Was it in a contract though? You've said before what Tesla said publicly is good enough. Tesla also indicated several times and at Supercharging launch event that the intent of the network was to facilitate long distance travel so if we should follow vacating the Supercharging stall when done charging we should also do that as well.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Was it in a contract though? You've said before what Tesla said publicly is good enough. Tesla also indicated several times and at Supercharging launch event that the intent of the network was to facilitate long distance travel so if we should follow vacating the Supercharging stall when done charging we should also do that as well.
Panu, you must finely parse that "Customers are free to use the network as much as they like." like an adult to understand it correctly. Don't understand it like a child.
Just like they said its intended for long distance travel? You can pick and choose which statement you want to follow and still be 'right'.
Some need things in a line by line contract it sounds like instead of using common sense and decency to interact with others.
I am not trying to be unfair on Tesla. I think their overall public message is good enough for me, I don't need to decipher a contract to respect their terms.
I do think they have been clear enough on - don't park at chargers (unless it is a shared parking spot).
I do not think that their public message was in any way clear that charging at a Supercharger would be limited by location, frequency or even intent. Quite the contrary. Hence I don't think it would be OK to go back on that for the life of existing Model S's with Supercharging.
They can change the message and terms for future sales, naturally.
It's entirely possible that as more people have gotten their cars, behavior that wasn't an issue or wasn't expected at this level wasn't talked about at the start because Tesla didn't think it would be an issue. Sometimes things change and Tesla needs to adapt.
The key difference, of course, is that many of us grasped the Tesla's intent originally by looking at the big picture of what was stated about the superchargers. This intent was subsequently confirmed by Elon.
Others clung to some phrases out of context, and then subsequently have found themselves at odds with Tesla's intent.
So it's become clear who was able to grasp the big-picture intent.
I don't doubt Tesla's original intent, nor was I ever confused by it. They added other intents to that later, of course, nor was I confused by them. The question is, how were they pursuing that intent. This is where we disagree.
I disagree that the product they presented to the public was ever publicly confined to that intent. The reason: Without being confined to that intent, it was a better marketing message. A better selling point.
I sincerely believe Tesla presented to us, and benefited from that perception, an unlimited (for life of the car) charging network. Sure, it was intended to address various shortcomings of existing infrastructure, and locations of the chargers were decided accordingly, but at the same time it was not communicated its use would be confined to that intent. To the contrary, my view is Tesla communicated in a way that was reasonable to accept it is not confined to that intent (especially since there was a growing list of intents).
And I do believe this was intentional. Free was a very good marketing message. Free sells cars better than a list of limits and qualifications. All I'm saying (and I do expect Tesla to), respect that commitment, change it for the future sales if need be and be clear about that.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Therefore, to you "on the road" has practically no meaning at all because your car is always on the road, except when on a ferry, and we know that Tesla did not mean to only exclude SC when on a ferry. That interpretation results in an absurdity.
There's a principle at law that does not allow for this kind of interpretation. You must interpret things in their most appropriate and reasonable context. See, for example, the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation.
I sure wouldn't want to go into Court with your argument. The judge would roll his eyes and say we all know what "on the road" means. This is aside from the fact that Tesla's lawyers would present the Court with documentation showing that SC are designed for, and marketed as, road trip chargers and that is what "on the road" means. It need not be a long trip, of course, but they are not intended for everyday use.
Of course, it would never get to Court. But if it did, I don't like your chances based on your argument above.
I think that says it all.
The remaining argument seems to be that they didn't "lawyer it up" enough for you to feel comfortable. Well, I'm glad they aren't wasting effort on that kind of stuff yet. When Gen3 comes out, they can price in "lawyer crap" as part of the cost of delivering big volume models. Sucks for Model 3 buyers (me included) but apparently that's the price of dealing with a world mired with red tape, lawyers, and contracts that barely fit on a ream of paper.
Again, you ignore the fact that Tesla intentionally built urban chargers for local charging.
"On the road" can easily be interpreted as "not at home", "not at work", instead of just "not on a ferry". If Tesla meant to limit the chargers to some specific type of road trip, they really shouldn't have used such expansive "free for life", "as much as you like", "anywhere" type of statements as they clearly have. They could have just clearly stated, in those instances, use of Superchargers for local charging is not allowed.
They did not, perhaps because it was a better marketing message when no such things were said. I do believe Tesla will respect that too, for current Model S.
deonb
Active Member
vs.
The "road trip" and "stalls should be freed" clauses have always been part of the same page. How did you know about the one and not the other?
Can you walk us through your purchase experience you've had perhaps?
When we purchased our car in May 2012 it was before the official SuperCharger announcement was made, but after SuperChargers were advertised in store. We didn't know they were going to be free at the time. We also didn't have any idea where they were going to be located, but even back then it was clear that the SuperChargers were meant for road trips. They were advertised on the same screens as the WCGH (also for roadtrips), and it was stated that they were going to be strategically placed on highways and in between cities specifically for that purpose. I remember them clearly and explicitly stating the word "road trips" on the screens because I got very excited about that, and in fact "road trips" was the kicker for me to purchase the vehicle, because that made it clear to me that I wouldn't be stranded where I live. And below that was another screen about "and here's what you need at home".
We did received other misinformation about SuperChargers - some in-store personal misinterpret "half a charge in half and hour" and math'd it up to: 'full charge in an hour'. And the car was going to have Chademo from the beginning - the store even had pages up from the WCGH site open that talked about the charging speed of Chademo. But SuperChargers were without question tied to road trips from day 1 - at least in my mind. Actually, this was technically ever before day 1.
I've been in the store many times since, and I've been on the website many time since. I've never gotten the impression that the purpose of SuperChargers is instead to reduced TCO.
Maybe if you can walk us through how you first learned about SuperChargers without also knowing what Tesla's intent was behind them, it will help us understand your point of view?
No, that is not what I think at all.
I think Tesla had another intent alongside enable long-distance travel and later urban local charging: Marketing.
Free, unlimited Supercharging for the life of the vehicle was a good marketing message.
Hence they didn't create or post limitations, but instead came up with this type of very simple fixed-price service.
I am merely asking them to stick to that commitment - and I believe they will.
+1 to everything said here, including the follow-up questions to gather more data on what perhaps was different for AR.
I know what is posted on that page. I don't think the road trip pretext is, when taken as a whole with the rest of Tesla's marketing (and the fact that they have built Superchargers for other uses as well), in any way a clear message of exclusion for this particular purpose. If Tesla wanted to limit the use of Superchargers to that intent, they should have said so. Even the latest quote from Elon says, with now the long-distance qualifiers, it is sometimes cool to use the local Supercharger. This has not been clear-cut at all.
My purchase experience is irrelevant as I live far from Superchargers. I am commenting on my observations of the Tesla story overall.
Oh, if we're gonna play that card...
I think they should add a speed limit of 60mph to all EU highways and freeways. Yes, "mph". Make all the drivers do math while they're cussing out the slow speeds. It doesn't affect me, so it's fun to have an opinion about it that ruins someone else's day. Also, it will be fun to see all the German car manufacturers waste untold amounts of cash fighting the legislation and burning through paper and pen (ok, electrons...) keeping track of everything.
/rolleyes
I am not commenting to make anyone miserable. I believe Tesla had a marketing message and thus a commitment, and I believe it is in the interest of both Tesla and the community for them to stick to that. I think trying to back away from it would not be wise. They can change the terms for future, of course. I expect to be in the Supercharger network during the life of my future Model X and I'd of course prefer clear terms from Tesla, whatever they may be.
It is fine if people disagree with the perception of what Tesla's marketing message was. I have no problem with that. I have my opinion, other's have theirs. If Tesla were to enforce their long-distance intent on Superchargers, perhaps someone would take it to court to test the legal standing of things, but other than such an official arbiter, I guess we'll never have an answer on who is right.
They also had a similar mis-hap with their stated charging speeds.
I couldn't for the life of me get the speeds that the website claimed, they lowered it after my blog post.
(Maybe they should just hire me in their marketing department to check their assumptions!)
I couldn't for the life of me get the speeds that the website claimed, they lowered it after my blog post.
(Maybe they should just hire me in their marketing department to check their assumptions!)
deonb
Active Member
"Lalalalala - not going to read the material -lalalala- I didn't know -lalalalala- not listening", generally does not hold up in a court of law.
You may have some success fighting this as a P.R. battle, but you won't stand a rat's change as a legal one. Tesla's message on this has been unwavering. The fact that they haven't enforced it so far does not make for a change in message or policy.
Depending on jurisdiction the fact that a company hasn't enforced something could be construed as commercial practice - aka consent.
But that's not what I'd consider relevant here. My opinion is that Tesla's message on the limitations of the Supercharging product was not unwavering, hence the disagreement flows from that. I don't think there was a message on limitations at all. I simply disagree with you what Tesla's message so far has been, so I can understand that you feel different if your perception of it is different.
I believe Tesla chose not to limit the use of Superchargers to any particular intent, because it was a great marketing message that benefited their product. They knew there would be some local charging, of course they did, they even build some urban chargers for that. Lately they may have started backtracking from that message a little, but overall I do think they will continue to respect their marketing message in practice as well.
I doubt we will ever get any kind of arbiter deciding this, so we're left with our opinions.
deonb
Active Member
Can you show one example, on any version of any page of their web site, or in any press release, or in any conference call or events that they've held, or in any of Elon's tweets or blog posts, or any other contractual or marketing material, or any third party content endorsed by Tesla... basically anything except for employee word-of-mouth, where Tesla stated or even implied that a goal or feature of Supercharging is to reduce TCO?
I don't think the goal of Supercharging is to reduce TCO, so I'd be surprised to find any such message.
But I do think the "free for life" message of Supercharging was used liberally by Tesla and Tesla sales reps with a marketing intent, in addition to the intent of reducing various disadvantages EVs suffer due to lack of infrastructure (including but not limited to long-distance driving).
It was a great tagline and I'm sure the potential of free charging sold many cars. Perhaps they will now move away from that by adding that qualifier "free long-distance for life", but I wonder how they will handle those urban Superchargers intended for apartment dwellers.
