Are you sure?
I thought Doug meant after 5 minutes thread users will be charged 40 cents for all those 5+ minutes, so $2.40 minimum...
I think this new TMC policy needs clarification!
-
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.
Are you sure?
I thought Doug meant after 5 minutes thread users will be charged 40 cents for all those 5+ minutes, so $2.40 minimum...
I think this new TMC policy needs clarification!
Had this been 15 minutes originally, I doubt I'd even started thinking about this. But 30 min could work overall even better. I'm fine with people disagreeing, that's a judgement call...
There is no crusade, just exposing the hypocrisy and bad habit that this policy is causing. A 30 min delay through 100% snail charging (and possibly people forgetting the charger percentage at a harmful setting) is OK but a shorter charger is penalized after 5 minutes for "abuse"... It makes little logical sense.
I don't bitch, I discussed possible motives there. I have no problem with Tesla making money. As an example of a predictable policy I even suggested a minute cost to all Supercharging early in this thread - it would be predictable as you just see your watch...
As I said, and that all I have seen posting about this has said, they do normally NOT let it charge to 100%. If they need lets say 60% to reach the next charger, they set it to 100% and return to the car when they expect it to have gotten to 60%. But as you your self have pointed out, it is not easy to be back at exact right time. It it only has got 55% then they will have to wait a bit more. If it has reached 65% - or even 70% - no harm done. From my understanding this is a practice they have had for some time and is not based on idle charging. That it helps prevent idle charing is a bonus. This is also the policy I think I would use myself when I get the Model 3. Even if they drop the idle charing.
If more people will start with this now based on idle charging I'm fine with that. The only difference for they that is waiting is that the charger is actually been used to charge the hole time, and not be idle after reaching a set point.
But I could have agreed with you if they just set it to 100% *and let it charge till it stops* when they don't really need it. But if they do, then the point that it is to avoid the idle charge is moot, as they get the same 5 minutes after ended charging that anyone else.
At least with the TMC user fee you can discuss your concerns directly with the source of the decision through the PM system.
Look, I get what you are saying. I have no issue with people charging to 100% - but I do think, really I do, that this policy will increase people charging to 100% for policy reasons (not need or technical reasons) and that increase is my point. Previously I would expect people charging more often towards whatever is their usual 90% (though leaving earlier as need be). Now I expect more to charge towards 100%, just in case.
I also get it that at least those cars are getting electrons and not idling. But in a way the person setting the car to 100% unnecessarily is more inconsiderate than the one who leaves it at a more suitable percentage and tries to be back on time for that. The safety blanket of that 100% removes one motivation to return as soon as possible... Yet it is the under-100% target group that gets sooner penalized under this system if they are just 6 minutes late, while the guy very slowly charging those last percentages is fine.
And of course it is overall a bad idea to teach people to leave their cars into 100% mode, just as we are getting people to understand that maybe the optimal isn't even 90% but lower... (And yes, I do get it that charging to 100% and then driving immediately is not necessarily bad in itself, but people leaving it at that 100% - bound to happen - is not the best of ideas.)
Wouldn't it be great if the policy would not require such shenanigans? Just setup rules under which everyone roughly using the system properly is without penalty and target the penalties towards real abusers. I'm sure a way could be found to setup the rules just so.
I guess I too will be charging towards 100% on the rare occasions I Supercharge. Used to be 80% or 90%. Used to be a fiddle-free experience too, but no more, I guess.
callmesam
Member
yea! .... or you might have a heart attack and be taken to the hospital in an ambulance, or your hair may spontaneously combust, causing Amnesia where you forget what kind of car you have, or you mayget robbed & knocked unconscious, or what if .....
sorry
.
Since both of those things have happened to me, perhaps you should get out of the house a bit more ;-)
On a serious note, "Rest Areas" can be found across the U.S. and are useful when driver fatigue sets in.
Drowsy driving is the dangerous combination of driving and sleepiness or fatigue. This usually happens when a driver has not slept enough, but it can also happen due to untreated sleep disorders, medications, drinking alcohol, or shift work.Nov 5, 2015
Drowsy Driving: Asleep at the Wheel | Features | CDC
Useful for both Tesla automobile and Tesla Semi.
Phil Seastrand
Member
AnxietyRanger is right, everyone else is wrong. There, can we let this die now? Geez.
I would be the first one to disagree with any such notion, even if you suggested it without sarcasm. I have my ideas, but really what a great solution would require is probably lots of innovative minds coming up with solutions.
I made four concrete suggestions to improve the idle charge policy: Improving Supercharger Availability $0.40 idle fee #1187. What would be really great, would be to hear other's ideas in similar vein. Even (or especially) if they are completely opposite to mine.
Maybe they will come up with better solutions than I have or point out pros/cons that I have not? A few have responded with their detailed agreement or disagreement and I appreciated all those. Things were learned on both sides, I believe. I certainly have gotten food for thought.
And those that are not interested this conversation, it is contained in one very well titled thread that would seem easy enough to avoid - a conversation on the policy should not hurt anything, right?
Last edited:
Except perhaps to overstate the reach and intensity of the policy by surrounding it with incredibly high walls of verbosity. Walls which, upon close analysis, appear to be made of the same bricks stacked over and over again.
I argue that the continual discussion paints it as a much larger issue that it is. So I think it is harmful.
Newcomers to Tesla, casual readers of the site, those who arrive here via Google.
That is of course a personal viewpoint, which I guess is best left unargued. Thank you for sharing it.
To return to your earlier point of repetition:
FWIW, IMO it is the newcomers (to the thread) that fuel much of the repetition. Arguments get repeated as counter-arguments and misunderstandings get repeated. I find that fairly normal for any type of conversation that aims at sharing of understanding. Certain threads and sub-forums have their active participants and then a bunch of rotating folks that mingle over time again and again. In this case the debate was re-kindled by new developments at Tesla and new information that, to some (including myself), warranted more conversation.
I hope people have noted that on an individual level, when genuine understanding is reached - such was with @Az_Rael just a few messages up - I seek to very quickly wind things down... even when there is no agreement. Understanding does not require agreement to be meaningful and helpful, nor is agreement something I seek. Genuine understanding with agreement over some things (where genuine agreement exists) and agreeing to disagree over other things is an excellent end-result to any conversation or activity IMO.
One of the most problematic things, I find, is that sometimes in a conversation there is reluctance to "give the other guy anything" or simply shutting up or shutting down when the point is reached when a bridge would have to be crossed to continue... Counter-intuitively I find that actually not helpful at winding conversations down, it tends to just wind people up. Best way to shut up a debate IMO seems to be to find the common ground and shake hands on the rest.
Quote: "yea! .... or you might have a heart attack and be taken to the hospital in an ambulance, or your hair may spontaneously combust"
I'd love to hear that spontaneous combustion story.
I'd love to hear that spontaneous combustion story.
callmesam
Member
Refers to my previous comment about falling asleep while charging and over cooked steak making me late.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
So... Did the steak set your hair on fire while you were sleeping and give you a heart attack?Refers to my previous comment about falling asleep while charging and over cooked steak making me late.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
But... but... but... Some of us really want to hear the real story behind the burning steak, flaming hair, oversleeping, heart attack and ambulance ride.@KJD One thing we may agree on, I'd imagine, is if a thread becomes a conversation about a user instead of the topic it certainly is better to take a breather and wait if/when the actual topic returns.
(Perhaps this could be moved to "Off-Topic")
callmesam
Member
Falling asleep while Supercharging is pretty common. So is overcooked meat.
Heart attacks, ambulance rides and flaming hair . . . may have a somewhat lessor frequency than feeling sleepy or preferring medium-rare. But feel free to start a thread of unusual occurrences.
Similar threads
