Haven't tested yet. At this time it is highway traffic and also spending time with the family.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Software Update 2019.8.x
- Thread starter f205v
- Start date
Haven't tested yet. At this time it is highway traffic and also spending time with the family.
Naekuh
Member
sigh i got trolled on my update.
Car updated on 2019.5.15
All i think i got was the fold mirrors on location, and Doggy mode.
My car is also saying its located in palo alto, like everyone states.
I was hoping to get 2019.8.x so i could see that ludicrous+
Car updated on 2019.5.15
All i think i got was the fold mirrors on location, and Doggy mode.
My car is also saying its located in palo alto, like everyone states.
I was hoping to get 2019.8.x so i could see that ludicrous+
Which version did you get and can you tell us what is in the notes?
Let me guess, not for Europe
Being the owner of a Model X +FSD on Spain (Europe) I really feel the last monkey in the lane for Tesla.
But I suppose it could be worse, I could have MCU 1 or HW 2.0.
When did you buy as you might be MCU 1 even if you have HW 2.5Let me guess, not for Europe
Being the owner of a Model X +FSD on Spain (Europe) I really feel the last monkey in the lane for Tesla.
But I suppose it could be worse, I could have MCU 1 or HW 2.0.
Signature says June 2018. Usually international orders are produced 2-3 months before delivery, so should be MCU2 but close to the transition. MCU1 owners know we have MCU1 because our browser is useless and the screen is laggy.
zanary
Active Member
Another updated version. Whenever this goes GA, this will be one huge release. Maybe this is the 9.1 that he referenced to?
- 2019.8.x - No user stalk-confirmation for NoA (extreme limited testing on S/X)
- 2019.5.x - Blind Spot Monitoring Enhancements
- Enhanced Summons
- 2019.5.x - 5% increase (we don't have confirmation that this is coming to Model S or Model X, but I'm 1% hopeful)
- Increase Supercharging rate to 145kw with no sharing
- Enhancement to Auto Wipers using NN
- 2019.5.x - Dog Mode
- Sentry Mode
- Dashcam with 3 cameras recording
- 2019.5.x - New HVAC UI/UX without tabs
- Auto heating/cooling of battery pack when navigation to Supercharger
- 2019.8.x - For P100D, the new Ludicrous+ speed mode (replaces Max Battery and Ludicrous + Easter egg)
- 2019.8.x - For P90D (non Ludicrous) & S/X Performance (non Ludicrous), the new Insane+ speed mode (replaces Max Battery).
- 2019.5.x - Trigger signal with a tap and auto end when land change completed
- NoA for Europe with stalk-confirmation
- Summon with the fob key for Europe
- 2019.5.x - Auto Fold Mirrors on Location
S100D
Member
I do not know for sure but why would Tesla waste time and money to change the battery chemistry in old technology, 18650s, when they could just use the 2170s in Model S and Xs.
zanary
Active Member
I thought the 18650 were shorter and narrower hence the 18mm and 65mm that makes up the name.
The 2170 are taller and thicker hence the 21mm and 70mm that also makes up the name.
The physical change of the cells means that they may not fit into the same Model S and Model X pack or then even mount to the frame of the Model S and Model X without considerably change. The cooling/heating solution within the P100D pack would need to change to accommodate the larger cells.
I could be wrong, but I think this was mentioned in some other TMC thread... It might explain why we may not see the 2170 in the Model S or Model X.
... however I'm guessing they can bring the same chemistry from thew 2170 into the 18650...
There's more enough room to expand it by 5mm. Also the cooling system is a part of the battery pack which is a replacable module. No problem.
Because changing the formula is essentially a no-cost change. You change the recipe and you are done. No need to redesign the pack, cooling, car, manufacturing equipment, etc.
The question would be more: If you have developed a new formulation that has better properties, why would you not start using across your entire cell family?
Chemistry may change, for example, the optimal volume to electrode surface area, such that the physical form factor becomes important. Also power dissipation characteristics between different packaging may be different. I don't know that any of this definitely is the case, but just some examples of why chemistry may not be completely interchangeable.
I don’t know about the US plug specs, but I believe the European Mennekes Type 2 was not designed for high level powers and actually Tesla decided to use it anyway for the current SuC 120kW, outside the specs (50kW). Which made sense as there was really no other standards.
Type 2 connector - Wikipedia
But so for 200kW and more, I wonder if the same plug can handle it.
Don't worry my friend, there is a lot of world outside of North America suffering equally with you. So it's not only "not for Europe", it's more like "only for North America". We're missing out on just as much if not more in Australia. Some features never made it here, like fob summon, the web browser and so on, whilst others are lagging with no NoA.Let me guess, not for Europe
Being the owner of a Model X +FSD on Spain (Europe) I really feel the last monkey in the lane for Tesla.
But I suppose it could be worse, I could have MCU 1 or HW 2.0.
Well for Supercharger V3 in North America they kept the same plug/inlet format. And that currently tops out at about 250kW.
So the Mennekes Type 2 could have handled it as well but Tesla decided to go with CCS, probably because it opened up more charging options for Model 3 owners without much more effort on Tesla's part. (And no adapter purchase on the part of the Model 3 owners.)
The difference is that if they did that in NA they would have had a problem with all the destination chargers, so it wasn't an easy option here.
digistyl3
Member
Good point. Did Tesla ever publish any specs on how much current can their modified Type 2 connectors handle and for how long?
Similar threads
