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

[NigelM]

Removing features on delivered cars without telling the owners certainly is a PR problem.

Agree. I can always feel when the car lowers (although my wife doesn't) and if I hadn't read this thread but had updated FW I would definitely have thought something was wrong. Tesla should remember there are plenty of owners out there who are not on TMC.

 

[efusco]

If that's the reason then it's still an admission of a problem, a PR problem.

Maybe, but it seems more like a move of caution. It buys time while they look into things and, as stated above, let the smoke clear. It may turn out that this is found to be an issue due to the broad flat solid underside of the car, or maybe it won't and we'll have things restored. But if there's an ounce of uncertainty, the wise move is to be cautious.

those bemoaning the update, I say make your own choice, but if this is a permanant "fix" you're gonna have to upgrade someday anyway, I don't think anyone's gonna want to sit on 5.6 for the next 5 years. And, more than likely, the next time you go in for service they're going to update you to the latest version anyway.

I do concur that I think more information prior an update should be given including any major changes, not just after the fact notes...and limiting an advertised feature is certainly what I would consider a major change.

 

[omarsultan]

I just pinged Ownership with a couple of questions regarding this:
1) Is it intended behavior?
2) Will it be restored at some future date, perhaps as a user option
3) If the answer to #3 is "no" then how is TM going to compensate me for disabling a feature I paid for that is now rendered mostly useless

I'll post any responses I get.

O

 

[brianman]

1) Is it intended behavior?

Your question was non-specific so let me narrow it.

Q: Is it intended behavior that Low doesn't engage automatically at highway speeds?
A: Yes.

As for the rest of the behavior/issues/concerns/timelines, I don't know any of those answers yet.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

If that's the reason then it's still an admission of a problem, a PR problem.

Agree 100%. Remember that a PR problem for a new car like the Model S based on a completely new technology can be more difficult to solve than a technical problem.

 

[omarsultan]

if this is a permanant "fix"

If the underbelly is vulnerable, then this is not any kind off fix. There is no magical cut-off for road debris at 5". This seems like a move driven by PR or the lawyers and that is disappointing.

O

- - - Updated - - -

Your question was non-specific so let me narrow it.

Q: Is it intended behavior that Low doesn't engage automatically at highway speeds?
A: Yes.

The actual email to Ownership was a bit more detailed. I used a cliff notes version in my post as the thread provided context. I agree the answer to the first question is likely "yes" but we have all seen who TM software engineering does not always go as planned and I would also like them to express in writing somewhere that they explicitly disabled this feature on my car.

O

 

[Raffy.Roma]

if this is a permanant "fix"

I don't think that this is a permanent "fix". IMO this is a "quick fix" that will be soon replaced by a "permanent fix" allowing the air suspensions to lower at high speeds. We'll see what Tesla will do in the long term.

 

[Kaivball]

The thing that ticks me off about them is when they change things without telling anyone (like those previous fog light and alcantara removal issues or when they remove promised features from the web site) but now existing features we paid for being removed in software without any warning or mention in the release notes? This is totally uncalled for....this is totally overstepping they're boundaries. Now I'm starting to get really pissed. I'll give them 48 hours to make a statement before I call them up and rip them a new one and request a refund for the price of the useless air suspension.

I already sent an email to ownership.

This is uncalled for. No notification, no warning. Just the change.

Sorry, I don't spend $100k on a car for the manufacture to make changes to features on my car I paid for.

Very disappointing and unprofessional.

Extremely poor communication.

 

[brianman]

1) Is it intended behavior?

Q: Is it intended behavior that Low doesn't engage automatically at highway speeds?
A: Yes.

I agree the answer to the first question is likely "yes" but we have all seen who TM software engineering does not always go as planned and I would also like them to express in writing somewhere that they explicitly disabled this feature on my car.

Understood. Let me clarify. I had a brief chat with the service center and a (somewhat cryptic) line in e-mail was read to me about the automatic suspension being changed. (The text was very similar to the vague language in the release notes about the SOC estimation.)

My point is that it is definitely by design that they changed something here, not a glitch in 5.8 that "something moved in the matrix" with regard to the air suspension automatic behavior.

The exact intended behavior of that change -- and whether the cars are behaving as expected -- is still an open question and I look forward to hearing Tesla's official comments.

- - - Updated - - -

I already sent an email to ownership.

This is uncalled for. No notification, no warning. Just the change.

Sorry, I don't spend $100k on a car for the manufacture to make changes to features on my car I paid for.

Very disappointing and unprofessional.

Extremely poor communication.

Personal request:
In your email thread with ownership, please include a request that we be able to read the release notes for the pending update before applying the update.

I realize in this particular case the release notes don't speak to the suspension at all so it wouldn't help, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Thanks!

 

[Kaivball]

Understood. Let me clarify. I had a brief chat with the service center and a (somewhat cryptic) line in e-mail was read to me about the automatic suspension being changed. (The text was very similar to the vague language in the release notes about the SOC estimation.)

My point is that it is definitely by design that they changed something here, not a glitch in 5.8 that "something moved in the matrix" with regard to the air suspension automatic behavior.

The exact intended behavior of that change -- and whether the cars are behaving as expected -- is still an open question and I look forward to hearing Tesla's official comments.

- - - Updated - - -


Personal request:
In your email thread with ownership, please include a request that we be able to read the release notes for the pending update before applying the update.

I realize in this particular case the release notes don't speak to the suspension at all so it wouldn't help, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Thanks!

Will post the reply and include your request.

 

[lolachampcar]

I'm still smarting over having my dual charger car limited to 60 amps with a nag message every time I go to use it. For those that do not remember or took delivery of their cars after the "fix", Tesla has/had a problem with their HPWC were it was overheating or blowing fuses. Their "Fix" was to update the car's firmware to limit charging to 60 amps then nag you with a confirmation screen if you really wanted to charge at 80 amps. I built a OpenEVSE, have never used a HPWC and thus Tesla's problems with the HPWC do not affect me; or at least their HPWC problems did not affect me unit they fixed the firmware.

I believe that temporary fix is still in place. My point is that Tesla has a history of fixing problems by removing functionality. It appears as though they are removing functionality people have paid for now.

 

[kendallpb]

I think the fires are completely overblown and I really hope my car continues to lower at high speeds or I am given the option. I will be manually lowering it in the mean time if I have to.

Ditto, except I suspect manual lowering won't be possible. Shoot, this is the main reason I bought the air suspension. Overblown media, overreaction by Tesla, and I'm annoyed it's not documented in the release notes. Hopefully I didn't waste my money on air suspension, and they will come out with an option to use or not use--just turning off the feature seems like a "quick fix" (!) that will be refined later.

(In other words, I'm only mildly annoyed and suspect I won't be annoyed for long--well, okay, their software releases take longer and longer, so it may be a while. ;-) )

- - - Updated - - -

I find this conclusion dangerous.

Road debris isn't always shorter than the Medium setting on the Model S.

Exactly. Reason #36 why this is silly. Larger debris - there may be a fire. (shrug)

 

[brianman]

I'm still smarting over having my dual charger car limited to 60 amps with a nag message every time I go to use it. For those that do not remember or took delivery of their cars after the "fix", Tesla has/had a problem with their HPWC were it was overheating or blowing fuses. Their "Fix" was to update the car's firmware to limit charging to 60 amps then nag you with a confirmation screen if you really wanted to charge at 80 amps. I built a OpenEVSE, have never used a HPWC and thus Tesla's problems with the HPWC do not affect me; or at least their HPWC problems did not affect me unit they fixed the firmware.

I believe that temporary fix is still in place. My point is that Tesla has a history of fixing problems by removing functionality. It appears as though they are removing functionality people have paid for now.

While I share your pain and annoyance (especially w/r/t the 61A prompt), I give them a little slack when it comes to safety prioritization. I'm not saying they get a free pass on it for a year, but a temporary "damage control/prevention" measure while they work things out seems practical and reasonable (though annoying at times).

The 61A prompt was addressed in 5.0 (AFAIK), and definitely is gone in 5.6 and 5.8 for me.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

While I share your pain and annoyance (especially w/r/t the 61A prompt), I give them a little slack when it comes to safety prioritization. I'm not saying they get a free pass on it for a year, but a temporary "damage control/prevention" measure while they work things out seems practical and reasonable (though annoying at times).

Well said brianman. It's a safety issue. Just let's give some time to Tesla to work out the situation.

 

[kendallpb]

Excellent information and summary of the real issues, thanks, Liz G.

This really needs to be put in perspective. Road debris exists and there will always be debris with the potential to cause damags resulting in fires. However, not every Model S that has run over debris and had the battery punctured has resulted in a fire. Something the press has managed to overlook.

Also, quite frankly fire shmire. No personal injury from fires, unlike many ICE fires!

Thank you, mass media, for misrepresenting every aspect of this non-issue....

 

[brianman]

I'm annoyed it's not documented in the release notes.

Here's my take on the timeline.

1. Beta testers, new cars (even in new markets!) were testing out 5.6 for an extended period
2. Tesla finally opened the flood gates for 5.6 with one of its compelling features being faster updates being possible via wifi delivery.
3. Tesla prepares 5.7 and decides not to unleash it to the world for some reason
4. Tesla prepares 5.8 as the first "rapid deployment via wifi" update on a "short" timeline "with release notes and everything!"
5. Media drama with road debris
6. Elon (and perhaps others) have the idea to use 5.8 (almost out the door, are you crazy?!) as the vehicle for a "quick response to road debris drama"
7. Elon announces blog post, with the idea of being able to say we deployed 5.8 in 48 hours
8. Tesla updates 5.8 to include the "quick response" (but runs out of time update release notes)
9. Tesla releases 5.8 and some customers observe the air suspension change
[Future prediction:]
10. Tesla is already preparing 1.49.23 (which updates the release notes)
11. Elon's blog post speaks to the above and notes that "we didn't have time to update the release notes, but will in the next update"
12. Tesla pushes 1.49.23 out relatively quickly


While this isn't necessarily the real timeline, it's certainly plausible and typical for anything involving software. I think people need to be patient -- and I don't mean "wait 20 minutes and then complain".

 

[NigelM]

Well said brianman. It's a safety issue. Just let's give some time to Tesla to work out the situation.

I disagree Raffy, otherwise you have to say that every car with ride height less than 6" (15cm) has this safety issue. Also the car is now being made susceptible to road debris taller than 5". The fire issues were caused by debris going under the car and levering upwards, raising the ride height provides greater risk of that happening again.

 

[bhuwan]

How many inches does the car go down on low mode? Is it significant enough to have prevented the fires? (Disclaimer: I am assuming the change tesla made was a)intentional and b) in response to the fires)

 

[NigelM]

How many inches does the car go down on low mode? Is it significant enough to have prevented the fires? (Disclaimer: I am assuming the change tesla made was a)intentional and b) in response to the fires)

1 inch.

 

[brianman]

@NigelM - There's a subtlety here. It's kind of like the difference (as noted in that other accident thread recently) between "it merits investigating" and "omg guilty burn the witch". Tesla's move here was more of the former, though some are assuming it means the latter. "Aggressive over-protectiveness over potential safety issue."

That said, I kind of think it's important for Tesla communication (probably Elon's blog) to be clear that -- to our best understanding so far -- "safety issue" is the wrong phrasing for the actual problem in the road debris cases. Human safety (so far) has been shown to be best protected in a Model S. "Vehicle safety" (i.e. not totaling the car) is the real concern that's starting to surface.