It works. Used a Tesla wall charger to charge the smart car today.

[scaesare]

It also is just good business sense for Tesla to walk the fine line between allowing this while not exactly promoting it. Remember, 99% of the car market is still ICE and 90% of that market is people convinced that range on any EV is horrible. Tesla is better served with having that myth disproved than confirmed.

I have no doubt that will happen to a large extent simply for practical reasons:

- Individual infractions here and there are simply lost in the noise

- Action when at small scale is not worth the effort to enforce

- Even once they feel it's problematic there may be some hesitancy to act in order to not disgruntle customers patronizing the partners in the program


But again, the problem becomes one of scale. I wish I could count the times I've seen a generous provision removed with a note to the effect of "Unfortunately we are no longer able to offer complimentary XXXXX because of customer abuse."

If you don't think that's possible or likely, just look at the number of folks willing to put themselves out in terms of time and effort to cop a free charge at a Supercharger or some other free charging station when they could charge at home. Do you think abuses for the destination charging program aren't going to become more problematic when there are 10x more EV's on the road? 100x?

Meanwhile the rest of the folks who have supported Tesla financially with their patronage and are using the program within it's intent are disadvantaged.

So I suspect Tesla will go down the path of including stricter language with the partner agreements, more specific signage, etc... Then the cat-&-mouse game of technical enforcement and subsequent bypassing (as @stopcrazypp has described) will continue. Hopefully it doesn't become problematic enough for it to simply not be worth the effort.

I repeat: This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@scaesare

It is neither my call to make nor mine to condone or not.

OP to me seems to have a very sensible and reasonable approach to this. Kudos to the OP.

You are of course right that is what I said.

My point was: OPs approach of moving away if a Tesla owner comes seems very reasonable and sensible to me. If and when that happens, the only thing that here is wear and tear, otherwise not even any theoretical cost to Tesla in OPs case.

Anyway, my opinion on this is clear I'm sure. As a Tesla owner I am OK with sharing and I think Tesla would be smart to allow this in some manner. I am just making the point that my opinion is also quite irrelevant as far as condoning anything goes. This one is not mine to condone, as you pointed out.

 

[scaesare]

my opinion is also quite irrelevant as far as condoning anything goes.

While opinion may be irrelevant when it comes to corporate stance, that there's most certainly a social/etiquette factor.

When somebody clearly games the system and everybody pats them on the back and says "Good Job!", it encourages them to continue, and others to follow in their path.

If instead folks point out that such behavior is counter to the intent of the provider, and perhaps does a disservice to others, it can apply some social impetus to steer behavior.

Similar things have been discussed here variety of times... i.e. don't condone using a charging space simply to park even if the signage doesn't explicitly forbid it.. clearly that's the "intent" of the space. We don't "approve" of not moving one's car after charging is complete, etc...

This one is not mine to condone, as you pointed out.

Actually you pointed that out... after doing just that.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

But again, the problem becomes one of scale. I wish I could count the times I've seen a generous provision removed with a note to the effect of "Unfortunately we are no longer able to offer complimentary XXXXX because of customer abuse."

I repeat: This is why we can't have nice things.

In my experience one of the reasons why this often happens is that someone within the process does not have a pragmatic approach to that particular case. Someone blows a fuse, more than it is impossible to continue. Someone says let's stop doing something because "abuse" happens, while "abuse" has been defined way too strictly to be practical in the first place...

Those with a more relaxed approach to whatever is the question often are quite able to continue, while those trying fight a futile fight give up and despair. A certain amount of grey area always exists. Admit it or not, the grey area probably exists in the lives of most people in some way or another.

This one is about what eventually happens to Tesla-sponsored chargers. Over time those spots will, one way or the other, likely morph into generic charing locations anyway - either through adapters or through locations upgrading those chargers as their EV patronage diversifies. IMO this is not an area to fight, but to embrace. It's all good. Tesla has helped to start a great revolution and they will reap benefits of that for a time, get PR benefits etc., then the whole community will eventually...

IMO Tesla could easily take (or maybe they even have) this outlook on the Destination Chargers.

Superchargers are a completely different question, of course, given that Tesla pays for their electricity etc.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Actually you pointed that out... after doing just that.

I was trying to be accommodating and admit my limited relevance. Even I have lost the plot on such semantics.

While opinion may be irrelevant when it comes to corporate stance, that there's most certainly a social/etiquette factor.

Yes, definitely. Etiquette-wise I approve what and how OP does it.

When somebody clearly games the system and everybody pats them on the back and says "Good Job!", it encourages them to continue, and others to follow in their path.

So be it, I encourage gaming this system within the limits I have offered in this thread. Most important is location/electricity-payer permission.

If instead folks point out that such behavior is counter to the intent of the provider, and perhaps does a disservice to others, it can apply some social impetus to steer behavio

Sure, it can. But that would be spoilsporty IMO. I have no desire to encourage behavior I don't agree with.

Similar things have been discussed here variety of times... i.e. don't condone using a charging space simply to park even if the signage doesn't explicitly forbid it.. clearly that's the "intent" of the space. We don't "approve" of not moving one's car after charging is complete, etc...

Of course. Discussing etiquette is all good. You know I have a less strict view on that, e.g. I find a the reasonable period of time a car can stay at a charger after finishing to be longer than some on TMC.

These are genuine differences of opinion on good etiquette.

IMO good etiquette has a human element to it. In the case of staying after charge finishes, the human element is giving time due to an imprecisely happening event (say, 15-30 minutes of grace). And in the case of sponsored destination chargers, some level of third-party use if permitted by the electricity payer is reasonable, especially when done as considerately as OP says they do.