AllenWong
Member
My 100% was at 257 rated miles (334 ideal miles) since 6.1 came out (hasn't changed since then). But I saw that it kept improving. I started off at 246 I think back in December.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 6.1
- Thread starter J1mbo
- Start date
My 100% was at 257 rated miles (334 ideal miles) since 6.1 came out (hasn't changed since then). But I saw that it kept improving. I started off at 246 I think back in December.
Bugeater
Member
There are two threads now which I've seen that are leading me to believe there is a major issue with .167. Hopefully they've stopped pushing it.
P85D Lost power on road,
Car needs service, power reduced
P85D Lost power on road,
Car needs service, power reduced
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Also, they really should avoid pushing updates on the weekend, when engineering and service centers aren't available.
Where I work we have a ban on pushing new releases after noon on Friday. If for some reason you do have to push then you get to be on call that weekend and have to be ready to roll back on moments notice. I'd like to see the same release discipline at Tesla.
Where I work we have a ban on pushing new releases after noon on Friday. If for some reason you do have to push then you get to be on call that weekend and have to be ready to roll back on moments notice. I'd like to see the same release discipline at Tesla.
Great point. Although the Vancouver service center really came through for me, technically the service center is not open on the weekends. I don't think they had even been told about .167.
billarnett
Member
One of these days someone is going to have a serious accident because of one of these poorly QAed releases. Tesla really needs to get its act together on this. Software QA is not as easy as it sometimes seems. But in this case it's all the more vital that it be done carefully. If I were Elon I would Fire my firmware QA manager and double the budget for his replacement . (Of course I don't know the details of their organization so this isn't a serious suggestion. It's just meant to indicate the serious ess of the problem)
While Tesla has continued to get favorable support from the press and groups like Consumer Reports - the software distribution process (I'm still on .115) and software quality issues could undo that. And we all hope that Tesla's response isn't to slow down their release process... A "public" beta test program, allowing more owners to "opt in" or "opt out" of early access to releases could help Tesla considerably - especially now that they have so many different hardware configurations - in multiple countries.
Eh it depends on where you work. Two places I've worked you cannot make releases during the week and you can only do it starting Friday afternoons through Sunday, lol. Totally depends on context. In this case, if service centers are not open during the weekends then you may have a point. On the flip side, if there is a problem do you want it to happen during the rush hour commutes during the week or maybe instead during the weekends with less traffic?
Posting here because of relevance related to my loss of power thread.
- - - Updated - - -
This is a very good point.
- - - Updated - - -
This is a very good point.
Two thoughts:
- My P85D on .139 in Range mode was already achieving efficiencies on par with my S85.
- I'm sure glad I made it home from a 2300-mile road trip before installing .167; though who knows if I'll have any problems (I haven't driven since the update installed).
To expand on the first point, I was able to achieve 277 Wh/mi on the 251.7 mile leg from Blanding to Flagstaff (uphill 1000' overall, driving very conservatively) and 275 Wh/mi on the reverse (downhill, driving much less conservatively).
- My P85D on .139 in Range mode was already achieving efficiencies on par with my S85.
- I'm sure glad I made it home from a 2300-mile road trip before installing .167; though who knows if I'll have any problems (I haven't driven since the update installed).
To expand on the first point, I was able to achieve 277 Wh/mi on the 251.7 mile leg from Blanding to Flagstaff (uphill 1000' overall, driving very conservatively) and 275 Wh/mi on the reverse (downhill, driving much less conservatively).
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Counterpoint - Do you want it to happen on weekends when people tend to take long trips away from home, service centers, and towing?
My point was presumably Tesla firmware engineers take the weekend off, and that's not the right time to push a drive control firmware change. You need those people to be watching the rollout for any problems like hawks and prepared to make a fix or roll it back on moment's notice. Hard for that to happen over the weekend.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
After seeing the early reports over the weekend, I was really optimistic about this release, and hoping to finally see the efficiency improvements from torque sleep others had been talking about. But my wife took the car to work this morning, and based on the numbers she sent me, we're still not seeing any improvement at all.
ArtInCT
Always Learning
This is actually one of the things where I wish that the forum software had a 'me too' button. So the first person who gets an upgrade notification posts "wheeeee I got the upgrade notification" - everyone else clicks 'me too'. Then the first person who finishes the install posts "OMG!!! It's .173!!! And nothing changed in the Release Notes!!!" and again everyone else just clicks 'me too'. And then someone posts "I haven't gotten it, yet! I don't understand how they roll this out" and then... whom am I kidding, everyone else also posts that they haven't gotten it yet and how frustrating this is...
Oh, and the cool thing about this? You'd get a count of the 'me too's and could get a better handle on how many in the self selected sample of people following this thread really got it. While some people may have enough common sense not to post every new release they get, I'm sure a fair number would indeed click 'me too'
Ohhh Ohhhh (Car 54) SUPER IDEA! SUPER!
i have a separate thread as my problem was slightly less serious - reduced power. It does seem like they could/should be related but so far I'm being asked to send mine to the SC. I've mentioned the .167 reports but I think they are concerned about the front motor temperatures getting too high and the possibility of an out and out failure. Based on my near zero understanding of how the car works, I can't help wondering if .167 increases torque sleep even further, maybe the front motor is being overtaxed under certain combinations of driving - i.e. they are torque sleeping too often or too quickly and the front motor is overheating. I pushed this theory a bit but ultimately better that they look at the hardware as well and if they guessed at a .167 problem and were wrong, the outcome might be very unfavorable for all involved. If this does turn out to be .167 related I'll report back in this thread, otherwise I'll report on the outcome in the thread specifically for the "Power Reduced" problem.
I hope I'm not jinxing myself with this, but I installed .167 on Sunday morning right before setting off on a long trip (SF to LA). No problems at all and the range/power use was definitely improved. The bulk of the trip was straight, flat I-5 at 80+ mph and the average was 340 wh/mi.
I skipped .140 and it seems clear to me that 167 is a much better build than 139 with regard to efficiency. My 56 miles today had pack heat almost the whole way and my energy consumption was still below my average. I used range mode on the way home and I think I may have had one instance of the kind of stutter under acceleration, but nothing more severe than that. With range mode off, it has been flawless for two days.
Build 167 seems to be a huge improvement for me. Much better efficiency, and the TACC (traffic aware cruise control) feature seems to be much smoother / less jerky.
I don't use range mode, as I haven't gone on any long trips recently, and I think it's probably not good for long term wear on the battery to use range mode unnecessarily.
I don't use range mode, as I haven't gone on any long trips recently, and I think it's probably not good for long term wear on the battery to use range mode unnecessarily.
MarcG
Active Member
Similar threads
