Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015

[Spidy]

Did anyone really expect millions of Tesla's on the road by 2020 being able to freely get access to a Supercharger on an unlimited basis at no cost?

I didn't. But spending a lot of time on reddit.com/r/Futurology I can tell you a lot of people did. I got downvoted every time I suggested the current Model is not sustainable.

I mean people didn't even believe me when I told them it's probably at least a $2500 upgrade on the Model 3 if at all. There are a lot of people who just consume those big headlines "Free supercharging" "Ranger Service" "Autopilot" "No dealerships" etc., but don't go into Tesla forums and read about changed services or delays...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I got the email, I was also told the same thing in the letter verbally *after* taking delivery while in for service. Before delivery I was told "use it as much as you like"....

I was in a strange situation when I took delivery, was basically living out of hotels (without charging stations) so I was using Fremont as my fueling station.

Good anecdotal evidence of how Tesla changed the message, being reflected in what the lower-level Tesla employees communicated before and after the change.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't gotten the letter (yet), but I did get pretty much the opposite email inviting me to a new supercharger unveiling.
It is in Norfolk VA, which is two superchargers (Woodbridge and Glen Allen) away:

View attachment 90294

Not sure if I should laugh or cry. Do you think I should go and ask for a clarification at the ceremony? No?!

Whatever you do, if you choose to attend, DO NOT CHARGE there.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The email, in itself, is quite uninteresting (although the accusation is poorly worded and the filtering is terrible, unless intentionally terrible). More interesting is what is behind all this. When all this was a mere Elon soundbite at the general meeting, the concern was still fairly easy to dismiss (just don't be a daily abuser, nothing will change etc.), but after a concentrated effort on changing the Supercharging message since, it begs the question: What does it all mean? Changing Supercharging terms for future car sales is of course OK, less so bait and switching current cars. But beyond the legal terms discussion, what does all this mean regarding Tesla's mission, are they finding the Supercharger somehow more unsustainable than previously thought and might be contemplating even more changes to the system?

The media and the competition are bound to take note, as Tesla will be forced to limit their marketing message on the Superchargers. In the meanwhile, users who receive the notes or do their Tesla research may be a little less overjoyed and a little more anxious as they pull up to the Supercharger. That pride and joy, that I'm sure many owners marketed to others quite a bit, is perhaps now a bit less that. Will I get a letter? Something more? Will the system soon change for the worse and hinder my EV use? That, I think is the real beef, with these changes. Personal annoyance at an accusation is trivial. It will blow over. Bigger question is: What happens to the Supercharger system over time?

A couple of good posts below, emphasis mine:

No email here but, I've only SC-ed on just a couple of roadtrips with the second car. A couple of brief stops at Mountain View and San Mateo are in there though.

Concerned however about the health and long-term viability of the whole SC pricing+usage+availability model, particularly with the Model 3 that'd be within reach of a much larger customer base who may not have access to home charging. SCs haven't and aren't being built to accommodate usage-based billing (although Tesla can probably do it via in-car touchscreen s/w and/or a credit card on file).

All said and done, this does leave a bitter taste in the mouth. The "free-for-life" and the "use-it-as-you-please" messages from the past are definitely being backtracked upon.

Not sure how applicable this is but, having finally gotten through Ashlee Vance's biography of Musk and forming a slightly deeper understanding of Elon's psyche, I fear that some of Elon's freewheeling / cavalier ways are being reflected in Tesla's recurring communication missteps. Oh yes, the buck stops with him; let's not blame some poor Dutch intern or even their "VP of Communications".

I understand why people might take offense to receiving this if they've gone out of their way to use supercharging "appropriately" (using this term per the Tesla intent of them, not to incite the local supercharging argument). I wouldn't, personally, but would probably think back and try to figure out what I'd done that was excessive. I haven't received the letter, either way.

Of course, there's the concern that's been alluded to in this thread regarding the motivation behind the letter. Something triggered the concern - either looking forward at the anticipated growth vs. the potential for infrastructure buildout, energy costs, queues somewhere, etc. I'd like to know that piece of information.

I spoke with a Tesla employee recently who mentioned a few things that seemed a little far fetched. One of them was in regards to "free" Supercharging, and the implication was that it won't be offered with the Model X. I brushed it away, because I think it would be ugly from a marketing perspective, and it just doesn't seem in line with the existing model. However, paying $2000 to enable supercharging, and being billed for your consumption certainly would change some behaviors. Again, I believe it's totally unsubstantiated and unrealistic, just mentioning it because perhaps with the Model 3 it would be a realistic option.

 

[dsm363]

Tesla could send someone an email every hour to remind them but still offer free and unlimited Supercharging. If they just send reminders and don't do anything about it then I don't see the harm. All this talk of bait and switch by some is a little early.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla could send someone an email every hour to remind them but still offer free and unlimited Supercharging. If they just send reminders and don't do anything about it then I don't see the harm. All this talk of bait and switch by some is a little early.

Not to put a too fine a point on it, the bigger concern isn't another letter: It is what might happen next after sufficient number of letters.

That's the problem when things happen and the motivation isn't clear why they happen. Why are these changes happening? What is the criteria Tesla is using to single me out? What exactly is the policy I bought into? What exactly is the policy Tesla is enforcing, is it the same I bought into and does it remain the same over time? What will happen if I don't comply? How will I even know if I am in compliance, if the terms aren't clear or are in change? How predictably or unpredictably will the Supercharger system evolve and impact me and my Tesla buying choices?

It was widely assumed on TMC prior the recent events that Tesla would only single out very specific over-abusers and change some language to make sure they can legally do so. Even that got us into a big debate on legality and morality. But now that isn't all there is - now there is also the concern, the change impact on the Supercharger system is quite a bit more than just on such outliers. Tesla is continuing a fairly large-scale PR message change on the Supercharger system and the question remains: Why and for what endgame?

It is still possible it is just to cut out those outliers and rest is just Tesla bumbling. But the scale of change is such that IMO reasonable concern has surfaced it all might be more than that - and concern is Tesla might be just keeping such a change close to their vests for the time being.

 

[smac]

Even that will become unnecessary with the advent of Elon's metal snake.

Personally I think this is going the way of the battery swap.

It was motivated by hype and spin after someone pointed out how pointless the self parking would be if you had to unplug the car yourself. Elon in Elon style promised something overly ambitious, motivated more to gain column inches with a futuristic looking device than to solve the technical problem. My view is this too will end up being a communication cock up in a few years time as Tesla try to back track.

Question is what else will end up in this situation? My primary guess is autonomous driving, somewhat skewed by the fact Bosch had to add $90k's worth of extra hardware to achieve a working prototype.

 

[Matteo]

What will happen if I don't comply?

Given that Tesla has tested reducing supercharge power, I would expect they will limit power if you consume more than X kWh per month. If you go beyond the limit, supercharging is still free (legally they fulfil their promise) but speed is reduced and if you want full speed you can purchase extra quota.

Those who are suggesting it is fine for Tesla to support free city supercharging, have you done any calculations? Do you know how much that costs? Let me show you a simple calculation:

In Germany electricity costs 0.36 USD/kWh (1). On average Model S drivers in Europe drive 105 km/day (2) and consume 219 Wh/km (2). That means daily consumption is 23 kWh and yearly consumption is 8395 kWh. It would cost 3022 USD per year. Assuming a Model S will last 10 years (JB Straubel said the battery was designed to last at least 10 years) that's 30,220 USD per car. That means Tesla is losing $28,000 USD per car. This is not sustainable. Then there is taxi drivers who drive 322 km /day in Europe. That means their electricity consumption will be 92,675 USD in 10 years.

(1) Electricity pricing - Wikipedia
(2) Tesla Battery Survey

 

[yobigd20]

Given that Tesla has tested reducing supercharge power, I would expect they will limit power if you consume more than X kWh per month. If you go beyond the limit, supercharging is still free (legally they fulfil their promise) but speed is reduced

That would accomplish nothing other than pissing a lot of owners off and drastically increasing wait times. They'll never do this.

 

[smac]

Given that Tesla has tested reducing supercharge power,

Has this been proved? (It was my speculation, too)

Assuming a Model S will last 10 years

I did a break down of the financials in another thread. By using standard income in advance accountancy practise the allocation per car is $500 over 20 years.

It's not so much the actual cost right now, but the projected cost using accepted accountancy that for me is a bigger concern. The model will need to be changed and will take a lot of explaining in the SEC filings if they try to go non GAAP on future SPC liabilities.

 

[yobigd20]

and now the media is picking up this "messy email campaign": Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Charge Cheaters Targeted by Messy Email Campaign

 

[Parax]

I got the same email

@nola_Mike I wonder where is your old P85+ (Vin 13226) lives these days? does it happen to live at a tesla store next to a SC?

 

[vdiv]

Ok, still no letter today. I've had my 70D since May 23rd or for 82 days. Wasn't made aware that I would have to keep track of my supercharger sessions, time, and energy usage and compare that to an unspecified and apparently moving thresholds, but here is my best recollection at least of the sessions so far:

Supercharger	Distance from Home [mi]	Number of Sessions
Haggerstown, MD	64	3
Woodbridge, VA	35	3
Bethesda, MD	18	2
Glen Allen, VA	111	2
Burlington, NC	300	2
South Hill, VA	197	1
Charlotte, NC	410	1
Newark, DE	114	1
Total:		15

What is a local supercharger anyway? One that is less than half the 70D's range apart?

With the exception of the South Hill, VA and NC superchargers the rest could be considered "local" by that definition, but they are essential for any long distance trip from where I live. I'd use them more than the ones further along as I fan out in any direction.

Supercharging anxiety, indeed! Thanks Tesla!

 

[yobigd20]

What is a local supercharger anyway? One that is less than half the 70D's range apart?

void executeMessyEmailCampaign(text)
{

vector<Owner*> owners = db.loadOwnerList();​

for (int i = 0; i < owners.size(); ++i)
{
​

Owner *owner = owners;
if (isFrequentUserOfLocalSupercharger(owner))
{
​

owner->sendEmail(text);
​

}
​

}
​

}

​

​

bool isFrequentUserOfLocalSupercharger(Owner *owner)
{

return ((rand() % 2) == 0);​

}

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Given that Tesla has tested reducing supercharge power, I would expect they will limit power if you consume more than X kWh per month. If you go beyond the limit, supercharging is still free (legally they fulfil their promise) but speed is reduced and if you want full speed you can purchase extra quota.

Those who are suggesting it is fine for Tesla to support free city supercharging, have you done any calculations? Do you know how much that costs? Let me show you a simple calculation:

In Germany electricity costs 0.36 USD/kWh (1). On average Model S drivers in Europe drive 105 km/day (2) and consume 219 Wh/km (2). That means daily consumption is 23 kWh and yearly consumption is 8395 kWh. It would cost 3022 USD per year. Assuming a Model S will last 10 years (JB Straubel said the battery was designed to last at least 10 years) that's 30,220 USD per car. That means Tesla is losing $28,000 USD per car. This is not sustainable. Then there is taxi drivers who drive 322 km /day in Europe. That means their electricity consumption will be 92,675 USD in 10 years.

(1) Electricity pricing - Wikipedia
(2) Tesla Battery Survey

That would have an interesting effect on long-distance travel for frequent travellers, if applied using the same filter as the email campaign has been. How would it work? Supercharge too much vis-a-vis an unknown limit/filter set up by Tesla and face random consequences of throttling on the road? Factor that into your drive time or will the car's navigator do it automatically? Would there be an appeals process if Tesla mis-identifies you? I hope nothing of this sort happens.

I can see this kind of fear putting people off from Supercharging, with "better not risk it" thinking. Frankly, I can see this letter alone already making a lot more than daily "abusers" think what kind of Supercharging would be acceptable to Tesla and what they might view under the now suddenly extended-seeming umbrella of "frequent local Supercharging". Maybe that is the intention, of course, we don't know what is Tesla's motivation on this one since they've stuck to the notion they are merely clarifying old policies a little.

If Tesla feels they can't sustain their previous free model, then IMO they would do better coming up with clear guidelines (and grandfather old buyers in as applicable) before Supercharging anxiety becomes a real thing. I don't mind Tesla setting limits for new buys, or even charging for Supercharging for new buys (my own next Tesla included), but I do fear a random-seeming process will hurt both users and the company. Just be upfront and clear about it and it will be fine. Don't - and it won't be.

Ok, still no letter today. I've had my 70D since May 23rd or for 82 days. Wasn't made aware that I would have to keep track of my supercharger sessions, time, and energy usage and compare that to an unspecified and apparently moving thresholds, but here is my best recollection at least of the sessions so far:

...

Supercharging anxiety, indeed! Thanks Tesla!

There's a nick available: AnxietySupercharger. Any takers?

 

[nwdiver]

What is a local supercharger anyway? One that is less than half the 70D's range apart?

With the exception of the South Hill, VA and NC superchargers the rest could be considered "local" by that definition, but they are essential for any long distance trip from where I live. I'd use them more than the ones further along as I fan out in any direction.

Supercharging anxiety, indeed! Thanks Tesla!

If the thoughts, 'Why am I sitting here when I could be charging at home' or 'Is this really worth my time when I could be charging at home' never enter your mind then you have nothing to worry about...

If you can charge at home then you should charge at home...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If the thoughts, 'Why am I sitting here when I could be charging at home' or 'Is this really worth my time when I could be charging at home' never enter your mind then you have nothing to worry about...

If you can charge at home then you should charge at home...

That's our conjecture, though. Can we really conclude that from Tesla's letter or comms? Is Tesla using such a policy and an algorithm and can we trust that in all circumstances their understanding of our usage patters and subsequent action would match our "thoughts"? As long as their data and the filter they use are unknown, we can't be sure of that, as this letter campaign seems to point out.

 

[dsm363]

If the thoughts, 'Why am I sitting here when I could be charging at home' or 'Is this really worth my time when I could be charging at home' never enter your mind then you have nothing to worry about...

If you can charge at home then you should charge at home...

And it's really that simple. That's the goal of the email to attempt to get adults who could afford a $70,000+ car to play nice in the same sandbox. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[vdiv]

If the thoughts, 'Why am I sitting here when I could be charging at home' or 'Is this really worth my time when I could be charging at home' never enter your mind then you have nothing to worry about...

If you can charge at home then you should charge at home...

The reason why I have a car in the first place is so that I can go to places other than home. If home is where EVs have to be to charge then they kind of miss the point, don't they?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And it's really that simple. That's the goal of the email to attempt to get adults who could afford a $70,000+ car to play nice in the same sandbox. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

That's our conjecture, though. It was a more plausible scenario when we assumed Tesla would be almost hand-picking few individual offenders and reeling them in.

Since then, they have instead embarked on a rather massive corporate message change (reflected in comments what sales people have said e.g. spring vs. summer 2015) and now a mass-email campaign targeting far more than few major offenders.

It seems possible there is more to this than just "play nice you really bad people, you". Perhaps Tesla is targeting at lowering the overall Supercharger usage, not just reeling in a few bad guys? If so, it could have implications beyond just the excess outliers.

 

[dsm363]

I didn't say "you really bad people." They could simply be letting know the people they consider abusing the system and those who are heavy users and they can't tell one way or the other the intent of the network as they see it.