Tesla Is Prohibiting Commercial Drivers From Using Its Supercharger Stations (theverge.com) 282
Tesla has issued a new policy called Supercharger Fair Use, which prohibits new commercial drivers from using the red-and-white charging ports. The reason behind this new policy is to help alleviate congestion and improve the experience for others who rely on the Supercharging services. The Verge reports: Tesla says that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work, and that when they're not used for this purpose, "it negatively impacts the availability of Supercharging services for others." Thus, the new policy says that for vehicles purchased after December 15th, drivers who plan to use their vehicles as a taxi, for ridesharing, commercial delivery or transportation, governmental purposes, or other commercial ventures won't be permitted to use the free stations. The company tracks usage and driver behavior, and if they find that someone isn't complying with the policy, they might be asked to stop, and simply limit or block one's vehicle from the stations in certain instances. The policy went into effect on Friday, December 15th, 2017. A Tesla spokesperson said that the company does "encourage the use of Teslas for commercial purposes," and that they will work with drivers to find other places to charge their vehicles. The policy carve out an exception, saying that some stations might be excluded, depending on local circumstances.
Well Damm, there goes my life (Score:3)
What about my Uber business? I don't have a charger at home guys but I got to Uber to eat!
Re: (Score:2)
You'll just have to find some other location to plug your car in to charge it. Like overnight while you are not driving: it's perfectly possible to fully charge a Tesla overnight on a "slow" AC charger. Do a deal with some place that has an outlet you can use.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm is lost on you I guess... Who would use a tesla to drive Uber? It would be a Horrible business idea...
Re: (Score:3)
Funny enough, I got an UberPOOL from the San Jose airport last year, and it ended up being a Tesla Model S.
Re: Well Damm, there goes my life (Score:2)
You might be surprised. There are definitely some Uber Tesla cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but we're going to make it up in volume!
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that matters for a taxi is cents per kilometer (or mile). And it needs to be compliant to regulations. Otherwise, they don't care. So apparently quite a few taxi drivers did the math. Maintenance for vehicles that drive around a lot is a large part of the picture. Depreciation even more but the standard taxi cabs are just as expensive (over here at least it's mostly Mercedes-Benz or Audi) and certainly have a lot more in maintenance cost.
Taxi drivers usually can count. If they drive a Tesla i
Re: (Score:3)
Then sell your $100,000 car and you'll be able to eat for several years.
Seriously, no one with a Tesla is going to starve if they can't charge at the free stations.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, that sarcasm I tried must not be very obvious...
Re: (Score:2)
The sarcasm didn't escape me. I just wanted to add emphasis to the point that there's no such thing as a poor Tesla owner.
Would anyone think it an outrage if Mercedez or BMW stopped giving away free gas for commercial use?
Re: (Score:3)
What about my Uber business? I don't have a charger at home guys but I got to Uber to eat!
This quote from Tesla's "Fair Use" policy appears to indicate that you're screwed:
To help ensure that Superchargers are available for their intended use, we ask that you not charge your vehicle using a Supercharger if your vehicle is being used:
Re: (Score:2)
Which is quite weird given the fact that they are actively advertising [tesla.com] that, "soon", you will be able to let your Tesla generate income for you driving other people around on autopilot while you are at work or on vacation.
OK, I do understand that they don't want you to drive around taxis for free, but surely if you pay for it, there shouldn't be any problem? The way I read it, you can't even use superchargers at all, not even if you pay for the electricity. I thought they considered taxi companies to be gre
Re: (Score:2)
But if you read the terms and conditions, it says that it may only be used in that way on Tesla's ride-sharing network, not Uber or Lyft. So they get a cut. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
What about my Uber business? I don't have a charger at home guys but I got to Uber to eat!
Ehmm. Get a job and stop working for organized crime?
Or if you like to continue doing crime and working for organized crime, have you considered selling drugs?
Car ownership? (Score:2, Insightful)
The more I read about how Tesla treats their customers and the cars the "sell" to them, it really looks like you lose nearly all privacy and that the car you spent a ton of money on is never, ever truly yours.
Electric, self-driving cars, are where the future is headed, however, all of this tracking will make me never purchase Tesla or any other car that tracks this much data. They have no right to know I stopped by "dildos r us" right before I went to visit my friend in prison.
Re:Car ownership? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have a smartphone ?
Re: (Score:2)
>Do you have a cellphone?
Fixed that for you. Smartphones are certainly far worse about it, making it relatively easy for world+dog to track you 24/7 if you install their app, but any cellphone will provide for moderately detailed tracking by the provider as a necessary part of its functioning. You can't receive phone calls unless they know where you are at all times.
Furthermore, as I recall *all* cell phones sold for the last many years in the US are required by law to have GPS trackers built in under
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a smartphone ?
Yeah, but it comes with a portable charger that I own, and don't need to loan from someone in order for my phone to be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a smartphone ?
I do. Strangely, it doesn't keep track of when and where I charge my electric car.
Don't worry, there's an App for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't electric vehicles, it's a scummy company that abuses their technology, but that is hardly limited to one company at this point it's pretty much universal that all companies these days believe they are entitled to all the benefits of a full sale (full payment, no obligations for maintenance, or liability for the product after the date of sale) with none of the drawbacks (lack of control of how the item is used, inability to gain additional revenue from the product after sale, inability to c
Welcome to the future. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a tell about the future of automobile transport:
The company tracks usage and driver behavior, and if they find that someone isn't complying with the policy, they might be asked to stop, and simply limit or block one's vehicle from the stations in certain instances.
Just as privacy was destroyed in personal communication, so to shall it be for transportation. I own a 1996 Chevy. I do not have to tell Chevy where I drive, nor do they get a say in where I go. They cannot block my car from certain destinations even if they wanted to.
We are on the cusp of a world where companies track everyone's driving. Arguably telecom companies already do that, but it's rapidly expanding in car companies, with GM Onstar, the Tesla system above, etc. Not only that, they will grant themselves veto power over your use of your automobile. Violate the Terms of Service? No more driving for you.
The ownership era is drawing to a close in every area, from phones, to cars, to appliances, to (legally owned) entertainment media.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is not talking about limiting where people can drive, they're talking about limiting their ability to use free charging stations. So the proper comparison would be that right from the moment you bought your car, Chevy told you that you couldn't go to their free gas stations.
Re: (Score:2)
One can receive signals and use existing onboard maps to determine routes and other information. There's no need to transmit that information to anyone else.
All you can eat (Score:2)
All you can eat [1] buffet.
[1] Small print: Does not apply to fuckmungous fat bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
One thin mint?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it waffuer thin?
Re: (Score:2)
If only Tesla had thought to put fine print on their "Free, unlimited, supercharging for life" claim you'd be right. But they didn't.
That said, it seems this only applies to new purchasers, so for once they aren't illegally screwing over their existing customers like they've done so many other times in the past.
Hold off on the anger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> When is the last time you saw a big rig pull up to your local Chevron to fill up its gas tank?
Never, because it's not sized for big rigs.
However I've seen plenty of U-Hauls, taxis, delivery vans, and so forth .
Time for some Econ 101... (Score:2)
Elon Musk is a smart guy, but he's pricing charging-equipped parking spaces below market equilibrium and then wonders why people sit in them all day.
All he has to do is install sensors and price each charging-equipped parking space a variable rate that maintains a roughly 15% vacancy at all times, like what San Francisco does [sfpark.org]. This encourages turnover and serves the maximum possible number of people.
It's like the tunnel he wants to build to bypass Los Angeles traffic. What will he do when that new tunnel ge
Almost seems backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
Tesla says that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work, and that when they're not used for this purpose, "it negatively impacts the availability of Supercharging services for others." Thus, the new policy says that for vehicles purchased after December 15th, drivers who plan to use their vehicles as a taxi, for ridesharing, commercial delivery or transportation, governmental purposes, or other commercial ventures won't be permitted to use the free stations.
If there's anyone who needs fast-charging stations I'd expect it to be the commercial drivers. A typical commuter can easily recharge at home or work after they parked. But a commercial driver can have 8+ hours of sustained use during the day. Unless they can swap cars part way they're going to have to re-charge during the work day. And the time spent re-charging is directly counted in their pay.
If commercial drivers are swamping the fast-charging stations it's because they desperately need them for their Teslas to be a viable option.
Re:Almost seems backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's anyone who needs fast-charging stations I'd expect it to be the commercial drivers.
If there's anyone who should be paying for their own electricity instead of getting it for free, I'd expect it to be the commercial drivers.
Unless they can swap cars part way they're going to have to re-charge during the work day.
A $500 Tesla wall charger can charge at one-quarter the speed of a Supercharger. A private commercial Supercharger is available that can charge at half the speed of a Tesla public Supercharger.
If commercial drivers are swamping the fast-charging stations it's because they desperately need them for their Teslas to be a viable option.
0) The change isn't retroactive, so current users can continue to do what they have been doing.
1) The cost for electricity to run a Tesla is roughly one-third the cost of gasoline to run a similar gasoline car. A commercial user will save money operating a Tesla even if they need to invest in a private charging solution.
2) For the Tesla semi truck, they will build out special truck charging stations with the new truck charging connector. Those will not offer unlimited free power, but Tesla says that the new semi will pay for itself within two years just on the cost savings vs. buying diesel fuel for a conventional semi truck.
Re: (Score:2)
If commercial drivers are swamping the fast-charging stations it's because they desperately need them for their Teslas to be a viable option.
1. Offer free service
2. Make it pay service
3. PR backlash
vs
1. Offer free service
2. Cancel free service
3. Drivers: OMG the sky is falling
4. Tesla: Well, okaaaaaaay... on a limited, commercial basis
5. Drivers: OMG that's a lifesaver
After all, many non-supercharger hogging commercial drivers probably have the same long tail problems regular consumers have. When you really need a supercharge vs. being stuck for hours on a slow charger you're probably quite willing to pay for those exceptions. I'll be completely
Tesla is not being unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read through the commentary so far. Sheesh, people, did Tesla kill your father [youtube.com] or something?
Tesla has offered unlimited use of the Superchargers to most of their customers. They initially offered it to everyone, then they announced a change ahead of time (and not retroactive). Then they decided to make their deal more generous, and just to make sure the more-generous deal applied to everyone they announced a one-time retroactive change [electrek.co] to give unlimited Supercharger use to all Model S and Model X customers as of that date.
Unlimited use of the Supercharger goes with the car, so every car that ever had it still has it. Buy a used Tesla that has unlimited Supercharger use, you get that benefit. This hasn't changed.
Now they announced their "Supercharger Fair Use" policy [tesla.com] that commercial users will no longer be permitted unlimited free use of the Superchargers... and that's only on new sales of Tesla cars, so anyone who has already been running a business and using the Superchargers is still being allowed to continue doing it.
What if you want to buy a Tesla in 2018 and use it for a business? You still can, just install a Tesla wall connector [tesla.com] and you can charge the car from empty to full in less time than it takes you to get a good night's sleep. (If you have a 240 Volt circuit with enough Watts you can charge a Tesla at one-quarter the speed of a Supercharger... at your home or business!)
What if you want to operate a whole fleet of Teslas as a taxi service or something? Tesla will sell you a private Supercharger station you can set up. Rumor has it a two-station Supercharger costs about $60K, and rumor has it that Tesla might give it free with a bulk purchase of 10 cars:
https://electrek.co/2016/10/03/tesla-to-deliver-its-largest-privately-owned-supercharger-station-to-a-taxi-fleet-in-montreal/ [electrek.co]
To those of you wailing that Tesla can control who uses their Supercharger stations: yeah, they can, but so far they haven't abused this in any way; and they can't stop you (and don't want to stop you) from setting up your own charging solution.
It's true that gas stations don't control who can get gas there. But they don't give the gas for free to anyone... they charge money which is why they don't care who gets it. Also, gas stations are pretty well built-out everywhere, while Tesla is frantically building new Supercharger stations; IMHO Tesla is looking after their ordinary customers by trying to keep a few users from disproportionately using the Superchargers.
And note that all Telsas can use all the other charging stations for all the other cars, with an adapter. If you are so worried about the Supercharger, get a CHAdeMO adapter [tesla.com]; this will charge a Tesla about half as fast as a Supercharger station, which is still pretty darn fast.
If you read all the above and you still think Tesla is doing something wrong here, I'm really curious as to just what it might be. Maybe you think Tesla should promise to just give free unlimited power forever to everyone without limit? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
No battery swap? (Score:2)
I once saw an animation of how one would drive a Tesla up to the charging station where a robot arm reaches up from below and swaps out the depleted battery for a charged one. Did they not go with that? It seems that would eliminate the wait times hogging a charging cord.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the battery lifetime then? 5 years? Because that's when you deprecate more than half of the value of a normal car. After 10 years you're below 20%.
Tesla battery is at 92% on average after 220000 km and slowly going down with 1% every 20000 km. I drive about 40000 km per year at most, 30000 on average. I might notice a drop in battery life in, say, 15 years. That's not going to noticeably impact depreciation.
Also, my batteries in the Prius hybrid are not as good as those of the Tesla, but Toyota n
Bitcoin miners (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they forbid the use of Tesla chargers to mine bitcoins, just like some people abuse subsided electricity in Venezuela [businessinsider.fr]?
The car with a Terms Of Service (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Toyota is switching back to batteries. that should tell you something.
Where did you read that? (Score:3)
Toyota is staying with hydrogen [greencarreports.com] according to the most recent article I could find on the matter (April 2017).
Maybe you are thinking of Daimler? Although you should really read the whole article I linked to, in order to understand what Daimler is saying.
I can see some short term support going to all electric cars because of Tesla worrying other car makers. But long term physical reality dictates the end game, and all car makers know it.
There will always be all-electric cars mind you, they just will not be
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I was wrong. I thought I read somewhere that the new CEO wasn't big on hydrogen; but I certainly don't see any hydrogen cars.
Why don't you try looking? Or reading? (Score:2)
but I certainly don't see any hydrogen cars.
LMGTFY [toyota.com]
But really if you'd simply have read the article I link to, you'd know that and also know Toyota's hydrogen ramp-up plan which is clearly spelled out. I believe 30k hydrogen cars a year by 2030 as they slowly ramp up fuel cell production while better forms of electrolysis are worked out for the supply side.
I guess you prefer to be the anti-Tyrian though - you drink and remain ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen one in real life. I DO however see tesla's DAILY.
Re: (Score:2)
but I certainly don't see any hydrogen cars.
You need to look up, not straight. Their hydrogen flying cars are kinda sorta a hybrid blimp and car.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be nice to own a car very few people will ever own.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't see any hydrogen cars.
You have to live near one of the existing fueling stations to be able to buy one. The guy down the street from me has two Mirais. I'm on the waiting list for a Clarity.
Why is no one opting for the Hyundai Tucsons?
Re: (Score:2)
All-electric destroys the service revenue that dealers and manufacturers enjoy. Using hydrogen also maintains the need to dig something up, move it, and then sell it at a floating variable price.
The car makers are so deeply in bed with the fossil fuel industry that swapping to all-electric would be a very nasty breakup indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Toyota is staying with hydrogen [greencarreports.com] according to the most recent article I could find on the matter (April 2017)"
There was a joint announcement last week by Toyota & Panasonic that they're considering collaborating on advanced prismatic Li-on batteries with a goal of 4.5 million electrified cars, hybrid, BEV, etc by 2030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Toyota's Hydrogen vehicles will never be sold outside California and exist simply to comply with California's zerio emission mandate.
Prior plans had been to build and deploy more hydrogen vehicles, but the single model produced will be the only model produced and a battery electric model (something they swore they'd never do) is under development now. The statement you found was simply an affirmation they made to keep people building hydrogen fueling stations and calm providers that had been assured of thei
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought would be in favor of the gasoline car is that Chevron cannot remotely disable my ability to fuel up at any of their gas stations!!!
Chevron isn't primarily a car manufacturer, though, is is?
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You don't WANT that many fast chargers. In fact, there's at least three reasons why you want fast charging to be the LEAST frequently used charging option.
it's just that in the end most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based
Given the overall ride statistics, the opposite seems the more likely option.
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought would be in favor of the gasoline car is that Chevron cannot remotely disable my ability to fuel up at any of their gas stations!!!
Chevron isn't primarily a car manufacturer, though, is is?
Your point? That's an advantage in getting fuel from Chevron isn't it? - which was the OP's point.
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You don't WANT that many fast chargers. In fact, there's at least three reasons why you want fast charging to be the LEAST frequently used charging option.
And those three reasons are ?
Re: (Score:2)
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You don't WANT that many fast chargers. In fact, there's at least three reasons why you want fast charging to be the LEAST frequently used charging option.
And those three reasons are ?
Not the GP, but that I can think of:
-Fast charge is harder on the batteries than a trickle charge. So your batteries won't wear out as quick.
-Trickle charging overnight can help stabilize the peak demand from the electrical utilities (usually demand is highest during the day, low over night). In a fictitious Utopian world you could charge at a discount rate where the utility could switch on and off your charger based on total grid supply vs. demand, especially with unreliable renewables like wind. If you're
Re: (Score:2)
Making it is easy. I can do it with what's on my desk right here.
But storing and transporting it is a cowbag of a job - it leaks through anything and totally fucking knacks some metals. From a theoretical point of view the easiest way is to stick it to strings of carbon, but that's just crazy talk.
Re: (Score:2)
Last week someone came up with a new way to bind a chemical to hydrogen, turning it into a rather weird powder. Then you can turn it into a fluid with a solvent and suddenly the hydrogen releases. Can't find it now though.
If they can make it work, hydrogen is a go. That would make fossil fuel companies very, very happy.
Re:How very Google of them (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Tesla the manufacturer's point is that commercial users should set up their own infrastructure, or should contract as a business expense for someone else's commercial infrastructure. It harms the totality of the electric car market by letting one fairly small segment of the market monopolize the recharging stations.
If I interpret this right, this is not the same as Chevron stating that one could not fuel-up because Tesla is giving the electric power to the customer, not charging them for it. If Chevron gave away fuel but wanted to charge commercial users would that be different?
Around here there are the normal gas stations for regular drivers, and there are perhaps one to two special gas stations for commercial accounts in a 50 sq mile area. These commercial fuel stations don't have convenience stores, don't have attendants, don't even have credit card readers. One has to have an existing account to get fuel, and enter credentials at the pump to activate it. This sort of setup would make sense for commercial electric users too, where they don't charge their cars at their residences or at their places of business.
Re:How very Google of them (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Tesla the manufacturer's point is that commercial users should set up their own infrastructure
In fact, that's apparently one of the reasons why they opened up their patents. So that companies could build these things in their parking lots etc.
Point is expectations and reality (Score:3)
I think that Tesla the manufacturer's point is that commercial users should set up their own infrastructure
I agree that's a salient point, however consider its from the consumer side - you buy a Tesla with the promise you can use the supercharger stations.
Let's say I just like to drive around a lot for fun. Suddenly the Tesla system profiles me as making a lot of daily trips and suddenly I'm put in the Tesla charging jail, and cannot use the stations anymore! That is a pretty nerve-wracking concept to me,
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'm going to bet that they err on the side of not placing drivers on the commercial list.
Why would you believe that? In fact, if their supercharger networks starts to get overused, they would have every reason to err on the side of placing as many drivers as possible ON the commercial list.
Re: (Score:2)
The reasoning behind this move, which if you think about it was inevitable, is the reason why I still think all cars being put electric is infeasible. You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I think that there is a valley where there are too many electric cars for chargers, but not enough of the market has switched to have a huge push for ubiquitous chargers.
There is also an issue where people don't move their cars after charging (because no one wants to hang around 30-minutes) that will only get worse, even at for-pay chargers. I imagine in the future you aren't charged by energy, but by time instead.
Re: (Score:2)
the roads are lined with power lines. under- and above ground. where ever there are parking spaces, there will be chargers. chargers are 2(or even 3) orders of magnitudes cheaper than gas stations.
Re: (Score:2)
chargers are 2(or even 3) orders of magnitudes cheaper than gas stations.
You need a reality check, and we need a citation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you apply for the Tesla charger to put one up at your parking lot, you get one free. No need to buy another. So it's infinitely cheaper.
Second, gas stations in densely populated areas are not recommended and often can't get zoning permits. No problem for the charger.
Third, gas stations need very expensive street coverings to prevent oil spills and fuel spills contaminating the ground water. No problem for the charger.
I think 2-3 times cheaper is an understatement, depending on where you live. Locally, I'
Probably a big reason for self-driving car tech (Score:3)
There is also an issue where people don't move their cars after charging
I always assumed that pretty shortly the Tesla cars will simply move themselves out of the way when charged... not even joking, as supercharger throughput is going to be an issue sooner rather than later.
I can also see someone going to a restaurant, the car driving over when a space is free, then driving back to collect the occupants when done, that way you don't need a lot of extra parking around the supercharger station itself.
Re: (Score:2)
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone
It might be possible if we let go of the 'gas station' model for distribution. For instance, what if all the other parking lots for restaurants, shopping centers, etc. had charging ports at every spot? Sure it will take some time to build out, but not impossible.
There's a reason for the model we have (Score:2)
For instance, what if all the other parking lots for restaurants, shopping centers, etc.
I'm sure that all these extremely thin margin businesses will be delighted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade every low-tech parking sport to a high-tech charging spot that now requires wiring, vastly more electricity and an order of magnitude more expensive upkeep than paving. Oh, and they get to give away all that electricity for free to add to the fiscal overhead fun!
Sure it will take some time to bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I'm sure that was also the case with gas stations when they first came on the scene.
Re: (Score:2)
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I'm sure that was also the case with gas stations when they first came on the scene.
The popularity of IC engined cars grew very slowly, over decades, in fact you could say over a century. OTOH, the advocates of EVs are screaming that they want the change from IC to happen almost overnight.
Re:How very Google of them (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not "hard" to make hydrogen. Hydrogen is made from natural gas. The problems is that natural gas is a better fuel for cars than hydrogen in almost every aspect. It is readily available, you don't have to have super high pressure to get decent energy density, natural gas engines are cheaper to make... Reforming natural gas into hydrogen releases the carbon in natural gas into the atmosphere anyway, so there is no potential reduction in green house gasses. What possible advantage does hydrogen offer?
Re: (Score:2)
What possible advantage does hydrogen offer?
Marketing, and it's been amazingly successful at that.
There are all sorts of suckers who will line up for a hydrogen car, but nobody wants a natural gas one.
Hydrogen is a HORRIBLE idea for vehicle use for dozens of different reasons, but marketing has successfully convinced the politicians, much of the general population, and apparently some slashdotters, that it's a good plan.
Yeah, not hydrogen (Score:2)
Or, you know, water. Which releases.... oxygen.
But not to worry. No one's going to use hydrogen in any serious way. The transport and storage issues are a brick wall.
The tech that's going to be transformative here is either batteries with a decent lifecycle and energy density (neither of which are really quite there yet in commercially available batteries, anyway), or ultracaps, which already have the lifecycle absolutely covered, but aren't even close in terms of energy den
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, why not?
still support electric cars mind you; it's just that in the end most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based, where you can fuel up in a reasonable timeframe just like cars today.
So, instead of just installing new ele
Re: (Score:2)
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You can while only an elite few run electric cars. When that phase passes the fights at the public charging points begin. Stock up your popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a fast charger to "fuel up". Most people are happily charging at home and every morning their car is fully charged.
Routinely using a fast charger would be as painful as having to drive to a gas station and pump gas.
Hydrogen is too inefficient which makes it too expensive. $14 for the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas and MPGe ratings 1/2 that of pure electric vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Routinely using a fast charger would be as painful as having to drive to a gas station and pump gas.
Personally I don't find it as painful as having a car that takes hours to fill.. Even if it is in my garage. Because that introduces a risk at some point that I will need my car and it won't be charged. That's bad enough with a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
When just about every parking space has a charger (not necessarily a fast charger), the demand for fast chargers will be less.
Many EV owners now only charge at home (typically overnight) or only very rarely on a fast charger.
Also longer EV range and faster fast chargers (so you don't have to be on for so long) are coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Hnt: YES (Score:5, Informative)
Are they expensive to install? YES THEY ARE [insideevs.com].
That's also ignoring the cost of getting wiring TO each spot, and the huge additional burden of ongoing maintenance all of the wiring and chargers entail.
So what's the hold-up? I'd say it's the complete lack of demand.
There are already areas with high Tesla ownership running into issues [insideevs.com]. There's plenty of demand in places, but why would there be a rush to build out expensive support that no-one will be paying for?
Unlike your fantasies, I have resources to back up what I am saying, not to mention simple common sense for anyone that spends ten minutes on the thought experiment of what it means to wire every spot (or even just most spots) in a parking lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If every parking lot would provide a charging port at every parking spot, it would be a marginal increase in installation costs (compared to the price of a commercial building, it's nothing)
You don't need a "commercial building" for gas filling. You can do it with open air self-service pumps taking credit cards. The "commercial buildings" associated with gas pumps (at least in my part of the world) sell groceries and stuff, which is a money-spinning sideline. Also, gas stations usually have canopies to attract customers by keeping them dry while they are self-service filling - expect the same at roadside re-charging stations when they become commercially competative.
Re: (Score:2)
The non-ev competition for that roadster has less range, costs around 4x as much and requires even lower speeds if you don't want a pitstop every 2-3 rounds on the track. Comparing the roadster to a sedan is like comparing a ferrari to my prius: sure, the ferrari has worse mileage. Wanna trade?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a $250K car that can go as far as a typical midsize sedan without stopping, as long as you only have one passenger and don't go too fast ... /s
In other words, Porsche's sport car business model
Re:That's what I love with modern society (Score:5, Informative)
First, you can do whatever you want with what you buy, but you didn't buy a supercharger. You can decide when you have the right to fill up on your own charger or use someone else's charger according to their rules.
Second, you didn't RTFA because it said for vehicles purchased after December 15th, the new rules shall apply. Meaning that no one that already purchased a Tesla is having the rules changed after the purchase.
Finally, the rule makes a lot of sense to me. If superchargers are getting contested and if a significant fraction are used by a small percentage of users, it's reasonable to makes rules to ensure they are more readily available.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, the rule makes a lot of sense to me. If superchargers are getting contested and if a significant fraction are used by a small percentage of users, it's reasonable to makes rules to ensure they are more readily available.
By the same logic it makes a lot of sense for an ISP to make rules about how the internet should be used in order to prevent a small percentage of users from using too much resources.
However, in this case, there are laws against it... oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
By the same logic it makes a lot of sense for an ISP to make rules about how the internet should be used in order to prevent a small percentage of users from using too much resources. However, in this case, there are laws against it... oh wait.
You do realize there's a difference between saying you'll deliver unlimited Internet and then not actually delivering it, versus saying you'll no longer deliver unlimited Internet then do just that?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually even under the old Net Neutrality rules, ISPs could engage in network management by throttling or deprioritizing the data of very heavy users. In many cases, this is necessary to maintain service for everyone else.
What they should not be allowed to do is discriminate based on the destination of that data. A byte is a byte is a byte. But if you are using up way more than all your neighbors, and the link is congested, it makes sense to put your bytes last in line. That's the only fair way to manage a
Re: (Score:3)
The rules don't apply retroactively, only to new purchases. Nobody had the rug pulled out from under them.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't doing this to existing users. They're grandfathered in, much like how I'm grandfathered in to free charging for the life of my vehicle. It's only for NEW vehicles. It's their network, not yours. You're free to charge wherever you like. If a driver wants free electricity when driving for Uber or Lyft, then Uber or Lyft should pay for it, not Tesla. Tesla should not have to subsidize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just don't buy the Tesla. At least they are grandfathering in older vehicles, so no, they aren't changing things on the fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Not this time, they've done that in the past though.
This is probably one of the only times that Tesla has actually followed the reasonable approach and made a change only for future customers. Most of the time they just pull the rug out from under their existing customers, who cares what they were originally promised or sold?
Re:That's what I love with modern society (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit over the top... TFA says NEW commercial drivers. So, if you become an Uber driver after this policy is in place, you have no-one to blame. In any case, people should never have had the expectation that Tesla would subsidize the fuel costs for their Uber business indefinitely. As usual in 'modern society', a small subset of users, intent on pushing the absolute limit of any arrangement, screws things up for everyone else. Complain to those Tesla drivers, not to the company that provided a pretty cool ownership perk and trusted people not to abuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, people should never have had the expectation that Tesla would subsidize the fuel costs for their Uber business indefinitely. As usual in 'modern society', a small subset of users, intent on pushing the absolute limit of any arrangement, screws things up for everyone else. Complain to those Tesla drivers, not to the company that provided a pretty cool ownership perk and trusted people not to abuse it.
For new drivers, apparently you are correct, however your wording seems to imply existing customers should have no expectation. That's untrue. Tesla explicitly sold those customers free, unlimited, supercharging for life. There was no fine print of any form on that claim.
So yes, they have every right to park in a supercharger stall with the cable connected 24/7 if they want. That's what they were sold, that's what they paid for. I'm not saying that Tesla *SHOULD* have sold that, but they did, and it's not t
Re:That's what I love with modern society (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not stopping anyone from charging the cars, they are just stopping them from 'abusing' ... If you left your car parked in front of the diesel pump for half an hour after filling the tank, the gas station would be within their rights to say 'you cannot fill up here anymore'
So the idea that you would go and eat a meal etc while your car was charging is dead in the water. You must hover by your car then, to move it away from the charging point as soon as it is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You bought a supercharger station? Also...did you catch that this only affects commercial services, not individual owners?
I think you meant, "TODAY it doesn't affect individual owners.
There are a couple of statements you should be paying attention to: (1) "Tesla says that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work"; (2) "The company tracks usage and driver behavior, and if they find that someone isn't complying with the policy, they might be asked to stop, and simply limit or block one's vehicle from the stations in certain instances."
If they're tracking usage and driver
Re: (Score:2)
That seems rather unlikely though, doesn't it?
There's a world of difference between "I drive around town in relatively unpredictable patterns all day, every day, and use superchargers regularly" -i.e. a taxi service, and "I normally spend large amounts of time parked at a few constant locations, charging from non-superchargers, and occasionally travel extended distances where I do use superchargers." - i.e. commuting and then occasionally going on vacation.
The second vacation scenario is *exactly* what Musk
Re: (Score:2)
That seems rather unlikely though, doesn't it?
It seems very likely to me, given the arse-hole behaviour of large corporates in general and Musk's megalomaniac tendencies in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems rather unlikely though, doesn't it?
It does today. Of course, the restrictions in the new policy seemed rather unlikely yesterday, as well. I still think the statement "that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work" may spell trouble for non-commercial users in the future.