Supercharging to reduce ownership cost of a Model S.

[Ugliest1]

For me the Occam's razor is, the old liberal position became unsustainable for them and they decided to change the policy by adjusting the wording. Anything else seems splitting hairs to me. If they enforce it for existing owners, I wager it could be argued bait and switch, which is why I doubt Tesla will try to enforce it beyond letters. I do sympathize for Tesla, but the original sales pitch for the Supercharger was their own doing. Re-writing history doesn't seem comfortable for myself either, which I think it reeks a bit of.

Hopefully it will remain a soft issue, instead of hard policy, so we can chalk the episode up to nothing much. One can expect, though, it to become a hard policy for Model 3 and beyond (and perhaps new Model S sales etc.), if "free" Supercharging is offered at all for those cars. But for new sales that is OK of course. For new sales Tesla can make any new sales pitch they want.

The splitting hairs -- I think that's what defenders of local charging have been doing. All along. I think Tesla has been making every effort to stay with the concept of 'free, forever'. I think Tesla has been very classy by trying to avoid limiting statements, and just expecting ... hoping? ... that the vast majority of people will use the superchargers as intended (long distance travel to remove the "EV stigma", and now added high-congestion city dwellers with no other charging option). Even Elon's comment yesterday was along the lines of "we don't really want to have to do this, but if someone is abusing the privilege then we'll try to softly encourage them not to" (i.e., start by writing a letter instead of spend hundreds of thousands in programming to find an automated power-reduction solution). And they'll see how that works and find other solutions from there, if they have to.

The OP's statement about being oversold, I just don't get that. Again, it's splitting hairs, parsing out the individual phrases and ignoring the overall context and intent. And yes, I meant in the previous paragraph to say "abusing the PRIVILEGE", from a societal perspective and Tesla's intent for the "free, forever".

Anyway, I also think as others have posted here that eventually, the OP's time will be worth more to him than the $100/month or whatever he'll be saving. I think his last numbered set of procedures, if you will, are reasonable in the short term, although they are outside of Tesla's intent. And Tesla will choose to handle that situation if and when it becomes important enough to spend resources on it. I'm not defending the OP's actions, but, the good part of it is, the OP is *thinking* about it. He's *aware* that there is or could be an issue. That's a big first step.

 

[callmesam]

Free supercharging doesn't specify the power level. All Tesla needs to do is limit the power to the local usage outliers such that it takes two or three times as long to charge (as has been suspected here previously) and those owners will have incentive to start charging overnight at home. It's not going to take changing what's advertised or a new business model for future cars or anything the vast majority of Tesla owners would notice. Supercharging has always been "up to X kw" or "as fast as X minutes", well, the abusers just won't get the maximum rate. It's still supercharging at 40 kW, that's four times faster than a 14-50, but not something most people would want to wait around for if they can figure out a way to charge overnight at home.

The SuperChargers are getting so full that Tesla will limit the speed of locals to make it take longer thereby making the superchargers more full.

Right.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

The SuperChargers are getting so full that Tesla will limit the speed of locals to make it take longer thereby making the superchargers more full.

Right.

Instead of limiting the charge rate, they could limit the charge time. If locals were only given 5 minutes to charge and then had to wait X number of hours for another charge, that would prevent them from taking up a charger needed by someone else and give them an incentive to find another charging option. That would still be free charging...just doled out in very small increments so as to make it less convenient.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The splitting hairs -- I think that's what defenders of local charging have been doing. All along. I think Tesla has been making every effort to stay with the concept of 'free, forever'.

I guess that is something we can and should just agree to disagree. For me, to quote Tesla in December 2014 "Superchargers will be free to use for Supercharging-enabled vehicles for the life of Model S. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like." is a very simple concept and that's how I feel it was marketed. Now Tesla has changed that page to include new words about "long-distance travel". I feel Tesla is now backtracking and attempting to limit their original promise. Fine for new buyers, not so fine for existing buyers who were promised - in my view - a different deal and changing it could be tantamount to bait and switch. So, let's hope they will not go there.

I think Tesla has been very classy by trying to avoid limiting statements, and just expecting ... hoping? ... [/QOthat the vast majority of people will use the superchargers as intended (long distance travel to remove the "EV stigma", and now added high-congestion city dwellers with no other charging option).

But they were selling product feature - for life of that product - without limiting statements. They were promoting a product without limiting statements. If this were not Tesla, I doubt many people here would call that classy. Maybe someone will find fine print somewhere to excuse it.

Anyway, I also think as others have posted here that eventually, the OP's time will be worth more to him than the $100/month or whatever he'll be saving. I think his last numbered set of procedures, if you will, are reasonable in the short term, although they are outside of Tesla's intent.

Be that as it may, if Tesla has marketed a product and a feature without expressing intent clearly, it may not matter what their intent was. I could see them having a case if someone was really abusive (breaking things, parking car there for days on end), but daily use of the facility... I'm not sure that could easily count as abuse. Hence I doubt Tesla will try to enforce this on existing owners, at least I hope so. Makes no difference to me personally (no superchargers near), but I think the principle of what they said should be respected. They can change for new Model S sales and future models, of course.

One question below, how does this work - because it seems to be at odds with the wording of Tesla's new policy. Has Tesla said this somewhere or is this a hopeful interpretation of the situation?

use the superchargers as intended (long distance travel to remove the "EV stigma", and now added high-congestion city dwellers with no other charging option).

Because now Tesla is saying, free for long-distance travel for life. How does that include city-dwellers? Aren't they also abusing the system, under the new limitations? Are they going to monitor each car for their charging behaviour to determine who is entitled to this extra service?

Has Tesla posted somewhere the new guidelines on who can charge locally daily?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I think it needs to be said: Tesla may have made a mistake in proclaiming Superchargers free for life of Model S. If so, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it wasn't an intentional mistake. Now they may be hurting and backtracking from that general statement.

It would have probably been more upfront to just say originally simply "it is free for now", just like that charger at a mall or some such that may be there to invite customers. It is reasonable to expect that such free perk will go away one day. The problem is that Tesla advertised loud and clear a limitless Supercharging for the life of the Model S. Some even paid for it separately.

They didn't qualify or quantify it - and, thus, rightfully some can feel peeved about the change now. Hopefully the change for existing customers is merely a communicative one and not a hard policy limitation, to account for past marketing that may have influenced purchase decisions.

I would expect future models to face harder limitations on Supercharging though.

The German CEOs will have a field-day over this, that's for sure.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes, they are making that statement now. While it is true super-chargers were devised to allow cross-country travel, they were explicitly marketed for local charging as well.

Again, to quote Tesla website December 2014:



Obviously Tesla is now backtracking, perhaps because they don't find the policy they publicized sustainable.

I'm not really blaming Tesla for it, the original policy never seemed realistic to me, but I think we need to be honest that a change was made, not try to explain it away.

No, they aren't back tracking. Nowhere in that quote mentions local traveling explicitly. "How can I help bring a Supercharger to my area?" does not explicitly refer to local charging. In fact it refers to bringing it to popular routes in the general area that a owner lives in (even for long distance trips the station still has to be within 100-200 miles of the owner to make sense). And others have already pointed out quotes way earlier than yours that were encouraging people to use it for roadtrips. The first instance where Tesla mentioned local charging explicitly were the city superchargers in the context of those without home charging. But this was such a recent development that many people aren't even aware that city superchargers exist.

- - - Updated - - -

But they were selling product feature - for life of that product - without limiting statements. They were promoting a product without limiting statements. If this were not Tesla, I doubt many people here would call that classy. Maybe someone will find fine print somewhere to excuse it.

Tesla expected common courtesy and ethics to limit instances of abuse. As I put it before, a restaurant owner will not have a sign out there that writes out explicit limits on the amount of napkins that people take or tell people not to take it home. However, that doesn't mean that the owner doesn't have an expectation that people not take a stack napkins and shove it into their bag for home use. Tesla's notice right now is akin to a restaurant owner walking up to you and saying while the napkins are unlimited, it's really meant for you to use during your meal and not at home. That's a better way to address the issue than an explicit sign (which makes the owner look stingy to all patrons).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

No, they aren't back tracking. Nowhere in that quote mentions local traveling explicitly. "How can I help bring a Supercharger to my area?" does not explicitly refer to local charging.

But they did explicitly mention "Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."

The "free for long-distance" rhetoric is new. It used to be "free" without qualifications (other than life of Model S).

There are many more examples than just that quote. Tesla has added the word "long-distance".

Well, we can agree to disagree but tell me how this works:

The first instance where Tesla mentioned local charging explicitly were the city superchargers in the context of those without home charging.

If daily supercharging is no longer OK, how is it determined who can charge in a dense city supercharger. What about apartment dwellers near non-city superchargers can they charge locally?

 

[scaesare]

I guess that is something we can and should just agree to disagree. For me, to quote Tesla in December 2014 "Superchargers will be free to use for Supercharging-enabled vehicles for the life of Model S. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like." is a very simple concept and that's how I feel it was marketed. Now Tesla has changed that page to include new words about "long-distance travel". I feel Tesla is now backtracking and attempting to limit their original promise.

Are you ignoring the examples I provided above that demonstrate such verbiage has been there at least as early as late 2013? Or the videos Bonnie has posted when the Superchargers were unveiled?

In case you are, here's quotes from the Archived Supercharger Page for January 10, 2013 nearly two and a half years ago:

GO AHEAD, TAKE A TRIP

They’re designed to give road trippers half a charge in about half an hour.

Supercharging is a game-changing solution to a common question – how to enable long road trips in an electric vehicle without long stops

...when you’re out on the open road.

Now you can travel the country in a game-changing way.

How long ago did you buy your car again?

 

[EdA]

Are you ignoring the examples I provided above that demonstrate such verbiage has been there at least as early as late 2013? Or the videos Bonnie has posted when the Superchargers were unveiled?

In case you are, here's quotes from the Archived Supercharger Page for January 10, 2013 nearly two and a half years ago:

Thanks @scaesare for putting things in context...

 

[stopcrazypp]

But they did explicitly mention "Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."

The "free for long-distance" rhetoric is new. It used to be "free" without qualifications (other than life of Model S).

There are many more examples than just that quote. Tesla has added the word "long-distance".

Others already provided quotes on long-distance driving for superchargers way before your quote, so I won't rehash here. But it was always clear to me from back then that superchargers were marketed for long distance driving, but I guess we disagree on this point.

Well, we can agree to disagree but tell me how this works:
If daily supercharging is no longer OK, how is it determined who can charge in a dense city supercharger. What about apartment dwellers near non-city superchargers can they charge locally?

Easy: say in the notice that people without home charging are excepted. That's the advantage of using a courtesy notice. Of course throttling will get more complicated, but the point was that hopefully the abuse doesn't reach the point that this is necessary.

I should note that I find it weird that it is the people that feel there is nothing wrong with this usage that are advocating some sort of throttling or paid usage (to be "fair"), while it is the ones calling for common courtesy that say such courtesy notices are the best way to address the issue.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

There are tons more Supercharger quotes saying it is free for life of the car without limitations. It was marketed to enable long-distance, sure, but never exclusively that. Until now.

People even say now there are dense-area Superchargers for city dwellers.

So how will it work?

If daily supercharging is no longer OK, how is it determined who can charge in a dense city supercharger. What about apartment dwellers near non-city superchargers can they charge locally?

- - - Updated - - -

Easy: say in the notice that people without home charging are excepted. That's the advantage of using a courtesy notice. Of course throttling will get more complicated, but the point was that hopefully the abuse doesn't reach the point that this is necessary.

I should note that I find it weird that it is the people that feel there is nothing wrong with this usage that are advocating some sort of throttling or paid usage (to be "fair"), while it is the ones calling for common courtesy that say such courtesy notices are the best way to address the issue.

But isn't that a lot more complicated than Tesla's original messaging on the topic? Now the user's home somehow determines who can charge there? Will such users get a letter from Tesla?

It doesn't sound simple to me.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But isn't that a lot more complicated than Tesla's original messaging on the topic? Now the user's home somehow determines who can charge there? Will such users get a letter from Tesla?

It doesn't sound simple to me.

No. Tesla doesn't need any data besides from supercharger data. They send the notice regardless of where the person lives based on a pattern of usage that matches abuse (which they obviously can easily determine given Tesla has shown they are compiling supercharger statistics 24/7). The only thing is *in the notice itself* say that if you have no home charging options (for example if you live in an apartment) then this notice does not apply to you. I frequently receive notices like this (that the notice doesn't apply if you meet certain criteria) from government agencies so this is a very common thing to put in notices.

 

[dsm363]

Yes, they are making that statement now. While it is true super-chargers were devised to allow cross-country travel, they were explicitly marketed for local charging as well.

Again, to quote Tesla website December 2014:



Obviously Tesla is now backtracking, perhaps because they don't find the policy they publicized sustainable.

I'm not really blaming Tesla for it, the original policy never seemed realistic to me, but I think we need to be honest that a change was made, not try to explain it away.

Where does that say 'we encourage locals to use Supercharging instead of charging at home?' They are not backtracking. They are clarify what they've said all along that it's free for life and intended for travel.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Where does that say 'we encourage locals to use Supercharging instead of charging at home?' They are not backtracking. They are clarify what they've said all along that it's free for life and intended for travel.

Several people on TMC have been talking of dense city Superchargers for apartment dwellers including bonnie. I expected it was based on something.

All I've seen was in the past unlimited Supercharging. Now suddenly Tesla changed the deal to long-distance only it seems. So no, I don't know where the dense city charging talk comes from but the threads are full of it.

 

[napabill]

You know, the biggest problem with being retired is that you never get a day off. And that means I always have time to read discussions like on this thread. But my question is, are all you posters retired as well? Otherwise, can't believe the time and effort being applied here, rather than to productive enterprises. Been retired for 17 years, but this thread is making me think I should go back to work!:wink:

 

[TexasEV]

Where does that say 'we encourage locals to use Supercharging instead of charging at home?' They are not backtracking. They are clarify what they've said all along that it's free for life and intended for travel.

That's exactly right. Anyone who has followed Tesla since the superchargers were unveiled understands their purpose was to enable travel beyond the range of the car. Trying to parse words to justify using it as a primary source of charging doesn't change what everyone knew what they were for. Tesla didn't think people buying a high 5 figure or 6 figure car would be so cheap that they would supercharge regularly instead of charging overnight at home. The recent superchargers in cities such as London were a recognition that in some cities, people who buy such expensive cars often live where there is no ability to charge, but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of owners.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

That's exactly right. Anyone who has followed Tesla since the superchargers were unveiled understands their purpose was to enable travel beyond the range of the car. Trying to parse words to justify using it as a primary source of charging doesn't change what everyone knew what they were for. Tesla didn't think people buying a high 5 figure or 6 figure car would be so cheap that they would supercharge regularly instead of charging overnight at home. The recent superchargers in cities such as London were a recognition that in some cities, people who buy such expensive cars often live where there is no ability to charge, but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of owners.

But how will the London example work? How to separate who can charge daily and who not? Won't it discriminate customers based on their housing? And how closely must a customer follow Tesla to know previously unstated limitations?

It all sounds anything but simple to me.

I'd rather take the simple answer: Tesla changed their mind and added a soft limitation (as in not enforced so far).

 

[Cottonwood]

Tesla won't go back on "Free for Life" for exxisting owners, but may add costs to new owners if abuse continues.

My predictions at Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving Notes - Page 9

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla won't go back on "Free for Life" for exxisting owners, but may add costs to new owners if abuse continues.

My predictions at Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving Notes - Page 9

Changing the policy for new buyers is all fair of course as long as they communicate it clearly.

I also expect Tesla not to limit things for existing customers beyond letters. We'll see.

 

[scaesare]

There are tons more Supercharger quotes saying it is free for life of the car without limitations.

Citation needed.

Be sure to provide context... that's important.