Air Suspension no longer lowers at highway speeds (FW update v5.8)

[Mobster]

Got it, NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.

So after all this righteous indignation if it turned out there was no 6.0 fix you could be bought off by one of the following?

- install a twin charger
- an HPWC
- a set of rims at half price
- 4 years of Annual service
- Red brake calipers
- Folding mirrors

Got it. :wink:

Larry




So which is your position? Communicating out of the public eye or some public statement? :biggrin:

Larry

Wow. "righteous indignation"? "bought off"? Not sure what your agenda is with the sarcasm.

The point is proper business conduct and corporate character.

1. To answer your question I am against communicating "out of the public eye" (the term posted by someone else) as being improper and possibly dangerous for a publicly traded company who has a responsibility to keep all stockholders and potential stock buyers equally informed of even small issues that may affect price. Business 101. I am not sure where you might have got ANY impression it was an either/or situation. Tesla has not demonstrated ANY under the table, out of the public eye, secret or selected audience information. They appear to be proper in their original press release that requires IMHO a followup after Saturday.

Furthermore, I don't agree it has ever been Tesla's intention to do that (communicate position "out of the public eye").....just some people's idea from bits and pieces of opinions coming from Tesla employees or who knows where (he said, she said). Tesla is on the official record with a mission statement where Elon went on record without reservation that the car and the feature was safe, bravely and dramatically challenged anyone to prove differently, and set a date for the return of the feature. This is proper business protocol. And now, it will be expected by interested parties that a follow up public press level release will appropriately address the current "on the record" position" So I hope you get the answer: NO out of the public eye. Yes, a proper, honest press release follow up with current status coinciding with the deadline from the first press release.

2. On your other question, the list of possible replacement features (that was posted by someone else, not me), again, is a proper way for a company to compensate customers for value not delivered and is a common practice. I do not agree with a cynical analysis that anyone is "bought off". Customer satisfaction usually is a huge subject in a corporation and many times occupy departments with skilled experts who do not in any way worry about "buying people off". That's offensive. People accept refunds, replacement parts, coupons and the like for value not delivered millions of times a day ranging from the very small dollar items all the way up to an airplane manufacturing company offering replacement value items to a carrier (airline) that did not receive performance value promised. (I consult and negotiate these kind of deals often with executives). The result is not a "buy off" rather a mended relationship for a company "oops" and a customer put back on supporting the relationship (not cynically "bought off"). Value properly delivered. Yes, depending on the details I might accept a replacement feature for the very expensive feature taken from us. Many others here have also stated their displeasure at the action and the way the action was taken. It's just business. Not personal. However, the character of a company can become an emotional issue affecting sales and it's stock standing. Business, not "righteous indignation". Fact based. Business case based.


I am sorry you have labeled me "righteously indignant". Like so many others who have posted here I only have an business opinion. It's based on my background handling these kind of tough problems with a very large global corporation for 40 years, and later (now) as a consultant to other corporate executives who find themselves in situations like this. Its business. Character is very important.

If the company does not deliver as indicated in original press release, oh well. No indignation. I am sure other owners will then post their opinions which will most certainly vary. I hope no one is cynically labeled one way or the other for their opinion and/or their suggestions for the future. Their are many options. Many revolve around "the right thing to do" versus "spin". Tough decisions for executives being pressured from both sides. The one fact that appears indisputable is that the Tesla Model S is as safe or safer than other cars, an incomparable joy to drive, and is a technology marvel.

 

[mjtgroup]

Speaking of communication. Where is the announcement about NOT re-enabling the "Low" setting on the air suspension in January? Maybe I missed it or perhaps it was never made. I sincerely hope that this is not an example of more "heavy" handed tactics? Please get it together Tesla and keep us informed.

I am beginning to feel like a victim of theft. You furtively took that which was mine and I grow tired of waiting for it's return.

If no "low" air suspension, then return my $1500 and we'll call it even . . .

 

[JRP3]

So when they return the low setting, and additionally add the feature of being able to set the speed at which lowering occurs, and lower the car manually as well, both features you never paid for, will you be sending Tesla some extra money?

 

[ACDriveMotor]

I think we should try to take it down a notch and keep these discussions intellectual and productive. I see both sides of this and accept that it is a complex situation. To be fair, we were promised new free features via OTA update - so no we should not pay more for them. We were not told that core features that we did pay for would be disabled.

 

[gnelson]

I think we should try to take it down a notch and keep these discussions intellectual and productive. I see both sides of this and accept that it is a complex situation. To be fair, we were promised new free features via OTA update - so no we should not pay more for them. We were not told that core features that we did pay for would be disabled.

Thanks for a reasonable and appropriate post.

 

[dsm363]

So when they return the low setting, and additionally add the feature of being able to set the speed at which lowering occurs, and lower the car manually as well, both features you never paid for, will you be sending Tesla some extra money?

Maybe they should have two firmware versions from now on. One that only does safety and bug fixes and no future software enhancements like better Nav and the other one with everything new (good and bad).

 

[JRP3]

To be fair, we were promised new free features via OTA update - so no we should not pay more for them. We were not told that core features that we did pay for would be disabled.

Point taken.

 

[dsm363]

I think we should try to take it down a notch and keep these discussions intellectual and productive. I see both sides of this and accept that it is a complex situation. To be fair, we were promised new free features via OTA update - so no we should not pay more for them. We were not told that core features that we did pay for would be disabled.

I have the air suspension in a P85 and honestly can't tell the difference. I hope it comes back for those that want it.

 

[WarpedOne]

To be fair, we were promised new free features via OTA update - so no we should not pay more for them. We were not told that core features that we did pay for would be disabled.

To be fair... it is not unthinkable that if tasla had not disabled auto-lowering and another accident happened and maybe even someone died there, the media would tore apart tesla and 'resell value' of the car could/would plummet. Tesla might have (temporary) taken away a feature you payed for but they at the same time could/did save you more than 10times the value.

This thing is simple only through very shortsighted view. Your point will gain a bit of weight if in time they will not reenable the payed for feature. Yes, he said january, yes it is February, in March you may start asking questions.

 

[mjtgroup]

So when they return the low setting, and additionally add the feature of being able to set the speed at which lowering occurs, and lower the car manually as well, both features you never paid for, will you be sending Tesla some extra money?

Absolutely, and if I follow Tesla's lead, my "check is in the mail" . . .

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Speaking of communication. Where is the announcement about NOT re-enabling the "Low" setting on the air suspension in January? Maybe I missed it or perhaps it was never made. I sincerely hope that this is not an example of more "heavy" handed tactics? Please get it together Tesla and keep us informed.

I am beginning to feel like a victim of theft. You furtively took that which was mine and I grow tired of waiting for it's return.

If no "low" air suspension, then return my $1500 and we'll call it even . . .

I'm sorry, but when does any company inform anyone when it misses a deadline? Do you get an email apology from Apple when it misses an iOS release date? The software will be released when it's ready. It is what it is. The way some of you are talking, you are expecting Tesla to issue some kind of apology and to come to you with their hat in their hands begging your forgiveness or something. Can we get real?

 

[brianman]

Your point will gain a bit of weight if in time they will not reenable the payed for feature. Yes, he said january, yes it is February, in March you may start asking questions.

Let's take another example.

Suppose they found an issue with supercharging that can present a safety issue in 100+F weather. In response to this, Tesla turns off all superchargers everywhere. Not just ones in warm climates. Not just ones in regions that ever see 100+ F weather. And not just turn off supercharging speeds, but completely turns off the chargers so that you can't even use them at 110V/12A speeds. Now suppose that they didn't fix that for 2+ months.

If you were planning a road-trip using superchargers, this might significantly affect your schedule, which car you can take, and (if it's your only car) whether it's even worthwhile to take this trip.

Now suppose this all happened with a stealth update in November, discovered by owners rather than announced, a fix was promised in January, the fix didn't arrive in January, and other owners said "you really shouldn't complain until March". Would you be somewhat upset?

I would. In fact this post might make me more angry than the original problem and Tesla response. Why? Because TMC folk should support each other rather than lecture each other. I suspect that wasn't your intent, but that's how it came across to me.

I'm sorry if this comes across as picking on you. That's not my intent and (rereading it comes off a bit harsh) but I'm growing increasingly weary of TMC folks telling each other what they should feel and how they're supposed to react to Tesla's mistakes.


And this post feels just as patronizing to me:

The way some of you are talking, you are expecting Tesla to issue some kind of apology and to come to you with their hat in their hands begging your forgiveness or something. Can we get real?

 

[JRP3]

Suppose they found an issue with supercharging that can present a safety issue in 100+F weather. In response to this, Tesla turns off all superchargers everywhere.

Doesn't seem like an appropriate example since that severely impacts the usefulness of the vehicle for many. The suspension change has little if any effect on the useability of the car. Some people have said they don't even notice the difference, though obviously others do. If Tesla never returns the feature you paid for that's one thing, if they are a few weeks later returning it than they originally said it seems like a minor point. Remember how long the vampire drain issue lingered, which cost people real money from excess energy consumption, yet few, if any, seemed to be very upset about it. In his recent talk Elon mentioned how critical it is for them to get their updates fully tested since a problem rate of even one out of one hundred means a significant number of vehicles will be affected.

 

[MartinAustin]

Yeah, way too many whiners on this thread. Holding Tesla to their "promises" like there was some sort of contract. As if a class action lawsuit would be triggered by some team that wanted to sue Tesla for not providing a fix for the air suspension lowering by EOM January... because that's what they said. Remember we're only talking about cars with the air suspension - coil suspension cars don't have ANY ability to vary their height and are STILL just as liable to run over a large metal object as they were before those fires. How many air suspension-owning Tesla owners would join the class for that suit? There would be so few, it would be laughed out of court - but only after Tesla suffered at the hands of detractors in the press and saw their stock price hurt again.

This delay is because they have to get rid of bugs in the release, which they only find after testing it. I for one would prefer that Tesla tests more and delays more - so that there is less likelihood of another update to fix bugs they didn't find!

It's the software business, despite there being so many digital aspects, it's a very analogue, human-driven (no pun untended) business and there are a multitude of factors preventing on-time release dates. It's not like steam trains leaving the station on time in 1914.

The fact that (again, only for air suspension owners) the air suspension adjustment functionality will be better than it has ever been before, AND there is a host of improvements all around, seems to be lost on these forum dwellers. (OK, I am also a forum dweller)

I am very grate ful to Tesla for finding ways to tease out more functionality from a car they've already released, that was already one of the best, and maybe the best, car on the market when I got hold of it. It only needs to stay at least as good as it was when I got it... but Tesla improves it!!!

Can't believe people are complaining.

 

[brianman]

If Tesla never returns the feature you paid for that's one thing, if they are a few weeks later returning it than they originally said it seems like a minor point.

Ok, let's run with this.

How long is it acceptable for a car maker to disable/remove a feature before they should be held accountable? Clearly you think a few weeks is ok. Is several months okay? How about 8 years? I'm curious where you draw the line.

I'm pretty sure for wifi hot-spot it might be more than 8 years, for example.


Again, my point is that the suspension change is "small ball" here. It's the precedent that scares me. The auto industry is watching Tesla and will learn from what they "get away with".

 

[dsm363]

How about we wait until 6.0 comes out? If it is not included then people can start demanding compensation or a free jacket.
However arbitrary Tesla decided to do what they did for a reason. If we had continued at a battery/road debris incident every 5 weeks and Tesla had done nothing forcing a recall there could have best been a massive hit to the stock and at worst no more Tesla.
The car is hardly disabled with 5.8. I wonder how many people would have actually known it didn't auto lower if the screen didn't tell them or this forum hadn't. Regardless people want it so if Tesla can safely and responsibly bring it back they should. If they can't or won't then people will have to decide what to do or to demand from Tesla.

 

[JRP3]

Again, my point is that the suspension change is "small ball" here. It's the precedent that scares me. The auto industry is watching Tesla and will learn from what they "get away with".

I don't expect Tesla to get everything right every time, especially at this stage of the game. I do believe this specific event was a move out of desperation to do something to stop the potential disaster that was happening after the 3 closely spaced incidents. Tesla needed some breathing room, and they got it. Sure we can't know if that was directly related to the change, and hopefully once lowering is enabled again we won't suddenly have more incidents. Certainly Tesla needs to start promising less, (wifi hot spot), and delivering more, and hopefully as they grow they will. I don't know what time frame is acceptable for delay since any potential issue would be a different situation, I'm just saying that in this specific case because of the very specific risk associated with it that a few weeks delay does not seem as if it should be a big deal. If Tesla starts to make a habit of disabling features you paid for then it would seem they may have a much deeper problem and may not be a viable company. These are still early days and owners are still in the realm of beta testers at this point in time. Unfortunately not all are aware of this.

 

[gnelson]

Yeah, way too many whiners on this thread. Holding Tesla to their "promises" like there was some sort of contract.

Actually there are too many fan boys dictating how others can react.

- - - Updated - - -

How about we wait until 6.0 comes out? If it is not included then people can start demanding compensation or a free jacket.
However arbitrary Tesla decided to do what they did for a reason. If we had continued at a battery/road debris incident every 5 weeks and Tesla had done nothing forcing a recall there could have best been a massive hit to the stock and at worst no more Tesla.
The car is hardly disabled with 5.8. I wonder how many people would have actually known it didn't auto lower if the screen didn't tell them or this forum hadn't. Regardless people want it so if Tesla can safely and responsibly bring it back they should. If they can't or won't then people will have to decide what to do or to demand from Tesla.

I noticed the handling difference when I drove a P85+ loaner with 5.8. I especially noticed reduced regenerative braking. The Houston SC confirmed that 5.8 reduced the regenerative braking. Others have disputed this stating that the firmware caused the regenerative braking to revert to a low setting. They indicated a reboot and toggling the setting between standard, low and standard would restore the regenerative braking. Others in Houston have noticed the reduction in regenerative braking and have done the reboot and toggling of the settings. They still report less regenerative braking. This is a significant change in driveability as I prefer driving with one pedal. I had to use the brakes on the loaner quite frequently.

I want this issue addressed with official information prior to any upgrades that I will schedule from 5.6. Currently there is significant hearsay and many conflicting reports. I will remain leery of any firmware updates until others on the Forum have reported the impact of the updates. Tesla has undermined their credibility with me.

 

[lloyds]

Comes down to expectations. Taking away a feature that we paid for and updating it later is fine, but as brianmann stated, this is a slippery slope. And at what length of time is it ok? Class action lawsuit is a bit overblown because Tesla may be behind in figuring this fiasco out. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Like politics, there are always extremists. I like to look at this from a central point of view.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Actually there are too many fan boys dictating how others can react.

- - - Updated - - -

I noticed the handling difference when I drove a P85+ loaner with 5.8. I especially noticed reduced regenerative braking. The Houston SC confirmed that 5.8 reduced the regenerative braking. Others have disputed this stating that the firmware caused the regenerative braking to revert to a low setting. They indicated a reboot and toggling the setting between standard, low and standard would restore the regenerative braking. Others in Houston have noticed the reduction in regenerative braking and have done the reboot and toggling of the settings. They still report less regenerative braking. This is a significant change in driveability as I prefer driving with one pedal. I had to use the brakes on the loaner quite frequently.

I want this issue addressed with official information prior to any upgrades that I will schedule from 5.6. Currently there is significant hearsay and many conflicting reports. I will remain leery of any firmware updates until others on the Forum have reported the impact of the updates. Tesla has undermined their credibility with me.

I consider a response from Ownership an official response.

Prior to getting my response from them I specifically highlighted the fact that the Houston Service Center claimed that regenerative braking was reduced after v 5.8. Ownership consulted with Engineering before they responded to me, presumably discounting Houston's interpretation.

If you are still doubtful I suggest that you consult Tesla directly yourself. In posting #906 I provided the contact information of an Ownership Experience Advocate that is familar with the situation. If you still have credibility concerns you owe it to yourself to pursue them to your satisfaction. Perhaps an email to Jerome Guillen would be more to your liking.

Of course you are free to do nothing and continue to complain about credibility issues and object to "fan boys" remarking that there are too many whinners on this thread.

Larry