Right. The more things that are changed, the more unintended consequences are created, and the longer it takes to fix them--it takes even longer to fix them correctly.
-
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
Right. The more things that are changed, the more unintended consequences are created, and the longer it takes to fix them--it takes even longer to fix them correctly.
anxman
Member
I've been quietly whining about being stuck on .139 instead of getting .140 but finally had a chance to do some real world testing today. I did my normal commute today except in Sport / Range mode and saw an average of 255kwh compared to 320kwh before. Torque sleep is yielding over a 20% improvement for me!
Holy crap, 320 kWh ?!
Anyway, the results of my 100+ mile side by side test with the wife-to-be's P85 are in:
That's an 11% improvement over the previous test, less than half of a % difference between the P85 and P85D overall usage. Scaling for the differences between the trips using the P85 as a reference, an overall 15% improvement vs previously.
Now that's what I'm talking about, Tesla.
anxman
Member
@wk057: Haha, oops. Wh/mi is what I meant.
Yeah, I'm also psyched to see my P85D performing as efficiently as my P85. I'd say that Tesla has exceeded my expectations here and turned a crummy situation into something I'm really happy with.
Yeah, I'm also psyched to see my P85D performing as efficiently as my P85. I'd say that Tesla has exceeded my expectations here and turned a crummy situation into something I'm really happy with.
Actually... the more frequent the change, the less amount of things that are changed at once, the less likely to introduce unintended consequences.
Agile software development life cycle is based on this principle. You release more frequently. You release "minimal viable product". You don't try to take on massive updates.
Massive updates introduce massive amounts of bugs. Any decent developer can design a standalone feature... its when you mix multiple features with multiple dependencies into massive software updates that you introduce unintended consequences.
Last edited:
MikeBur
ManualPilot
On .139 on p85d and I'm loving the range mode saving. Anyone know delta between .139 and .140.. And yes, I know it's not in the release notes ;-). After more experiential data from folks here.
I believe .140 was just a patch for the brake issue described in this thread. Starting up the car, put the reverse, creep mode on, and the brake does not work - Page 8
So now i am wondering if part of the problem is insane mode. I think before we never tried to use normal mode and see the what the consumption is and now suddenly everybody tries sport and range mode.
Of all of you who get that low numbers, can you please report the results in insane and standard mode ? Mine improved but I am still at more than 400 wh/mile on average.
I will do some tests this weekend with highway travelling in any kind of combination , i.e. sport/vs insane vs range vs standard.
Anyway, it is RIDICULOUS that we have to do all those stupid tests because Tesla is to incompetent to simply COMMUNICATE !!! They know all the answers, three lines of information would be enough to stop the guessing.
cgiGuy
Active Member
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
See my description at P85D range and highway battery performance - Page 23 where I drove 241 miles on a charge in a P85D with .140 and had 28 rated miles left n the battery. I don't think that I could have done that before .140
Right, that was my understanding as well. I don't own a P85D but I can see why owners are upset. An update that addresses a serious issue with efficiency was not even explained in the release notes. I don't understand that.
Just a side note - today we in Japan started receiving the first 6.1 release and sounds like 80% of us who installed the update saw it failed with the following issues.
1. No ride height adjustment for air suspension cars
2. No rearview camera video
3. Error message in Instrument Console saying "Software Update Required Contact Tesla service".
4. Oddmeter now says -----km instead of actual numbers.
soft reset for both screens didn't work. The car is drivable.
Tesla technical support is voice-mail and not returning calls. I guess they need to test the update installation much more throughly.
1. No ride height adjustment for air suspension cars
2. No rearview camera video
3. Error message in Instrument Console saying "Software Update Required Contact Tesla service".
4. Oddmeter now says -----km instead of actual numbers.
soft reset for both screens didn't work. The car is drivable.
Tesla technical support is voice-mail and not returning calls. I guess they need to test the update installation much more throughly.
I had the same odometer display problem, among other display problems, when I first got 6.1 build .113. The problems were fixed when they pushed build .115 to me two days later.
CORRECT, that is what I meant. The whole communication around anything with the D (be it seats, range etc.) was and still is a mess.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
We don't really know that. He wasn't explicit. I posted the following, earlier in this thread:
Oh, and I don't believe anyone who has been reporting the increased range has done a test yet showing similar or identical results with range mode on and range mode off. There are people like lolachampcar reporting increased range with range mode off, but no one who has done a loop type test with one loop including range mode on and one with it off and results that matched.
Last edited:
Similar threads
