Well said. I often wonder what people hope to accomplish by needlessly clogging an already overwhelmed service organization with what can only be categorized as BS requests.
Another confirmation that MCU is not the issue and that FSD is coming for us. I would like to see a timeline for when we get FSD.
That means nothing. MCU1 is the issue right now it's been confirmed many times. Elon has always maintained it's a simple computer swap, he's just out of touch and speaking in generalizations. Ask yourself why would they upgrade MCU2 cars to HW3 before people that paid for FSD years ago. This doesn't mean they aren't working on getting MCU1 to work with HW3. But for him to suggest its plug and play and ready to go today is a lie. It could be months, it could be years before we see the older cars upgraded.
Very Green is a smart man, but my service tech who has done several MCU1 to MCU2 swaps (in Verygreen’s mobile service region might I add) has informed me there was a harness or two that had to be repinned and a couple other odd procedures completed for full a swap, and it also needed the driving display changed.
This might be the first time I see someone claim that a service tech has done an MCU1->MCU2 retrofit. AP2.5->AP3.0 (with MCU2 at this time) have been reported quite a bit.Very Green is a smart man, but my service tech who has done several MCU1 to MCU2 swaps (in Verygreen’s mobile service region might I add) has informed me there was a harness or two that had to be repinned and a couple other odd procedures completed for full a swap, and it also needed the driving display changed.
Follow up - think Tesla offering a MCU1 (or 2, 3, etc.) upgrade path to the current MCU will only be pursued if it is cost effective for the company.Things that will never happen...Replacing MCU1's with MCU2's
Follow up - think Tesla offering a MCU1 (or 2, 3, etc.) upgrade path to the current MCU will only be pursued if it is cost effective for the company.
What I think we miss here is not the obvious response to "cost-effective" of "I'll just pay [whatever]", but rather the developmental cost Tesla can save by not having to further develop multiple branches of code AND the revenue they can gain by offering the more up-to-date options on cars that are traded back into the company for resale.
For example, if Tesla can juice an extra $5k for current/future FSD support - or whatever other future options would require the support of newer hardware - from a used car sale by upgrading the hardware (AP comp, MCU, etc.), you've got a revenue case to move forward.
Ditto for offering whatever upgrades to the existing ownership base as well.
Combine that with developmental savings by not having to port current software backwards, as you can just pull the old tech forward with an upgrade, and a business case to offer a hardware path, within reason, comes into focus.
To be clear: I am not saying Tesla will upgrade MCU1s to MUC2s just for giggles, but I do think there some business logic in focusing on pulling old tech forward through upgrades vis-a-vis trying to take new software back to old tech.
Not sure how Tesla will play it but FWIW I, a MCU1 owner who prepaid for FSD, would not mind paying for a MCU1 > MCUnew upgrade.
I’m curious if regulators require full redundancy how 2.0 cars with no redundant systems other than the HW3 computer itself are going to meet that.