Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Here's the whole line (and this is from your archived quote from January 2015, not the current page and has been in the FAQs since 6/2013 when FAQs were added, in case you want to say it is "bait and switch" again):
"How often can I Supercharge? Is it bad for my battery?
Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."
https://web.archive.org/web/20130608104542/http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger?
That was used in context of the impact on the warranty and the battery. It was not used in the context of whether you can use it to offset all your daily charging,

And when that statement was made there were far fewer Superchargers around and of those, not many were near heavily populated areas. As the network increased, more are closer to large populations and there are always a few skunks mixed in with the cats.

I'm actually surprised that there are 22 pages on this thread--although perhaps I shouldn't be. The intent and statements seem clear enough:

1. Superchargers are mostly to facilitate long distance travel with the exception of certain ones that are for apartment and condo dwellers.

2. A few folks abuse the intent because they live close (Pick up a pile of napkins with their Chipolte burrito).

3. Elon asked politely that they not abuse the system.

4. Abuse means using the SCs almost daily and preventing travelers from charging (it takes only a few abusers to effectively shut down the system for others).

5. Tesla's marketing material and information from Tesla employees is often not so clear. Any longtime Tesla owner should be aware of this.

6. Tesla typically does the right thing, although sometimes it takes them a while to do so.
 
This has been noted before, but just to kind of show the confusion, this is how Tesla has changed the FAQ wording throughout the year, subtly making qualifications and clarifications, where there previously were none. UK page making no mention of the urban Superchargers. This is a new(ish) question but has still changed frequently.


US wording in January 2015:

How does Tesla decide where to put the Superchargers?
Tesla locates Superchargers to enable the most popular routes, accounting for distance and local driving conditions. Superchargers are located in developed locations where customers want to stop, such as cafes, restaurants, and shopping areas.

US wording in April 2015:

How does Tesla decide where to put the Superchargers?
Tesla places Superchargers along the most popular road trip routes, accounting for distance and local driving conditions. Superchargers are located in developed locations where customers want to stop, such as cafes, restaurants, and shopping areas.

Current US wording in June 2015:

How does Tesla decide where to put Supercharger Stations?
Tesla Supercharging technology enables long distance travel for Model S along major highways. We use precise energy modeling and locate Superchargers near amenities, such as hotels, restaurants, and shopping areas.

Internet Archive Wayback Machine


For comparison, current UK wording in June 2015 - but again, this question has not always been there:

How does Tesla decide where to put the Superchargers?
Tesla places Superchargers along the most popular road trip routes, accounting for distance and local driving conditions. Superchargers are located in developed locations where customers want to stop, such as cafes, restaurants, and shopping areas.
 
That is your interpretation of it. I am not convinced that is their whole intent there.

Simple Litmus test. Change the premise and see if the statement can stand alone. Let's say instead of charging being freed, it cost $20 a pop to Supercharge. Can the line still remain the same?



"How often can I Supercharge? Is it bad for my battery?


Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."




Answer: Yes, it can (remain the same).

The line has nothing to do with cost of supercharging - it has to do with whether it's bad for the battery (a dead give-away may be the part of the question that reads: "Is this bad for the battery?"). At the time of my first long road trip in 2013 where I Supercharged 18 times in 3 days, I had that exact concern, and that statement answered it for me.
 
The line has nothing to do with cost of supercharging - it has to do with whether it's bad for the battery (a dead give-away may be the part of the question that reads: "Is this bad for the battery?"). At the time of my first long road trip in 2013 where I Supercharged 18 times in 3 days, I had that exact concern, and that statement answered it for me.
It seems obvious to me that is what it is addressing too, because I remember similar questions being asked many times here in the forums about supercharger's impact on battery health. It still gets asked occasionally today by new owners. If you rewind back to 2013, there was practically no data on impact of quick charging on batteries (and Nissan was also dealing with their own battery degradation crisis). Given statements by Nissan (and I believe even Mitsubishi had a similar line in their manual) that it was not recommended to quick charge more than once in a day, I don't blame owners feeling questionable about supercharging multiple times per day. That line addresses that concern directly.
 
Tesla has cited London as an example where people routinely park expensive cars on the street by their house, and don't have the capability for home charging, that is why they have installed superchargers in the city. Tesla expects most of its London owners to do their local charging at superchargers. It's an acknowledgment that London is different than California or almost anywhere else in the U.S., where most people with the income to consider buying a Tesla lives in a single family home with a garage.

I completely get this. Elon even came up with the phrase "Superchargers are ownership enablers" at the London event.

In practice though a large amount of use is by taxi fleets, not regular owners. My view is the approach has had unexpected consequences and people are queuing behind taxis is going to get tiresome quickly and do the brand no favors :(

Tesla can't simply keep installing more stalls due to real estate constraints, and another tool is probably needed. Contract parking with EV charging is available in London, and I'm sure some owners will have gone this route too. Extending this a little if Tesla bought / rented / built a valet parking facility in central London and offered it as an additional option to customers I suspect they could get a very decent take up.
 
Simple Litmus test. Change the premise and see if the statement can stand alone. Let's say instead of charging being freed, it cost $20 a pop to Supercharge. Can the line still remain the same?



"How often can I Supercharge? Is it bad for my battery?


Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."




Answer: Yes, it can (remain the same).

The line has nothing to do with cost of supercharging - it has to do with whether it's bad for the battery (a dead give-away may be the part of the question that reads: "Is this bad for the battery?"). At the time of my first long road trip in 2013 where I Supercharged 18 times in 3 days, I had that exact concern, and that statement answered it for me.

For some reason I think the wider public may have an issue if one needs litmus tests to understand Tesla's marketing "correctly". ;)

- - - Updated - - -

I completely get this. Elon even came up with the phrase "Superchargers are ownership enablers" at the London event.

In practice though a large amount of use is by taxi fleets, not regular owners. My view is the approach has had unexpected consequences and people are queuing behind taxis is going to get tiresome quickly and do the brand no favors :(

Tesla can't simply keep installing more stalls due to real estate constraints, and another tool is probably needed. Contract parking with EV charging is available in London, and I'm sure some owners will have gone this route too. Extending this a little if Tesla bought / rented / built a valet parking facility in central London and offered it as an additional option to customers I suspect they could get a very decent take up.

Indeed. Superchargers are ownership enablers aka barrier removers. That, of course, is Tesla's intent. In an ideal world for Tesla almost nobody would need or use the Superchargers. Well, to an extent anyway, they want to keep the competitive advantage.

The problem is: Tesla marketed them, as you gave an example of, so liberally that putting limits on what the Superchargers can be used is now morally, if not perhaps even legally, questionable.
 
I love how the video evidence and webpages that show the intent of the network are dismissed but the one liner sales people used are latched onto like a pit bull as justification for bad behavior by a small monitory of owners.
Besides, show us where Elon said limitations. He was just trying to encourage normal and decent behavior among owners to maximize use of the network. It's really not that hard to understand but apparently it is.
 
I love how the video evidence and webpages that show the intent of the network are dismissed but the one liner sales people used are latched onto like a pit bull as justification for bad behavior by a small monitory of owners.
Besides, show us where Elon said limitations. He was just trying to encourage normal and decent behavior among owners to maximize use of the network. It's really not that hard to understand but apparently it is.

I am not arguing with Elon. Elon would be a moderate in this thread. I am arguing the rather more hawkish interpretation of Elon's comments argued here.

Examples of marketing/sales intent are equally dismissed all the time on the other side too, so I guess we're even. :)
 
You aren't seriously suggesting a poll on TMC is indicative of wider public - especially one conducted after Elon's words had been dissected here?

No. But it's pretty indicative of the subsection of the public that own Model S's. The rest don't really matter (for the purposes of this discussion).

But go conduct your own poll on that "other" forum, if you feel so inclined.

- - - Updated - - -

Examples of marketing/sales intent are equally dismissed all the time on the other side too, so I guess we're even. :)

In the same way that climate change advocates and deniers are even.
 
The problem is: Tesla marketed them, as you gave an example of, so liberally that putting limits on what the Superchargers can be used is now morally, if not perhaps even legally, questionable.

Ethically , not morally

May seem it's a nitpick but it's crucial because the ethics of use are a choice of Tesla and then OK for them to keep as ambiguous as they want, change when they want, enforce (or not) as they want, and even communicate as much as they want. (And I don't think any of those choices they may make are more or less moral)

That's why I find the whole thread kind of funny with supercharger rule and interpretation righteousness.

It's one thing to say "if I were tesla I would...". Or "I believe we all benefit if...." Or "I think tesla wants to...." or even "when I bought I was led to believe that ...."

But to say "superchargers are for X" -and try to prove it (as in with proof) is, well, ontologically arrogant.
 
No. But it's pretty indicative of the subsection of the public that own Model S's. The rest don't really matter (for the purposes of this discussion).

But go conduct your own poll on that "other" forum, if you feel so inclined.

- - - Updated - - -



In the same way that climate change advocates and deniers are even.

If so, we just disagree on who is on the denier side. Not me. ;)
 
I am not arguing with Elon. Elon would be a moderate in this thread. I am arguing the rather more hawkish interpretation of Elon's comments argued here.

Examples of marketing/sales intent are equally dismissed all the time on the other side too, so I guess we're even. :)
Well. No. No one is arguing Tesla sales people didn't mention the Supercharger network was allowed for unlimited and free charging. Show us the evidence they encouraged people with charging at home to only use Superchargers. Please show us that. Please.
 
Ethically , not morally

May seem it's a nitpick but it's crucial because the ethics of use are a choice of Tesla and then OK for them to keep as ambiguous as they want, change when they want, enforce (or not) as they want, and even communicate as much as they want. (And I don't think any of those choices they may make are more or less moral)

That's why I find the whole thread kind of funny with supercharger rule and interpretation righteousness.

It's one thing to say "if I were tesla I would...". Or "I believe we all benefit if...." Or "I think tesla wants to...." or even "when I bought I was led to believe that ...."

But to say "superchargers are for X" -and try to prove it (as in with proof) is, well, ontologically arrogant.

I agree there are a lot of hard interpretations in this thread. People even argued for lifetime Supercharger bans. I agree Tesla's stance is much softer and I don't think they will bait and switch, although I do think they are softly changing the message after the fact.

As for ethics, the ethics of use IMO are Tesla's choice only up to the point of sale when "for life" products are concerned.