Firmware 7.0

[dirkhh]

latest is 2.8.188? A big jump from 2.7.106, Wow. Wonder what new features Tesla is offering?

No, it seems like this was a fluke. (QA anyone? "Nah, QA is for old style car makers, we don't do no stinking QA, we have our design intern come up with version numbers when he isn't busy hiding information from our customers" -- yeah, ok, I know, kinda lame... what can I say)
Just like we had the odd 101.x build numbers before, 2.8.188 looks like it might have been 2.7.88 or something... it's only been sighted on a few cars (two in the tracker) and appears to have been superseded by 2.7.106 (for which we currently see 22 reports, most coming in yesterday).

 

[msnow]

latest is 2.8.188? A big jump from 2.7.106, Wow. Wonder what new features Tesla is offering?

There's a few people at teslamotors.com claiming no noticeable change. New Firmware 2.8.188 | Forums | Tesla Motors

 

[jdw]

There's a few people at teslamotors.com claiming no noticeable change. New Firmware 2.8.188 | Forums | Tesla Motors

I asked the SC about that yesterday - they told me that it was a version for beta testers. Not clear whether the people who have it are aware of that or if it is true ...

 

[MarcG]

Well I finally got upgraded to 2.7.77 at the service center today while getting a new set of tires.

Surprisingly, the upgrade took a whole… 6 minutes!

 

[Pilot_51]

Well, I guess it will never be reliable then. If I set all the unreliable "US" cars to "unassigned" then until everyone updates their profile to a correct country, we're left with pretty much the data we have now except it says "US" instead of "unassigned". So yes, it's not perfect, but it's the best we've got for now.

Sorry if I was a little harsh about it. I blame it on a rough two weeks at work destroying my tolerance for things not working the way I think they should, and sleep deprivation.

I strongly believe "unassigned" (or blank) would be better than defaulting to US, because then the ones set to US would be reliable, not only the ones set to other countries. If that is done, then the data will be instantly reliable (in the way that what we see is what it is, unassigned or otherwise) and we will know when the data as a whole becomes more complete as we see the unassigned ones disappearing, while we may never know for sure if it stays defaulted to US, especially for the historical data entered before the change. I understand that you'll most likely need to change all the US to unassigned, which many if not most of the users affected would need to set back to US, but I think it would be worth it for having data that can be trusted for accuracy. If you implement such a change, it's better to do it sooner rather than later, since the addition of country is recent and many people haven't noticed it yet.

If you really want to avoid "unassigned"...

what about IP geolocation?

 

[Ingineer]

Hank, When anyone logs in to report a version with an "unassigned" location couldn't you also just have a pop-up ask if the user could please set their location? If you wanted to make it easier, you could geolocate those users and run a pop up such as "Your location has not been confirmed, you appear to be from {geo-loc}, is this correct? [OK] [Cancel]" If they cancel take them to the manual settings page, otherwise set to the geo-loc.

 

[msnow]

Well I finally got upgraded to 2.7.77 at the service center today while getting a new set of tires.

Surprisingly, the upgrade took a whole… 6 minutes!

View attachment 100371

Off topic but your original tires didn't even last a year?

 

[MarcG]

Off topic but your original tires didn't even last a year?

No but the time is less relevant than the mileage. I now have over 21,000 miles!

 

[HankLloydRight]

Hank, When anyone logs in to report a version with an "unassigned" location couldn't you also just have a pop-up ask if the user could please set their location? If you wanted to make it easier, you could geolocate those users and run a pop up such as "Your location has not been confirmed, you appear to be from {geo-loc}, is this correct? [OK] [Cancel]" If they cancel take them to the manual settings page, otherwise set to the geo-loc.

Yes, something like that, but all that is new code yet to be written. Takes time!

 

[MikeBur]

No but the time is less relevant than the mileage. I now have over 21,000 miles!

I'm not sure I'll ever get any reasonable mileage on my tires. Second blow-out this year. Another 1" gash, this time front driver side. Again due to debris on road, according to SC...

 

[msnow]

No but the time is less relevant than the mileage. I now have over 21,000 miles!

You are right in which case thats about double the miles I would have expected.

 

[Bet TSLA]

No but the time is less relevant than the mileage. I now have over 21,000 miles!

My 9/27/14 P85 has 21,000 miles on it and the tires were recently measured at 6/32" everywhere (at its annual service at 20,000 miles). I have 19" wheels and Michelin Primacy tires, so maybe that's a difference? What was the tread depth that you thought replacement was necessary?

 

[ohmman]

My 9/27/14 P85 has 21,000 miles on it and the tires were recently measured at 6/32" everywhere (at its annual service at 20,000 miles). I have 19" wheels and Michelin Primacy tires, so maybe that's a difference? What was the tread depth that you thought replacement was necessary?

I'm right there with you. 3/2014, 26k miles, and 5/32".. I'll likely replace for winter, but not a terrible story considering some of the others I've heard.

 

[MarcG]

My 9/27/14 P85 has 21,000 miles on it and the tires were recently measured at 6/32" everywhere (at its annual service at 20,000 miles). I have 19" wheels and Michelin Primacy tires, so maybe that's a difference? What was the tread depth that you thought replacement was necessary?

This is digressing into an off-topic discussion, but to quickly answer your questions: I also have 19" primacy's and the tread depth was between 1/32" and 2/32". Let's just say I've been enjoying INSANE mode ;-)

Back on topic: I finally have temp and time back in my IC. YAY!! And as others confirmed, auto lane change still does not require hands on the wheel. Must be a Euro-only thing..

 

[bobr829]

Version 7 Trip Display

The new trip display seems awesome. My question is about the total KW/h on it. This is a cumulative number since last charged. The number that is displayed, does it equate to the KW actually used? As an example in a 70 KW battery MS, if my display shows 20 KW/h used does this mean there is approx 50 KW left in the battery?
I cannot find any explanation for this cumulative part of the new display.
Thanks very much
Bob

 

[CHG-ON]

It shows power used, but not just for driving. I also calcs vampire drain and any preconditioning use, etc. The battery must maintain a certain buffer to keep stable and healthy. So we don't get that total rating in energy to be used. I think it is something around 95%. There are other threads by much more intelligent people than me who explain this quite well.

 

[Soolim]

The new trip display seems awesome. My question is about the total KW/h on it. This is a cumulative number since last charged. The number that is displayed, does it equate to the KW actually used? As an example in a 70 KW battery MS, if my display shows 20 KW/h used does this mean there is approx 50 KW left in the battery?
I cannot find any explanation for this cumulative part of the new display.
Thanks very much
Bob

Yes, energy consumed is in kWh. kW is for power. You car battery is rated for 70kWh, so when the cumulative consumption since last charged is 50kWh, the remaining energy is 20kWh. I noticed that comparing summer driving to fall driving in the morning (colder now in Vancouver), my consumed energy in kWh has risen for my daily commute due to cabin and battery heating. Hope this answers your question.

 

[MarcG]

You car battery is rated for 70kWh, so when the cumulative consumption since last charged is 50kWh, the remaining energy is 20kWh.

Careful with that remaining 20kWh. Tesla reserves a fair bit of energy for "anti-bricking" protection so the battery will never truly be at 0% state of charge.
So when you plan your driving, bear in mind that at least 5kWh will be unusable for actual driving (the exact number is unknown outside Tesla).

For example, the most I've ever been able to drive on my 85kWh pack is 75.2kWh (started at 100% SOC and ended with 2 miles of rated range left).
Others may have squeezed a little more, but their rated range was showing 0 miles for the last few miles they drove.

 

[beeeerock]

For example, the most I've ever been able to drive on my 85kWh pack is 75.2kWh (started at 100% SOC and ended with 2 miles of rated range left).

This is an important (very important) clarification... The kWh rating of the particular car is an indication of the size of the battery pack installed, NOT the stored power available to the driver.

I would really (REALLY) like the battery charge indicator to offer units of kWh as well as percent and rated km. Given that the trip meters work with Wh/km, kWh etc and NOT 'rated km's' or 'percent of battery', it would be MUCH easier to do our own range estimations if we didn't have to guess at available battery kWh's before doing a pile of conversion math. The current system is actually quite obtuse IMHO.

I realize offering the kWh value on the battery 'fuel gauge' would cause more issues than the horsepower rating did :wink: because all the cars will have lower available numbers than are labeled on the back of the car. Yeah, there's an 85 kWh pack installed, but it's actually only 75 kWh to us... or whatever the number actually is (and we've worked it out through trial and error, not from a Tesla publication!). I had to do a careful estimation last weekend to make a trip through a mountain pass in *heavy* rain and low temperatures... it was a challenging problem, precisely because I didn't *really* know how many kWh's were stored in the battery as the car sat at the supercharger. I was able to guess at Wh/km, but that number alone didn't really help.

In the end, I made sure the charger had added as many kWh's as I thought I'd burn, with a little freeboard and the charge remaining in the battery before I plugged in as my safety margin. I made it, but admit to feeling some range anxiety on this leg of the trip. FWIW, the trip consumption graph was completely wrong and I'd have been in trouble if I'd relied upon it...

 

[Cyclone]

The simply solution would be a marketing tweak. Ship the car with a 90 kWh battery and make 85 kWh of it available for use by use and the other 5 kWh the "non-brick reserve".