Firmware 7.1

[jeffro01]

You nailed it. They clearly don't do sufficient QA on these builds. How could they possibly do that. And if we are supposed to do the QA for them, we need to know what changed / what to test, and how to get our feedback to them.

#FAIL

Tesla can't win, first people bitch and moan about how the software isn't being updated fast enough, not they're supposedly going too fast. Which is it??? How can you possibly sit in your chair and make QA accusations when you have absolutely no insight into that other than the various build versions that are out there?

Answer, you can't. You're just looking for something to bitch and moan about and this happened to fit the bill.

Jeff

 

[travwill]

Tesla can't win, first people bitch and moan about how the software isn't being updated fast enough, not they're supposedly going too fast. Which is it??? How can you possibly sit in your chair and make QA accusations when you have absolutely no insight into that other than the various build versions that are out there?

Answer, you can't. You're just looking for something to bitch and moan about and this happened to fit the bill.

Jeff

Nah I think they have valid reasons to complain. It seems Tesla pumps out versions fast, with no notes or change logs, if they included that at a detailed level (just online even) it would help people understand the justification. But, from what we see, they push out new "beta" features, cool gimmick features, while leaving other features in "beta" mode now for quite some time, a year+ in some cases. They don't address known complaints or problems BEFORE releasing "beta" items, add functionality that we actually see requested most frequently, etc.

What comes to mind is so many request for audio/integrations that have never been done. It took FOREVER to get simple tire pressure data when hardware did support it, navigation has been in perpetual beta and lacking in waypoints & functionality, and WTF rolling out easter eggs when other areas are in beta and or there are blantant bugs. Their prioritization process and tracking of Dev work just seems poor. They need a true Scrum process with prioritized backlogs and accountability in Dev AND especially QA.

 

[Pruitt]

I don't have any particular heartache with how Tesla does things, but I do wish they'd put out a paragraph or two describing what they tweaked in these minor updates.

 

[Vince Cobelo]

I agree that some explanation of what is in a update would be great. Most companies do. Only reason I can think of why they don't is liability. If they publish what changes in a update and something happens as a result of someone misinterpreting the published information that might be considered liability exposure. If they just update and don't tell you what they updated and you somehow misuse or abuse then that is on you not TMC. Don't know if that is plausible but it is all I can think of.

As for our friend that thinks everyone should be happy all of the time because it is software and should account for every situation. Seriously?

 

[brianman]

I can't stand this feature of TACC. The car slows significantly more than necessary for curves (I personally would prefer no slowing at all). Driving at a 45 mph speed limit, the car will slow to 30 mph for a tight curve, causing a line of cars to bunch up behind me. The Tesla and the cars behind me are all capable of handling the turn at 45 mph. I feel like I have my 82 year old grandmother controlling the TACC. I've learned to turn it off during these sections of road.

Yah, I've been meaning to report this to Tesla. When taking the 520 E exit from 405 N, with TACC set at 65mph (speed limit 60mph) the car slows to 45mph. Not just annoying. Unsafe. Incredibly so.

 

[tezzla]

Yah, I've been meaning to report this to Tesla. When taking the 520 E exit from 405 N, with TACC set at 65mph (speed limit 60mph) the car slows to 45mph. Not just annoying. Unsafe. Incredibly so.

What's the speed limit sign for that onramp?

 

[billarnett]

Yah, I've been meaning to report this to Tesla. When taking the 520 E exit from 405 N, with TACC set at 65mph (speed limit 60mph) the car slows to 45mph. Not just annoying. Unsafe. Incredibly so.

I agree. Driving on a 2-lane mountain road TACC is worse than useless. I have to turn it off. If it would just hold the set speed as an old-fashion cruise control would then it would be just fine; I can manually tap the brake for the odd corner that may require slowing.

 

[Todd Burch]

I had the "TC/SC/AEB/AP/regen disabled" issue a couple of times prior to 2.16.17. Now my car is on 2.17.50 (installed by SC as part of Ludicrous retrofit), and I just got another "AEB disabled" error as I pulled out of the SC. The error went away after a power-off as before. Looks like they still haven't fixed this particular bug in the latest firmware.

What makes you think it's a bug in the firmware? I've never seen that message.

More likely to be a loose wiring harness.

 

[brianman]

I agree. Driving on a 2-lane mountain road TACC is worse than useless. I have to turn it off. If it would just hold the set speed as an old-fashion cruise control would then it would be just fine; I can manually tap the brake for the odd corner that may require slowing.

Yes, if they're going to keep making TACC "clever" about non-obstructed speed management, they need to give us a setting to enable "original CC" so that my TACC car doesn't feel gimped compared to my non-TACC car.

 

[RogerHScott]

What's wrong with the water at Tesla? We now have 2.17.50, 2.17.65 and 2.17.80... all three with reports today. With all due respect - I'm supposed to believe that all of these builds went through reasonable testing and QA cycles?

You are assuming -- incorrectly -- that this is one giant monolithic piece of software. In reality it is a collection of separate pieces, and
between minor (dot-dot-) releases like this it is very likely that most of the subsystems didn't change at all, so repeated testing of them
is unnecessary. Obviously the subsystems that do change need testing, as does interaction between subsystems, but for such minor
version bumps that is probably a very small fraction of the entire system. By far the most likely thing is that these represent tiny bug
fixes to 2.17.37.

 

[RogerHScott]

functionality that we actually see requested most frequently

I think there's a (strong) tendency on this site to assume that what the small minority of Tesla owners that participate on
this site think/say is representative of Tesla owners at large, let alone the entire marketplace that Tesla's business is addressing.
It is a large assumption that anyone here has insight comparable to that of the decision makers at Tesla.

 

[Boatguy]

I think there's a (strong) tendency on this site to assume that what the small minority of Tesla owners that participate on
this site think/say is representative of Tesla owners at large, let alone the entire marketplace that Tesla's business is addressing.
It is a large assumption that anyone here has insight comparable to that of the decision makers at Tesla.

In my experience as a product manager for a major consumer electronics company, if one customer is saying something, there are 10 others who are thinking it. These kind of forums are certainly not a random sample of owners, the participants are obviously the more outspoken. However, there is a good mix of fanboys and critics, it's not just trolls. Additionally, the participants here are probably more likely to talk about their Tesla experience and be listened to by others.

If I was a product manager at Tesla, I would consider this site to be a very low cost focus group.

 

[Blurry_Eyed]

Yes, if they're going to keep making TACC "clever" about non-obstructed speed management, they need to give us a setting to enable "original CC" so that my TACC car doesn't feel gimped compared to my non-TACC car.

My BMW i3 (Which I sold when I received my Model X) had this exact capability. If I wanted to engage standard (non-traffic aware) cruise control I could. I could also toggle between adaptive and non-adaptive cruise control. Very nice feature to have.

 

[Boatguy]

My BMW i3 (Which I sold when I received my Model X) had this exact capability. If I wanted to engage standard (non-traffic aware) cruise control I could. I could also toggle between adaptive and non-adaptive cruise control. Very nice feature to have.

I also have an i3 and sold a Mercedes to buy the MS. With just the i3 and the Mercedes (dumb CC), I had to always keep in mind that the Mercedes would gladly drive right into the back of the car I was following, I really needed to pay attention.

I had exactly the opposite response that you had when I got the MS. I suddenly found the i3 annoying because it requires me to push so many buttons to get the TACC started (On, Set, Following Distance), whereas in the MS I just pull back the stick and everything is good.

That said, there is no reason that Tesla couldn't offer a driver preference to make the CC be either TACC or "dumb", just like they allow disabling of other Driver/Parking Assistance features.

 

[Bet TSLA]

If I wanted to engage standard (non-traffic aware) cruise control I could. I could also toggle between adaptive and non-adaptive cruise control. Very nice feature to have.

That approach is so non-Tesla. To the extent that you ever want to do that, it means that they have failed to get TACC right. Tesla's solution will always be to work harder at getting TACC right. They may fail repeatedly, but they're going to keep trying. And it's going to keep getting better.

 

[TaoJones]

I think there's a (strong) tendency on this site to assume that what the small minority of Tesla owners that participate on
this site think/say is representative of Tesla owners at large, let alone the entire marketplace that Tesla's business is addressing.
It is a large assumption that anyone here has insight comparable to that of the decision makers at Tesla.

Yeah, about that last sentence...

There are a number of members of TMC (and at the TM fora) who are quite close to those to whom you refer as decision makers at Tesla.

Not that there is necessarily a dependency with regard to insight.

Edit: inadvertent sentence fragment at top removed.

 

[wart]

I did a little Autopilot driving today. I could swear that it takes less torque on the steering wheel to cancel Autosteer than it did a few weeks ago. And Autosteer is definitely weaving more than it had been.

On the other hand, the automatic A/C is working pretty well for me lately, even in Range mode.

This is on 2.17.37, Model S 85D.

 

[AWDtsla]

Any P90D owners see reduced power after 2.17.37? I could only manage 408kW tonight. I turned on the data logger after I noticed the power under acceleration would barely get to the "4" in 400, and not well past it. I'll try again tomorrow but it's not looking good.

edit - at 90% charge as well.

 

[Joules Verne]

Engineering be it software or mechanical is always a compromise.

Agreed!

BMW once had a slogan that was "performance and engineering without compromise", which I aways found amusing.

Engineering == compromise (or tradeoff if you prefer)

 

[davidc18]

I did a little Autopilot driving today. I could swear that it takes less torque on the steering wheel to cancel Autosteer than it did a few weeks ago. And Autosteer is definitely weaving more than it had been.

On the other hand, the automatic A/C is working pretty well for me lately, even in Range mode.

This is on 2.17.37, Model S 85D.

I've noticed the same thing on ours. Much less torque to disconnect AP