Apr 6, 2016
Haddock When I get my Model 3, I'd like to know that there will be a free slot at a supercharger when I need one for a long journey.
Here's a modest proposal to make sure superchargers are free for those doing long distance travel.
You can't charge up to more than 2x the distance between the supercharger and your home.
You can pay to charge more than that, but it's no cheaper than charging at home.�
Apr 6, 2016
cgiGuy I like the idea. "Home" is a place anyone can change though..�
Apr 6, 2016
deonb Over what period of time?�
Apr 6, 2016
FlasherZ Tesla has also said that Superchargers can be used locally where it is not possible to charge at home; this is especially needed in countries other than the US, but also includes those who have purchased a Tesla yet live in an apartment complex or a condo without the direct ability to install charging.
I've said it in other threads, but I don't believe that charging-at-scale will be exclusively Tesla. So while Tesla may suffer from charging congestion in Superchargers, there may/will be other entrants who offer charging at a nominal fee to cover the electricity. These entrants would be kept in check by Tesla's "free but congested" service; take your choice, wait in line or pay $5 for less congestion.
If I were an executive at a California energy company and/or some type of a chain of restaurants, given the Model 3 demand I'd be looking to have a conversation with Tesla about complementary (not complimentary) Supercharger charging networks.
Of course, Tesla could always double-down on its commitment to Supercharging, but quality will have to be increased exponentially -- for example, the St. Charles, MO supercharger has been dying for nearly 6 months now. It's a critical charging stop along I-70, yet Tesla just marks it out of commission in the cars and leaves you to figure out your own path. There will be continued pressure from stockholders (not that it really matters with the ownership profile) to manage the Supercharger asset a bit better.�
Apr 6, 2016
kort677 imposing conditions and rules are a slippery slope�
Apr 6, 2016
Haddock At any time. If you are 20 miles from home and you have more than 40 miles of charge in the battery, you can't charge for free.�
Apr 6, 2016
Haddock I would not be happy with a choice between free congested superchargers and third party non-free non-congested chargers. Superchargers have some big advantages for long distance travel that I don't think third parties will be able to match:
* Very fast charging - no other car can take this much power per minute
* No nonsense, cross-border charging - I don't need any RFID tag or membership to charge at a supercharger
As a Model 3 owner I will likely have to pay by the kWh anyway, which is fine, but if the Superchargers are congested that makes them (and thus the car) a lot less attractive.�
Apr 6, 2016
deonb So you mean in the lifetime of the Supercharger, if you've ever charged for more than 40 miles it will forever and always after be off limits to you after that time until you buy a new Model S?�
Apr 6, 2016
cgiGuy I think his point is, if you're able to make it home on your current charge (with a 2x the distance to your home "buffer") then it will not allow you to charge at a supercharger near your home. It would be telling you "go home.. you're good."�
Apr 6, 2016
FlasherZ I'm not talking today's charging networks. I agree with you there.
I'm talking about another supercharging network owned and operated by a third party rather than Tesla. That creatively gets around some of the conversations about Tesla saying Model S & X supercharging is "free forever" or whatever legal language they use to support it, and - let's face it - there are a lot of companies that are much better at managing operational scale than Tesla.
I've always believed that Tesla's Supercharger network was merely there to get refueling off the ground and when we saw much larger penetration that we would get the equivalent of the "gas station" for electricity that came at a cost. Unlike past charging station networks that tried charging $5/kWh on a level 2, Tesla's free stations would continue to exist and provide a balance (but the price you'd pay is time vs. a nominal fee). Most likely is a progressive energy company that owns infrastructure, but a large retail or restaurant chain with good business presence might be the dark horse in the battle.�
Apr 6, 2016
FlasherZ My Tesla account would be moving to a P.O. Box in northern Montana with a subscription mail forwarding service in that case.
That one's easy to get around.�
Apr 6, 2016
SmartElectric Restricting local use and dedicating supercharging for road trips seems obvious, till you have the scenario I had earlier this winter.
We travelled to a city 150 km from our house and stayed in a hotel.
Two days later, I needed to round trip 300 km in -15C temperatures in a 4 hour period to go home, attend to chores, and get back to the hotel later that evening.
If the rule would say "no supercharging when you are near your house and have enough charge to get home", then the trip would not have been possible in our only long distance car (my other is a Smart ED) as our garage has a 24A plug, which would require an all-night charge to get the range needed to round trip.
So, no rules can be easily gleaned that would prevent congestion and yet allow spur of the moment (or planned in my case) long distance travel.
We paid $2000 for the privilege of supercharging, and for a few dozen times a year we need it, we use it, no restrictions accepted.�
Apr 6, 2016
Panu Rules should never prevent charging because there are always special cases. But rules could make you pay for local supercharging.�
Apr 6, 2016
Haddock I think actually Tesla has a pretty good idea where you live.�
Apr 6, 2016
FlasherZ Sure - they *could* collect data on where the car is regularly and try to make a good educated guess. But it will be just that, an educated guess, and using that for the basis of a rule wouldn't be proper.�
Apr 6, 2016
sorka What if you're not going home but you're on your way out after leaving work for a long weekend at a destination far away????
It's unlikely Tesla will continue the free for life policy for future Model S's eventually. Even more likely that the 3 won't come with unlimited lifetime. Elon said it "comes with supercharging" but that doesn't mean free unlimited. It could very will not be free at all (unlikely), or free for a certain period or a certain number of kWh. It could also be that it won't be free for local charging around home but if you're truly on a long distance trip out of the area then it is free.
To the OP, the rule could be applied if you actually go home but charge more than you need but if you ended up not going home and straight on a long trip, then you wouldn't be charged for charging locally.
This would most likely completely elevate the congestion in SoCal as I'm certain 95% of the charging are repeated local chargers who either can't charge at home or don't want to to save money.�
Apr 6, 2016
SmartElectric Hmm, $2000 per Tesla S pays for a lot of infrastructure and electricity. The whole point of the higher margin Model S/X is to pay for the infrastructure to support the lower margin cars they intend to sell, that includes battery factory, paint shop and supercharging.�
Apr 6, 2016
ohmman I was with you in this thread until this post. I know you respect the efficacy of models, based on reading your posts around here. Surely you think they could develop a solid model and use that as their basis. I mean, they know where you live. Where do you charge your vehicles overnight most regularly? There are exceptions, and no models are right, but surely this one would be pretty accurate.
Not that I agree with the proposal. I don't. I think Tesla has flexibility in what they do. They're holding their cards close because they don't know what's on them. Don't make any promises, give away free Supercharging for the first year (or more, or less) of rollout, and see how things look. Then decide. I think if indeed there is dramatic congestion, pay to charge will be helpful. I don't know how helpful.�
Apr 6, 2016
CHG-ON I know that what I am going to say is terribly selfish and most likely unpopular. But I'll say it anyway.
After paying 121K for my car, which included a 2K fee for supercharging, I would be pissed if the M3 had the same access to SCs as I do. I do expect that this will happen. But buying the car for so much, taking such a huge risk on new tech and an unproven company due to my belief in their mission, and then not being able to charge because the sites are clogged with tons of cars, I would feel completely ripped off.
I absolutely do think that M3s should be able to charge at SCs. However, based on the low price of the car, compared with we early adopters, I would hope that Tesla would create a program where it might not be as attractive to an M3 as it is to an MS or MX.
Yes. I know that this is a VERY slippery slope and I do not envy Tesla in trying to figure this out because M3 drivers also deserve excellent access to charging. Just as much as the "fancier" cars. I do not know the answer to this issue and I hope they can figure it out. The real solution is to have charging be as ubiquitous as gas stations. I can't even fathom the cost for them to reach that saturation. Perhaps if other automakers and energy companies open their eyes to the future, this issue can be solved in a relatively short period of time. I can't imagine that Tesla can afford to build a large enough SC network to support 500K of their own cars being produced annually. I don't have a lot of optimism here...
I am not a local charger. I charge at home 90% of the time.
I apologize for sounding like a snob and a pessimist.�
Apr 6, 2016
David99 Well, so far Tesla has been able to keep up with demand pretty well. Existing stations can be upgraded easily. Telsa knows how many cars they sell and build more stations accordingly. It has worked so far and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't continue the same way in the near future. Only the mega metro areas like Los Angeles see some congestion here and there. The problem isn't as big as some people think it is.�
Apr 6, 2016
Wshowell I had an idea as well about the Model 3 arriving and then Model S and X owners getting shut out from what they have grown accustomed to. Let's say Tesla takes an 8 SC location and turns that into 16 to help with the Model 3 surge. The legacy models S and X could charge at all 16 but the model 3s could only charge at the 8 new ones (software would limit access to the model 3 owners during peak periods or always) During times of congestion the legacy owners would have access to the legacy and the new chargers and wouldn't be delayed/resentful of the model 3 owners. The model 3 owners would be stuck waiting but that's kinda how it goes when one flies "coach" and knew that going into the purchase itself. As a future owner of both S and 3 I would feel this was a reasonable accommodation for what has been promised to buyers of each model.�
Apr 6, 2016
mikeash That would be ridiculous. What if I've done a bunch of driving, got home, then decided to drive to Richmond? As it stands now, I can hit the Woodbridge Supercharger and be on my way with no sweat. With your proposal, Woodbridge would limit me to 50 miles of range, insufficient to get to Richmond, so I'd be forced to pay, or slow charge at home. I've never done this, but I'm definitely glad that I could. This is totally legitimate usage which shouldn't get caught up in the quest to deter abuse.�
Apr 6, 2016
Canuck This is a fine proposal if you posted in the Model 3 forum to apply to the Model 3. Since my car came with free Supercharging for travel for the life of the car, I'd consider it a breach of contract. We sometime go down to the States to shop before going to our cabin in southern BC; so our travels take us to a supercharger in Burlington, WA, then back past our home to the supercharger in Hope, BC. According to this proposal, I couldn't make it to Hope. So all hope is lost!�
Apr 6, 2016
David99 Supercharger access was $2000. If it costs $2000 to get Supercharger access on a Model 3 then both have equal right to access Superchargers. How much the rest of the car costs doesn't matter.�
Apr 6, 2016
sorka There's not guessing about it. My Tesla knows exactly where I live. The Nav has my "home" and it know the GPS coordinates of my homelink.
Tesla could simply determine after the fact if the charge you needed near your house was acutally needed or not. If you charge locally and then take off on a long trip, it doesn't count as local charging.
Heck, you could even charge at the SC and then go home and pack your bag and take off. If you left before you could have charge with your HPWC high enough for the trip, then even the SC charge doesn't count. If however, you supercharge and then head home and stay home and don't leave within a few hours, then that counts as abuse of the system and then you should be charged.
I would be fine with that rule being applied retroactively even to me. Now if I'm planning a trip and then something comes up and I can't leave and I just go home and stay home, then I'd be willing to pay the extra $5 or whatever it was since it's unlikely to happen more than once a year or so.�
Apr 7, 2016
FlasherZ I think it is a dangerous statement: Yeah, I'm angry too that my Mustang has to share time at the same gas stations as those damn Chevettes.
I do understand your point of view, but I think early SuperCharging gave us that... I look at it differently.
I look at it as just refueling. It's important they manage the capacity model - even with a higher density. Good news is that the rest of the country should be ok for a while, but California will be a-hurtin'.
And perhaps the fact Model S and X will be free supercharging vs. paid for Model 3 will be the differentiator.�
Apr 7, 2016
FlasherZ Something like this would be ripe for a challenge, so if they want to place terms & conditions on something they'd better make sure they get it right. You're right, with creative wording they could probably do something, but it would not be called "home" but would be called "the place where your car spends most of its time idle" or some-such language. If you have two homes you drive between, it'd be interesting to see how that might be handled.�
Apr 7, 2016
FlasherZ Yes, and all I need to do is program the "home" link in the nav to be northern Montana, and program my first homelink while on a roadtrip using an old garage door opener.
I don't have a dog in the fight, my nearest SC is 65 miles to my west, 100 miles to the north, and 80 miles to the east. I just see a lot of risk in trying to establish a customer policy around "home", given what we've already seen. I know people are tired of locals clogging SC's, but in each case there are some people who have a need (condos, apartments, etc.)�
Apr 7, 2016
ViperDoc I have a Model S with supercharging. I don't mind that Model 3 will get SC as part of the base sticker price. I don't feel if Model S "paid" for it as an option, then Model 3 should have to pay for it as an option. It has simply been rolled into the base price, and everyone is paying for it now. If I paid for the option and can still use the SC free, then I am getting what I paid for. If Model 3 buys the car with that feature standard, they get what they pay for. Complaining that I paid for something and then a few years later someone gets a "better deal" because it is included is like complaining that when I bought my computer I had to pay extra for the SSD drive that now comes as a standard feature for a new buyer.�
Apr 7, 2016
LetsGoFast LOL. I was going to post more or less the same use case in reverse.
Another one sort of all depends on meal times. If I leave home at 90% or even 100%, I can't safely make it straight through to Newark, but if I stop at Richmond (25 miles from my house) and top off while I grab a sandwich at Q, I can. The problem is that for almost every single rule you can imagine, there is some non-abusive use case that could be proposed.�
Apr 7, 2016
sorka Home is where ever you park your MS overnight at a residential address most of the the time. Tesla can easily figure this out. I never programmed my home location. Did my MS figure it out from frequency or is it because I gave Tesla my home address when I purchased the car?�
Apr 7, 2016
FlasherZ When I received Model X, neither "home" nor "work" were populated. After a few days, Tesla suggested that I accept a home address - it looks for a place you are at more frequently. But I can erase that and re-enter an address. (Note that I've had a loaner suggest to me a different address -- a place I had driven to three times in two days.)�
Apr 7, 2016
sorka I agree but I'd change the way you look at this. I'd be pissed if Tesla doesn't scale supercharger access proportionally to the number of vehicles they produces * (a charging constant for the the rate of vehicle charging / mile).
If tesla wants to produce a lot of cars that take longer to charge per mile, they'll need to scale up the SCs to compensate. So I'd say I'd be pissed if they don't scale this and we have waits in the future when we don't now (for the most part).
They'll need to figure out how to charge the smaller batteries faster because if they don't, the incremental cost of each slower charging / mile car will add a disproportionate burden to their infrastructure costs which they can't take on because the 3 will already have way lower margins per vehicle vs the MSs 25% margin. If they don't address this one way or another, we'll start seeing more and more congestion.
Tesla is going to need to take a different approach to picking SC sites. They're going to need to take a "if we build it they will come" approach by buying up mall sized lots and developing much larger supercharger access and then leasing out the mall spaces to companies that deal with developing shopping malls or rest areas or whatever. Tesla will need to get into the landlord business because the easy spots have mostly been taken already unless they're willing to scale up and go big.�
Apr 7, 2016
mikeash It's hard to write rules for vague notions like "abuse." That's why I think the wisest course of action would be to just charge money, if the goal is to get people to limit their usage. None of this "if within X miles of home" or anything like that, just make it consistent. My guess is that the 3 will come with some sort of charge-for-use access with a nominal fee similar to the actual cost of electricity, just to deter abuse. Possibly some sort of all-you-can-eat option for $$$, like the Model S 60 had. I imagine the S and X will continue to have unlimited access included with purchase, as suits their "premium" pricing. And who knows, maybe the 3 will include unlimited access and Tesla will just build out the network like crazy to make it work.
I think some people here look at this with a mindset that's far too punitive. Stopping abuse is merely a means to an end, which is to sell more cars by keeping owners happy and allowing them to make long trips. Anything which stops abuse but even might get in the way or annoy non-abusive owners is going to be counterproductive.�
Apr 7, 2016
Lloyd I can see the time soon when every town will WANT to and REQUEST to have a supercharger to attract the shopping, restaurant and tax dollars. Five hundred thousand model 3's per year will make a difference to press for more places to charge!�
Apr 7, 2016
MSullivan What if you have no intention of going straight home and indeed it is out of your way to go home before you continue the rest of your errands?�
Apr 14, 2016
ToddRLockwood Tesla has stated for some time that Superchargers are intended for long-distance travel, not for daily local charging. While Tesla does not use a specific formula to identify drivers who overuse the Superchargers, they will notify owners who use a Supercharger on a daily basis who could just as easily charge at home. Superchargers are not intended to be a replacement for home charging for those living in apartments. While Tesla has not offered any specifics, daily charging at a Supercharger could accelerate degradation of the battery.�
Apr 14, 2016
sorka Agree 100%. But the problem is way too many prospective buyers who ended up buying were told by their sales reps that using the SCs to charge when you live in an apartment was fine. Additionally, Tesla's language used to be "when charging at home was not convenient" or some such. They later changed it to long distance travel.
But with most of the SC usage in SoCal being locals who either can't charge at home or won't in order to save money, something has to change because the system is being abused.
Tesla has many ways they can figure out who's abusing the system. If an MS is parked every night in at a residential address that isn't an a multi unit dwelling and they're only charging at SCs and then going home to that address and parking there night after night, then they are abusing the system and Tesla should eventually charge them for charging or cut them for local charging only.
Yes there will be exceptions like the times you head out of town on a trip and wouldn't have had enough time to charge at home. If Tesla charges money to charge only after you charge and then head home and stay there all night, then folks will think twice about using the SC just to save money.�
Apr 14, 2016
sorka Risk from a customer relations standpoint, I agree. Risk from incorrectly determining where home is, no. If you park night after night at the same residential location that isn't a multi unit dwelling, that is your home. Tesla can wait a good while before their systems determine this. Like maybe once you've parked at the same house for more than a month at least 5 days a week. And BTW, when I visit someone for days at their house, like on a trip, you can bet that each and every time at the very least I have a regular 15 amp extension cord plugged in. I always offer to pay whomever it is for kWh used and I always get the laugh off like a few days is going to make a difference on their bill.�
Apr 14, 2016
FlasherZ We're talking about this in a programmatic fashion. You made some assumptions in that paragraph -- "residential location" and "that isn't a multi unit dwelling". How does the car know whether it's residential, commercial, or industrial? and how does the car know whether it is at a multi-unit dwelling?
My point was that it's not easy to program for these things. You can make assumptions that same location frequently during night hours == residence, but then it amplifies the customer relationship standpoint and then you need to anticipate all sorts of exception processes, policies, etc.
What if I live in a loft apartment that shares the top floors of a building that is also an office building? What if I work the night shift and my location looks reversed? How will the systems automatically determine this without it being a customer relationship liability to Tesla and an additional cost factor in maintaining a team that goes to verify this stuff?�
Apr 14, 2016
sorka None of those conditions apply to an MS that is parked in a driveway or a garage of a residential address. They could exclude the hard to tell cases when a house is next to or even near an office building. My car not only knows that I'm on my own property but it has me within 3 feet of where I am in my garage without fail. It's never wrong.
There are all kinds of corner cases that Tesla can exclude from automatic abuse tagging but 50% of them will be the guy that's supercharging and then parking at home on a full tank all night....night after night. The other 50% won't be so obvious or will be in multi unit dwellings, or will be the guy who lives in a residential loft downtown and is not parked in a driveway or garage of a residential address. Tesla can let those slide.�
Apr 14, 2016
ohmman Those are all valid questions, but I don't think it's as hard as you're making it seem. Once you have a model, you can tweak your cutoffs to limit false positives. For example (and this is kind of the inverse, but you'll get the idea), I met a guy from Nigeria at NIPS. Infant asphyxia is a leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality there. Because they don't have monitoring equipment in most of the hospitals (not to mention very limited electricity), they haven't had a way to deal with this issue. The guy I met received a grant to do work taking the sound of infants' cries and correlating them with their risk of asphyxia. He trained his model on tens of thousands of cases out of Mexico and was looking to apply them to Nigeria. The system ran as a native Android app, which worked very well because cell phones are ubiquitous in Nigeria. They were able to achieve 100% precision in identifying infants at risk of imminent asphyxia. They did so by permitting alerts on false positives as well - because in this case, unless every cry is a positive signal, even a relatively high level of false positives is a worthwhile cost.
My point is that Tesla could build a model (which would be much less complex than determining potential death due to vocal cries, btw), and set it up only to target cases that have a very high confidence level. Sure, they'd miss some true positives, but minimizing false positives would keep customers from being unfairly targeted.�
Apr 14, 2016
FlasherZ But you're missing my point...
I'm asking how you programatically determine that it's "parked in a driveway" ? Do Tesla's servers pull Google maps and look for a driveway? Does Tesla have a database that knows which addresses are residential or business?
When you say that "Tesla knows I'm on my own property" - how does it know that you own your property and that it's not owned by your parents, or a trust,? And how do they attach it to you as the driver of the car? What if the car is owned in trust, as mine is?
I'm asking how Tesla automatically determines this. My point is that it's extremely difficult to come up with a plan that will not piss off a bunch of people. I hear you saying that they should just make some assumptions that if a car spends more than x% of nights at a single location, just assume it's their home -- but that doesn't work!
And just by way of example, in Tesla's first communication, they didn't get it right and pissed off a bunch of people -- just check out the thread about letters going to supercharger users. I know several in St. Louis who were wrongly tagged -- and they do charge at their single-family residences every single night.�
Apr 14, 2016
FlasherZ Ahh, and that's the big difference!
No parent is going to argue with intervention activity for a false positive when it comes to the life of his/her child, especially when the upside is so high and the downside is minimal. In addition, the problem you state is a simpler one (although more life-critical) -- a single factor (vocal cry) comes into play.
In the Tesla case, it involves a much greater complexity -- and my point is simple: how can Tesla reliably determine what is a person's home? Today, I suppose that we can consider a greater majority of Tesla customers today are people who have a daily job on a business-day basis and sleep in a single-family home -- it's easy to make assumptions then: if a car shows up in the same place for 60% or more of nights, then consider it a home. But fast-forward to Model 3... do more live in apartments? do more work the night shift? are homes co-mingled with business so that it's not understood?
I'm not arguing that they couldn't make those assumptions and be right even 90% of the time... I think they could, just on a very simple algorithm. But I'm arguing the impact from the 10% - 5% - or even 1% who would be wrongly accused of being an abuser is too much downside and that your ability to identify these abusers must be near-perfect.
For Tesla, it's 95% downside if they have a false positive, with the only upside being that "arriving at a supercharger gives you a greater chance to have a stall available for your use". That's nothing compared to the downside: the customer gets pissed off if they're being accused of being a local abuser; or worse yet, they can't charge because the system locked them out - can you imagine the headlines published when I can't get to my dad's hospital bedside in time because the supercharger miscalculated where my home was located and it disallowed me charging or clamped me down to L2 charging rates? My ICE wouldn't have that problem!
So, how can Tesla determine with nearly perfect precision (99.9%) where someone's "home" is, considering all these factors?�
Apr 14, 2016
ohmman My point was that you can do the inverse - you can tweak confidence levels so that you're only alerting on the ones for which you're very confident. I can imagine a model that only identifies one guy who is obviously abusing the system. It wouldn't generalize well, but I can imagine it, and it would have 100% precision. So start backing that away and reach a model that generalizes.
Also, just to be clear - a vocal cry is not a single factor (though it is to us). To a model, it's a very complicated feature set. Without looking at it, I can't say, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a larger feature set than the set of factors going into a Supercharger abuse model.�
Apr 14, 2016
sorka This data exists widely in both private and public form. It's part of the census records. It's part of the public property records that countless companies scrape to provide big data to companies like Zillow, real estate, insurance, utility, and marketing companies.
Heck, I can enter a GPS coordinate into google maps, pull an adddress from that and then enter it into Zillow and get the dwelling type, square footage, etc.�
Apr 14, 2016
FlasherZ So I tried that on a few addresses that I know of...
First my home: It appears to be pulling data from a database of county property tax record cards (like almost every other public/private database), because I recognized the same errors in their listing that I had to correct about 8 years ago with the county (so the data is woefully out of date). That said, it doesn't reflect that this is also the address of a business.
I then gave Google Maps GPS coordinates for my sister's carport as measured by my phone's GPS receiver (which shows up properly on the map, so there's no sense error). Google Maps identified the address as the school across the street - and, unfortunately, no record in Zillow.
It did successfully find my brother's home address and classified it properly as a home. It doesn't seem to know whether there's a business operating there, though.
It found my parents' home address but didn't know of the business operating from there.
It did not have a record for our hunting lodge, where I park overnight every other weekend or so.
Finally, I tried a case that would be fairly interesting - it's a professional services business that used to be a home but was converted about 10 years ago or so, and sits in a residential area. Zillow had no record of the address at all, much less the ability to tell me home/business differences.
My home - Address Found Properly? Y Identified Home? Y Identified Business? N
My brother's home - Y / Y / NA
My sister's home - N / N / N
My parents' home - Y / Y / N
Hunting lodge - N / N / N
Tax business - N / N / N
Unfortunately, it's not looking good for a 99.9% rate, or even a 90% rate.�
Apr 14, 2016
sorka If's it an actual residential address that you're parking your MS at overnight every night or most night, then it doesn't matter if there's a business also be run from there.
I've used google maps hundreds of times to right click "what's here" on houses and business's and it's NEVER been wrong. Not once. Perhaps you're phone GPS is not as accurate as you think.
That's what I would expect.
Same answer as your home above. If you supercharge at superchargers and then park at home every night where you could charge but choose not to, do you think you should be excluded because you also run a business from there?
And what's the problem with this? You would be tagged as an abuser by Tesla even if this was your place of residence. It would be a false negative, not positive.
I checked over 3 dozen friends and families places of residences in California, Washington, Arizona, and Missouri. Google maps identified the correct address when I found it by by arial and clicked "what's here" and Zillow correctly identified the dwelling type for each and every one of them. So I see 100%. It's fine if the system could only exclude 50% of the abusers do to false negatives but excluding 50% of the abusers would go a long ways.�
Apr 14, 2016
ToddRLockwood Last fall, I spoke at length with a member of the supercharger team about this. The warning emails are not generated by an automated system. There are human beings involved, and as I mentioned previously, there is not a specific formula used. Apparently, frequency is a bigger factor than geography. In other words, if you charge now and again at a supercharger near your home, it's not likely to trigger an email. But if Tesla notices that your home charging has dropped to zero and you're using the same supercharger day in and day out, that's more of a problem.
Say you have a daily 120-mile commute, and you stop at the same supercharger every day along the route. As long as you are also plugging in at home in the evening, I don't believe Tesla would consider this a problem.�
Apr 14, 2016
FlasherZ Then they were *really* bad at what they did. A local St. Louis couple got an e-mail after only THREE uses of the supercharger in their car over a few months - and they had been charging nightly at home.�
Apr 14, 2016
FlasherZ I pointed out some cases where your solution wasn't working, and you say that it's my fault somehow.
My best to you.�
Apr 14, 2016
TaoJones Sigh.
Once again, with emphasis upon the last paragraph: What wasn't said.
Further, note that Tesla has committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE for almost two years now.�
Apr 14, 2016
Ben W I think that by far the most effective solution to all this would be to implement per-minute charging for the Model 3. (Say $0.25/min). This is still cheaper than gas for roadtrips, while encouraging proper use: not supercharging beyond what you need, particularly not trickle-charging above 90% unless you really need it, and certainly not staying plugged in after charging is finished.
If Tesla wanted to further incentivize long distance vs local supercharging, they could waive the fee if the car were driven 100mi+ within a 24h window of supercharging. (So if I first drive 100mi and then plug in at a SC at my destination to recharge, that's also ok.) Staying plugged in after charging would of course always be billed. This system would make most "legitimate" uses of supercharging free, while penalizing abuse in a firm but not onerous way, and it properly handles nearly all the cases I've thought of. Can you think of a counterexample? (Commercial uses such as taxis exempt of course.)
If selective adjustment/waiving of fees were considered, the other advantage of basing it purely on mileage rather than location is that it is much less invasive: Tesla doesn't need to know where you are or where you live for the system to work, just how many times the wheels have spun.�
Apr 14, 2016
WarpedOne Complications to fix issues because of complications.
Yes, that surely works.
There is one simple and right solution: build more superchargers.
To costly? Charge bigger upfront payment.
Is upfront payment getting to high? Change it into annual package.
Just don't go the beancounters way.�
Apr 14, 2016
Ben W Getting billed at home for the number of gallons of water you use? That's too complicated. It should be an upfront flat fee for as much water as you can suck out of the pipes. Upfront payment too high? Make it an annual package.
See the problem? Yeah, me too.
Not just trying to be snarky here. The overuse of the resource will have to be baked into the cost of each and every SC-enabled Model 3, which in a price-conscious marketplace could wind up hurting Tesla quite a lot. For the Model 3 in particular, Tesla has every reason to keep supercharging access as economical as possible, and all-you-can-eat access is quite possibly the worst way to do that.�
Apr 15, 2016
EVie'sDad Put your mind at ease...
"FREE FOR LIFE IS SUSTAINABLE"
Submitted by SamO on April 14, 2016 (source "FREE FOR LIFE IS SUSTAINABLE" | Tesla Motors)
Tesla Vice-President of Business Development Diarmuid O�Connell was in Amsterdam yesterday for the AVERE E-mobility Conference. The long-time Tesla executive, and one of the company�s first 50 employees, gave a short presentation before doing a Q&A with the audience.
A few nuggets:
Supercharging - Free Forever is sustainable.
Tesla wants to provide off the shelf solutions to other OEMs for batteries and other EV parts.
Tesla has a 3-3.5 year product cycle, about half the industry average.
Evolution of Net Metering going to make storage more viable and interesting.
V2G depends on development at the utilities. Currently at "smart charging" but eventually to arbitrage.
Tesla product line increase is coming beyond Model 3 including a truck.
Great story is shaping up in the China Destination Charging program.
Approaching 400,000 people have put down their reservation.
Video link in excellent article by Electrek.co
Tesla Vice President says Model 3 reservations are �approaching 400,000�, real success will be delivery�
Apr 15, 2016
Ben W Well, let's take a look at what Diarmuid O'Connell actually said (and thank you for the link btw, fascinating video):
So to me, this reads that for the time being, within the luxury high-profit Model S/X segment, the free-for-life model is sustainable (which it is). He is certainly not promising or even hinting that this will remain the case for the Model 3; in fact my take is that he's actually strongly hinting the opposite. So I stand by my assessment that Tesla is overwhelmingly likely to change the SC pricing structure for the Model 3 to pay-per-use. They may initially try to keep it unlimited for the loaded high-profit configurations (as they originally did with the Model S 85 vs 60), but I would be quite surprised if they offer it unlimited with the base configuration, even as a pay-upfront option.�
Apr 15, 2016
ToddRLockwood Sounds like somebody messed up, or there's a glitch in the system that identifies possible abusers.
As an early Model S owner, I can attest that Tesla understated the Supercharger usage rules when the charging stations first appeared. Perhaps they hadn't recognized the problem yet. Their "superchargers are for long distance travel" wording came later.�
Apr 15, 2016
ToddRLockwood On a technical note, it would make more sense to charge based on energy delivered, not the charging time, since the charging rate is not always the same. This is how ChargePoint operates.
Tesla spent a good deal of time studying driving habits of both electric and gasoline car owners before deciding on the pay-upfront-free-charging approach they currently utilize. They continue to gather data from the current vehicle fleet. What they have found is that the average Model S owner does the vast majority of their charging at home at night�somewhere north of 95%, I suspect. The Model S has a roughly $2,000 surcharge built into the cost of the vehicle which is used to pay for the superchargers, both the infrastructure and the energy. For a while, this fee was an option on the entry level Model S. Now it's just part of the vehicle price.
No question that the Model 3 will present some new challenges in terms of volume of vehicles, and the increased likelihood that the owner resides in rental housing where charging is not readily available. But I don't believe that charging for energy at the superchargers is the answer. Instead, I would prefer a more specific policy on supercharger usage.�
Apr 15, 2016
FlasherZ I'm one of the Sig folks too... I always understood Supercharging to be for long distance travel, but I also agree with you that they didn't quite expect the power of "free". They didn't expect the amount of local freeloading that they ended up getting -- and that's understandable from an economic point of view. Someone making $250/hour in the bay area going 5-10 minutes out of their way to drive to the Supercharger and sit for 30 minutes, all to avoid $15 in electricity costs seems insane; but it's well documented that people will distort reality for the word "free".�
Apr 15, 2016
AB4EJ Everybody has a different view on this. IMHO, $2k for supercharging is fine for just access to the network; I would not mind paying for the electricity at prevailing rates (12 cents per khw - would be a reasonable off-peak cost, and still less than gasoline). The main problem we need to head off is congestion at superchargers due to large volumes of new Teslas coming on the roads. I like the model of paying more during peak hours (this to include peak electricity demand and peak SC demand). If I have to use the SC because I'm on a trip, I don't mind paying more; meanwhile people who have the flexibility to charge during off-hours could save money by going to SC during periods of less demand. This would even out the congestion at the SC. Think like an economist.�
Apr 15, 2016
ohmman That's been the situation in portions of California's Central Valley (including some of Sacramento) for some time. You can see how that worked out.�
Apr 15, 2016
Ben W Actually, most ChargePoint stations implement time-based billing, not kWh-based billing, at least where I live. A spot check in Los Angeles shows that nearly all non-free stations charge by the minute/hour, some with heavy penalties after the first couple hours. In fact, in many regions, reselling electricity per kWh is illegal, so time-based metering is the only option. FWIW, ChargePoint L2 chargers can typically provide 6kW, but most Chevy Volts can only accept 3kW; should Volts get a 50% discount per hour for clogging up the charging stations twice as long?
Billing per minute solves all this nicely: it incentivizes responsible SC use (charging near the bottom of the pack, not taking more than you need, not trickle-charging or leaving the car plugged in afterward). It also has "peak pricing" built into it, since the charge rate slows down somewhat when all the stalls are in use.
By contrast, charging per kWh doesn't address abuse and might actually make it worse. Charging per kWh wouldn't prevent someone from leaving their car plugged in after it's done charging. (Or if non-charging time is billed per-minute but charging time is not, it would incentivize users to trickle-charge to 100% to avoid the stall-hogging fees if they're off doing something else, which would be bad for the battery.)
Can you clarify what specific policy you'd like to see, and how it should be enforced?�
Apr 15, 2016
Ulmo Ok, a better rough rule could be you have to drive far away from a supercharger you used, or else your supercharging isn't free. Home doesn't even enter the equation.�
Apr 16, 2016
Lerxt Wouldn't work where I'm living!�
Apr 19, 2016
Bobbyducati maybe this was already mentioned, but why not set up 1 or 2 SC per location as a pay per use. this would make it more likely that there will at least be one free station open (notice i said "more likely") and if people are paying per use at that particular SC, they will be more likely to get out faster, and thus freeing up a station. This allows people in a real time crunch to reduce wait times, and also can reduce potential abuse during peak times. make it something like 10-20c a minute or what not. you still provide free SCing, but also help reduce wait times and abuse.�
Apr 22, 2016
Boatguy Speaking strictly about the US market...
1) Owners are expected to have a charging facility at home.
- for owner's who do not have a charger at home (apt, condo, etc.) there is an incentive for someone to provide EV parking with charging (similar to how parking is sold in NY).
2) Can we agree that Superchargers exist primarily to support owners who are away from home, and secondarily as a backup or "charger of last resort" for everyone?
3) Can we agree that if you are within 50 miles of home, you are not "away from home"?
Then I propose:
A) For owner's away from home (i.e., greater than 50 miles), Supercharger's remain free as has always been the intent.
B) For Superchargers not "away" from an owner's home, I suggest an allowance of 100kWh per year for free (roughly 300miles of juice).
- if you're on the last leg coming home, or get caught out and need juice, you can get enough to get home.
C) For usage above the 100kWh allowance, the owner is charged 3x the local peak rate for residential electricity.
- if you've got a problem, you can get a charge, but there is no economic incentive to regular charging at a nearby Supercharger.
Then Tesla's task is to build sufficient Superchargers so that all "touring" owners will be able to quickly charge and get back on the highway, not much different than pulling into a gas station and filling the tank. 150-200kW is good rate of charge that would put an 80% (arrive at 10%, depart at 90%) charge in a 100kWh battery in about half an hour.
The existence of such a network would give Tesla an overwhelming competitive advantage against other car manufacturers who are relying on someone else to build out shared CCS/CHAdeMO networks.
It would be death for Tesla if it became a common occurrence to encounter a queue at a Supercharger. If Supercharger's are not readily available, like a gas pump, they, and the car, have dramatically less value. They are similar to having an account with 100,000 frequent flyer miles that can't be used due to blackouts, they are effectively worthless.�
Apr 23, 2016
cpa Boat, I hear you. But I really do not think this solution is practical, cost efficient or sensible. One reason is that Superchargers on the touchscreen report distance from your location "as the crow flies." Fifty miles as the crow flies could easily be much longer on actual roads. Second, no one is going to monitor their "local 100kWh/year" usage restriction. Third, Tesla is not going to want to suffer adverse publicity for a complicated set up. Finally, there is an increasing number of Superchargers that are clustered. For example, there are three bunched up in Hawthorne, Culver City and Redondo Beach. It is easily possible that two of them are <50 miles away, but the third is 52 miles away from a local residing in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.
I agree that there will always small-time chiselers who want to get something for nothing. They will plan a lunch, shopping, or worse, take in a movie. The best way to handle this would be for Tesla to contact them by telephone and ask if they have a problem charging at home. A 5-minute phone call from a trained human being (not a robot) to explain Tesla's position and concern that others might not be able to utilize the SC network will probably alleviate 80% of the miscreants. The remaining 20% or so will just be the cost of doing business.�
Apr 23, 2016
bfukumoto I rarely charge at a Supercharger since I have a HPWC at home and don't take long road trips as my MS is a daily commuter. But today we took a 210 mile trip and I charged to top off to provide margin on the way home. Got there just in time as there were 4 open stalls. When I got back, all stalls were taken and another MS waiting.
�
Apr 23, 2016
EVie'sDad I don't know anyone making even close to that per hour! But by that same distorted view, you suggest that if you don't make that much, then it's 'ok' to take advantage of the SC? When those who live in residences that don't have charging options available (apartments, condo's, and the like) who don't work for employers who permit charging while working, that their only options will be to use the SC, and being that most owners vying for the Model 3 will be middle income buyers. They will be using the SC services, like it or not. Let's hope the construction of destination & expansion of the SC network keeps pace with those demands.�
Apr 23, 2016
FlasherZ I didn't say that, nowhere near that at all.
I said that "free" tends to distort economics. That's it, a simple reminder.�
Apr 23, 2016
TaoJones Tesla committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE almost 2 years ago. They have also been quoted to the effect that the SC business model is fine through 1,000,000 cars, and that the free SC model in particular is sustainable.
Those of us who bought in good faith in part due to the above commitments do not appreciate efforts to the contrary and in particular to create some kind of hinky pay per use model.
Two-thirds of dwellings in the US have garages. Put another way, garages outnumber gas stations 400:1.
The vast majority of Model S/X owners do not use SCs. The majority of M3 owners won't either.
This does not have to be complicated.�
Apr 23, 2016
brianman Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia�
Apr 24, 2016
dgpcolorado If you are suggesting that the vast majority of S/X owners don't use Superchargers on a regular or daily basis, I agree. If you are suggesting that the vast majority of S/X owners don't use Superchargers ever, I am highly skeptical of such a claim.�
Apr 24, 2016
kort677 I agree, it isn't a vast majority of people who never have used a SpC but I bet the numbers run between .25 and .33 percent of owners have never supercharged. with a car that gets 250 miles of range coupled with the ability to home charge many people never have the need to go to a SpC�
Apr 24, 2016
TaoJones Fortunately, "ever" remains irrelevant in the context of supercharger utilization or, in particular, with regard to the mythical notion of congestion that does not affect 97% of SCs today.
Tesla's commitment to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE will stay ahead of the demand curve nicely. As well, one might consider that garages outnumber gas stations 400:1 and that 2/3 of US abodes include a garage.
Of course, if one wants to be a contrarian and focus upon only greater metropolitan areas, the numbers change.�
Apr 24, 2016
ViperDoc Hi Boat,
I can agree with some of this. I certainly agree that the primary purpose of superchargers is to allow Tesla owners to make long distance trips. However, I am pretty sure Musk has said that they are also a means for people in housing circumstances that don't allow personal chargers (eg, some apartments and condos) to keep their cars charged. I would not turn those folks away. I think that people with homes should, as a general rule, keep away from SC except when traveling�at least when the SC are close to full.
DJ�
Apr 24, 2016
calisnow You missed his point entirely, sorry. He was simply saying that despite the fact that it is irrational behavior for someone whose time is very valuable economically to spend time sitting around at superchargers people do so anyway. The word "free" has the demonstrable effect of distorting rational preferences.�
Apr 24, 2016
ZBB No� We cannot agree on that.
There are 3 Superchargers within a 50 mile radius of my house. None are close enough to use for daily use. I have used all 3 during road trips.
Let's use the closest one as an example -- Cordes Lakes, AZ. Its just under 40 miles from my house. While I can make it to the Flagstaff Supercharger from my house without stopping at Cordes (we did it once before Cordes was built), a ~15-20 min boost charge at Cordes makes the climb up to Flagstaff much easier. For reference, I have a 60 -- and while the Flagstaff Supercharger is only 129 miles to my house, there is a net elevation gain of over 5000 feet, and it takes ~190 rated miles to make it up the hill. The time we made it, we drove exactly the speed limit (which meant we were the slowest car on the road -- I-17 traffic flows at 80-85 (5-10 over the limit). With a boost charge in Cordes, I can drive with the flow of traffic and have no worries about making Flag.
As for Supercharging overcrowding, in my experience its not an issue at most superchargers. I've supercharged 66 times now -- with all except one being on road trips; the other was an impromptu ribbon cutting for a new Supercharger. I've only seen a queue twice -- both right after TMC Connect ended. The Supercharger site was full or nearly full (1 spot left) only 4 other times -- all in California. Tesla is adding capacity in CA, and I'm OK with their messaging to abusers (although it sounds like they need to refine their triggers a little bit�)�
Apr 24, 2016
Boatguy So with about 70,000 MS's sold in the US through Q1 2016, some SCs are already full. Let's say MS + MX double that through 2017. Then let's say M3 double's that in 2018. Two and a half years from now there are 4x as many potential SC users as today. If the current utilization model is representative of the future, then Tesla has a couple of years to quadruple the number of SCs that it has deployed in the last four years.
I just don't see how the current model will work without some reasonable rationing (in the economic use of the word) to support the original and ongoing intent of the SC network.�
Apr 24, 2016
dgpcolorado Not so, that's not how queuing theory works. At the present time a huge majority of Supercharger Stations can be considered "underutilized". (For example, here in Colorado and Utah I have yet to see a station with more than two cars, one of which was mine.) The total population of Tesla cars could increase substantially and they would need little, if any, expansion.
This means that once the general Supercharger network along long distance travel routes is built out, the continued building or expansion of stations can be focused on areas that are seeing congestion. Therefore, a quadrupling of cars does not need a quadrupling of Superchargers. There are models that can be used to predict the most efficient way to expand the network, but it certainly won't need to be increased at the same rate as sales of cars.�
Apr 24, 2016
calisnow FWIW, in your example I don't think Tesla would need to quadruple the number of superchargers overall because many superchargers don't see much use. However some of them they may need quadruple (or even quintuple) - I was in Rancho Cucamonga last night around 6:00 pm - 13 of the 14 stalls were occupied (including me). In that particular location there appears to be plenty of room to quadruple the spots if they need to.�
Apr 24, 2016
Boatguy Point taken. Perhaps it's 4x the number of stalls as opposed to SC sites.�
Apr 24, 2016
Boatguy I think it's reasonable to assume that with the MX and then the M3 the distribution of owners and driving will be different than today. Could you please expand upon the model that should be applied and what it tells us about the necessary expansion of the network?
And the thinking which dismisses the assertion raised by the OP and myself that some rationing system will need to be applied? It's certainly an assertion on which I would like to be horribly wrong. I don't look forward to seeing SC's look like gas station queues of the 70's.�
Apr 25, 2016
David_Cary As someone who has SCed 6 times in a my first year of ownership, I couldn't give a crap with whatever cost model they went with as long as I didn't have a line. You could charge me $1 a kwh (and I pay $.05 at home) and I would be okay with that. And I paid "$2000" when I bought my car for the privilege - no I didn't.
I do think a very reasonable scenario is $.50 a minute in your 50 or 100 mile home radius. Of note, I have 3 SCs about 50 miles a way in 3 directions and I've hit all of them.
One of my SCs (120 miles from home near the in laws) has a free Chademo about a mile away. So that adds a little computation. The Chademo has much better food options for a sitdown.
All the Cali people need to come over here and see how many free options we have and life goes on - including my free Chademo 3 miles from home that I've never been blocked from (but it has been down). I know a Leaf owner who didn't install a 240V at home because this was nearby.
4 of 5 Tesla owners I know off the top of my head - make more than $250 an hour. Seems to me that would be expected given the cost.�
Apr 25, 2016
henderrj May I add another wrinkle? We have a patent pending on a device that will allow vehicles to plug themselves into a charge port. Maybe more to the point, unplug themselves. With summon already in place it would be a pretty simple task to set some stalls apart as "no human zones" - you pull into a queue and get out (after touching the "connect" button to confirm). Then the car would pull up to the first available stall and, after charging, move to a parking area where you would pick it up (a pull through spot seems advised). Since it seems clear the 3 will have an even better autonomous driving suite this might make a considerable difference in congestion. Full autonomy changes the scenario even more.
Thoughts?�
Apr 25, 2016
Saghost Tesla clearly has something like this in mind in the next couple years - Elon is promising they could make coast to coast summon work in two years, which inevitably involves multiple automated supercharging sessions. They've demonstrated the Snake, so I'm assuming they'll start rolling some sites like that out sometime next year - maybe one or two stalls converted at an existing site? Maybe all of the "pull in" stalls, since the demo seemed more suited to that geometry than the more typical back in siting?�
Apr 25, 2016
dgpcolorado Although it is vigorously disputed by some here, I won't argue against the idea that some sort of rationing system might be more efficient than trying to build enough Supercharger stations to accommodate peak usage in crowded locations for brief periods of time (holiday weekends, for example).
Nevertheless, your suggestion of a 4X increase in cars needing a 4X increase in Superchargers is something of an overestimate. Queuing Theory refers more to the efficient utilization of a limited resource and is a bit technical. But I tried to give an example of why the number of Superchargers does not have to match the increase in cars in a linear fashion (the Superchargers in my state are almost never crowded; although they serve a vital purpose for travel, they simply don't need to be increased). There are ways to model this problem that are well beyond my expertise. But I can give an example with some made up numbers:
Suppose that 90% of the Superchargers currently in place are rarely used (but serve a necessary purpose in allowing long distance travel through remote areas). The vast majority of those locations would still suffice even after a 4X increase in cars because they would still rarely be full. That means that the increase in Superchargers and station locations could be focused on expanding the 10% that are heavily used. To keep those locations from being too crowded they will likely be need to be expanded by considerably more than 4X, since a few locations are already filling up at times with the current fleet of Tesla cars.
So, suppose that there are currently 1800 Superchargers in North America (it is actually a bit more than that)
90% underutilized would be 1620
10% overutilized would be 180
If there was a 4X increase in Tesla cars the 90% underutilized Superchargers would still be adequate and need no increase but suppose an increase of 15X for the fully or overutilized areas. The total after that expansion would be
1620 + (180 x 15) = 1620 + 2700 = 4320 Superchargers after expansion
By contrast, a linear increase in Superchargers would be 1800 x 4 = 7200
Note that despite a drastic increase (15X!) in Superchargers in highly populated areas, the total is nowhere near a 4X increase overall.
Of course this is an oversimplification, but I hope that the general idea is clear.�
Apr 25, 2016
Boatguy Well done! So if the assumptions are all correct, then in the next 30 months Tesla needs to add 4,320 - 1,800 = 2,520 new stalls, or roughly 2.4x what is installed today.
If they were installing linearly over time (a questionable assumption on my part), they installed 1,800 stalls over four years or about 38 stalls / month. Now they will need to install over 80 stalls/month for the next 30 months to meet MX M3 demand based on dgp's model; more than twice as fast.
That's a lot of new stalls and as I said earlier, backhoes don't scale like semiconductors. Some form of rationing seems prudent.�
Apr 25, 2016
mkjayakumar I like it. I love it. Let's implement this.
Let the free loading suckers go to hell.�
Apr 25, 2016
EVie'sDad It's not free for those who purchase the use of the SCs, nor is it free for the facility building it, or for Tesla arranging charging rights with local businesses, nor for those paying taxes that go to help support this infant industry.
But I understand what you meant, yes free can confuse economics, but it really isn't free. It's just the perception it is free because no transaction is occurring at the time of recharging at a SC, but you too must acknowledge it is anything but free.
And with less wealth and resources at hand, I see more Model 3 owners taking advantage of the SC's than Model X or even S owners, except as intended for long distance trips, which I take full advantage of. Wanting to travel and seeing the countryside in my MS is one of the joys the Tesla SC network allows me to do in comfort of my BEV. I hope many others get to have the same experience and see firsthand the awe and wonders clean sustainable transportation has to offer whether they be in Model S, X or 3's.�
May 2, 2016
Boatguy Sunday morning I stopped at the Petaluma, CA supercharger to give my wife a brief tutorial on using a supercharger to find just one empty slot. We charged for about 10 minutes so she could get the idea, then moved on. I hate to think what it looked like on Sunday afternoon as everyone would have been heading home to the south from points north.
Several proposals have been made to ration superchargers and ensure their availability for long distance drivers. Tesla needs to decide which one to implement because I don't think it's physically possible to build enough new Superchargers between now and when the first, 100,000 M3s hit the road.
�
May 2, 2016
Drucifer I would go with home plus 15% SOC buffer. Charging to 12 when you live 6 still too close to the edge.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét