New Supercharger Fair Use Policy

[BerTX]

Yeah, it may well be they are seeing if they can get away with it. Tesla certainly has adjusted their policies many times.

I do wish they wouldn't try stuff like that, though. Just make nice, clean breaks for the future, but stop trying to meddle with past commitments like this or the performance counters or... (or repeating offers you once sold as going-away levers, e.g. free Supercharging).

It is perfectly fine to change policies for future new car sales (or Tesla CPO sales). Be clear about it and people can choose to buy or not to buy, very simple. Affecting products already sold, less OK IMO.

Remember that cars sold after -- what -- February of 2017, don't have free unlimited Supercharging for second owners anyway. So the livery companies would have to buy used 2016 or older vehicles anyway.

 

[cwerdna]

However, what is rather weird is that Tesla doesn't spell out the alternative here. Their message makes it sound like commercial use of Teslas and long-distance travel on them is not welcomed. They could have simply stated it will be a cost exercise from now on, instead of talk of banning.

They do refer to alternatives and leave the door open, for certain unspecified cases.

From Privacy & Legal | Tesla

This Policy applies to all Superchargers worldwide and all Tesla vehicles purchased, either new or used, whether from Tesla or a third party, after December 15, 2017. Tesla may choose to exclude certain Supercharger stations or occasional trips from the scope of this Policy, such as to accommodate specific local circumstances.

Charging Alternatives

We encourage the commercial use of Tesla vehicles while using appropriate charging solutions. Please reach out to your local sales contact to explore vehicle and charging options that suit your needs. For questions related to home charging, please contact [email protected].

 

[smac]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I did wonder if the livery companies could rent the cars from a third party...

No

I'm saying a portion of the buying market for used Tesla's has been to date those who intend to game the system, be that taxi firms, exec transport, Nimber, Uber, or...

This policy change has overnight changed the buying landscape.

Economics 101 says remove a portion of demand, and given fixed supply (i.e. the fleet already sold and therefore available for sale), has negative impact on equilibrium price.

It would be perfectly plausible to sell ANY OTHER car without the OEM feeling the need to get involved in that process.

Tesla have in effect interjected themselves into the sales process, above and beyond the legal transfer of title, this raises significant concerns they have impacted values of used vehicles.

 

[BerTX]

No

I'm saying a portion of the buying market for used Tesla's has been to date those who intend to game the system, be that taxi firms, exec transport, Nimber, Uber, or... This policy change has overnight been removed.

Economics 101 says remove a portion of demand, and given fixed supply (i.e. the fleet already sold and therefore available for sale), has negative impact on equilibrium price.

It would be perfectly plausible to sell ANY OTHER car without the OEM feeling the need to get involved in that process.

Tesla have in effect interjected themselves into the sales process, above and beyond the legal transfer of title, this raises significant concerns they have impacted values of used vehicles.

Good points. I think it will be interesting to see it play out, especially on an international basis. Should be quite a show!

I'm not sure that Tesla is getting involved in the sales process -- I think that's a bit of a stretch. They are denying a perk. Not sure you can compare it to what other car companies do, as they don't offer free unlimited fuel as a perk. Perhaps the closest might be if a manufacturer denied to honor an existing warranty on a used vehicle if it is used for commercial purposes. That is probably spelled out in the warranty, but then warranties have been around for a while and unlimited Supercharging Policies have not.

I have a vision of Tesla legal council all hiding under their desks pretty much full time, anyway.

 

[EfficientWatts]

I can understand why Tesla is vague (otherwise people will find ways to skirt the system). However I would like them to add clarity if possible.

While I agree with the spirit of the idea, there's a number of reasons I don't like it as is:

• the phrase "for any other commercial venture". I know people have said this means to derive income directly from the operation of the car (like TNC), but technically even a real estate agent could fall afoul of this if one attaches a sign to the car (advertising) or is actually transporting clients, plus for many the car purchase they deduct for business expense
• how will they know if you're directly using it for commercial purpose reliably? for example say you drive for Uber/Lyft, then you go off the clock to go on a road trip elsewhere, but you're low on charge, so you go to charge. (one could argue there that you are using it for commercial usage in a roundabout way). or you're not even on the clock for a while (like a week) and you go to charge. so then someone sees your TNC sticker and complains to Tesla that there appears to be commercial usage when at least in the latter case that's really not the case. it's easy for the extreme cases (like Tesloop) but I'm afraid for those who are caught in the middle or in the gray area
• this will kill people who rent out their cars on Turo and other car rental companies. I really hope they can work out an exception for them, because unlike Tesloop and taxis many of those people who rent them later get converted to actual Tesla buyers. If they can't even try out a supercharger without being afraid of being banned then that's going to deter potential buyers down the road
• this could hurt adoption in the long run. i mean, unless you are trying to fill up a tanker at a gas station or otherwise siphon a large amount of gas, they're not going to care if you fill up your car for personal or business purposes. I don't want to have to think "ok today I'm using the car for biz purposes, so I have to fill up at this charger, then tomorrow I can fill up at that charger... or can I?"
• it is also possible for some who actually need to drive a lot to have a similar charging pattern to one who may use their car for TNC activity, but not actually be one. if Tesla is going to warn someone they're really going to need hard proof, otherwise I would be really pissed at them for accusing me of doing something that I did not do. (example: I could drive a lot back and forth between LA and SD for whatever reason. that also happens to be a Tesloop route. Is Tesla going to ban me because my charging patterns could be similar to what a TNC may do?)

 

[smac]

@BerTX I had some very odd emails having just sold my Tesla which needed a couple of minor warranty issues rectified, Spotify enabling (I'm in the UK) and the mobile app connectivity switching over.

Tesla are definitely getting involved in the sales process in a way I have never experienced with any other vehicle. They were in effect refusing warranty fixes, and full access to the features of the car until some internal process had been undertaken.

It needed my confirmation as well as the purchasers. It took weeks to resolve, including Tesla demanding to see evidence of the official proof of registered keeper in full form.

This is the first I'd heard of this issue, but now it makes sense. Clearly Tesla will need to keep track of ownership transfers in light of this latest development.


So I stand by my assertion Tesla are getting involved in the sales process.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Remember that cars sold after -- what -- February of 2017, don't have free unlimited Supercharging for second owners anyway. So the livery companies would have to buy used 2016 or older vehicles anyway.

The deadline was a bit longer than that, but yes, of course this change affects cars preceding a certain date.

Nevertheless, that now after-the-fact policy-changed group is a large number of cars - most Model S/X on the road today, in fact.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla are definitely getting involved in the sales process in a way I have never experienced with any other vehicle. They were in effect refusing warranty fixes, and full access to the features of the car until some internal process had been undertaken.

It needed my confirmation as well as the purchasers. It took weeks to resolve, including Tesla demanding to see evidence of the official proof of registered keeper in full form.

...say what what now?

 

[smac]

...say what what now?

Easy to prove..

Just go into your Tesla and do the factory reset procedure.

It comes up with a load of blurb asking if you are a recent purchaser of the vehicle and if so must contact Tesla.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Easy to prove..

Just go into your Tesla and do the factory reset procedure.

It comes up with a load of blurb asking if you are a recent purchaser of the vehicle and if so must contact Tesla.

I get that.

However, denying warranty service until this is completed? How can that be even legal?

 

[verygreen]

Remember that cars sold after -- what -- February of 2017, don't have free unlimited Supercharging for second owners anyway

Even that is murky.
I still have a screenshot of my tesla account showing that I have unlimited supercharging that is to follow the car even if I sell it, that they then changed to not follow the car on resale. That they further amended that even future cars I buy would only get free supercharging if I buy by whatever date (but no such date before).

I imagine people that really need that free superchanging would sue and eventually win. I am going to let it slide since I only used supercharging across last 9 months only twice - so I know it essentially does not carry any significant monetary value for me. To think I was fretting about 100D upgrade or retaining free supercharging access back in January seems silly in retrospect now

 

[AnxietyRanger]

They do refer to alternatives and leave the door open, for certain unspecified cases.

From Privacy & Legal | Tesla

I get that, however the wording really looks like long-distance commercial Supercharging is an excemption or exception - and their offer is about charger installation instead. Latter is perfectly fine for a local-area fleet operator, but hardly for a business intending to do long-distance travel in a commercial capacity. What, build your own shadow Supercharger network around the country? How do commercial users travel long-distance on Teslas? Using CHAdeMO and Level/Type 2... or?

There has to be more to this than they are telling. IMO they would have been wise to be a bit more verbose about the long-distance commercial driving solution...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

For example, if this policy as explained is accurate, new Tesla rentals can no longer charge at Superchargers - not even for a fee.

In fact, literally speaking not even that Tesla loaner from a service center can.

Yeah, plenty of clarification and potential rollbacking to be expected, us usual.

 

[scaesare]

I think back-pedalling to "original intent" is disingenous. In fact, even this announcement keeps proving my point: Tesla states they are going to allow exceptions in some scenarios. Tesla is IMO walking a fine line here and their intent seems to include many things, not just long-distance travel. They want to keep enabling whatever they think makes sense for them at a given time, is my take on it. Indeed, the further proliferation of the urban Supercharger is another point of proof for my PoV, those have got nothing to do with long-distance travel...

Disingenuous? When their current actions reinforce what their earlier stated intent was?

No.

Perhaps you also forget they tried sending notes to folks who were abusing the system as well... which also reinforces their intent all along, even if it was not well received.

How the need to now technically prohibit usage which was never aligned with their goals is "enabling whatever they think makes sense for them at a given time" is an odd interpretation indeed.

Of course it was hubris.

There's no "of course" about it. While it may be your opinion, that's doesn't make it simple fact.

Removing the abusive use cases that make it possible to provide free supercharging for the scenarios they intended isn't tantamount to the bait-and-switch you seem so intent on seeing.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Perhaps you also forget they tried sending notes to folks who were abusing the system as well... which also reinforces their intent all along, even if it was not well received.

I have been consistent in my disagreement - I was when those notes were sent too. I think, and did say so then, that too was Tesla backpedalling on a course of action they had already taken.

The thing is, Tesla did liberally tout unlimited free Supercharging. It helped them sell cars. Their sales force (Tesla employees, remember) liberally used it as a sales point to apartment dwellers, judging by many customer stories, and so forth. Thus the Supercharging story evolved, by Tesla, beyond the long-distance driving... and Tesla's sales benefitted accordingly. The fact that they've later tried to backpedal on that, after so many quarters of sales, doesn't change that.

That has my opinion for a long time.

Now, what we have here is different, though. Because now Tesla is denying certain long-distance Supercharging too to used Tesla vehicles that were sold with free, unlimited Supercharging, that change owners. That's a new one.

Removing the abusive use cases that make it possible to provide free supercharging for the scenarios they intended isn't tantamount to the bait-and-switch you seem so intent on seeing.

Of course it is all my opinion, as I've stated.

Bait and switch are different to hubris. Hubris IMO is when you get ahead of yourself, promise too much and later are forced to eat crow, so to speak. The story about always free Supercharging clearly fits the bill, given how much backpedalling Tesla has now done. Bait and switch would suggest it was intentional - I am not suggesting that.

 

[smac]

I get that.

However, denying warranty service until this is completed? How can that be even legal?

The _VERY_ minor problem with my car was that the driver's door handle failed to respond to the capacitive touch sensors, when the car was in effect unlocked, but had timed out on autopresent retracting the handles. You could force a handle presentation by touching the rear handle on the same side, but the front handle wouldn't do the same. (My guess is the capactive sensor thingy had failed).

I was clear and upfront with the buyer this was the case, and told him it was a warranty issue he should get looked into prior to expiry (time based in my case, meaning 6 months to go).

A few days post sale I got an SMS from the buyer telling me Tesla wouldn't look at it until the official DVLA paperwork had gone through.

A week or so after that I received an email asking me to phone Tesla to confirm I had sold the vehicle.

I have the proof on phone and on my email, but for reasons of it being a private transaction I'd rather not post them on a public forum.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@smac I am obviously not asking for any proof, to be clear. I believe you.

Just amazed.

 

[MP3Mike]

The _VERY_ minor problem with my car was that the driver's door handle failed to respond to the capacitive touch sensors,

OT: But there are no capacitive touch sensors. There is a micro switch that detects you pushing the handle in.

 

[MP3Mike]

@smac I am obviously not asking for any proof, to be clear. I believe you.

Just amazed.

I've seen this many times. Just like I can't take someone else's pet to the vet and get them altered. Tesla only provides service to the registered owner.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I've seen this many times. Just like I can't take someone else's pet to the vet and get them altered. Tesla only provides service to the registered owner.

The point was that the official paperwork was not enough, not even @smac's word was enough, apparently instead it was a many weeks long process - before they would do warranty work on a vehicle that was under warranty the whole time.

I have never seen a car business where official papers wouldn't be enough. That's why vehicle registration exists.