Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Supercharging to reduce ownership cost of a Model S.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
There is also free candy at my bank and free cookies at my grocery store. Both for kids. But they didn't make clear what a kid means. By the same analogy, I'm going to be a freeloader, and gouge on the free candy and cookies, of course to reduce my living expenses. And don't forget the free Costco samples either. Also superchargers.
 
That's exactly my point. People feel it is unethical. I take no issue with anyone expressing an opinion, nor do I take issue with people passionately going to great lengths to justify their opinion. I take issue with the repeated efforts to imply opinion as fact, supported only by the same few few lines of Tesla marketing like they're some kind of inalienable truths.

Put another way, its all about KISS. Has Tesla been working a hidden, multi-year campaign to sprinkle their direction, intent, and ethical perspective on local supercharging throughout various webpages like some grand easter-egg treasure hunt, with hopes that someone might one day put together the clues on some internet forum and explain all the mysteries that came before?

Or are they just trying to sell more cars by telling people they can drive all over the place in one breath and telling them they can charge right down the street in the next?
Ethics is heavily based on opinion because it is based on personal moral beliefs. For example, some people feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a big stack of napkins from a restaurant for use at home and they will be able to justify that it is not unethical because they already paid for the "free" napkins when they paid for the meal. No amount of facts will change that position because different people have different moral standards.
Largely when judging if something is unethical it is based on the impact of that behavior to the society as a whole. And even when society can accommodate a small percentage of someone doing something unethical (and it typically can), I don't think that changes the criteria of whether something is unethical. Others have already pointed out the impact this can have on the society as a whole (in this case the population of people with the supercharger option) by condoning such behavior, so I won't rehash that here.

While you dismiss me pointing out specific quotes on Tesla's website, it is the facts to support my opinion of what Tesla's intent is. I didn't want to put out my opinion out there without anything supporting it, but I guess at this point we can only agree to disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

But consider this: When the decision was made to offer Supercharging free, certain assumptions had to be made regarding how customers would use.

No question. And if they had even a marginally competent model, they considered that small percentage of owners who would go out of their way to save a buck or three by local supercharging. I'd guess that the only thing they didn't fully consider in their model was the limo services that plagued Hatwthorne before the expansion (and other places like Amsterdam).

According to Tesla's website, that assumption was primarily that they use it for road trips. They do not say they made it free to save people money.

Why is it free?
We want to encourage Model S owners to take road trips.
http://www.teslamotors.com/support/supercharging

The way things are going, it'll be interesting to see if they have to break their promise of keeping it free forever. I think even the OP was aware of this. He has hinted that if Model 3 owners start doing the same thing as he is, Tesla ultimately will have an extremely difficult time keeping the supercharger network free.
 
Last edited:
I tend to take Tesla's wording at face value when I see the Q&A on the Supercharging section of their website mention this:

"How often can I Supercharge? Is it bad for my battery?
Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."

...And you are isolating the answer completely from the context of the question it relates to in order to support your predetermined conclusion. The question has nothing to do with, and provides no information on, the question of local supercharging to save a few pennies. The question in context is "does frequent use of the SC harm my battery?" Answer: no, you're free to use it all you want without altering your warranty or harming the battery. The part you need, and that is totally absent in anything that Tesla has publicly said or written, is "...oh and using your local SC everyday in lieu of home charging will save you a few bucks all on Tesla's dime..." Whether Tesla really intends that is the subject of this ongoing debate, but it's clear they've never said anything of the sort. It's a fine line they're walking, because they probably don't want to be seen as diluting the "free for life" message; however, I don't believe for a minute that Tesla really wants to pay for all the electricity consumed by Tesla owners for all their daily driving, which is the logical extension of the argument that many here try to make.
 
Last edited:
I want to get people's opinion to this idea.

Here is why I am considering this. Recently they have placed a supercharging station on my way to work from where I live.

I'm sure that a lot of people living in warm climates who work at home, or are retired do 110v at home. Many cars have low weekly miles with occasional long trips.

I think supercharger has to be an extra charge with the model 3.

A lot of cost depends if the electrical panel is in the garage.
 
It's kind of like the issue with not getting your children vaccinated for disease. If just a few do it, no big deal. If lots of people do it, the disease will come back.

If just a few use the Superchargers to avoid paying to plug into their own sockets, no problem. If lots of people do it the system will collapse.

That assumes that Tesla does not scale up the SC network. Doubtful. With more and more sales, they'll have the capital to expand the network to meet demand.

- - - Updated - - -

And don't forget the free Costco samples either. Also superchargers.

Analogy using free samples is so far from reality. Everyone who bought a MS and enabled SC for $2000 paid for lifetime access. The more appropriate analogy is a gym membership. You pay for access. Would you get angry at the person who wants to workout every day versus the person who uses it once in awhile? And if the person who goes to the gym every day is respectful and courteous to the other members who only come once a month, should they still be shamed?

- - - Updated - - -

By the same analogy, I'm going to be a freeloader, and gouge on the free candy and cookies, of course to reduce my living expenses. And don't forget the free Costco samples either.

Based on my experience, locals whom I have met at SC's throughout SoCal love doing it to support the Tesla brand and actually spend more money by support the local businesses while they charge. They save $ on electricity but spend more for food, coffee, clothes, etc. I rarely see people just sitting in the cars throughout their charging.

People here can be judgmental all they want but the SC network has grown and will grow based on demand. IMO, locals who charge is the reason why Tesla is expanding the network beyond what they may have intended. That has benefited us all and the adoption of EVs. If the SC network is only used for road trips, most stations will be empty most of the time. Think about that. When I charge, ICE drivers have slowed down with a curious look on their face. Some have stopped and asked a bunch of questions wanting to learn more.

IMO, urban chargers will do more to raise awareness since more people are likely to go to a major mall versus a remote hotel/motel off an interstate highway.
 
Analogy using free samples is so far from reality. Everyone who bought a MS and enabled SC for $2000 paid for lifetime access. The more appropriate analogy is a gym membership. You pay for access. Would you get angry at the person who wants to workout every day versus the person who uses it once in awhile? And if the person who goes to the gym every day is respectful and courteous to the other members who only come once a month, should they still be shamed?.
I don't think the gym analogy works. There is no trivial/convenient home alternative to all the gym equipment available at a gym. Thus a person who works out everyday instead of per week is the same analogy as someone who roadtrips frequently on the supercharger network vs someone who only does occasionally. No one thinks that is unethical because Tesla explicitly encourages people to roadtrip as frequently as possible. There is no separate use case there, only the amount of usage.
 
Last edited:
It interesting to me that solarcity puts an escalation clause in its residential lease with the justification that electricity will get more expensive.

Yet the supercharger buildout suggests, in part, that Tesla isn't too worried about future electricity prices.

I don't see how Tesla makes money building superchargers with wild abandon. I think they stop in the 400-500 range in the U.S., and make some stations bigger. Model 3 may have the choice of a one time charge or a per use fee.
 
That's an interesting rationalization ... er, justification ... er, observation.

How else would you explain why the Mountain View and San Mateo chargers are going online soon? That would make 3 SC locations within 20 miles of each other in the South Bay area.

In SoCal, there's Culver City, Hawthorne and Redondo Beach all within 20 miles of each other. On Tesla's SC map, there appears to be 2 more slated for SoCal between Oxnard and Culver City. Add in Rancho Cucamonga and that would mean 7 all within 80 miles or less of each other. Hmmm, doesn't seem to be about just satisfying the demand of long distance drivers.

And how doesn't a robust SC network help expand the brand and benefit us all?
 
Last edited:
It interesting to me that solarcity puts an escalation clause in its residential lease with the justification that electricity will get more expensive.

Yet the supercharger buildout suggests, in part, that Tesla isn't too worried about future electricity prices.

I don't see how Tesla makes money building superchargers with wild abandon. I think they stop in the 400-500 range in the U.S., and make some stations bigger. Model 3 may have the choice of a one time charge or a per use fee.
Or Tesla may keep doing just what they're doing. You have no basis for your speculation. My speculation is Tesla will not ever institute a per use fee because they don't want to complicate this with billing. But neither one of us know anything.

As long as superchargers increase sales compared to other possible marketing expenses, Tesla will keep building superchargers. That's not speculation, that's public comment by a Tesla board member.
 
...And you are isolating the answer completely from the context of the question it relates to in order to support your predetermined conclusion. The question has nothing to do with, and provides no information on, the question of local supercharging to save a few pennies. The question in context is "does frequent use of the SC harm my battery?" Answer: no, you're free to use it all you want without altering your warranty or harming the battery. The part you need, and that is totally absent in anything that Tesla has publicly said or written, is "...oh and using your local SC everyday in lieu of home charging will save you a few bucks all on Tesla's dime..." Whether Tesla really intends that is the subject of this ongoing debate, but it's clear they've never said anything of the sort. It's a fine line they're walking, because they probably don't want to be seen as diluting the "free for life" message; however, I don't believe for a minute that Tesla really wants to pay for all the electricity consumed by Tesla owners for all their daily driving, which is the logical extension of the argument that many here try to make.
And by not quoting my entire post you are isolating those statements from the entire message I was conveying. Particularly relevant to my message was my last sentence confirming that every Tesla employee I've interacted with confirms the Tesla corporate position of unconditional use of the SC network.

As to your interpretation of the relationship to the question and answer, technically the answer doesn't even directly answer the second question of whether it's bad for the battery, only that it doesn't alter the vehicle warranty. Rather than try to apply some subjective interpretation to their policy, I tend to objectively view their position exactly the way they have conveyed it it to me in both print and spoken by representatives of the Company, that's it's free-for-life and not subject to any preconditions for use.

So Tesla doesn't advertise that charging at SCs will save you a few bucks at home...so what. That doesn't mean Tesla doesn't fully understand that X% of customers will do that and factored that into their business model for SCs.

Whether the types of uses being discussed here are sustainable for Tesla is a completely different discussion. I tend to believe, or at least hope, that folks at Tesla have thought through the possible SC use scenarios. If the usage patterns over time change, then their conditions and prices related to SC'ing will likely evolve to follow suit. This is completely new ground Tesla is pioneering and will likely be tweaked over time.
 
I don't think the gym analogy works. There is no trivial/convenient home alternative to all the gym equipment available at a gym. Thus a person who works out everyday instead of per week is the same analogy as someone who roadtrips frequently on the supercharger network vs someone who only does occasionally. No one thinks that is unethical because Tesla explicitly encourages people to roadtrip as frequently as possible. There is no separate use case there, only the amount of usage.
The gym analogy Archer portrayed is more relevant than any of the others I've seen presented.

There are plenty of examples of gym equipment meant for home use, some of it quite capable/robust. I would argue that home gym equipment compared to that at a dedicated gym is little different than comparing an EVSE at home to a Tesla Supercharging location.
 
How else would you explain why the Mountain View and San Mateo chargers are going online soon? That would make 3 SC locations within 20 miles of each other in the South Bay area.

In SoCal, there's Culver City, Hawthorne and Redondo Beach all within 20 miles of each other. On Tesla's SC map, there appears to be 2 more slated for SoCal between Oxnard and Culver City. Add in Rancho Cucamonga and that would mean 7 all within 80 miles or less of each other. Hmmm, doesn't seem to be about just satisfying the demand of long distance drivers.

And how doesn't a robust SC network help expand the brand and benefit us all?
The secondary use Tesla mentioned is charging for people who have no home charging options. The LA stations are likely an extension of that (as I said in previous post, they already did that in major cities in China). However, the Mountain View and San Mateo stations I see that as filling out HWY 101 (which many have complained is a route that is not covered by superchargers).

- - - Updated - - -

The gym analogy Archer portrayed is more relevant than any of the others I've seen presented.

There are plenty of examples of gym equipment meant for home use, some of it quite capable/robust. I would argue that home gym equipment compared to that at a dedicated gym is little different than comparing an EVSE at home to a Tesla Supercharging location.
Yes, there is home gym equipment, but where are you going to put it? Esp. if you want to match everything at the gym. Personally I can't fit a treadmill and weights where I live (even a non-equivalent smaller one and simple weights, not a weight machine), and I suspect this is true of a vast majority of people with gym memberships.
And the OP doesn't even need an EVSE, the Tesla includes it. He only needs a standard 14-50 socket (he can even use 110V). There is nothing inconvenient about his charging situation, just the cost equation.
 
Last edited:
IMO, locals who charge is the reason why Tesla is expanding the network beyond what they may have intended. That has benefited us all and the adoption of EVs.
That's an interesting rationalization ... er, justification ... er, observation.
How else would you explain why the Mountain View and San Mateo chargers are going online soon? That would make 3 SC locations within 20 miles of each other in the South Bay area.

In SoCal, there's Culver City, Hawthorne and Redondo Beach all within 20 miles of each other. On Tesla's SC map, there appears to be 2 more slated for SoCal between Oxnard and Culver City. Add in Rancho Cucamonga and that would mean 7 all within 80 miles or less of each other. Hmmm, doesn't seem to be about just satisfying the demand of long distance drivers.

And how doesn't a robust SC network help expand the brand and benefit us all?
Let me give you another example.

Suppose Tesla came out with a new supercharger station design such that each pedestal was capable of 120 kW without competing with the sibling in the pair. Now further suppose Tesla said "we're rolling out new ones with this tech and will gradually upgrade the older ones." Well, enterprising Johnny lives near an "old tech" supercharger and doesn't want to wait. There are 100 of these Johnnies and they decide as a group to blow up every "old tech" supercharger. This would "force" Tesla to immediately upgrade all supercharger sites to the new tech. That's great for us all, right?

Rationalization is powerful...and dangerous.
 
Yes, there is home gym equipment, but where are you going to put it? Esp. if you want to match everything at the gym. Personally I can't fit a treadmill and weights where I live (even a non-equivalent smaller one and simple weights, not a weight machine), and I suspect this is true of a vast majority of people with gym memberships.
And the OP doesn't even need an EVSE, the Tesla includes it. He only needs a standard 14-50 socket (he can even use 110V). There is nothing inconvenient about his charging situation, just the cost equation.
You are basically re-iterating my point.

- You can exercise at home with limited home based equipment or basically no formal equipment (a pair of sneakers and shorts) OR go to the gym and get the best experience on the best equipment.
- You can charge at home with a basic Charger or even the UMC OR you can go to a SC and get the easiest/fastest experience.

As a side note, I would venture to say that most people financially able to afford a Model S have available room in their home for a piece of exercise equipment. Nobody said anything about matching the equipment at the gym. If you are going to use that argument then you have to also match the charging ability of a Tesla SC at your home (to keep the analogy accurate). I'll stick with Archer's analogy as the most relevant I've seen.....so far.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me give you another example.

Suppose Tesla came out with a new supercharger station design such that each pedestal was capable of 120 kW without competing with the sibling in the pair. Now further suppose Tesla said "we're rolling out new ones with this tech and will gradually upgrade the older ones." Well, enterprising Johnny lives near an "old tech" supercharger and doesn't want to wait. There are 100 of these Johnnies and they decide as a group to blow up every "old tech" supercharger. This would "force" Tesla to immediately upgrade all supercharger sites to the new tech. That's great for us all, right?

Rationalization is powerful...and dangerous.
That's some scenario. You must have read that post about the Chinese guy charging his car directly from the power lines. :) I'm always up for a faster way to charge my car, but not at the risk of jail time for destruction of property.....lol.
 
This thread was interesting. Once upon a time. Now I'm reminded of listening to an old married couple squabble about if the beans were overcooked or not. As in 'doesn't really matter, OP asked for opinions & got them'.

/out
I agree with Bonnie. This post, I think, gave the OP the opinions he needed to make his choice. Now it's just analogy-driven. I think I'll go for a drive.