-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wrong. The fee was for access to a free charging network. Sheesh. Let's not play semantics here.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
But maybe we COULD play 'the fact game'.
Supercharging hardware access was sold. People were stunned to find out at the launch that there would be no charge for actually charging. And until Elon said 'free for life', the expectation was that the free aspect could change.
"The Fandom is strong with this thread." 
I agree it is a funny thread, albeit for completely different reasons than some.
That said, I enjoyed gnxs's post as a much more graceful summary of the viewpoint us "critics" share on this issue, than I could have posted myself.
A very fair post, so thank you gnxs.
I agree it is a funny thread, albeit for completely different reasons than some.That said, I enjoyed gnxs's post as a much more graceful summary of the viewpoint us "critics" share on this issue, than I could have posted myself.
A very fair post, so thank you gnxs.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
Simple solution: Tesla could enable V2G with a metered cost of say $0.50/kWh, and (say) 10kW max power output. The metered cost could be justified two ways: first because it eliminates Supercharger arbitrage, and also because V2G does put extra wear and tear on the battery / vehicle. For the primary intended use (occasional backup power during an outage), $0.50/kWh is dirt cheap. And even for other uses (e.g. as a portable generator at events), the $0.50/kWh would protect Tesla against any use I can envision.
I really disagree with this attitude as it just sends the wrong vibe to the community and prospective owners.
I would not use the Supercharging infrastructure like this, but with the way they talk about Supercharging I would not blame customers for having this expectation and being rightfully turned off by receiving a letter like this. Even on their website FAQ it sounds like they are cool with customers doing whatever:
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.
I believe Elon has even explicitly mentioned urban Supercharging for places where it's difficult for folks to have home charging.
To use an analogy, it's like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and the restaurant owner starts to give you the stink eye when someone goes for their third lobster, and asks them to please consider other food. Obviously this is an outlier customer who is being an opportunistic jerk, but the correct response as a business is to serve them with a smile and tell them they are glad they love the lobster! That customer then tells friends how great this place is and they all become customers (and on average do not 'overeat their share'). Considering word-of-mouth is Tesla's bread and butter way of growing sales, this is especially important. You don't want to be the cheap restaurant owner who gets stingy with the occasional customer who obnoxiously stuffs his face.
In terms of the logistical challenges, I'm guessing it's a very small number of individuals doing this because of the inconvenience. I think Tesla simply has to bite the bullet and build more stalls in the rare heavy usage areas until public destination charging is ubiquitous.
One of the issues I have with this thread is the lax definition of "abuse" - in addition to me feeling it is being applied after the fact and not in accordange with Tesla's previous marketing.
Now, what follows below is not my idea of what is legally right, but what I feel is morally right. Legally I don't think Tesla could or should impose hard limits on existing Model S customers, because they have benefited from a marketing message that didn't impose any clear limitations on Supercharger use. Nor do I think Tesla will go anywhere beyond letters. For future models they may change the rules, of course, and that is fine.
But the moral side:
I think most of us can at least morally agree abusive behaviour can morally be excluded, like parking at the Supercharger or breaking stuff or generally being an arse. Be it at the gym or at a Supercharger. We may differ on what we view as abusive. For me the problem is: Abuse is here being equated with "daily local supercharging", sounding like the latter itself would be morally questionable. I don't think that comparison automatically follows.
If a Supercharger is constantly filled due to local chargers unwilling or unable to move for long-distance travellers, I could sympathize, just as I would if someone sets up residence at the gym. (Although funny that people use gyms as an example of a "victim", considering how that industry leeches of on under-users.)
But why wouldn't you be allowed to shower daily at your gym? If they offer a daily service and allow the use of their showers, perhaps some house shampoo, then why not. Those gyms benefit from under-users, and that is offset by some part of the customer-base being higher-users. Using gym equipment and showers is part of the gym's function. Using the lounge as your living-room is usually not.
Similarly, I think morally charging at a Supercharger is its function (the gym shower example). Parking at a Supercharger for the whole day is not (the gym lounge example).
On these threads the mere act of daily local Supercharging is equated with taking over the gym with your posse, even if the Supercharger was empty most of the time. I would say the example of taking residence at the gym is more an example of overstaying at the Supercharger, or being disrespective of the real needs of other current users there, than of daily Supercharging.
Now, the moral side might be different did I think Tesla made it clear it was only for long-distance charging, but as you know, I don't think they marketed it with such a limitation. So, in my books, morally local Supercharging is OK, and legally too. But that doesn't mean morally one shouldn't be corteous - one shouldn't overstay and should be cognisant of how busy the charger is.
If you are a local charger, the polite thing would be to time your charges at times when the Supercharger isn't overly busy, for example, or considering moving if you see a lot of out-of-state plates queuing behind you.
- - - Updated - - -
The all you can eat buffet is a good analogy of a fixed-price business model that depends on the average use. Such business models benefit from customers that use the service under what they pay for, offset by customers that use the service above of what they paid or. But that is the chosen business model - and the business, when done right, benefits from it. Just like a Supercharger. Tesla benefits from the likes of me that under use it, but I'm not receiving any letters...
A business that gladly takes the money of the guy who eats less than they pay for, shouldn't complain when at times someone eats more than they paid for. (Of course excluding any limitations imposed before money exchanged hands.)
- - - Updated - - -
I like analogies - even jokes - when they actually hit the mark. Unfortunately this one doesn't.
Why your generous offer of assistance should be - even in jest - equated in any way with a company selling goods with a fixed-price for life service, marketed as "use as much as you like", is beyond me.
What is morally (and even legally) right is quite different when a volunteer offers help vs. when a company sells a product.
I think you might feel differently about the moral obligations of corporations if this were an insurance company thread on Roadster claims.
Now, what follows below is not my idea of what is legally right, but what I feel is morally right. Legally I don't think Tesla could or should impose hard limits on existing Model S customers, because they have benefited from a marketing message that didn't impose any clear limitations on Supercharger use. Nor do I think Tesla will go anywhere beyond letters. For future models they may change the rules, of course, and that is fine.
But the moral side:
I think most of us can at least morally agree abusive behaviour can morally be excluded, like parking at the Supercharger or breaking stuff or generally being an arse. Be it at the gym or at a Supercharger. We may differ on what we view as abusive. For me the problem is: Abuse is here being equated with "daily local supercharging", sounding like the latter itself would be morally questionable. I don't think that comparison automatically follows.
If a Supercharger is constantly filled due to local chargers unwilling or unable to move for long-distance travellers, I could sympathize, just as I would if someone sets up residence at the gym. (Although funny that people use gyms as an example of a "victim", considering how that industry leeches of on under-users.)
But why wouldn't you be allowed to shower daily at your gym? If they offer a daily service and allow the use of their showers, perhaps some house shampoo, then why not. Those gyms benefit from under-users, and that is offset by some part of the customer-base being higher-users. Using gym equipment and showers is part of the gym's function. Using the lounge as your living-room is usually not.
Similarly, I think morally charging at a Supercharger is its function (the gym shower example). Parking at a Supercharger for the whole day is not (the gym lounge example).
On these threads the mere act of daily local Supercharging is equated with taking over the gym with your posse, even if the Supercharger was empty most of the time. I would say the example of taking residence at the gym is more an example of overstaying at the Supercharger, or being disrespective of the real needs of other current users there, than of daily Supercharging.
Now, the moral side might be different did I think Tesla made it clear it was only for long-distance charging, but as you know, I don't think they marketed it with such a limitation. So, in my books, morally local Supercharging is OK, and legally too. But that doesn't mean morally one shouldn't be corteous - one shouldn't overstay and should be cognisant of how busy the charger is.
If you are a local charger, the polite thing would be to time your charges at times when the Supercharger isn't overly busy, for example, or considering moving if you see a lot of out-of-state plates queuing behind you.
- - - Updated - - -
The all you can eat buffet is a good analogy of a fixed-price business model that depends on the average use. Such business models benefit from customers that use the service under what they pay for, offset by customers that use the service above of what they paid or. But that is the chosen business model - and the business, when done right, benefits from it. Just like a Supercharger. Tesla benefits from the likes of me that under use it, but I'm not receiving any letters...
A business that gladly takes the money of the guy who eats less than they pay for, shouldn't complain when at times someone eats more than they paid for. (Of course excluding any limitations imposed before money exchanged hands.)
- - - Updated - - -
I like analogies - even jokes - when they actually hit the mark. Unfortunately this one doesn't.
Why your generous offer of assistance should be - even in jest - equated in any way with a company selling goods with a fixed-price for life service, marketed as "use as much as you like", is beyond me.
What is morally (and even legally) right is quite different when a volunteer offers help vs. when a company sells a product.
I think you might feel differently about the moral obligations of corporations if this were an insurance company thread on Roadster claims.
Krugerrand
Meow
I disagree. It was a fine analogy that hit the bullseye. And funny as all get out because it's the truth. Somebody, somewhere (and we really don't have to look far) would totally think Bonnie's offer meant they could show up at 3am to charge. AND! expect her to whip up some canapes and entertain them with song and dance while they waited for their charge.
I don't doubt that could happen. It is just completely irrelevant to the argument of Tesla's legal and moral obligations as a company selling a product with a fixed-price service.
If I say I fix Roadsters for free on my free time, would you equate my obligations to those of the insurance company you paid for to get your Roadster fixed in case of a crash?
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Really?
Is it that hard to come away from Tesla installing super chargers for long distance travel with the understanding that it would probably not be the correct thing to use them for (significant amounts of) local charging? I think we are giving people a pass on the need to use their brains.
We really need to stop lowering the bar as a good number of people will simply live up to the lower expectations.
The above is for the US and not applicable to the example below.
Is it that hard to come away from Tesla installing super chargers for long distance travel with the understanding that it would probably not be the correct thing to use them for (significant amounts of) local charging? I think we are giving people a pass on the need to use their brains.
We really need to stop lowering the bar as a good number of people will simply live up to the lower expectations.
The above is for the US and not applicable to the example below.
It is highly likely that in the future every supercharger will be in use almost all the time with the number of cars on the road. Many of the supercharger will have solar and or battery storage to increase efficiency. If they sell cars with supercharging they have to expect people to use it. It would permanently damage their reputation and that of their cars if they tried to restrict it in any way. BTW where I live, using telemetry that identifies a specific individual goes against the privacy law without specific authorisation to identify.
If if they tried this in Asia, 90% of people who own the car now couldn't have bought it. Every Asian supercharger is used by people as their primary source of charging. In bigger cities outside of Asia many apartment dweller will need to use outside charging and the supercharger are the obvious choice.
If if they tried this in Asia, 90% of people who own the car now couldn't have bought it. Every Asian supercharger is used by people as their primary source of charging. In bigger cities outside of Asia many apartment dweller will need to use outside charging and the supercharger are the obvious choice.
deonb
Active Member
And I don't think they have marketed it without such a limitation.
Can you please point us at any marketing material that talks about SuperChargers, in any format, at any date, that does not contain either the words "road trip" or "long distance" inside the same material.
Krugerrand
Meow
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Someone, somewhere (and we really don't have to look far) would believe Bonnie was legally and morally obligated to get up out of bed at 3am, serve hor d'oeurvres and entertain. For free! And without complaint.
Doesn't matter what I think about your Roadster tinkering because I know exactly what Tesla meant/intended/implied/suggested/pick any word you can wrap your brain around when they said 'Free Supercharging for life FOR LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL'.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
There's a big assumption in that one sentence. Do I need to point it out?
---------
This whole discussion has hit a particular button with me, one of personal accountability. The problem is so many people are willing to make their mistake someone else's issue, rather than face the fact that THEY perhaps didn't read correctly. And then when it's pointed out, so many immediately dismiss dissenting opinions with a quick label of 'fanboyism' or 'defenders of Tesla' or whatever. Because heaven help them if they'd have to look in the mirror and say 'oh my fault, oopsie'.
This liberal
happens to think that there is far too much spoon feeding going on. People go in the backcountry and think nothing bad can happen to them. They play games on the freeway, acting like it's one giant video game. People want to make others responsible for protecting them from their own mistakes, when the reality is sometimes you just have to own it and move on. I hope if someone decides to sue over some casual words from Elon, that they end up bearing 100% of the court costs when the judge gets done laughing. It's like some are blind to the fact that a qualifier has been there from the beginning and only want to focus on particular words, rather than the whole picture. Because if they DID focus on the whole picture, they might have to accept that they made a mistake. And obviously that would be the end of the world for some ... based on the need to get all puffed up and self-righteous about this.
Whew. I feel better now. Thanks for listening, lola.
Perhaps someone (crazy) would. But the situation would be completely different: One is a volunteer offering help (bonnie). Another is a company selling a product with a service included (Tesla). That was my point.
Now, that is where we of course disagree, but I understand that if one believe's Tesla's marketing message always included the limitation of long-distance travel only, they may see Tesla's obligations differently. i don't agree that was Tesla's message before this latest episode, but I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree on that particular point.
But again, that has very little to do with volunteers offering help and obligations related to that - companies in any case have a different set of obligations when they take money for something. Even if Tesla would be in the right (that is, their marketing message of Supercharging being related to long-distance driving only was clear enough), the analogue to a volunteer offering access to their charger fails miserably.
Krugerrand
Meow
You've read this thread, right? Crazy is alive and well.
And Bonnie's analogy referenced an entirely different point; the ability of people to interpret for their sole, selfish benefit and damn everything and everybody else.
IF?! one believes Tesla meant 'for long distance travel', after having been shown written and video proof... See, told you crazy was alive and well.
