Just as important, it demonstrates a company willing to take quick and decisive action to address issues - real or perceived. Wish we had that trait in Washington.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Air Suspension no longer lowers at highway speeds (FW update v5.8)
- Thread starter Lump
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Just as important, it demonstrates a company willing to take quick and decisive action to address issues - real or perceived. Wish we had that trait in Washington.
Unless there are no objects on the road that are less than the new minimum height, but greater than the old, by definition it must reduce the likelihood of a collision.
I agree with your comment about both of us not having enough information to come to a conclusion.
The people that do have more information are the ones that made the change. This is why I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Coil springs sit ~1/2" higher than air / standard height.
From an LCC thread
All measurements are in
Left Front Right Front
Left Rear Right Rear
format
Lowered P+
Low Setting
27 11/16 27 10/16
27 12/16 27 15/16
.
Standard Setting
28 15/16 28 4/16
28 15/16 29 0/16
.
S85 Coil Spring
29 6/16 29 8/16
29 10/16 29 8/16
(EDIT: Oops, looks dreamin posted most of the numbers I was looking for while I was typing my post. Thank you! However, don't see the numbers for "High", and what are the units? They can't be inches or centimeters.)
I've searched the Forums but cannot find these numbers:
What is the road clearance of the S with the standard coil suspension?
What is the clearance for all settings (Low, Normal, High, Very High) of the Air Suspension option in 5.6?
Thank you.
I've searched the Forums but cannot find these numbers:
What is the road clearance of the S with the standard coil suspension?
What is the clearance for all settings (Low, Normal, High, Very High) of the Air Suspension option in 5.6?
Thank you.
Last edited:
I'm not saying that the same number of object will be struck, that's clearly not the case. Now more objects will pass beneath the vehicle. What I'm saying is that roughly the same number of objects would make an incursion into the batter compartment. At the old height a larger object would be knocked aside by the fascia. At the new height those objects now have a chance to penetrate the battery compartment.
Of course, one could argue that there are fewer objects of larger dimensions on the highway but my "no evidence" comment is simply that, there is no evidence showing we can make that assumption.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Actually it's really impossible to know. If the car rides higher there's likely more items that will now pass under the car rather than being blocked by the air dam. Once those items go under the car it's statistically impossible to know how many of them will/could cause damage. Arguably, lowering the car further would reduce the risk of catastrophic damage.....
Unless someone has statistics on the size of road debris any claims about what would make a car less/more likely to sustain damage are shooting in the dark.
Edit: JohnQ beat me to it.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Hey, look at the bright side of things. There will be less excessive rear tire wear from the higher camber numbers at Low on the highway
I kinda lost control of that sentence.
I kinda lost control of that sentence.
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.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Let's wait for the Elon's blog and NHTSA response. Then IMO we will know how much time this "quick fix" will last. Maybe that this situation will be solved in one week. Who knows?
NigelM
Recovering Member
Dangerous bet considering that some items have never appeared as promised (pano roof shade, lighted vanity mirrors, on-board music storage etc.) and others have taken more than a year to appear (center console, wifi etc.).....
Do you have real world data that tells you how much additional range you get with the car at "Low" vs. "Normal"?
NigelM
Recovering Member
I have no idea Raffy and I try to avoid speculating on stuff I know nothing about.
What I do know is that Tesla corporate has something of a reputation for missed promises, delayed dates and a strange concept of time; this latest lack of communication has folks holding Tesla's feet to the fire in this thread and if the company is going to be truly successful they need customers to do exactly that. Tesla isn't going to improve in the communications area if we always give them a free pass.
What I do know is that Tesla corporate has something of a reputation for missed promises, delayed dates and a strange concept of time; this latest lack of communication has folks holding Tesla's feet to the fire in this thread and if the company is going to be truly successful they need customers to do exactly that. Tesla isn't going to improve in the communications area if we always give them a free pass.
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. Speaking vehicle miles, the Model S has 12 months and 100,000,000 miles with the current design--two fires in a row does not make the design bad, it just makes for crappy timing for Tesla. Two data points does not make a trend--the other way to slice it, that is equally absurd is to say that Tesla will only have one road debris-based fire every 50,000,000 with no fatalities.
The issue is things getting under the car and penetrating the battery pack. By raising the car up, may actually be allowing more stuff under the car and make the situation worse. Unless you have some data that shows mean and mode height of road debris, you cannot say this fixes anything. Without the data, there is nothing magical about 5" or 6" that says one is inherently safer than the other as stuff that would have bounced off the front of the car now gets underneath it.
Maybe that data exists, but then it would be good to communicate that info, otherwise this seems like a panicked, knee-jerk reaction driven by PR and layers. I prefer engineers to design my car.
Tesla is a young company and I am willing to cut them some slack, but their handling of this is really this first time they have left me disappointed.
O
The issue is things getting under the car and penetrating the battery pack. By raising the car up, may actually be allowing more stuff under the car and make the situation worse. Unless you have some data that shows mean and mode height of road debris, you cannot say this fixes anything. Without the data, there is nothing magical about 5" or 6" that says one is inherently safer than the other as stuff that would have bounced off the front of the car now gets underneath it.
Maybe that data exists, but then it would be good to communicate that info, otherwise this seems like a panicked, knee-jerk reaction driven by PR and layers. I prefer engineers to design my car.
Tesla is a young company and I am willing to cut them some slack, but their handling of this is really this first time they have left me disappointed.
O
Larry
Member
Out of curiosity-If you went on a 200 mile road trip at avg 65 mph what would be the difference in range from low to standard?
My take on all this is to wait and see what TM states. A little disturbing we heard nothing prior to the release and nothing in the release notes. Maybe it is just a glitch. Or has this happened in any previous updates where they left things out of the release notes purposefully?
My take on all this is to wait and see what TM states. A little disturbing we heard nothing prior to the release and nothing in the release notes. Maybe it is just a glitch. Or has this happened in any previous updates where they left things out of the release notes purposefully?
265 miles, in winter, presumably at freeway speeds. You weren't going to make that distance anyway.
Nonsense. You are already at the edge of range. Temperatures and even headwind vs tailwind would have a bigger effect on range.
Are there no regular chargers along the way? If not, or if you aren't willing to use them I wouldn't take the trip anyway.
Personally I would take the trip if I were willing to slow down, or stop for an hour at a public charger.
We just nned to install this so the car can jump over objects!
Or............ Go to 7:40
Or............ Go to 7:40
Last edited by a moderator:
