Firmware 7.0

[KyP85D]

Only if max battery power is not turned on

 

[KyP85D]

 

[Andyw2100]

Only if max battery power is not turned on

That actually could be it!

Marc showed in the video that Ma Battery Power was on and ready, but my understanding is that it can time out. So perhaps it had timed out at some point. I'll go back and watch the video again, to see if we ever see that it is still on once the Launch Control has failed, but I'm not sure Marc ever shoots that screen again.

I had watched the video again before seeing this, and was coming here to post another observation, which is that each time Marc attempted to engage Launch Control, just before he received the error about both pedals being used, the "H" for the brake hold temporarily disappeared. That may be a symptom of the problem, but I thought it was worth noting.

Edit: Nope--That theory is shot to hell. At 2:42 of the video, after some failed attempts, you can clearly see that Max Battery Power is still indicating "Ready!"

Edit 2: One other thought, though it's kind of a grasping at straws thought. I haven't gone back and watched again to check, but perhaps Marc was taking a little too long between stepping on the brake and then stepping on the accelerator. The instructions don't indicate any sort of a time limit here--the 4 second time limit is for a step later in the launch process--but perhaps there is some sort of a time limit in the early stages as well, and Marc unknowingly exceeded it in his attempts to explain what he was doing.

 

[MarcG]

Yes it is 2.9.40. I'm not sure what he is doing differently. I just press the brake firmly. While holding brake press accelerator to floor and let off. The notification pops up. Then press accelerator to floor again and hold it. When brake is released car launches.

You can only hold it the four seconds. It is a fairly significant torque build up before launch. No way to measure but I suspect a couple tenths improvement 0-60.

I did the exact same as you, except I get "Both pedals pressed" instead of "Launch mode ready" in the IC. And when I step on the accelerator, the car tries to move forward but it can't since I'm holding the brake pedal very firmly, so it somewhat lurches a bit.

In my Audi TT 3.2 that I upgraded to a 400hp turbo with the Euro-spec ECU, the behavior was the same if I didn't disable traction control and do the procedure in the right order. It would lurch a little in these cases. But if I did the procedure correctly, stepping on the gas pedal would basically put the tranny in neutral and rev the engine without lurching.

Ky, do you get the "lurch" I'm describing at all or not?

Also, was your "Max battery power" in Preparing mode or Ready?

 

[KyP85D]

It worked while preparing and ready. Yes the lurch occurs each time. That is the torque buildup I was referring to.

 

[ecarfan]

If a company says something is beta and then before it is finalized they refine a feature to limit its scope I see how that's 'taking something away' but it also shouldn't be a shock. Maybe they'll add it back after it is refined some more. If you want a car that never changes it is pretty clear at this point that a Tesla is not that car.

So true.
To all those who are agitated that something has been "taken away" in AP: you can continue trying to convince the world that you have been wronged, but Tesla is going to continue to change and evolve AP and push toward autonomous driving regardless of what you think. I don't think you have been wronged. You do. Point taken.
And I agree with Bonnie's position: all Tesla has done is make a reasonable attempt to restrict a use case that it was already clear was not a valid use case at this time (of course at some point it will be a valid use case, but it's not yet).
Will this new restriction work perfectly? Of course it won't. It's a very complex issue and it will not have a "0% false positive rate". So what? It will likely work fairly well, and it will improve with time.
AP is an "aid" to driving and is specifically stated to only be used on a small subset of all roads at this time. The set of roads it can be used on will expand over time.

 

[Andyw2100]

One point I haven't seen raised yet in the discussion concerning the autopilot changes is that Tesla may actually be increasing their liability by taking this action, which I expect is the exact opposite of what they intend.

Before having released the latest version of the firmware that has the new Auto Steer restrictions, had there been any catastrophic accidents, Tesla could easily have just pointed to the warnings about proper use of the feature and explained that the driver(s) did not operate the vehicle(s) in a safe manner in accordance with the warnings. But now that the firmware restricting certain functionality is out, should a vehicle that still has that functionality be involved in a catastrophic collision, the question to Tesla will be "Why was that vehicle still utilizing firmware you knew to be unsafe and had made the decision to restrict?" The next questions might be, "What percentage of the fleet was still utilizing that unsafe firmware at the time of the accident, and why?"

And the above is not even making any statement about the owners who may choose not to update. The above applies to Tesla's normal procedures for firmware roll out. As of today, it seems just a handful of people have the new firmware. I'm guessing the vast majority of AP cars don't yet have it, and won't for some time, even if their owners are willing to accept the update as soon as it is available.

I think Tesla's position on this was stronger before than it is now.

On the other hand, if Tesla manages to get the entire fleet updated before there are any catastrophic accidents, they will have then, of course, decreased their liability. I just think they are taking some big risks trying to get to that point.

 

[Cyberax]

So true.
To all those who are agitated that something has been "taken away" in AP: you can continue trying to convince the world that you have been wronged, but Tesla is going to continue to change and evolve AP and push toward autonomous driving regardless of what you think.

This is not evolution. It's degradation. Intentional degradation.

 

[MikeBur]

Couple of notes on 2.9.12 (limited release prior to .40) on p85d after ~700 miles.

1) Launch mode mentioned above IS available and appears to work. Currently uploading video to YouTube, though was tested on low battery (22%) and on very wet roads, so not reflective of any Perf characteristics.
2) Cannot reproduce any of the restrictions on AP mentioned on .40
3) On the homelink garage opening "button" there now appears to be a gap between created entry and settings.

pics below:

Edit. video link added.

- - - Updated - - -

It worked while preparing and ready. Yes the lurch occurs each time. That is the torque buildup I was referring to.

Also noticed this now lurches* even when launch mode not available, i.e. You get "lurch" and then "both pedals pressed" message, though car will still accelerate away if you keep accelerator pressed and release brake.... It was a fun couple of hours this morning trying all these combos.

Also noted that "max battery" option is unavailable when battery charge is <20%, implicitly disabling launch mode.


*actually it's more like the squat you get when lighting up engines on a plane prior to brake release on takeoff ;-)

- - - Updated - - -

This is not evolution. It's degradation. Intentional degradation.

I hope I understand your pov here, as well as others.

Have you contacted TM yet stating what you believe is an acceptable level of risk that you'd accept, i.e. I would be fine signing a waiver of liability for misuse of AP features, modulo verification of data from independent 3rd party (to ensure objectivity in whether AP was at fault)?

I believe I'm luckily at the perfect FW version from my perspective until TM determines the right balance it wants between enabling features and minimizing potential risk. Like Jason and Dirk, I may well put a "do not install updates requirement" on TM with express permission if the current version has proven negative ROI to me. As my car goes for annual service in a week, I'm eagerly waiting feedback from others on .40s restrictions.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I believe I'm luckily at the perfect FW version from my perspective until TM determines the right balance it wants between enabling features and minimizing potential risk. Like Jason and Dirk, I may well put a "do not install updates requirement" on TM with express permission if the current version has proven negative ROI to me. As my car goes for annual service in a week, I'm eagerly waiting feedback from others on .40s restrictions.

Unless shown otherwise so far it looks like the 45MPH limitation is NOT in the 2.9.40 firmware. It seems likely that it was simply a documentation error in the manual. It's not in the release notes, and shouldn't something like this be in the release notes?

For me I'm going to upgrade to the 2.9.40 firmware if it becomes available to me OTA. No other V7 update has come across, and so I'm still on the original V7.0 rev. I'm also looking forwards to improved auto-wiper functionality.

 

[wk057]

I'll just chime in and point out no launch mode hidden in 2.7.77.

- - - Updated - - -

And I don't know about you guys... but this image from a post above just looks like a horrible idea. :scared:

 

[jgs]

Have you contacted TM yet stating what you believe is an acceptable level of risk that you'd accept, i.e. I would be fine signing a waiver of liability for misuse of AP features, modulo verification of data from independent 3rd party (to ensure objectivity in whether AP was at fault)?

To the extent that any of this discussion has a basis in reality and reflects a desire on Tesla's part to protect themselves from liability, it seems kind of unlikely that would work. The driver might be able to waive claims against Tesla, but I don't see how that would protect Tesla from clams by a third party injured by an irresponsible driver of a Tesla. I suppose in theory you could offer to indemnify Tesla against such claims and post a large bond, but in reality, nah.

For my part, I hope they stick with their position of saying they're just selling rope, if the driver chooses to fashion the rope into a noose and stick his neck into it, that's his own fault.

 

[MikeBur]

Rotlmao...

Before those wishing to be my mother chime in... I didn't actually LAUNCH that time. Rather was shocked that this enabled whilst sitting at traffic lights. Obviously it would have been stupid to launch at that point. As mentioned, and can be seen in the video, the actual launches were on empty freeway ramp on entry to 70mph section of I90 ;-)

And I don't know about you guys... but this image from a post above just looks like a horrible idea. :scared:

View attachment 104180

 

[wk057]

Rotlmao...

Before those wishing to be my mother chime in... I didn't actually LAUNCH that time. Rather was shocked that this enabled whilst sitting at traffic lights. Obviously it would have been stupid to launch at that point. As mentioned, and can be seen in the video, the actual launches were on empty freeway ramp on entry to 70mph section of I90 ;-)

hehe, yeah... I'm just busting chops

 

[MarcG]

FYI, regarding the Autopilot limitation of 45mph on surface streets, I have yet to see that message even though I'm on 2.9.40 and have tried several times on "roads without a center divider or residential roads".

In the below image, you can see that I'm on a 4-lane road without a divider, yet I was able to set Autopilot to 55mph and it didn't complain:

 

[wk057]

FYI, regarding the Autopilot limitation of 45mph on surface streets, I have yet to see that message even though I'm on 2.9.40 and have tried several times on "roads without a center divider or residential roads".

In the below image, you can see that I'm on a 4-lane road without a divider, yet I was able to set Autopilot to 55mph and it didn't complain:

Maybe I'll update to 2.9.40 if that's the case. I'll wait for a while to see if there are additional reports.

 

[sillydriver]

One point I haven't seen raised yet in the discussion concerning the autopilot changes is that Tesla may actually be increasing their liability by taking this action, which I expect is the exact opposite of what they intend.

Before having released the latest version of the firmware that has the new Auto Steer restrictions, had there been any catastrophic accidents, Tesla could easily have just pointed to the warnings about proper use of the feature and explained that the driver(s) did not operate the vehicle(s) in a safe manner in accordance with the warnings. But now that the firmware restricting certain functionality is out, should a vehicle that still has that functionality be involved in a catastrophic collision, the question to Tesla will be "Why was that vehicle still utilizing firmware you knew to be unsafe and had made the decision to restrict?" The next questions might be, "What percentage of the fleet was still utilizing that unsafe firmware at the time of the accident, and why?"

And the above is not even making any statement about the owners who may choose not to update. The above applies to Tesla's normal procedures for firmware roll out. As of today, it seems just a handful of people have the new firmware. I'm guessing the vast majority of AP cars don't yet have it, and won't for some time, even if their owners are willing to accept the update as soon as it is available.

I think Tesla's position on this was stronger before than it is now.

On the other hand, if Tesla manages to get the entire fleet updated before there are any catastrophic accidents, they will have then, of course, decreased their liability. I just think they are taking some big risks trying to get to that point.

You make an interesting point. There may be even more liability. First is what you say, where the plaintiff asks "why was the restricted firmware not installed?" Second is where someone crashes in a situation in which AP is still allowed, and the plaintiff asks "you restricted these unsafe situations, why didn't you restrict the obviously unsafe situation in which the accident occurred?"

 

[dsm363]

I think people are thinking way to hard about this. You are required to keep your hands on the wheel and to pay attention using autopilot. All Tesla has to do is send out the firmware update. If people refuse to update them that's not Tesla's problem.

 

[sillydriver]

Sorry. Every now and then I get an eye tic and start thinking like a lawyer.

 

[Cyberax]

Have you contacted TM yet stating what you believe is an acceptable level of risk that you'd accept, i.e. I would be fine signing a waiver of liability for misuse of AP features, modulo verification of data from independent 3rd party (to ensure objectivity in whether AP was at fault)?

I sent a message to ServiceHelpNA (not sure if it'll be actually read) that I accept the limitations of the AP and I'm using it responsibly to improve my safety. And that I'd be really pissed if Tesla decides to make this feature useless for me for a large part of my trips.

I'm perfectly OK with accepting that I hold all the responsibility for the actions of AP (isn't it true anyway?).

I believe I'm luckily at the perfect FW version from my perspective until TM determines the right balance it wants between enabling features and minimizing potential risk. Like Jason and Dirk, I may well put a "do not install updates requirement" on TM with express permission if the current version has proven negative ROI to me. As my car goes for annual service in a week, I'm eagerly waiting feedback from others on .40s restrictions.

If 2.9.40 does not in fact have these restrictions, I'd be perfectly OK with its installation. I'll likely wait for a couple of months or so just in case Tesla decides to turn on restrictions later via a stealthy OTA update.