It's Time!

[SeminoleFSU]

If it were only Model S on the road, sure, but it's among the lowest cars on the road. The higher it rides, the more likely it is that someone else will have the misfortune of hitting that debris first. Essentially you're looking at the probability of being the first car that sits low enough to impact a given object. The higher you are, the better the chances someone hits it before you.

Letting an owner choose to take on that risk if they want is a good move. Hopefully they make that change soon.

EXACTLY. Also, the bigger the object, the more likely it will be moved to the side of the road by a good Samaritan or DOT... It's the small and medium sized stuff that stays and gets kicked around... because most people know those pieces are safely avoided due to ground clearance. The lower the Tesla is, the less likely you'll have the clearance to traverse over something you either didn't see, or weren't capable of safely avoiding. Jesh.

 

[nrcooled]

Regarding firmware updates, I'm inclined to taking the bad (turning off auto-lowering marginally qualifies) and the so-so (iffy sleep-related fixes) with the good (maps with track-up, WiFi, higher supercharging rate - yes, for those of us that it worked for).

The fact that every update makes the car feel fresh and new is phenomenal! I know we, as the owners of the property that we have purchased, have certain rights to preserve/protect what we have but, living in a cave with candles and off the grid, so to speak, is no solution either.

I'm not inclined to seeing it as a Big Brother situation as Tesla is trying to execute at break-neck speed to give us current owners new features - for free! - while mitigating risks to the company and by extension, support and serviceability to all owners. All this while trying to continue to grow, produce more cars, new models, expand service and supercharging footprints notwithstanding fighting the vultures (NADA, Big Oil, wayward tow hitches, John Petersen ) off all at the same time.

napabill and others, IMO, you do have a legitimate gripe about the 90 kW supercharging issue and deserve a new pack or some such resolution. This is more egregious than the unstated supercharging enablement fee for very early 60 kWh orders such as mine that Tesla/GeorgeB eventually did the right thing about and waived.

I couldn't agree more with your points gg. What the updates have done for me is keep my early adopter car relevant. In the event that I actually ever wanted to sell my car I wouldn't have to worry about the possible customer reaction of "oh...this is the one that will hit something and catch fire right?".

While I did like the autolowering and other features neither of them being removed created the deal-breaker situation that it has for some others. What we, as current customers, have is a car that stays fresh, current, and up to date with most of the new cool/hotness that is Tesla. Under the conventional auto manufacturer setup I woud have to trade my car in to get that same freshness.

 

[chickensevil]

Precisely. That is why we are all so upset. Link:

Older Tesla's limited to 90kW super charging

81 pages... have fun!
Older Tesla's limited to 90kW super charging

Well, that only took all night to read haha! Wow, their response and this whole situation is really sad. I feel almost like I had the wind punched out of me. I agree with the sentiment that it is less about the lack of this "feature" being available to these people, so much as it is a lack of communication. I fully understand those that are upset about this and screaming for an upgrade.

Back on topic, I personally don't mind their band-aid response, it was actually what I saw suggested here and other places after the first car fire was reported. It seemed like the quick fix to push out, and then they have said they will release the ability to make that decision to the customer later with an update (which I am sure the longer delay here is, it is easier to change that function in the code from "if >55 lower car" to "if >80 lower car", whereas the other change involves allowing that to be controlled via the UI, and letting it be adjusted.)

I picture it like the software updates you get for your computer. There is a major flaw in Java so the first response is to disable Java until a real fix can be found. Only this time you are talking about the potential to hit something in the road, or in the case of the recharging check, power fluctuation thing, burning down your house. Neither one is necessarily Tesla's fault, but they are trying to take steps to make it better anyway.

 

[Mayhemm]

Back on topic, I personally don't mind their band-aid response, it was actually what I saw suggested here and other places after the first car fire was reported. It seemed like the quick fix to push out, and then they have said they will release the ability to make that decision to the customer later with an update (which I am sure the longer delay here is, it is easier to change that function in the code from "if >55 lower car" to "if >80 lower car", whereas the other change involves allowing that to be controlled via the UI, and letting it be adjusted.)

I picture it like the software updates you get for your computer. There is a major flaw in Java so the first response is to disable Java until a real fix can be found. Only this time you are talking about the potential to hit something in the road, or in the case of the recharging check, power fluctuation thing, burning down your house. Neither one is necessarily Tesla's fault, but they are trying to take steps to make it better anyway.

I do not oppose Tesla making changes to the car in response to safety issues. I object to them making changes to the car which have no proven safety benefit and may detrimentally affect the performance of the car due solely to perceived public pressure. It is a deflection tactic to get the media off their case about the battery fires. "See, we're making changes, now leave us alone!" Tesla is above this kind of behavior.

The issue is also about Tesla pushing the update that would implement these changes out to owners without disclosing what they were doing and taking advantage of people's excitement regarding new features. Deliberate omission.

On your last point, I cannot recall a single time when software needed to be disabled in lieu of a patch! Even the most critical security holes or virus outbreaks left it totally up to the user as far as what action to take, if any. No one was obligated to do anything. If you opted to leave your system vulnerable, that was your prerogative. What they would do is make the security patch a prerequisite for installing any future updates. You want the new features, install the patch. Tesla snuck the change in like an anti-abortion amendment on public school cafeteria legislation.

 

[Chipper]

@mjtgroup

Well, think about this way... anything serious that happens to your car (e.g., fir3) affects Tesla in a big way. I understand that people want to be able to control what gets patched and what doesn't on THEIR car, but in the case of safety, it seemed reasonable enough to temporarily patch out the dynamic lowering feature until they further investigated the fir3 incidents.

TIME OUT!!! This is NOT a safety issue. Elon has specifically stated this. Repeat: It is NOT a safety issue. There is no evidence to suggest increased ride height makes you or your vehicle any safer. IMO This modification was only done to mollify the possibility of adverse press.

 

[Yggdrasill]

It is a PR thing, yes.

And I can't blame Tesla for doing it. We all benefit from Tesla not being slapped around by NHTSA and the media. If NHTSA requires a recall and modification of the battery pack, Tesla will hurt, and this will hamper the rollout of the Model X, SC network and 3rd gen. And if the public is screaming bloody murder, the NHTSA could be very well be infuenced. Anything that helps dampen the attention is good.

 

[brianman]

Anything that helps dampen the attention is good.

Disagree. Absolutes are dangerous and usually not what you really want.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Okay. Anything that helps dampen attention at virtually zero cost and disadvantage is good.

 

[roblab]

Air suspension lowering is only temporarily taken away folks. Elon said that it will be coming back in January as a user selected option via software update.

On the issue of early sigs without the ability to charge at 120kwh...if the numbers impacted are small would make sense for Elon to just do the upgrade rather than letting the most supportive individuals create noise.

True. I would imagine that Tesla is working on an upgrade for all those early batteries that only charge at 90 kW (ten times faster than....). Of course, while you're at it, the new battery chemistry might as well be tossed into the mix, so all older cars, or at least the Sigs (heh heh) would get the new 100 kW battery with 130 kW charging and a 15 year warranty. And thanks for supporting the early efforts of Tesla, our appreciation, etc., etc.

Reminds me of the facetious customer service sign that insists on the customer's satisfaction, double your money happily refunded, a new replacement gizmo, and we shoot the manager.:biggrin:

 

[apacheguy]

True. I would imagine that Tesla is working on an upgrade for all those early batteries that only charge at 90 kW (ten times faster than....). Of course, while you're at it, the new battery chemistry might as well be tossed into the mix, so all older cars, or at least the Sigs (heh heh) would get the new 100 kW battery with 130 kW charging and a 15 year warranty. And thanks for supporting the early efforts of Tesla, our appreciation, etc., etc.

In case you missed it, Jerome stated earlier today via email that there will be no upgrade or support for early adopters. Essentially, a "tough luck" response is the official word from Tesla.