Teo Takes Tesla To Task

[brianman]

I have a problem with the fact they have any "enabled" stalls, they should all be "dedicated" when they are trying to push this is as something we have to pay for (by upgrading to an 85kWh or 60kWh + SC).

I disagree with this. In short, you're suggesting that it's better not to have the stalls at all. More working stalls is better, period.

 

[Teo]

...Tesla has shown they take action ... People park illegally all the time

Nigel, this is not a case of bad ICE drivers parking at stations and Tesla trying to prevent that. No, in Ellensburg Tesla has intentionally decided not to use the R7-11 No Parking Sign even though it is required. The reason they did this is because the charging station is at the same time the main parking space for hotel guests. Tesla and the host want ICE cars to park there. Obviously the hotel doesn't want their guests to have parking tickets issued. Therefore they wouldn't agree to the R7-11 sign. They have very limited parking space.

Tesla is aware of the required signs. In fact they have those signs in many stations. For example in Burlington and Centralia you can see the R7-11 No Parking Sign. Click on the thumbnails on this page:

Tesla Superchargers | ADK Electric Inc. | Looking forward The future of electrical car...

What is about this one report that causes you to want to inflate it to such a big issue?

I don't see it as inflating an issue but I do think that Ellensburg is different because:
1. It doesn't display the R7-11 No Parking Sign
2. There is a state law (link) that says it should display it.
3. It has ICE problems.

I don't know any other station with the same three problems. In California they have a similar state law but it doesn't say anything about signage. Ellensburg is unique. It is the station where Tesla has messed up the most. Obviously Tesla does not actively try to get Tesla drivers ICED out of all stalls, but what they have done at this station is the same thing they would do if they had that intention.

Also the location is obviously wrong. It is the main parking space of the hotel. There is some element of ignorance and stubbornness on Tesla's part. If I was Elon I would fire the person who made the decision on Ellensburg. It was a super stupid decision. The ICE problems in Ellensburg can't be solved. It will only get worse. Tesla will end up moving this station elsewhere. If I had to guess I would say they will move it in 2017.

R7-11 No Parking Sign

 

[brianman]

Well I actually bothered to email Tesla about this and got a response at 11PM their time so hardly a company that doesn't care. They passed along the PDF I sent from Plug In America that discusses proper signage and paint to the Supercharger team to find out why the spots are marked the way they are.

Nice work. And imagine, you didn't even have to make a laughable video or call in all the news stations!

 

[dsm363]

Nigel, this is not a case of bad ICE drivers parking at stations and Tesla trying to prevent that. No, in Ellensburg Tesla has intentionally decided not to use the R7-11 No Parking Sign even though it is required. The reason they did this is because the charging station is at the same time the main parking space for hotel guests. Tesla and the host want ICE cars to park there. Obviously the hotel doesn't want their guests to have parking tickets issued. Therefore they wouldn't agree to the R7-11 sign. They have very limited parking space.

Tesla is aware of the required signs. In fact they have those signs in many stations. For example in Burlington and Centralia you can see the R7-11 No Parking Sign. Click on the thumbnails on this page:

Tesla Superchargers | ADK Electric Inc. | Looking forward The future of electrical car...


I don't see it as inflating an issue but I do think that Ellensburg is different because:
1. It doesn't display the R7-11 No Parking Sign
2. There is a state law (link) that says it should display it.
3. It has ICE problems.

I don't know any other station with the same three problems. In California they have a similar state law but it doesn't say anything about signage. Ellensburg is unique. It is the station where Tesla has messed up the most. Obviously Tesla does not actively try to get Tesla drivers ICED out of all stalls, but what they have done at this station is the same thing they would do if they had that intention.

Also the location is obviously wrong. It is the main parking space of the hotel. There is some element of ignorance and stubbornness on Tesla's part. If I was Elon I would fire the person who made the decision on Ellensburg. It was a super stupid decision. The ICE problems in Ellensburg can't be solved. It will only get worse. Tesla will end up moving this station elsewhere. If I had to guess I would say they will move it in 2017.

R7-11 No Parking Sign

It's only required if you want to ticket people I thought.

The link was actually a SEVA document I sent

http://www.seva101.org/ResourceLinks/Docs/SEVA_UnofficialGuidelinesForImplementingWashingtonStateSB5849-2013.pdf

Also, I've actually been to the Ellensburg Supercharger. It is not in the main parking area but on the side of the building near a restaurant.

 

[Teo]

I've actually been to the Ellensburg Supercharger. It is not in the main parking area but on the side of the building near a restaurant.

They have maybe 5 more parking spaces across the stalls in that area. So if there are only 10 spaces and 5 of them are close to the building and all 5 are charging stations then obviously all 5 stations will be occupied before people start using the spaces further away. That's what I meant.

 

[bonnie]

I am only bothered by you taking it so personal! I don't care about an argument between you and teo, but I do care about the original intent of this forum post. A lot of people jumped on teo because of the approach he offered, while ignoring the potential of a real issue, which was the point of my original post to this thread. As my grandfather always says, "The distance between the brain and the heart is very short". Too often on these forums, opinions are dismissed and overlooked because of technicalities of where that person lives or what that person has said in the past, or the phrasing of what they said Tesla says or doesn't say.

I appreciate all the insight into the positive experiences, but disagree that you should keep negative ones between you and Tesla. Tesla has had a problem (in my opinion) about being consistent. So, I think you are doing the user community (existing and potential) a big disservice by not making these things public, because I am sure someone in your same situation could be going through the same thing but not getting the same level of engagement you are. A very good case in point is the delivery process. Some users of this forum report very active and informative DS interactions, while others report very little if any at all. It's important as Tesla grows and more and more users adopt the Model S that we all receive the same level of support for the same issues. I think one of the first examples of this was with the Parcel Shelf becoming included in the base package. Everyone got a consistent "no" when asking if they could get it retro'd in. However, if someone did get it for free after the fact, it should be known. One thing I like about Tesla is we all pay the same amount for the same thing. I hate how in the traditional stealership model someone can pay more or less depending on their negotiation skills vs. the salespersons. These cars are expensive, for whatever reason you are buying them, and I for one would like as much information as possible, positive or negative, to be able to make my decision. Regardless if Tesla was very engaged and responding immediately to your dissatisfaction, the fact there is potential for dissatisfaction and having to mitigate it with Tesla might be enough to detract from buying. The issue I have is not being fair and balanced. You are saying you want to have discussions with all cards on the table, but you don't in fact have all those cards on the table - only the ones you want to make public. You have made a conscious decision to "censor" the information available, which can be construed as protecting the image of a Tesla, i.e. having a bias.

But let's be clear. I love my Model S, I am happy with what I paid, what I got, but I am disappointed in a few things. For instance, I had every single sales person and my DS during delivery tell me that my door handles would unlock and present by touching them with the fob in my pocket, even without the tech package. This was the basis of forgoing the tech package, which now I am SOL. I know there is a big community here that believes the tech package is essential, but I overlooked the opinions here because of ironically consistent information I received from Tesla employees. But, on the flip side, I also overlooked upgrading to an 85kWh battery despite the passion exhibited by this forum and I couldn't be happier. I get 213 miles on a range charge, have traveled 2000 miles in 2.5 weeks of ownership and only once had range anxiety, but that was only because I wanted to push the car to see if it would make it (which it did!).

You make a lot of assumptions here - the issue wasn't about something that only impacted me, I didn't censor anything ( that's a ridiculous accusation), and the issue I took up with Tesla had to do with resolution for everyone impacted. I'm not the one calling names here, so I think I'm pretty safe in saying I'm not the one getting riled up and taking this personally.

As far as my contributions to this user community, I think I've easily demonstrated my level of commitment. I appreciate your suggestions on how to improve, but so far my way has been effective. I'll reconsider if that changes.

I'm thrilled you are happy with your car, truly - and I hope that like the others on this thread, you also are never iced.

 

[Teo]

It's only required if you want to ticket people I thought.
The link was actually a SEVA document I sent
http://www.seva101.org/ResourceLink...ForImplementingWashingtonStateSB5849-2013.pdf
Also, I've actually been to the Ellensburg Supercharger. It is not in the main parking area but on the side of the building near a restaurant.

Yes, this is the same document I saw about a month ago. In the document the two signs are mentioned as "Legally Required Minimum Signage per the Legislation". I wonder what Jeff Finn would say about Tesla not displaying those signs in Ellensburg.

 

[dsm363]

They have maybe 5 more parking spaces across the stalls in that area. So if there are only 10 spaces and 5 of them are close to the building and all 5 are charging stations then obviously all 5 stations will be occupied before people start using the spaces further away. That's what I meant.

View attachment 52863

Look at Google Earth. There are many more parking spots to the right of what that picture shows. As a few of us have said, it helps to have actually been at the supercharger you are upset about and see what the area is like. They should update the signage and we are working on that.

 

[TexasEV]

Yes, this is the same document I saw about a month ago. In the document the two signs are mentioned as "Legally Required Minimum Signage per the Legislation". I wonder what Jeff Finn would say about Tesla not displaying those signs in Ellensburg.

Teo I think its time to take a break from this.

 

[Teo]

By the way, I want to add that a month ago when I researched about Ellensburg, I contacted Adk Electric that built the Ellensburg station (I didn't contact Tesla explicitly but the discussion was in official Tesla forums). I gave them a link to this webpage that displays the same signs in Jeff's PDF file. I pointed out that the signage they put in Ellensburg might not comply with the regulations. Obviously it is a good idea to have problems resolved with dialogue. I think Tesla is well aware they messed up in this location. I don't think there is a solution for Ellensburg.

 

[dsm363]

Concerns about waiting in line for superchargers

Teo I think its time to take a break from this.

Agree.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, I want to add that a month ago when I researched about Ellensburg, I contacted Adk Electric that built the Ellensburg station (I didn't contact Tesla explicitly but the discussion was in official Tesla forums). I gave them a link to this webpage that displays the same signs in Jeff's PDF file. I pointed out that the signage they put in Ellensburg might not comply with the regulations. Obviously it is a good idea to have problems resolved with dialogue. I think Tesla is well aware they messed up in this location. I don't think there is a solution for Ellensburg.

I do admire the time and effort you've spent on a Supercharger thousands of miles away. Good to know they have that document. The solution is to paint green lines and out up that sign assuming the property owner lets them.

 

[Teo]

Teo I think its time to take a break from this.

People have the right to know what is going on. There are people in this topic who think Tesla is trying to prevent ICE parking in Ellensburg. That couldn't be further from the truth. Tesla is violating state law to allow ICE to park there because they picked a wrong location where they had to agree with the host to allow shared parking. These three message below don't apply to Ellensburg because they all assume Tesla is willing to prevent ICE parking at Ellensburg, which is simply not true. But I understand that they may have been written as a general comment about all stations, not just about Ellensburg.

Personally I want Tesla to put signs that say if you are not a Tesla charging at this supercharger your car will be towed away.

I personally highly recommend the visibility of the green paint in addition to signage after seeing the change here.

But it would be cool if Tesla added one of those lift gates (like at railroad stops and toll gates) on each supercharger spot.

 

[bonnie]

Your point has been made very clearly. Is there anything else missing that should be said? Just feel like we're going in circles here.

 

[Teo]

Bonnie,

There is nothing missing. I'm just responding to people who comment on what I wrote. It is not like I keep adding new messages without somebody saying something to me. Obviously if people continue arguing about something, then I will do more research, collect more data, contact more people and come up with new information.

 

[bonnie]

Got it.

 

[dsm363]

.....and scene!

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla is violating state law to allow ICE to park there because they picked a wrong location where they had to agree with the host to allow shared parking.

I don't want to argue in circles, but you keep saying Tesla is violating state law, and I don't think you have presented an argument that makes this clear. Basically the only way Tesla is violating state law is if it is clear that any ICE car parking in any parking space serviced by charging equipment is illegal in WA. However, I don't think the law really says that.

1) It does not distinguish between a privately owned but publicly inaccessible location (like a private home) versus a privately owned but publicly accessible location (like in this case). Obviously it makes no sense for a space in a private home to need such signage nor for it to be illegal if an owner parked their ICE car there (or given that the law doesn't allow unplugged cars at an "electric vehicle charging station" an EV parked in that space but not charging would also be illegal). Also a shared space between an ICE and an EV is not completely out of reason either (given the minimum parking space requirement referenced by others and possible special conditions like condos/apartments which have limited spots). That's a possible hole in that law (which the hotel might be able to fit into).

2) It all comes down to the definition of "electric vehicle charging station" and who gets to designate it:

For purposes of this section, "electric vehicle charging station" means a public or private parking space that is served by charging equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcW/supdefault.aspx?cite=46.08.185
Does the "primary purpose" part apply only to the charging equipment or parking space (or both)? If it's the former, then what you say may be correct (however my point #1 becomes a problem and every EV owner in WA may need to post the exact same sign in front of their parking space at home and never park a car there unless they are charging). If it's one of the latter two (which makes more sense to me), then it's up to the location owner to determine whether they want to designate a spot as a "electric vehicle charging station" or not.

This would also be more consistent with how disabled parking is handled (it is up to the owner to designate a spot as disabled. A spot is not automatically a "disabled spot" even if it meets all the accessibility requirements, if the spot does not have the signage on it that marks the spot as a disabled spot).

Note: this is more a side discussion. Whether or not the signage is legal or not, the owners still have a right to complain about the availability of the spots in this station and the waiting time.

 

[Teo]

you keep saying Tesla is violating state law, and I don't think you have presented an argument that makes this clear.

There is no reason for arguments. The language is clear.
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation website: Washington state law (RCW 46.08.185)

- - - Updated - - -

The same content is also available in Jeff Finn's PDF file.

 

[NigelM]

There is no reason for arguments. The language is clear.
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation website: Washington state law (RCW 46.08.185)

If you insist, please call local law enforcement and ask them to fine Tesla and/or shut down the Superchargers.

- - - Updated - - -

....in Ellensburg Tesla has intentionally decided not to use the R7-11 No Parking Sign even though it is required. The reason they did this is because the charging station is at the same time the main parking space for hotel guests. Tesla and the host want ICE cars to park there.

Tesla decided not to put signs there because they want the spots to be ICE'd? I think I'm done here.

 

[Teo]

If you insist, please call local law enforcement and ask them to fine Tesla and/or shut down the Superchargers.

It is not a problem that affects me.

Tesla decided not to put signs there because they want the spots to be ICE'd?

No. RCW 46.08.185 is effective from July 28, 2013. A short time after that on September 17, 2013 there was discussion about the station here. Most likely this means when Tesla and the host negotiated a deal and signed an agreement, the law didn't exist. But of course the law overrides whatever is in that agreement. So now Tesla should either negotiate a new deal with the host or move the station elsewhere. They should also pick better locations.

I think I'm done here.

Good.