Unlimited Supercharging Value

[gnuarm]

Your compensation would be based on the fair market value for a comparable car. So you could show them recent sale prices for a similarly equipped car that had FUSC.

There are no comparables. The supercharging is not transferable to a new owner so only older cars would be available with that.

Do cars with FUSC sell for $33-56k more than cars without it? No, so the insurance company isn't going to lay a golden egg for you.

How do you know that? I can show a direct cost analysis, so the comparable car issue goes away.

I recently went through something similar with an ICE car that got totaled. It was a collector's edition where only 500 were made. And they based the value on buying a non-collector's edition and then adding ~40% of the cost of the collector's edition package. (Which obviously isn't actually a comparable car.) I had to fight and find an actually collector's edition for sale, at a dealer, to get them to budge on the value. (And they wouldn't accept private party ads as they said I could be working with the seller to inflate the price.)

Funny. My car was totaled once. The other guy's insurance company was arguing that I could buy the car from ads in the paper at a lower price than what I was asking. lol

I ended up getting ~75% what I wanted, and probably could have hired a lawyer to get more, but then I would have netted less.

Clearly your issue was that you were willing to take less to end the hassle. But your issue is not really analogous to what I am describing.

 

[HankLloydRight]

OK, then maybe Tesla should offer owners ~$2k in service credit in exchange for taking FUSC off of their car.

That's another good point. In the early days, Tesla offered free unlimited supercharging to S60 owners for $2000. And they claimed that $1000 of that was for "upgraded hardware" (a dubious claim). So if I were and insurance company looking to put a value on FUSC, I think $2000 would be about the upper limit.

 

[gnuarm]

I think @MP3Mike already answered your question way better than I could.

Insurance companies don't care about why or how you bought or used the car... they're only concerned with current market value.

Replacement value which means they have to compensate for everything that was lost. If you had a $10,000 glass vase in the car that would be compensated as well. The free supercharging is pretty much the same.

I find it odd that so many want to argue about where supercharging has value that should be compensated. I was only asking how to document it.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Replacement value which means they have to compensate for everything that was lost.

Right, and if they even care to humor you on this request, they would find comparable cars, with FUSC of the same trim level and age (they do exist), and compensate you on the fair market value of those cars.

 

[MP3Mike]

There are no comparables. The supercharging is not transferable to a new owner so only older cars would be available with that.

Really? There are no comparable cars? Supercharging is transferrable on a car of the same age. (Well I guess you could have a car in the in-between time period where it was offered but not transferrable.)

 

[gnuarm]

Isn’t free supercharging a “gift” as such I doubt this is gonna fly on any day of the week.

Also supercharging is worth peanuts, in fact it ain’t worth that!! Sure your frying your battery using it all the time so your an edge case but for the other 99% the value during ownership is mini yet the phycological value of free fuel for life is massive yet most never use it.

I live 5mins from a supercharger, I drive past it twice a day on my way to and from work, excluding the first few weeks of ownership when I tested the hell out of it I never use it.

Even as free fuel for life and even if it wasn’t frying my battery the 2/3 hours a week I’d have to sit at The charger, well, I value my time more than that and whilst I get it’s the only option for many, personally if supercharging was my only source of power if I got an EV I’d still be driving an ICE

I'm not sure why you even replied. The is not about your preferences in using supercharging and you certainly don't need to denigrate my choices. I try to supercharge when and where I can do other things with my time like have a meal, shop or just do a little work. No need to be rude.

 

[gnuarm]

So much wrong here.
The idea every Tesla is going to go 300-500k is a delusion. The motor is different than other cars but the rest of it is still just a car and frankly a LOT of vehicles probably the majority go to the boneyard with a functional drivetrain. Yes some ICE and I am certain Tesla's can and do go 300k but those are the exception.

The idea that supercharging destroys a battery is pretty well disproven as well.

That is a point I am prepared to argue. My previous vehicle was a Toyota T100 pickup and had over 250,000 miles before it was hit by a large truck. At that point it was still running well. There is no reason to think the vehicle itself would not be capable of lasting 300,000 or even 500,000 miles. I see no reason why the Tesla vehicles won't last a long time. I might get tired of $195/hour service costs, but the car will run.

 

[gnuarm]

There's a whole buzz about Tesla ratcheting down supercharging rates for folks that have supercharged a lot (over 2325 kwhs).. Tesla describes the throttling as a 'feature' that 'protects the battery from further damage from supercharging.'
So, straight from the source - supercharging is bad for the battery

"Buzz" is the right word. This was one of my first misunderstandings after coming to this forum. Limiting charging rates is only on the 90 kWh battery I believe. It does not apply to my 100 kWh battery. I hope word spreads so other do not continue to believe this.

 

[HankLloydRight]

What I find bizzare is you're asking the insurance company to compensate you on some future predicted use of the car. By the way, what year and model do you have, so we can understand the market?

Let's play a hypothetical game. Say your car is totaled. Say your insurance company compensates you $50,000 for the car, and $30,000 for the "predicted future savings of supercharging for 300,000 miles" (I can't believe I'm even writing that). That's $80,000 in your pocket. Then you decide to go out and buy the exact same model and year car you just had totaled. Are you going to pay the seller $80,000 for it, or $50,000 for it (the fair market value)? Of course you are. Then you total that car, and make the same claim. Lather rinse, repeat. Each time you do that, you're pocketing $30,000. You really think the insurance companies are that dumb? The entire premise is just ridiculous.

 

[gnuarm]

Note: I'm not saying everyone with FUSC is abusing it, but enough people do that it causes problems in some locations.

How can the program be abused??? Are people charging their phones from the superchargers? Or maybe they plug inverters into the 12 DC socket and charge their electric lawn mowers???

Nearly every time I use the car I am going 125 miles or more. The only time I do much local driving is when I am not at home oddly enough. I don't have a place to charge then, so I let the Supercharger be my friend. Very soon the most practical Tesla charger will be an Urban charger which is specifically intended for people who aren't on trips. How will using that be "abuse"? How is any of this "abuse"?

 

[MP3Mike]

How do you know that? I can show a direct cost analysis, so the comparable car issue goes away.

And I can show you a lot of people that gave up FUSC for $5k. So fair market value for FUSC is $5k or less. (Fair market value is the price at which most people would pay for something, so edge cases are excluded in the calculation.)

More than likely the person hitting you is going to have no money and very little coverage, so you might not even get enough to buy a new car. Of course your own insurance may cover you, but they are probably even less likely to be willing to pay for a free service.

 

[gnuarm]

Right, and if they even care to humor you on this request, they would find comparable cars, with FUSC of the same trim level and age (they do exist), and compensate you on the fair market value of those cars.

That's the point... they DON'T provide free unlimited supercharging to the new owner of a comparable car. They just get a car and have to pay for charging, so why would that price be useful to compensate someone for losing a car that included the supercharging?

As I've said, I can document the value of the feature based on the number of miles and the price of that charging. That is very clear to any court.

 

[Fellsteruk]

I'm not sure why you even replied. The is not about your preferences in using supercharging and you certainly don't need to denigrate my choices. I try to supercharge when and where I can do other things with my time like have a meal, shop or just do a little work. No need to be rude.

I’m sorry to break it to you but news flash your on a public forum, anyone posts anything it’s gonna generate replies...

Some you like and some you don’t Maybe your future posts could include a little disclaimer

“Don’t post unless your gonna agree with me!”

 

[HankLloydRight]

That's the point... they DON'T provide free unlimited supercharging to the new owner of a comparable car.

Ok, so please let us know what your car is (year, model, trim, options) so we can see if there is truly not a single comparable car with FUSC out there.

 

[HankLloydRight]

As I've said, I can document the value of the feature based on the number of miles and the price of that charging. That is very clear to any court.

And as we've said, the insurance company couldn't give to *sugars* about what you do. And even if they did, they're not going to pay you on some future predicted use based on your calculations. See my hypothetical scenario above.

 

[AMPd]

OK, then maybe Tesla should offer owners ~$2k in service credit in exchange for taking FUSC off of their car.

Will tesla refund me for selling me a shi**y battery?
If tesla wants me to give up my FUSC, I’m game, they can have the P90D back in exchange for a P100D

Yes I’m still bitter about that, the sales person convinced me to trade in my 85kwh car for a P90D because the battery was supposed to be much better with longer range. What I got was a worse battery with less range.

 

[gnuarm]

I’m sorry to break it to you but news flash your on a public forum, anyone posts anything it’s gonna generate replies...

Some you like and some you don’t Maybe your future posts could include a little disclaimer

“Don’t post unless your gonna agree with me!”

I think it is pretty clear you didn't really read my post. Thy guy complaining that I'm even using Supercharging. I hate to break it to you, but your post is about as pointless as his.

 

[gnuarm]

Ok, so please let us know what your car is (year, model, trim, options) so we can see if there is truly not a single comparable car with FUSC out there.

Ok, it's a 2018 blue X P100DL with full self driving, white interior and grey wheels with 18,000 miles and 72 amp charging. But they stopped offering free supercharging that would convey with the car in 2017 or maybe earlier. At least, that's what I'm told.

 

[gnuarm]

And as we've said, the insurance company couldn't give to *sugars* about what you do. And even if they did, they're not going to pay you on some future predicted use based on your calculations. See my hypothetical scenario above.

Not hypothetical, based on facts. Insurance companies do that all the time. If you can't work, they compensate you for your pay based on expected earnings over your life time. Same sort of thing.

Insurance companies don't care about why or how you bought or used the car... they're only concerned with current market value.

No, the issue isn't resell value, the issue is replacement value. It's not that I am obligated to sell my car at current value. They are obligated to replace the car or compensate me for my loss. The supercharging is part of my loss.

 

[Fellsteruk]

I’ll take advice from a wiser man and stop feeding the trolls so good luck and see ya around.