pull the trigger after the Toronto Supercharger opened because they'd have a place to charge. This is going to be a problem here.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Matteo
    When I look at the text, there is a lot of marketing speak but there are four phrases that I highlighted and numbered, that don't look accidental. They look like they were inserted by the legal team.

    This is what I think these phrases mean:

    [1] intent remains: Hereby we clarify that superchargers were never intended for local trips. Our position remains that supercharging is free forever for long distance travel only. [What they are saying is, in case somebody challenges Tesla legally, they should know that Tesla never promised free local supercharging.]
    [2] As a frequent user of local Superchargers: We have identified you as a frequent user of local superchargers. Superchargers are free for long distance travel only. Therefore your usage does not comply with our policy. [They could have said, "if you are using local Superchargers frequently." Instead they made it clear a non-compliance was identified. This is not a careless phrase. It is intentionally clear.]
    [3] we ask that you decrease your local Supercharging: This written notice shall serve as a notification of non compliance to the usage policy. If non compliance persists after a warning grace period, we shall take appropriate measures that may lead to termination. [Again the warning is unmistakably clear. They could have said, "consider decreasing". Instead this is a very firm warning.]
    [4] Thank you for your cooperation: We expect you to cooperate with this notice and correct the action that does not comply with the policy.

    The main message I'm getting from the letter is, supercharging is free for life for long distance travel only, not for local top-ups. One possible algorithm would be to look if somebody is driving back where they came from after visiting a supercharger. I don't think they are going to make it an issue if somebody is using superchargers a lot as long as it is for long distance travel.

    The next step from here could be monitoring usage for 3 months and then sending the legal version of the same letter. It looks like they already wrote the legal version and somebody picked small sections from it, simplified the language and inserted into a this marketing letter.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    I agree with your analysis. It looks to me like Tesla is building a record for some users that they can use later after they take some action to force them to use less supercharging and get sued for bait and switch.

    Personally though, since I didn't get a letter, my concern is that Tesla may curtail the Supercharger system expansion because it's too expensive for them.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    hockeythug
    They are going to have to cap the miles eventually for this "free" charging thing to work. Supercharging 400 miles a day, multiple times a week(as someone earlier claimed they did), is abuse in my opinion. Be it for work or pleasure. The average in this country is 13k per year.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    That eliminates the entire purpose of them. No more road trips then.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Panu
    It's quickest and easiest to use charger existing. That's why I think they can ask much more for it if they want. This will likely happen already with X by more dollars added to price because of Supercharging or even not included in base price.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    JST
    Ultimately, Tesla is going to have to go to a subscription or pay per use model for Supercharger use. They will have to. There's just no way to keep "free superchargers, for life" a valid and workable idea as volumes of cars on the road build into the hundreds of thousands.

    And you know what? I am fine with that. The Supercharger network is a valuable resource. I would pay to have access to it. I think one of the genius moves that Tesla made was building out an infrastructure that allows them to collect revenue beyond the initial point of sale; this is something that other car companies have tried (largely unsuccessfully) to do before (see, e.g., OnStar).

    I just hope that when they do roll out paid access to the Supercharger network, they do it in a sensible way that doesn't piss people off. This letter? Not a great start, as the 220+ comments in this thread attest.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    I suggested something similar on SpeakEV as a solution for London. It resolves 2 issues for me personally.

    I live just outside round trip range to London, but NOT one way (this is applicable in all battery variants). Opening this up for GUARANTEED destination charging during the day where I'm off having meeting would be a massive bonus, leaving it free at night for city dwellers. I'd gladly pay for such a service. It would of course have to be on an ambitious scale (i.e. complete parking garages), but one thing Tesla don't lack is ambition!

    From an environmental POV (given our grid mix) it makes optimal use of overnight baseload, which is literally being dumped.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Skotty
    This thread is re-convincing me that Superchargers should never have been free to use. Make people pay for what they use. And if $2K is really built into the price of the car, then the car could have been cheaper too, making barrier to entry in Tesla ownership less.

    However, I do think a different pay model could be used. Instead of pay at the pump, it could be a subscription service where you sign on and then get billed for monthly usage (no flat fee, just billed for electricity used).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    So perhaps the easiest way to handle this is to set the car up so there are a limited number of trips you can take with it per month, much like cell phone data plans. Say, one trip per week > 250 miles, one per month > 500 miles, one per quarter > 1000 mi. etc. with no rollovers. Tesla only advertises a range of about 260 miles, so with the above exceptions, that would be what you get.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    hockeythug
    I'm not saying cap it at 13,000 miles but let�s be realistic here. Using my earlier number of 400 miles a day. Three times a week, 50 weeks out of the
    year, that�s 60,000 miles a year. The distance of driving a loop around the U.S over 4 times.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    mknox
    It's interesting that you mention OnStar. When it first came out, quite a number of other car makers adopted it, and incorporated it into their vehicles, Honda, Volkswagen and others were on board. GM spun it off as a stand-alone brand. But at some point, the other car makers decided they could do it themselves and introduced their own telematics systems. Ford MyTouch, Lexus Link, BMW Assist and so forth. In a way, it's a shame because OnStar is actually quite a good service. They tried a couple of years ago to branch out with the OnStar FMV mirror replacement that you could buy for any car, but it didn't catch on.

    Tesla could do something similar with the Supercharger network if other manufacturers would adopt their connector standard. My concern is that the other manufacturers, either out of "pride" or concern that thy're giving up revenue won't get on board and Superchargers, as an OnStar-like service, may fizzle with other brands.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    joer00
    They can't do so for cars sold. Anyway, the SC Network was the most important thing to get the EV adaption going. I am sure in 10 years it will look much different then today. If we have 1 million Model 3's on the road I doubt the "always free" will work.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    I agree. I would be fine paying for it on the next Tesla I buy.

    I would not be fine paying for it now, considering when I bought the car supercharging for free for life was included.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    model 3 needs love too. They just gotta pay for it. giggity giggity.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    I don't recall Tesla putting a maximum allowed mileage in my owner's agreement. Could you post your copy where it limits annual mileage?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    iKhalid
    I had a bad feeling since the moment I heard about free supercharging for life. Around $5 per a charge is a lot given the number of Model S's out there. In addition, 6-8 stalls per say 150mile radius are not enough once the X and 3 are out.
    Reminds me of all you can eat restaurants. No matter what the restaurant is it, the quality won't be as good as ordering off the menu.

    I personally wouldn't mind if Tesla bills me for electricity at a discounted rate (say $2 per charge) given that we already paid for supercharging. And I would call the $2000, a supercharger access fee.

    It's too late for now, but they can fix it by adapting such a model for future cars. They can say later that the Model S and X have an exception since they were "early adopters".
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smsprague
    Well put. This is what ticked me off, since I don't have a local Supercharger (150 round trip to nearest one) and have only used Superchargers on trips.

    It's not the end of the world. Not going to the press. I emailed Ownership from the Tesla website and it said I would get a response in 48 hours. I will be happy with an "Oops" reply.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    There is no limit. It's free unlimited use for life. No restrictions.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    Just so, but that's going to be a disincentive for people who don't have access to home charging, e.g. apartment dwellers. I'm not sure they'll be able to reach their sales goals without a pretty widespread charging infrastructure that people can use for local trips as well as cross country. For expensive cars like the S and X with a limited and well to do customer base, de facto requiring home charging probably isn't a big issue, but to compete with the BMW 3 series, that won't be viable IMHO.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    tftf
    How does that go together with these e-mails then? That's bait and switch in my opinion.

    PS: AT&T was recently fined for throttling "unlimited data forever" subscribers:

    http://bit.ly/1JDN0DQ
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Matias
    Supercharger | Tesla Motors

    Will it always be free?

    Yes, Superchargers will be free to use for Supercharging-enabled vehicles for the life of Model S.
    -----
    Customers are free to use the network as much as they like
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Nevek
    What email address did you use? When I sent a note to [email�protected], I got this response:
    "Hello,

    You have reached an address that is no longer monitored.
    If you have taken delivery of your vehicle, please email [email�protected].
    If you have questions regarding your reservation or existing order, contact [email�protected]."

    I then forwarded it to [email�protected] but did not get a response, canned or otherwise, so far.

    As you say, not that big a deal now but at some point I want to see their records set straight.

    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    Supercharging letter from Tesla 2015-8-13

    I like how they explicitly specify Model S and not "Tesla vehicles". I wonder if it'll be free for the Model X and gen 3 and so on....
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ohmman
    I disagree. Paying for charging is different from being banned from charging. The ability to charge will still exist, but like with their ICE, they'll have to pay for "fuel". It will most likely still be much cheaper than gas.

    For me, the disincentive for apartment dwellers is the time burden for charging, assuming it's not available at work. I value my time highly, which is why local supercharging isn't interesting to me. I can get more done at home than in a supercharger stall.

    - - - Updated - - -


    As I mentioned upthread, I got some very unofficial, very unreliable information saying it won't be free for MX. I wouldn't complain if that were the case.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    PatD
    I wonder if they're rethinking their solar SC strategy. I think this was what was going to allow them to allow supercharging for free. If the solar isn't going to work (Whether physically or strategically), this might be what is causing their current heartache on the SC for life policy. If the solar worked out for all/most SCs, free for life is a no-brainer. They, over time, would more than recover the cost of the SC network build out if there was no ongoing costs for electric (Maintenance is another issue, not to mention rent? Wonder if they pay rent. . .)

    I remember when the SC network was first implemented there was HUGE talk of solar. I can't tell you the last time I heard about this. Has even one SC been built/converted to solar?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    scaesare
    Whoops, you forgot to include the one right above it:

    The context about enabling road trips has always been there.

    Tesla's error has been in assuming that folks would "get" the idea that they obviously can't subsidize everybody's daily driving usage.

    They, perhaps naively, assumed people would get the big picture. Unfortunately that doesn't work with a large mass of folks when they see the word "free", and ignore the context of intent. Instead they will probably have to realize that people need everything spelled out for them, hence page after page of disclaimers in anything offered to people today.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    abasile
    $2/charge is more than a discounted rate; it's practically free. When we charge our LEAF at our "local" Blink quick charger down the mountain, we are paying $0.59/kWh which is more than gasoline for a comparable ICE. For a full charge for a Model S, assuming that's about 75 kWh, the cost would be $44. That may seem high, but utility demand charges, peak utilization in many cases, and the cost of the infrastructure really add up. Tesla should be able to bring down the long term costs through the use of solar PV and battery storage, but even then, it'll almost certainly be necessary to draw from the grid at times.

    Perhaps with a pay model and sufficient business volume, the Supercharger network may one day break even at prices that are modestly lower than gasoline. For those who do most of their charging at home, the overall cost of "fueling" will remain quite reasonable. The current fleet is Model S vehicles is minuscule compared to the growth Tesla hopes to achieve, so there's time to work this out.

    Even so, if were a current Model S owner and had received a copy of that demand letter, I'd probably feel offended and would in turn be demanding clarification as to what constitutes "local" Supercharging. In my view, charging that enables any trip away from home that's beyond the comfortable, single-charge range of the car should not be considered "local". So if I'm headed into "the city" for the day and need a boost to return home comfortably, that shouldn't be seen as local. Increasing the single-charge range should help reduce the need for such "boosts"...
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    hockeythug
    Obviously not talking about current cars. I'm talking about how this needs to work going forward.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    Supercharging letter from Tesla 2015-8-13

    Heh. Maybe demand secret weapon is actually something like "all orders placed before December 2015 will receive free supercharging for life. All subsequent orders 2016 and beyond must pay for it".
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Well I'm certainly thinking of upgrading to SpC access on my 60 even though it's of zero use to me. The grandfather rights will have a massive impact on residuals ;)
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    I see, so Model X and Model 3 will have a stated maximum annual mileage allowed if they use supercharging. That's going to be a major selling point I imagine.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Or at least "... may have restrictions placed on Local Supercharging*. * See website for definition of Local Supercharging. Tesla reserves the right to amend the definition of Local Supercharging, because we can guarantee that some people will try to get around what's obvious to most people."
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    trils0n
    Well, I thought I'd chime in because I hadn't seen any posts for people without access to home charging who got the letter. I don't have home charging, and am a frequent user of Superchargers. I would love to get home charging as it would nearly eliminate the need to go to Superchargers, but that's not possible. When I buy my next house I will certainly install home charging, and it will be awesome! I usually visit superchargers at off-peak times -- often I am the only one charging so I don't think I am contributing to congestion. I have never left my car plugged in after I have finished charging, and usually leave when my charge is <70% so I stay in the faster portion of the charge curve.

    I use public J1772 and CHAdeMO charging whenever it is available (which, unfortunately is not often -- the near perfect reliability of Superchargers puts other public charging infrastructure to shame). The Blink CHAdeMO chargers near my apartment have >50% downtime. The Nissan CHAdeMOs overheat more reliably than they charge my car. Even with it's problems, the CHAdeMo adapter is a wonderful addition to my car, and makes ownership without home charging much easier than relying solely on public J1772.

    I think Tesla needs to do a better job of Supercharger use education, and this letter was a (poor) attempt at that -- many new owners are not technically-minded early-adopters knowledgeable about pedestal pairing, charge taper curves/charging more than they need, and leaving their cars blocking chargers after they have finished charging. Tesla does almost no education about public charging in their sales/delivery process, and that probably contributes to Supercharger congestion. It is somewhat disconcerting to get a letter asking me to reduce my supercharger usage when Tesla has told me that using superchargers is perfectly acceptable in my situation.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Oba

    Today's Fortune Magazine and a news report out of China gives us a hint how Tesla will handle dense urban areas in places with difficult overnight charging... HPWC.

    ******

    Tesla to build more charging posts along China's east coast｜WCT


    It has already built 32 superchargers in and around Beijing to charge its Model S in minutes, and it has hundreds of other superchargers across dozens of Chinese cities. It has also expanded the number of destination chargers to more than 1,400 at office buildings, shopping centers and other public venues across nearly 100 cities.

    *******


    Log In - The New York Times

    Tesla's Putting Charging Stations In New York's Parking Garages - Fortune

    Manhattan parking garages will get high-speed chargers.

    Telsa TSLA 2.34% has already installed charging stations along long stretches of major highways. On Thursday it plans to put charging locations in a denser environment as a way to appeal to urbanites.
    The company will announce that it�s partnering with two dozen parking garages in Manhattan, which will be outfitted with higher-speed, 240-volt chargers so city residents can conveniently power up their electric vehicles, according to The New York Times. It will mark the company�s first entrance into the urban parking garage space.
    The parking garage charging stations that will stretch from Wall Street in southern Manhattan up to 94th Street are intended to solve a problem faced by urban Tesla owners: the city�s lack of parking spaces make it difficult to find a spot to reliably charge their cars.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    napabill
    A thought just occurred to me. I'm betting this little email distribution routine project has all the marking of a poorly supervised summer intern. And as they say, you get what you pay for.:smile:
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Can you point out where they guarantee a minimum service level or where they specify a supercharger service contract? AFAIK, the $2000/$2500 option for supercharging only included hardware and software. It did not include a contract about the supercharger network. That is the major difference with the AT&T analogy (where you are paying a monthly fee and have a service contract with AT&T that guarantees a level of service).

    Also, while they advertised "free for life", they didn't advertise "unlimited for life" (there's a subtle but important difference between the two). T-mobile also has a "free data for life" plan, but it is capped at 200MB per month.
    http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-reiterates-free-data-for-life-details.htm


    Note my point about the difference between "free" and "unlimited". Also for the second line, don't remove the context (everyone who quoted this line seems to like to do that):

    "How often can I Supercharge, is it bad for my battery?
    Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."

    It's clear that line says that for the purposes of the vehicle warranty, usage of supercharger will not void it, no matter how much you use it. It does not necessarily mean Tesla can't limit use of the network for other reasons.

    Others have also pointed out that long distance / roadtrips have always been advertised as the intended use of the supercharger network, which is also important context.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    RDoc
    It does seem to me that this is somewhat analogous to the concern about China's current devaluation of the yuan being more an issue of what it says about the Chinese economy than the devaluation itself.

    Is this new emphasis on the limits of Supercharging an indication of Tesla getting a bit strained by the Supercharging network expansion? If they actually come anywhere near meeting their sales goals with the S and X, never mind the Model 3, the Supercharging network is going to have to be expanded a lot for it to still be useful. They can't just build out their current plans and stop, it has to be a continuous process for many years which obviously will be expensive. I hope they can afford it.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Merrill
    I think Tesla needs to be careful with this because if Elon wants to promote electric transportation and his goal is to take away all the reasons that most people have for not buying this will not help. Yes most people would not mind paying if it is reasonable and if so then remove the $2000 I paid to be supercharging enabled. This is a slippery slope and maybe down the road Tesla needs to do this but they need to think it thru as to how it impacts future electric travel.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TaoJones
    Very well said.

    As I've noted, the non-garaged Model S owners are not the problem - not to mention they've been told by Tesla that they can use SCs without worry. The problems include ICEing by other owners, livery to an extent, and the absurd witch hunt for the "daily-charging local" who by and large does not exist. Much like crowding at SoCal SCs, it's a construct invented and perpetuated mostly by people who neither use SCs nor live in SoCal to begin with.

    Finally, using the fear of the Model 3 as justification to persecute the no -garaged is equally absurd; a mass market car won't even *have* SC capability in the default model. As noted either here or at TM, the first Mustangs didn't even come with radios. Why? Mass market price point appeal.

    But by all means, let the handwringing busybody contingent continue the kvetchfest.

    Meanwhile, there appears to be an opportunity for clarification and welcome improvement on the part of Tesla. Owners and investors are waiting - to say nothing of prospective customers.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Lloyd
    Reading this thread it seems that those that are "topping off" locally are the ones getting the letters. Those that charge enough to get home and complete charging there seem to not be getting letters.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    My 2 cents is that the idea of "free" superchargers is sustainable with the following caveats:
    1) They are used primarily for long distance / road trips, as they were advertised since launch. Based on average US travel, this limits mileage to ~10% of overall travel (in reference to trips over 100 miles). The Tesla fleet currently stands at ~5% of travel on superchargers.

    2) Tesla needs to come up with another alternative for city charging (perhaps with the HPWC destination charger program in garages, where presumably the electricity is paid for by the parking fees). As the math by others show, city superchargers are not sustainable as a "free" option. The cost per car is simply too high for Tesla to cover all travel. One other idea is to have a rebranding of city superchargers, maybe call them "urban chargers" for example, where those chargers have a fee (and superchargers remain free).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    That's silly.

    Let's see, I have 5k miles now in 2 months. I took about 2900 miles of roadtrips (4 roadtrips so far). So that's almost 60% of my travels. Given, it's summer and we drive more. Over the course of a year, I'd guess my roadtrips would come out to maybe 30% of my overall travels.


    I wouldn't have gotten a Tesla if that were a requirement (10% of all travel be roadtrips). That would also discourage a non-negligible amount of potential buyers.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TaoJones
    That's completely contrary to Tesla's commitment to DENSITY as well as DISTANCE.

    Can't paint metro areas with the same brush as the other 90% of the continent.

    So far, those SCs are not only sustainable but necessary to support the user community.

    Perhaps a more realistic scenario than continuing to perpetuate the antiquated canard that SCs are for distance only would be to recognize that the business model for the mass market call will be altogether different than for the Model S/X.

    There's room for everyone at SCs - non-garaged and garages alike - as long as ICEing by EVs as well, and commercial/livery concerns are addressed. By and large, people are spoiled. I used to wait 20 minutes on the way home at the Costco to get gas every week or two before getting groceries at said Costco. Now I stop at the adjacent SC every so often and at non-peak times. But if I had to wait that same 20 minutes, I'd be fine with that. Voila - just doubled capacity for you.

    I do like the idea of more HPWCs, however. Fortunately, so does Tesla, whose commitment to DESTINATION is significant, if understated.

    DENSITY
    DISTANCE
    DESTINATION

    No additional fees necessary. Charge (no pun intended) up front, and keep it simple. And that doesn't even include solar.

    In a generation or less, all new construction will require EV charging anyway. With incentives to retrofit. And that cool under-road EV charging that they're testing in the UK. Let that sink in for a bit :).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Max*
    We do this too. We learned a trick (that we still use for our ICE), show up at Costco 15mins before closing, do your shopping, and after Costco closes get gas (gas station is usually open an hour after the store closes). There are virtually no lines by that point.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Oba
    Unless your car was delivered without Supercharge enabled, and you paid to add it later, you didn't pay ANYTHING for Supercharger. It was "included".
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    tftf
    It amazes me to what extent some people are willing to defend a public, multi-billion company who made such statements.

    I guess we will see lawsuits by angry owners in case Tesla ever decides to limit SC use or access. Then, the courts can decide what was advertised/promised and what is exactly included for the lifetime of the vehicles.

    The only way to ever escape this mess would be to grandfather all current owners and change the rules going forward (for new buyers after date X in the future).
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Merrill
    Since I have a 60 I had to pay an additional $2000 for enabling the supercharging feature at the time I purchased the car.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    markb1
    "Included" does not mean the same as "free". If it was included, you paid for it in the price of the car.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Tupelo
    Really? I know and work with a Model S owner who has boasted that he hasn't plugged into his home connector once since the Redondo Beach Supercharger opened. He lives near it (about 8 miles) and has a 56 mile daily round-trip commute to work. He uses the SC as his daily charger, usually on his way home from work, and has expressed great satisfaction that Tesla has been paying for all of his fuel costs. Every Friday evening he does a range charge for the weekend, or so he has said. I don't know if he has received the email.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    mknox
    ...and let's not kid ourselves. That $2,000 was built in to the price of all the other cars that came with the capability. Even on the 60's, Tesla just flips a software bit somewhere to let Supercharging work once you pony up.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    hockeythug
    You would wait 20 minutes to locally charge instead of just doing it at home? How much were you saving per gallon at Costco?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    yobigd20
    Elon's said this on multiple occasions that the cost to use the superchargers were built into the price of the cars. So there ya go. We already PAID the privilege to use them as much as we want.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    Merril's signature shows he had a 60, so he/she did indeed pay for it, just as a discounted option. (It was $2k on order or $2.5k subsequently, IIRC US prices correctly)

    TBH psychologically this is the worst possible situation, because having physically paid for something human nature unfortunately means people are more likely to want their money's worth. (not that I'm claiming this is Merrill's case at all, but as an observation in general for deals of this nature, not just Supercharging)

    Tesla have done 4 things so far to attempt SpC usage as far as I can see. Some more subtle than others:
    1) Change the emphasis in all public facing material, toward long distance enablement
    2) Introduce Trip Planner, with one of the objectives being minimizing dwell time
    3) Remove any notion of payment for SpC use across the range (including CPO cars).
    4) Warn users with this letter

    Circumstantially this really does suggest their is a problem with how things have panned out with the costing and/or usage models.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    TaoJones
    If home charging was an option, I'd happily charge at home. Who wouldn't want a full tank/charge each morning? When you live in a harbor, you get what you get.

    Meanwhile, I appreciate Tesla's commitment to the non-garaged as expressed prior to and during the sales process.

    For every exception (see above freeloading garaged local), there are hundreds of not thousands who happily charge at home if possible and who in any case never/rarely use SCs to begin with.

    Livery and ICEing >>> freeloading garaged locals - all of whom are relatively easily identified anyway.

    In short, in Tesla I trust - but verify.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    smac
    No it wasn't. That's urban legend based purely on speculation Tesla were setting aside the entirety of the pre-order revenue of a 60, against 85s.

    Truth is $500 has been set aside per car, and that $500 is supposed to last the "lifetime" of the car. That "lifetime" is 20 years! (It's in the SEC filings, but requires reverse financial engineering to figure out. )

    This all would have been based on actuarial assumptions, with a non representative set of owners and usage patterns for where we are today. Unfortunately all the circumstantial evidence, of which this is just another example, would point to these assumptions being out enough to cause Tesla a problem.

    Classic, classic, classic mistake with these sorts of offers. Be it Chinese restaurants, voucher schemes, free holiday offers, you name it. Where you play the odds of take up, and get it wrong you catch a cold. Accounting history is littered with examples!
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    mknox
    Tesla has had a number of "it seemed like a good idea at the time" moments. Just look at the threads on new limits and fees on Ranger service.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Well, whatever it was, Elon has stated that the cost of Supercharging is built in to the price of the cars.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    Oba
    I'm not sure the vile is needed, as I don't believe anybody (even Tesla) has place any bonafide limit on Supercharge access, nor will they retroactively do so.

    Any change to the plan for Model S cars will be after XX date / serial number, and virtually nobody believes the same plan will be offered to other cars (however, I'd bet Model X will get the same plan).

    In the grand scheme of things, the 100,000 cars running around with grandfather "unlimited" plans will hopefully be small to the millions of Tesla cars on a different plan.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2015
    ZachShahan
    After going through 140 posts in this thread and saving a few to respond to, I have to respond to this one now before reading on. Yes, most of us here are fanbois and fangurls and even investors (I'm all three... but only #2 on Halloween ;D ). But there are huge issues here with this letter, and to brush it under the rug just because it does offend you personally is not really the ideal response, imho. Maybe it's partly because I work in the world of public communications, but I'd say most of my concern is that Tesla is now a huge company that should have better checks in place to guard against such things.

    Objectively, whether you think it should have or not, this letter pissed off a lot of Tesla owners... Tesla fanbois even! Because it accused them of doing something wrong that 1) doesn't apply to them, and 2) doesn't fit with the loose and strong promotion of the Superchargers provided for a long time.

    I agree that it was first of all a big error in the algorithm, which should have had enough checks in place (this is a Silicon Valley company, after all) to have not messed up so badly, and then was also a big error in the communications for not being more cautious in case the person receiving the email shouldn't have received it. Of course, the latter is slightly more forgivable since they obviously thought they were sending these letters to the right people.

    This is a mistake on a few levels, and given the repeated concerns from numerous people here about communications errors, I think it's well warranted to write what you wrote and encourage a big shift in this side of the business before it's "too late."

    TMC forum members are great at realizing things before the crowd, but when it is something negative, we should realize that the best response is to try to get the problematic pattern dealt with rather than infinitely forgive Tesla because we love the company, love Elon, love the mission, and love the vehicles. The mass market will not be so forgiving, and the result would be counterproductive.

    On to reading more responses here. And, yes, writing up a story, which is still forming in my head, for very influential fanboi sites that I know is followed by many more influential sites... which is one reason why I, for one, am exceedingly cautious about how I communicate and frame issues. The ideal, of course, is to help the world (or help society help itself, to be more direct).
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)