Tesla owner racks up $1147 in Supercharger idle fees at valet-only parking garage

Simon Alvarez

By

Posted on August 9, 2019

For Tesla owner James Salantiri, his Model 3 and the valet-only Supercharger station at the William Vale Parking Garage in Brooklyn, NY are intertwined. With his apartment just 10 minutes away by foot from the parking garage, Salantiri is a regular in the business. He would drive over to William Vale, hand his vehicle over to the valets, and drive away the next day, charged and ready for the road. 

It was a system that has worked since he took delivery of his black Long Range Model 3 RWD on March 2018. Salantiri had waited long for his Model 3, having been one of the reservation holders who waited in line to put a deposit on the vehicle during the day of its unveiling. The parking garage has served him well, even when Tesla started rolling out strict Supercharger idle fees. 

Tesla initially introduced a $0.40 per minute idle fee for its Supercharger Network on December 2016 to discourage owners from keeping their vehicles connected to the high-powered charging stations even when their electric cars are fully charged. Tesla raised its idle fees on September 2018, adjusting the fees to $.50 per minute. When a charging location is fully occupied, the company’s idle fees go as high as $1.00 per minute. 

This system is particularly tricky for Tesla owners like James Salantiri, who regularly use valet-only Urban Superchargers to charge their vehicles. In a message to Teslarati, the Model 3 owner noted that William Vale’s valets would usually charge Teslas and unplug them as needed when the parking garage gets full as part of their service. At times when the parking garage is relatively empty, the valets would at times go the extra mile by plugging a vehicle overnight. 

When the electric car maker rolled out its updated Supercharger idle fees, Salantiri was informed by a Tesla representative that since the garage is valet-only, and since owners have no control when their vehicles are plugged in or taken off the Urban Superchargers at the location, any idle fees incurred at the parking garage would be waived. This setup worked well. Even when the vehicle is left plugged in overnight and large idle fees are incurred by his Model 3, Salantiri would see the charges either waived or refunded. 

(Credit: James Salantiri)

(Credit: James Salantiri)

Previous idle fees at the Urban Supercharger were previously waived or refunded automatically. (Credit: James Salantiri)

Things changed recently. Upon looking at his recent bank statement, the Model 3 owner noticed two Tesla Supercharger charges to his account amounting to $1,147.16, comprised of a $171.04 charge on August 1 and a $976.12 charge on July 23. This prompted Salantiri to contact the electric car maker, where a representative reportedly informed him that a refund wasn’t possible due to the Supercharger not being on Tesla property. In the following call that was escalated to a supervisor, Salantiri was told that the recent fees could not be waived or refunded since the company’s waive/refund policy for Supercharger idle fees only covers an initial charge. Attempts to contact the parking garage’s new management about the issue were also unsuccessful. 

A look into Tesla forums such as the Tesla Motors Club shows that Salantiri’s issue was not an isolated incident. Another Tesla owner, who goes by the username choatie88, noted that he was also charged a notable idle fee at the same location since his vehicle was left to charge overnight. In a message, the Tesla owner noted that he eventually got a one-off refund once he explained the parking garage’s valet-only nature to Tesla. Unfortunately for Salantiri, his one-off refund/waive credit appears to have been used up over his regular trips to the location. 

(Credit: James Salantiri)

(Credit: James Salantiri)

The Model 3 owner’s recent Urban Supercharger idle fees from the valet-only parking garage. (Credit: James Salantiri)

Tesla noted in its Supercharger idle fee announcement last September that there is no upper limit on the amount of fees that a vehicle could accrue. This is absolutely fair in public charging stations where owners have full control when they could plug in and remove their vehicles from a Supercharger, but this system hits somewhat of a gray area when it comes to valet-only parking locations. It would be difficult for owners to remove their vehicles from a Supercharger, after all, if they do not have access to their cars. 

In a message to Teslarati, Salantiri noted that it would perhaps be best for Tesla to roll out an upper limit for Supercharger idle fees, at least in locations that are valet-only. Or perhaps the electric car maker could just maintain its previous system, which automatically addresses idle fees in places where owners could not disconnect their vehicles from Superchargers. In places like the William Vale Parking Garage, which city dwellers depend on for their charging needs, perhaps Tesla could also roll out Destination Chargers instead, which are not as quick as Urban Superchargers, but do not accrue idle fees once a vehicle is fully charged.

Tesla owner racks up $1147 in Supercharger idle fees at valet-only parking garage

<!–

View Comments

–>

Source

Tesla Navigate on Autopilot automatic lane changes performs ‘waltz’ in traffic

Simon Alvarez

By

Posted on August 8, 2019

A Tesla Model 3 owner’s recent experience at a busy section of a freeway appears to show some notable improvements with Navigate on Autopilot’s automatic lane change capabilities. As could be seen in a video, the Model 3 was able to change lanes and navigate around traffic multiple times on its own despite the density of vehicles around the electric car. 

The movement of the Model 3, which was running 2019.20.4.2, was notably smooth and confident, to the point where the Tesla owner jokingly remarked that his car was behaving almost like it was performing a waltz with nearby vehicles. To highlight this point, Scott Kubo, the Model 3’s owner, opted to add some curiously appropriate music to his vehicle’s dashcam footage. 

As seen in Kubo’s video, the driver-assist system directed the Model 3 in such a way that the movements of the vehicle were notably human-like. A number of fellow Tesla owners commenting on Kubo’s YouTube upload mentioned this, with some stating that their vehicles have not shown the same level of confidence on the road as the Model 3 in the video. 

This is quite noteworthy, especially considering that the Kubo’s Model 3 did not disengage Autopilot during its multiple automatic lane change maneuvers. In a comment on his YouTube upload, the Tesla owner noted that his hand was just on the bottom of the steering wheel the whole time. 

Navigate on Autopilot is currently one of Tesla’s most advanced iterations of its driver-assist system, being capable of guiding a vehicle from highway on-ramp to off-ramp. It should be noted that the behavior of Navigate on Autopilot’s automatic lane changes also appears notably more refined in Kubo’s recent video compared to a “torture test” of the system on LA traffic last April. Navigate on Autopilot appeared almost overwhelmed during the most intense parts of the LA test, but the system displayed none of these reservations in Kubo’s case. 

The improvements to Navigate on Autopilot take Tesla’s electric cars a step closer towards achieving autonomous driving. Initially part of Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot suite, Navigate on Autopilot was moved by the company to its Full Self-Driving suite, which CEO Elon Musk believes will be “feature-complete” in the near future. With smoother, waltz-like automatic lane-changes, perhaps Navigate on Autopilot is indeed closing in on Musk’s ever-elusive self-driving goals. 

Watch a Tesla Model 3 with Navigate on Autopilot maneuver around other vehicles on the road in the video below. 

[embedded content]

Tesla Navigate on Autopilot automatic lane changes performs ‘waltz’ in traffic

<!–

View Comments

–>

Source

Tesla’s Model 3 safety claims and the NHTSA’s scrutiny: A look at an old (revived) story

Simon Alvarez

By

Posted on August 7, 2019

Multiple reports have recently emerged about the US National Highway Traffic Administration scrutinizing Tesla and the company’s claims that the Model 3 has the lowest probability of injury among vehicles tested by the agency. It should be noted that the NHTSA’s scrutiny, which involved a cease-and-desist letter to Tesla and a prompt response from the automaker, transpired last October, following the agency’s release of the Model 3’s 5-Star Safety Rating. 

The NHTSA’s reaction to Tesla recently came to fore due to documents shared by staunch TSLA critic and transparency group Plainsite, which was able to access both the NHTSA’s cease-and-desist letter to Tesla as well as the electric car maker’s response to the agency thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request. What’s quite peculiar about the new string of reports, including those from Bloomberg and Reuters, is that they highlight the NHTSA’s allegations about the company’s alleged misleading claims about the Model 3, but not Tesla’s response arguing that it used the agency’s own data to arrive at its conclusions. 

To get an accurate picture of this story, one must look at the full cease-and-desist letter sent by the NHTSA to Tesla, as well as the entire contents of the electric car maker’s response. A copy of each letter will be embedded in this article, to provide a full account of the two parties’ correspondence.

Following Tesla’s release of its blog post stating that the Model 3 has the lowest probability of injury among the vehicles tested by the NHTSA, the agency sent the Silicon Valley-based company a cease-and-desist letter. Addressed to Elon Musk, the letter claimed that Tesla had “issued a number of misleading statements regarding the recent Government 5-Star Ratings of the Tesla Model 3.” NHTSA Chief Counsel Jonathan Morrison, who sent the letter, further argued that statements such as “lowest probability of injury in all cars” are inaccurate and not in the best interests of consumers. 

The NHSTA’s cease-and-desist letter to Tesla could be accessed below. 

Tesla Model 3 Safety Claims… by Simon Alvarez on Scribd

Tesla disagreed with the NHTSA’s allegations in its response to the cease-and-desist letter. The electric car maker argued that its statements about the Model 3’s safety were neither untrue nor misleading, especially since the company used the NHTSA’s own data (which could be accessed here) when it stated that the electric sedan, as well as its largest siblings, the Model S and Model X, have the lowest probability of injury among vehicles tested by the agency. Tesla also noted that the Model 3’s achievement is “exactly what NHTSA intended with the NCAP — to encourage manufacturers to continuously immprove safety.” With this in mind, Tesla noted that there was no reason to discontinue its blog post highlihghting the Model 3’s safety. 

Tesla’s full response to the NHTSA could be read below. 

Tesla Model 3 Safety Claims… by Simon Alvarez on Scribd

It should be noted that the NHTSA has not doubled down on its allgetations against Tesla. The electric car maker’s blog post explaining the Model 3’s stellar safety scores is still active today. Contrary to Plainsite’s statements that Tesla was “referred to the FTC for repeatedly lying about the safety of their vehicles,” it appears that the NHTSA opted to back down from its allegations once the electric car maker explained the rationale behind its statements about the Model 3.

The Model 3 has since gained perfect 5-Star Safety Ratings from the Euro-NCAP and the ANCAP, with both safety agencies lauding the vehicle for being one of the safest cars on the road. Following the vehicle’s crash tests, Matthew Avery, head of research at Thatcham Research, which conducts the crash tests with the Euro NCAP,  noted that “Tesla has done a great job of playing the structural benefits of an electric vehicle to its advantage. The Tesla Model 3 achieved one of the highest Safety Assist scores we have seen to date.” These sentiments were echoed by ANCAP Chief Executive Officer James Goodwin, who noted that it was “great to see electric vehicles continuing to prioritize safety. It is encouraging to see Tesla give equal attention to the active safety systems and technologies on board as well as the safety fundamentals through the structure and restraints.”

H/T to Vladimir Grinshpun.

Tesla’s Model 3 safety claims and the NHTSA’s scrutiny: A look at an old (revived) story

<!–

View Comments

–>

Source