Air Suspension no longer lowers at highway speeds (FW update v5.8)

[Gizmotoy]

Well...they kinda do. They tell us on the website that it "lowers for optimum aerodynamics". Obviously optimum aerodynamics would include a range increase. They just don't state specifically what that increase is in actual mileage. Obviously even if they did it would have to be caveated with "your mileage may vary".

Not very convincing that the range impact is noticeable, though, is it? That's all I was saying. For the items that actually improve range by a noticeable amount, Tesla offers what range impact you can expect. For this, there's nothing.

It seems like other factors have a far greater impact, or they could have just specified a range like they did on the other items where a range benefit was claimed.

 

[andrewket]

I received the notice for 5.8 this morning. I'm going to delay because I don't want the reduced handling at speed. I hope Tesla is listening.

 

[NigelM]

Got the update notification this morning. Postponed it; sticking with v5.6 for now.

(Anyone with experience of postponing updates? Does it continually have to be postponed or was just that once enough?)

 

[Chipper]

Not very convincing that the range impact is noticeable, though, is it? That's all I was saying. For the items that actually improve range by a noticeable amount, Tesla offers what range impact you can expect. For this, there's nothing.

Agreed. And I suspect that it IS negligible. But if it remains as is, then they need to rename it for sure. It is more like "DUMB Air Suspension" if it sets to a limit that is less than optimum aerodynamics.

 

[jerry33]

Agreed. And I suspect that it IS negligible. But if it remains as is, then they need to rename it for sure. It is more like "DUMB Air Suspension" if it sets to a limit that is less than optimum aerodynamics.

Optimum aerodynamics would have no air going underneath the car, so you could make a case that it was already less that optimum

 

[Gizmotoy]

Agreed. And I suspect that it IS negligible. But if it remains as is, then they need to rename it for sure. It is more like "DUMB Air Suspension" if it sets to a limit that is less than optimum aerodynamics.

:biggrin:
I fully expected them to quickly make an update like this after that second road debris fire. I really thought they'd make it optional, though. If the owner wants the risk, they should be able to take it. I guess Tesla's point of view is that it harms their brand, so they don't want to allow you to take the risk. Curious to see if they add a toggle later.

 

[kendallpb]

Certainly true, but to make a change in a document takes weeks of lawyer perusal. So, yes, it's easy to type in the words. It's quite a bit harder to get them approved and published.

It doesn't take weeks of lawyer review to include a sentence saying something was done--the big deal is doing it, not putting in a sentence saying it was done. There's no need to explain the whys and wherefores--just say "Smart Air Suspension auto-lowering at highway speeds (temporarily?) disabled in this release" or whatever. It wouldn't take a lawyer long to sign off on that, and frankly, the higher chance of being sued is from doing it, not saying what was done . . . shoot, if anything, it seems like there's an even higher chance of being sued by not documenting it (as shown by a few of the comments here ;-) ).

But even if you're right, that's just another reason they should've held off a bit, IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

- ...even if it's a manual operation, though I'd prefer 'opt out' to 'opt in'.

If you mean, every time I hit 60, I have to fiddle on the screen, that's a bad idea IMHO. It's more dangerous (I get on the highway twice a day; really I shouldn't have to fiddle with settings every time I hit 55 MPH or whatever) and would be extremely annoying, too.

But I'd be okay with a sticky, opt-in setting--even if it initially defaults to no lowering. Once selected to auto-lower, the setting stays unless you change it again, even through reboots and upgrades. That would be okay with me (not that my opinion carries much weight with Tesla). They would have to update the delivery script, to tell new owners with Air about this, otherwise I could see someone buying a car and not realizing it wasn't enabled, and getting very angry a year later when they discover it. ;-)

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say the update that disabled "sleep mode" and created the vampire drain was a downgrade. It was also eventually fixed. I expect this will be too.

I thought of this analogy too; the problem is, it was added in software (so it was initially an upgrade anyway) and it was removed due to bugs. So, good point, but I don't feel this analogy holds.

That said, yes, I doubt this stealth Air change by Tesla is the final word on the matter.

 

[omarsultan]

But they don't say by how much. I'm sure it isn't much, considering that it's just 1 inch (and the total frontal area of the car stays the same).

Considering how much the stress about things like door handles, I would not ignore a 1" change, there is more to drag then just frontal area--there is the overall airflow mgmt. Considering most every performance vehicle optimizes for low ground clearance, I would not dismiss it.

 

[JRP3]

I am curious what folks think exactly got "fixed" here. It was incorrectly stated that the Model S is one of the lowest cars out there. It is not--there are a number of performance sedans that are lower (BMW M5: 4.6", Jag XF: 4.1", Audi RS7: 4.3") and have many more vehicles miles than the Model S without issues, so ground clearing is not an inherent issue.

A few points. Since none of those vehicles are under the same scrutiny as the Model S we don't know how many road debris impacts they have. Additionally some of those "lower" cars may have an air dam in front that is the lowest part of the vehicle. I do think the S should have the lowest part of the vehicle in front of the front wheels, not the bottom of the pack.

 

[403portside]

I pick up my new P85+ on 11/27 -- and while I understand what compelled Tesla to issue 5.8 and interfere with suspension lowering at highway speeds, I am very disappointed that there's no opt-out for the driver. One of the big reasons I bought the P85+ was because I love the handling and the aggressive, lowered stance. I'm spending $120K on a car and I expect the bill of goods I was sold to be delivered as stated. My assumption is that Tesla will fast-follow with an update that gives us more control, but I'm not guaranteed of that. Frankly, my excitement to pick up my car has dwindled because of this change. It's an important option/function to me.

 

[dsm363]

I need it restored in a matter of weeks, not months. I have a long trip coming up (265mi each way door to door, no superchargers) that I will now have to take an ICE car because I won't be able to make it with the reduced range caused by driving in the standard height instead of low height. So this change is going to force me NOT to drive the Tesla. Not cool. Very upset.

That is at the outer range anyway at normal highway speeds. Were you planning on making the trip anyway without charging or without any backup plan?

 

[omarsultan]

Agreed--my point is that if there was a pervasive problem, then the media would be jumping on that too--there are ~25K road debris related accidents each year (AAA study), which makes for a reasonable data set.

I do agree with you and would like to see Tesla move in that direction. The Chevy Volt has an air dam in front that gives it an effective ground clearance of ~3.5". Of course, if you head over to those forums, they are complaining about damage from the low clearance.

O

 

[gnelson]

I pick up my new P85+ on 11/27 -- and while I understand what compelled Tesla to issue 5.8 and interfere with suspension lowering at highway speeds, I am very disappointed that there's no opt-out for the driver. One of the big reasons I bought the P85+ was because I love the handling and the aggressive, lowered stance. I'm spending $120K on a car and I expect the bill of goods I was sold to be delivered as stated. My assumption is that Tesla will fast-follow with an update that gives us more control, but I'm not guaranteed of that. Frankly, my excitement to pick up my car has dwindled because of this change. It's an important option/function to me.

It was also an important function in my decision to purchase a P85+ also. I paid a significant amount to get the plus option that will be compromised by 5.8. I had been driving a Corvette and am accustomed to a low center of gravity.

 

[Dreamin]

I don't understand the request to make this optional (opt-in).

Is the plan to raise the car if you see an obstacle in front of you?
Or swerve out of the way?
Or is there no debris on the roads you travel?

 

[jerry33]

I don't understand the request to make this optional (opt-in).

Is the plan to raise the car if you see an obstacle in front of you?
Or swerve out of the way?
Or is there no debris on the roads you travel?

The plan is that if you are traveling on crowded roads with minimum sight distance, you turn the auto-lowering off. If you are traveling on lightly traveled roads--where you can reasonably expect to have a clear view of the road ahead--you set the auto-lowering on.

 

[aznt1217]

For those complaining about the feature not being there because you paid for it, it's a ridiculous argument. You are still getting the air suspension. As quickly as they delivered this tweak, they can deliver another adjustment.

- - - Updated - - -

The plan is that if you are traveling on crowded roads with minimum sight distance, you turn the auto-lowering off. If you are traveling on lightly traveled roads--where you can reasonably expect to have a clear view of the road ahead--you set the auto-lowering on.

Which will probably happen at a later date. It hasn't been long since this update was released.

 

[jerry33]

Which will probably happen at a later date. It hasn't been long since this update was released.

Agreed. This was a rush job, probably not started until after the third incident.

 

[gnelson]

I don't understand the request to make this optional (opt-in).

Is the plan to raise the car if you see an obstacle in front of you?
Or swerve out of the way?
Or is there no debris on the roads you travel?

I will opt in because I want the low position. I am accustomed to driving a car with a low suspension. I will not raise the suspension if I see road debris; I will swerve if it is safe to do so to avoid obstacles. There are no roads that are guaranteed to not have debris, but I will drive in the low position with the knowledge that battery damage may be a remote possibility. There have been no injuries in a Model S due to debris.

 

[Chickenlittle]

I received the notice for 5.8 this morning. I'm going to delay because I don't want the reduced handling at speed. I hope Tesla is listening.

my comment quotes you but is directed toward many. would consider waiting for explanation from tesla in regards to what is happening. then make comments/requests based on a knowledge of full details.

 

[redi]

I noticed if I set it on low when < 40 mph it stays on on low above 60. At least it did for me on today's short trips.

Would anyone in fact know if the ride height button responded as normal and the suspension stayed at standard at highway speed? We could call it the placebo button?