AnxietyRanger
Well-Known Member
AnxietyRanger said:Of course in Europe it is even simpler, as not only does the UMC come with the car, the local equivalent of 240V outlet is basically every outlet on the continent - and depending a little on the country, many have them already outside of their houses or in parking lots too (although in practice some outlets might require lowering amps if they're for special purposes with "smaller" breakers). The basic 240V is of course not very high-amperage, I guess perhaps more akin to your hairdryer socket in capacity, so good for nightly charging at 12-13A... but it is still real charging, not a 110V trickle. Many houses and garages also readily have more industrial sockets, for which UMC has the appropriate swappable heads, that triple, quadruple that base charging speed.
These sockets that are prevalently available in Europe are not made for charging cars originally, but by happenstance the standard electricity infrastructure here is simply more suited to it on this base level (and this applied to most European countries, even though our sockets may differ a little from country to country). That said, I understand U.S. may enjoy an edge overall of HPWC "speed" potential for other reasons.
That said, personally I feel the qualifications discussed on who can legitimately charge locally at a Supercharger remain problematic, but I think that is best left at agreeing to disagree.
If you have a 240V outlet in your garage then there really is no argument. You should at least be able to gain 50 miles over night. Sure if that's not enough stop at a Supercharger as much as you need to but to not even plug in just lazy.
Indeed, many a daily commute can be replenished with even a mere 13A overnight.
However, as this is not simply a matter of etiquette, I refer to my summary, because the Tesla Supercharger offer debate is not quite that simple.
I am interested if a summary of sorts might generate some more mutual understanding than a continued tit-for-tat. I am genuinely interested how many of you could agree to the following, now updated:
I think most us agree Tesla created the Supercharger system to solve certain specific issues hindering EV adoption, including both lack of infrastructure and the unique needs of EVs. This started with long-distance travel (call it the road trip), both the lack of charging and the lack of charging speed, but eventually evolved into other intents as well, such as solving the question of urban charging (London), perhaps - at least temporarily - even issues like operating a taxi fleet of EVs (Schipol) which would not work as well without such fast charger.
I think most us agree Tesla has calculated the price of the Supercharger system (built into the price of the car nowadays) in such a manner that it would be mostly used for the above-mentioned purposes. I think most of us can also agree Tesla would prefer the Supercharger system to be used for these purposes and not much for other purposes. No doubt, Tesla is also a strong advocate of the home charger, and of the EV-era home (solar, PowerWall etc.) and would not wish to hinder this with the Supercharger.
Also, I think most of us agree the Supercharger, as unique a system as it is, is by nature an obstacle remover - not an instrument of lesser total cost of ownership. There is some debate over whether or not, as EVs have crossed these obstacles and moved to the mainstream, the Supercharger system may become - for future Tesla models - either pay-per-use or perhaps one day even obsolete if other solutions to EV charging replace it in society.
I think most of us can agree, Tesla did not specify or impose - prior to the latest general meeting - any specific limitations on the use of Superchargers, beyond rules related to parking at Superchargers (be it in the form of traffic signs or the website FAQ). I think most of us even agree, Tesla will not likely impose any limitations on the use of Superchargers (on Model S), beyond informative letters.
Where there is a main disagreement, and my intent here is merely to note this not continue to argue it, is: Was Tesla clear enough beforehand on what the Supercharger system can be used for?
Some feel, perhaps a majority on this TMC thread, the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough. One argument being this is similar to free refills at lunch restaurant, you are expected to know the limits (i.e. during your meal, not the next day) without being explicitly told so.
Some feel, perhaps a minority on this TMC thread, Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use. Some of these people feel e.g. the lunch refill argument does not apply, because Tesla made use of the implication that there are absolutely no limits, similar to a restaurant selling you a mug and saying come refill anytime.
Who would be comfortable with this summary and just agreeing to disagree on the last part? I know I am.
Last edited:
