Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015

[eepic]

Bloomberg is citing us now Tesla Irks Some Model S Owners With Supercharger-Scofflaw Note - Bloomberg Business

IMO Elon should tweet an apology that some owners are receiving this in error and they should keep supercharging with no hesitation. Then they gotta NOT screw up the recipient list going forward, it's a silly way to throw cold water on your biggest supporters.

 

[Panu]

If a car has free fuel forever that car will likely be driven forever. The only way to charge for the "fuel" is to build it in the battery replacement cost.

 

[ZachShahan]

I have no doubt that some Teslas will go 20 miles or longer, in fact I own a 24 year old car I drive every day. However, 11.5 is the average number according to DOT.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ortation_statistics/html/table_01_26.html_mfd

I think everyone here is confident Teslas will go 20 miles or longer.

(Sorry, had to do it. This thread needs some smiles, so thanks. )

 

[MorrisonHiker]

The average life of a car in the US is 11.5 years.
For a Tesla, the battery is going to have to be replaced after awhile, say 150K miles, or every 10 years @15K mi/year. I'm not sure what effect this is going to have on average life for Teslas, are people going to spend $20K on a 10 year old car with 150K miles on it?
If they do, there's another opportunity for Tesla to allocate a significant chunk of money to support supercharging by just making the battery a bit more expensive, say charge $21K rather than $20K.

The average age of a car is 11.5 years. The average life of a car is longer.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no doubt that some Teslas will go 20 miles or longer, in fact I own a 24 year old car I drive every day. However, 11.5 is the average number according to DOT.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ortation_statistics/html/table_01_26.html_mfd

Average age != Average life(time)

Think of it in terms of age of the U.S. population. The average age is around 37 years old but the average life (expectancy) is closer to 78 years.

 

[liuping]

Solar has upfront costs. So it'll take a while to recoup the costs. So it wont be "free" for a while.

Not necessarily.

A Solar install using a 4-5% home equity loan is essentially nothing up front, and the loan payments in some places (like California) are cheaper than the former electric bill. So you pay less for per month while paying off the system, and after that it's completely free.

 

[Max*]

Not necessarily.

A Solar install using a 4-5% home equity loan is essentially nothing up front, and the loan payments in some places (like California) are cheaper than the former electric bill. So you pay less for per month while paying off the system, and after that it's completely free.

I stand corrected.

 

[Andyw2100]

Bloomberg is citing us now Tesla Irks Some Model S Owners With Supercharger-Scofflaw Note - Bloomberg Business

When the author and TMC user, Dana Hull, posted in this thread, seeking people to interview, there was at least one post that talked about the media bashing Tesla. Several people, including Nigel, then came to Dana Hull's defense, pointing out that she had always been fair and balanced.

After reading the article my concern is that if anything, the article was unbalanced in Tesla's favor, as it made no mention of one of the primary concerns expressed by many here on TMC: the fact that the cars were sold with free supercharging for life, without any stipulations or restrictions, and that Tesla is now, apparently, changing their stance on that.

Whether you agree with this or not is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that is what has a lot of the TMC members Hull writes about in the article annoyed, to use her word, and to not explain that makes us look bad.

 

[NigelM]

Of course, I think the underlying problem in the case of the letter was that 1) somebody screwed up the algorithm, 2) the people who worked on the algorithm didn't communicate clearly to the people writing the letter that these were by and large not "abusers," or 3) there are just a handful of people getting the letter who shouldn't have (and they are almost all on this thread). My wild guess is a combo of 1 and 2.

(And just to clarify again, when it comes to the letter, I'm still putting most of the blame on the algorithm or the comms between the algo team and the email team. If the intend is to dissuade abusers from abusing, the letter is actually alright. The problem is that the net was cast way to wide for such strong wording.)

With all the caveats that belong to early poll numbers, the current response suggests that the issue is much smaller than many of us think:

 

[Max*]

With all the caveats that belong to early poll numbers, the current response suggests that the issue is much smaller than many of us think.

TMC users taking a non-issue and blowing it out of proportion? Unheard of.

 

[Andyw2100]

With all the caveats that belong to early poll numbers, the current response suggests that the issue is much smaller than many of us think:
View attachment 90469

You posted the above at a time when six people had responded that they had received the letter. Without going back and counting, I'm guessing there are at least five times that many people that have posted in this thread alone, saying they have received the letter.

I think the main thing the early poll numbers indicate is that people posting in this thread haven't bothered to vote in the poll yet.

 

[LagunaHJames]

I am more concerned about people who plug in and then disappear and leave their car plugged in for hours. I travel all over San Diego county on business from Orange County, CA in a 60 and before the SC in San Diego opened there were times I would barely make it back to SJC only to find it completely full. One time I waited 40 minutes until a stall opened up and there were 4 cars there who had been there for more than an hour already (according to another Model S driver I spoke to). I charged for 20 minutes to get enough to get home and handle errands and those 4 still had not showed up. Tesla knows who these people are and they are the ones who are abusing the SC network. I jokingly suggested that if someone does not move their car within 15 minutes after they finish charging then Tesla should start to draw the power back (just kidding but you see the point). I have the Tesla app on my phone and it texts me before the car finishes charging.

 

[RDoc]

The average age of a car is 11.5 years. The average life of a car is longer.

- - - Updated - - -



Average age != Average life(time)

Think of it in terms of age of the U.S. population. The average age is around 37 years old but the average life (expectancy) is closer to 78 years.

According to BLS, the average age cars are disposed of is 15 years. About 10% of cars are over 20 years old.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/pdf/americans-aging-autos.pdf

I'm doubtful that the average lifetime of a Tesla will be anything like 20 years, especially given that almost all will have to have their batteries replaced around year 10.

 

[Max*]

According to BLS, the average age cars are disposed of is 15 years. About 10% of cars are over 20 years old.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/pdf/americans-aging-autos.pdf

I'm doubtful that the average lifetime of a Tesla will be anything like 20 years, especially given that almost all will have to have their batteries replaced around year 10.

Source?

From what I see online, at 100k miles Tesla battery will be about 92% of original (yes, there are outliers of course), so by 150k miles (10 years roughly) that should be about what, 88%?

Tesla Model S Battery Life: How Much Range Loss For Electric Car Over Time?

 

[bonnie]

When the author and TMC user, Dana Hull, posted in this thread, seeking people to interview, there was at least one post that talked about the media bashing Tesla. Several people, including Nigel, then came to Dana Hull's defense, pointing out that she had always been fair and balanced.

After reading the article my concern is that if anything, the article was unbalanced in Tesla's favor, as it made no mention of one of the primary concerns expressed by many here on TMC: the fact that the cars were sold with free supercharging for life, without any stipulations or restrictions, and that Tesla is now, apparently, changing their stance on that.

Whether you agree with this or not is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that is what has a lot of the TMC members Hull writes about in the article annoyed, to use her word, and to not explain that makes us look bad.

You realize that journalists don't get to decide the length of the story ... I thought it was a fair, top-down representation of the current issue (letters sent to some people who feel they don't deserve them). I can understanding wanting a full summary of all the issues (including those of us, of course, who don't feel the policy is being changed) - but the article was about the letter and did quote one of our forum members who received the letter, but doesn't even have a local supercharger. (Could have quoted one of us who thought people were taking it way too personally, but she didn't.)

Dana has written stories about Tesla that have not always endeared her to the company. She does her job and is one of the few I trust.

 

[jerry33]

To be clear, I'm not talking about setting a hard limit per car. I'm saying if Tesla is able to control supercharger usage to primarily for long distance/roadtrips (via letters like this one, throttling, or other means), the average will work out to ~10% of travel. Some will travel more, some less, but the average consumption will be sustainable.

10% would seem low, unless there are a lot of folks that never travel. I've averaged close to 50% travel vs. commuting. (55K total, 2.5 years * 50*200 days commuting = 25K commute miles). And I don't believe I travel that much compared to some folks. There aren't any local SCs where I live, but if there were I likely wouldn't use them, unless I was really stuck, because charging at home is much more convenient.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I'm doubtful that the average lifetime of a Tesla will be anything like 20 years, especially given that almost all will have to have their batteries replaced around year 10.

It's possible that the ability to swap out batteries will actually help to extend the average lifetime of a car. Since EVs are supposed to be low maintenance, maybe all you'll really need in 10 years is to get a new battery (and perhaps CPU and a few other upgrades). Instead of paying $50k in 10 years, imagine only having to pay $10-15k to bring new life to your old vehicle. I suppose most people probably would prefer a new car with all the new bells and whistles (and larger price tag), but a certain number of the population is content to just keep what they already have. My current car is 18.5 years old. I'm sure it could go another 200,000 miles but I'm ready to make the change to a BEV. Once I buy a BEV, I can see keeping it for a couple of decades if I don't have problems with it.

 

[NigelM]

You posted the above at a time when six people had responded that they had received the letter. Without going back and counting, I'm guessing there are at least five times that many people that have posted in this thread alone, saying they have received the letter.

I think the main thing the early poll numbers indicate is that people posting in this thread haven't bothered to vote in the poll yet.

Possibly. I think there'll be more folks logging on after work hours. I did skim through many pages and didn't find that many folks who'd confirmed they were recipients.

Let's see.

 

[Max*]

Possibly. I think there'll be more folks logging on after work hours. I did skim through many pages and didn't find that many folks who'd confirmed they were recipients.

Let's see.

First page had 4 people, after that I got bored.

 

[Andyw2100]

You realize that journalists don't get to decide the length of the story

I do. I also realize that journalists have editors, which is why I wrote that I thought the article wound up unbalanced in Tesla's favor, without putting that blame directly on the writer.

... I thought it was a fair, top-down representation of the current issue (letters sent to some people who feel they don't deserve them). I can understanding wanting a full summary of all the issues

The article's headline (which the author almost certainly --did not-- write) as well as the opening paragraph are about Tesla owners being annoyed (irked) about the letter. I maintain that leaving out one of the main reasons the owners are upset leaves the article somewhat unbalanced, with the owners looking bad.

but the article was about the letter and did quote one of our forum members who received the letter, but doesn't even have a local supercharger. (Could have quoted one of us who thought people were taking it way too personally, but she didn't.)

Quoting one of the forum members who thought people were taking it way too personally would have been fine in a more thorough piece, but as you pointed out, Hull was not responsible for the length of the article. Given the relatively short space she had to work with, she chose just one forum member to quote, and chose one who had received the letter apparently in error. That made sense.

The criticism of Tesla in the quote is softened quite a bit by Hamilton's conjecture that "Maybe a summer intern ran the programming query." That's what he said, so of course there's nothing wrong with including it. But the quote is, by no means, a scathing attack on Tesla.

Dana has written stories about Tesla that have not always endeared her to the company. She does her job and is one of the few I trust.

I don't doubt that Dana Hull is an excellent journalist. I just think that for whatever reason, be it what she wrote, or how the piece was edited, space limitations, or some other factor, the result leaves TMC forum members looking bad because one of the main reasons many were upset was completely left out of the story.

 

[bonnie]

I don't think it made forum members look bad. I know people are upset, ​but there are differing opinions here.

I'd argue that the article was not about 'what did elon mean by his comment', but rather that people are upset over receiving the letter. The majority of people I've seen upset in this thread are saying they don't deserve it. Based on that, the article was exactly spot on.