Firmware 6.2

[Cottonwood]

Since this got brought up in this thread again. After heading out to Mount Rainier again this past weekend I'm now 100% positive that the trip planner uses the 30 mile average to help try to adjust the predictions. Coming down the mountain it makes wildly optimistic predictions which once you put 30 miles behind all that regen, become more realistic. Obviously this adjustment factor is there to help adjust for driving style. But I'm surprised there isn't some sort of floor to avoid situations where driving down hill for long periods distorts it.

Interesting...

I've found the Energy:Trip display of predicted, percent SoC at the destination to be pretty good with elevation changes, up and down hills, etc. It seems to use a recent sample vs it's model to update the prediction for actual driving usage, but the sample seems to be 5-10 miles and not 30 miles (I do have my basic Energy Screen at 30 miles). There does seem to be some bias to overestimating the destination SoC while going downhill and underestimating the destination SoC while going uphill, but I have only seen a few percent change on big, Rocky Mountain grades.

 

[wk057]

Was in for service for a few minor things. On .236 currently. They staged an update to something since I have the alarm clock icon now. Installing now to find out what it is...

 

[Benjamin Brooks]

Was in for service for a few minor things. On .236 currently. They staged an update to something since I have the alarm clock icon now. Installing now to find out what it is...

Likely 2.4.249

 

[hiroshiy]

got 6.2 (101.44.3) via 3G on June 21st. couldn't add my build number to the tracker again... could somebody add it for me?

 

[Ugliest1]

What do you mean by normal range? I just installed .239 up from 101.36.2 and saw an instant 6 mile range decrease in standard charge. I have done 3 charges and it is still 6mi below usual. Was 101.* firmware masking degradation?

Sorry, meant the normal firmware version numbering range. I didn't notice any new degradation but since I installed just after we were on a trip to the US and the car now shows km. So next time I charge, I'll check the RM. It's not something I keep notes on.

Just did a range charge for our 370km trip today (without chargers -- if I never ever post again, you'll know I'm stranded somewhere on Vancouver Island! [I kid]). Sparky is now on .239 as of last Monday, was 101.36.2 before that.

At 90%, I have been at 362km (227mi) for the last few months, including on 101.*. Today with the 100% charge the car is currently at 405km Rated (253mi) and 468 Ideal (293mi), 18 months old and 45,400km (28,375mi). New, from memory, was 425km (264mi) Rated on the car's display. I never did really look at the Ideal. So that's a little over 4% loss on Rated.

 

[golfski]

What do you mean by normal range? I just installed .239 up from 101.36.2 and saw an instant 6 mile range decrease in standard charge. I have done 3 charges and it is still 6mi below usual. Was 101.* firmware masking degradation?

I just had .249 installed on Friday and I lost 5 miles off my 90% charge. It didn't happen right away, but it happened about a day later and a few 90% top-offs.

 

[Ugliest1]

Just did a range charge for our 370km trip today (without chargers -- if I never ever post again, you'll know I'm stranded somewhere on Vancouver Island! [I kid]). Sparky is now on .239 as of last Monday, was 101.36.2 before that.

At 90%, I have been at 362km (227mi) for the last few months, including on 101.*. Today with the 100% charge the car is currently at 405km Rated (253mi) and 468 Ideal (293mi), 18 months old and 45,400km (28,375mi). New, from memory, was 425km (264mi) Rated on the car's display. I never did really look at the Ideal. So that's a little over 4% loss on Rated.

Couldn't see where I could edit the above post. Yesterday I charged to 100%, Remote S had been showing "0%" for about 30 minutes, but still charging. When we decided to go there may still have been some battery balancing going on, not sure. Rated km on start: 402; Ideal: 468 (about 4% loss from new 425km Rated)

But wait!!! Inexplicably, after driving about 1km I happened to notice the RKm jump to 409. Then it stayed at 409 for the next 7km (I watched). So if you do the rose-coloured-glasses math, that would indicate a "more accurate" 100% RKm as 416, or, a 2% loss.

 

[matbl]

Couldn't see where I could edit the above post. Yesterday I charged to 100%, Remote S had been showing "0%" for about 30 minutes, but still charging. When we decided to go there may still have been some battery balancing going on, not sure. Rated km on start: 402; Ideal: 468 (about 4% loss from new 425km Rated)

But wait!!! Inexplicably, after driving about 1km I happened to notice the RKm jump to 409. Then it stayed at 409 for the next 7km (I watched). So if you do the rose-coloured-glasses math, that would indicate a "more accurate" 100% RKm as 416, or, a 2% loss.

This is confusing. I can chose between typical and rated. What is ideal? Are you sure about the terms?

 

[jerry33]

This is confusing. I can chose between typical and rated. What is ideal? Are you sure about the terms?

Cars in North America have "rated range" and "ideal range". European cars have different terms. I don't know whether Asian cars use a third set of terms or one of the other two.

In North America rated range starts at 265 miles based on the EPA rating. Ideal starts at 300 miles based on the 55 mph steady speed number.

 

[gpetti]

I got 2.4.239 and promptly tried Energy savings ON and Always connected UNCHECKED and shortly after had 3G connectivity failure. Either Tesla is not working on this Canadian problem or it is not fixable. It would be nice to get some more detailed communication from Tesla officially telling us what is going on with Canadian cars and if we will ever be able to use the Energy Savings feature. This has been broken for a long time. It must be very annoying to those not on this forum who's 3G drops intermittently and who do not know they should not use this setting.

Energy saving has never worked reliably since it was included in the 6.0 release, Nov. 2014.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/37866-3G-connectivity-issues-since-V6-xxx/page2

I think if Elon new about this problem and how long it has gone on, he would not be pleased.

I got some word that they are still working on this (Canadian) problem. There is a test mule up in Canada and I believe they are testing a software fix - so far successfully. No word on a potential release date but I have 249 and its not in there.

 

[matbl]

Cars in North America have "rated range" and "ideal range". European cars have different terms. I don't know whether Asian cars use a third set of terms or one of the other two.

In North America rated range starts at 265 miles based on the EPA rating. Ideal starts at 300 miles based on the 55 mph steady speed number.

Ok. Thanks for explaining. But it's quite confusing since here, rated is the higher number... Starts at aprox 500 km. Typical starts att aprox 400 km.

 

[tomas]

I believe:

Euro typical = US rated
Euro rated = US ideal

someone must have assumed we would not talk to one another

 

[Model 3]

I believe:

Euro typical = US rated
Euro rated = US ideal

someone must have assumed we would not talk to one another

There is a reason for this. In NA you have the EPA witch is your "rated". The "ideal" was (more or less) the old EPA, and was the range the Model S was marketed with in the beginning.

In EU we have the NEDC rating witch is similar to your old EPA cycle (in fact - even more optimistic I think) - and therefore also about the same as your "ideal". But it is what the car is rated for in EU, so here this is the "rated". But Tesla know, like everybody else, that the old EPA and the NEDC rating is not what a user typical will see. So, they left the NA "rated" display, but had to give it a new name for EU since "rated" was in use for around your "ideal"

So, I'm not sure if NA "ideal" = EU "rated", but if not they are close. But I'm pretty sure that the NA "rated" = EU "typical".

 

[skilly]

I've found the autopilot-equipped speed limit knowledge to be significantly less than 100% accurate quite a few times. There is actually one area of town where the speed limit is 30 MPH and the car consistently believes I'm in a 60 MPH zone for at least 1.5 miles. And with the solid indicator line, not the dashed car-isn't-really-sure line either. There's also a section of 65 MPH highway that it swears is a 25 MPH zone.

So... I don't know if the camera helps enough with this to make a GPS-only version that much worse.

In California on the freeways there are restrictions for towing vehicles at 55MPH while the speed for everything else will be 65 to 70MPH...both signs exist on the same stretch of road and it causes a lot of confusion with AP.

 

[Duma]

In California on the freeways there are restrictions for towing vehicles at 55MPH while the speed for everything else will be 65 to 70MPH...both signs exist on the same stretch of road and it causes a lot of confusion with AP.

While not disputing that the current software version has a problem with this, the solution is relatively straightforward by including a bit more context in the recognition algorithm. On the other hand, for the X this will present more of a challenge, because the correct speed limit depends on whether the vehicle is towing. IMHO, the software will also need to recognizing towing for the stability control to perform correctly. An edge case might be a light towing load with minimal stability impact but relevant for the speed limit decision.

 

[hiroshiy]

US Ideal = EU Rated = JP Rated = 250Wh/mile = 156.25Wh/km
US Rated = 300Wh/mile = 187.5Wh/km
EU Typical = JP Typical = 320Wh/mile = 200Wh/km

 

[mibaro2]

.com is back!

After a few weeks with .239 , I noticed that on the MCU the keyboard in Canada has changed back to having the ".com" key. The previous version had switched it to be ".ca" .
So I am glad that it was switched back since .ca is rarely used.

 

[mknox]

After a few weeks with .239 , I noticed that on the MCU the keyboard in Canada has changed back to having the ".com" key. The previous version had switched it to be ".ca" .
So I am glad that it was switched back since .ca is rarely used.

Yeah, mine flipped back a few weeks ago too. I think .ca is only marginally more popular than .us in the States.

 

[matbl]

US Ideal = EU Rated = JP Rated = 250Wh/mile = 156.25Wh/km
US Rated = 300Wh/mile = 187.5Wh/km
EU Typical = JP Typical = 320Wh/mile = 200Wh/km

Based on the energy graph, I would say that EU typical is about 206-207 Wh/km.

 

[Tree95]

In California on the freeways there are restrictions for towing vehicles at 55MPH while the speed for everything else will be 65 to 70MPH...both signs exist on the same stretch of road and it causes a lot of confusion with AP.

it's true both exist, but I've never seen my car confused by it.