Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015

[Jhall118]

Of all the horrible things in the world, this upsets people? Compared to calling out a shoplifter? Really?

It's a letter, being emailed by a bot. This is really worth getting your panties in a bunch over? There are plenty of legitimate things to hassle Tesla over. A mass email reminding people the intent of the Supercharger network hardly seems like one of them.

 

[Max*]

Noob here - I was looking forward to the occasional lunch near the local Supercharger. Grab some food, get some juice for the car and hopefully talk to some other owners. Is this considered inappropriate?

Also - is there a documented Terms of Use for the SC network?

You can do it, but expect TMC members to jump all over you about how unethical it is, blah blah blah.

 

[TexasEV]

This appears to be the letter Elon talked about recently, and someone screwed up and forgot to filter the email list for those frequent users of local superchargers that it was intended for.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

This makes me wonder what their criteria is for sending an e-mail, I have used the Petaluma SC when coming back from up north and we need to stop at Target. Maybe once or twice a month.

Seems like this one's criteria were limited to 1=1.

 

[mikeash]

Noob here - I was looking forward to the occasional lunch near the local Supercharger. Grab some food, get some juice for the car and hopefully talk to some other owners. Is this considered inappropriate?

I don't think so, as long as you're not causing people to wait to charge.

I wonder what Tesla's motivation is, here. Are they trying to save on electricity costs, or are they trying to prevent overcrowding? I have to assume it's the latter, since their electricity costs are negligible.

If that's the case, then rolling up to an empty 8-stall SC and plugging in just because you can (as I do once in a while at Woodbridge) isn't causing any trouble.

 

[TaoJones]

If it read "If you are a frequent user of local Superchargers..." it would be fine.

No, it would not. Perhaps if it read "if you are a frequent user of local Superchargers and can or have installed a home charging alternative...", then it would not have a) alienated every non-garaged owner/investor, b) produced uncertainty concerning Tesla's next move as related to local supercharging, and c) created the additional requirement for a clarification to be communicated ASAP.

They did include the helpful reminder to exit the space once charging is complete - and that applies to all who use SCs, regardless of circumstance. Failure to exit immediately is as bad as ICEing from the perspective of the person waiting. This particular point/best practice *should* be periodically emphasized via newsletter distribution.

Castigating non-SC users as frequent local users, and worse, castigating non-garaged owners *who were told specifically during the purchasing process* that unfettered use of local SCs as necessary *is perfectly acceptable* are not good uses for a periodic newsletter.

There was and remains a need for clarification, particularly with regard to the non-garaged, before Elon's comments, after Elon's comments, and especially after this embarrassment of a communication has been sent.

The non-garaged are easy enough to identify in a database, as are garaged owners who choose to not charge at home (the real problem here, along with an undefined solution for livery). However, it does not exactly inspire confidence that Tesla can manage the filtering when they send out a poorly-worded letter to an undefined subset of ownership.

Newsletter sent periodically: Great idea. Thanks.
Reminder to exit the stall immediately once charging is complete: Great idea. Thanks very much. Please keep
doing this.
Failure to clarify that non-garaged owners can continue to use local SCs *as necessary*: Unacceptable.
Failure to clarify that very, very few owners of any type use SCs on a daily basis, and that most of those are commercial/livery: A missed opportunity.

 

[Zarwin]

Wonder if something stupid happened like there was a list of criteria that needed to be met to auto-fire the letter, "A AND B AND C AND D" and someone plugged int "A OR B OR C OR D" instead.

 

[Skotty]

Seems like this one's criteria were limited to 1=1.

Not entirely implausible.

query += "where "
if (rarely-ever-happens-condition) {
query += " something = ? and "
}
if (incorrectly-coded-condition-that-never-happens) {
query += " somethingelse = ? and "
}
query += "1=1"

Which gets us back to the algorithm used to determine who to send the email to. Most of the time, such algorithms are okay, and it's a bug in the coded implementation of the algorithm that screws it up.

 

[Max*]

The non-garaged are easy enough to identify in a database, as are garaged owners who choose to not charge at home (the real problem here, along with an undefined solution for livery).

Why is it OK for a non-garage owner to use the SpC but not OK for a garaged owner who chooses not to charge at home to use a SpC? That's hypocritical.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I think we have a few possible scenarios concerning this email:
1. It was accidentally sent to everyone instead of a select number of individuals.
2. It was intentionally sent to everyone but accidentally included the phrase that should've only be sent to a select number of individuals.
3. It was intentionally sent to everyone but the choice of wording wasn't the best.

It is possible that Tesla's definition of "local" is very different from our perception of local. Some might think it means "same town or metro area" or "within 10 miles". Perhaps Tesla considers "local" to be within 100 miles. From everyone who has posted so far, it sounds like they have all actually used the Supercharger network (even though the charger might've been 50+ miles from their home address). Do we have reports of anyone receiving the email who has never Supercharged or who has only Supercharged more than 100 or 200 miles from home? Knowing this would help determine if it was an email accidentally sent to every owner. It would also be helpful to know if any non-Supercharger enabled owners received the email.

I'm thinking the email could've been intended for all owners but the sentence about frequent charging at local Superchargers should've been limited to the select group of individuals that it really applies to.

Obviously a mistake was made somewhere. Before doing mass mailings, I always run the code against a copy of the production database and confirm it sends the intended number of emails. If I saw it sending 50,000+ emails instead of 50+ emails, I would've fixed the code. If I expected 50,000+ emails to be sent, I would've confirmed via a random sample that only ones that should contain the conditional text actually contained the conditional text.

 

[NoMoGas]

Castigating non-SC users as frequent local users, and worse, castigating non-garaged owners *who were told specifically during the purchasing process* that unfettered use of local SCs as necessary *is perfectly acceptable* are not good uses for a periodic newsletter.

There was and remains a need for clarification, particularly with regard to the non-garaged, before Elon's comments, after Elon's comments, and especially after this embarrassment of a communication has been sent.

100% Spot on. Let's also remember that the superchargers are not free. We paid for those. Either in direct payment to Tesla motors of $2500 or in the price of our upgraded vehicles. Quincy drop i let's also remember that the superchargers are not free. We paid for those. Either in direct payment to Tesla motors $2500 or in the price of our upgraded vehicles.

 

[JST]

My reaction: wrinkled brow, shrug my shoulders, doesn't apply to me, someone made a mistake, delete mail.

I have a hard time feeling offended or insulted as others apparently have over this. Sorry.

I haven't gotten the letter, but I wouldn't be *offended* so much as I would be mildly concerned. There's no overt threat in the letter, but the very fact that they are sending it out suggests that maybe somewhere down the road they will take some sort of corrective action (e.g., limiting SpC speeds, or charging you for local use, or whatever). If I received one and was not a "frequent Supercharger user" I'd be a bit concerned that they would also (unfairly) target me for whatever corrective action came next.

 

[rlang59]

If you don't want people, even locals, using the Chargers then TELL THEM THE RULES AT THE POINT OF SALE. Don't play word games and be suprised when people see what they want to.

I was in for service last Saturday and there were a few different people taking delivery during the time I was there. The Tesla folks actually spelled out that the Superchargers are not for local charging and when they should be used to these people during the signing of the paperwork.

 

[bluefuego]

I received the letter this morning, and I admit it ruffled my feathers. I have used my local supercharger exactly once, so yes I took offense at the wording.

After some contemplation time I'm mostly over it, but I might still send a constructive criticism email to express my disappointment.

 

[NoMoGas]

Why is it OK for a non-garage owner to use the SpC but not OK for a garaged owner who chooses not to charge at home to use a SpC? That's hypocritical.

Because one person has the capability to charge at home and the other does not. Not really hypocritical there it's just kind of common sense. That being said, that is not how Tesla market to superchargers and they are now paying the price for their own desired to hype the ease of charging without making clear limitations that they wanted to have on it.

 

[Max*]

Because one person has the capability to charge at home and the other does not. Not really hypocritical there it's just kind of common sense. That being said, that is not how Tesla market to superchargers and they are now paying the price for their own desired to hype the ease of charging without making clear limitations that they wanted to have on it.

Both people have the capacity to change their situations. The person without a garage can just move, no? (Extreme: yes. But both people have the option of having the capability of charging at home). The person with a garage can install L2 charging.

Both should either be considered as OK (which they are, because it's free supercharging, not free supercharging only if you don't have a garage) or both should be not OK.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Both people have the capacity to change their situations. The person without a garage can just move, no? (Extreme: yes. But both people have the option of having the capability of charging at home). The person with a garage can install L2 charging.

Both should either be considered as OK (which they are, because it's free supercharging, not free supercharging only if you don't have a garage) or both should be not OK.

I think this is a huge, huge stretch. Someone that has to move (maybe sell their property) to charge at "home" and someone that can just plug in (or in worse case install an outlet) but choose not to is not in any way the same.

And in many cases (like the city superchargers in crowded cities like Hong Kong or London) they would have to move out of the city to get garage charging. All that does is encourage sprawl (assuming it is even possible) and not at all a reasonable suggestion.

 

[Max*]

I think this is a huge stretch. Someone that has to move (maybe sell their property) to charge at "home" and someone that can just plug in (or in worse case install an outlet) but choose not to is not in any way the same.

I said it's an extreme. But both people have an option to charge at home, that was my only point.

And as such I don't think (what my original comment was to) it's fair to say that it's OK for someone without a garage to use a SpC, but it's not OK for someone with a garage to use it.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I said it's an extreme. But both people have an option to charge at home, that was my only point.

And as such I don't think (what my original comment was to) it's fair to say that it's OK for someone without a garage to use a SpC, but it's not OK for someone with a garage to use it.

That's not true at all. The first person does not have the option to charge at home. They would have to move to do so (and change the definition of "home"). The second person does have the option to charge at home (and in many cases without needing to install anything either, even 120V is an option).

At any rate, Tesla had an explicit policy that people without home charging could use city superchargers for all their charging (which is what is happening in Hong Kong). By your argument that number of people should be zero, but it obviously isn't, using any reasonable definition of home charging.

 

[Max*]

That not true at all. The first person does not have the option to charge at home. They would have to move to do so (and change the definition of "home"). The second person does have the option to charge at home (and in many cases without needing to install anything either).

Not all garages have outlets*. So both people have the OPTION to charge at home (one person by selling their home, the other by installed an outlet). I stand by my original point. Both people should be able to SpC or both people should not be allowed to SpC. Singling out the garage vs. non-garage owners is wrong.

*My MIL's garage has no outlet. She has this weird lightbulb thing that converts the socket to a 2-prong outlet, so the Tesla obviously wouldn't charge there. I run an extension cord from the laundry room when we visit.