You have to be careful about that assumption. There are a lot of software recalls nowadays on cars. Even ten years ago I had to get an update on a car for the HD Radio to work in stereo, as a personally familiar example. That seems like a feature which would have been checked before release instead of fixed in a software update six months later.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Aggmeister2010
Active Member
If legacy auto makers comply with normal industry practices, they'll use OTA Updates to push out maaaybe one major final software revision per year, and occasionally to handle break-fixes to critical / safety systems. I think it's stupid that I *have* to do an update to add fart noises to my car. I don't want that kiddie crap on my car, especially if it then requires another update because their code for an easter egg makes my voice commands not work.
Understood, but there's a difference between needing a patch to get HD Radio to work, and then going about your next 10 years of ownership.........and having an OTA update that force-pushes out video games, and breaks 3 other functions in the process, requiring more updates, which breaks more stuff, which needs more updates which.............etc etc.
It seems like every week there's a new software version for my car. On multiple occasions, those updates have failed and required a tow and 3 days of uber credits. Tollerable for my PS5, but not for my car.
All I'm asking for is more care and concern be put into their software releases so they're not so heavily reliant on OTA updates (and burdening the customer) so frequently.
That's really all I have to say on this topic -- it's fine if y'all disagree, but I want my car to focus on being a car. To do that, it needs to start every time, and get me to my destination drama-free, and just generally be reliable. It's difficult to do that when I'm constantly having to patch systems that fail from other patches and do hard resets on my MCU.
Do you run Advanced updates or Standard? The ones that get pushed to Standard seem to be pretty solid.
I have a Leaf and my co-worker a Bolt. Both of them have had year-long waits to solve charging issues with their BMS (the Bolt issue isn't solved yet). You will NOT get what you think you'll get with the legacy automakers.
Seems like Tesla, being such a software driven company, should adopt the option for a LTR release version in their cars. Long Term Releases may occasionally get minor bug fixes, but they are feature locked and don't change over a long time. Linux, Firefox, many companies offer a LTR version of their software. For businesses it makes things easier to manage.
Should you want a stable long term release and don't care about new features, the choose the LTR version. dunno how that would work with AP software, but I'd love a locked UI version. Just make it bug free, don't add anything.
Should you want a stable long term release and don't care about new features, the choose the LTR version. dunno how that would work with AP software, but I'd love a locked UI version. Just make it bug free, don't add anything.
I've suggested this on here multiple times as well. I would LOVE this option. Keep my car looking and acting like the one I bought. I liked it well enough to buy it, after all.
The argument is that this would necessitate maintaining multiple code branches. I don't see that as very much work, honestly (and yes, I'm a software developer).
That sounds like a great idea. Advanced, Standard, LTS, instead of just the Advanced and Standard options currently available. That way you could run a version with zaroo boogs.
What innovations are you referring to with legacy auto? I remember MB had auto parking feature atleast 4 years ago. They claimed they did. It NEVER worked. But no one bothered. Why? because everyone knew it was gimmick and no one really cared for that feature.
Porsche is the closest, Audi a near second but the looks arent my style. it's almost down to my model S price and better in every way. My issue is dollar for dollar Tesla has jumped so far past mine I can get 400 miles and autopilot for half what I paid. If they keep dropping price I might buy, it drives a lot better than Tesla and charges faster so the lower range would still be a big step up from what I have. But I keep circling back to Tesla. I'd already have a new one if the company would commit to being honest and safe. Quite a conundrum but at least Tesla forced the others to make real cars.
If you're looking for a perfect auto company you'll never be happy. In the end you have to look at the faults of each company and make a choice.
Nobody's getting perfect, Im just looking for a company that I don't know is currently breaking laws and harming me intentionally. I'll probably fall for more lies in the future but I don't want to fall for the same ones knowingly. If Porsche was still using software cheats to invalidate EPA ratings I wouldn't be looking at them either. When Tesla stops doing it I'll most likely buy that day.
I would say that any company building a vehicle with tailpipe emissions is harming me intentionally. I recognize that is a bit of an extremist stance though, and so I'll still buy EVs from non-EV-dedicated manufacturers. It's a pretty big turnoff though, so there better be a great reason to overlook it for me.
I don't mean possibly harming a secondhand smoke sort of way, my Tesla does that in oil it vaporized through tire wear and I don't care. I mean Tesla admitted publicly that they have intentionally harmed me by crippling my car with intentionally removed usability over what they themselves describe as a fire safety investigation. In their own words my battery must be treated with an abundance of caution in response to secret problems they discovered when investigating inexplicable garage fires. I'm afraid to park it inside until they come clean and repair it or stop treating my car like it could burst at any moment and remove the cautionary crippling downgrades they imposed to stop my car from burning while I sleep.
I'm willing to buy another one when the safety and warranty claims I once believed are no longer blatant lies. Either my car is damaged and must be repaired or it's fine and must be restored. I just want them to stop lying to me so they can have it both ways.
I'm willing to buy another one when the safety and warranty claims I once believed are no longer blatant lies. Either my car is damaged and must be repaired or it's fine and must be restored. I just want them to stop lying to me so they can have it both ways.
Charge-gate is over. They fixed it a few weeks ago.
islandbayy
Active Member
Thats only for the silion based cells. Starting with the 90's and 75's. Original 60 & 85 cells did not see the improvement as far as I can tell.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. You're flip flopping and saying both opposite statements at the same time.
You are saying you don't like it being dangerous and want them to fix it.
But the limitations they put on it are what fixed it and made it not dangerous, but you are upset with those limitations.
So make up your mind and choose one: Do you want it dangerous without the limitations or safe with them?
This can be viewed in a very similar manner to a car that was sold with a certain RPM limit. After a while, they find that some of the cars don't hold up well to as high an RPM level as they originally thought. So let's say they can do an over the air update that puts in a lower RPM governor that keeps all the cars within a safe limit. It's not that the engines are intrinsically unsafe. It's just that the level of safe capability they are built for is a bit smaller than they originally thought and advertised for.
Now THAT is a real, but very different issue. That has to do with sales and marketing claims, and it being downgraded some in capability versus what it was advertised with, and yes, people have complaints about that, and it's real. But your issue, where you're scared the car is going to burn you alive and is unsafe is not real. It's these limitations that get on your nerves that have removed that as an issue.
Yeah, sure. For a very small number of owners, maybe.
My 90 is still crippled by the Tesla take-aways. When are they going to restore my car's (and from what I understand, the majority of 90's) charging performance?
Tesla doesn't make sense. If there is a danger, they are illegally not fixing it. If there isn't a danger, they are still illegally stealing. You're absolutely right, they don't make any sense.
The law makes sense. if they needed to do anything to mitigate a safety issue they are mandated to issue a recall and repair the defective part to equal or better than original. Downgrades have always been illegal, but Tesla wants it both ways which is why they are confusing you. They refuse to make up their minds because doing that gets them in legal trouble.
If you want a less confusing example of the same fire safety problem Tesla is illegally hiding, Chevy issued a recall on Bolt batteries. They limited charge and thermal settings just like Tesla and publicly notified every owner so nobody is still at risk. They are required to return 100% functionality by law as part of the recall, but the 90% cap was an emergency measure taken to avoid more fires.
Contrast that legal response to Tesla's illegal handling the same problem: Tesla hided the issue and issues no recall, so fires continue to happen. People are refusing to update to the crippling firmwares and are downgrading back to older ones that work as originally sold.
I can understand why you'd be confused. it doesn't make sense for Tesla to lie and try to burn people for money, but that's what can happen if they hide safety problems and refuse to recall fire prone batteries they refuse to repair. You have to wonder what they prioritize so much more than our safety.
Your RPM limit hypothetical has legal repercussions. If they can't deliver promised horsepower or EPA rated range due to their secret software cheat devices and refuse to disclose the safety problem they will be found guilty and face the consequences of trying to harm people just to save money. It happens from shady car companies but I never expected Tesla to be one of them. I was wrong, but I will help them be a better company again if they are willing to change.
The law makes sense. if they needed to do anything to mitigate a safety issue they are mandated to issue a recall and repair the defective part to equal or better than original. Downgrades have always been illegal, but Tesla wants it both ways which is why they are confusing you. They refuse to make up their minds because doing that gets them in legal trouble.
If you want a less confusing example of the same fire safety problem Tesla is illegally hiding, Chevy issued a recall on Bolt batteries. They limited charge and thermal settings just like Tesla and publicly notified every owner so nobody is still at risk. They are required to return 100% functionality by law as part of the recall, but the 90% cap was an emergency measure taken to avoid more fires.
Contrast that legal response to Tesla's illegal handling the same problem: Tesla hided the issue and issues no recall, so fires continue to happen. People are refusing to update to the crippling firmwares and are downgrading back to older ones that work as originally sold.
I can understand why you'd be confused. it doesn't make sense for Tesla to lie and try to burn people for money, but that's what can happen if they hide safety problems and refuse to recall fire prone batteries they refuse to repair. You have to wonder what they prioritize so much more than our safety.
Your RPM limit hypothetical has legal repercussions. If they can't deliver promised horsepower or EPA rated range due to their secret software cheat devices and refuse to disclose the safety problem they will be found guilty and face the consequences of trying to harm people just to save money. It happens from shady car companies but I never expected Tesla to be one of them. I was wrong, but I will help them be a better company again if they are willing to change.
Last edited:
Similar threads
