21 ms·

Tesla tries to get owners to give up ‘unlimited free Supercharging for life’

93 points by imartin2k 3y ago

Semaphor 3y ago
That actually seems sensible. Both the offer, and how it’s handled. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a positive Tesla article.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  >I can’t even remember the last time I saw a positive Tesla article. Which reminds me that most positive stories about companies are probably due to the PR department.
josefresco 3y ago
"it appears to try to make Supercharging a profit center – something it originally said it wouldn’t do." Shocking. How much does it cost if you are paying? I'd be curious to see the math behind these offers.
- vegardx 3y ago
  I don't really see it. They're competing with a ton of operators on cost, the margins are very small. When they start offering retail services on supercharger locations, then you know they're serious about making this a profit center. But ... in Norway at least, Tesla was seemingly very keen on expanding their supercharger network fast, so they partnered up with everything from gas stations to fast food places.
Etheryte 3y ago
Important to note that the unlimited charging is for the life of the vehicle, not for the life of the customer. This means that you're going to lose the perk eventually as your car degrades, it's just probably not as quickly as Tesla would like. Would be interesting to consider, at what point will it become more expensive to keep your car in good running condition, including replacing the batteries, than it is to pay for charging?
- weego 3y ago
  Tesla customer service strategy falling into the ship of theseus issue.
  - djmips 3y ago
    For the purpose of identity - I believe that all you need is the VIN - there have been some questionable restorations of classic cars with largely new replacement parts but the original VIN plates gives the ability to charge as if it were a 'restored' original car.
- mcv 3y ago
  For cars with automatic software updates, I suspect Tesla could exert some influence over how fast the car degrades. Forced obsolescence has been used before, and some companies got away with it. Though doing it with cars would probably be going way too far for a lot of people.
  - dallyo 3y ago
    That would be a terrible move though, especially now with the brand in crisis because of Musk's recent behaviour.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - yaseer 3y ago
      What makes you say the brand is in crisis? Asking because I am curious to see this take, not to dispute it.
      - mcv 3y ago
        I don't think Tesla is necessarily in crisis, but Musk's behaviour definitely has some impact on the trust people have in his company. It's still a big car brand obviously, but to a lot of people, Tesla isn't as cool anymore. Backpedaling on promises isn't going to help.
cubefox 3y ago
It seems that if people are offered such a deal by Tesla, this is evidence that the deal is in Tesla's favor, not theirs. Otherwise Tesla would not offer the deal.
- massysett 3y ago
  This is true of everything in commerce. Businesses only make offers that they think will benefit them. Consumers only accept offers they think will benefit them. Because of the prospect of mutual benefit, both parties are better off and overall welfare increases.
  - williamtrask 3y ago
    Although in general there’s a pretty big information asymmetry between a multi billion dollar car company and a boomer dad w/ a Tesla. So whether the latter is usually better off may be debatable.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      The multi billion dollar company has more information and resources, but also has the disadvantage that it has to make uniform offers to large groups of people. The same offer might be hugely in favor of one customer and to the disadvantage of another. Who's favored overall depends on who accepts the deal (which both sides can try to influence)
  - eru 3y ago
    That's assuming no one makes any mistakes, of course.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    In most deals both parties profit as they are not zero-sum games. You give me money, I give you a loaf of bread. But in the present case the deal appears to be zero-sum: Either Tesla saves money, or the customer, but not both.
- moffkalast 3y ago
bflesch 3y ago
Supercharging is extremely expensive here in Germany. Like 0.79€ per kWh while our normal energy price is around 0.50€ per kWh.
- brk 3y ago
  That makes sense though, you’re also paying for the infrastructure, not just the energy.
  - eru 3y ago
    When you get energy from the grid, you are also paying for the infrastructure, don't you?
    - usrusr 3y ago
      It's infrastructure all the way down and Tesla's stack is considerably higher than your home wallbox or some opportunistically placed medium speed charger.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Yes, but in addition you have the supercharger device itself, the asphalt and keeping it clean around it. And then maintenance and repair if it breaks and so on. For three thousand charger at net of 0.29 per kwh would mean that you have to sell 100 00 kwh of energy. And 3000 is probably bit low for these type of installations in total cost.
      - progbits 3y ago
        It probably makes more sense to account the costs for building superchargers in car sales and profits, rather than the electricity costs. More cars than chargers, much higher profit margin and it gives brand value driving future sales. Although I don't think the price has to be exactly the same as regular consumer electricity price, it should cover some maintenance.
        3y ago
janmo 3y ago
From reading the article it sounds more like Tesla is trying to have these owners buy a new car.
- chippiewill 3y ago
  Yeah, it just sounds like negative spin to me. It should be obvious really that a Tesla with unlimited supercharging would need a higher trade-in value than one without. If you want those owners to buy a new car you need to offer them more than those without the unlimited supercharging.
  - c0m 3y ago
    Negative spin? The editorialising of it is reasonably nuanced, even going so far as to point out that customers “[might not] have to trade in [their] older Model S or Model X vehicle when taking this offer”, and calling the offer ‘interesting’. Really hard to see this as anything other than at worst neutral.
  - shaftway 3y ago
    We can also assume that Tesla will remove the free unlimited supercharging from these models and then re-sell them on he market. If I wanted to trade in my Model S with unlimited supercharging, I'd sell it on the used market and use that as a premium to get more for it.
- Reason077 3y ago
  Right. Presumably, they’re worried that some Tesla owners are being dissuaded from trading in for a new Tesla, because they would lose their unlimited supercharging. This offer is an attempt to soften that blow.
jwie 3y ago
There’s an easy way to do this. Buy out the contract. Companies offer foolish lifetime packages all the time. I think it was American Airlines offered lifetime unlimited first class flights. They can’t claw this product away from the few remaining die hard users, and they only sold a few dozen of the things. I expect the reason for wanting out of the deal is the same. Airline seats and supercharging time share a scheduling problem. Having even a few customers with unlimited rights to a limited resource creates intractable scheduling conflicts.
- dxdm 3y ago
  > Having even a few customers with unlimited rights to a limited resource creates intractable scheduling conflicts. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "scheduling conflicts"? I'd assume the problem simply that these people are using the free things more or longer than anticipated: Tesla has to pay more for the power usage, the airline has to give seats it won't receive extra money for. What does this have to do with scheduling, or how does some other scheduling problem have an even greater negative effect, as you seem to suggest?
insaneirish 3y ago
Unsurprising and honestly not the craziest thing. “Infinite” and perpetual liabilities are tricky from an accounting point of view and also hard to model accurately.
akmarinov 3y ago
If Tesla offers V2L sometime down the line and you can retrofit it on one of these cars - you can just forever power your home and other cars from your existing car for free
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  Driving and wasting hours every day to save $10 on your million dollar property? Yeah sounds like a deal.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I have unlimited free super charging on my 2020 model X as they had a brief promotion that ended January 2020, the month I bought mine. We live half a mile from a super charger and have a home charger but only use it in a pinch. Otherwise we exclusively charge at the super charger for free. I plan to drive that model X until it sublimates.
m463 3y ago
This is happening because owners are not trading in. The people who buy new cars are different from folks who buy used cars. They are less price sensitive and are likely to trade in their car every few years. They are the ones that keep the gravy train running. And now they can't get the "Free Supercharging" option, and aren't buying. So telsa is trying to help them out, while ending the free supercharging. Personally, I think one other thing telsa ended is individual controls for functions like turn signals, headlights, wipers, PRND - that sucks more than losing free supercharging. (I'm not talking about touch controls)
- r00fus 3y ago
  If they want more inside sales, perhaps Tesla should actually release a new product. People who have an S don't want to "downgrade" to a 3/Y that maybe doesn't have air suspension. Cybertruck and Roadster were supposed to be here by now. What do they expect? ZIRP allowed them to cruise along till now.
- boppo1 3y ago
  >individual controls for functions like turn signals, headlights, wipers, PRND Wait what? Teslas have these all mapped to the same button?
  - matthew28845 3y ago
    If you count them all being on the screen, then yes
    - temp2022account 3y ago
      I knew their stalks had fewer buttons, but everything? Eww. Very glad I grabbed an Elantra before it gets the axe next year, it's essentially a model 3 minus 90-degree autopilot.
vivegi 3y ago
From the article: > Earlier this year, Tesla made a first effort to try to get those vehicles off the perk by offering owners an extra $5,000 discount if they trade in a Model S and Model X with unlimited free Supercharging. > Now Tesla is doubling down on this effort by launching what it calls a new “Ownership Loyalty Benefit.” > The automaker is offering those owners six years of unlimited Supercharging when buying a new Model S or Model X by the end of the quarter. In the article How much does it cost to charge a Tesla? [1] the Cost to charge a Tesla Supercharger/DCFC is in the range of $5.28 per 100 miles (Model Y) to $5.97 per 100 miles (Model 3) to $6.37 per 100 miles (Model X) to $5.88 per 100 miles (Model S Plaid). Lets take a blended average of $5.80 per 100 miles. Average miles driven per year (CA) is 14,435 miles. [2] That gives a supercharger charging cost of $837.23 per year. For 6 years, that is a cost of $5023.38 without considering time value of money. If we use the national average from [3], Tesla Model Ys are driven 13,500 miles and at the average Model Y charging cost of $5.28/100 miles that is $712.80 or $4276.80 over 5 years. And customers did not bite the $5k offer in expected numbers to surrender the free supercharger perk. Perhaps, Tesla should look at upping the offer. [1]: https://electrek.co/2021/10/27/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-a-tesla/ https://electrek.co/2021/10/27/how-much-does-it-cost-to-char... [2]: https://www.caranddriver.com/auto-loans/a32880477/average-mileage-per-year/ https://www.caranddriver.com/auto-loans/a32880477/average-mi... [3]: https://insideevs.com/news/587352/tesla-modely-average-annual-mileage-us/ https://insideevs.com/news/587352/tesla-modely-average-annua...
boppo1 3y ago
Why is supercharging limited?
CraigRo 3y ago
They have to record a liability for future charging until they extinguish it. If it is recorded at 20k per car, and they replace it with sitting like 6k per car, they make a huge profit

93 points by imartin2k 3y ago

That actually seems sensible. Both the offer, and how it’s handled. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a positive Tesla article.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>I can’t even remember the last time I saw a positive Tesla article. Which reminds me that most positive stories about companies are probably due to the PR department.

josefresco 3y ago

"it appears to try to make Supercharging a profit center – something it originally said it wouldn’t do." Shocking. How much does it cost if you are paying? I'd be curious to see the math behind these offers.

vegardx 3y ago
I don't really see it. They're competing with a ton of operators on cost, the margins are very small. When they start offering retail services on supercharger locations, then you know they're serious about making this a profit center. But ... in Norway at least, Tesla was seemingly very keen on expanding their supercharger network fast, so they partnered up with everything from gas stations to fast food places.

Etheryte 3y ago

Important to note that the unlimited charging is for the life of the vehicle, not for the life of the customer. This means that you're going to lose the perk eventually as your car degrades, it's just probably not as quickly as Tesla would like. Would be interesting to consider, at what point will it become more expensive to keep your car in good running condition, including replacing the batteries, than it is to pay for charging?

weego 3y ago
Tesla customer service strategy falling into the ship of theseus issue.
- djmips 3y ago
  For the purpose of identity - I believe that all you need is the VIN - there have been some questionable restorations of classic cars with largely new replacement parts but the original VIN plates gives the ability to charge as if it were a 'restored' original car.
mcv 3y ago
For cars with automatic software updates, I suspect Tesla could exert some influence over how fast the car degrades. Forced obsolescence has been used before, and some companies got away with it. Though doing it with cars would probably be going way too far for a lot of people.
- dallyo 3y ago
  That would be a terrible move though, especially now with the brand in crisis because of Musk's recent behaviour.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - yaseer 3y ago
    What makes you say the brand is in crisis? Asking because I am curious to see this take, not to dispute it.
    - mcv 3y ago
      I don't think Tesla is necessarily in crisis, but Musk's behaviour definitely has some impact on the trust people have in his company. It's still a big car brand obviously, but to a lot of people, Tesla isn't as cool anymore. Backpedaling on promises isn't going to help.

cubefox 3y ago

It seems that if people are offered such a deal by Tesla, this is evidence that the deal is in Tesla's favor, not theirs. Otherwise Tesla would not offer the deal.

massysett 3y ago
This is true of everything in commerce. Businesses only make offers that they think will benefit them. Consumers only accept offers they think will benefit them. Because of the prospect of mutual benefit, both parties are better off and overall welfare increases.
- williamtrask 3y ago
  Although in general there’s a pretty big information asymmetry between a multi billion dollar car company and a boomer dad w/ a Tesla. So whether the latter is usually better off may be debatable.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    The multi billion dollar company has more information and resources, but also has the disadvantage that it has to make uniform offers to large groups of people. The same offer might be hugely in favor of one customer and to the disadvantage of another. Who's favored overall depends on who accepts the deal (which both sides can try to influence)
- eru 3y ago
  That's assuming no one makes any mistakes, of course.
- cubefox 3y ago
  In most deals both parties profit as they are not zero-sum games. You give me money, I give you a loaf of bread. But in the present case the deal appears to be zero-sum: Either Tesla saves money, or the customer, but not both.
moffkalast 3y ago

bflesch 3y ago

Supercharging is extremely expensive here in Germany. Like 0.79€ per kWh while our normal energy price is around 0.50€ per kWh.

brk 3y ago
That makes sense though, you’re also paying for the infrastructure, not just the energy.
- eru 3y ago
  When you get energy from the grid, you are also paying for the infrastructure, don't you?
  - usrusr 3y ago
    It's infrastructure all the way down and Tesla's stack is considerably higher than your home wallbox or some opportunistically placed medium speed charger.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Yes, but in addition you have the supercharger device itself, the asphalt and keeping it clean around it. And then maintenance and repair if it breaks and so on. For three thousand charger at net of 0.29 per kwh would mean that you have to sell 100 00 kwh of energy. And 3000 is probably bit low for these type of installations in total cost.
    - progbits 3y ago
      It probably makes more sense to account the costs for building superchargers in car sales and profits, rather than the electricity costs. More cars than chargers, much higher profit margin and it gives brand value driving future sales. Although I don't think the price has to be exactly the same as regular consumer electricity price, it should cover some maintenance.
      - 3y ago

janmo 3y ago

From reading the article it sounds more like Tesla is trying to have these owners buy a new car.

chippiewill 3y ago
Yeah, it just sounds like negative spin to me. It should be obvious really that a Tesla with unlimited supercharging would need a higher trade-in value than one without. If you want those owners to buy a new car you need to offer them more than those without the unlimited supercharging.
- c0m 3y ago
  Negative spin? The editorialising of it is reasonably nuanced, even going so far as to point out that customers “[might not] have to trade in [their] older Model S or Model X vehicle when taking this offer”, and calling the offer ‘interesting’. Really hard to see this as anything other than at worst neutral.
- shaftway 3y ago
  We can also assume that Tesla will remove the free unlimited supercharging from these models and then re-sell them on he market. If I wanted to trade in my Model S with unlimited supercharging, I'd sell it on the used market and use that as a premium to get more for it.
Reason077 3y ago
Right. Presumably, they’re worried that some Tesla owners are being dissuaded from trading in for a new Tesla, because they would lose their unlimited supercharging. This offer is an attempt to soften that blow.

jwie 3y ago

There’s an easy way to do this. Buy out the contract. Companies offer foolish lifetime packages all the time. I think it was American Airlines offered lifetime unlimited first class flights. They can’t claw this product away from the few remaining die hard users, and they only sold a few dozen of the things. I expect the reason for wanting out of the deal is the same. Airline seats and supercharging time share a scheduling problem. Having even a few customers with unlimited rights to a limited resource creates intractable scheduling conflicts.

dxdm 3y ago
> Having even a few customers with unlimited rights to a limited resource creates intractable scheduling conflicts. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "scheduling conflicts"? I'd assume the problem simply that these people are using the free things more or longer than anticipated: Tesla has to pay more for the power usage, the airline has to give seats it won't receive extra money for. What does this have to do with scheduling, or how does some other scheduling problem have an even greater negative effect, as you seem to suggest?

insaneirish 3y ago

Unsurprising and honestly not the craziest thing. “Infinite” and perpetual liabilities are tricky from an accounting point of view and also hard to model accurately.

akmarinov 3y ago

If Tesla offers V2L sometime down the line and you can retrofit it on one of these cars - you can just forever power your home and other cars from your existing car for free

dzhiurgis 3y ago
Driving and wasting hours every day to save $10 on your million dollar property? Yeah sounds like a deal.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I have unlimited free super charging on my 2020 model X as they had a brief promotion that ended January 2020, the month I bought mine. We live half a mile from a super charger and have a home charger but only use it in a pinch. Otherwise we exclusively charge at the super charger for free. I plan to drive that model X until it sublimates.

m463 3y ago

This is happening because owners are not trading in. The people who buy new cars are different from folks who buy used cars. They are less price sensitive and are likely to trade in their car every few years. They are the ones that keep the gravy train running. And now they can't get the "Free Supercharging" option, and aren't buying. So telsa is trying to help them out, while ending the free supercharging. Personally, I think one other thing telsa ended is individual controls for functions like turn signals, headlights, wipers, PRND - that sucks more than losing free supercharging. (I'm not talking about touch controls)

r00fus 3y ago
If they want more inside sales, perhaps Tesla should actually release a new product. People who have an S don't want to "downgrade" to a 3/Y that maybe doesn't have air suspension. Cybertruck and Roadster were supposed to be here by now. What do they expect? ZIRP allowed them to cruise along till now.
boppo1 3y ago
>individual controls for functions like turn signals, headlights, wipers, PRND Wait what? Teslas have these all mapped to the same button?
- matthew28845 3y ago
  If you count them all being on the screen, then yes
  - temp2022account 3y ago
    I knew their stalks had fewer buttons, but everything? Eww. Very glad I grabbed an Elantra before it gets the axe next year, it's essentially a model 3 minus 90-degree autopilot.

vivegi 3y ago

From the article: > Earlier this year, Tesla made a first effort to try to get those vehicles off the perk by offering owners an extra $5,000 discount if they trade in a Model S and Model X with unlimited free Supercharging. > Now Tesla is doubling down on this effort by launching what it calls a new “Ownership Loyalty Benefit.” > The automaker is offering those owners six years of unlimited Supercharging when buying a new Model S or Model X by the end of the quarter. In the article How much does it cost to charge a Tesla? [1] the Cost to charge a Tesla Supercharger/DCFC is in the range of $5.28 per 100 miles (Model Y) to $5.97 per 100 miles (Model 3) to $6.37 per 100 miles (Model X) to $5.88 per 100 miles (Model S Plaid). Lets take a blended average of $5.80 per 100 miles. Average miles driven per year (CA) is 14,435 miles. [2] That gives a supercharger charging cost of $837.23 per year. For 6 years, that is a cost of $5023.38 without considering time value of money. If we use the national average from [3], Tesla Model Ys are driven 13,500 miles and at the average Model Y charging cost of $5.28/100 miles that is $712.80 or $4276.80 over 5 years. And customers did not bite the $5k offer in expected numbers to surrender the free supercharger perk. Perhaps, Tesla should look at upping the offer. [1]: https://electrek.co/2021/10/27/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-a-tesla/ https://electrek.co/2021/10/27/how-much-does-it-cost-to-char... [2]: https://www.caranddriver.com/auto-loans/a32880477/average-mileage-per-year/ https://www.caranddriver.com/auto-loans/a32880477/average-mi... [3]: https://insideevs.com/news/587352/tesla-modely-average-annual-mileage-us/ https://insideevs.com/news/587352/tesla-modely-average-annua...

boppo1 3y ago

Why is supercharging limited?

CraigRo 3y ago

They have to record a liability for future charging until they extinguish it. If it is recorded at 20k per car, and they replace it with sitting like 6k per car, they make a huge profit