Every gas station accepts normal debit and credit cards. There is no gas station that requires you to sign up before filling your tank. It is ridiculous.
Why can't the charging networks just install a normal credit/debit card reader and let people pay with their normal cards? It's mind-boggling.
2019's "sign up, get a card, download an app" is like 1990's "Leave your name and contact information. Our sales people will contact you."
Make of them what you will
Sorry for the OT.
Edited to add this link : https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design-hos...
You do not seem to have made that distinction anywhere in your comments.
I don't think there is any correlation at all between having a phone and desirability.
There are many sites like that on the internet today. Ever had to buy enterprise software?
NB: I said other, not better.
"Casually interested" can mean a lot of things, all look the same to the seller.
What you want is your sales team following high probability of conversion leads.
If I make you jump through a few hoops just to talk to a sales person, then I've already weeded out most of the people who wouldn't buy it anyway.
This happens far too often in 2019 as well.
I recently purchased software to the tune of ~AUD$25k, where downloading and installing a trial version makes almost no sense given the target audience: laser cutter, where each model of machine from any specific manufacturer can have a slightly different dialect of G-Code, and this type of software is often way too complicated for the average operator to nut.
So I sent a couple of emails and got swift responses and screen-sharing demos from both companies I contacted.
The sorts of programs I can download a trial version of and have running in half an our or so are nowhere near as mature as the products we short listed.
So I'm going to suggest it depends a lot on the target audience. When you're handing over multiple tens of thousands for a semi-bespoke software package management, in my experience, typically require interaction with a sales agent. This is in the context of physical industry, I can't speak for the software world, where perhaps spending multiple tends of thousands on online services is common? I have no idea.
What would be the right way?
Selling electricity for money is not exciting. It's a simple and relatively low-margin commodity transaction. It's not going to create a unicorn. Making the transaction more complicated and collecting a bunch of user data increases the bullshit surface area for your pitch deck. If you're vague enough about what your business model really is, you might just fool someone into thinking that you can make them a whole bunch of money.
It’s fine with PCI DSS as long as it is not reversible.
https://stripe.com/docs/api/tokens/create_card (notice the request has no charge, but the response contains a fingerprint).
To state the obvious: it's not determinstic outside of Stripe, and there's no way to revert it, or even iterate over all CC numbers and brute force the space. You'd need Stripe's secret, e.g. assuming they use HMAC.
I'm asking because I saw a lot of in-house tokenizer with hashes or deterministic encryption that could get reversed in a few seconds by brute force since the space to cover is so small.
I would be completely unsurprised to find that other than having the data in some poorly secured database it isn't used for anything useful.
“...But don’t dismiss malice.” Dismissing reasonable concerns about a nearly universal practice is best done through reasoned argument, not aphorism.
Does that make it malicious and stupid?
At least here (Italy) it is unthinkable (yet) that a fuel station (attended or unattended) doesn't accept cash (besides Bancomat and debt/credit cards) (though all the petrol companies and the government is pushing for making everything digital, etc. like everywhere else).
For instance the cheapest chains (e.g. Total Access, Carrefour, Leclerc) often don't accept cash as there is most of the time no employee on premise, and they don't want to deal with vandalism.
In general France is progressively going away from cash. Using a credit card for super small transactions like buying bread at the bakery were deemed almost anti-social a few years ago, but more and more bakeries start to prefer it for speedier contact less payment for instance.
Remembering the password for some finicky app just makes the quick fill up too much trouble.
Even better would be if the car had secure handshake so once you’ve registered once for a network, you can just plug in and be done.
They should take cash.
With electronic payments, you can pre-authorize a reasonable amount, then charge the customer for the amount they've used - no excess charges or change required.
You go up to the teller, tell him which pump your car is in, and get your $2 back.
They could take cash automatically like a vending machine but that's going to require new staff to go around and collect money and deposit it. Probably much more expensive than taking credit cards.
The market will decide if it's more expensive. Customers exist who will commute to another charger so they can pay cash. If the money left on the table is more than the cost of the cash module and attendant, it will be adopted.
That seems to actually be a distinct possibility. Some people seem to use cash so infrequently they forget it even exists.
What happens is the same as when filling a car with gas.
I haven’t seen a human attendant near any charge point stations.
Like could you plug in, the car identifies itself as whatever VIN (add whatever anti-tampering challenge-response you want to armchair-design), and the electrons just start flowing?
It also looks like CHAdeMO has a 'Plug and Charge' protocol defined:
But that's pretty new, and not the SAE standard used in the US. So, it'll be a while...
I'm really surprised this isn't how it works... Surely if they can figure out autopilot they can make charging seamless. Wait... never mind.
For other charging networks, however, it seems to be needlessly more complicated.
I just present my RFID Chargepoint card, and it pretty much just works.
Yes, you need an RFID card (or keychain hanger), because these are low-margin transactions; transaction fees would make charging more expensive, and the fees to maintain card readers would mean that there would be much fewer charging points as they would be more expensive to install.
No, you don't need an app. Some charge points allow you to use an app instead of a card, if you prefer that. But that's by no means required, you can always use a card instead.
No, you don't need 5 cards. One card (plus a backup one in case of an outage) should be plenty, the exception being if you're going abroad (this depends on the roaming agreements your card provider has). Now, some cards offer cheap rates at some charge points, so by having multiple cards it's possible to save some money. But that's by no means required.
What I don't get is why every gas station does not also have at least one charging point. They've got air for your tires, sometimes a car wash, and tons of other conveniences, but no electricity? Electricity should be the easiest thing in the world.
The whole point is of course that eventually you can recharge wherever you park, but that means there must be more places to recharge than there are gas stations, not less. This situation is ridiculous.
I know Shell is actually starting to add electricity to their inventory in gas stations. But in urban Europe space is at a premium and the investments are huge.
There are a lot of reason the charging infrastructure market is fragmented, mostly due to it's the early days of EV-lution where market consolidation hasn't fully played out yet. Also building charging stations is a capital-heavy business since it involves the land lease/purchase as well as construction/equipments (DC fast charging stations are very expensive, the higher the power the more expensive)/installation (permits etc)/maintenance. A friend of mine spent his own money to install a ChargePoint 50kw DCFC at his restaurant, it ended up costing an upward of $50k - at $2/kwh charging rate, he would barely break even in 3 years.
from the profit at the charger, agreed.
However, it's safe to presume this charger was installed in order to attract more wealthy customers -- ones who likely bring higher food & beverage profit margins than the average Corolla diver.
And by the time you've arrived, you probably are going to stay anyway, at least for a bit, because there probably aren't many other chargers available in your remaining range.
Even if it didn't, most business relies on repeat customers. You can shear a sheep many times, but skin it only once.
A traditional business has cash flow as it's number one priority.
A young capital investment based company has market share and growth as it's top priority.
It's just a product of the priorities of how most modern businesses are created.
The company that fixes this poor experience and offers a simple credit/debit card payment option, like a standard gas pump, is going to win.
On the other hand, skimmers and stolen cards are rampant at gas pumps. I'd be leery of deploying an unmanned roadside credit card reader. Maybe the extra vetting is an anti-fraud measure.
It's not a crippling problem, but that's largely because of such measures.
1. Cost per charge << per tank, and
2. cost credit car reader >> rfid reader.
TLDR Credit card fees are expensive, especially when your margins are thin and you are not yet at scale where you have pricing power to pressure processors to lower your CC fees.
For those on a once in a while trip, they can eat the several dollars in convenience fees, while those that travel regularly can get their app of choice.
It's also not fun to leave some dollars hostage on some app as a credit when you may use them months or years later.
You should pay for a reliable model, but the same applies to RFID. Still not very much.
Now EVs have become more popular, the charging model is changing to a more sustainable system. The government is also working to enforce roaming between networks.
Credit cards are extremely rare in Europe, and only few places accept them at all, unless they're compatible with standard bank card transactions. Bank card transactions aren't that expensive and used for absolutely everything, including very small transactions.
For recharging your car, there's really no problem at all to rely on standard bank cards.
at least in germany, where OP was trying to charge along the route, there is a minimum transaction fee charged by most payment providers.
However price must be the same for all payment methods.
If there is an administrative fee it also must be the same across payment methods, excluding business cards and Amex/Diners.
I only found secondary sources for the direct way, but they state (zahlungsverkehrsfrafen.de)
- .3%, at least .08€ for EC tx
- 2-4% for CC tx, depending on provider
As it is, connecting to "free WiFi" just isn't worth the hassle of clicking through T&C pages, and paid WiFi is even worse.
I've heard there is finally some future wifi spec formalizing open portals that negotiate to an encrypted connection.
In the summer, in France, Lille to Alps then Ardeche and no problem.
Same for my past vacations here in the South of France (Ardeche, France), around 1000 km long trip and same for getting back here.
I've been using my Tesla (TS85D) since Nov2015, and the only time I had a short stress was while I went seeing Elon Musk in Paris because there were hundred of Teslas in the same area.
So, frankly, I respect the author of this article, but I think if you're following what is displayed on board and adding a little logical thinking and planning a bit your trip in some remote areas (Britany for example) (with OpenChargeMap or ChargeMap applications among others), then it's all good.
From my perspective, people are used to being able to pull off the highway just about anywhere and fill their tanks. Having to plan everything down to the mile, even for a mostly highway trip through populated areas, is a major change of thinking.
For example, take this trip...
In my ICE car, I usually stop in Richmond or Williamsburg to get a snack and use the restroom. Based on Tesla's app, I now have to stop twice (once to pee, again to charge). And that second stop is longer than a 5 minute fuel fill. Not the end of the world, but different. Also, there is no charging station at the destination, so I now need to manage my mileage while at the beach to ensure I can get to the closest charge 10 miles to the south (which then adds time to the start of the return journey). Again, not an insurmountable obstacle, but it sure does add complication to a trip I make several times/year with a car full of family and pets.
Edit - I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult. I really have no idea how people plan their EV trips, as I don't own one (and probably can't any time soon, as I don't have a dedicated parking spot to install a charger at home).
Edit2 - if I change the charger routing to the smaller battery pack, it recommends two stops, adding even more time. This would likely be the case for any EV except Tesla, or possibly a Bolt?
And in your hypothetical EV scenario, when you make the first restroom stop, there is no reason you can't do that at a charging station and top up, cutting some time off of your second refuel stop.
Another thing to consider, most people who get an EV can charge at home or at work, so they likely eliminate all gas stops during their day-to-day commutes. And that can add up to a lot of time savings (the optimistic refueling time is 5 mins, but I have had plenty take closer to 20 due to lines, traffic, out of the way, etc...). So yeah, maybe long trips require a little more planning, and a marginal amount of extra time, but it feels like nitpicking.
Still doesn’t help when I get there and the nearest charger is 10 miles from the house (though I suspect home-owners will start installing chargers before too long).
Anyway, I was mostly interested in how non-Tesla EV owners plan their trips, as most of the other respnses were along the lines of “use the Tesla’s belt-in planner”.
If I can figure out how to charge at home, I’ll likely own an EV for our next secondary car. Used Leafs are pretty tempting for cheap around-town cars.
I agree regarding the used Leaf, I have been keeping my eye on those. And I think for now, the optimal situation for most folks is to have one ICE and one low capacity EV assuming you can charge at home or at work. And for apartment dwellers, I think e-bikes and scooters are a fun alternative (I am an e-bike owner).
When I ask my car to find the nearest gas station, it gives me the same results as Apple Maps.
Whether this is Tesla's fault, or Google's fault, or someone else's is complex.
If my eight year old Leaf has that functionality, I'm confident that the skankiest of Model Ss will.
I like your moves.
Probably true of Germany as well.
And the signs are different than what I’m used to, so they don’t jump out at me.
It's not clickbait, it's literally the point of the test and the resultant article.
It's true that road trips take a bit more care. (Although not much; all you have to do is put your destination into the car's navigation system, then make charging stops where it tells you to.) But "normal" cars aren't free of hassle either.
What's the use of a car that can only drive around a few places where superchargers exist?
I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was trying to make a non-Tesla-specific example by also trying out other public charging stations, so that the article could analyze not JUST Tesla's network, but also the state of public charging in general.
If I wanted to be more critical, I'd have said it was stupid to bother trying to use other public charging facilities (other chargers or random wall outlets) when it would be far faster and more convenient (not to mention automatically planned for her) if she had just used the car's nav system to automagically plan the route and charging stops for her.
Your last sentence is not meaningful as there is no electric car that can only be driven "a few places where superchargers exist".
Her editor chose the headline, and presumably chose to specifically cite Tesla because it would draw in the eyeballs...which it did.
The tricks to really increase range are to keep speed moderate, follow a safe but close distance behind a large vehicle, and speed up and slow down gently.
But, I^2 resistance is not a large effect compared to the losses from air resistance at high speeds. That is, slowing down from 75 to 65 will have more effect on range than how quickly you accelerate to 75.
The joy of petrol cars in Europe: you don't have to plan where to recharge. And recharging will rarely take more than 15mn.
That's the scenario in which mobile charging stations make a lot of sense. They allow for a temporary increase in charger availability for the duration of some popular event like a sports final or a concert:
 Web version: https://www.tesla.com/trips/#/?v=MS_2017_100D&o=Paris,%20Fra...
The dialogue on all sides around Teslas is so exhausting. This article isn't even about Tesla, really.
And as far as this being an indictment of EV in general, and how the author shouldn't have singled out Tesla. I thought it was more or less accepted that Tesla is the top-of-the-line EV brand. I agree this article applies to the EV experience in general -- and as a layperson, I'd want to hear what it's like for the car brand that I am far and away the most familiar with. If she had chosen a non-Tesla brand and written the same complaints, I have a feeling Tesla fans would complain how the author tarnished EV -- and by association, Tesla -- and thus how irresponsible she is for talking shit about EVs without trying a Tesla.
If you're going to write an article about roadtripping in a Tesla, and you don't know this information, don't mention it in your article, and just default to "I'm using Google Maps, whatevs", I have no faith in your journalistic ability. I am unsure what else Tesla could do to inform you of this if you're borrowing or renting the vehicle, as this information is in the vehicle manual, which is also available through the MCU when sitting in the car.
Disclaimer: Tesla investor and fan, Model S owner
Again, I've never driven a Tesla. When you say "navigation system", is that something different than what the author refers to as the car's "dashboard"? From the article:
> About 50 miles from what I’d planned as my first pit stop, an inn near Chalons-en-Champagne, my dashboard tells me the Supercharger there is “temporarily unavailable.”
> I’m tired and hungry, and although my dashboard shows a Supercharger about five miles outside the city, I decide to go directly to my hotel, a half mile away.
She mentions using Google Maps, but it sounds like it's in conjunction with the info she's getting from the dashboard, e.g. to find other charging points that are near her current touristy destination that may not specifically be a SuperCharger:
> The area has several charging points, but after searching for one via Google Maps—like any other tourist—I’m directed to a shopping district with no place to plug in. I’m tired and hungry, and although my dashboard shows a Supercharger about five miles outside the city, I decide to go directly to my hotel, a half mile away.
The fact that Europe appears to have chargers compatible with Tesla and findable via Google Maps, yet can end up being dead-ends, seems like relevant information for people who are considering trying out EV road-tripping for the first time.
I fully support what Elon and Tesla are doing, but this Bloomberg article accurately points out the downsides of owning a Tesla, especially if it’s your primary car.
If you’re mostly using a Tesla to get around town and charging at home, it’s makes sense, but you’d be better off renting a car for road trips and not having to deal with this hassle.
A lot of people in America have not and still don’t buy diesels because those gas stations are not as ubiquitous as normal fuel. The problem exists to an even greater degree for electric cars, not to mention the amount of time you have to sit around waiting for charging.
American diesel owner here and I initially had some concerns about this but it's the opposite problem of Tesla, thanks to trucks it's never hard to find diesel on road trips. It can be a little harder around town, but since the range is so far (500+ miles) I've never had a problem.
This is a closeup of the area she was travelling through: http://take.ms/bzXNf
Seems to be one of the sparsest zones other than eastern europe.
This is what Europe looks like (map only shows ~1k pins at a time): http://take.ms/U9EKl
A closeup of northern Italy: http://take.ms/E8QVy
 Tesla's response: https://www.tesla.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
You can read the response from the journalist and the NYT public editor which concludes the report was done with "integrity". Musk was initially sympathetic to the journalist, then decided to go after him after he calculated that the optics of this situation were not good for Tesla. He does that crap all the time including with accident victims. Blames the victim. We've seen this over and over again, with little or no consequences for Musk.
Here are the major issues:
1- LOWERING SPEED: Out of the gate range was dropping faster than expected. Probably due to cold weather range loss (it was 30F). He was advised to slow down and did so, which already is not a very good road trip story for Tesla.
Musk attacks him over whether he really engaged the cruise control or just how fast he was going (claims "65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip"). But in his reply the journalist correctly notes that Musk mischaracterized what the data shows ("Tesla’s logs clearly show, much of my driving was at or well below the 65 m.p.h. speed limit, with only a single momentary spike above 80"). This is the first major mischaracterization of the data on the part of Musk.
2- LOWERING TEMP: The reporter was also advised to turn down the cabin temp to improve range. Musk accuses him of lying and notes the average temp was 72 degrees.
But notice, he only cites the average. The journalist response that he cycled between shutting off the heat until his extremities got so cold he couldn't take it anymore, then kicking it back on for a time. This also is not a great story for Tesla. He notes, "The data clearly indicates that I sharply lowered the temperature setting – twice – a little over 200 miles into the trip. After the battery was charged I tried to warm the cabin." Musk chose to omit this and only cite the average in an attempt to mislead you into thinking the journalist made up his experience of freezing to compensate for range anxiety.
3- "DRIVING IN CIRCLES" AT THE FIRST CHARGER: Musk goes absolutely bananas here. His "big reveal" is that the data shows the journalist driving in circles before plugging in and charging up. As the reporter notes, he just couldn't find the damn thing in the dark. Here's how Musk spins this:
"Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in. On the later legs, it is clear Broder was determined not to be foiled again."
What the heck? It is amazing to me that anybody bought this crackpot theory. Let's just think about it for one second, ok? If his grand scheme was to intentionally kill the battery and get stranded to make a good story.... Why on earth would he do it mere feet from a supercharger?
Boy oh boy. Occam's razor says the reporter just had a little bit of trouble finding the charger in the lot. If he wanted to invent a story about his Tesla battery dying, there's much better places to engineer a breakdown.. like on the road!
4- CHARGING UP TO 72%: The reporter spent an hour charging up to "well beyond" the range he needed for his itinerary. He trusted Tesla's range estimate. Musk also spins this as "deliberately stopped charging at 72%," implying that it was part of a scheme. This is just malevolent spin.
5- SUDDEN OVERNIGHT LOSS OF RANGE: The reporter parked the car overnight with 90 miles of range left, enough to make it back to the supercharger. When he woke up it had only 25 miles of range. This is the biggest problem in the trip!
Clearly the car suffered cold weather range loss. It was 10F outside. Whereas previously this forced some compromises, here it completed f'd him.
Musk did not dispute or even mention this part. It's the root problem: If you're going to do a cross country trip in the extreme cold you have a plan correctly for it and take some precautions like plugging in overnight and not trust the range estimate (in 2013). But this doesn't mean the journalist has an integrity problem; he just trusted his Tesla too much.
6- SHITTY ADVICE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A F'D SITUATION: At this point he's just screwed. The nearest charger is too weak. He goes there. After an hour he's at just 32 miles of range. Then someone at Tesla gives him bad info: more range will come back as it heats up. This is believable to him because he got the same advice in the morning: warming the battery will give you back lost range.
Musk claims the reporter acted "against" the advice of Tesla personnel. But he offers no proof. The reporter replied by naming names: "Ms. Ra and Mr. Merendino told me to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored."
This is a plausible misunderstanding. But the bigger picture is: It's not a good story for Tesla even under the best conditions. If he had never spoken with Tesla, just trusted the car's estimate and stayed put it would have taken another 1-2 hours just to charge up enough to make it back to the supercharger, ruining an already ~2 hour delayed day.
So this results in a breakdown when the range doesn't come back after warming up, as he had been led to believe.
SUMMARY- The core problem here was cold weather range loss combined with a driver who expected the car to just work as advertised. At first he drove it normally and was surprised by the diminishing range. He still trusted the range estimate at the first charge on the road. He didn't plug it in overnight in 10F weather, not realizing that it could reduce range. Then he misunderstood instructions from Tesla on how to limp his way back, although the trip was already a failure at that point.
Musk did not like this story. He schemed to find an angle to attack the journalist's integrity. I didn't respect him then for it and I'm not surprised that more of this behavior has surfaced in the years since.
Oh, you meant to the NYT? No, because they were just driving the car like a normal person would. They weren't trying to drive the car [like] a Tesla fanatic would, and it was bizarre for Tesla to go after them for trying to drive the car like a normal car...especially when Tesla spends so much marketing $$$ trying to convince people their cars can replace a normal car.
I don't know if it's intentional or not, but your comment reads as if you're very angry at Tesla yourself, which makes it harder to take your comment at face value. FWIW, if you're just legitimately trying to make an argument on HN it can be worth trying to be judicious about throwing around terms like "zealot" or "fanatic" or significant hyperbole in general. Furthermore you've started with something more then dubious:
>that Tesla would go through their trip logs
Above link was the first time I'd seen that, looks like it's from 2013. But even just reading Tesla's response alone I noted they said "media drive", as in this wasn't the reporter buying his own car and then writing about it, but getting a temporary loaner from Tesla. It's completely normal and within the rights of a manufacturer offering a loan of something valuable for review purposes to keep logs or check it for reported problems on return, it's their property after all and if there were real flaws they'd want to be able to work on fixing them. After I read further comments made at the time it was stated that private owners logs are theirs in turn, no Tesla cannot go through their trip logs if they write whatever they want. But if you want to just try something out for free, well it's not yours. This would be the same as if you used a company car or system or equipment or whatever, the company may monitor that. And loaners aren't the only way for journalists to do reviews either, Consumer Reports for example famously buys things themselves (with confidential shoppers to boot) precisely to avoid bias or cherry picking or whatever from either side.
Given the above, I have doubts about your assertion of "a lot of potential customers" too. If you have some newer information indicating that Tesla was lying about not logging data of private cars without consent (real consent, with a signature) maybe include that in your post?
But in this case: at the time of the NYT article, Tesla's PR department was operating on hair-trigger reaction mode: even the slightest critical comment would send them into overdrive in response. They've since learned about the Streisand effect, and no longer respond to criticism in the way they did before. (This is likely because Musk no longer directly oversees the day-to-day of their marketing.)
As for the trip logs: it's not just the NYT trip. It was every time there was an accident involving a Tesla. Or a negative review. Even Tesla's response to the Consumer Reports review included information from the CR vehicle's trip logs, even though CR acquired those vehicles from third parties. The problem isn't that Tesla is logging the cars (most new cars do), the problem is how Tesla is using that data in ways that violate cultural (and in the case of Europe, legal) norms regarding privacy.
Finally, as to "a lot of potential customers," I count more than a few dozen in LA alone across a number of industries. Jaguar has seen the biggest windfall in terms of putative Tesla buyers switching to the iPace, followed by the BMW. A lot of the rest are simply waiting until the next generation of EVs and are sticking with their current luxury/mid-range vehicles. I am aware that on an absolute basis a few dozen customers isn't much, but it's a few dozen potential customers in the market segement most likely to buy and evangelize their cars.
>even the slightest critical comment
But I mean, I wouldn't categorize something like that NYT piece as "the slightest critical comment" it was pretty brutal. Maybe correctly, but not nothing. Same with the Top Gear, though since that's more a comedy show it shouldn't be an expectation (but I think a lot of Americans at least don't know that). Unless you can really link to something showing say a bunch of random owners doing little blogs or tweets along the lines of "the color wasn't quite what I expected" or "range is overall fine but a few miles lower then was represented" resulted an "overdrive response" your argument would be stronger if you just stuck to a basic "negative reviews". And as far as the "a lot of potential customers" you must realize that we've all seen the anecdote/data thing a ton of times right and a few dozen out of hundreds of thousands of sales and an enormous backlog of demand kind of seems not very compelling either? Particularly given all the confounding factors of their genuine other fuckups?
Anyway, that's all. I'm not saying you're wrong to be critical, but I don't think you did as good a job of it as you could have.
>"What other things I have noticed: the "anonymization" is actually pretty superficial. Every trip (from the moment autopilot started to the moment autopilot is powered off) is given a unique uuid, and every snapshot taken during that uses the same uuid, even if some internal fields are cleared for "anonymized" uploads, internally the trip id is still stored, combined with camera calibrations uploaded every other minute under the same trip id without any anonymization - connecting the dots back together is actually pretty simple. And of course looking at enough trips it's also pretty easy to see that "this must be home, now who lives there from our customer database"? Obviously timestamps are also all there."
Finally Tesla is apparently not even at all transparent about sharing this with owners. So absolutely worthy of concern, and I wish all this had been in OP and they'd been more measured and precise because that 2013 post touches on none of that at all, nor naturally do comments from back then touch on anything that has changed sicne. Like at other companies, ML learning benefits from huge data intake and in turn is driving (harhar) a hunger for maximum data at maximum resolution. There is a real direct tension right now in a lot of areas of tech between that and privacy (witness Apple's issues trying to juggle that). A good step (if it hasn't happened already, seems like it must have but I can't find something on it) would be for an EU Tesla car owner to use the GDPR to force them to disclose everything they've got on them.
After a negative experience several years ago with Top Gear, a popular automotive show, where they pretended that our car ran out of energy and had to be pushed back to the garage, we always carefully data log media drives.
Tesla does not hold itself to the same standard of truthfulness it insists on from others. The Top Gear segment was benign compared to Tesla's coast to coast FSD boast, designed to extract FCF from selling a product that may or may not eventually exist.
> otherwise Tesla wouldn't magically have the data to put together a PR response denying culpability whenever something goes wrong with Autopilot.
NTSB -> crash scene -> find black box -> send to TSLA? Just one possible non-nefarious mechanism for this information to make its way to Tesla.
Is co-opting a crash investigation performed by the government and cherry picking data from it in order to cast the blame on their deceased former customer meant to be better or worse than collecting everyone's data indiscriminately?
> who realized that Tesla would go through their trip logs if they made even the slightest critical comment of the company
which is likely false. It's irrelevant in this branch of the conversation how Orwellian my more likely explanation is, because what's being contested is the truthfulness of this claim, not how bad of a company Tesla is.
So you can easily data log any driver. So any government agency or any "partner" paying enough could have access to this data.
I think most potential customers would be smart enough to realize Tesla's actions don't generalize from reporters to all customers.
Especially since the reporter describes it as a "wondercar with California dealer plates", which means Tesla lent him the car. I don't see anything wrong with Tesla going through the logs on their own car after they got it back.
I don't know about you, but I usually check how much gas I have in the fuel tank before going on a trip.
Maybe you just didn't know crux means the most important part of the story, not just a small point in the story
Maybe you just need to defend mega corporations less and not assume other people are dumb.
A normal petrol car gives you zero anxiety about finding a refuel station, and it happens in under five minutes. Even in the smallest cities and towns in American.
I had about a quarter of a tank left and saw a sign as I approached an off ramp which said "last service station for xx km". I did some mental arithmetic and decided not to pull over and refuel I'd be able to make it to the next service station.
Sure enough I got to the next service station - however when I pulled in the single pump was out of order. I ended up having to call roadside assistance.
That happened to me about 8 years ago and ever since I've been absolutely paranoid about range I'm very hesitant to let my tank drop below half nowadays.
As Tesla's own mechanics on the scene indicated that the car was malfunctioning, Tesla's subsequent PR statement has absolutely no value whatsoever and cannot be relied upon as an accurate statement of what the NYT driver did. Because Tesla's own people, on the scene, indicated that the Tesla software wasn't working, which means that the data Tesla used to "refute" the NYT article was simply untrustworthy, bad data.
Oh shit. WTF? This is the first time I'm hearing this. What? Tesla has access to the car's trip logs?????
Whether they have access to the logs of any random customer's car, I have no idea. But this doesn't prove things one way or the other.
Can't be surprised that she's confused about it.
In this specific case, the author did attempt to charge to full when possible, but at the one stop where she ate during the day it would have taken too long so she kept going. Also, to note--she was specifically trying not to use Superchargers because the point was to see what the charging experience was like for EVs in general, not Tesla in specific. The author chose the Tesla because it had the longest range of EVs available to rent in her area.
The article was not specifically about driving a Tesla. The editor chooses the title. The author wrote an article about a generic EV roadtrip experience in Europe. The editor made it seem like it was specifically about Teslas.
It would make perfect sense to tailor their reporting to their customer's taste.
Working as intended I suppose.
Or are we just doing anecdotes? The plural of anecdote is not data.
I bought a Tesla model 3 recently, hooray tax credits.
There is literally a button on the map screen that tells you how to get to the nearest chargers both Tesla and otherwise and if they, for the Tesla chargers, are available. This will then happily navigate you to the charger via GPS.
It seems like for a technology that is pretty frankly an early adopter thing, that using the tools provided rather than expecting it to work like a gas car is expected.
So yeah, I completely agree that it should be assumed to be more involved than the currently mass-market vehicles.
Tesla has a trip planner that routes you to a 12-lane supercharger station . This is not a complicated journey at all and only requires one ~30m charge each way. Somehow the author turned it into an anxiety-inducing odyssey.
And in that sense, the trip failed for the Tesla, because trying to drive it like a normal car in Europe was anxiety-inducing. Which was the whole point of the article...
The “tool” everyone is mentioning is literally in the car dashboard. You have to go out of your way to _not_ use it by default.
OTOH, the very first thing I did was bring up the Tesla supercharger map and see 8 superchargers between Paris and Mannheim, with no more than 160km between any of them. It seems like she basically ended up testing the worst of both worlds.
I don't think that was the point given that the article has Tesla in its title.
> With 215 miles on a full charge, the 2015 Tesla Model S had the biggest range I could find to rent. The distance was more than rivals like the BMW i3 or the Renault Zoe: cars that are both advertised as primarily for city driving. And although I rented a Tesla, it could’ve been any other make or model: I didn’t care so much about the model as I did about testing Europe’s charging infrastructure.
For this particular route, https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=45a1f1bd-5697-448... finds a route with just under 2.5 hours total charging time, and 10 h15m driving time.
The one issue that might have been unavoidable was having a supercharger be closed unexpectedly while you are driving towards it, but I suspect that Tesla indicates impending closures on the display, and you can also call their roadside support line to clarify details about impending maintainence if you are worried.
(In general if you want to see a lot of Europe don't do it on the road, get an Inter-Rail pass! Much cheaper than a Tesla)
I would very much expect to be able to leave the highway at midnight in most parts of the country and get something to eat.
I've taken exactly one road trip in Europe, and it was during the daytime, so I have no idea if this is common there or not. I do note that you specified "regular restaurant" but GP said "gas, food and lodging", all of which are readily available at midnight in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was a furniture store next to my house. An owner had a large poster glued to the window about how beneficial would it be for the economy of everyone used his store instead of Ikea. Being a huge fan of small local business I honestly tried to stop by. But theres no way I'll take a day off work to do it. Ikea won.
In many cities there are special days (thursday here) where many large and small shops are open until 9pm; one day doesn't break the bank. Big hardware stores, supermarkets and other larger chains are commonly open 9-9 every day. Smaller stores can not do this, and their owners also want normal work hours like you.
That sounds like an exact opposite of "spending more time with your family".
In where I live we have either 24-hours ASDA or small Indian stores which are open till 11pm 7 days a week.
Closing at 5 isn't convenient for anyone but the business owner, and even then it's not necessarily better than opening later.
Look it is a balance that needs to be struck. I appreciate the challenges in South Africa and different to the rest of the world. There is a price for everything, I question the price we pay as a society to have all these shops open late?
If I were opening a store today though I'd rather have the essentials in a vending machine out front for the morning rush and open the store later and keep it open until later. If you travel Switzerland you can see many Alpkäsereien (Fromageries) have vending machines for their cheese. Appropriately made out of wood and looking like a tiny little chalet.
I like the idea of vending machines for essentials. Look its a personal preference thing. In South Africa most of the cashiers are female and most have children. I just feel children should have mothers read bed time stories to them. I love the convenience of buying bread at 8pm but I wonder what the cost to society is for this convenience.
We have a problem in Africa where young kids have to assume the role of the adult all because mommy is away working late into the night. I guess the situation is different elsewhere.
What's a train car?