Lex
Member
For what it's worth, Service advisor told me they effectively resolved the 12V issues by going to a deep cycle battery...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
No there was a change over in 2012 or 2013 from regular to deep cycle. I don't know the exact date but the thread I linked to mentions it and I've seen it mentioned in several other threads.
I am usually a good little cookie with putting content into the tracker, but, I am bypassing this one. I was out of town all week. Was surprised to never see the software update on my phone even when Southern California was saying they were getting the update.
Got into the car for the first time I was home and the update screen was displayed. Never got the notifications I usually do.
I upgraded my network before I went out of town so my car was not on the home WiFi. I do not think this should make a difference, but, anytime I say anything in certainty online I am then usually proven wrong
Got into the car for the first time I was home and the update screen was displayed. Never got the notifications I usually do.
I upgraded my network before I went out of town so my car was not on the home WiFi. I do not think this should make a difference, but, anytime I say anything in certainty online I am then usually proven wrong
HankLloydRight
No Roads
vitaliy
Member
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
My guess is he is saying he's not going to update the tracker because he doesn't know what date he received the update.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
It's not that critical really. The date he installed the update is good enough. I'd rather have the data in the tracker and the dat of install than the exact day it happened to be downloaded, but not installed.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Yes, I was just guessing at why he wrote what he did. I wasn't suggesting that I agreed with it. (I'm pretty sure you know that. Just clarifying because of the quoting.)
I actually took a different approach one time when I was away and found the update waiting when I returned. I had received the last several updates the day the first P85Ds had. So I back-dated my update to the first date of that one, (which was the date with the largest number) thinking in all likelihood, I had received it on that day, and also thinking that if I hadn't, my data being "wrong" on that day would have less impact than me using the date of install, which had far fewer people receiving it.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
The first Model X have received 7.1 (build 2.10.56) and the same build has also been installed on a couple of Model S - but while the Model X got their updates OTA/WiFi, both Model S are reporting Service Center installs.
Interesting. But it confirms our expectation that Tesla aims to have a common firmware base for both cars.
Interesting. But it confirms our expectation that Tesla aims to have a common firmware base for both cars.
My apologies if the following was already mentioned.
There are some additional new features in 7.1 that I haven't seen mentioned before. Store staff are very happy to have a 'store' mode they can enable. It then m does things such as disable the horn and the alarm. It also limits the max volume of the stereo. If sounded like a couple of additional similar features are present, all to limit 'issues' with the demo cars in stores.
There are some additional new features in 7.1 that I haven't seen mentioned before. Store staff are very happy to have a 'store' mode they can enable. It then m does things such as disable the horn and the alarm. It also limits the max volume of the stereo. If sounded like a couple of additional similar features are present, all to limit 'issues' with the demo cars in stores.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
Tesla's version numbering scheme is a bit... eccentric. So I wouldn't assign any more meaning to it than the fact that they used 2.10.xx version numbers to quick fix all the issues they ran with Model X early deliveries (which was still 7.0 based) - so my guess is they moved the two branches and picked a new build number that would ensure that the numbers go "up" on both branches.
Perhaps I can't find it, but is there anyone else griping about the fact that the car seems to want to put itself back into park after shifting to drive or reverse, and not getting any significant input? My typical routine is to get in put my foot on the brake, shift to R or D, and then buckle my seatbelt as the car starts to coast. However lately I've noticed that the car wants to shift back into P unless you are actively pushing the accelerator. The worst case so far was tonight while I was backing out of a parking space that was on an incline, and it was not at all necessary for me to press on the accelerator. Half way out of the spot, the car just put itself back in park. ANNOYING!!!!
This happens anytime the driver rises up (like when looking back over the seat) and takes weight off the seat. In those cases a squat switch in the seat thinks there's no one in the driver seat and shifts the car into park.
Same thing happens if you come to a stop and get out without shifting into park. The car will then shift itself into park.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I believe there have always been reports of the car switching to park if the seat belt is not engaged and there is a lack of pressure felt on the front seat sensor. If you shifted your weight to look behind you as you were reversing, or shifted your weight to put on the seat belt, either one of those things could have caused enough of a reduction in weight on the sensor to cause the car to switch to park. This is a safety mechanism. It's not one that comes into play if your seat belt is on, so there is a pretty simple solution for the problem you have been encountering.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I think the middle build number is the high school grade from which they hired interns to develop the IC UI.
Tesla build numbers make good sense (according to this theory at least). 7.1.2.9.172 -> 7.1 = Major version, 2 minor version, 9.172 build number -> 9.172...->9.254 -> 10.1. Last number is bit based (254 = 2^8).
Which in turn means 9.172 in theory should be build number 9*254 + 172 = 2458 of the 7.1 2.xx.xx fork. Which again means that they ar building like crazy.
Which in turn means 9.172 in theory should be build number 9*254 + 172 = 2458 of the 7.1 2.xx.xx fork. Which again means that they ar building like crazy.
Similar threads
