Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015

[TexasEV]

OK So this conversation has inspired me to enable Supercharging, despite the fact it galls me to pay for something I won't use, purely be for the benefit of the next owner.

Rather than speculate I have specifically asked Tesla EU what the policy is, that it is not subject to future change, and my purchase is contingent on this IN WRITING.

If there is any possible change in policy it will have a material impact on me in two years time, and I'm not comfortable relying on word of mouth, vague sales assurances, or forum wisdom. At the end of the day I'm entering into a purchase contract here, and like any other contract it really should be clear.

Hopefully this will settle the argument one way or another.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[smsprague]

NapaBill communicated directly with Nicholas Thompson - one of the best Service Managers on the face of the earth. Nicholas would not have used such a word. At the end of the day, what difference does it make, and what good would come of this? Let's be happy that the SvC folks are quietly reaching out to owners to smooth things over. That is the right thing to do, and without the high profile.

Completely agree based on my dealings with Nicholas.

 

[Johan]

The letter did just that. Seriously. It stated quite gently the purpose of the Supercharger Network and gently the advantage of home charging. The ONLY two things people are bent about was the grammar of the opening two? sentences, in particularly the use of the accusatory 'you' (did this, so please stop), and that some of those 'you's' received the e-mail in error being either no where near a local Supercharger or having not used said local Supercharger in excess.

The letter neither explained what the actual policy is, nor did it have a positive tone to it but instead downright accusatory.

Now I'm, like you, pretty certain this wasn't the message Tesla wanted to communicate. But reactions here, and in media, shows that to many the letter did leave a bitter taste.

So is Tesla's PR department's response to that to have an internal meeting where they agree that people are overreacting and say "well, we didn't really mean anything harsh by it" and then NOT try to correct the potential damage of how the message somehow came across???

In communication one thing is what you yourself mean you've said, but what's even more important is what the recipient got from your communication. A pR department should understand this. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Krugerrand]

The letter neither explained what the actual policy is, nor did it have a positive tone to it but instead downright accusatory.

We must have read a different letter. Other than the opening of the letter that some felt accusatory, the rest of it, which was a few paragraphs long, was at worse a neutral informative tone.

So is Tesla's PR department's response to that to have an internal meeting where they agree that people are overreacting and say "well, we didn't really mean anything harsh by it" and then NOT try to correct the potential damage of how the message somehow came across???

I don't have a clue what's happening inside Tesla walls, but we've already got word on the forum that a number of people have been contacted by their local SC to apologize for the letter. That means that something is indeed being done to 'try to correct the potential damage of how the message somehow came across'. But again for the recorde, what's been complained about is the grammar of the opening of the letter (not the body of it) and that some people received it that clearly shouldn't have.

In communication one thing is what you yourself mean you've said, but what's even more important is what the recipient got from your communication. A pR department should understand this. That's all I'm saying.

I don't disagree. I also know that sometimes people aren't ever going to understand the message, no matter how it's delivered.

 

[qwk]

O

We must have read a different letter. Other than the opening of the letter that some felt accusatory, the rest of it, which was a few paragraphs long, was at worse a neutral informative tone.



I don't have a clue what's happening inside Tesla walls, but we've already got word on the forum that a number of people have been contacted by their local SC to apologize for the letter. That means that something is indeed being done to 'try to correct the potential damage of how the message somehow came across'. But again for the recorde, what's been complained about is the grammar of the opening of the letter (not the body of it) and that some people received it that clearly shouldn't have.



I don't disagree. I also know that sometimes people aren't ever going to understand the message, no matter how it's delivered.

I think the point here is that Tesla makes the same mistakes over and over, and doesn't learn or change anything. That is the true issue.

 

[smac]

Yeah, good luck with that.

Why ?

I'm buying something new. It's completely separate from the car, and is a not insignificant amount of money. I would like to know exactly what I'm buying!

Any rational person would surely want some sort of assurances of what they are handing over the cash for?

(Sorry if I've missed some form of sarcasm)

 

[AmpedRealtor]

In communication one thing is what you yourself mean you've said, but what's even more important is what the recipient got from your communication.

I'm still learning this and I'm 46... lol

- - - Updated - - -

A PR department should understand this. That's all I'm saying.

And who is the head of Tesla's PR? I've mentioned his name before, but some people don't like that I'm laying blame without knowing the full breadth of his job responsibilities. But I still think it falls on him, ultimately. If not, then it likely flows up to Elon himself.

 

[napabill]

It's hardly trolling to ask for clarification to napabill's claim: He expressed his frustration with known abusers out of Scottsdale, but had no way to deal with it.

Your asking someone who can't remember what he had for breakfast this morning. Whether he used the word "abusers" or not I can't be sure, but I am sure he was referring to owners who were using the Superchargers inappropriately, by charging daily to avoid the cost of charging at home, by the examples he gave.

 

[smac]

Very interesting! Please keep us posted. If anything is unclear in the written document you hopefully receive please press them regarding the "free" vs. "free unlimited" distinction.

Had first email back after sending to customer support.

Very vague,
"We do not have any information/news about any limitations or restrictions for supercharging."

I will continue to press this, because ultimately (as I mentioned to TexasEV) this is a new contract, and I want some assurances. My only goal is to ensure it's in black and white exactly what I am paying for before I make a decision. Being totally honest here, there's a good chance the only way I'll get close to the intimated 50% residual, is by selling the car to a Taxi firm when I'm finished with it

BTW If I was in the market for a new Model S I would be doing exactly the same right now, in light of recent developments . I would strongly recommend anyone in this situation confirm in advance too.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Had first email back after sending to customer support.

Very vague,
"We do not have any information/news about any limitations or restrictions for supercharging."

I will continue to press this, because ultimately (as I mentioned to TexasEV) this is a new contract, and I want some assurances. My only goal is to ensure it's in black and white exactly what I am paying for before I make a decision. Being totally honest here, there's a good chance the only way I'll get close to the intimated 50% residual, is by selling the car to a Taxi firm when I'm finished with it

BTW If I was in the market for a new Model S I would be doing exactly the same right now, in light of recent developments . I would strongly recommend anyone in this situation confirm in advance too.

The response you received is already predictable. That's why Texas EV said "good luck". On other issues, for example the Ranger service policy, others have tried to get in writing a guarantee that Tesla will provide that service. They were not successful.

It is fairly obvious why. If they had a policy that they wanted to put into a contract, they would have put that into the sales contract or already have a standard form that they provide by default. They would not separately giving written guarantees on a case-by-case basis (only exception is if there are other extenuating circumstances that justifies Tesla's lawyer writing something specifically for you).

 

[dsm363]

I'm still learning this and I'm 46... lol

- - - Updated - - -



And who is the head of Tesla's PR? I've mentioned his name before, but some people don't like that I'm laying blame without knowing the full breadth of his job responsibilities. But I still think it falls on him, ultimately. If not, then it likely flows up to Elon himself.

Do you know who wrote the email and if it was reviewed by the PR department? Tesla handles PR very differently than most corporations it seems where nothing goes out without PR approval.

 

[Andyw2100]

Tesla handles PR very differently than most corporations

Ya' think?

 

[dsm363]

Ya' think?

I do.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It is if you're deliberately looking for a word to be offended about. Some folks starting getting pleasant calls from their local Tesla staff; it's a shame if you want to dig something bad out of an attempt at positive communication.

I am looking to understand how Tesla sees the situation and communicates about it. TMC has plenty of conjecture that starts to live a life of its own when people over-interpret Tesla and then start parroting that over-interpretation as if it were a fact. It happens for both pro-Tesla and critical voices.

A Tesla service manager "expressed his frustration with known abusers out of Scottsdale, but had no way to deal with it" is certainly an interesting claim and it deserved further clarification. It can give insight into how the issue has been talked about inside Tesla. napabill's clarification, though, was that he did not remember exactly how the service manager's point was formulated - still other useful insight was clarified.

- - - Updated - - -

Your asking someone who can't remember what he had for breakfast this morning. Whether he used the word "abusers" or not I can't be sure, but I am sure he was referring to owners who were using the Superchargers inappropriately, by charging daily to avoid the cost of charging at home, by the examples he gave.

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[smac]

The response you received is already predictable. That's why Texas EV said "good luck". On other issues, for example the Ranger service policy, others have tried to get in writing a guarantee that Tesla will provide that service. They were not successful.

It is fairly obvious why. If they had a policy that they wanted to put into a contract, they would have put that into the sales contract or already have a standard form that they provide by default. They would not separately giving written guarantees on a case-by-case basis (only exception is if there are other extenuating circumstances that justifies Tesla's lawyer writing something specifically for you).

This is what I have real issue with. Without a contract, you might as well be buying magic beans.

This isn't marketing / PR / comms, but simple sale of goods.

If this was Ford offering you free Shell gas for life, you can bet it would be backed up with a terms and conditions at point of sale.

Why should we let Tesla off this level of basic admin? They are not a charity!

There are no terms, and the only recourse (like the Ranger service) if things change is a very unpleasant journey through the courts Saying all that I am making some progress, by being explicit and deliberate in my questions, and I am getting concrete answers. But it is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

So far I have confirmed it is as advertised at launch "free and will always be". My final point of contention, is what defines lifetime, and if this is transferable on sale of the vehicle.

By getting these in writing if there is ever a material change in policy I have protected myself as I can use the UK's "sale of goods act" with concrete documentary proof, and run it through our small claims court to recoup my fee.

That is all I want, both purchaser and vendor being clear on what the transaction is!

 

[dpeilow]

Do you know who wrote the email and if it was reviewed by the PR department? Tesla handles PR very differently than most corporations it seems where nothing goes out without PR approval.

For something as important and potentially contentious as supercharger policy, there is no way it didn't go to director level.

 

[Panu]

By getting these in writing if there is ever a material change in policy I have protected myself as I can use the UK's "sale of goods act" with concrete documentary proof, and run it through our small claims court to recoup my fee.

That is all I want, both purchaser and vendor being clear on what the transaction is!

If we would get any kind of contract of supercharging from Tesla that contract would definitely say "Tesla Motors has the right to charge for the service".

 

[Johan]

This is what I have real issue with. Without a contract, you might as well be buying magic beans.

This isn't marketing / PR / comms, but simple sale of goods.

If this was Ford offering you free Shell gas for life, you can bet it would be backed up with a terms and conditions at point of sale.

Why should we let Tesla off this level of basic admin? They are not a charity!

There are no terms, and the only recourse (like the Ranger service) if things change is a very unpleasant journey through the courts Saying all that I am making some progress, by being explicit and deliberate in my questions, and I am getting concrete answers. But it is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

So far I have confirmed it is as advertised at launch "free and will always be". My final point of contention, is what defines lifetime, and if this is transferable on sale of the vehicle.

By getting these in writing if there is ever a material change in policy I have protected myself as I can use the UK's "sale of goods act" with concrete documentary proof, and run it through our small claims court to recoup my fee.

That is all I want, both purchaser and vendor being clear on what the transaction is!

I agree, with one small addition: as others have mentioned in this thread there may be a real difference between "free and always will be" and "free and unlimited and always will be". Your position i.e. paying the fee for activating SC on a 60kWh Model S is a very good opportunity to press Tesla on the actual terms of "free Supercharging".

 

[Tupelo]

I agree, with one small addition: as others have mentioned in this thread there may be a real difference between "free and always will be" and "free and unlimited and always will be".

+1. IMO this is a point that has been continually ignored by many throughout this long, arduous discussion. "Free" speaks to one, and only one, thing: the price of an item or service. So many have continually beat the drum of "free for life, free for life!" and interpreted that, within their own echo chambers, as meaning free for life, with no limits, at any time, under any circumstances, as they determine. TM has expressly said that Supercharging will always be free for the life of our cars, and I don't expect that to change. Limitations on when, where and how often we can obtain our free service, however, can and may be implemented. Count me as one of the Model S owners who has never interpreted any communication about Supercharging to suggest that Tesla intended to pay for 100% of my fuel costs for the life of my car.

 

[mspohr]

+1. IMO this is a point that has been continually ignored by many throughout this long, arduous discussion. "Free" speaks to one, and only one, thing: the price of an item or service. So many have continually beat the drum of "free for life, free for life!" and interpreted that, within their own echo chambers, as meaning free for life, with no limits, at any time, under any circumstances, as they determine. TM has expressly said that Supercharging will always be free for the life of our cars, and I don't expect that to change. Limitations on when, where and how often we can obtain our free service, however, can and may be implemented. Count me as one of the Model S owners who has never interpreted any communication about Supercharging to suggest that Tesla intended to pay for 100% of my fuel costs for the life of my car.

As pointed out earlier (somewhere) in this very long thread, Tesla has made statements of "free unlimited" and "use as much as you want" in the past (on the web site and by spokespersons). Others have pointed out a (real or imagined) context for these statements which might constitute a qualifier.
Tesla has not made a clear unambiguous statement either way and some have pointed out that they may be intentionally vague.
Until we have a clear, unambiguous statement from Tesla, I will consider "free unlimited" to be operative but also be considerate of the company and my fellow Tesla owners and observe good charging etiquette (don't hog the charger).