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

[WarpedOne]

It is not about 100% demands, it is about expected (and hence designed) demand.
Tesla does not know how much use will any particular SC get so they plan to expand them based on usage profiles.
Problem is this expansion has limits. Not only but also including financial limits.

Electricity costs should not be a problem as they are supposed to generate their own power by installing solar panels and batteries.
1M teslas at 2k/car is $2B. That ought to suffice for building 2k SC locations with local solar/battery powerplants. 1M/location.

When put this way ... tesla is not only producing cars but also building powerplants to run them on solar power.

 

[Chrisizzle]

Is Supercharging for convenience officially frowned upon?

I've heard the debate about whether Tesla owners 'should' Supercharge outside of inter-city travel.

I recently read this in an article:
'Musk spoke about his company's recharging network and admitted some people were taking advantage of free electricity. They may be intended for long trips, but locals have been using them for top-ups. Those identified have been sent polite, but firm, notes saying it's cool every now and again, but to stop ruining it for everybody else.'

Has anyone gotten a letter?

The pitch to me from salesmen was quite clear. "Please use the Superchargers anytime you want."
More over, I understood Supercharging isn't so much free as prepaid. (eg. S60 cars paid a few thousand extra for Supercharging). Some use it more (road trippers) and some less (short commuters who plug at home). If they send letters to people who over use, they should be sending refunds to those who never use.


Here is the quoted article for reference:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/10/tesla-battery-swap/

 

[chriSharek]

It is not about 100% demands, it is about expected (and hence designed) demand.

If it isn't about 100% demands, then what are you referring to when you say it's about "expected" demand? Are you suggesting this "expected demand" will ONLY be 1M Teslas (or vehicles that meet Tesla's specs in the future and may be billed/charged for use of the SCs)?

If so, I think you are sadly mistaken and very short-sighted.

 

[dsm363]

The level of self righteousness is astounding. Tesla promised free charging for life assuming people would use common sense and use it when they needed it (apartment dwellers, people traveling, even people just driving by wanting to top up for a few min now and then). I don't think they planned on people who could charge at home using Supercharging 100% of the time.

Could they have been more clear? Sure. My AT&T unlimited grandfathered plan was throttled after 5GB one month. I still had unlimited data but at much slower rate. Tesla could do the same and still keep to their promise. Is that what the OP wants? By teaching Tesla 'a lesson' like he wants to do for some odd reason he will bring that down on all of us. Less than stellar way to go about things.

 

[dsm363]

I guess understanding how to categorize abusive is the challenge. I don't think I'm being abusive, but if there's an opportunity to get some free miles and I'm not preventing anyone else, I don't think it's a big deal. It's like driving a gas car, but everyone saying here's free gas.

I don't think that is a case Tesla had a major problem with. Do you make a point of always doing this or do you plug in at night most of the time?

 

[rnguy001]

New Tesla owner - lucky to have a SC in Woodbridge where I work. I frequently have to drive between Woodbridge and Bethesda and then up to Towson, sometimes putting up to 150 miles in a day. Though I have a HPWC charger at home which I use, sometimes I just don't have the time or range to make it home and charge. I love the SC at Woodbridge - clean and open. I'm usually the only car there, and I charge when I need to and don't feel bad about it. I don't use it to replace home charging.

Plus it gives me hope maybe there will be other Tesla owners there I can meet..

 

[dsm363]

But on the other hand, some never or almost never Supercharge. Like, myself. I doubt Tesla sends them letters or money to compensate - nor would I expect them to. For most of my life I've been in this group that takes far little advantage of such things I've paid for (great at buying insurance, terrible at using them), but I'm okay with that. Then again, if I once decided to make great use of some such service, I wouldn't reasonably expect to be denied and called an abuser.

Focusing on one extreme in a fixed-price service business model is disingenuous. Just like with coupons, insurance, rebates etc. the system works on average - and that's what companies need to plan for in building their business model. It is not okay just to benefit from one end of the spectrum while denying the other. The whole things works because some use it less, others more, and the business benefits from that overall proposition because the deal sounds good and invites further business - just as Tesla's marketing and sales surely have benefited from the Supercharging story. If they don't benefit, then of course they need to rethink their business model while respecting whatever existing commitments remain, not trying to walk away from existing commitments. I have no problem with Tesla changing the rules for new contracts, people can then decide what they want to buy.

This talk of people not being sold Tesla vehicles in the future sounds like promoting a direction for the company not very good for our society. Sometimes I wonder about such extreme pro-Tesla opinions on TMC hurting Tesla more than helping it.

In what way do you think Tesla would deny Supercharging to someone with your usage scenario? That's not even close to the situation they are talking about. I rarely Supercharge as well and it's almost always when traveling. Yes, it's always the rabid pro Tesla people who you say can't think clearly who have a problem with the OPs actions.

 

[WarpedOne]

I don't think they planned on people who could charge at home using Supercharging 100% of the time.

On what basis do we assume this is actually happening?
One poster on TMC speculating about it?

 

[dsm363]

New Tesla owner - lucky to have a SC in Woodbridge where I work. I frequently have to drive between Woodbridge and Bethesda and then up to Towson, sometimes putting up to 150 miles in a day. Though I have a HPWC charger at home which I use, sometimes I just don't have the time or range to make it home and charge. I love the SC at Woodbridge - clean and open. I'm usually the only car there, and I charge when I need to and don't feel bad about it. I don't use it to replace home charging.

Plus it gives me hope maybe there will be other Tesla owners there I can meet..

And you shouldn't feel bad. You are a normal use of the network. If you drove 30 miles a day like most people and never charged at home on purpose but stopped by three times a week to save a few bucks (and everyone else did this) it would overwhelm the network.

 

[dsm363]

On what basis do we assume this is actually happening?
One poster on TMC speculating about it?

I didn't say this was happening. Just saying if the OPs actions become commonplace it will be an issue.

 

[bonnie]

Over two hundred posts, on what was just a simple statement that Tesla would be reaching out to a small handful of people abusing the system. Nothing about punishment, nothing about throttling, nothing about anything except a simple human-to-human touch point, reminding people we're all using this resource. And likely that will solve the problem.

Instead we're getting algorithms on how they should determine, different formulas on how to respond, musings on future customers being cut back, people worried they won't be able to charge, others threatening to sue because it's their RIGHT, etc.

We don't go overboard here. We jump the damn shark.

(It's only going to get worse until the X is delivered.)

 

[dsm363]

Yep. A lot of unnecessary anxiety over an issue that won't affect a vast majority of owners.

 

[schonelucht]

The problem is also self limiting. For the vast majority of Tesla Owners, the money that you can save by using a local Supercharger gives you less return on your time than a minimum wage job.

Not necessarily. Amsterdam has a large Tesla fleet (several hunderd cars) and a supercharger near the airport that is conveniently located for said taxis. These taxis make use of the supercharger because it is the only way for them to make their business model work. Not so much for the cost of electricity (that too) but also because of the reduced downtime. Every minute a taxi is charging instead of picking up a passenger at the airport queue is lost revenue. So you want to charge a 120 kWh instead of 22kWh. There is nothing self-limiting about this process and it means that every afternoon 6 out of 8 stalls on average are occupied with charging taxis, often with a waiting queue of several cars deep. If other cities get a similar large Tesla taxi fleet there is no reason why the dynamic wouldn't play out there exactly the same way.

BTW. This also answers the questions on Tesla policy wrt taxis charging at a SC.

 

[scaesare]

Much hand-waving and rationalization I don't care to quote... save for a couple of points:

Not everyone is stupid enough to hassle themselves and waste their time just to save a few bucks especially Tesla owners.

Let's hope.

Oh and: "Hello Pot? This is the Kettle. You're black."

This you got right. May negatively impact? How negatively? I don't know. But the principle is don't make promises you can't keep. I hate it when companies false advertise. I am not saying Tesla did, because they have not because they have not implemented restrictions on anyone. But I urge them to tweak the policy moving forward. It will help everyone including Tesla.

Ooooohhh... NOW I get it! You are altruistically going out of your way to inconvenience yourself to HELP Tesla and the EV community at large! How selfless of you!

And might I mention how silly Elon was for not recognizing this when he made his comments the other day stating this was not what the Superchargers were for. Hopefully your generous actions on our behalf will teach him a thing or two.



Finally:

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

But on the other hand, some never or almost never Supercharge. Like, myself. I doubt Tesla sends them letters or money to compensate - nor would I expect them to. For most of my life I've been in this group that takes far little advantage of such things I've paid for (great at buying insurance, terrible at using them), but I'm okay with that. Then again, if I once decided to make great use of some such service, I wouldn't reasonably expect to be denied and called an abuser.

Focusing on one extreme in a fixed-price service business model is disingenuous. Just like with coupons, insurance, rebates etc. the system works on average - and that's what companies need to plan for in building their business model. It is not okay just to benefit from one end of the spectrum while denying the other. The whole things works because some use it less, others more, and the business benefits from that overall proposition because the deal sounds good and invites further business - just as Tesla's marketing and sales surely have benefited from the Supercharging story. If they don't benefit, then of course they need to rethink their business model while respecting whatever existing commitments remain, not trying to walk away from existing commitments. I have no problem with Tesla changing the rules for new contracts, people can then decide what they want to buy.

This talk of people not being sold Tesla vehicles in the future sounds like promoting a direction for the company not very good for our society. Sometimes I wonder about such extreme pro-Tesla opinions on TMC hurting Tesla more than helping it.

The typical problem with the fixed-price model is that the price has to be set for average use, so it can end up providing _bad_ value for the majority of potential customers, and that can cost sales.

As an example, I use Republic Wireless, which is a Sprint-based MVNO. It cost +$15/mo for throttled-over-5GB 3G, or +$30/mo for throttled-over-5GB 4G. Since I'd be a low data user I didn't see value in paying the $15, let alone $30. However, right now they're running a "Lab" trialling a pay-per-GB-and-refund-unused system that prices data at $15/GB. That might seem a high price per GB, but Republic average data use was actually a bit lower than 1GB anyway. I'm in the lab and I've signed up for data. So far I've used 1_MB_ and if I don't use any more this month I'll pay a net $0.02 for my data usage (I presume they'll round up), after the initial float of $15. At the end of the lab I'll stick with the new plan. (Republic's business model relies on shifting use to WiFi).

But, Tesla's model is a _special_ case because it's not a monthly subscription, it's a pay-once-per-car fixed price model. The advantage of the system is that it eliminates the need for account-based authentication and financial transactions. This lowers the cost of running the system and makes charging faster and more convenient. The disadvantage is that free-at-the-point-of-use can cause people to use the system more, raising running costs (both through electricity and the need to add more stalls). Given Tesla's battle to keep costs down, it's not surprising that they are going to have to address breakage.

 

[scaesare]

From all I have read, watched, and heard, over the past 2 and half years, including Elon's most recent comments on the matter seem to boil down to:

Superchargers are intended to allow rapid/long distance travel in scenarios where you cannot reasonably provide for your own charging needs.

On a road trip? Check.

Rapid turn-around making a trip in to the city? Check.

Live in an apartment and have no way to charge at home or at work? Check.

Several legs of local travel in rapid succession? Check.

Using Superchargers to avoid paying for your own daily driving needs when you reasonably could? ​Bzzzt.

 

[russman]

How do you differentiate between only available way to charge vs didn't want to install to save money and electricity?

Again, I guess the question is still: What is abuse?

I'd say abuse is leaving your car with out moving it. Do I hope super chargers are not full when I need it, absolutely. I guess what happens if there are 100's of users near by who are charging only their 30 minutes, but causes a super charger to be full.

PS: I'm sure your usage is not going to be an issue. There's quite a difference between using a SuperCharger because it's the only available way to charge, vs. using one to save money or run a business.

 

[jjkroll]

I say Tesla should just make it inconvenient. They could make boths screens red with a big warning saying "CHARGER TAPER DISABLED DUE TO LOCAL CHARGING. STOP CHARGING MANUALLY AT 60% OR YOUR BATTERY WILL SUFFER DEGRADATION." That way they force the person to stay at the car and make it an anxiety thing.

I am kidding of course, but it would be funny to watch expressions of daily local chargers.

 

[russman]

I don't think that is a case Tesla had a major problem with. Do you make a point of always doing this or do you plug in at night most of the time?

I'm in a similar opposite situation. I work near a garage that provides free charging. So I top off and move my car when it's done on a daily or every other day basis as needed. If there was a Supercharger very near by, I would consider the same thing, again if I wasn't blocking anyone, it wasn't fully, etc, especially, since it can do it in 30 mins vs 3-8 hours at the public garage. I do have charging at home when I need it too.

For the garage, I'm paying to park at the garage. For the Supercharger, I paid for it with the purchase of my car.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

In what way do you think Tesla would deny Supercharging to someone with your usage scenario? That's not even close to the situation they are talking about. I rarely Supercharge as well and it's almost always when traveling. Yes, it's always the rabid pro Tesla people who you say can't think clearly who have a problem with the OPs actions.

My point was: If a company offers a fixed-price scheme, it is their responsibility to calculate the business model and set up the rules prior to purchase into it. If they benefit from low users (which they count on for sure), equally they should accept high users - the business model should even those out, and any limits should be expressed clearly. Other such examples are coupons, rebates, insurance etc. Changing those rules depends on the contract type of course. Tesla sold for life of car, so they can't just go and take it away, but they can change it for your next car purchase. I have no problem with changes for future purchases as long as they are clear.

I am not an active person at all when it comes to fixed-price schemes, so mostly I'm a net win for such providers, Tesla included. These companies make money out of inactive users like myself (in the case of Tesla in the price of supercharging calculated into the P85). I am excessively inactive. If on the other hand I were to suddenly decide I want to be equally excessively active, I would expect Tesla to either provide pre-purchase rules to limit that or to respect my right to be in the other end of the spectrum as well.

Again, this is directed at the TMC discussion where I think "abuse" of Superchargers has been defined too liberally and too much after the fact - Tesla itself I expect to continue doing the right thing (no hard limits for existing owners), letters aside.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily. Amsterdam has a large Tesla fleet (several hunderd cars) and a supercharger near the airport that is conveniently located for said taxis. These taxis make use of the supercharger because it is the only way for them to make their business model work. Not so much for the cost of electricity (that too) but also because of the reduced downtime. Every minute a taxi is charging instead of picking up a passenger at the airport queue is lost revenue. So you want to charge a 120 kWh instead of 22kWh. There is nothing self-limiting about this process and it means that every afternoon 6 out of 8 stalls on average are occupied with charging taxis, often with a waiting queue of several cars deep. If other cities get a similar large Tesla taxi fleet there is no reason why the dynamic wouldn't play out there exactly the same way.

BTW. This also answers the questions on Tesla policy wrt taxis charging at a SC.

I have absolutely no way of knowing how Tesla can explain that discrepancy between the taxi fleet and long-distance only Supercharging.

Maybe someone TMC can again answer how the distinction of who can Supercharge and who is an abuser is made.