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

[Mike_Schlechter]

I'm coming very late to the thread and have not read all 51 pages.

I'm not a daily user of Superchargers, but I will easily go a few weeks in a row where I use them daily, even multiple times a day. In my case it just depends upon where my clients are that I'm supporting. I did a three month stint last summer where I was going to Long Island every day, and basically stopped in Darien, CT every evening to charge up, as I lack the dual chargers and if I was getting home late enough, and leaving early enough, that I wouldn't always have enough charge for the round trip the next day without a charge. Incidentally I think I gained about 10lbs eating dinner at the rest stop last summer.

So, while I was using the SC pretty much daily, I feel that was a completely legit use, even if I was getting home early enough to ensure a round trip the next day.

However, a better example was Tuesday. I had meetings in South Jersey. I knew I could make it from my home to the meeting and back home (done it before) on a single charge. Before the SC's existed I made that trip on a single 90% charge in winter even. So, I really had no reason to hit the SC. However, I hit Paramus in both directions.
A: it broke up the drive
B: I really do love walking around that lot full us used Teslas. I have a game where I try and find a lower VIN. Alas, there was a Sig in the 600's there, so I'm 1000 later.
C: It is a free top up and I feel fine using it that way

Certainly if I ever pull into a SC, and am not truly worried about getting to my destination with a 30 mile of range buffer, and there is a back up of cars charging, I move on. However, at 7am on a Tuesday almost every SC out there is empty and I have time to spare I generally will charge, regardless of need.

While I have never considered an unnecessary stop at a SC abuse, I am willing to submit myself to the judgement of the community.

 

[Ugliest1]

I'm coming very late to the thread and have not read all 51 pages.

Where's the fun in that????

I'm not a daily user of Superchargers, but I will easily go a few weeks in a row where I use them daily, even multiple times a day. In my case it just depends upon where my clients are that I'm supporting.
<snip>
While I have never considered an unnecessary stop at a SC abuse, I am willing to submit myself to the judgement of the community.

Well, I *have* read the whole thread (someone posted something about OCD...) and I think everyone who is saying superchargers are primarily for long distance travel (and whenever you "need" a charge) would totally agree that your usage is completely, unequivocally proper. No problem.

I think scaesare's and bonnie's very recent notes in particular are the best summaries. Not to take anything away from others.

 

[Panu]

I believe most people at TMC think that as long as you charge at home whenever your car is at home (if you have any kind of charging possibility at home) then you are not abusing the Supercharging network.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I believe most people at TMC think that as long as you charge at home whenever your car is at home (if you have any kind of charging possibility at home) then you are not abusing the Supercharging network.

That's a good summary. If you do so, even if you happen to local charge at a supercharge, it's pretty much only going to be an occasional convenience. Even on the slowest 110v (only applicable in North America/Japan), an overnight charge will get you ~30 miles of range, so over a year it'll cover 11k miles of travel. A 14-50 covers even more.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

I believe most people at TMC think that as long as you charge at home whenever your car is at home (if you have any kind of charging possibility at home) then you are not abusing the Supercharging network.

Yes I do too.
Which is why I am surprised no one else has brought up Mr. Noland's Article where he says he intends for his local SC to provide all his Model S' charge:

my electric meter has been climbing, slowly but inexorably. It now stands at a horrifying 13,595 kilowatt-hours into the red.

I’m losing the war. Badly.

And about one-third of those kilowatt-hours have gone into the Tesla.

A Supercharger nearby would allow me to cut my electricity usage by a third, reverse the meter’s long-term climb, and eventually return to my ultimate goal: negative territory.

 

[TexasEV]

My unscientific survey of Model S owners:
Poll: Where do you do most of your local charging?
found that less than 1% responded their primary local charging source is "supercharger, just because I want to even though I could charge at home"
While a few people here are standing on principle, it's probably even fewer who are actually abusing the system that way (or maybe they're not on TMC or they don't respond to polls).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I believe most people at TMC think that as long as you charge at home whenever your car is at home (if you have any kind of charging possibility at home) then you are not abusing the Supercharging network.

While I don't technically think that is false, I think there are those who don't see "as much as you like" as abuse either - because they feel Tesla's original messaging was such in their opinion. What you say may be fine etiquette, though. As I said, it is a different discussion to talk etiquette, than to talk what Tesla's marketing message was - and have they now changed it. People are discussing multiple issues at the same time. I agree with you, Panu, Tesla has changed their marketing message on this recently. Hopefully it falls short of a bait and switch, because they're not enforcing it.

As for those who suggest holding an opinion like this, and having a theoretical discussion on the merits, is somehow being responsible for the destruction of the Supercharger system. Hyperbole much? Sometimes it just annoys me to no end to see how often people here first think if our talk hurts Tesla and only after that feel free to talk, as long as they don't perceive hurt to Tesla the company. We are not Tesla's protectors, we are their customers (and of course some of us are investors but polite might be to keep that separate from car ownership topics).

All that said, I think my summary remains relevant - several new people have chimed in on the "critics" side in the past few pages as well.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

My unscientific survey of Model S owners:
Poll: Where do you do most of your local charging?
found that less than 1% responded their primary local charging source is "supercharger, just because I want to even though I could charge at home"
While a few people here are standing on principle, it's probably even fewer who are actually abusing the system that way (or maybe they're not on TMC or they don't respond to polls).

That supports my point: Every fixed-price system has low and high users. It would not be right to go after the latter unless it has been made clear beforehand (prior to purchase) what the limits are, because there are also always the former users using too little of the system and thus balancing things out.

Yet some feel this talk will destroy Superchargers as we know it. Go figure.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes I do too.
Which is why I am surprised no one else has brought up Mr. Noland's Article where he says he intends for his local SC to provide all his Model S' charge:

I didn't read that article at first, but it does talk directly about the same thing. The main reason I didn't at first is the "Noland" name. He likes to take Tesla to task over many things (big or small), so I have been somewhat conditioned to ignore a lot of his articles (it seems he bought the Model S with the express purpose so that he can write lots of articles criticizing Tesla from an owner's perspective).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Yes I do too.
Which is why I am surprised no one else has brought up Mr. Noland's Article where he says he intends for his local SC to provide all his Model S' charge:

My choice quotes from that article:

My second reaction: Elon is rewriting history.

My third reaction: Would an all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant tell a hungry teen-age football player that the buffet is meant for people with normal appetites, and that it’s cool to go back for seconds occasionally, but not all the time--and certainly not thirds?

When a restaurant (or a car company) sets its pricing, it takes into account all kinds of users. For every hungry teenager who ravages the buffet, there’s a little old lady who eats like a bird.

For every local Supercharger user—and there are very few of us lucky and/or nutty enough to fall into this category—there’s a Model S owner who never Supercharges.

Indeed.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't read that article at first, but it does talk directly about the same thing. The main reason I didn't at first is the "Noland" name. He likes to take Tesla to task over many things (big or small), so I have been somewhat conditioned to ignore a lot of his articles (it seems he bought the Model S with the express purpose so that he can write lots of articles criticizing Tesla from an owner's perspective).

Or maybe you're just overly sensitive.

Taking Tesla to task is fine. As I read that guy, he is also saying many positive things and showing great passion towards Tesla.

Some of us actually believe a host of critical fans is always, always better for a company than a cadre of unconditional ones. It is one view to the issue anyway.

 

[gnxs]

I'm coming very late to the thread and have not read all 51 pages.

I'm not a daily user of Superchargers, but I will easily go a few weeks in a row where I use them daily, even multiple times a day. In my case it just depends upon where my clients are that I'm supporting. I did a three month stint last summer where I was going to Long Island every day, and basically stopped in Darien, CT every evening to charge up, as I lack the dual chargers and if I was getting home late enough, and leaving early enough, that I wouldn't always have enough charge for the round trip the next day without a charge. Incidentally I think I gained about 10lbs eating dinner at the rest stop last summer.

So, while I was using the SC pretty much daily, I feel that was a completely legit use, even if I was getting home early enough to ensure a round trip the next day.

However, a better example was Tuesday. I had meetings in South Jersey. I knew I could make it from my home to the meeting and back home (done it before) on a single charge. Before the SC's existed I made that trip on a single 90% charge in winter even. So, I really had no reason to hit the SC. However, I hit Paramus in both directions.
A: it broke up the drive
B: I really do love walking around that lot full us used Teslas. I have a game where I try and find a lower VIN. Alas, there was a Sig in the 600's there, so I'm 1000 later.
C: It is a free top up and I feel fine using it that way

Certainly if I ever pull into a SC, and am not truly worried about getting to my destination with a 30 mile of range buffer, and there is a back up of cars charging, I move on. However, at 7am on a Tuesday almost every SC out there is empty and I have time to spare I generally will charge, regardless of need.

While I have never considered an unnecessary stop at a SC abuse, I am willing to submit myself to the judgement of the community.

If I was in your position I'd use the SC Network the exact same way you do. If that type of use is what you need to allow your EV to function with the same utility as an ICE then I think most people, including Musk, would be all for it.

 

[bonnie]

Here's a challenge for folks:

Just as the use of the word 'troll' is discouraged on the forum because it unnecessarily escalates arguments and dismisses the poster, how about we stop with assuming that dissenting opinions are only because people are fans of the company? There is never a need to say people post what they post just because they're supporting or defending the company. That immediately dismisses what they've said as having no other merit.

Let's discuss on the merits of the argument without attaching other characteristics to people posting. Just my thoughts.

 

[Ugliest1]

... Hopefully it falls short of a bait and switch, because they're not enforcing it....

AR, we have already agreed to disagree on how we see things, and that is fine.

I now have a request of you: please stop it with the "bait and switch" comments. Multiple, multiple posts up-thread have shown why this situation and history is nothing like bait and switch. And yet you continue to raise it... lately in a kind of passive-aggressive "hope it's not" way. It's tiresome. IMHO.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Here's a challenge for folks:

Just as the use of the word 'troll' is discouraged on the forum because it unnecessarily escalates arguments and dismisses the poster, how about we stop with assuming that dissenting opinions are only because people are fans of the company? There is never a need to say people post what they post just because they're supporting or defending the company. That immediately dismisses what they've said as having no other merit.

Let's discuss on the merits of the argument without attaching other characteristics to people posting. Just my thoughts.

My opinion is, that is fine as an optimistic notion, but in practice identifying with, affiliation with, or fandom of a company or a brand definitely affects opinion and discussion.

Now, that of course does not mean most or perhaps even any posters in this thread are doing that. But I find it more likely than the presented notion that someone buys a Model S just to be able to criticize it. No?

- - - Updated - - -

AR, we have already agreed to disagree on how we see things, and that is fine.

I now have a request of you: please stop it with the "bait and switch" comments. Multiple, multiple posts up-thread have shown why this situation and history is nothing like bait and switch. And yet you continue to raise it... lately in a kind of passive-aggressive "hope it's not" way. It's tiresome. IMHO.

The bait and switch is pertinent to my argument. Asking me to stop it is like asking others to stop using Tesla's intent.

I am not saying Tesla is bait and switching. That is not passive aggressive, that is my opinion. I don't think they will. However, the concern of critics such as myself is, rewriting history on what was said and why, could lead to bait and switch, and sanctioning thereof.

Multiple posts have disagreed with me and multiple posts have agreed with me. I see no grounds for asking one side to be silenced.

I did write my summary to find common ground, that is true, but very very few people picked up on that - so the talk continues, that is fine. Who am I to ask anyone to stop.

 

[LLWS]

Here's a challenge for folks:

There is never a need to say people post what they post just because they're supporting or defending the company. That immediately dismisses what they've said as having no other merit.

We could call them TSLA Share Holders. :tongue:

 

[AnxietyRanger]

We could call them TSLA Share Holders. :tongue:

That is actually not a bad angle to point out (as long as such a generalization is not made seriously). Some have multiple affiliations and thus multiple motivations.

The motivations of a Tesla car owner might be quite different to a TSLA shareholder, even if the latter also owned the car.

 

[bonnie]

We could call them TSLA Share Holders. :tongue:

Or we could just hold the discussion based on the merits of the discussion, rather than implying that people aren't thinking rationally because they're a fan|shareholder|whatever. That's all I'm asking. If someone's points don't hold water, then say why, instead of dismissing the opinion because the other person thinks they have another motive.

Labeling someone a certain way implies they have no other reason for their opinion. It's like assuming someone can't think critically just because their eyebrows form a unibrow. Totally irrelevant to the discussion. But sounds good!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Or we could just hold the discussion based on the merits of the discussion, rather than implying that people aren't thinking rationally because they're a fan|shareholder|whatever. That's all I'm asking. If someone's points don't hold water, then say why, instead of dismissing the opinion because the other person thinks they have another motive.

Labeling someone a certain way implies they have no other reason for their opinion. It's like assuming someone can't think critically just because their eyebrows form a unibrow. Totally irrelevant to the discussion. But sounds good!

So, we shouldn't consider the motivations analysts posting TSLA opinions who are short on it anymore?

Of course personal affiliation can affect motivations. Now, I agree it does not always mean it will. We must consider all possibilities, but not generalize any single one of them on all - that would not be fair.

 

[Owner]

It had been mentioned before. He clearly gets a thrill about being difficult intentionally, so its hard to take him seriously.

I didn't read that article at first, but it does talk directly about the same thing. The main reason I didn't at first is the "Noland" name. He likes to take Tesla to task over many things (big or small), so I have been somewhat conditioned to ignore a lot of his articles (it seems he bought the Model S with the express purpose so that he can write lots of articles criticizing Tesla from an owner's perspective).

 

[bonnie]

It had been mentioned before. He clearly gets a thrill about being difficult intentionally, so its hard to take him seriously.

I avoid his articles now, too.

Lots of people confuse 'being critical' with 'critical thinking'. He takes shots, says someone has to 'be critical' as if that means only he is applying critical thinking skills.

It's a common error.

 

[brianman]

best statement yet summarizing state of affairs.

Charge at home, if possible. It's cheap, convenient and simple.

Road trips are on us.

If you have ANY problems charging at home or work, feel free to charge at a convenient supercharger.

Don't be an ass.

+1. Nice summary.