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

[Owner]

That was exactly why I started this thread. I think the examples of London & San Francisco that Tesla have used contradict long-distance as does the heavy build out in LA. Destination charging and even slower Chargepoint, Blink, etc... can be used within cities. Both the new Mountain View and San Mateo (coming soon) are not required for long distance travel.

So exactly what is abuse?

1. Leaving the car plugged in for 8 hours?
2. Visiting the same supercharger every day?
3. Something else?

"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".

 

[AnxietyRanger]

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.

An intention does not, though, automatically communicate limitation - especially when combined with mentioned exceptions and sales talk emphasizing the free for life part. The intent, so far, had merely dictated the locations of the Superchargers as far as the public was concerned. Tesla's guidance on courtesy included only instructions to move the car once finished, which of course is perfectly reasonable.

Tesla adding limitations on use to their wording - and to their (soft) action in the letters - is now new.

Since people like analogies on this thread, in my view this is like a store offering coupons. They are calculated to, on average, bring in more money. But we expect stores to honor them even in those cases where someone collects them, strategizes and then uses them in an unusual manner that costs the store money, because that is a part of the equation. The idea is to create the campaigns and prices in such a manner that such fringes are offset by other users. Or take insurance. By all means change the terms for future contracts if need be, but existing ones must be respected independent of what mix of pay and cost insurance customers you end up with. (In Tesla's case the new contract term would be a new car.)

Similarly, I have "paid" (in the price of the car) for my very rare Supercharger use much more relatively speaking than those who are able to actually use them due to regional availability. I won't expect Tesla to compensate my either for lack of use (they save money on me), because I don't use the service - it comes with the territory just as occasional large users do. It was Tesla's choice to offer a fixed-price, for-life-of-car service, they marketed with that message and got sales - and it is their responsibility to calculate it all, to be clear about it and to honor the commitments they make, even if they turn out to be unwise ones.

Many of us would normally expect nothing less from any business. I get it that some here are so concerned of Tesla's mission that they may alter such priorities and I respect that difference of an opinion, but I look at it from a business ethics point of view. On that note, while I think the letters may have been a bit ill-conceived PR wise, I do still fully expect Tesla to honor those commitments in practice for old owners, so this is just commentary on the discussion and on these reported letters. Tesla should just be very clear to new buyers on what they can now expect, if they are making changes. For existing owners, I do believe they will overall continue to do the right thing.

 

[brianman]

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

Incorrect. It doesn't keep me happy.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

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.

But then, the very same thing can be said of a business selling one thing and then changing that after the sale. With clever wording it may even be legal, but is it right is quite another issue.

Luckily we're not there with Tesla on this, I would expect them to honor existing commitments even if they send some letters. Changing policy clearly for the future is an OK option - and doesn't at all necessarily mean such drastic measures as you suggest. They could simply create some automated rules for new owners on local charging - and exempt existing owners. In the end, the fleet of existing cars today would still be fairly small considering Tesla's big plans.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

That was exactly why I started this thread. I think the examples of London & San Francisco that Tesla have used contradict long-distance as does the heavy build out in LA. Destination charging and even slower Chargepoint, Blink, etc... can be used within cities. Both the new Mountain View and San Mateo (coming soon) are not required for long distance travel.

So exactly what is abuse?

1. Leaving the car plugged in for 8 hours?
2. Visiting the same supercharger every day?
3. Something else?

I think there is abuse defined by tesla, and abuse defined in general by the EV community.

Obviously the "abuse" defined by tesla is more to cover their pocket books while I believe the "abuse" defined by the community is really one that does NOT adhere to the charging etiquette.

I go with the "abuse" that is defined by the EV community. Basically do what you want to do but be respectful of others, i.e. if you are trying to save a buck or so, then fine, do it off of tesla's books not other tesla customers.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Incorrect. It doesn't keep me happy.

Why not? Because some use Superchargers excessively? For every such user there are people like me who almost never use Superchargers. Tesla gets to benefit from those under this scheme as well.

If Tesla wants to calculate a new contract, revise the model, wouldn't it be fair to do it for future purchases - not existing "for life of car" purchases? Grandfathering was invented for just such a thing.

In the end, the amount of existing cars will be miniscule compared to where Tesla aims to be with its superchargeable fleet. The grandfathered users would quickly get lost in the mix and dwindle over time.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there is abuse defined by tesla, and abuse defined in general by the EV community.

Obviously the "abuse" defined by tesla is more to cover their pocket books while I believe the "abuse" defined by the community is really one that does NOT adhere to the charging etiquette.

I go with the "abuse" that is defined by the EV community. Basically do what you want to do but be respectful of others, i.e. if you are trying to save a buck or so, then fine, do it off of tesla's books not other tesla customers.

I would go a bit further.

There was "abuse" of Superchargers as defined prior to June 9th.

And there is "abuse" of Superchargers as defined after June 9th.

For some reason they are not the same thing either for Tesla's PR, nor for TMC. Go figure.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

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.

I would argue, I am probably a lot more altruistic than most of you guys who are trying to convince people daily supercharging is unethical regardless of what is it for. I rather take the charging cost from tesla and give it to some other good cause. What I feel is I paid for the cost of using it. I won't stop using just so I can save Tesla a few bucks. I will definitely stop doing it to help other tesla's customers.

This is from a person who owns TSLA stocks way back in the days and still own some now. For me it comes down to principle. If you advertised it as so, I will use what you advertised. I will NOT stop using the advertised features just because it will save tesla a few bucks. If I was tesla, I would change my stance on the supercharging and be done with this issue. No point in arguing about it among us.

 

[brianman]

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

Incorrect. It doesn't keep me happy.

Why not?

Grandfathering early adopters into something bad for the ecosystem is just making a bad problem worse, in the guise of something good.

It's a workaround, not a solution. Whether or not it mitigates the problem enough is open for debate, but even if it doesn't that doesn't mean everyone will be happy about it. I know I won't.

 

[dsm363]

Say I have a long daily commute, a bit over 300 miles, and a SC on my route.
I am not legible to use SC because I'd do it daily?
If I do those 300miles only once per week than it is OK?

Say I happen to have short commute, about 20 miles and again a SC nearby.
I am not legible to use SC once per week because I only do short trips that happen to pass SC?

This issue is politicaly loaded one.
There are only two ethically clean ways:
- shut up and allow people to do what they choose
- charge per use

Allowing (and ADVERTISING) free use and then go hunt people that are not behaving to your liking is asking for trouble.

I would assume the Supercharger is over 75-100 miles away? If they contacted you that would be an easy argument to make and back up. You are not the case they are looking at. They are looking at the people who live very close to one and choose to not

 

[4SUPER9]

I think there is abuse defined by tesla, and abuse defined in general by the EV community.

Obviously the "abuse" defined by tesla is more to cover their pocket books while I believe the "abuse" defined by the community is really one that does NOT adhere to the charging etiquette.

I go with the "abuse" that is defined by the EV community. Basically do what you want to do but be respectful of others, i.e. if you are trying to save a buck or so, then fine, do it off of tesla's books not other tesla customers.

+1000 on this.
This is the same old argument that has been rehashed here dozens of times. I have no concerns about locals charging, nor how often. Maybe Tesla does for cost reasons. At the same time, a supercharger is not a parking spot. There are those that are doing this (discussed in other threads) and people here are reporting those "violators" to Tesla. There is one case where someone parks his car there every night, and has someone drop him off every morning. That is just not cool.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Grandfathering early adopters into something bad for the ecosystem is just making a bad problem worse, in the guise of something good.

That same ecosystem has benefited from that "something bad", in a positive PR message that has no doubt sold many a Model S. The uncomplicated "free for life" Supercharging was a good message. It is less good to consider bait and switching it. Might be bad PR in itself. Not to mention not very nice for the individual customers.

Also, that "something bad for the ecosystem" has thus far been Tesla's policy. They could have been clear about it earlier on, if limiting Supercharging was in the cards. Anyway, I think the concerns over the consequences of grandfathering this in are exaggerated, if they'd do it all before the Model X launch - and especially before the Model 3 launch.

Equally there are Model S cars who never supercharge.

 

[4SUPER9]

That was exactly why I started this thread. I think the examples of London & San Francisco that Tesla have used contradict long-distance as does the heavy build out in LA.

Sorry, I disagree. The heavy build-out in LA is off the 405, and is the most heavily traveled highway in the country. While locals may use this (and I do do need it from time to time, mostly so that I don't arrive at home with dangerously low SOC in case I need to head out again), most seem to be using it to get to points north and south of LA. Just look at how Hawthorne's use plummeted once SJC went live.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I would assume the Supercharger is over 75-100 miles away? If they contacted you that would be an easy argument to make and back up. You are not the case they are looking at. They are looking at the people who love very close to one and choose to not. Jorge at home.

How quickly that changed.

Now we are discussing how to justify to Tesla our use of the "free for life of the car" service we paid for.

Will Tesla monitor that guy in London to see if he has a driveway instead of parking on the street? Should be an interesting conversation.

I wonder what we'd think of BMW trying to back out on a service agreement of their own because we are spending too much on it.

 

[commasign]

Superchargers are the solution to the problem that plagued/plagues other EV's, that you can't take long road trips in an EV without having to stop and charge for many hours (or overnight) to make it to your destination. Tesla has been very clear about this usage of Superchargers from day one. If some are routinely/excessively using Superchargers for other reasons, I think Tesla has the right to more strictly enforce the usage or clarify the "rules".

 

[Tyl]

To remind forum readers.... here is what Elon said.

"So, free long distance forever is what the Superchargers are providing. There are few people who are like, quite aggressively using it for local Supercharging, and we also send them just a reminder note that it’s cool to do this occasionally but it’s meant to be a long distance thing."

 

[AnxietyRanger]

To remind forum readers.... here is what Elon said.

"So, free long distance forever is what the Superchargers are providing. There are few people who are like, quite aggressively using it for local Supercharging, and we also send them just a reminder note that it’s cool to do this occasionally but it’s meant to be a long distance thing."

Indeed, overall I expect Tesla to continue to do the right thing for existing owners - meaning no hard restrictions. For future owners they can change things as they like, as long as the communicate it, of course.

Elon didn't really address the city-dweller Supercharger question though, creating a double standard. Hopefully that gets clarified over time - or will some Superchargers be more local-charging allowing?

A bit of a PR mess as usual.

 

[Owner]

Yes, your probably correct.
I did meet someone at Hawthorne who was using it as a daily thing, but that was a couple of years ago.

Sorry, I disagree. The heavy build-out in LA is off the 405, and is the most heavily traveled highway in the country. While locals may use this (and I do do need it from time to time, mostly so that I don't arrive at home with dangerously low SOC in case I need to head out again), most seem to be using it to get to points north and south of LA. Just look at how Hawthorne's use plummeted once SJC went live.

 

[Saghost]

That same ecosystem has benefited from that "something bad", in a positive PR message that has no doubt sold many a Model S. The uncomplicated "free for life" Supercharging was a good message. It is less good to consider bait and switching it. Might be bad PR in itself. Not to mention not very nice for the individual customers.

Also, that "something bad for the ecosystem" has thus far been Tesla's policy. They could have been clear about it earlier on, if limiting Supercharging was in the cards. Anyway, I think the concerns over the consequences of grandfathering this in are exaggerated, if they'd do it all before the Model X launch - and especially before the Model 3 launch.

Equally there are Model S cars who never supercharge.

Assume for the moment that some portion of Model S owners are Supercharging a lot more than Tesla had planned on and thereby threatening both profit margin and Supercharger availability. It seems to me like Tesla has about four choices for how they can respond:

1.) Do something to limit those users or charge them for the additional costs incurred (electricity, additional SpC stalls.)
2.) Let the behavior continue, do something to protect profits (i.e. raise prices on all future cars,) build additional stalls to compensate.
3.) Let the behavior continue, reduce the privileges of future car owners to keep the overall SpC utilization/costs under control.
4.) Help the users understand the dilemma and hope they change their own behavior?

Honestly, given the PR and sales impact of the other first and third options, my guess is that the second choice is the most likely one for Tesla to take if option 4 doesn't work.

Tesla has always said that the Superchargers were a marketing expense - I don't really see them changing their overall approach if it turns out to be more expensive than they expected.

We just have to remember that every dollar saved by an unneeded Supercharging session costs Tesla at least that much, and decide how we want to act.
Walter

 

[Tupelo]

Now we are discussing how to justify to Tesla our use of the "free for life of the car" service we paid for.

Context matters. The "free for the life of the car" snippet that constantly gets quoted is actually part of an answer to a question on the SC FAQ page about how much does it cost to use the SC. Answer: nothing, free for life. It says nothing whatsoever about how often or for what purposes one can reasonably expect to use the "free" service. Similarly, the "use it as often as you like" partial quote that gets thrown around is part of the answer to the FAQ question about frequent SC use and will it harm the battery. Answer: owners can use the SC as often as they want without harming the battery or altering the warranty. It also says nothing about how often or for what purposes (nor about the cost for that matter.)

The specific context that the "I'll do as I please" crowd is really looking for is something like this, that captures all of their salient points: "Use of the Supercharger Network will be free for the life of your Model S, and you may use the Superchargers as often as you like, whether to support your need for long distance travel, your routine, daily driving and commuting, or even if your nearest Supercharger is very close to where you live and you're just too cheap to pay for your own electricity at home." Nothing like that statement exists of course. And taking all of the other individual statements (or partial statements) out of context and citing only the part that pleases won't make it so.

 

[brianman]

I would assume the Supercharger is over 75-100 miles away? If they contacted you that would be an easy argument to make and back up. You are not the case they are looking at. They are looking at the people who love very close to one and choose to not. Jorge at home.

Your phone is very entertaining.

That said, I agree. We don't have details on which people or vehicles Elon referenced, nor what the "note" said. From some of the posts here, it seems like the comment already had part of the intended effect: trigger a gut check in people ("Am I one of the troublemakers?"). The more aggressively posters try to defend that "my usage is ok, they shouldn't ..." the more my internal voice responds "Your conscience is showing" regarding these posters.