80% cap on supercharging stinks
80% cap on supercharging stinks to high heavens. In my view they broke their promise of 'free unlimited supercharging' which they made at time of pirchase. I know there are people out there who defend Tesla's action and rationalize their action. But this thing really sucks. No ifs and buts.
It takes away my flexibility for medium range trip greatly. It is going to increase the number of stops I have to make and increase the range anxiety. I use supercharges only once a week when I have a need to do 200 to 300 mile round trips. My car is 75D and has only 237 miles capacity. I am pissed they did this. What is next, I wonder.
It takes away my flexibility for medium range trip greatly. It is going to increase the number of stops I have to make and increase the range anxiety. I use supercharges only once a week when I have a need to do 200 to 300 mile round trips. My car is 75D and has only 237 miles capacity. I am pissed they did this. What is next, I wonder.
0
Comments
I’m wondering what parameters Tesla uses to determine if a location is “High Volume”. Is it total Kwh delivered/number of vehicles charged in a 24 hour period; or ownership number/ population density in a defined geographic area; or hours used/ number of stations over 24 hour period.
@polooza..he has a verifiable vehicle log that shows his trips over time, it is my opinion that this type of use should not be limited to 80% but allowed to charge to his comfort level for the distance..we don’t need users having anxiety.
If you log in the Navigation system with an extended trip (say 400 miles round trip), and follow the suggested route, you should be allowed to charge at any SC to your comfort range to reach the next SC..range anxiety on an extended trip and not knowing what you might encounter during that leg sure is uncomfortable. Tesla could build in a scam proof safeguard by having each log in a payment method, dinging those who abandoned the logged in trip.
HOT EMOTIONS HERE TO FOLLOW!
1) Should higher capacity vehicles be limited to 80% charge and 85Kwh packs and less get 100% charge?? Tesla limits the input capacity of 75Kwh packs to 96 K input and unleashes 90-100 Kwh packs to 125 K input (and now even higher). Keep in mind that 80% of 325 miles range is farther (260 miles) than 80% of 236 miles (188 miles) of range. The distance between SCs stays the same, giving me more range anxiety. The higher input packs reach 80% charge in a shorter time period AND have more range. Is that parity??
2) Should a threshold in wh/mile be the metric for limiting the charge rate to 80%?? Consider that I might use 300wh/mile in my MX, I’ll use less Kwh to travel say 100 miles (30 Kwh) than someone using at 450 wh/mile in their MS going the same distance (45 Kwh). They will consume more energy than me over say 100,000 miles: 30,000Kwh vs. 45,000Kwh. Just consider those with Full Unlimited Super Charging (FUSC), someone gets 50% more bang for the buck driving without concern for conservation (limited resources) , but each paid the same initial premium for FUSC. I’ve paid it twice as this is my second Tesla (does this fact get me more carge rate)…surely this one size does not fit all equally.
3) Should FUSC vehicles be limited to 80% charge and paying customers get 100% charge?? They are inputing cash into the expansion of the SC network, but so did those who were first adopters, so what is fare to each constituency?? Who gets credit for getting Tesla off the ground?
We can all chew on these items, and others soon to surface, while we consider where each of us aligns in this debate.
Listen, I am only stating a well published action by Tesla. And it sucks. Doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it, they broke a promise when they reneged on in 'free unlimited charging' no matter how people like to color it.. It is stated in the sales invoice and contract. Plain and simple .
I had bought Tesla in support of their Sustainable energy philosophy. I still believe in that and will continue to believe in that Tesla or not. But I do not support their all of their business practices especially when it comes to going back on their promise made to the customer.
I am considering pulling back my Model Y order that I placed a month ago. Some may say I am bluffing, but I am sure there are Tesla employees lurking in this forum and they are welcome to go verify if I have really placed an order or not.
Now if you jump Tesla to another brand, will you be happy paying sky high charging fees, at far fewer locations and require longer charge times? Seems Tesla is the only game in town - and still dramatically better than anything else.
About half the slots being used -- no waiting.
If you need a roundabout car (i.e. no long distance travel), then the options open up quite a bit. The Leaf has been very successful in this market in the past, but why anyone would pay for a limited-range compact today when for about the same price you can get a Model 3 with far more features seems a bit crazy to me. Still there will be a market at the bottom end, with limited range subcompacts, which oddly seems to be the primary focus of automakers unless you go to the $70-100K category, with an eTron or iPace. It will be fun to watch what ends up working and those that become dead ends. While I expect Tesla will be around for years, I'm far less certain about it's competitors.
Looks like they listened to the customers this time around. I hope they remain customer centric and be clear in what they promise to the customer and keep that promise. That will serve them well into the future. I want them to succeed too.