It's also not a problem that Tesla needs to address. Capacity issues are being addressed by adding capacity. Locals dropping off their car at the supercharger and coming back hours later is being addressed with idle fee. The last 5% of charging just isn't an issue compared to these two things.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Improving Supercharger Availability $0.40 idle fee
- Thread starter Lump
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
hill
high fiber member
maybe that'd be ok in a perfect world. But since we're in the world that we actually live in - we have people like Jerry Seinfeld. He & those like him will always park in the most ideal yet illegal place, simply because he can afford the $100's & $100's in parking violation tickets that he regularly gets.
That being the case, why wait until the stalls are ½ full? The local scofflaws that only care amout "ME" - know exactly which stalls will only run at 20k, 30k or 40k due to needed maintenance. That leaves the duds (the remaining empty stalls) for everyone else. Make it easy for that type and all you do is enable them. So - that behavior being all too common - you charge your car over 90% w/in say 20 miles of home - BAM a buck a minute. Maybe that'll thin out some of this type of dead wood. If only ..... i know - it'll never happen
.
But for some reason the menace of people staying for 6 minutes after charge completion has to be addressed...
The last 5% takes longer than 6 minutes.
I think neither are important. Capacity issues are being addressed, locals dropping cars off for hours would be addressed by a longer grace too... and neither address fully the ICEing problem...
No it does not have to be addressed. If the 2 dollar idle fee is really going to break the bank maybe you should charge somewhere else. Those 30 amp J plugs are really awesome ya know.
If it does not have to be addressed - why address it? It has got nothing to do with $2 or my bank, but about the fact that punitive measures are being directed at unnecessarily wide target.
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
I am confused on the connection between what you are stating and the part of my post you quoted. You could elaborate on the connection between the two of them please to clarify?
hill
high fiber member
if I understand correctly, you feel the grace period needs to be showing even more 'grace' than Tesla's policy already affords. So the quote relates to the generous 'grace' theme. I respect that .... however, & from experience - there are still locations that are regularly being abused - & a substantial portion of those abusers are local - and still don't care to move on, in a timely manner. Because of that abuse - sometimes rules need to apply a heavier hammer. after all, if the SC's is clogged now, one can imagine how bad things will get once model 3's are ramped up. with a more heavy-handed rule in place, there will be no reason for 100's of thousands of M3 owners to cry over a rule that's already in place. Change it later on and the squawking will REALLY begin.
.
.
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
Thank you. That wasn't where I was coming from about this as I wasn't looking at it from an abuser's getting more grace standpoint as opposed to be non-abusing planning.
Most of the instances I have seen where my Supercharging is done early is around 5 minutes early. I suspect much of that is because the timer in the car does 5 minute increments and thus, the rounding changed along the charge session. If they did the latter half of my post and wouldn't charge idle fees until at least the time originally stated in the car, then this likely would be a moot concern. While I haven't gotten charged with any idle fees yet (and if I did, I would simply pay them and move on with my life), that point was in my head b/c my two most frequent Superchargers (Savannah, GA and Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA) the Superchargers are more than a 5 minute walk away from the car the shops one would be in. At both places I've had it finish sooner than expected.
I appreciate you clarifying.
hill
high fiber member
you're welcome. I imagine that the varying user's views on this topic turn on geographic reference to some degree. The SC near our Nashville home sees much less use than SoCal, & users seem more tense in SoCal, & often act more entitled here, than in the s.east.
we saw the same differences in driver's state-of-mind when we had a home in Montana too. In SoCal if you were to have your car disabled in the street, people would likely yell 'idiot' as they pass by. In Montana the next people that happened upon you will automatically get out to help push the car to the side of the road, or get you out of a snowy patch & back on your way.
.
we saw the same differences in driver's state-of-mind when we had a home in Montana too. In SoCal if you were to have your car disabled in the street, people would likely yell 'idiot' as they pass by. In Montana the next people that happened upon you will automatically get out to help push the car to the side of the road, or get you out of a snowy patch & back on your way.
.
Last edited:
@hill I still don't see how a very short grace is somehow needed with real abusers. Locals just leaving the car there for hours would be equally discouraged by @Cyclone's suggested policy of offering a predictable grace period...
If you think the idle charges need to pack a punch, why not increase dollar amount, but adjust the grace to such that it will target the real abusers, not slight misses...
If you think the idle charges need to pack a punch, why not increase dollar amount, but adjust the grace to such that it will target the real abusers, not slight misses...
Last edited:
hill
high fiber member
you mean like a graduated amount, similar to ever-increasing auto insurance the more tickets you get? You may be onto something ....
.
.
you mean like a graduated amount, similar to ever-increasing auto insurance the more tickets you get? You may be onto something ....
.
I was thinking more along the lines of multiplying the $0.40/min - but starting the idle charge only after a sufficient grace that accidental idle charges are minimized (e.g. @Cyclone suggested no idle charges starting sooner that the estimate given by the car)...
I.e. targeting the abusers, not accidentals.
cpa
Active Member
Ranger,
I think that targeting the abusers is a dandy idea. To target the abusers the idle fees need to increase just for them. Perhaps we all get 4 idle charge occurrences at the forty-cent rate per calendar year--then the rates increase.
For example, occurrence 1 - 4: Forty cents per minute.
Occurrence 4 -5: Eighty cents per minute
Occurrence 6-8: One dollar and twenty cents per minute
Occurrence 9+: Two dollars per minute.
These would reset each January 1. Recidivists would have a greater charge starting with occurrence 6, perhaps double the standard rate.
I think that targeting the abusers is a dandy idea. To target the abusers the idle fees need to increase just for them. Perhaps we all get 4 idle charge occurrences at the forty-cent rate per calendar year--then the rates increase.
For example, occurrence 1 - 4: Forty cents per minute.
Occurrence 4 -5: Eighty cents per minute
Occurrence 6-8: One dollar and twenty cents per minute
Occurrence 9+: Two dollars per minute.
These would reset each January 1. Recidivists would have a greater charge starting with occurrence 6, perhaps double the standard rate.
I still say that fingerprint sensors in the charge cable handles could identify abusers and shock them a little more each time they overstay.
cpa
Active Member
I still say that fingerprint sensors in the charge cable handles could identify abusers and shock them a little more each time they overstay.
Or, Tesla could take a page from Nathaniel Hawthorne and his fictional Hester Prynne. Have some sort of hidden external marking on the car that will become visible on the vehicles for the owners who abuse the Superchargers. Perhaps a scarlet "A" for abuser.
We know who you are!
OK guys, I've had enough. I am unsubscribing from this thread. The reactivation of this thread was interesting for a few minutes when someone posted the billing above, but everything else since was a rehash of the same, may I even go far as to say, stupid arguments. If any new and interesting information arrives here, perhaps one of you excellent contributors here could do the courtesy of sending me a PM, and I will jump back in.
@AnxietyRanger , you seem like a super intelligent guy. I am interested in your input, just not in this thread with the same argument over, and over, and over, and over, and over. If I could block you just from this one thread, and nowhere else, I would do that. Since I cannot, I still want to hear from your elsewhere in this forum, I am just leaving this thread.
@AnxietyRanger , you seem like a super intelligent guy. I am interested in your input, just not in this thread with the same argument over, and over, and over, and over, and over. If I could block you just from this one thread, and nowhere else, I would do that. Since I cannot, I still want to hear from your elsewhere in this forum, I am just leaving this thread.
Perfectly understandable, @4SUPER9. Having paid some interest in the dynamic of threads on Internet forums, I think there are basically three reasons why old threads live on:
1) Something new surfaces that restarts an old thread. Indeed, that is what restarted this one some time ago when the Tesla web interface for idle charge payments appeared. This, I guess, is what most would agree is the most legitimate and commonly appreciated reason for an older thread continuing.
2) There are one or few active participants in the thread that pay above-average interest in it and show willigness to participate long after others have lost interest. Obviously I am perhaps the only remaining on this thread, though @KJD too shows great resilience in disagreeing with my every post.
3) New people appear - or older participants return from, say, a vacation - and re-iterate points that have already been made. In this case any responses they get probably would be fair viewed through a different prism than any tit-for-that continuance made in point 2). For old viewers the arguments may be old and many times made, but a new participant often is not versed in them. Retitive responses caused by new posters "ignorant" of the past hashing of those points is, I think, one reason this thread lives on.
If and when a thread is simply about two or three old participants re-hashing the same points, I too am all for agreeing to disagree and withdrawing from a prolonged tit-for-tat.
Point 3) is harder to "combat", since anyone can find the thread at any time and continue remaking points that have already been made. Of course not responding is always an option, but I am not sure that serves the overall interest necessarily. Any forum will have new posters making old questions and comments and it would a very unwelcoming and dull to be only met by silence.
Still, of course, once anyone loses interest, unsubscribing the thread is a very good and understandable decision IMO for them. So I think a good call on your part, if you are losing interest.
Thank you for the interest in my posts, I really appreciate the comment overall. Given the partisan nature of some conversations, it is not at all given that everyone gives and gets such balanced hearing. So, much appreciated.
Similar threads
