Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving Notes

[EchoDelta]

EchoDelta
There was a reason obviously was capitalized.
I also expect to be on the loosing end of this discussion as I am on personal injury (tort) law, prescription drug advertising, campaign finance, the Vatican and child abuse and a litany of other issues. We live in a democracy where a majority can be persuaded to do just about anything. I can not and I shale raise my children to think for themselves and live with the consequences of their decisions.
I take comfort in an engineering background where black is black and white is white. Sure, life is filled with greys but it is how you perceive and work with those shades of grey that define you.

I agree wholeheartedly with the second part of the post and will probably quote you in the future. I hope to instill in my kids the same critical thinking and free will with the required internal compass and values!

I didn't read the discussion as being about what's right or wrong (ie you winning or loosing) as much as trying to elucidate / interpret what tesla's intent is (has been and will be) from what's been communicated and interpreted and done.(which affects Tesla's reality in little or no measure other than providing free entertainment and market sentiment material)

Since it seems to be an exercise in group divination of a 3rd party intent it seemed to me your post was jumping a few boxes ahead implying supercharger intent is clear and then ascribing a comparison with moral black and white. Sorry if I threw out the baby w the bathwater.
I think Anxiety Ranger dissected the many sub themes of the thread well and we may all be posting into multiple different conversations.
- what is (was, will be) the intent of use of superchargers? What are the grays tesla is deliberately playing with (to get data/not get distracted/etc)?
- given a hypothetical intent , is doing X or Y right or wrong and why? What would be wronger?
- given action X or Y, is it ok for Tesla/Owners to react in ways P/Q and why?

Etc Etc etc

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I agree wholeheartedly with the second part of the post and will probably quote you in the future. I hope to instill in my kids the same critical thinking and free will with the required internal compass and values!

I didn't read the discussion as being about what's right or wrong (ie you winning or loosing) as much as trying to elucidate / interpret what tesla's intent is (has been and will be) from what's been communicated and interpreted and done.(which affects Tesla's reality in little or no measure other than providing free entertainment and market sentiment material)

Since it seems to be an exercise in group divination of a 3rd party intent it seemed to me your post was jumping a few boxes ahead implying supercharger intent is clear and then ascribing a comparison with moral black and white. Sorry if I threw out the baby w the bathwater.
I think Anxiety Ranger dissected the many sub themes of the thread well and we may all be posting into multiple different conversations.
- what is (was, will be) the intent of use of superchargers? What are the grays tesla is deliberately playing with (to get data/not get distracted/etc)?
- given a hypothetical intent , is doing X or Y right or wrong and why? What would be wronger?
- given action X or Y, is it ok for Tesla/Owners to react in ways P/Q and why?

Etc Etc etc

Most excellent post, EchoDelta. Much appreciated - that is exactly my thoughts on the disagreement with lolachampcar (on intent as well as then black/white right/wrong), as well as the interpretation of the entire thread as well.

- - - Updated - - -

EchoDelta
There was a reason obviously was capitalized.
I also expect to be on the loosing end of this discussion as I am on personal injury (tort) law, prescription drug advertising, campaign finance, the Vatican and child abuse and a litany of other issues. We live in a democracy where a majority can be persuaded to do just about anything. I can not and I shale raise my children to think for themselves and live with the consequences of their decisions.
I take comfort in an engineering background where black is black and white is white. Sure, life is filled with greys but it is how you perceive and work with those shades of grey that define you.

I must say I take certain amount of offence in the veiled suggestion that the "critics" in this thread are somehow immoral.

That is painting with quite a broad brush. Some perhaps are quite that, but others are worried by what they perceive flirting with immorality on the corporate side (bait and switch on Supercharger terms).

If one were to believe (and be right in believing) a bait and switch occurred, pointing it out would not be immoral, nor would it be entitlement. I would like my kids to recognize a bait and switch and not stand silent while it happens.

That said, I don't think Tesla is changing any terms, theirs was a soft measure and as long as it remains that, I'm cool with them respecting the original terms. I don't think Tesla is bait and switching. So this is not directed at Tesla, but at the conversation that deals with various hypotheticals. I do believe many in this thread have been concerned Tesla sounded like they were bait and switching.

 

[lolachampcar]

Please do not take offense. I am the outlier here.

BTW, never having to pay for a single mile driven is a wonderful sales tool. If that was Tesla's intent, they would have shouted it from every mountain top in no uncertain terms.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Please do not take offense. I am the outlier here.

BTW, never having to pay for a single mile driven is a wonderful sales tool. If that was Tesla's intent, they would have shouted it from every mountain top in no uncertain terms.

I don't think you are. I think there is a fairly even argument on what Tesla's marketing was saying - and how we should interpret it.

I am perfectly all right in disagreeing with what Tesla said and how to interpret them.

What I'd love to be acknowledged, and what I think most everyone probably could acknowledge if we could isolate it from this particular discussion, is that bait and switch by a company is wrong - and pointing it out is not entitlement, immoral or bad form in any way. It is fine if one believes this wasn't even close to what happened here with Tesla, but it would be great if at least this side of the argument could be seen - instead of just reverting to "if it sounds too good to be true" you should know it is a bait and switch and its your fault type of thinking.

Not looking away while bait and switch happens would be immoral in my books.

 

[brianman]

BTW, never having to pay for a single mile driven is a wonderful sales tool. If that was Tesla's intent, they would have shouted it from every mountain top in no uncertain terms.

Concur.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

BTW, never having to pay for a single mile driven is a wonderful sales tool. If that was Tesla's intent, they would have shouted it from every mountain top in no uncertain terms.

Concur.

But then that wasn't their intent. They were never going to place Superchargers everywhere, nor was it realistic to expect them to, which is the limiting factor in practice. The nature of EV driving benefits greatly from home and destination charging, hence why Tesla has programs for both - and why most choose to adopt those anyway, in addition to whatever Supercharging they do.

This is why Tesla could market unlimited use of their Superchargers, which was almost as good a marketing messages as "never pay". Simple, and it sold (sells) cars. They counted on it being sustainable without limitations, at least for the current kind of high-end models. For every people who Supercharge a lot, there are people who never do.

 

[lolachampcar]

Nope!
Plain and simple; the network was to remove the travel barrier from EV adoption.
I think it is time for me to stop saying (or at least posting it on this thread) as I might get in the way of what people want to believe.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Nope!
Plain and simple; the network was to remove the travel barrier from EV adoption.
I think it is time for me to stop saying (or at least posting it on this thread) as I might get in the way of what people want to believe.

But that is not my point. I am not arguing who is right or wrong on Tesla's intent or marketing message. I think we're beyond that - I wrote a summary on the disagreement.

What I am trying to explain above is how that perception changes or even reverses the moral situation. If one truly believes a company is bait and switching, holding onto to the original "pitch" would not be immoral, nor would it be entitlement.

Take a step out of the Tesla situation and think if that part at least makes sense to you? Wouldn't you call calling out a company bait and switching as potentially quite moral, and not an act of entitlement? I am not (nor will I) asking you to agree this is what Tesla is doing, just that do you agree with the notion of protesting a bait and switch?

I think understanding that might help you to see where some of us are coming from with our opinion.

 

[Owner]

I think Tesla intended free-forever

Then they realized that they should fill in larger metropolitan areas (although they did not have to as there are plenty of public chargers)

Then they realized oh, apartment folks can charge at the superchargers

Then some of those folks were not always "on their best behavior"

Then Elon slipped a bit at the shareholder meeting but no one knows exactly what is the content of these notes.


I agree with lolachampcar. Free forever is a great message.

As happens oh so often in technology companies, the intent hits some snafus. The problem is over packed superchargers in dense areas where more build out is prohibited. San Juan Capistrano is in a funky parking lot as it is.

so I don't think it was a bait-and-switch

But a bait - and - oopsy perhaps?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

so I don't think it was a bait-and-switch

But a bait - and - oopsy perhaps?

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on whether or not Tesla has toyed with bait and switching at all (in strict terms, I think they haven't), but I'm not sure in theoretical terms bait-and-oops is much different from bait-and-switch. Doing the right thing is easy when it is easy. Doing the right thing when it is hard is the measure of a person as well as a company. If a company markets a certain way, benefits from it, and then finds out they can't fulfill their obligations, trying to quietly walk away from the wouldn't sound like a morally sustainable solution.

But this is digressing from Tesla, I think their message changes, but as far as actual terms go - I don't think they'll start imposing any limitations for current customers. Well, I hope anyway for the sake - my view - doing the right thing.

 

[Owner]

A pure bait-and-switch is very sleazy.

I think this whole problem is that they did realize a few issues with a handful of locations and are trying their best to handle it with "notes".

Future with gen 3 - could very well be something different.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on whether or not Tesla has toyed with bait and switching at all (in strict terms, I think they haven't), but I'm not sure in theoretical terms bait-and-oops is much different from bait-and-switch. Doing the right thing is easy when it is easy. Doing the right thing when it is hard is the measure of a person as well as a company. If a company markets a certain way, benefits from it, and then finds out they can't fulfill their obligations, trying to quietly walk away from the wouldn't sound like a morally sustainable solution.

But this is digressing from Tesla, I think their message changes, but as far as actual terms go - I don't think they'll start imposing any limitations for current customers. Well, I hope anyway for the sake - my view - doing the right thing.

 

[stopcrazypp]

BTW, never having to pay for a single mile driven is a wonderful sales tool. If that was Tesla's intent, they would have shouted it from every mountain top in no uncertain terms.

I definitely agree with this. The first place they would put it is by increasing the estimated gas savings part that they insist on including in their advertised price.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on whether or not Tesla has toyed with bait and switching at all (in strict terms, I think they haven't), but I'm not sure in theoretical terms bait-and-oops is much different from bait-and-switch. Doing the right thing is easy when it is easy. Doing the right thing when it is hard is the measure of a person as well as a company. If a company markets a certain way, benefits from it, and then finds out they can't fulfill their obligations, trying to quietly walk away from the wouldn't sound like a morally sustainable solution.

But this is digressing from Tesla, I think their message changes, but as far as actual terms go - I don't think they'll start imposing any limitations for current customers. Well, I hope anyway for the sake - my view - doing the right thing.

There are a lot more other things where Tesla can be blamed for bait and switch (for example promising certain features and never delivering in the end). However, in this case, I think it would be a huge stretch. Although there still needs to be more participants in the poll, so far it's still standing at 90+% saying they understood superchargers were for long distance driving. I looked it up and such a percentage can actually be used in a false advertisement lawsuit by the defendant as evidence to disprove false advertising. It shows the company wasn't trying to deliver a misleading message. And in case it was not clear: we aren't talking about happening to stop by and charging occasionally, but people who do *all* their charging at their local superchargers.

 

[lolachampcar]

The reason I've not picked up on the bait to discuss bait in switch is that I think the intent/nature of the SC infrastructure is perfectly clear. There is no reason to discuss B&S here.

Now if Tesla had stood on the mountain top and touted free for life driving and counted those gas savings in their pitch for the car (thank you stop of that one) then told me I could not use SCs for daily charging, I would have a problem.

 

[dsm363]

I'll just say this. I drive long distance A LOT. Every single week. If you don't like subsidizing my driving style, don't support the free Supercharger model, support a pay per use model. I'd be fine with pay per use. But until then, thanks for the free juice!

I and I bet everyone else here has zero problem with your weekly use of Superchargers. Because you need it for long distance travel and that's what Tesla said the network was built to facilitate. I use a Supercharger about once a month and have no problem with others who need it and use it more.

 

[dsm363]

I think Tesla intended free-forever

Then they realized that they should fill in larger metropolitan areas (although they did not have to as there are plenty of public chargers)

Then they realized oh, apartment folks can charge at the superchargers

Then some of those folks were not always "on their best behavior"

Then Elon slipped a bit at the shareholder meeting but no one knows exactly what is the content of these notes.


I agree with lolachampcar. Free forever is a great message.

As happens oh so often in technology companies, the intent hits some snafus. The problem is over packed superchargers in dense areas where more build out is prohibited. San Juan Capistrano is in a funky parking lot as it is.

so I don't think it was a bait-and-switch

But a bait - and - oopsy perhaps?

That's what I think happened as well. They probably knew some people would abuse the system but we're caught off guard by the growing trend.

 

[Scotty]

That's what I think happened as well. They probably knew some people would abuse the system but we're caught off guard by the growing trend.

I disagree that anyone who has bought a MS is 'abusing' the system even it they use a SC for 100% of their charging.. It was marketed as fast, free and forever. If you intend to change the rules.... be ready for the backlash and negative press.

Scotty

 

[deonb]

I disagree that anyone who has bought a MS is 'abusing' the system even it they use a SC for 100% of their charging.. It was marketed as fast, free and forever. If you intend to change the rules.... be ready for the backlash and negative press.

Scotty

It was also marketed as being able to eat a quick meal while you charge, but I've been to many chargers and Tesla has never given me a meal.

See, I can also selectively read the web site and ignore everything that doesn't suit me...

[EDIT]. Geez... what am I thinking with free food. Instead:

"Free Model S P85D for life"

The words are all on that page.

 

[Tedkidd]

No. Hello? The context here is the SEC filing of $500 per car for Supercharger maintenance and operating costs. I'm saying that the SEC filing is wrong for this one line item.

Tesla makes $10'000k+ off every vehicle. They can in theory have every person charge $10'000 from the SuperCharger, and still make a profit. That still doesn't make the SEC filing of $500 correct. It was based on an assumption that Superchargers would be used a lot less than they are now. You can't reduce the cost of an item in one financial year with unrealized potential income from a future financial year.

I was taking your previous statement at face value and attempting to help you understand how those numbers might actually NOT be wrong:

This is not correct (I know this is what Tesla is filing with the SEC currently, but it's wrong).

The SuperCharger dashboard shows the average use per car is 500kWh/year. The accounting period of the Model S is 20 years. This means that the cost of electricity to Tesla has to be less than 5c/kWh in order to justify a $500/car reserve. That can't be.

I'm sorry you don't like my suggestion. Maybe you can tell us what you think the correct 20 year cost per kWh of electricity Tesla should be using?

 

[deonb]

I'm sorry you don't like my suggestion. Maybe you can tell us what you think the correct 20 year cost per kWh of electricity Tesla should be using?

At the very least 10.45c/kWh, which is the national average. That does not include:

a) Demand charges
b) They use 3 phase power, which is more expensive
c) Lots of the Superchargers are in EU, which is more expensive
d) Effect of inflation down the line (though this is offset by the time-value of money for an upfront payment, so lets call this one even)

But even with that I can buy 10.45c. I don't buy 5c.

 

[Tedkidd]

It would be interesting to learn how they arrived at the number.