-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[uk] UltraSonic Sensors removal/TV replacement performance
- Thread starter randompixel
- Start date
Mph.Is this 70mph or 70kmh?
Actually, 270kwh/mile is about average for my MS at highway speed. In the city is goes down to about 230kwh/mile.
Envy about your wipers
Yes, my MS can do sub 250 whr/mi but it doesn't take much additional load like battery / cabin heating or cooling to worsen that considerably.
Back to the thread topic.... This issue that I really don't know how to approach (which keeps getting move evident each time Tesla suggests a significant configuration change to fix a chronic problem) is just what I am reasonably entitled to having purchased the car. It feels like somehow by accepting OTA updates and the (Tesla's) notion of beta software, I have somehow also accepted that my car is a never ending work in progress. As such, it is pretty much impossible to determine if it is faulty since there is no clearly defined core specification that I can demand must work 'as delivered'.
Removal of USS doesn't worry me as long as Tesla maintain the same software level for all versions of cars. In the case of radar, cameras, auto lights and USS where they are all linked in some way to ongoing performance / safety issues, how am I supposed to keep track of where my car is wrt where Tesla thinks it is?
When that is already a grey poorly defined concept (what I can reasonably expect my car to do) how much harder is it to trust that Tesla is keeping all its model variants in each market tested and compliant with original safety performance? Radar works differently and has different performance characteristics from vision based. Who decides which I am entitled to have working and to what level on my car? Who can say if my car is 'broken' or not?
Even with obvious faults like water in light housings, Tesla try and say it's all as it should be. Obscured cameras and unresolved design flaws that lead to b-pillar cameras fogging up when cabin humidity rises and external temps drop remain unsolved while the same cameras appear to be being purposed for more demanding safety related roles.
What actually am I entitled to beyond a wild ride?
WOW ... (check your numbers)!
I have been asking myself the same question. At what point the product becomes materially different than what you bought and that substantially changes your original decision to buy that product? At what point this qualifies as “bait and switch”? I certainly would not have bought a car that relies on vision only. Frankly, those subsequent updates reduce the value of the car for me.
I would rather receive bug fixes only and no “improvements” until they are proven - which Tesla Vision is not.
The good news is that competition is coming. In a couple of years there will be viable alternatives.
Strangely I had the opposite experience....I bought my car when there was much talk on the internet about getting rid of the radar...so I asked the sales office if I could get a car with vision only..I was told that all Teslas have radar and always will (it was beginning to dawn on me that Tesla staff don’t actually read anything Tesla on the net)...so I was glad when they did away with the radar because I feared that those cars with it would always be a generation behind
There can only be a few options for the change to VO.
1 Save money.
2 Improve design.
3 facilitate other developments (FSD)
4 address safety issue
5 handle component supply issue.
6 keep fleet running same software.
1 - not my problem. Tesla should allow / make what I purchased to function correctly.
2 - fine, as long as either an independent safety body / regulator or individual owner or both get to make the call.
3 - again, should be down to each owner. If I'm never going to need the 'improvement' or the negative consequences that are likely to come with it, then I should be fine sticking with a functioning car as originally sold.
4 - Safety Issue would involve some mandatory recall and tested fix specific to the exact model(s) effected. This isn't the kind of thing that should change version to version and with hopelessly poor controls in place.
5 - Supply issue, not my problem and shouldn't adversely effect my car, or indeed effect it at all.
6 - Fleetwide software could be a good objective, but in reality it's rarely possible, certainly not as products age and mature .... and ultimately become unsupported. Implication is that each car has to have specific consideration given to original design, hardware, market sold into etc as part of ongoing evolution.
Bottom line: if my car worked as intended and required at time of original sale, why would I care about (or be entitled to) being switched to an upproven VO solution?
Which is interesting from a different perspective. All that matters is how your experience of the car's performance works for you. But if all they do is literally not install certain hardware, why wouldn't you prefer more hardware that can always be software disabled later if needs be?
Since every car has only a short while before it becomes old / legacy, I'm not sure it matters what spec any particular car has since it will soon enough become 'old'.
Exactly...which is why any Tesla customer buying new tries to get (usually unsuccessfully) the very latest tech in their car..they soon learn that is not how Tesla works. At the time of my purchase there was speculation that (if I recall correctly) the radar would be replaced by an extra camera.
Isn't there some principle that says it takes more energy to move something heavy than something light?? (!)
Something that all manufacturers (except Alpine) seem to have forgotten
Yes, but why does it take more energy? 'use' of energy means loss of energy that can't practically be re harvested. Accelerate a bigger mass takes more energy but that energy still exists in the moving mass. How the mass moves dictates what energy it loses. Hence higher tyre pressure could give less carcass flex, smaller contact friction area with road and hence unrecoverable less heat loss. Steel train wheels flex much less than rubber, hence heavy trains can still be efficient.
At lower speeds, less unrecoverable losses. Dragging big mass uphill may cause more heat losses in motor and battery. Less so if you drive uphill slowly. Once you different mass cars are at the top of the hill, the higher mass one has more stored energy that regen can claw back on the way down hill.
Newton's second law F = ma, so where the mass (m) increases the Force (F) to achieve an acceleration (a) is higher. From this you can derive K =1/2mv2, the kinetic energy (K) of a body in motion is 1/2 the mass (m) times velocity (v) squared.
Yes in a perfect system you've converted potential energy in the battery into kinetic energy, and as you slow you would convert this back through regen, but in the real world there are huge losses in both directions. This will be to heat, noise, air movement etc. The increases mass means there is more kintetic energy to lose to these factors.
200Wh/mile is an amazing figure for a Kona, given that EV database rates it at 260Wh/mile.
I realize this is a UK/Ireland forum, but I think this removal of ultrasonic sensors applies to the US as well. Is this correct? Do you guys know if Tesla is planning to turn off the use of these sensors in cars already equipped with them? I haven't read this whole thread yet but it sounds like this may be the case. I really like the ultrasonics showing how close I am to obstacles, especially while parking, and will be sad to lose this feature.
Air resistance / drag is certainly something that consumes energy and increases with the square of speed. It is only one factor, the efficiency of the motor at converting electricity of kinetic energy and back again is perhaps a larger effect, as is the efficiency of heating, lighting etc.
My new 2022 Model 3 so far seems to be far more efficient than my 2019 Model 3 used to be, lots of small improvements. TeslaFi shows me 239 Wh/mile for an 80 miles journey across many different types of roads at 'enthusiastic to get home' speeds. It would easily have been 270+ wh/mile in the 2019 car which was clearly the same shape and more or less the same weight. The heat pump, shutting down passenger air as the seat was empty and whatever other refinements, they've made add up to 10% savings.
Similar threads
