-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I think we both agree that the deal as presented has always been free for life with no contingencies. I was personally at an event where EM stood up and said "Imagine never having to pay for fuel again" (London Launch) I don't know how much clearer a statement anyone needs, that the intention was it was completely without restriction.
So right now there is simply no guidance. By definition if there are no rules then there can be no abuse of the "rules".
As it stands the algorithm should look like this (I'll use C# to mix things up):
foreach(var customer in Customers)
{
// DO NOTHING;
}
If Tesla want to add rules they really should be in plain English and mailed to EVERYONE first. Only when the situation is cleared up (no matter how painful that is) should they codify the rules into an algorithm and start sending warnings.
I wonder if they intended to send the letters to more people and halted when they saw the reaction here or if their code to select recipients was just poor. If the letters were intended to pick out abusers, it seems to defy belief that they mailed it to people whose nearest supercharger is 60+ miles away. I know that I received an email inviting me to a supercharger grand opening more than 24 hours after other people reported it on the forum, so I'm guessing their mass mail process is relatively slow.
I rarely use superchargers, but I'm sympathetic to the position of those who do. Based on the battles here in the past about the intended purpose of superchargers, it was ambiguous prior to Elon's press conference and this letter. Obviously, it is no problem for Tesla to write to people and ask them to change their behavior and rely on them to react appropriately. However, should they proceed to taking any punitive action against "abusers" I think they would be on very shaky ground both legally and more importantly from a PR perspective.
I rarely use superchargers, but I'm sympathetic to the position of those who do. Based on the battles here in the past about the intended purpose of superchargers, it was ambiguous prior to Elon's press conference and this letter. Obviously, it is no problem for Tesla to write to people and ask them to change their behavior and rely on them to react appropriately. However, should they proceed to taking any punitive action against "abusers" I think they would be on very shaky ground both legally and more importantly from a PR perspective.
Again you make it appear that if two folks are of like mind on most topics, that must imply agenda. There are a boatload of forum members, of course there are going to be folks that tend to think along similar lines.
I happen to find myself agreeing with the viewpoints of several people time and again here. It's often after I read the post that I realize it's once again somebody I've agreed with before.
Why don't you determine if a post has merit based on it's content, rather than casting aspersion on the post or poster by calling in to question who else voices a similar sentiment?
Incidentally, they aren't the only ones who voice support for other's posts:
AnxietyRanger said:
AnxietyRanger said:
AnxietyRanger said:
AnxietyRanger said:
Interestingly all of these "complimentary" posts happen to be to people voicing an opinion that generally supports your stance.
(Of course I expect you to explain this away by saying it's not a pattern of the SAME person, etc... which will once again ignore the crux of the issue: look at the merit of the post, not the poster.)
I did, in your case you're assuming you don't know what Home is, correct? If so, then your algorithm would break if I'm visiting a hotel (#1)
Also, there is a member here who does like 1500 miles a week for work. He would supercharger at the location closest to his house, then go back home and charge there to get back to 90% (he's still parked at home overnight), your algorithm would break (#2).
I take a day trip to visit family 200 miles from my house. I charge at SpC1 before leaving, drive 100 miles, spend the day with them, come back use Spc1 again because I wont have enough buffer to get home, and sleep at my house, this would cause a false positive (#3).
Those are 3 off the top of my head, I can probably think of some more corner cases where I see it failing. You can add a condition that he's at home and not charging, but I can find a case where that'll break too (someone who doesn't charge evrery night, and does the occasional long day trip), etc.
My algorithm would also break if someone is going to work daily, and only using 1 SpC. I think the main flaw is the 1 SpC case. I'll think about it, should be solvable.
- - - Updated - - -
I added a 1 supercharger contingency.
Code:
if(Owner uses superchargers within 50 mile radius of home) //doing a 50mile x2 (100mile) roundtrip to supercharger to avoid paying home fees is reducing your car range by 50% roughly! No sane person would do this.
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
if(Not Home -> 1 SpC -> Home within reasonable timeframe (72 hours?)) //ignore 1 supercharger case, if it was used within X hours of arriving back home.
send politely worded letter
return;
end
end
end
end
endWhen it comes to algorithms, the goal is almost never 100% PD (probability of detection) at 0 FAR (false alarm rate). I think this algorithm has a decently high PD with a relatively low FAR, which is what most strive for. I'm sure there's some corner cases which aren't covered, but I think this is good enough start to prove that putting in a few days of work can get a good algorithm together.
Last edited:
Max I'm not sure I understand your latest version. More specifically how it flags A but doesn't B. It looks like you have not flagged anybody.
Flag this:
A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.
Don't flag any of these:
B) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
C) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
D) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
Flag this:
A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.
Don't flag any of these:
B) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
C) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
D) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
smsprague
Member
Well 48 hours have passed since I emailed Tesla Ownership. I have received no response. Just crickets.
Even that algorithm is flawed. Someone may like within 10-20 miles of a supercharger but have a very long 220+ mile commute. I can get to work fine. Getting home though on that full charge at highway speeds is difficult at best, especially if other stops are needed. Therefore it necessitates 100% use of "local supercharging" per your definition. You can't simply do it by distance to supercharger and % use of that supercharger.
It definitely doesn't flag B-D, right?
As for A, hmm... crap, I forgot what the original intent was, I trying to weed out B-D. Maybe I wont give up just yet...
- - - Updated - - -
I realized that after Matteo pointed it out.
Also, your case wont get flagged. Because you're using 100% local SpC, but coming back home. Which leads to what Matteo said, I forgot what the original problem is, and I wont flag a local abuser either, lol
I'm done playing with the algorithm for now, maybe I'll tweak it some more later. I think this is good enough start (an hour from 2 people?) to prove that putting in a few days of work can get a good algorithm together fairly easily.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I almost without exception get caught up on a thread before responding to a post, to make sure others haven't already said what I'm planning on saying. I'm four or five pages from being caught up on this thread, but need to comment on this now:
I strongly disagree with the quoted comment above. For starters, Bonnie and Nigel don't do that. Sure, there are threads on which they agree, and one will support the other, but I don't see that happening nearly as often as you suggest.
More importantly, I, and I believe most other TMC members, have a great deal of respect for both Bonnie and Nigel. I've only been around less than a year, so I'm not the best judge of the long-term history of TMC, but from what I can tell I'd be hard-pressed to come up with two people who have done more for the good of the TMC community than those two. I value both of their opinions very highly. There is no doubt in my mind that each speaks their own mind, and if they were to disagree, they would say so. The fact that they agree much more than they disagree is just a testament to the fact that they are both very smart people who have been around a long time, know a lot about Tesla, and want the company to succeed. (This is one of the reasons I dislike it when I disagree with either of them.)
I imagine as I read through the next five (or by now possibly six) pages of this thread I'll find other comments along the lines of mine. (At least I hope I will.) I just couldn't continue reading posts in this thread without responding to this myself.
OK. I have a new idea that largely passes the test below. It fails for a subsection of C if the station is close to weekend location.
Algorithm v3:
1. Measure kWh added at supercharger
2. If 50% of kWh added is consumed within 12 hours, OK, otherwise flag user.
Flag this:
A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.
Don't flag any of these:
B) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
C) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
D) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
Algorithm v3:
1. Measure kWh added at supercharger
2. If 50% of kWh added is consumed within 12 hours, OK, otherwise flag user.
Flag this:
A) If someone is using local superchargers for daily driving.
Don't flag any of these:
B) If someone is going to work daily using 1 supercharger
C) If someone has a weekend location 1 supercharger away
D) If someone is doing only road trips and no local driving
OK, I lied, I can't give up. I need to get help...
An abuser is a person who uses a local supercharger and sticks around, right?
Probably needs to be recursive to adjust for % supercharging while excluding roadtrips (i.e. run once, figure out that the person does 65% roadtrips with 1+ SpC, take those out, rerun to figure out % remianing used on SpC, then look at only those SpC usage patterns)
This addresses someone who uses local superchargers for daily driving (if you're sticking around within a 65 miles of your house, you should be really charging at home)
If you're going to work, and your job is within 65 miles, you shouldn't be SpC all the time (occasional top offs are excluded)
If you have a weekend location that's 1 SpC away, and you drive 10 miles to the Spc, the weekend location better be more than 12.5 miles away. If you drive 50 miles, the weekend location better be more than 65 miles away.
- - - Updated - - -
That's clever, I like it.
The only downside, I SpC, come home and leave the car to go on a business trip. You can argue that I abused the SpC nonetheless by overcharging in the first place.
Found another down side, when I visit the inlaws I SpC nearby and I don't use 50% within 12 hours.
An abuser is a person who uses a local supercharger and sticks around, right?
Code:
if(Owner uses superchargers within 50 mile radius of home) //doing a 50mile x2 (100mile) roundtrip to supercharger to avoid paying home fees is reducing your car range by 50% roughly! No sane person would do this.
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
if(since using that SpC, Owner doesn't drive out of a 1.25x radius of SpC around his house) //if SpC is 50 miles from your house, and you stick around within ~65 miles, you're in trouble!
send politely worded letter
return;
end
end
end
end
endThis addresses someone who uses local superchargers for daily driving (if you're sticking around within a 65 miles of your house, you should be really charging at home)
If you're going to work, and your job is within 65 miles, you shouldn't be SpC all the time (occasional top offs are excluded)
If you have a weekend location that's 1 SpC away, and you drive 10 miles to the Spc, the weekend location better be more than 12.5 miles away. If you drive 50 miles, the weekend location better be more than 65 miles away.
- - - Updated - - -
That's clever, I like it.
The only downside, I SpC, come home and leave the car to go on a business trip. You can argue that I abused the SpC nonetheless by overcharging in the first place.
Found another down side, when I visit the inlaws I SpC nearby and I don't use 50% within 12 hours.
2nd post about this e-mail....
I don't know what algorithm Tesla used to determine who got the email, but I own Model S's- one has supercharged 30+ times the other never- One car is in my name, the other in my wife's name. Only got one e-mail- addressed to me- So I can only presume they used some number of Supercharge events to determine who got the e-mail- Like others in Tucson, the nearest supercharger is in Casa Grande, and while I've used it multiple times, it's always been to complete a trip - I have never charged more than a few minutes at Casa Grande- just enough to make the 55 miles home. I think as many others have said in this thread, Tesla's communications skills need to mature to match the size of the company and to not upset their best source of advertising - their loyal customers...
I haven't e-mailed ownership about the e-mail, although I thought about it. I like many others was put off by it's wording, I've chosen to ignore it and move on ...and continue to enjoy driving our cars both locally and long distance when desired. Charging at the superchargers as necessary to support that long distance driving- which in my opinion is the one major differentiator for Tesla from it's upcoming 200 mile competition. Even if at some point in the future, they have to start monetizing the superchargers, until someone else either joins the network or creates their own fast charging Superchargers, Tesla is the only practical BEV for a total ICE replacement.
I don't know what algorithm Tesla used to determine who got the email, but I own Model S's- one has supercharged 30+ times the other never- One car is in my name, the other in my wife's name. Only got one e-mail- addressed to me- So I can only presume they used some number of Supercharge events to determine who got the e-mail- Like others in Tucson, the nearest supercharger is in Casa Grande, and while I've used it multiple times, it's always been to complete a trip - I have never charged more than a few minutes at Casa Grande- just enough to make the 55 miles home. I think as many others have said in this thread, Tesla's communications skills need to mature to match the size of the company and to not upset their best source of advertising - their loyal customers...
I haven't e-mailed ownership about the e-mail, although I thought about it. I like many others was put off by it's wording, I've chosen to ignore it and move on ...and continue to enjoy driving our cars both locally and long distance when desired. Charging at the superchargers as necessary to support that long distance driving- which in my opinion is the one major differentiator for Tesla from it's upcoming 200 mile competition. Even if at some point in the future, they have to start monetizing the superchargers, until someone else either joins the network or creates their own fast charging Superchargers, Tesla is the only practical BEV for a total ICE replacement.
how about something much simpler:
Code:
if(Owner frequently skips charging at home and prefers using superchargers instead)[INDENT]send politely worded letter[/INDENT]
[INDENT]return;[/INDENT]
end- - - Updated - - -
it's also worth noting that when south jersey was hit with a tornado a few weeks ago, the "100% local supercharging" is what allowed me to continue to commute to work daily since we were out of power for 5 or 6 days.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
