New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[AnxietyRanger]

On the other hand, I don't think Tesla ever said it wouldn't advertise (it just doesn't really have to advertise in the traditional sense, up to now), and I think the only idea behind the "no discount" rule is that you can't negotiate a price with your "dealer" (the "showroom/inventory adjustments" are for everyone, as are the "reverse discounts" - aligning the price of not yet delivered cars to those of new cars, if there has been a price reduction, or former options now included in base configuration - certainly nothing wrong with that!)

Yeah, my point really is that many of those things that may well have made sense at one point - been genius, even - have outlived their usefulness IMO and are causing more trouble than they are worth these days. All the fiddling with "Showroom Adjustments" and taking free Supercharging off and then bringing it back and off again, and all these stunts to keep the quarterly demand going up... This is the time when it would make sense to move to a more mature, more sustainable business model in these regards.

If you actively choose not to advertise (they do advertise inventory, but in a small way only) and not to offer discounts (not even discount campaigns) publicly, then you really limit your options on pushing sales - and then you have to start resorting to an increasing amount of gimmicks and stunts to make it work. And that will at some point become counter-productive IMO, probably already has in some ways. They could get these results and more with a more traditional approach at this stage IMO.

 

[Carl]

You forgot to quote my smiley. But anyway, it's an interesting question: why did you choose AnxietyRanger as forum name? Was range anxiety something you were thinking about in 2014, or was the name just meant as a joke? BTW this is not about you in particular of course; I am just intrigued whether many "early adopters" still had range anxiety in the back of their heads when in 2014 they ordered their first Tesla, despite the "We will build 300 Supercharging locations each year" promise (which, at that time, of course nobody knew was going to indeed become true).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@Carl A very good and nice question. I don't quite remember all of it, but here's my best guess:

The charging situation was not very good in my parts in 2014 and still isn't, so I guess it had a little bit to do with it, but mostly I think it was just a concept (range anxiety) that was very much associated with EVs and AnxietyRanger sounded like a fun play on that.

I certainly didn't mean to imply any kind of "anxiety" as my forum personality (my first post was fanboy gushing), but I guess some have started to think of me as the local concern troll. Which, in all seriousness, I am not trying to be, but can take the joke in good humor of course.

No anxiety was intended... so whatever happened, happened later.

 

[pelargir]

This might be one example of what Tesla is trying to prevent with this new policy:

Tesla owner builds a bitcoin mining rig in a Model S to use free Supercharger power | Tesla Motors

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This might be one example of what Tesla is trying to prevent with this new policy:

Tesla owner builds a bitcoin mining rig in a Model S to use free Supercharger power | Tesla Motors

Here's an even simpler solution:

Put a market price on Supercharging for new cars. Adjust price as needed to maintain stall availability.

Grandfatherer free charging cars will eventually be a small blip in the rearview mirror.

 

[smac]

Here's an even simpler solution:

Put a market price on Supercharging for new cars. Adjust price as needed to maintain stall availability.

Grandfatherer free charging cars will eventually be a small blip in the rearview mirror.

Tesla actually went down that route, but flip-flopped on going through with it. The "markets" focus on new vehicle sales won out

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla actually went down that route, but flip-flopped on going through with it. The "markets" focus on new vehicle sales won out

I agree that is what happened, to an extent (they still muddied it all with the credits and later these other rather more complex policies than just putting a market price on charging). But mostly IMO they had to do that because they couldn't advertise and discount their way through the transition. A self-inflicted wound, because they do that by choice.

Bring in traditional demand levers and many of these needs for gimmicks, if not go away entirely, at least lessens significantly. Same with Osborning. While I agree Tesla is somewhat more susceptible to the effects of product changes causing Osborning, due to small product portfolio, I would say they are massively more so through their desire to avoid advertising and discount campaigns...

The age-old wisdom on how to handle product transitions is to offset any perceived lost value - e.g. free Supercharging is no longer there, i.e. perceived lost value, or a new version coming soon, perceived lost value - with added value elsewhere. Price is the easiest lever. Offer a discount / run a discount campaign on Model S/X to see it through such a situation. "OK, I don't get free Supercharging, but I will get a discount! Yay! Buy, buy, buy..."

They could offer the discount to all (i.e. public discount campaigns, advertised to the effect needed) equally to avoid any "deal making" - which in reality now happens through controlled inventory building and clandestine inventory releases, following this suggestion might thus even lessen any deal making...

 

[Carl]

I’ll write my local store on this. I also use supercharging when I have business meetings 200 km away (and no I’m not going to ask clients if they have a destination charger). Don’t all of us use superchargers this way? I can’t image superchargers are now meant only to be ‘holiday trip chargers’ so to speak, and more importantly what’s my incentive to trade in my car if it basically would mean I don’t have any supercharger acces any more (except on week-ends and vacation)? Something doesn’t compute.

Shall revert when I get a reply.

BTW I just got a reply, which I will translate literally (including missing verbs/parts of sentence) so each can interpret as they like : "Superchargers are not meant for commercial purposes and also not for everyday use. Your supercharger use is not an abuse of the supercharger system. As long as no abuse is made of it".

Anyway, this sounds more or less comforting. My interpretation is that the last bullet point of the fair use policy ("any other commercial venture") is just there to give Tesla a catch-all provision which it could use in case of any sort of abuse it hadn't thought about and isn't already covered by the other four bullet points. So, Tesla would probably only enforce the last bullet point in case of 'abuse' (and e.g. a doctor making house calls and needing to supercharge to get back home would a priori not constitute an abuse).

That's what I make of it, at least !

 

[schonelucht]

So a small storm about this new policy is brewing in Amsterdam. Tesla is trying to enforce the no commercial use of superchargers on the (many!) Tesla taxis around the airport. Even on those cars bought before the announcement of the change. From Feb 1st they'll not be able to use superchargers in a 20 mile radius around Amsterdam (paid or not). Apparently enforcement is going to be through barriers and registration plate detection (taxis have a different license plate in the Netherlands). Obviously older Taxi owners are livid and are planning on legal action. I think the taxi drivers will prevail if it ends up going to court.

 

[scaesare]

BTW I just got a reply, which I will translate literally (including missing verbs/parts of sentence) so each can interpret as they like : "Superchargers are not meant for commercial purposes and also not for everyday use. Your supercharger use is not an abuse of the supercharger system. As long as no abuse is made of it".

Anyway, this sounds more or less comforting. My interpretation is that the last bullet point of the fair use policy ("any other commercial venture") is just there to give Tesla a catch-all provision which it could use in case of any sort of abuse it hadn't thought about and isn't already covered by the other four bullet points. So, Tesla would probably only enforce the last bullet point in case of 'abuse' (and e.g. a doctor making house calls and needing to supercharge to get back home would a priori not constitute an abuse).

That's what I make of it, at least !

I find it interesting that many of us were able to discern these sorts of intents in the early days of the Supercharger roll out amd subsequent refinements. Whereas a number of other people seemed to have Anxiety about it... seeming to not [want to] understand what Tesla was trying to do, leading them to debate almost relentlessly about it.

Strikingly similar to the recent concern over the Zuma launch... some folks made much ado about SpaceX's statements. Those who took them within context turned out to be validated by later statements.

Almost a pattern....

 

[Davidjess]

That is not how Tesla puts it on Tesla.com at this time, though. They are explicit that charger availability is the reason to ban commercial use of public Superchargers.

Commercial use of SC would provide income from SC which could fund more SCs. A world in which there is 10x more use of SCs and 10x more SCs especially with more locations would be a WAY better world for all of us, including non-commercial users and positive externalities for all society.