An Update to our Supercharging Program

[jgs]

No I don't, on my Windows Phone. There isn't even an official app from Tesla in that regard. So, no, Tesla hasn't checked that box for this driver.

Pretty sure there's also no push notification for people with dumbphones (is that even a word? it should be). Or Blackberries. Or (gasp!) no mobile phone at all, for that matter. SMS would work for the former two, but not the latter. There's also the potential for you to have no coverage, a run-down phone battery, and so on. Should lack of a perfect notification solution prevent them from rolling out this (or similar) program? If I were them I think I'd be inclined to say "the notifications are a courtesy convenience, however the responsibility remains on the driver to know when the charge has finished and move the vehicle".

The time estimate provided when you start charging is often surprisingly accurate, IME. So if you have a watch, or for that matter are good at telling time by the sun, that would maybe also help.

 

[Gizmotoy]

If Tesla moved to a time-based system, it would open up another channel for unnecessary drama related to the taper, ambient temperature, etc.
Then again, Tesla seems to like creating unnecessary drama.

As soon as I saw Elon's tweet about the fee being waived if the Supercharger is nearly empty I suspected it was going to be a problem. They should have just left it black and white, IMO. Because without a rigid guideline now they're going to have to deal with arguments about whether the place was full or empty. And given the way ports are shared between chargers, even a roughly half-empty location could negatively impact an incoming driving if there's one car on each paired stand, save for one pair with two idle cars.

They need some kind of guideline for what "empty" entails that's clear and easy to understand or this is going to be an ongoing source of drama for them.

No I don't, on my Windows Phone. There isn't even an official app from Tesla in that regard. So, no, Tesla hasn't checked that box for this driver.

There are literally dozens of you! I kid. They probably should implement some kind of text notification system, though. They have your contact information in the system. It seems like it'd be relatively straightforward to allow a setting to get text notifications about Supercharging status.

 

[brianman]

There are probably other apps you can't get on a Windows phone as well. Time to get a useful smartphone?

Funny. My point was that the general assertion was incorrect, which I don't believe you've countered.

 

[brianman]

Pretty sure there's also no push notification for people with dumbphones (is that even a word? it should be). Or Blackberries. Or (gasp!) no mobile phone at all, for that matter. SMS would work for the former two, but not the latter. There's also the potential for you to have no coverage, a run-down phone battery, and so on. Should lack of a perfect notification solution prevent them from rolling out this (or similar) program?

My point was very specific re: the incorrect assertion, and not a critique of the overall program.

 

[jgs]

My point was very specific re: the incorrect assertion, and not a critique of the overall program.

OK.

 

[brianman]

They probably should implement some kind of text notification system, though. They have your contact information in the system. It seems like it'd be relatively straightforward to allow a setting to get text notifications about Supercharging status.

Bingo. We have a winner. This is what Chargepoint does.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I like your example. It's funny.

I'm less excited about your optimism that no one will choose fees over moving their car. But apparently since you wouldn't do it, it's not relevant to policy. Which is like one of the coolest new rules of logic ever.

Sorry for the ambiguity, but the context of "you" was specific to Mr. Disagree. Citing a hypothetical that you yourself wouldn't reasonably do is what doesn't work. It's logical in that it would cover most people except for the sociopaths, of which there obviously would be some. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[disagree]

Sorry for the ambiguity, but the context of "you" was specific to Mr. Disagree. Citing a hypothetical that you yourself wouldn't reasonably do is what doesn't work. It's logical in that it would cover most people except for the sociopaths, of which there obviously would be some. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

But if there are only "some" sociopaths, I don't think we'd have this policy in the first place.

Tesla has the data on the individual drivers who overstay after their charge. Notify them that continued abuse will result in fines. Punish them. Send a reminder to the non-sociopaths. Adopting some dumbass fee structure just to deal with what people seem to think is a small number of offenders is foolish. It complicates the already major inconvenience of having to charge an EV and is short-sighted. It creates another thought hurdle for the adoption of EVs. More frequent and longer gas station stops is what it looks like. Relax while you charge at an SC? Like it says on the SC page when I ordered? Nope. Even with open spots? Nope, not unless you want to pay a fee. Don't care about the fee? You can stay for a bit longer. -- which if it is a busy SC in no way solves the problem of congestion. It's absurd.

If the operating assumption is that the model3 release will push the situation over the edge, then start making more ****ing SCs.

 

[disagree]

My feeling is that they did vet it out and develop it. Elon's tweet is just a symptom of a hands-in-it-all CEO publicly interjecting into what was probably a reasonable assumption by the policy team (we don't know exactly what's going on at each Supercharger stall, so determining overall occupancy is difficult). That's just my guess, though.

I think you're probably right. But I still think it can be called a fault.

I think the policy team, having to be aware that occupancy varies dramatically and geographically, should have called boss and said "what should we do about charger stations that are basically empty?" They should have looked at data for proximity of abusers to the SCs that they use. They should have considered the impact this could have on attitudes toward the inconvenience of EV for road trips.

Sorry, to me it is very unimpressive work product.

 

[NOLA_Mike]

If the operating assumption is that the model3 release will push the situation over the edge, then start making more ****ing SCs.

They are building more ****ing SCs. Faster than they ever have before.

Honestly man you seem to be letting this issue bother you up to the point of this ruining your whole ownership experience. It's not worth that.

Mike

 

[disagree]

They are building more ****ing SCs. Faster than they ever have before.

Honestly man you seem to be letting this issue bother you up to the point of this ruining your whole ownership experience. It's not worth that.

Mike

I think my car is pretty neat!

I'm mostly bothered because I care about clean transport and I think this policy is going to hurt. I know the questions I'm asked about my X in my community. I know what matters to people and what they worry about. Minivan parents are going to be turned off by further impediments and changes to long distance travel. You can only change so many things before it becomes too much.

I'm also pretty comfortable with not letting the good enough be the enemy of the better. I think that Tesla is experiencing growing pains in some super odd ways that suggest they don't put the effort into hiring competent thinkers for non-technical issues.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But if there are only "some" sociopaths, I don't think we'd have this policy in the first place.

Tesla has the data on the individual drivers who overstay after their charge. Notify them that continued abuse will result in fines. Punish them. Send a reminder to the non-sociopaths. Adopting some dumbass fee structure just to deal with what people seem to think is a small number of offenders is foolish. It complicates the already major inconvenience of having to charge an EV and is short-sighted. It creates another thought hurdle for the adoption of EVs. More frequent and longer gas station stops is what it looks like. Relax while you charge at an SC? Like it says on the SC page when I ordered? Nope. Even with open spots? Nope, not unless you want to pay a fee. Don't care about the fee? You can stay for a bit longer. -- which if it is a busy SC in no way solves the problem of congestion. It's absurd.

If the operating assumption is that the model3 release will push the situation over the edge, then start making more ****ing SCs.

No, disagree. The fee structure assigns a cost to overstaying at a charger. Let's keep in mind one thing: the supercharger stalls are charging stations, not parking spots. It's about time that people start treating them that way. I agree with the others that perhaps the qualification that Elon made about empty spots shouldn't even be there in order to drive home the point and cause less conflict (now people will argue about how empty other spots were).

The examples you bring of sociopaths are a niche within a niche. Currently there isn't a majority of people charging overstaying, but probably enough that practically every owner has encountered one. Now what is the intersection of the people who overstay at a charger now and willing to pay $24/hour to unnecessarily overstay? I bet it's way less, enough that this policy will virtually eliminate the problem.

The point you miss is that the others suggesting paying it in certain circumstances are for reasonable situations where overstaying may not be intentional, for example you are just 5 minutes over because you were a bit late leaving. The idea of the penalty is to be high enough that you won't do it just on a whim (as people currently do), but not so high you are overly penalized for an honest mistake.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If Tesla moved to a time-based system, it would open up another channel for unnecessary drama related to the taper, ambient temperature, etc.

Then again, Tesla seems to like creating unnecessary drama.

Well I'm in the camp of just making the policy black and white and apply even if there are empty spots (and I feel the overall policy is necessary), but I get that there is a vocal group that don't want to be penalized when other spots are empty. You can't please everyone, but I think Tesla is trying to please the largest group possible.

 

[disagree]

No, disagree. The fee structure assigns a cost to overstaying at a charger. Let's keep in mind one thing: the supercharger stalls are charging stations, not parking spots. It's about time that people start treating them that way. I agree with the others that perhaps the qualification that Elon made about empty spots shouldn't even be there in order to drive home the point and cause less conflict (now people will argue about how empty other spots were).

The examples you bring of sociopaths are a niche within a niche. Currently there isn't a majority of people charging overstaying, but probably enough that practically every owner has encountered one. Now what is the intersection of the people who overstay at a charger now and willing to pay $24/hour to unnecessarily overstay? I bet it's way less, enough that this policy will virtually eliminate the problem.

The point you miss is that the others suggesting paying it in certain circumstances are for reasonable situations where overstaying may not be intentional, for example you are just 5 minutes over because you were a bit late leaving. The idea of the penalty is to be high enough that you won't do it just on a whim (as people currently do), but not so high you are overly penalized for an honest mistake.

No, crazyappstopperman. First of all, your tone is obnoxious. Secondly, it's a really poor attempt to understand the ideas to which you're responding. Frequently, these things go hand in hand.

 

[jgs]

Let's keep in mind one thing: the supercharger stalls are charging stations, not parking spots. It's about time that people start treating them that way.

While I think the overstay fee is probably a good idea, I think "they were always charging stations, not parking spots" is a bit of the old revisionism. You have only to look at how many of them are sited, and where, for evidence. First, they tend to be proximate to places where one does activities that require some time (eating is the obvious one, but movie theaters and such too). Second, they tend to be situated in the low-rent part of the parking lot, a good long way from these attractions. This UI choice suggests a subtext of "plug in, go do your thing, come back to a charged car when you're ready to leave" and not "plug in, go kill some time, run back and move your car, then go finish up". Because if you were going to do that, you'd put the spots as close to the attractions as possible.

It's OK that they are evolving their thinking, but I don't buy the idea that t'were ever thus.

 

[Electroman]

for those who say this idling charge is a bad idea, I hope they find themselves in a hurry - lets say heading to airport for international travel - and then all slots are occupied with a bunch of them finished charging also. i am sure at that moment they will pontificate and admire the virtues of SCs with no restrictions

 

[TexasEV]

Putting the superchargers at a far end of the parking lot was to minimize ICEing. I don't think it had anything to do with how long a car would be parked there. No superchargers are at movie theaters as far as I know-- though some may be at shopping malls that have movie theaters, they weren't placed there for that reason.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No, crazyappstopperman. First of all, your tone is obnoxious. Secondly, it's a really poor attempt to understand the ideas to which you're responding. Frequently, these things go hand in hand.

I get that you do not like the fee structure, that's fine. I just think you are severely overestimating the amount of socialpaths and underestimating the amount of overstaying that currently happens (the type that won't be dissuaded by a simply friendly reminder) in order to justify your argument not to have this policy.

While I think the overstay fee is probably a good idea, I think "they were always charging stations, not parking spots" is a bit of the old revisionism. You have only to look at how many of them are sited, and where, for evidence. First, they tend to be proximate to places where one does activities that require some time (eating is the obvious one, but movie theaters and such too). Second, they tend to be situated in the low-rent part of the parking lot, a good long way from these attractions. This UI choice suggests a subtext of "plug in, go do your thing, come back to a charged car when you're ready to leave" and not "plug in, go kill some time, run back and move your car, then go finish up". Because if you were going to do that, you'd put the spots as close to the attractions as possible.

It's OK that they are evolving their thinking, but I don't buy the idea that t'were ever thus.

Actually the reason to put the spots in "low-rent" parts was precisely so it won't be treated as parking spots (by ICE vehicles primarily, but also by other plug-ins that park there even if they can't or are not charging at the moment).

As for activities, the charging time (typically on the order of 30 minutes, sometimes more) does require something to kill time. So it's usually being put in areas that have activities that last around that long (like meals and shopping). There may be rare exceptions that happen to have longer activities (like movie theaters). But plenty of them are just in rest stops.

 

[jgs]

Putting the superchargers at a far end of the parking lot was to minimize ICEing. I don't think it had anything to do with how long a car would be parked there.

Nevertheless, the incentive to the driver is as I said. (I'm not denying what you say -- both can be true.)

No superchargers are at movie theaters as far as I know-- though some may be at shopping malls that have movie theaters, they weren't placed there for that reason.

Again, it's immaterial what the reason is. The fact is that the Superchargers were placed next to these facilities, and indeed promoted as being close to nice things to do, as a way of mitigating the "but it takes soooooo long to charge compared to pumping gas" concern. Which was fine, but is somewhat awkward now.

If they could come up with some way of discouraging ICEing other than putting the stalls in ultima thule [*], I think it would be sensible in the new world order to put them just as close as possible to the facilities, to make it more reasonable to dash out, move, and dash back.

[*] Nope, I got nothin'. :-(

 

[jgs]

Actually the reason to put the spots in "low-rent" parts was precisely so it won't be treated as parking spots (by ICE vehicles primarily, but also by other plug-ins that park there even if they can't or are not charging at the moment).

Yes, I know, see my reply above.

As for activities, the charging time (typically on the order of 30 minutes, sometimes more) does require something to kill time. So it's usually being put in areas that have activities that last around that long (like meals and shopping). There may be rare exceptions that happen to have longer activities (like movie theaters). But plenty of them are just in rest stops.

I haven't traveled the network far and wide but I haven't been to any in a rest stop. Anyway, yes, I understand all that. My point is that the design choice of putting the chargers far away says to the user "do your activity, then come back when you're done" and not "hustle back as soon as you get a notification". This may be unavoidable (again, see my previous) given the ICEing problem, but at the very least it's suboptimal.