stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
As far as I know, Tesla has never rolled anyone back in firmware, so this is wishful thinking. You can however request the SC to never update your car, but you may be past that point.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Interesting My P85DL power doesn't vary based on weather max battery is actually turned on or not. I varies based on battery temperature. If I supercharge for 20 minutes and never turn on max battery I get maximum power. If I charge at home to 100% and then drive moderately for 10% in 75F+ temperatures, I get in the mid 450s at 90% without every having turned on max battery.
They can't void the entire warranty. Only those things that were broken because of the change you made. If you root your car and have a wheel bearing go bad or a light burn out, these are unrelated to that change.
Walta
Member
Yeah I was surprised when I tested this out for Old Man Mike. I was seeing MB ON instantly boosting the power by 20kw... regardless of the battery temp. Which to me was different from how others reported the MB ON effect earlier?
I started thinking that - the power was being reduced in ludicrous mode from what it used to be? And you needed to always have MB ON to get it back. Then MB READY would boost the power some amount more when it reached to ideal temp? It seemed to me that the MB ON 20kw boost should always be there when you select ludicrous, and only MB READY heating the battery is the only thing MB should be doing?
strider
Active Member
I'm sure a few folks at Tesla just copy-pasted your post
However, now that we know this is a thing we (TMC) will be paying attention. We could (will) start a program like it going on for Roadsters tracking battery degradation over time. We could do the same thing (just using the CAN bus tools to track max output) and with a large enough sample size we could likely spot any patterns resulting from programming vs normal degradation.
That being said it seems like this is isolated to the P90D(L)'s since the 85's never made over 1500A and the 100's have a new pack design that we're told doesn't have the issue. The assumption would be that M3 won't have THIS issue but as others have said it leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the next thing they pull.
Interesting idea about the code research. The question for wk057 is is it even possible to load a modified image? In the phone world you can w/ iOS and Android devices but not Blackberry - the phone does a certificate check on boot and if the image isn't signed by BB it won't load. If Tesla is doing this then the effort would purely be informational. That still has value of course, but not as much as being able to roll your own code.
Hmm. Though perhaps I would pay for the ability to block Tesla's network access without losing maps and such. Though I probably would lose mobile app access. double-edged sword for sure...
I see 2 ways this will go:
1) you could claim the vehicle you bought has changed, and you simply don't like it, and want it reverting back to as sold condition. After all I very much doubt you signed anything that granted Tesla permission to change firmware (did any one of us actually sign an EULA???)
2) Tesla claim any future warranty is void (for anything, not just the counter problem) if you refuse updates.
Not sure about the US, but here option 2 would probably be unenforceable up until a car hit 6 months. After which time you warranty is offered outside outside the rights under which every good is sold, and so subject to adhering to manufacturers recommendations (inc. servicing / firmware updates / etc. etc. )
As soon as I have any meaningful power reduction in my car, I will be demanding Tesla remedy it. There was never a disclaimer that power might be reduced from normal degradation, just range, so I'm prepared to accept lowered range over time, but the car was already delivered to me 228 hp less than what was advertised.
I've just had a thought. (and yes it did hurt )
If the fused cell link is a problem at 1500A for the bigger packs, given the lower voltage and increased sag of my smaller pack could my car also be subject to a similar issue.
Last time I tried a timed 0-60 run it was over 6s In fact Tesla UK were advertising CPO 60's at 6.2s, which was remarkably close to my achieved time
Time to dust off the CAN logger me-thinks.
)If the fused cell link is a problem at 1500A for the bigger packs, given the lower voltage and increased sag of my smaller pack could my car also be subject to a similar issue.
Last time I tried a timed 0-60 run it was over 6s
In fact Tesla UK were advertising CPO 60's at 6.2s, which was remarkably close to my achieved time Time to dust off the CAN logger me-thinks.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
For the record, my original interest in the firmware was to know what Tesla was doing before I let it update the car; so basically, informational. It was only after that the idea of picking and choosing came to mind with, as everyone has pointed out, the associated warranty issues. If Tesla wrote it and installed it on your car, there is no place to hide. You touch it and you've opened pandora's box.
I like the control aspect to know what is loading..... That said, I doubt very much that any meaningful number of people could agree on anything this complex or controversial.
I like the control aspect to know what is loading..... That said, I doubt very much that any meaningful number of people could agree on anything this complex or controversial.
Not concerned about a wheel bearing. $5000 worth of chargers or $25k or whatever it is for the drive inverter, etc, sure.
Walta
Member
@sorka @MarcG - So you guys have P85DL's ? Is this another step Tesla made to reduce power on the P90DL's ? When I did my MB testing... it was on a P90DL V3. I ran it cold ( after a night of 40AMP charging to 90% SOC ). Then without warming it up - ran a 484kw with MB ON ( but not READY ) - then turned MB OFF - next run I got 464kw.
Normal degradation is fine. Software limiting to decrease Tesla's warranty liability because the car can't deliver what you paid for is not.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
and my bet is the next "fix" will more closely mimic degradation so as to make the two indistinguishable.
strider
Active Member
This. They likely never tested rolling back and so it would be an unsupported config and they won't do it. Too many things likely changed in a major update (DB structures, storage and memory allocations, etc) to allow a stable revert. Also, 3rd party software changes over time and Tesla needs to update their software to comply. For example, Google is constantly changing their interface into Google Maps. If you reverted (or never updated), things like streaming music, google maps, etc would one day stop working. That list would also likely include the Tesla mobile app.
This is the down side of a connected car. If you're fine w/ a Garmin on your windshield and not using Internet radio (though you could stream through your phone I guess) then go for it. But if you like the benefits of a connected car you're stuck w/ letting Tesla mess with it whenever they want.
Right, but my point is they can't blanket void the warranty. They can only refuse to fix things that they can prove was caused by something you did that you're not supposed to do.
But they could claim they have fixed something in firmware that was a contributory cause. So much of the car is controlled by it, from chargers to tailgate lift motors, that you'd end up down a rabbit warren of legal nonsense.
They could claim but the law still says the burden of proof is on the manufacturer.
MarcG
Active Member
Yeah, it seems that max battery power behaves differently across models.
What power are you seeing these days? And what firmware version are you on?
Similar threads
