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

[Ocelot]

I think they should just announce, anyone who has a Tesla currently is grandfathered in and can do whatever they want .(keeps everyone happy)

If ownership of car changes, or battery changes, that grandfathering clause is removed (gives a cut-off time period for those 'abusing' the charging network.

All new vehicles sold, will be charged a fee for charging within 50 miles of cars registered location. (prevents abuse of network in future) .

On a personal level, i cannot even remotely comprehend paying high five digits or six digits for a car, and then trying to save a few bucks buy charging near your home, on a regular basis...allowing however there might be extenuating circumstances necessitating the need for doing this for other reasons.

 

[chriSharek]

This is analogy is a failure.

If you upgraded your car afterwards, then you didn't pay for it initially like everyone else did. You basically got the $2000 discount at the beginning and just now catching up.

This is all about being reasonable. To prevent abuse, there needs to be something put in place to ensure those traveling get a priority use than the local folks wanting to save a couple bucks.

 

[Evbwcaer]

It might seem that way from a distance but living in Southern California shows a different perspective. The number of Teslas sold here compared to the average in the US is immense. People really don't understand the density of Teslas here. I have 8 SC within a 100 mile radius, but the density of Teslas in California is probably 20 fold compared to Minnesota. I see 10+ Model S here every day. Tesla builds these stations based on demand as well. It makes perfect sense.

It is not that is "seems" any certain way, it is that there should be no correlation between ownership density and Superchargers. Why would they be related if the intent of the network is long distance travel? Additionally, I live in Minneapolis, so WY is no more my perspective than someone in S Cal.

You could connect Des Moines to Denver with the redundant Superchargers in Chicago.

You could connect San Antonio to El Paso with the redundant Superchargers in the NYC area.

Its not a zero sum game, I realize, but are there really that many people road-tripping through Chicago and non through Minneapolis, or Des Moines?

The only reason I bring it all up, is because the network is clearly built out to provide for local charging in many cases.

How many people road trip to New Jersey, they are on track for their 4th SC? How many people road-trip to Yellowstone, they are on track for no SCs?

 

[chriSharek]

It might seem that way from a distance but living in Southern California shows a different perspective. The number of Teslas sold here compared to the average in the US is immense. People really don't understand the density of Teslas here. I have 8 SC within a 100 mile radius, but the density of Teslas in California is probably 20 fold compared to Minnesota. I see 10+ Model S here every day. Tesla builds these stations based on demand as well. It makes perfect sense.

Be reminded that CA and FL are the #1 and #3 most populous states. This ties back to the density comment made earlier.

 

[callmesam]

You proved my point even though you were only close. Look back on the pages when it was a separately orderable option: The $2,000 option was to enable it on your car.

A subtle, but important, distinction that negates your assertions that you paid for the "fuel" itself.

Why?

On my window tag it's called "Supercharging".

I took TM at their word when they made the claim for "unlimited" "free" Supercharging.

Not sure why everyone is parsing words so strenuously.

Tesla may have misgauged demand that would be created by their success and words like "charging as often as you like."

They need to either:

1. Build more spots and embrace that they are replacing an entire ecosystem with all the challenges and benefits that come with that system, or

2. Change the deal for future owners in a transparent way so that people know what to expect with regard to "local" charging, including taxis, apartment dwellers and frequent long commuters.

I vote for #1 as it increases both the value of TSLA and accelerates the advent of sustainable transportation.

 

[DFibRL8R]

I will reiterate since some are claiming the messaging has changed: On Day One, it was claimed that superchargers were for long-distance travel. That message has been consistent.

That seems counter to the model in many places overseas (Japan, China, England (London), where there are multiple superchargers in the middle of congested metropolitan areas. I don't dispute that Tesla's message has been as you say but they are not practicing what they preach in other parts of the world. Perhaps this is marketing to pockets of wealth that are in cities in these countries but clearly the deployment strategy in these locations is different.

 

[FreeOfPge]

Thinking this through a little bit and I am wondering if Elon's 'abusing' comments are aimed at those who work near superchargers and stay plug in all day rather than those individuals that frequent them often. I do know of a supercharger near the Sacramento area where an MS owner plugs in every work day, he or she leaves the vehicle parked and plugged in for their entire shift.

Though I have never seen this supercharger so full that it would prevent others from getting a charge, it does seem a little abusive.

 

[Panu]

One thing is for sure, regardless people doing the right thing or not, $2,000 for a lifetime of electricity is most likely financially unsustainable in the future. Consider more Teslas on the road, and the newer EV contingent that just wants an affordable EV to break the pump drain, makes me feel Tesla has a few solutions in mind. The only ones I see so far are, pay the current bulk upfront price and for those who drive locally, a surcharge depending on pattern on how far they drive, or how often, and most likely, a combination of both. I'm sure there are more solutions, but it would have to be something along those patterns. Any thoughts?

My thought is that they charge the SpC fee again when you buy a new battery. The fee is included in the battery price just like it is in the car price. I think they can get enough funds for the supercharging network that way. I presented that thought earlier in this forum and everybody disagreed.

 

[bonnie]

I love how so many declare that Tesla is responsible to build out more stations to lower congestion from people abusing the system. Tesla doesn't *owe* this to anyone. Drives me nuts sometimes when the first solution people look towards is 'you solve it for me'.

This was a simple request from Elon, based on unchanged messaging, and it's turned into a s@*#*@storm. You know if you're abusing the system. And I doubt it's anyone here at the moment.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Since nobody on the other thread has been answered, maybe someone here can: What about the large-city program of Superchargers in cities for apartment dwellers to use? How does that work now? Was that consistent with a message of long-distance travel only? Who can use those Superchargers without letters? People with houses get a different deal?

Let's face it: Until now, any expressed intent for Superchargers were expressions of a problem and offering of a solution, it was never listed as a limitation by Tesla beyond the fact that those intents influenced the locations of the chargers. Free Superchargers were very liberally used by Tesla sales people to pitch the car and TMC and TM Forums discussed Superchargers accordingly.

The fact that some of these things are now expressed as limitations is completely new. Tesla changed the rules. A lot of people bought Supercharger Tesla's without any express knowledge of limitations on Supercharging. Of course I hope Tesla will not actually impose hard limits on existing cars, but the implication is now out there.

As for silly notions like Tesla stopping expanding the network, I'd like to point out Tesla has been advertising (on their website) the future expansion of the network too. If the proposition they sold to the public wasn't viable, then by all means make changes, while respecting existing commitments. They could have stopped selling new unlimited Supercharger "subscriptions" any time, while respecting earlier sales for the life of said vehicles.

The free Supercharging was a good marketing story in its simple form and benefited Model S sales. But with that comes responsibility and I'm not sure all that was properly handled. If they intended limitations, it would have been trivial for them to list them in the marketing message.

I would have absolutely no issue if Tesla were to come out and say we're changing the Supercharging concept, here are the new rules for new buyers. Make them explicit. In fact, that would be my recommendation for Tesla. The existing owners would be entitled to a different deal for the life of their current Model S. It wouldn't stop me from buying a Model X with the "new rules".

p.s. I have no problem with actions against overly abusive behavior like parking at a Supercharger for days on end. But frequent use doesn't automatically seem abusive to me given the past messaging.

 

[callmesam]

Right. So that some people can continue to abuse the privilege. Why should Tesla have to do anything? They've met their commitment to build out a network. Done. Tesla is well within their rights to claim 'well, we built stations like we said we would ... no more!'. That's the unintended consequence of claiming it's fine to take advantage of the system. They could quit expanding. Then what little textual loophole will people fall back on? It was a great surprise when Supercharging was made available at no cost for long-distance travel. It saddens me to see people arguing it is now their right to use it how they want.

I will reiterate since some are claiming the messaging has changed: On Day One, it was claimed that superchargers were for long-distance travel. That message has been consistent.

ELON MUSK:

We’re putting Superchargers in cities, not just between cities. And this is obviously important in places like, you know, Beijing, Shanghai, London, San Francisco, New York, where at times people may have a challenge with having a fixed parking space. It’s more like some of those people don’t have a definitive parking space. And they might have street parking or something, you know. London is particularly tricky one; where there’s – it’s got lot of high-end neighborhoods just have street parking.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/tesla-earnings-call-transcript-q1-2014-321452/

Oops.

 

[bonnie]

That seems counter to the model in many places overseas (Japan, China, England (London), where there are multiple superchargers in the middle of congested metropolitan areas. I don't dispute that Tesla's message has been as you say but they are not practicing what they preach in other parts of the world. Perhaps this is marketing to pockets of wealth that are in cities in these countries but clearly the deployment strategy in these locations is different.

ELON MUSK:

We’re putting Superchargers in cities, not just between cities. And this is obviously important in places like, you know, Beijing, Shanghai, London, San Francisco, New York, where at times people may have a challenge with having a fixed parking space. It’s more like some of those people don’t have a definitive parking space. And they might have street parking or something, you know. London is particularly tricky one; where there’s – it’s got lot of high-end neighborhoods just have street parking.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/tesla-earnings-call-transcript-q1-2014-321452/

Oops.

Sorry, but what does that have to do with the messaging that everyone is going on about? The original messaging was 'for long-distance travel'. Because they have some exceptions doesn't mean the exceptions negate the clearly stated intention.

- - - Updated - - -

I see nothing in what Elon said that would indicate he was saying 'feel free to charge locally instead of at home'. I do see him saying there are specific situations that they have put in a solution to address.

 

[Fiver]

If you bought your Tesla with the line item of "Supercharging" for $2,000 and you abuse the supercharger network, then perhaps Tesla simply refunds the $2,000 and says your privileges have been revoked. So you get your $2,000 back (and some free juice), but now you can no longer use the supercharger network in that car.

If you bought a recent Tesla with that $2,000 price baked in then who knows what they could do.

This might turn into the "I'm grandfathered in with unlimited data" type issue.

 

[AudubonB]

I'm going to start a poll.

Right here; right now. And you know what? It's a SELF-POLLING poll! That's right: you get to answer it as you see fit, and you and only you get to see your result. As follows:

Do you know the difference between what's LEGAL and what's RIGHT?

 

[Arbitrage]

My prediction is that Tesla will not try to "renegotiate" any deals.

We are all a part of a grand experiment with wide-spread EV use. Tesla has delivered about 100k Model S's in almost 3 years. They have plans to ramp production up to multiples of 100k per year. If locals continue taking up valuable Supercharge Stalls by frequent local charging in a measurable way, Tesla will deal with it by changing the deal for new cars. In a year or a few, the volume of new cars will swamp out the the existing population.

My further prediction is that Tesla will add a line or two to some agreement where they reserve the right to charge customers who frequently use "local" Superchargers. The statement will be purposely vague so that Tesla can add "reasonable" financial charges for frequent, local Supercharging.

Yeah, 100k cars is mostly being handled by the current set of SCs. My own wild predictions are pretty similar except that I don't think they'll start charging for use for a while if they can help it because it would be a bunch of additional overhead to set up a payment structure for it all. And there's much higher expectations when you do start charging for it.

My own random guess is that they will use some set of ever-changing criteria (e.g. >X% of the miles driven were powered by SC in the last Y miles, >X minutes per week at the same SC, that SC gets full so that there is wait time, etc.) to automatically "flag" local SC use for a given VIN and the corresponding local SC for that VIN. As mentioned, justified usage patterns, such as those with no home charging, could be whitelisted. So if you live in an apartment and need to charge because there's no alternative, then that is unchanged.

My next guess is that they'll just somehow limit the charging rate on these flagged cars for only that local SC. Just slowing the rate down in general isn't going to work that well because the person will clog that spot for a longer period of time. What could happen is that they designate spots 1A/1B for local use and general use during "peak hours" while the other spots are for non-local use. Since they already update the firmware all the time, the 17" screen could notify people about which stall to use. The long distance travelers would more likely have an open spot (on 2A/2B/etc.) while the local people can still get their charge in but might have to wait for another local once in a while if things get busy. Given that they also can control the charge rate, they could give the vast majority of the charge to the non-local use if both are on the same "circuit" at the same time (local on 1A gets 100% if no one else, but shifts to 5% on 1A/95% on 1B if 1B is non-local charger). That's still free and unlimited SC usage for life, as they never made guarantees about charge rate and they've already shown that they are experimenting with the charge rate for certain cars.

The problem down the line is more of the availability of the spots than of monetary cost, especially once more and more get their electricity from solar. Constructing a new SC is really time-consuming and much much slower than pumping out a bunch of new cars. It may take a year or more of planning, getting permits, getting business approvals, coordinating with the utility company, etc. So while it's nice to say "just build more," in reality any number of minor obstacles will slow down the construction. There are already people that park there *overnight* occasionally so demand is going to eclipse supply sooner or later barring huge tech advances.

For commercial ventures, that's actually easier. There's tons of precedent out there for having a different structure for business/residential usage. Make the businesses get their own private SC, which has already been done. Then, the business could put it in a more convenient location to them and have 100% access 24/7 on their own SC.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

Right. So that some people can continue to abuse the privilege. Why should Tesla have to do anything? They've met their commitment to build out a network. Done. Tesla is well within their rights to claim 'well, we built stations like we said we would ... no more!'. That's the unintended consequence of claiming it's fine to take advantage of the system. They could quit expanding. Then what little textual loophole will people fall back on? It was a great surprise when Supercharging was made available at no cost for long-distance travel. It saddens me to see people arguing it is now their right to use it how they want.

I will reiterate since some are claiming the messaging has changed: On Day One, it was claimed that superchargers were for long-distance travel. That message has been consistent.

Your comment is very biased on your prior views. Probably from reading some other thread. Please keep emotions out of the discussion and take the objective view before jumping to conclusions.

OK now to respond to what you are saying about tesla not doing anything. Yup I totally agree. Once they build enough to meet enable long distance travel through the country, there is no need for them to build anymore. Because of this decision, the user experience will slowly degrade overtime for obvious reason. They will sell less cars. The competitors will see this and capitalize on this and build a better experience and out do tesla. Tesla cease to exist.

Look I know tesla will not do that. They will address the problem somehow by doing some, if not all, of what recommend. Funny how you just highlighted the things that hurts tesla monetarily all because of the way they sold the free supercharging station. Though I disagree with people saying Tesla said before supercharging was solely for long distance travel, I am going to assume they did say that. Well then, what about those city dwellers without ability to charge? Seems like they are the culprits who are getting the letters. Yeah great job Tesla, eliminate a sizable chunk of your market.

This is why I know tesla meant free supercharging for ALL initially to help sell the car (unlike LEAF and BMW which only had 2 years free charging on certain network after tesla announce their free charging).


Lets say they did said supercharging was mainly for long distance travel, does this exclude daily local charging? Nothing was mentioned in the beginning. It was not like they said, even though supercharging was meant for long distance travel, we will actively discourage local daily supercharging. Funny how people's logic work when they are biased.

It would be simpler if you just say, Tesla failed to make it clear what their intentions were initially and everyone would be happy. If Tesla made this case in the beginning, I would definitely charge at home and would never have brought this idea up.

 

[bonnie]

Your comment is very biased on your prior views. Probably from reading some other thread. Please keep emotions out of the discussion and take the objective view before jumping to conclusions.

So if I translate this correctly, you are jumping to the conclusion that I am emotional because of some other thread I read (but you don't know) and you are directing me not to jump to conclusions.

Irony. What I love about this forum.

 

[callmesam]

Sorry, but what does that have to do with the messaging that everyone is going on about? The original messaging was 'for long-distance travel'. Because they have some exceptions doesn't mean the exceptions negate the clearly stated intention.

- - - Updated - - -

I see nothing in what Elon said that would indicate he was saying 'feel free to charge locally instead of at home'. I do see him saying there are specific situations that they have put in a solution to address.

"What does that have to do with the messaging that everyone is going on about?"

It directly contradicts what many on this thread have stated.

The Supercharging Network is intended to be used by locals without fixed parking.

"I see nothing in what Elon said that would indicate he was saying 'feel free to charge locally instead of at home'. "

I guess it depends on how you define "home."

"I do see him saying there are specific situations that they have put in a solution to address."

I agree. The solution is for locals to do their charging exclusively at Superchargers.

This has been contemplated by Tesla Motors and specifically stated so by Elon Musk.

Maybe we should have someone at Tesla Motors define "abuse".

 

[efusco]

Your comment is very biased on your prior views. Probably from reading some other thread. Please keep emotions out of the discussion and take the objective view before jumping to conclusions.

OK now to respond to what you are saying about tesla not doing anything. Yup I totally agree. Once they build enough to meet enable long distance travel through the country, there is no need for them to build anymore. Because of this decision, the user experience will slowly degrade overtime for obvious reason. They will sell less cars. The competitors will see this and capitalize on this and build a better experience and out do tesla. Tesla cease to exist.

Look I know tesla will not do that. They will address the problem somehow by doing some, if not all, of what recommend. Funny how you just highlighted the things that hurts tesla monetarily all because of the way they sold the free supercharging station. Though I disagree with people saying Tesla said before supercharging was solely for long distance travel, I am going to assume they did say that. Well then, what about those city dwellers without ability to charge? Seems like they are the culprits who are getting the letters. Yeah great job Tesla, eliminate a sizable chunk of your market.

This is why I know tesla meant free supercharging for ALL initially to help sell the car (unlike LEAF and BMW which only had 2 years free charging on certain network after tesla announce their free charging).


Lets say they did said supercharging was mainly for long distance travel, does this exclude daily local charging? Nothing was mentioned in the beginning. It was not like they said, even though supercharging was meant for long distance travel, we will actively discourage local daily supercharging. Funny how people's logic work when they are biased.

It would be simpler if you just say, Tesla failed to make it clear what their intentions were initially and everyone would be happy. If Tesla made this case in the beginning, I would definitely charge at home and would never have brought this idea up.

This is such a simplistic perspective. Are you technically right? Like Audobon's post above, there is what is "legal" and what is "right" and they can be different things. So you can sanctomoniously proclaim that charging locally is legal and was never a prohibition, stated or implied, by Tesla, and nobody can prove you wrong. Or you can be a bit more magnanimous and look at the big picture and say, if we all held that point of view the only response left would be for Tesla to change that program to make it more restrictive and or more expensive for everyone. Thus your "legal" action has negative consequences for almost everyone else who currently and for sure those who will later buy a Tesla.

If you're happy with that, then I guess no amount of moral or ethical logic will convince you. Most of us, I think, are more altruistic than that.

 

[brianman]

No limitations on current Superchargers. Let the locals clog 'em up. Freedom of speech and the American way, etc. Onward! Y'all get your way. NO limitations.... and then, Tesla doesn't build another site, outside of those already promised, EVER. Note that they've kept their word to those who somehow are insistent that Tesla is changing (no recognition of the fact they have always said 'for long distance', but whatever).
Everyone feel better now? Win for all of us!

Even though you intended that as the "bad" scenario, it still has legs to be a good scenario. Elaborating...

When Model S was delivered, an option that later became standard was support for Supercharging. We built out a network of supercharging stations across the globe to support this fleet of vehicles. Generally speaking it worked as we planned. After a couple years, the system became clogged with locals that didn't understand or care about the intent of the network as support for long distance travel. But a promise is a promise. We still support that network for Model S and Model X, and you can use it as long as your vehicle is road-worthy and there's no fee per use.

For Model 3, we're announcing Ultracharging. We're not using words like "free" anymore. Apparently there are just too many bad apples when you make something free. More details will be announced "soon" (long-term Tesla followers will know what that means), but we'll start with a teaser -- software and hardware support comes standard on Model 3, and the minimum charging rate including taper is 200 kW.

Q: Will there be a retrofit available for older Tesla vehicles?
A: No.

Q: Will new Model S and Model X vehicles be able to use the Ultracharging network?
A: Maybe. We'll let you know after we make the center console available in all trims available to all customers that want one.