New unlimited lifetime supercharger promotion

[AnxietyRanger]

I like @wdolson's theory. Though I would add, I am not sure it is quite that simple looking back, or even looking forwards. I think it is obvious Tesla are concerned about meeting their sales goals, but it is probably not just about Supercharging, but also about Model 3 osborning things and also there probably being some genuine, inherent overall demand growth issues with cars of this price as well... (Indeed, this being one reason Tesla used the free Supercharging as a pre-announced and heavily sold demand lever in Q1, instead of just quietly discontinuing it for new purchases.)

So I see this as Tesla mostly creating a demand lever for the current and next quarter(s), not really necessarily about any kind of long term master plan regarding free Supercharging. Being reactive is what Tesla is all about in the Quarter Games.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Here's an odd wrench to throw in here. I bought a private sale P85D in March. The car obviously has FUSC. But I don't have this on the MyTesla page which everyone else seems to have.

Supercharging
You have free, unlimited Supercharging, including your current Tesla and any new Model S or Model X you purchase. If you choose to sell your current Tesla, free Supercharging will transfer to the next owner. In addition, up to five friends you refer will also receive free Supercharging. Read our Supercharging terms.

Everything else is there, including the referral code and referrals. Just not that blurb. Where that blurb is for everyone else, mine just says "add credit card". Do I need to add a credit card to get the FSC blurb?

I'm chalking it up to a glitch, and not some other category of existing owner who doesn't qualify. But who knows?

 

[nwdiver]

It is probably not a conspiracy to sell cars, but it is obiously a very public (and arguably unethical, given they used a similar lever in Q1...) sales move to sell cars.

If there hadn't been supercharger abuse I would agree with you. But given the statements made by JB and Elon AND the behavior of drivers the balance of probability is that they mistakenly assumed someone buying a ~$100k car wouldn't spend 40 minutes sitting on a supercharger to save $10... when you're wrong you're wrong and you have to adjust...

My first trip to Gilroy I was shocked at the number of people charging there that lived nearby... sometimes irrational behavior is hard to predict

 

[D.E.]

I can't speak for anyone else but I am absolutely tickled that Tesla has added FSC to my build. It is a valuable extra and it was completely unexpected. It's a gift.

I don't see how anyone is being screwed over. No one gets any less than they had before.

As far as Tesla marketing goes and the arguments that Tesla is doing this to improve sales, I'm all for it. It is in my best interest that Tesla is successful. I hope they look hard at the bottom line in every decision they make. In buying a Tesla, I have hitched my wagon to Tesla and I need them to be efficient and profitable. I need them to be able to continue to support a lot of research and development. So now, their goals have become my goals, we sink or swim together.

So, Tesla, thanks for the free supercharging. I don't need to know why you did it, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I don't see how anyone is being screwed over. No one gets any less than they had before.

The ethically questionable part is very simple. People who felt pressured by Tesla sales messaging to buy one in Q1 - because FUSC was going away - were arguably doing so under false pretenses. So those who got that 90D instead of waiting for a 100D, for example, were fed a line that later turned out to be not so accurate.

So these people feel misled into a purchase decision they might otherwise made differently.

 

[whttiger25]

Here is an interesting one. This mysterious "included" blank line has been added to my build sheet (car ordered April 21, looking at late June delivery). I wonder what it means?

 

[ohmman]

Here is an interesting one. This mysterious "included" blank line has been added to my build sheet (car ordered April 21, looking at late June delivery). I wonder what it means?

View attachment 228027

You get to fill in the blank. It's a new promo!

 

[xveys]

Here's an odd wrench to throw in here. I bought a private sale P85D in March. The car obviously has FUSC. But I don't have this on the MyTesla page which everyone else seems to have.



Everything else is there, including the referral code and referrals. Just not that blurb. Where that blurb is for everyone else, mine just says "add credit card". Do I need to add a credit card to get the FSC blurb?

I'm chalking it up to a glitch, and not some other category of existing owner who doesn't qualify. But who knows?

I also don't have the message about free supercharging following me (the owner) for my next S or X. Also bought my car privately.
If we indeed fall in an in-between category because we're not the original owners of the car we have with FSC, I would feel quite disadvantaged... I hope our pages will get this too, or that it gets cleared up at least.
If FSC would follow me to my next S's or X's, I would definitely look into upgrading sooner rather than later instead of keeping the car for as long as possible.

 

[HankLloydRight]

If FSC would follow me to my next S's or X's, I would definitely look into upgrading sooner rather than later instead of keeping the car for as long as possible.

Same here.. although I think I'll be holding on to my P85D with the Performance Plus suspension for a very long time (or at least until Tesla re-releases it on new cars). I'm actually hoping more for a simple 100kWh (or greater) battery upgrade. I can wait it out.

 

[D.E.]

The ethically questionable part is very simple. People who felt pressured by Tesla sales messaging to buy one in Q1 - because FUSC was going away - were arguably doing so under false pretenses. So those who got that 90D instead of waiting for a 100D, for example, were fed a line that later turned out to be not so accurate.

So these people feel misled into a purchase decision they might otherwise made differently.

At the time that information was valid. If one opted to buy in quarter 1 order to get FUSC, they were hedging a bet.

No one knew things might change. I'm not sure I agree with the pressure part of it. People looked at the options and decided the way to go. The time element was just another factor in the decision. The decision they made with the information they had was then the best they could make. The fact that things changed later does not invalidate that decision.

To assume false pretenses is a leap. It presumes Tesla purposefully changed their long standing supercharger policies, and set up a billing system, with the sole purpose of hoodwinking a few buyers into accelerating their purchase by a few weeks. Doesn't it seem more likely Tesla fully intended to charge for supercharger use, then changed the policy back to free supercharger access for S and X as a method to further differentiate the difference in the upcoming 3 and the much more expensive luxury S?

 

[Galve2000]

To assume false pretenses is a leap. It presumes Tesla purposefully changed their long standing supercharger policies, and set up a billing system, with the sole purpose of hoodwinking a few buyers into accelerating their purchase by a few weeks. Doesn't it seem more likely Tesla fully intended to charge for supercharger use, then changed the policy back to free supercharger access for S and X as a method to further differentiate the difference in the upcoming 3 and the much more expensive luxury S?

This +1,000

 

[whttiger25]

The ethically questionable part is very simple. People who felt pressured by Tesla sales messaging to buy one in Q1 - because FUSC was going away - were arguably doing so under false pretenses. So those who got that 90D instead of waiting for a 100D, for example, were fed a line that later turned out to be not so accurate.

So these people feel misled into a purchase decision they might otherwise made differently.

I understand this, but at the same time, those who made this decision made an irrational and poor decision. The 100D was such a great value before the Q2 price increases, one could easily argue that the better financial decision - assuming you appreciate the range increase of the 100D and the added potential value of the car considering the ridiculously low $3000 upgrade price - would be to choose to pay for supercharging and wait for the 100D.

The FUSC supercharging decision is incredibly emotional. How much supercharging will you realistically do every year? Let's say the average driver drives 20,000 miles a year, and half of that is supercharging (which I think is very high on average, but you do have cases with people supercharging a lot lot more but they are way down the curve).

So 10000 miles supercharging a year, lets say you get 325wh/mi, that's 3250 kwh, you get 400 free, that's 2850kwh, at $0.20 a kwh, that's $650 a year. You're telling me you abandoned the idea of a car with 41 miles of additional range at only a $3000 price increase because you didn't want to spend $650 a year?

Anyway, that's a bad decision. But we all know the financial heuristics involved in getting something for free, and how people will greatly overvalue what's free, just because it's free. It's well studied. Anyone play Safeway's monopoly game? 'nuff said

And I've said this in other posts, I really do believe Tesla has been planning off the cuff, so to speak. They probably realized this month that grandfathering existing owners into lifetime supercharging was the better strategy, the one they should have used from the beginning. Poor planning, however, is not the same as bad ethics.

 

[rpm001]

This.

I very much agree this is what went into the decision. When I tell people about free supercharging their eyes light up. It's way higher value than it is cost to tesla.

Speculation is flying fast and furious, but I think Tesla is just opening free supercharging for life back up to all S and Xs and that will be a benefit of the high end car for the foreseeable future. This will include CPOs, owners of any S or X who upgrade to another S or X, and pretty much any other owner of an S or X with a clear title.

This will not cover people with salvage title S or X and it won't cover Model 3s or other mass market cars Tesla makes. This does make a clear benefit to shell out the extra money for the higher end car and helps to distinguish the S from the 3 more clearly. People who can afford the more expensive car and plan to do a lot of supercharging, it may make sense to shell out the extra and get the higher priced car. For those who are not going to be road tripping much, or have more limited budgets can settle for the less expensive, mass market car.

Tesla probably caved in and gave up on the paid supercharging for the newer S and X because they were seeing a clear decline in sales after free supercharging ended and the cost to them of providing it is less than the sales drop. Opening free supercharging back up is a cost to them, but most people don't use much more than the 400 KWh allowance a year anyway. So far in a year I've taken one road trip to California, and used superchargers three times on day trips. I did use 560 KWh on my California trip, but about 80 KWh of that was AC charging (at home and a destination charger at a hotel). If there were more convenient destination chargers I would have used those and used supercharging even less.

So I have gone over by about 100-150 KWh in the last year (between the trip and the day trips), but the last time I used a supercharger was in October. At the rates Tesla was going to charge, I would have been out $12-$18. Even if Tesla is just breaking even, they are only losing around $20 a year over what they would have given me for free if I was on the paid supercharging.

They looked at lost sales and lost good will and probably figured for most of the fleet they were looking at around $50 a year in supercharging. A few heavy users are costing them several hundred a year if not over $1000, but for a couple of those heavy users like Bjorn, they are getting a massive ton of publicity from his videos. So instead of shelling out lots of money on TV ads, Tesla is giving away long distance travel and letting people brag to their friends about it.

 

[whttiger25]

This.

I very much agree this is what went into the decision. When I tell people about free supercharging their eyes light up. It's way higher value than it is cost to tesla.

Agreed, the value is emotional, which means it is a much higher value to Tesla to offer than it costs.

Also, this makes sense in light of Tesla's recent difficulty in differentiating the model s from model 3.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I understand this, but at the same time, those who made this decision made an irrational and poor decision.

I understand, the narrative has now shifted that the people who bought a Tesla Model S/X 90D in Q1 made an irrational and poor decision.

Perhaps so.

I always say the best thing with Tesla is never to buy one, otherwise the odds in the quarter games are never in your favor...

It would be better if we all just waited. Buying a Tesla in Q2 is also very bad and irrational decision, because Model 3 launch is very likely to introduce something new to Model S/X as well.

 

[whttiger25]

I understand, the narrative has now shifted that the people who bought a Tesla Model S/X 90D in Q1 made an irrational and poor decision.

Perhaps so.

I always say the best thing with Tesla is never to buy one, otherwise the odds in the quarter games are never in your favor...

I don't want to sound so negative... I'm not saying those two decided to buy a 90D in Q1 made an irrational and poor decision - IF the 90D and the range it offered satisfied their needs. If, however, they were thinking in the back of their minds, "Well, I really want that extra range....but free supercharging!" Then yes, they probably made a bad decision.

Anyone who has been following Tesla knows things are always changing and the consistent advice, the Tesla golden rule, is, "buy the car that you know you is going to meet your needs and expectations, and then ignore the noise."

If you really wanted a 100D, and bought it, you've been rewarded with FUSC. If the 90D met your needs....you still have FUSC, and your needs are being met. If you really wanted the 100D but bought the 90D....then yeah, sucks. but you didn't follow the golden Tesla rule!

And anyone who bought the 90D instead of the 100D for FUSC, should have broken out the calculator, done the math, and incorporated the true cost of paid supercharging into their decision. I would assume 90% of those people would have realized the 100D was still a better deal. But....emotional value trumps logical value for the vast majority of humans. I realize that and I'm not immune. I think cars are an exception for me, I always dig deep into the math, but certainly emotional levers work on me in many, many other situations.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

To assume false pretenses is a leap. It presumes Tesla purposefully changed their long standing supercharger policies, and set up a billing system, with the sole purpose of hoodwinking a few buyers into accelerating their purchase by a few weeks. Doesn't it seem more likely Tesla fully intended to charge for supercharger use, then changed the policy back to free supercharger access for S and X as a method to further differentiate the difference in the upcoming 3 and the much more expensive luxury S?

By the way, I am not suggesting it was false pretenses by Tesla. I never said or implied that. I don't think Tesla knew they were going to do this, or at least I don't consider it likely.

Just that the understanding for the buyer ended up being wrong. They took Tesla's word for it and they should not have.

The unethical part, IMO, was Tesla deciding to go this way in Q2. Had ethics been a concern, they would have decided on a different kind of Q2 demand lever - or addressed that subgroup in some manner.

Basically IMO the ethics question revolves around the way Tesla changed their mind on this, not that Tesla tried to mislead.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Anyone who has been following Tesla knows things are always changing and the consistent advice, the Tesla golden rule, is, "buy the car that you know you is going to meet your needs and expectations, and then ignore the noise."

If you really wanted a 100D, and bought it, you've been rewarded with FUSC. If the 90D met your needs....you still have FUSC, and your needs are being met. If you really wanted the 100D but bought the 90D....then yeah, sucks. but you didn't follow the golden Tesla rule!

I would say almost nobody - with the exception of @Reciprocity - saw the return of free Supercharging coming. Tesla going back on their word so soon was a new one even for Tesla.

Now we know better.

 

[whttiger25]

I would say almost nobody - with the exception of @Reciprocity - saw the return of free Supercharging coming. Tesla going back on their word so soon was a new one even for Tesla.

Now we know better.

I certainly didn't see it coming. Here i was, all sad that I had totalled my 90D with FUSC and now had to buy one without it. I now feel lucky, and i wonder, if I was in the market for my first Tesla in December, what would I have done?

 

[Pinot.Noir]

When I first saw the message from Tesla I thought it was a scam of some type....totally unexpected.