And evidently one is classified as an idiot if one disagrees with the majority??? I find it interesting that virtually EVERYONE agrees that SuperCharging was meant to allow long distance travel. I think even those who disagree with the majority would accept that. But that does not necessarily exclude free, unlimited use locally. They are NOT mutually exclusive. Those doing so have been pejoratively referred to as thieves, free loaders, selfish, etc. From the Financial Perspective: Someone has pointed out that one could charge exclusively at SuperChargers for about 60,000 miles and would break even on the $2,000 initial investment. (Not very likely at all!) From the OverCrowding Perspective: The OP, and most of the others on the minority end of this discussion, all have stated they would quickly move out of the way if someone else came and needed the charger.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
That may be true, but is not the reality at a few of the sites. Perhaps those people are not on this forum. I've seen several stalls at Fremont blocked by local traffic, while many cars were waiting for a spot. (As a Roadster owner, I don't have the luxury of supercharging. So there are times I've sat in the Delivery Center for extended periods of time as my car sipped its meager serving of 70amp lemonade - I've personally witnessed the blocking and frustrations more than once.)
I think lost in this conversation is the fact that Tesla never proposed rules or punishment. I'm repeating myself, but he made a simple statement about communication, in the hopes that those who receive a note would self-monitor their own behavior. That seemed like a completely reasonable approach. Tesla simply doesn't have the bandwidth to monitor behavior or put in billing systems. They have more important fish to focus upon. (And I'll bet no one here will receive a note - it wasn't about 'never charge locally', it was a request for a very small number of people to stop abusing the system. What does Tesla consider abuse? I don't know, but again, doubt anyone here has reached that bar. We'll find out their definition if someone does.)
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
You've said some things in this thread that I absolutely agree with and I would +1 those posts any day of the week, but something happened around post 100 in this thread that made it sound like either you had a really bad day or someone else got a hold of your account. Heck I don't know why the change but it got intense.
Bonnie in post 50, simple common sense, good post
Bonnie in post 53, backed up with a video, another good post
Bonnie in post 56, another on topic video, another good post
Bonnie in post 68, in the fray, still an OK post
Bonnie in post 82, people are over analyzing, wait till you see a note, best post
Bonnie in post 95, short joke, good tone
then something changes
Bonnie in post 100, "So that some people can continue to abuse the privilege". What happened to post 82? Why the sudden intensity?
Bonnie in post 109, "Drives me nuts sometimes when the first solution people look towards is 'you solve it for me'." Again with more intensity.
Bonnie in post 112 quoting two other posters and saying "what does that have to do with the messaging that everyone is going on about" keeping things churning.
Bonnie in post 117 "you are jumping to the conclusion that I am emotional", well the intensity is still high.
and another shift in pattern
Bonnie in post 147 good short post, neutral in tone, seems to have calmed down
Bonnie in post 153 thanking another poster, smiley face, who is this? Where did the intensity go?
Bonnie in post 231 "Over two hundred posts...), good summation of the situation, only thing missing is the URL back to post 82.
and another shift in pattern
Bonnie in post 266, "Unintended consequences of actions aren't always so great." could be neutral but wondering about the Bonnie from posts 100-117.
Bonnie in post 276, "gobsmacked over the need of some to have rules and specifics spelled out, while totally ignoring any information that doesn't agree with their stance & simultaneously dismissing anyone who disagrees with them" oh, there she is.
Bonnie in post 301, Monty Python video. While I like Monty Python at this point I think this is just trolling the thread trying to provoke someone.
Bonnie in post 304, "riittää jo This is nuts, honestly. If you have two brain cells left that can control your feet, just walk away." followed by a Song that never ends video. Yep more trolling.
Bonnie in post 337, "I don't know why I even open these threads. I feel like I should find a sale on Big Boy Pants and start handing them out to those truly in need. Just. Crazy." oh yeah, no need for moderation there.
Bonnie in post 340, "The only entertaining part for me is just how worked up some people are getting over what MIGHT happen, rather than acknowledging there just MIGHT be a couple of borderline users that even they would pull the plug on. There's a lot of drama here over nothing. Seriously. Over nothing."
I totally agree with this post that there was a lot of drama over nothing but I feel that some of Bonnie's posts increased the drama.
Bonnie in post 347, being sarcastic about free charging. Low intensity but still more attitude.
Bonnie in post 349, at least now its down to light jokes with a smiley face again
Bonnie in post 351, the joke continues
Bonnie in post 354, short and sweet
Bonnie in post 365, back to the discussion
Bonnie in post 379, more discussion
and so on, back to normal
I don't have anything against you, if this helps you reset your compass or realize how your words come across to others then fine. I just felt the thread was on fire plenty enough on its own, you didn't need to stoke it.
Just my reaction to trying to read all the posts in a 400+ post thread and watching the intensity go a little too high here and there.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Um, okay. Lots of time spent on me and deciding to help me 'reset my compass'. For the record, I'm okay with what I posted.
Peace.
Krugerrand
Meow
Did you just really do that? *scrolls back because there must be some mistake* Yes, you really did just do that. Crazy.
Thank you for all the responses to me, I have read and noted them all.
I am interested if a summary of sorts might generate some more mutual understanding than a continued tit-for-tat. I am genuinely interested how many of you could agree to the following:
I think most us agree Tesla created the Supercharger system to solve certain specific issues hindering EV adoption, including both lack of infrastructure and the unique needs of EVs. This started with long-distance travel (call it the road trip), both the lack of charging and the lack of charging speed, but eventually evolved into other intents as well, such as solving the question of urban charging (London), perhaps - at least temporarily - even issues like operating a taxi fleet of EVs (Schipol) which would not work as well without such fast charger.
I think most us agree Tesla has calculated the price of the Supercharger system (built into the price of the car nowadays) in such a manner that it would be mostly used for the above-mentioned purposes. I think most of us can also agree Tesla would prefer the Supercharger system to be used for these purposes and not much for other purposes. No doubt, Tesla is also a strong advocate of the home charger, and of the EV-era home (solar, PowerWall etc.) and would not wish to hinder this with the Supercharger.
Also, I think most of us agree what is free for the life of Model S, may not remain free for the life of future Tesla models. The Supercharger, as unique a system as it is, is by nature an obstacle remover - not an instrument of lesser total cost of ownership. Eventually it seems possible, as EVs have crossed these obstacles and moved to the mainstream, that the Supercharger system may become - for future Tesla models - either pay-per-use or perhaps one day even obsolete if other solutions to EV charging replace it in society.
I think most of us can agree, Tesla did not specify or impose - prior to the latest general meeting - any specific limitations on the use of Superchargers, beyond rules related to parking at Superchargers (be it in the form of traffic signs or the website FAQ). I think most of us even agree, Tesla will not likely impose any limitations on the use of Superchargers (on Model S), beyond informative letters.
Where there is a main disagreement, and my intent here is merely to note this not continue to argue it, is: Was Tesla clear enough beforehand on what the Supercharger system can be used for?
Some feel the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough.
Some feel Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use.
Who would be comfortable with this summary and just agreeing to disagree on the last part? I know I am.
I am interested if a summary of sorts might generate some more mutual understanding than a continued tit-for-tat. I am genuinely interested how many of you could agree to the following:
I think most us agree Tesla created the Supercharger system to solve certain specific issues hindering EV adoption, including both lack of infrastructure and the unique needs of EVs. This started with long-distance travel (call it the road trip), both the lack of charging and the lack of charging speed, but eventually evolved into other intents as well, such as solving the question of urban charging (London), perhaps - at least temporarily - even issues like operating a taxi fleet of EVs (Schipol) which would not work as well without such fast charger.
I think most us agree Tesla has calculated the price of the Supercharger system (built into the price of the car nowadays) in such a manner that it would be mostly used for the above-mentioned purposes. I think most of us can also agree Tesla would prefer the Supercharger system to be used for these purposes and not much for other purposes. No doubt, Tesla is also a strong advocate of the home charger, and of the EV-era home (solar, PowerWall etc.) and would not wish to hinder this with the Supercharger.
Also, I think most of us agree what is free for the life of Model S, may not remain free for the life of future Tesla models. The Supercharger, as unique a system as it is, is by nature an obstacle remover - not an instrument of lesser total cost of ownership. Eventually it seems possible, as EVs have crossed these obstacles and moved to the mainstream, that the Supercharger system may become - for future Tesla models - either pay-per-use or perhaps one day even obsolete if other solutions to EV charging replace it in society.
I think most of us can agree, Tesla did not specify or impose - prior to the latest general meeting - any specific limitations on the use of Superchargers, beyond rules related to parking at Superchargers (be it in the form of traffic signs or the website FAQ). I think most of us even agree, Tesla will not likely impose any limitations on the use of Superchargers (on Model S), beyond informative letters.
Where there is a main disagreement, and my intent here is merely to note this not continue to argue it, is: Was Tesla clear enough beforehand on what the Supercharger system can be used for?
Some feel the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough.
Some feel Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use.
Who would be comfortable with this summary and just agreeing to disagree on the last part? I know I am.
Drucifer
Active Member
Charge per charge would be a fail. Here is why.
First there is marketing. It would be nowhere near as cool as the "forever - free" roadtrip thing that Elon gets to say.
Second, I am too cheap to pay $30 or $40 for a charge, knowing at my house I could go empty to full for about $8.00.
I am totally fine with paying $2000 for "unlimited" charging that I might use only 10 times a year (that would be 100 times in 10 years or $20 a charge, prepaid), because the $$ is disconnected from the product (kWh).
I am buying into a concept, a network of chargers, to change the planet and make my car superdeliciousspecial compared to anything else on the planet.
Is this rational? Eff No. Is it how people think and act? Totally
I mean, most people don't want to be "not at the party" when it comes to supercharging.
The prepayment aspect pays for the huge capital costs of the chargers. the variable cost of the electricity is relatively small....unless someone uses it as their "daily fill-up".
Pretty much. And I can't wait for the thread where a daily Supercharger user complains that they are having to charge at home now because the Superchargers are full with other locals doing what they wanted to do.
Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving...
No one here has said they have a problem with daily Supercharger users using the network that need it (apartment dwellers, those who were driving a ton that day and don't have the time to go home and charge up at 40A, someone getting their house renovated...etc). And no, I thought the picture was funny not calling anyone an idiot.
Not everyone is as kind and would move their car as Bonnie observed. Would they go up to everyone in the line and ask 'are you local? If so, do you have charging at home as well?' Right now it is not an issue at all really but doesn't take many of these people to make it a problem.
No one here has said they have a problem with daily Supercharger users using the network that need it (apartment dwellers, those who were driving a ton that day and don't have the time to go home and charge up at 40A, someone getting their house renovated...etc). And no, I thought the picture was funny not calling anyone an idiot.
Not everyone is as kind and would move their car as Bonnie observed. Would they go up to everyone in the line and ask 'are you local? If so, do you have charging at home as well?' Right now it is not an issue at all really but doesn't take many of these people to make it a problem.
rnguy001
Member
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Tesla, you're ahead of your time. We're not advanced enough of a species to make "free" and "unlimited" supercharging work.
I'm just glad that this has come to light before the Model 3 was release because it will only get worse from here. Unfortunately, we can't rely on people to be reasonable when it comes to Supercharger use. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world where people will grasp onto any possible argument to advance their own interest over the interest of all others. That's the sad nature of our species. We're inherently selfish creatures, brought about by evolution. Darwin and Dawkins have both pointed out how evolution results in an attack on others, if it advances our own interest. It's not a kind or compassionate route that we have taken to get here. So we must overcome our innate roots to become compassionate. It takes integrity to overcome our inherent selfishness.
People like Elon, Bonnie, dsm363, scaesare,deonb, Kruggerand and many others, can only wish for a world where people act reasonably and appropriate, and don't latch onto anything with locking jaws to suck every last drop out of any stray words. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world. We need to understand that, as a species, we are barely out of the jungle.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We humans are a sad and pathetic species. If you stretch your arms, it's only a shaving of our fingernails that we have existed on this planet. Yet, we're already circling the drain. It's really unbelievable the damage one species can do in such a short amount of time and it's all downhill from here. I really feel sorry for my kids, and their kids. We've lived the best of it and "damn all others" seems to be our motto. That's also an appropriate motto for many people here when it come to the Superchargers. It's just a microcosm of our macrocosm existence.
I'm just glad that this has come to light before the Model 3 was release because it will only get worse from here. Unfortunately, we can't rely on people to be reasonable when it comes to Supercharger use. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world where people will grasp onto any possible argument to advance their own interest over the interest of all others. That's the sad nature of our species. We're inherently selfish creatures, brought about by evolution. Darwin and Dawkins have both pointed out how evolution results in an attack on others, if it advances our own interest. It's not a kind or compassionate route that we have taken to get here. So we must overcome our innate roots to become compassionate. It takes integrity to overcome our inherent selfishness.
People like Elon, Bonnie, dsm363, scaesare,deonb, Kruggerand and many others, can only wish for a world where people act reasonably and appropriate, and don't latch onto anything with locking jaws to suck every last drop out of any stray words. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world. We need to understand that, as a species, we are barely out of the jungle.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We humans are a sad and pathetic species. If you stretch your arms, it's only a shaving of our fingernails that we have existed on this planet. Yet, we're already circling the drain. It's really unbelievable the damage one species can do in such a short amount of time and it's all downhill from here. I really feel sorry for my kids, and their kids. We've lived the best of it and "damn all others" seems to be our motto. That's also an appropriate motto for many people here when it come to the Superchargers. It's just a microcosm of our macrocosm existence.
I am sorry you feel so badly about this, Canuck. I know I wouldn't want to be seen as selfish, nor is that my intent in life.
That said, I am interested in how you feel about my summary, does it overall seem fair to you beyond the disagreement part?
That said, I am interested in how you feel about my summary, does it overall seem fair to you beyond the disagreement part?
I agree. It's still early but think (actually hope) it's a matter of time. As I can tell, Tesla's promises (however we choose to interpret the "free unlimited" thing), have been linked into the Model-S. It wouldn't at all surprise me if we're going to see some changes going forward. Perhaps already with the Model-X or otherwise possibly with the Model-3?
Personally I'm a proponent of a "pay-per-use model" when it comes to energy. The more somebody pollutes, the more they should pay. Tesla's model actually encourages people to drive their Model-S as much and as far as possible using the Supercharger network.
Where I like and appreciate Tesla's "disruptive marketing stunt" (and much enjoy using the Supercharger infrastructure myself!!), I don't think it's good for the planet for people to be encouraged to travel long distance for free. It's not like our cars are 100% solar energy powered as yet (at least not the electrons we consume from the Supercharger network).
I'm wondering whether I'm the only one with a "feeling of duality" when Supercharging? On one side I feel so happy and proud about driving electric and contributing so much less to the pollution of the environment than my ICE friends. On the other side, I have a feeling that something isn't right... I'm still polluting with every mile driven. Shouldn't I be paying for the "cleanup" proportionally to the number of miles I drive?
Geez. My conscience is eating away at me... :wink:
Around Oslo the density of Teslas is way higher than any place in California. You'd easily be able to se hundreds in a day if you tried to. If the density of Teslas in California was equal to the density in Norway there would be 80,000 Teslas driving around California. I am on vacation now, when I left my Tesla charging in one of the charging enabled lots around the airport there were at least 20-30 other Teslas charging there. In one lot.
In a 100 mile radius around Oslo there are exactly 2 SCs. One about 20 miles away and one about 55 miles away. They have 18 stalls in total. (I'm counting Lier South and North as one SC)
This is already partly happening in Norway. There is a SC around 55 miles south of Oslo and one 110 miles north of Oslo. 165 miles between them is quite a stretch on Norways busiest road (at most it has 4 lanes each way). There is a huge demand for a SC north of Oslo quite a bit closer (maybe 20-30 miles away). But the SC team has publically stated that no SC will be built there for fesr of misuse by taxis (going to/from the airport) and locals charging. So we are left with a big hole in the network, a hole which mostly makes the network useless to me. Sure, I can go to my cabin via Lillehammer SC but that os a one hour detour each way. Thus I instead go the shortest route and charge on public 22kW AC chargers instead. Those cost me around 32 cents per minute to use, a charge of usually around $40 for the round trip. Expensive, but much better than spending another two hours driving.
Thus, the ones that misuse the network is ruining it for the rest of us.
My solution would be to charge twice the usual home electricity cost per kWh charged on any SC closer than say 30 miles from home. To still allow long distance driving making you need to top up to reach home et ., the billing should be cancelled if the car came from >60 miles from home or went >60 miles from home the next 4 hours after charging.
Interesting anecdotes, thank you.
I wonder how this works for Tesla, though. They build urban Superchargers in many metropolies, for city dwellers to locally charge on, and have the Schipol taxi fleet using Superchargers in Holland.
Then they seem to do the completely opposite in Oslo. Is it because the disproportionately vast number of Tesla's in Norway (due to taxation), is it due to different local Tesla people / budgets, or is Tesla changing policy as they go? Or is it because they are already so popular in Norway, they don't really need to build Superchargers to be more popular due to massively beneficial taxation (unlike they may have to do in, say, London)?
To me it shows Tesla is playing the balancing act. They are trying to solve a multitude issues, to have a marketable product and a simple marketing message, but at the same time there are things not working out so great for them. In the end, they will have to come up with better rules for Superchargers, if the current model is not working. The problem is, for some of us anyway, Tesla already marketed the current model "for life of car", so depending on what you believe Tesla marketed, going back on it doesn't sound appealing either.
One person sees this as a people abusing the system. Other may see it as Tesla failing to think the system through, wanting to have (selling message) and eat (reasonable cost) the cake too. It really depends on how one perceives it, and probably on how positively one rates Tesla's interests in their personal list of priorities.
deonb
Active Member
I think your summary is accurate and fair, beyond the disagreement part.
And on the disagreement part, you can probably recruit people in your way of thinking if you can supply any supporting evidence to your claim that Tesla has liberally touted a marketing message that can be interpreted as "reduce your TCO by Supercharging".
We all know (and despises) how Tesla likes to bundles each kind of perceived saving into the displayed price of the car. At some point they've even displayed a "discounted" price of the car by $100 for each hour you save by NOT going to the gas station. They also credited time saving for being able to use an HOV lane. They've also discounted the displayed price further since the maintenance cost of an EV was less than an ICE (this one is especially ironic). Even now they have estimated gas savings displayed on there.
But somehow they forgot to account for the "free" aspect of Supercharging in there? That's pretty unbelievable, considering the worst of their pricing shenanigans went hand-in-hand with their initial SuperCharger rollout.
Even if this wasn't formal marketing, and, as you said, this was sales people that touted that message (by who I assume you mean on-the-floor personnel in sales & service offices) - who are these sales people you were speaking to that gave you this message? I would love to get them on the phone and speak to them personally. Elon would probably love to get them on the phone as well...
The sales guys here have given me every piece of misinformation about Supercharging imaginable, but they've never gone that far. Maybe you've been to a rouge sales office? Or maybe they were misinformed or overly eager - happens a LOT.
Either way, supporting evidence will make your case.
