-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
green1
Active Member
It's probably to align it with the blue used on all the other nav interfaces. though if I were to ask to change something about that screen, the colour of the arrow wouldn't have even made the list!
MarcG
Active Member
Ah that arrow, got it. I was referring to the smaller ones with text such as the ones below (sorry for the poor quality):
Not sure if this is because of the maps update or .126 because I haven't received the maps update yet but do have .126 and my Nav IC looks like this:
green1
Active Member
I would say there's a very strong chance that you have in fact received the maps update.
I keep hoping my (6.2) Sig will get the maps update prompt to help with this mystery.
That would be great but how do you know it's not the firmware? I've had no notification of any maps update and even opened a ticket with Tesla.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Yeah, I'm unclear if the blue arrows is the result of a map update or firmware update. I have the blue arrows and the latest firmware, but no map update, yet.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
In the maps thread FlasherZ wrote that the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge, which was not included in the maps version he had before the update, is included now.
Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you could check to see if you have the bridge in your version of the maps or not.
Good idea, I'll try that and report back.
Edit:
Although it was a good idea I still don't feel it's resolved. I set the nav to take me to the Stan Musial Memorial Bridge but could only take a screen shot of the 17" (below) because no matter what I tried the IC was only showing me my current position. It would allow me to select future turns but only for a few before it returned me back to the starting position. It wouldn't allow me to step through it like I thought. Is there a better way to be able to display the destination on the IC? My assumption is that I would have to see the Navigon map not the Google map to verify if the bridge is there.
Last edited:
I was not charging during the update. I called them while I WAS charging. They could see that I had requested 50, but was only getting 25. They asked me to adjust the rate, but I only could get half the requested value. My WC is set to 64, so the max I can run now is 32.
Ranger stopped by my house today in response to my ticket. He confirmed I definitely had the same symptoms as many others, half rate charging if set above 40 amps. He also took my car over to the Mall store where there is a row of 80 amp WC (mine is limited to 64). Full 80 amps if something above 72 requested.
Confirmed my power is good at home. Confirmed my chargers are both OK (works fine when 80 amps requested). So that means bad firmware. He does not know when something newer will come out to fix the problem. A few days maybe? But really hard to guess at how long it will take to fix and QA the code. I hope their amended test procedure includes a few stops between 40 and 80 amps.
Definitely a foul up in software QA. But really amazing service. With SOB (some other brand) i would have spent my day in line at a dealer. And we do not even have a service center within a hundred miles!
Just another data point...
I recently upgraded to 126. A new issue I'm seeing with 126: it gave me the circuitry/wiring message and dropped the amperage from 80 to 56. The next night (on the same HPWC) it didn't repro the issue.
I've used this circuit for over a year for both P85Sig and P85D with no issue like this.
That said, there has been some discussion about electricity in the neighborhood recently (something about a substation that isn't online yet because <whatever>) and the voltage does drop to about 233V when 79A is reached so maybe it's related to grid power activity on the city side of things. It used to be 240+V at 80A last time I paid attention.
I recently upgraded to 126. A new issue I'm seeing with 126: it gave me the circuitry/wiring message and dropped the amperage from 80 to 56. The next night (on the same HPWC) it didn't repro the issue.
I've used this circuit for over a year for both P85Sig and P85D with no issue like this.
That said, there has been some discussion about electricity in the neighborhood recently (something about a substation that isn't online yet because <whatever>) and the voltage does drop to about 233V when 79A is reached so maybe it's related to grid power activity on the city side of things. It used to be 240+V at 80A last time I paid attention.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you're satisfied, and consider this good customer service. I would agree, if Tesla weren't cutting corners in other places, and reducing ranger services, trying to save costs. Since we know they are, in fact, doing that, to be honest I view sending a ranger out to confirm that you have the same firmware bug that hundreds if not thousands of other cars do a complete waste of time and resources.
This is something that could have and should have been confirmed by the mothership. Some engineer there should have been able, by early this morning, to verify that they had introduced this bug into the software, and, once Tesla had verified that, prevented any ranger visits, since the ranger visits weren't going to resolve anything anyway.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Why? Why are you going to call them?
At this point this is a known problem, and you can be confident that Tesla knows about it and is working on it. Calling them isn't going to get them to solve the problem any faster. If things go what I would consider poorly, Tesla will waste more time and resources either having you bring the car in or sending a ranger out to you. Either scenario will accomplish absolutely nothing!
I would suggest at most, emailing Tesla to let them know that your car is also afflicted with this known problem, but that you understand that they are already aware of it and working on it, and that you don't expect them to do anything special for you. This way it will be documented that you had the problem, should that be necessary for some reason, but you won't waste anyone's time on a problem that obviously can only be solved with a firmware update, and in all likelihood will be within days.
YES, I called Tesla support on this today... they had not heard about it, and would look into it... I did point out the dual charger turn off is the probably issue. This happened within 3 hours of the .126 update... 50% charge rate. Must be software bug, and has to be the dual charger issue.
- - - Updated - - -
YES, I called Tesla support on this today... they had not heard about it, and would look into it... I did point out the dual charger turn off is the probably issue. This happened within 3 hours of the .126 update... 50% charge rate. Must be software bug, and has to be the dual charger issue.
- - - Updated - - -
good point, with the possible exception that when I called this morning they were NOT aware of the issue. Have forwarded text from this thread to support, and will wait to see how long it takes to get a fix.
- - - Updated - - -
YES, I called Tesla support on this today... they had not heard about it, and would look into it... I did point out the dual charger turn off is the probably issue. This happened within 3 hours of the .126 update... 50% charge rate. Must be software bug, and has to be the dual charger issue.
- - - Updated - - -
good point, with the possible exception that when I called this morning they were NOT aware of the issue. Have forwarded text from this thread to support, and will wait to see how long it takes to get a fix.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Calling early this morning, before it had been stated in this thread that Tesla was aware of the issue, was fine. By this evening it was pretty apparent that Tesla knew of this. One poster even wrote about having a ranger come out and document everything. It was a poster who posted after that post, stating that he or she was planning on calling Tesla tomorrow that caused me to ask why?
A few points: It's perfectly ok to be charging when you schedule an update. The charging will stop while the update is in progress.
It's not possible for the update process to "skip" something like the slave charger. If the slave doesn't respond and take the update, the whole update will fail and the car will revert to the old firmware.
I can confirm it's definitely a bug in the software as both of my chargers took the update and I too had the "half" bug. I also noticed that it broke WiFi on one car, but cellular is still functioning.
Anyone else having trouble with WiFi on 2.12.126?
It's not possible for the update process to "skip" something like the slave charger. If the slave doesn't respond and take the update, the whole update will fail and the car will revert to the old firmware.
I can confirm it's definitely a bug in the software as both of my chargers took the update and I too had the "half" bug. I also noticed that it broke WiFi on one car, but cellular is still functioning.
Anyone else having trouble with WiFi on 2.12.126?
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I just tested this, and for some reason my dual charger P85D updated to 2.12.126 this past Friday is not afflicted with this bug.
My wife had plugged the car in when she returned home from work and scheduled a charge to start at 72 amps at 3:15 AM.
--I went out to the car, unplugged it, got into the car, changed the charging rate to 64 amps and turned off scheduled charging, and then plugged the car back in.
--Charging started immediately, of course, ramped up to 32 amps quickly (actually I noticed a momentary blip at 33 before it settled at 32), paused at 32 for perhaps 45 seconds to a minute, and them ramped up to 63. It never did get to 64, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps I have a minor bug in that respect.
I then set the scheduled charging, changed the rate to 72 amps, unscheduled the charging, because I wanted to make sure the car would charge at 72 amps, and not 36, and watched it pause at 36, and then ramp up to 71. At that point I just reset the scheduled charging, and fully expect that the car will be charged to 90% shortly before my wife intends to leave in the morning.
If I didn't follow the correct protocol to reproduce the error, Mike, let me know, but I'm pretty sure that I did.
You sure about this? (I feel like I'm picking on you... lol... not my intention)
One of the first things the updater does is update the instrument cluster filesystem partition, then reboots the IC with the new firmware. It does this before it even attempts to flash other modules. If the update fails at some point I don't believe it rolls back. I know the update can continue to the end and skip a module that doesn't take an update, and then suffer whatever consequences of that after the update is done. This happened to me with my parking sensor module back in early 2015 which required a ranger to replace the module. Also, I attempted to flash my bench setup once, and the IC took the update, but the updater failed when it, well, couldn't find the rest of the car.
The IC ended up on the version I was trying to update to, but the CID was not and the IC just sat there complaining about a version mismatch.*shrugs*
I guess it's possible that this is something that's been resolved over the last year or so... but, I don't know. I don't believe it can auto roll back though.
Similar threads
