The second choice. I just wonder if the cost of enforcement will be made up by those who purchase the unlimited option.
I don't think it will cost Tesla anything to enforce any limitations if they are also rolling out short term Supercharging access.
might this not just simply be a case of semantics? I've lost track of how many times I will tell my better half something and she understands it to mean something completely different. Then I have to restate It 2 or 3 times before I get myself to be understood. In the case of Tesla for example, they may have an option for different Chargers on board .... say for example on the model x - you can get a 40 amp or a 72 amp charger. It doesn't come w/one or the other installed. BUT ... some features, like supercharging may simply be a matter of over-the-air software enabling .... thus the "capability to enable" is already there. Ie; it's feature is there - just like their high performance feature is there ... if you so choose to pay for its enabling. This wouldn't be the first time that musk had to go into better detail with fleshing out his statements. .
Realize Tesla has the capability to program the software in every one of their cars. Enforcement mechanisms may be controllable on a car-by-car basis. My feeling is they have considered all the possible abuse scenarios, but resort to addressing them once supercharger access becomes problematic for honest users, not before. Don't forget the original purpose of the superchargers was to show long range EV driving was routine. The cost of some abuse was probably worth it. Now keeping it routine is the new challenge.
For some people, it is expensive. While there are people on PC that won't bat an eye, dropping a few thousand dollars for extra options, there's a large population that don't want to and cannot afford to spend the extra few thousand dollars on options. I wish I was paying hundreds of dollars a year for auto insurance. Auto insurance is expensive up here thanks to our lower population density. (Canada's total population is smaller than the population of California for a comparison)
All they've done so far to alleged abusers is a wrist slap in the form of a letter. They'll have to tread carefully with whatever more poignant, effective measures they're conjuring up. Reducing charging rate has the likelihood of causing more congestion (those looking for such freebies often don't value their own time) while cutting off people altogether will probably leave some stranded (I like this option better since local abusers will typically be in/near metro areas where alternative charging is relatively easy to find, or even at the owner's own home if they're despicable enough to be abusing even when having easy access to their own infrastructure).
I'd find it likely for Tesla to add contractual language to future sales to prevent deadbeat supercharger camping. For example, if you charge a certain amount of kWh's within (for example) 75 miles of home w/in any given month, then your subsequent usage for the next (example) 30 days will be charged at a rate of 79¢ per kWh. That's just enough of a teeny penalty to stop the cheapskates, & effectively unclog usage for legitimate usage. .
Totally agree. There are a lot of other options (e.g. Free supercharging only x times over y duration at one location?). The part needing clever thinking is ensuring good users don't feel any restrictions due to abusers. Tesla may do something making it clear they are protecting the car/battery from a careless owner misunderstanding supercharger overuse.
I'm not registering to read the negative nancies. If they need to spam me to get me to read their verbal diarrhea, too damn bad.
That article says that not all prospective buyers will find fueling their Tesla will be cheaper. I would agree with that. However, for many, it is WAY cheaper. Also, many people want to drive Tesla or a BEV fuel cost savings aside. You hear many reports of people still wanting to plug in their PiP on here even when gas was cheap and it was about the same cost either way. Until you extensively drive in EV, you won't know how much better it feels.
yes - the article states the obvious. Heavily subsidized gas costs - are less expensive right now, in the teeny areas where electricity costs are high ... unless they have solar, which many who buy Tesla already have. And if they charge with a gasoline generator... lo and behold that's more expensive too! Geee! Who knew! But if we feed those who troll for a reaction - they'll always depend on you to feed them. So best not to feed the trolls. When they post drivel - it's best to either write no response, or write, "wow that's wonderful ... thank you so much ... I'd have never guessed that such a 1 in a 1000 scenario could ever happen. Looking forward to your next authoritative find" .
"So [it'] best not to feed the trolls. When they post drivel - it's best to write no response ........ " Great idea!
'Capability to enable' does not 'Supercharging standard' make. They know this because they said 'autopilot hardware included' not auto-piloting, when that was being offered was not functional autopilot. Elon is an engineer, I don't expect to have to de-spin his words. But if you think you can, tell me how "Supercharging is standard" can be spun to mean, just some wires, you can't actually plug the car into a supercharger and have it charge the car. Thank you kindly
The Leaf can be had with Chademo. A Chademo charger doesn't have to charge the car just because it has the receptacle for the plug. There are some free ones, but others require additional payment. Why would saying the car has the Supercharger equipment automatically mean the charger will supply electricity without additional payment? It appears many have conflated the Supercharger hardware on the car with the Supercharger network, when they are two separate things. Being an engineer, Elon probably thought he was being clear by not saying network, but the crowd doesn't work with the precise definitions of an engineer, and needed clarification.
Musk and Tesla made ambiguous statements about Supercharging and the Model 3. They have had ample opportunity to clarify and they have not done so. We shall apparently have to wait until they are ready to say more.
I don't see what is ambiguous about Supercharger standard, when the equivalent from Nissan would be Chademo standard. Would people think Nissan is giving them free fast DC charging with their new Leaf?
I've read most of the post on this thread, and I can't find a credible reason to support the title .. "Why I won't buy a Tesla 3." There is a similar thread about what I don't like about the Toyota Prime. Why all the negativity? I can say with certainty, I will not buy a Tesla 3 until it is released.
As a reservation holder, I just hit the 50,000 mile mark on the 2012 C yesterday, so by 2018 I hope to be able to make the EV upgrade.
