-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Improving Supercharger Availability $0.40 idle fee
- Thread starter Lump
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
You must be irate about people who give themselves grace periods by manipulating their charge percent. Like this guy:
I do admit the idle fees does encourage people to set their charge limit to 100%. However it doesn't necessarily mean people will stay longer if the fees weren't there. I think people do it because they want to avoid the idle fee. It does mean that for those jerks that stay way after they are penalize.
However honestly I there should be a rule where people are required to be present the whole time the car is charging. This is the extreme and probably frown on by the local businesses. This is the only real solution to the free supercharging problem tesla have created for itself. I am sure if free supercharging wasn't included in the beginning I highly doubt there is any problem to begin with.
Anyway I think this is why tesla is trying to automate the charging process with the snake charger and auto driving so the car vacates the spot after it is done. This is the best solution to help everyone.
However honestly I there should be a rule where people are required to be present the whole time the car is charging. This is the extreme and probably frown on by the local businesses. This is the only real solution to the free supercharging problem tesla have created for itself. I am sure if free supercharging wasn't included in the beginning I highly doubt there is any problem to begin with.
Anyway I think this is why tesla is trying to automate the charging process with the snake charger and auto driving so the car vacates the spot after it is done. This is the best solution to help everyone.
That would be a good way to keep people driving their ICE cars on trips. If I stop when it is time for a meal anyway, the trip is transparent vs. driving an ICE car. I often cite thedownhill drive home from Mammoth as an example of that when advocating Tesla to non-owners.
The thing is, I don't believe a somewhat longer grace period would encourage any such thing either. People will get back to the car as fast as they can to avoid idle fees anyway. There is nothing wrong with idle fees, just give people a chance at avoiding them within reason. What a longer grace period would do is allow a larger percentage or even all reasonable Supercharger users to return before any charges hit. That IMO should be a goal in such a policy, i.e. that it only penalizes those that really are problematic users and gives the rest confidence that as long as they follow these guidelines, they will never be charged.
The 5 minute policy will absolutely, necessarily penalize a significant portion of people who are not abusing anything - and that can have unfortunate repercussions such as setting charging time to unnecessarily high setting (bad for many things, including not getting notifications when you are nearing the actual needed level) as well as negative experiences by Tesla owners and prospective Tesla owners.
I don't think the monetary amount is of significance here. It is the punitive nature of the charge that will annoy people. I'm OK with it annoying abusers. What I do think Tesla would be wise to avoid is punishing those that are reasonably using the system. For example, I am not quite sure @Ulmo getting idle events for being "late" 8-15 minutes should warrant as abuse.
Think of it this way: you leave your car to the car washers. They say it will be completed within 30-60 minutes (like a Supercharge may be depending on stall sharing, equipment condition and taper algorithm changes). They say they'll call you once it completes. What would you consider a resonable grace for you to pick up that car? Would you be OK with the car washer demanding you pick it up within 5 minutes from the call? I think most people would say no, that is not a reasonable time. A lot more would find 15 minutes reasonable. Many, I think, would find even 30+ minutes reasonable - especially if the car completes early - as the completion time can vary that much.
This is not such a different scenario, really. While a car washer can move the car, they may well have limited parking where to move customer cars and "idling" cars at the wash can harm their business. Yet I really doubt most people would agree a return time of 5 minutes would be reasonable, even if you had an app to monitor the washer's progress. It is just a very small window in which to ask people to target when the process can take 30-60 minutes. I bet a lot more would find 15-30 minutes return time more reasonable, for example, and say the carwash should just plan their facilities for that.
Or, say, that people must return after that 60 minutes latest (i.e. return - at the latest - sharply at the longest time the process was estimated to take when leaving the car), no matter when it completes. This they could plan for.
I personally feel this is already that rule with Supercharging idle charges as they currently are - the only other alternative to staying in the car is staying within less than 5 minutes of the car and keeping watch of the app constantly (and hoping it works), which is not that much different, or accepting that you will get punitive charges at times.
Last edited:
I can't disagree with this more strongly. Either you have never done a long road trip or your driving habits are somehow very different from mine in a way I can't fathom.
On a road trip, my charging stops are my rest stops. Where I need to get away from the car and take a break. I'm not going to sit in the damn car watching electrons go in when I could be stretching my legs, going to the bathroom, getting a meal, resting, etc. so I can safely be on my way as soon as I'm done charging.
I don't think that what you propose is really enforceable anyway. Sorry but no. Also it's counter to all of Tesla's messaging and owners' expectations.
Bruce.
Here is what I'd suggest - and have previously suggested many months ago - for the idle charging question:
1) Improve significantly the information available to owners so that they can know when to return to the car and also, as a result, avoid the idle charges. I can not see any other way of doing this than implementing more notification types (e.g. SMS so that app or app unreliability is not a factor) and/or implementing a guaranteed completion estimate that they user can get upon charge start, but maybe some more innovative minds will come up with other ideas.
The important thing IMO is that a reasonable user, using the system reasonably, should never get idle charges. Given that the technical charge time can vary a lot due to stall sharing, charger condition and changes in taper algorithms, better information and policies regarding that information are IMO much needed. Especially given the hordes of new Model 3 owners approaching, and the difficulty of even us experienced users in estimating Supercharging time, easily understandable information is paramount for customer satisfaction.
2) Change the grace time to such, that a reasonable user, keeping reasonable care and returing to the car with reasonable haste will never, ever get idle charges. 5 minutes from completion is too short, given that the completion time can change a lot (within 30-60 minutes perhaps). If for whatever reason the earlier warnings fail to come (not rare at all), the charge completion can surprise you and has surprised a lot of people. The 30-60 minutes ballpark is, anyway, for normal scenarios - if the charger is misbehaving, the charge can end prematurely or take much longer, so the real world time range is even wider...
5 minutes is too short to return from any meaningful activity outside of sitting in the car or very near watching the app. It is just an inhumanely short time. 15 minutes would be a lot better, 30 minutes would probably avoid nearly all reasonable, best-effort users getting idle charges. There are other alternatives as well: for example, idle charges only accruing after the early estimate of the completion time for the Supercharge, so you would know beforehand when to return to the car (or the app) to check for completion. If it needs more time, it could then give you a second estimate you must return by.
People can be expected to watch a clock and plan for a pre-announced return time. They can not be expected to plan for a semi-random completion time without a reasonable grace period. IMO 5 minutes is not reasonable for the latter scenario. It should be at least 15 minutes if everything remains as is, 30 minutes would be better IMO.
3) Make accruing charges much more visible to the owners. Basically something like SMS and email notifications of every event should be the default (with opt-out option), so that nobody is surprised by charges mounting up. Surprising people with surprise charges will not be a good thing for anyone. The web interface is an improvement for the original service center method, but this still has a lot of potential to surprise people.
4) The policy should not encourage things like charge percentage inflation to 100%, that's just a really bad consequence if that gains popularity. Instead, the policy should be such that it works for reasonable, normal use without having to resort to such shenanigans that have other negative repercussions. One way of doing this would be always starting idle charges after an estimated 100% charge and no earlier, independent of your charge settings. However, good changes to points 1-3 would probably negate the need to use the 100% trick anyway....
1) Improve significantly the information available to owners so that they can know when to return to the car and also, as a result, avoid the idle charges. I can not see any other way of doing this than implementing more notification types (e.g. SMS so that app or app unreliability is not a factor) and/or implementing a guaranteed completion estimate that they user can get upon charge start, but maybe some more innovative minds will come up with other ideas.
The important thing IMO is that a reasonable user, using the system reasonably, should never get idle charges. Given that the technical charge time can vary a lot due to stall sharing, charger condition and changes in taper algorithms, better information and policies regarding that information are IMO much needed. Especially given the hordes of new Model 3 owners approaching, and the difficulty of even us experienced users in estimating Supercharging time, easily understandable information is paramount for customer satisfaction.
2) Change the grace time to such, that a reasonable user, keeping reasonable care and returing to the car with reasonable haste will never, ever get idle charges. 5 minutes from completion is too short, given that the completion time can change a lot (within 30-60 minutes perhaps). If for whatever reason the earlier warnings fail to come (not rare at all), the charge completion can surprise you and has surprised a lot of people. The 30-60 minutes ballpark is, anyway, for normal scenarios - if the charger is misbehaving, the charge can end prematurely or take much longer, so the real world time range is even wider...
5 minutes is too short to return from any meaningful activity outside of sitting in the car or very near watching the app. It is just an inhumanely short time. 15 minutes would be a lot better, 30 minutes would probably avoid nearly all reasonable, best-effort users getting idle charges. There are other alternatives as well: for example, idle charges only accruing after the early estimate of the completion time for the Supercharge, so you would know beforehand when to return to the car (or the app) to check for completion. If it needs more time, it could then give you a second estimate you must return by.
People can be expected to watch a clock and plan for a pre-announced return time. They can not be expected to plan for a semi-random completion time without a reasonable grace period. IMO 5 minutes is not reasonable for the latter scenario. It should be at least 15 minutes if everything remains as is, 30 minutes would be better IMO.
3) Make accruing charges much more visible to the owners. Basically something like SMS and email notifications of every event should be the default (with opt-out option), so that nobody is surprised by charges mounting up. Surprising people with surprise charges will not be a good thing for anyone. The web interface is an improvement for the original service center method, but this still has a lot of potential to surprise people.
4) The policy should not encourage things like charge percentage inflation to 100%, that's just a really bad consequence if that gains popularity. Instead, the policy should be such that it works for reasonable, normal use without having to resort to such shenanigans that have other negative repercussions. One way of doing this would be always starting idle charges after an estimated 100% charge and no earlier, independent of your charge settings. However, good changes to points 1-3 would probably negate the need to use the 100% trick anyway....
Last edited:
I agree that has been Tesla's past messaging on the topic and the way many have understood and implemented the Supercharging stop into their travelling rhythm. So your habits certainly align with the old messaging and situation.
IMO the current idle charge policy is counter to that messaging already, especially now that they are enforcing it so clearly. Now that these charges are happening, I would imagine a lot more families sitting on the curb or in the car and enjoying this "bliss" of BEV driving, because people dislike punitive charges. Or perhaps taking their ICE instead, because those Supercharging stops are suddenly getting quite expensive with kW/minute charges, idle charges and rest stop bills...
I mean, seriously, do you guys expect regular folks to be able to return to car within 5 minutes of Supercharging completion when even us more experiences folks get surprised by charge speeds all the time? No, with this policy a lot of people will obviously get idle charges even if they move the car within a time that many would find very reasonable.
Perhaps this won't be any kind of a problem for Tesla. That is possible. But IMO a more reasonable policy would be wise.
Last edited:
Well....I'll tell you what I have done for the last two years and you can tell me if that's reasonable.
When I show up at a Supercharger I'll set the max charge to 100%. I don't see why some of you think this is wrong but read the rest of this before you pass judgement. Basically If my car is hooked up but I'm still not back to the car (maybe I'm taking a few minutes longer than I planned) I want that extra energy in my battery. It gives me some extra cushion to drive faster, deal with headwinds, or just charge less at my next stop. Idle charges have nothing to do with this.
I'll always be monitoring the charge state on my phone. This tells me when I should be done but also lets me figure out if I'm on a slow charger. I haven't run into the case where I lost app access admittedly, so I guess I'd have to take a guess at when I should be ready to depart.
Usually by time I'm done with the restroom and a drink (non-alcoholic of course, ha ha) I have enough energy in the battery to take off. In any case I'm not going to deliberately sit at the charger longer than I need to.
It's pretty rare that I'll be lingering at a charger, even accidentally. I think I've only hit 100% at a Supercharger once. Certainly I wouldn't charge extra just for fun or because it's "free", I'm on a road trip.
I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but it's annoying that for some reason it sounds like some people want to outlaw the way I (and presumably a non trivial fraction of owners?) charge in the name of preventing abuse, in particular not being present while charging and trying to get the most energy while I'm at the charger by setting my charge percentage to 100%. Is there anyone who thinks any part of this is abusive?
Sorry if I'm not being clear or if I'm not understanding what others have written.
Bruce.
PS. I should probably stop posting to this thread, I'm supposed to be in vacation.
First of all, @bmah, most of us would probably be very reluctant to think or say that you are unreasonable - given your always eloquent and politely worded messages and thoughts over the years. I appreciate them. Second, what is reasonable is of course matter of opinion and subjective - there may be many valid views on that, of course.
The overall test on what is and isn't reasonable is probably what society and common sense in general finds reasonable over time - and regarding EVs the "jury" is still out on that I believe... So, hopefully that is clear as I try to elaborate my opinion on this.
I think a certain "idling" time after EV charge is normal and part of the process and is not the same as parking or "forgetting" the car there. The debate for me is, what and how that reasonable idle period is defined. What is reasonable and what is not... All I know is, 5 minutes from a unpredictable ending time (that spans many tens of minutes) IMO is not reasonable.
The thing is, I don't think this is wrong in isolation. The way things used to be, I doubt few people would have batted an eye-lid. But now that focus is on the correct vs. incorrect usage of Superchargers, due to punitive idle charges being applied, a discussion on what that correct vs. incorrect balance should be certainly seems more timely and warranted. If we are punishing someone aiming to charge to 70%, and setting the car accordingly, being late for 6 minutes... should we be also charging the person that unnecessarily sets the charge to 100% that can remain at the charger much longer? If charging the latter is hard or impossible, should we then consider that maybe charging the first guy is also unreasonable?
Because, being reasonable aside, the current policy will very likely result in more people charging towards 100% rather than, say, 70% or 90% (especially given that the last ~10% is massively the slowest). That also means that any notifications they receive start coming in later, potentially leading to increased actual charge times as people may be in less of a rush to move forwards. (Not to mention the wear and tear on batteries if people leave it at 100%.) This part of the policy is not encouraging awareness and optimiziation of charging, quite the opposite, it is encouraging larger than recommended charge targets and later notification of completion.
If the whole point of the idle charges was shortening queues, this policy can actually add to them instead... Wouldn't it be better to have a policy that is more reasonable towards drivers that charge less than 100% and does not encourage unnecessary charging to 100% like the current one does? I am not saying punish those that need 100%. I am just saying don't punish those that need less and fail to move the car within 5 minutes (an unreasonably short time) from an earlier charge's end - it should also lead to less people opting to unnecessarily charge to 100%, which has other clear benefits of course.
5 minutes is so short that it can and definitely will lead to people adding their own grace by setting a higher charge target than needed.
Such an unreasonably short time is not needed to target the real abusers, those who leave the car there for hours or days. On the other hand, for them the charges may get so high so fast that Tesla will have a hard time charging them actually and we might see waivers more there... So most payers will most likely be regular folk who just miscalculated a bit and are getting a stream of small charges over time for miniscule "infractions", instead of targeting the real problem, the big-time abusers that may well see their thousand dollar fees waived for obvious reasons... and that's the unwise part IMO.
Last edited:
LOL, well there was new info waaaay back on page 57 (Improving Supercharger Availability $0.40 idle fee), but apparently no one else is seeing idle fees in their My Tesla account, since no one else has reported any. So all this hand wringing on the 5 minute grace must just be relevant for a very small population of supercharger users.
I am a bit disappointed, actually. I was hoping by now at least someone would have posted an over $100 idle fee collection they didn't know was that big.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The difference is that I'm charging and they are not.You must be irate about people who give themselves grace periods by manipulating their charge percent. Like this guy:
LOL, well there was new info waaaay back on page 57 (Improving Supercharger Availability $0.40 idle fee), but apparently no one else is seeing idle fees in their My Tesla account, since no one else has reported any. So all this hand wringing on the 5 minute grace must just be relevant for a very small population of supercharger users.
I am a bit disappointed, actually. I was hoping by now at least someone would have posted an over $100 idle fee collection they didn't know was that big.
@Az_Rael
Ah yes, the "only affects a small population" argument - as long as that small population is not you, it is all right?
I am more interested in the future: Is this a harbinger of things to come or not? The first report is always the first report. By definition there is always only 1... Is it followed by tons or will it remain some odd anomaly that only affects a few users? The latter seems unlikely to me, why would this web interface only affect a few? More likely is that this is a sign of things to come...
This may not be a problem for Tesla. It is possible the policy works. However I do think there exists the chance for a better policy, hence my suggestions. We know Tesla reads.
Well, yes, it could be argued you are worse: You using Supercharger for a purpose it is not meant to (as you admitted, you don't need the 100% charge), while those who get idle charges stopped at the percentage they need for their long-distance travel and are saving Tesla electricity cost as well and they may be leaving sooner than you even and yet still get idle charged...
Mind you, I do not think charging to 100% is wrong, even if you don't need it. I don't mind. However, I do think it is wrong to blame or charge people who do not use that workaround and are simply a little late... Besides, this seems to be a bad policy if it in the end encourages charging to 100%. That is not a good end-result any way you slice it.
Thank you for bringing this up and pointing this out. This is the key to this whole process. Stay long enough to get to the next charge station. This is not rocket science. This is really pretty easy stuff. Not sure why some people want to make things more difficult than they are.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I would vote for the opinion that it is working as intended.@Az_Rael
Ah yes, the "only affects a small population" argument - as long as that small population is not you, it is all right?
I am more interested in the future: Is this a harbinger of things to come or not? The first report is always the first report. By definition there is always only 1... Is it followed by tons or will it remain some odd anomaly that only affects a few users? The latter seems unlikely to me, why would this web interface only affect a few? More likely is that this is a sign of things to come...
This may not be a problem for Tesla. It is possible the policy works. However I do think there exists the chance for a better policy, hence my suggestions. We know Tesla reads.
When people charge to 100% even when not needed?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Not only legs but foot in mouth.
It's amazing how some people can be so adamant about something so trivial.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I set the charge to 100% to avoid idle charges. I leave when I have the power I "need" to get to my destination. I always carefully monitor my charging and rarely take more than I "need".
I doubt that I would change my behaviour no matter what they did to the idle policy.
Similar threads
