Yes similar feeling for me, more like a knocking and getting bumped from behind sensation. Wasn't using TACC though.
Feels like there's always something with this car...
-
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
Yes similar feeling for me, more like a knocking and getting bumped from behind sensation. Wasn't using TACC though.
Feels like there's always something with this car...
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
About my park assist problem post-.179, it didn't happen rightaway. After applying the update around noon, we drove elsewhere at 4 pm and all was good at that time. When we got into the car again a couple of hours later to get back home, the "Park Assist Disabled" error popped up.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Call Tesla. People who have had these sorts of problems have had it fixed by them pushing the update again. No idea if it'll solve it for you but they will probably be able to tell.
dennis
Model S Plaid
I haven't noticed anyone who is actually driving a P85D talking about returning their car to Tesla, at least not since Osama's wife. Maybe experiencing Insane Mode makes you insane.:biggrin:
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Sure there is, but it's annoying. I skipped the one that stopped auto-lowering until about a week before the release that fixed it came out. You just have to dismiss the popup every day. However, what you don't know is what release you're actually skipping because the popup doesn't tell you.
For better or worse, they behave like a software company. But they don't have the advantage of a large field of beta testers. So we end up being the beta testers.
Release 1.0 of anything is glitchy and incomplete. They're fairly rapidly stabilizing the software and adding promised features. Yes, it's a little strange for this to be happening with a CAR, but I think we're also getting a glimpse of the future. In a couple of decades when all cars a rolling iPads, people will be accustomed to the idea of new firmware releases, glitches and patches, just like an iPad. But people won't blink because that generation will have been raised on that process with all of their gizmos.
We're a generation of old codgers who are accustomed to the old fashioned idea that the car that you bought from the lot stays the same throughout it's life! How quaint and antiquated! The new generation will look on all of our fixed gages and indicator lamps in the same way that we look upon slide rules and mechanical cash registers.
If you want excitement, wait until you get the first viruses infecting car operating systems and causing all manner of chaos. And it will most certainly happen.
Anytime you do something brand new there are problems. Tesla will figure it out and it will get better.
MarcG
Active Member
I'm not Jason but I have some data to report. After completing the first leg of my trip to Tahoe, average efficiency was 382 Wh/mi driving over 100 miles at an almost constant 75 mph over no significant net elevation change.
It is colder this early morning, around 5°C (41°F), but it feels like it's slightly worse since torque sleep came out. I'll compile all the data when I get home tonight and compare to previous similar trips to get a sense of whether .179 is indeed less efficient.
Last edited:
The video of the P85D reveal in Interlaken, Switzerland by Jerome is very interesting:
Tesla Launch Event in Switzerland
He says (at 11:00 min) that some ModelS owners are testers for new software releases, although he didn´t make it clear whether those even know they are... But watch the whole thing, very good presentation and many details.
Tesla Launch Event in Switzerland
He says (at 11:00 min) that some ModelS owners are testers for new software releases, although he didn´t make it clear whether those even know they are... But watch the whole thing, very good presentation and many details.
Well, yes, in a sense everyone is a beta tester. Folks who are in the first wave of a rollout are more likely to experience bugs. It's always been that way. In fact, I can't remember a single major release that didn't get halted part way through.
Thanks marc. I got significantly less efficient with this last update. I'll have to do a longer trip and see
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
billarnett meant actually --skip-- the known bad release, jerry33. What you described would only delay it.
billarnett actually did, in fact, inadvertently delay installing his .167 until after .179 was released, but he does not have .179 yet. Without intentionally intending to, he actually did exactly as you had described above. He is now in the hopefully short (and unavoidable, even in your scenario) interim period when he has the firmware he did not want installed, and is waiting for the firmware he does want to be pushed to his car.
benjiejr
Technogeekextraordinaire
Another longer test drive this morning on .179 in Insane Mode/Range Mode ON. Wasn't planned out and didn't use EV Trip Planner; just went for a nice drive. 89.2 miles, 38F outside, drizzle/fog, used heater to 70F inside, seat heater on 1, mix of city/highway, typical driving. No issues or warnings. I totaled 35.5 kWh and averaged 398 Wh/mi. I think this very reasonable considering the conditions. I snapped a couple screenshots and put them below. One of the trip meter for the whole trip. One is for trip prediction for about the last half the trip of 42.1 miles and it's prediction was very accurate. And the last is the energy consumption graph for the last 30 miles. There where just a few hills, but basically the dips in the graph are an indication of torque sleep.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course.
I was only pointing it out because billarnett was already inadvertently accomplishing all your method could accomplish, and was expressing his displeasure and dismay at that.
I don't think it's quite so reasonable as you do to average 398Wh/mi under those conditions. It may just be a difference in our driving styles, but in my D under .139 I could routinely beat the Trips calculation by roughly 10% except when driving at faster highway speeds in bad weather. I don't have enough experience with .179 to draw any conclusions yet, but it would not surprise me if the fix for the bug in .167 has come at the cost of reduced overall efficiency of torque sleep in Range mode.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
I did close to 150 miles yesterday in 52deg sunny weather on a route I use. At 139 it was ~390Wh/m, yesterday was 352. Pre conditioned battery, cabin, etc. about 40 miles of this was at 70mph. I'm a happy bunny
also, coming back north on i5, I had someone accelerating ahead of me, then dropping back. He then was gesticulating wildly and I thought something was broken on outside of car as he now had his driver's window open and was shouting, so my wife lowered her window. He then gave a thumbs up and was shouting how much he loved the car. Slightly uncomfortable for my wife as we were doing 60+ on freeway with her window down... Kinda cool, though kinda embarrassing. This happening to others?
Last edited:
I would agree that this fix is very likely to reduce efficiency, at least from .167 where they had cranked things up another notch and potentially hit the limits of the hardware. Hopefully efficiency is still a little better than .140 but it's also possible they dialed things further back until they can do more thorough testing and potentially tweak the algorithm a bit.
Similar threads
