There's also the definition of supercharging. It will stay free, but there's nothing to stop Tesla from throttling the charging rate at local stations for those who use them inappropriately, or stop expanding that location, or stop building superchargers altogether if the expense of adding to the network is greater than the benefit in sales. Use them responsibly and stop trying to get a specific rule or contract-- really we're better off it Tesla doesn't find it needs to do that.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
So I here is where I got to:
Me:
TM Response:
Finally and please bear in mind I am very unlikely to use a Supercharger at all given my usage of the car let alone hog a bay, I'm simply doing this in case a future policy change has a negative impact on residuals, no more no less. (My experience so far has made me jaded if I'm honest)
Me:
TM Response:
Me:
TM Response:
Finally and please bear in mind I am very unlikely to use a Supercharger at all given my usage of the car let alone hog a bay, I'm simply doing this in case a future policy change has a negative impact on residuals, no more no less. (My experience so far has made me jaded if I'm honest)
Me:
TM Response:
I think you would be happier if you didn't activate supercharging. You're not going to use it, so why put yourself through all this. There is no reason to think that supercharging will increase the value of your used car more than what you would pay for it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That seems like a non-answer to me. They basically tell you to refer to existing advertising and don't acknowledge the "unlimited" part. As for the "lifetime" thing, I thought it was already well known that the "lifetime" refers to the car, not the owner. That's exactly how I expect them to respond by the way, since whoever responding would be bound by how Tesla does things overall.
That's a +100 from me lol
- - - Updated - - -
Tesla should use a points-based system to determine who is using the Supercharger inappropriately. Assign a point to every inappropriate use, as determined by Tesla, and those with a certain number of points get a warning. If that user continues to accumulate points during a window of time after receipt of Tesla's warning, Tesla should send a second warning. If the behavior/points continue, then a final warning is issued along with the repercussions if the inappropriate usage does not cease immediately. The repercussion, after three warnings, is a throttling of the charge current to 110v levels at the nearest Supercharger where Tesla has determined inappropriate use.
For example, if someone uses the nearest Supercharger when they could have charged to a level to make that round-trip possible without stopping at that nearest Supercharger, add a point.
If someone drives specifically to the nearest Supercharger and then turns around to go home after charging, add a point.
If someone charges exclusively using Superchargers and never charges at home, and has not received a special exception from Tesla for apt/condo dwellers (hypothetical), add a point.
If someone hits their set SOC at a Supercharger, but then doesn't move their vehicle within a (to be determined) amount of time after receiving a phone alert to do so, add a point.
Etc.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
The problem with throttling as any sort of punishment or countermeasure is that if it takes place while others are waiting to charge, it winds up "punishing" innocents as well.
If there were some way to throttle the worst offenders, after warnings, and only when it wouldn't in any way adversely affect other users (for example, when there were open superchargers at the same location,) that would be a different story.
cpa
Active Member
I think a better solution would be to have a real person telephone the owner who accumulates too many points after the email messages to inform him that his access to the local Supercharger(s) has been blocked for a set period of time (say 90 days). Unfettered access would be restored at the end of this period. Politely explain that recidivism will result in his access to local SC's would be blocked permanently (or for a long time, like one year.)
I sort of like this point method. And it might make it harder to game the system.
I sort of like this point method. And it might make it harder to game the system.
As far as I can see there are 3 options:
1) Tesla do nothing, and this letter is to be ignored.
2) Tesla introduce a new policy, and "Grandfather" the rights within the next 2 years, locking out my ability to participate (my notional period of remaining ownership)
3) Tesla introduce a policy reducing Supercharger benefit for all equally
Let's examine the repercussions
1) Come resale the prospective buyer is highly likely to simply discount the offer by whatever the cost of Supercharging is at the time. (Who knows the price in two years time might even go up)
2) Cars with the rights will fetch a hefty premium, and will be actively sought after. If I don't lock in the deal my car will be worth far less than a similarly equipped 60 with SpC
3) This is the worst case scenario, as the Supercharging has given me zero benefit.
If we assign odds to the options, insert you own numbers here, but for example.
1 = 85% , 2 = 15%, 3= 5%
So really the odds are in my favour to do this.
Last edited:
Tesla will fail if they implement any restriction because restrictions will level the playing field against the chevy bolt in 2017 because both will not have free charging and bolt will be out before the model 3. Tesla can (if they are not already) produce their own electricity via solarworld and make up the cost that way.
I know I am thinking twice about purchasing a model s when my volt lease is up.
I know I am thinking twice about purchasing a model s when my volt lease is up.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Just to be clear, any talk of restrictions are coming from people on this thread & not Tesla. Tesla has not talked about restrictions. They made a simple request to follow good charging etiquette. And yes, it definitely could have been worded better. But at the end of the day, it's a simple request to be considerate. No threats of what might happen, nothing.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
This is actually quite true. There were absolutely no threats or talk of consequences. But what has sparked the debate and to some extent (to some people) fear is that reading between the lines shows that Tesla likely do not consider supercharging free and unlimited.
+1
I also agree Tesla have made no statement on this.
It doesn't mean I'm personally not worried about it. My take there is a problem with the business model, be that congestion or cost. If it wasn't Tesla would have just let things carry on.
If it was specific key sites where congestion was an issue, they could simply have had staff on site asking politely (or monitoring). Letters to users is more appropriate in my view if a wider change is going to come into force. (Again maybe wider spread congestion issues, or overall cost). So my take here is there is no smoke without fire.
Here in the UK when o2 realised a small fraction of the users were using the majority of the unlimited bandwidth on the iPhone contracts, this is exactly what they did.
1) "Educational Letter" It had no legal teeth, and ultimately had little effect.
2) Discontinuation of the offer, and grandfathering the old users.
3) Bleed out these contracts by refusing to offer phone upgrades on similar terms.
IF Tesla are on step one of this playbook. Steps 2+3 are likely to come into effect with the X launch.
Personally I don't think this is a bad thing per se.
- For original owners grandfathering has little impact, if anything it bouys the resale value of their cars.
- For investors it removes the worry of unbounded future expense/capex.
- For all we get clarity of the offer.
Right now Supercharging has done it's job of proving long distance travel is possible in an EV*. The savings motivation, is now becoming more of a driver for new sales, and inevitably draw in those on higher mileages, just exacerbating whatever problems (if any, though congestion is I think generally accepted).
Maybe still free up to x000 Supercharger miles (or kWh) per year, then PAYG.
*This is exactly the messaging I expect Tesla to put out
It does depend what x is
If x is 10,000 miles, then judging by the few 1 year old ex-London cars coming up on the UK market, it would be sufficient.
I appreciate the much lower gas prices in the US, greater distances and usage patterns impact this. So maybe a geographic divergence in policy is in order. But here even if you paid £0.20 per kWh for using a Model 3, over the 10k, given our higher diesel prices it's still cost effective (edit: up to a cut off point probably around 25k miles)
As it stands the offer is exacerbating the problem here because for high usage owners (especially taxis, with one firm owning 5% of the UK fleet at one point) use not "abuse" will simply continue to drive the value proposition on Tesla's dime. A Model S is far more expensive than a BMW 5 series diesel here (which is the go to car for high mileage application), but people are doing their sums, and the £300-£400 pcm lease difference being outweighed by the fuel savings. If the offer continues as is, this concentration into higher mileage drivers will simply continue, but without the profit coverage given the 3's lower price.
Last edited:
what is the exact meaning of "long distance" to tesla is what we need to know? There couldn't be that many long distance drivers meaning state to state or cross country drivers in their network.
does long distance mean people that drive 100-150 miles a day locally for work? I know I do and I'm wondering if that is the true meaning of that statement
does long distance mean people that drive 100-150 miles a day locally for work? I know I do and I'm wondering if that is the true meaning of that statement
This has been discussed many times and I think it's quite clear: charge at home and charge at work if you can. If you need to charge at supercharger then charge there.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
I believe Tesla employees are banned from posting on here
I too simply want clarification, but I'm not holding my breath. The only possible outcome from formally acknowledging any restrictions which would be material in resolving congestion/cost issues would be negative to Tesla sales and stock. Leaving it all in the land of wishy-washy make belief is their only option right now.
Right now if my buying decision for a new Model S was materially dependent on this facility I'd be wanting it in writing.
For existing owners I honestly believe they will have to let it run its course (a class action suit on this would be far more damaging to sales and stock). It doesn't mean they don't need to address the problem (if indeed there is one) in the future though.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
