Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015

[perkiset]

To the OP and original notion, a question:

Obviously, Tesla knows when we're plugged into a wall charger as opposed to a Supercharger. Could it be that the ratio of wall charger to Supercharger is simply off? I did not receive a letter, however I've used a couple specific SCs quite a bit in my early road trips. I'm wondering if, since the vast majority of the time, mine is home and plugged in (I am always plugged in at home), might that be used in a ratio equation to assert that you're spending too much time in an SC and not enough time at home? (Not making a value judgement here, just a question as to how Tesla chose the recipients of the letter)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Purposely not responding to the rest of the post, but this one point is really becoming a problem on this forum. I've noticed a disturbing tendency to just label people as fanboys when someone doesn't like the point being made. It's such a copout. Either your argument can stand without insulting or it cannot.

I don't notice the word 'troll' being thrown about when a long valued forum member has something to say that is in disagreement with someone supportive of Tesla. That would be no different, imo.

How about we all show a little more respect for each other? Make your points. Your argument should be able to stand on its own merit without taking potshots.

What you say is becoming a problem is IMO increasingly just a symptom of the problem: There is a fairly predictable set of posters on TMC that will descend on any topic seen a critical of Tesla with what looks like an attempt to minimize the issue. Many of these people know each other from a long time and will post in support of each other. As someone said: "well that didn't take long".

People pointing this out is not the same as people not being able to handle disagreement. It is the mere predictability of it all that is anomalous in my opinion. Of course, in response there is now an increasing tendency to call it out.

Maybe just think about it, is there something that people on your end could also do to listen and take into consideration criticism of Tesla better, instead of seeming dismissive about it. Maybe it really could just be a communications issue, not a real difference in intent, in which case a continued tit-for-tat like this is unfortunate.

- - - Updated - - -

To the OP and original notion, a question:

Obviously, Tesla knows when we're plugged into a wall charger as opposed to a Supercharger. Could it be that the ratio of wall charger to Supercharger is simply off? I did not receive a letter, however I've used a couple specific SCs quite a bit in my early road trips. I'm wondering if, since the vast majority of the time, mine is home and plugged in (I am always plugged in at home), might that be used in a ratio equation to assert that you're spending too much time in an SC and not enough time at home? (Not making a value judgement here, just a question as to how Tesla chose the recipients of the letter)

While possible, Tesla enforcing a ratio of Supercharging vs. other charging - and putting that under frequent local Supercharging would be very troublesome - equal to Tesla saying don't long distance travel too much.

This needs to be sorted with a clear policy (and grandfathering as applicable) before more uncertainty sets root.

 

[bonnie]

What you say is becoming a problem is IMO increasingly just a symptom of the problem: There is a fairly predictable set of posters on TMC that will descend on any topic seen a critical of Tesla with what looks like an attempt to minimize the issue. Many of these people know each other from a long time and will post in support of each other. As someone said: "well that didn't take long".

People pointing this out is not the same as people not being able to handle disagreement. It is the mere predictability of it all that is anomalous in my opinion. Of course, in response there is now an increasing tendency to call it out.

Maybe just think about it, is there something that people on your end could also do to listen and take into consideration criticism of Tesla better, instead of seeming dismissive about it. Maybe it really could just be a communications issue, not a real difference in intent, in which case a continued tit-for-tat like this is unfortunate.

"People on my end"? That's a harsh characterization, assumes there are battle lines for some reason, but perhaps that's the scenario you wanted to paint.

I think there are plenty of examples of people working things out just fine. For instance, Andy and I strongly disagree on a handful of topics yet manage to discuss without name calling. Another two posters in this thread went to pm and worked it out. Without the words 'fanboy' or 'troll' being used. I've also given someone positive rep this evening for a post, someone that I'm fairly sure reported me for a very tame comment within the last couple of days.

I'm only asking for some basic civility, asking that people not label others because the label itself not only serves no useful purpose in reaching resolution - it's actually dismissive. Let's not make a simple request into something else.

 

[Matteo]

I don't disagree with the rest of your post but this is the current count on the poll:

Not sure I'd call it a morass or or mass e-mail (so far). I'm happy to take the word of members who say they shouldn't have received it, which means mistakes were made, but this is not something that apparently had a wide distribution.

This poll is conveniently misconfigured because "No" includes people who don't own a Model S. In other words, Roadster owners, investors, MX reservation holders, Tesla fans and followers who don't own a Model S are included in the poll to make it look like a lesser percentage of owners received the letter. For this poll to be an accurate representation, the third answer should be "No, but I own a Model S".

 

[apacheguy]

IMO, Model S owners are the de facto participants implied by the subject of the poll. If an investor voted in such a poll that would just be plain silly.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

My impressions are formed by his entire body of posts in this thread and related thread/poll. I made no comment on whether he should have or should not have commented to the post he was replying too.

You seem to only take exception to what I quoted. I only quoted that because it was the last line in the last message Nigel posted. I accept that you may disagree with my impressions. As I stated in my post, I may have misinterpreted intent.

Mike

I agree NigelM's comments about putting on big boy pants were indeed condescending and dismissive. Unfortunately condescending comments and ridicule are par the course on dismissing complaints on TMC in general.

If there is one tip I would give to people who resort to such comments: Just don't. It might be for your own benefit or for those who support your POV, but for the recipient it guarantees further digging of heels and sticking to "guns". Comments about big boy pants and wet blankets do not move conversation forward - they just feel dismissive (whether or not that is the intention).

Frankly, I'm not sure bonnie and NigelM do any favors to their point of view by supporting each other on almost every thread. It looks more like wingman action than real conversation at times.

- - - Updated - - -

Telsa obviously sent out emails to people that shouldn't have gotten it. I wouldn't consider what you are doing abusing the system since you can charge at home and always do when you have the time. Use the network when you need to as its intended for. If Tesla does anything more than send an email then get upset but one email could very well be a mistake on their part.

What you consider abuse is irrelevant, though, just as it is irrelevant what I think.

What if Tesla's net and intent on this actually is much wider than you or any of us expected? What if Tesla indeed is trying to lessen Supercharger usage, not simply curtail excessive abuse?

 

[Panu]

What if Tesla's net and intent on this actually is much wider than you or any of us expected? What if Tesla indeed is trying to lessen Supercharger usage, not simply curtail excessive abuse?

It's interesting that the only thing the user manual says about battery health is to keep the car plugged in when parked. I have always thought that the main reason for this statement is to reduce supercharger use.

 

[TaoJones]

It appears that Nigel believes that a molehill has exceeded its zoning restrictions. I understand his point - I just don't agree with it, nor do I find helpful the resultant spin imparted to the well-written article in question.

As others have pointed out, there is a certain clique-ishness and defensiveness espoused by the usual suspects here. It's an unfortunate, tiresome, and somewhat dysfunctional aspect of an otherwise thriving community. Others will undoubtedly take exception, and further diminish themselves in the process. Their behavior is indicative of fanboi/gurlism. Remember, it's not stereotyping IF IT'S TRUE.

At the end of the day, personalities aside, the next move in the matter at hand is not any of ours, but Tesla's. They created the uncertainty and damage through a poorly-vetted message - it's their mess to fix.

And that, men and women, boys and girls, fanbois and fangurls, damen und herren, is something upon which perhaps we can all agree.

Or not - knock yourself out

 

[Matias]

. I've noticed a disturbing tendency to just label people as fanboys when someone doesn't like the point being made. .

It is also common to label someone as FUD:ster or recommend someone to close his/hers shorts when someone doesn't like the point being made

IMHO both are unnecessary.

 

[Matteo]

I think we would all agree that almost everyone in this forum is supportive of Tesla. However not every supporter is helpful to Tesla. The most helpful forum members approach topics this way: admit when Tesla makes a mistake; empathize and try to help people who have been negatively affect by Tesla's mistake; understand that improving the experience people have with Tesla helps Tesla; come up with solutions and encourage others to contribute to more solutions; submit these solutions to Tesla.

On the other hand supporters (the usual suspects) of Tesla who are not helpful to Tesla approach topics this way: act as if Tesla can do no wrong; blame the victim; try to win forum arguments as if winning forum arguments helps Tesla; manipulate data; criticise feedback using unimportant details; find every small nuance to support Tesla when they make a mistake.

If somebody has not read tinm's message, I highly recommend reading it. It is the best forum message in recent times.

 

[Matteo]

Update: The version below was later superseded by version 3 in message #437.
--------------------------------

If Tesla has emailed the wrong people, obviously these people had a bad experience with Tesla. The fear is, Tesla will continue monitoring the same people for a few months and then maybe send the legal version of that letter. So what should be done here? Obviously if the algorithm is wrong, they should fix it. Looking at the messages in this topic from people who received it, I think it is wrong. Therefore I have been thinking about what the correct algorithm could be. I came up with this:

The Correct Algorithm:
In last 365 days more than 30% of all charging happened at superchargers and more than 10 sessions happened at the same station.

 

[NigelM]

It is also common to label someone as FUD:ster or recommend someone to close his/hers shorts when someone doesn't like the point being made.

IMHO both are unnecessary.

Being accused of spreading FUD and concurrently being called a Fanboi was a first for me though.

 

[smsprague]

What email address did you use? When I sent a note to [email protected], I got this response:
"Hello,

You have reached an address that is no longer monitored.
If you have taken delivery of your vehicle, please email [email protected].
If you have questions regarding your reservation or existing order, contact [email protected]."

I then forwarded it to [email protected] but did not get a response, canned or otherwise, so far.

As you say, not that big a deal now but at some point I want to see their records set straight.

I used the contact link on the Tesla web site.

 

[NigelM]

This poll is conveniently misconfigured because "No" includes people who don't own a Model S. In other words, Roadster owners, investors, MX reservation holders, Tesla fans and followers who don't own a Model S are included in the poll to make it look like a lesser percentage of owners received the letter. For this poll to be an accurate representation, the third answer should be "No, but I own a Model S".

I attributed more common sense to members. Sorry if you think I'm wrong.

The point of the poll, requested by a few members, was to quantify how big the mailing was. The results are clear it wasn't the mass mailing that many were suggesting.

 

[Matteo]

Even if we assume only Model S owners answered the poll, 19 out of 171 people said they received it. Therefore 19/171= 11.11% That is still a large number considering delivery VINs are around 98,500. Somewhere between 6 to 11 thousand people must have received the email. I don't think it matters whether the number is 6000 or 11000 people. The poll shows this was a targeted email and not an email that was sent to every Model S owner.

Abusers shouldn't be 11%. It should be much less. Like I said, the algorithm I would use is this: In last 365 days more than 30% of all charging happened at superchargers and more than 10 sessions happened at the same station.

 

[ecarfan]

IMO, Model S owners are the de facto participants implied by the subject of the poll. If an investor voted in such a poll that would just be plain silly.

Yes, and unlikely, IMO. The "No" choice is obviously intended for S owners.
The poll, while not statistically valid, appears to show that only a small fraction of all owners received the tragically mis-targeted email. Tesla screwed up with the wording and the targeting, and needs to clarify to owners and prospective owners what constitutes reasonable and allowed SC use.
I doubt this misstep will impact sales or significantly damage the company's image.

 

[Max*]

If Tesla has emailed the wrong people, obviously these people had a bad experience with Tesla. The fear is, Tesla will continue monitoring the same people for a few months and then maybe send the legal version of that letter. So what should be done here? Obviously if the algorithm is wrong, they should fix it. Looking at the messages in this topic from people who received it, I think it is wrong. Therefore I have been thinking about what the correct algorithm could be. I came up with this:

The Correct Algorithm:
In last 365 days more than 30% of all charging happened at superchargers and more than 10 sessions happened at the same station.

Nope, not the correct algorithm. I did 60% of my charging at 20+ superchargers (in like 6 states?) in the last 2 months. I do a lot of roadtrips. I charge at home the other time.

 

[Johan]

Nope, not the correct algorithm. I did 60% of my charging at 20+ superchargers (in like 6 states?) in the last 2 months. I do a lot of roadtrips. I charge at home the other time.

Agreed. Isn't the key word here local? I.e. if you drive a lot and charge a lot at SuperChargers you're using the car and network as intented. If you charge a lot at a local supercharger instead of at home you may be abusing the network.

 

[Max*]

This is how I see the correct algorithm in Psuedocode, though I likely missed something obvious too...

if(Owner uses superchargers within 100 mile radius of home)
   if(Owner uses superchargers more than home charging) //weeding out the occasional local top offs
      for(1:length(Superchargers used)) // check every SpC he used
         if(SpC stop NOT followed by another Spc stop within 6 hours) //ignore roadtrip cases
            send politely worded letter
         end
      end
   end
end

And then you can easily test the above code through your database, and hand check a few dozen potential recipients to check their usage history to make sure you didn't mess up your algorithm.

It's not rocket science! (har har, SpaceX, har har)

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

This is how I see the correct algorithm in Psuedocode, though I likely missed something obvious too...

if(Owner uses superchargers within 100 mile radius of home)
   if(Owner uses superchargers more than home charging) //weeding out the occasional local top offs
      for(1:length(Superchargers used)) // check every SpC he used
         if(SpC stop NOT followed by another Spc stop within 6 hours) //ignore roadtrip cases
            send politely worded letter
            [b]exit[/b]
         end
      end
   end
end

Exit from loop to stop the spamming.