Search results

Same here. Opted in but have not yet received. Maybe this will be the first time I get FSD Beta. Just in time for a trip I'm taking this weekend...

Same here M3 performance with FSD and 98 since around 11/15 and no beta yet

Wish they were more open about bug fixes too.

That might put all the toppings on the crust... :-)

Happens on my M3 as well. Seems like that should be pretty easy to resolve. I mean we are sitting stationary at a light. Scares me a bit for what AP really thinks.

I wish I could get my costs that low. One of the drawbacks of living on Long Island. For now I'm sticking with the 120V for now. The cost is still way less than the ICE car I had before so I can live with it. I'll hit the nearby Supercharger if I need a big charge, but the cost for my 50amp...

There's a browser in my car??? :-)

I think the amount is larger than you think (or I recently did all my calculations wrong). Where I live costs are about 0.20/kWh. For 10K miles per year that equates to roughly $192 EXTRA to charge via 120V. If you bump that up to 0.47/kWh that was mentioned in this thread that is about $452...

From what I understand from the explanation, the overhead is the same whether you are charging at 120 or 240. So if you are charging for a fixed period of time the "overhead" is still the same and still the same cost. I think the only real cost difference really comes into play is that...

Being a software developer myself I believe you are absolutely correct. Adding more developers to a project does not necessarily help the project.

@Jedi2155 That is a great explanation and should be pinned somewhere to explain the main reasons why it's really not charging efficiency but instead charging time really that is affected by 120v vs 240v. An interesting take on it would be to see if the math works out to see if it actually costs...