You mean they would visit my garage overnight again and to temper with my gas tank again? Once wasn't enough?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
You mean they would visit my garage overnight again and to temper with my gas tank again? Once wasn't enough?
For anyone interested in "going back" to earlier firmware versions, I was talking to someone the other day that mentioned Custom Firmwares are an actual thing right now. They're still in early testing and not ready for everyone, but for the hackers working on them they are already real so it's coming.
The recommendation to me was to stop updating so custom firmware can be installed later; Tesla closes down methods of hacking that make it harder on recent updates. Since updates only take features away now, I stopped months ago but I'm passing this along for those of you wishing to return to v8 or at least earlier versions of v9 that gave us more range and more horsepower. I don't know what "soon" means in terms of CFW but since this is related to Tesla software it could be a while... but for me this was light at the end of the tunnel. If I can get off of Tesla-controlled downgrade software path I'll be happy with my car again!
They were talking about adding Netflix etc to older cars, but for me just getting the v8 app interface and power back were all I wanted. Chromium and Netflix would just be a little bonus.
The recommendation to me was to stop updating so custom firmware can be installed later; Tesla closes down methods of hacking that make it harder on recent updates. Since updates only take features away now, I stopped months ago but I'm passing this along for those of you wishing to return to v8 or at least earlier versions of v9 that gave us more range and more horsepower. I don't know what "soon" means in terms of CFW but since this is related to Tesla software it could be a while... but for me this was light at the end of the tunnel. If I can get off of Tesla-controlled downgrade software path I'll be happy with my car again!
They were talking about adding Netflix etc to older cars, but for me just getting the v8 app interface and power back were all I wanted. Chromium and Netflix would just be a little bonus.
The problem with that is it opens up the can of worms, who is responsible when your car catches fire? It got downgraded for a reason. When you are on Tesla’s software, at least you are theoretically covered for fire.
Tesla. There is no risk of fire for earlier firmwares. If there was, they would say so - they have to it's the law!
It got downgraded for NO reason. If they are willing to open a dialog explaining why v8 is dangerous that will stop me from downgrading, otherwise it's just going to fix the damages they caused.
Right now I don't park my car near my home - I think it's dangerous and they are lying. If it catches fire and proves they lied, that helps you and me at the same time.
Well, theft is illegal, yet they do it. There is a reason they are forcing software on cars with 8.1, and risking more lawsuits, and criminal charges.
Smart move on the parking far away from stuff you care about.
I should say I'm still crippled by Tesla's downgrades and treating the car like an unexploded bomb. When I heard of custom firmwares I immediately thought I'd do this because to me it's the same risk - no info no safety just questions - but with my car's original power and range unhindered again. And that's all I want. If they can't return what they stole, the next best thing is a few words saying why and a rough estimate of when they will be able to return my property. I'm hoping custom firmware force the conversation as they lose control of older cars and can no longer plan to be able to hide issues like this.
I am not sure that's the right way to view it. Assume Tesla discovered that some subset of battery packs has a higher risk of fire because of physical changes in the pack--that risk is going to remain regardless of the firmware level. Reverting FW is not going to reverse the physical changes in the pack.
The only responsible thing to do at that point was to try and avoid the conditions that lead to higher risk of fire, and the might be exactly what Tesla did, but we don't know.
It's, legally speaking, the only way to view it. If there is any actionable change Tesla made in the name of safety, they're guilty of much worse crimes than just stealing $30k from me.
The way I'm looking at it, trying to force them to admit there is a public safety problem going unaddressed is the only responsib;e thing that can be done. Tesla blacklists cars, they're moved to countries without any official Update support, and owners intentionally decline updates. Not telling these owners they are at risk is dangerous - so I choose to believe that Tesla isn't trying to kill people intentionally just to save a few dollars.
If what Tesla did was in the name of reducing fire risk, it was the most irresponsible thing they possibly could have done. Committing fraud and trying to kill people to cover up that risk isn't just irresponsible, it can end the company. If the steps they took are accompanied with an official notice to every potentially impacted VIN owner explaining what they need to do, it would be responsible. Lying to us and saying this isn't any safety risk and there never was makes that either a lie, or it means there was never any risk like they claim.
The way I'm looking at it, trying to force them to admit there is a public safety problem going unaddressed is the only responsib;e thing that can be done. Tesla blacklists cars, they're moved to countries without any official Update support, and owners intentionally decline updates. Not telling these owners they are at risk is dangerous - so I choose to believe that Tesla isn't trying to kill people intentionally just to save a few dollars.
If what Tesla did was in the name of reducing fire risk, it was the most irresponsible thing they possibly could have done. Committing fraud and trying to kill people to cover up that risk isn't just irresponsible, it can end the company. If the steps they took are accompanied with an official notice to every potentially impacted VIN owner explaining what they need to do, it would be responsible. Lying to us and saying this isn't any safety risk and there never was makes that either a lie, or it means there was never any risk like they claim.
Last edited:
I rarely ever see your disagreements go unfiltered, but the obvious answer is I choose to believe Tesla is not murderously dangerous or actively trying to kill anyone with secrecy, but I also live in the real world so I know Tesla has long history of lying and getting caught doing the wrong thing in regards to how it treats us. I'm smart enough to usnerstand that they are liars, and naive enough to hope I'm wrong. I'm not dumb enough to kill my family on a silly choice I made that is as preposterous as choosing to believe in the tooth fairy.
If attacking users is your only way to defend Tesla, it seems even you've come to the same conclusion.
If attacking users is your only way to defend Tesla, it seems even you've come to the same conclusion.
Defending the indefensible isn't necessarily a mental issue. It's literally a job, for example. Tesla hired MoFo who specialize in this - as well as specializing in corporate bankruptcy in case the issue is more than "a small number" of batteries that need to be replaced.
IMHO that's why they aren't talking. The "small number" is "probably every Tesla ever made" which is a small number compared to, say, VW or Chevy, but is an unaffordably large expense to repair for Tesla which might explain why they risked the guaranteed hundreds-of-millions to potentially billion dollar fines for not reporting safety hazards.
With all of the dishonesty from Tesla right now, they're likely already done purging email records and damning memos.
IMHO that's why they aren't talking. The "small number" is "probably every Tesla ever made" which is a small number compared to, say, VW or Chevy, but is an unaffordably large expense to repair for Tesla which might explain why they risked the guaranteed hundreds-of-millions to potentially billion dollar fines for not reporting safety hazards.
With all of the dishonesty from Tesla right now, they're likely already done purging email records and damning memos.
One should not expect this case to reach a final non appealable judgment quickly, but it can be resolved by the parties settling anytime, as most litigants eventually do long before many stages of litigation.
What exactly precisely is the tangible harm you are suffering from the update?
Most people impacted had between $2,000 and $40,000 stolen directly out of their cars, on top of the reasons behind why they opted to pay those sums of money for the stolen options.
They can make simple config changes OTA without applying a full firmware update. Evidence of this is that's how they do 60D -> 75D upgrades, and also how they apply/remove the 80mph governor that they set on demo cars. Charge level is almost certainly a config parameter, since that's exactly what they're changing when they turn a 60D into a 75D.
[QUOTE="bhzmark,
What exactly precisely is the tangible harm you are suffering from the update?[/QUOTE]
Try reading the massive amount of posts about the lost functionality of V9 vs V8. Then show me "exactly precisely" where I agreed to allow Tesla to change the functionality of MY car without MY permission.
What exactly precisely is the tangible harm you are suffering from the update?[/QUOTE]
Try reading the massive amount of posts about the lost functionality of V9 vs V8. Then show me "exactly precisely" where I agreed to allow Tesla to change the functionality of MY car without MY permission.
The 60D -> 75D change doesn't have a reconfiguration to the charge battery graphic though. You know you're charging a capped 60D to less than 100% - it doesn't show the fraudulent 100% that capped 85 batteries are showing. But you're right they could easily hide that code, there is no open source auditing to validate everything is legitimate - and that's why we're here.
Arrived at a Supercharger today with 6 stalls out of 8 available, pairing with no one.
Started to charge @40% SoC, the display said 30 minutes to 90% (my old 80%).
Charge rate started at a hefty 50 KW to quickly tapering off.
It took 55 mighty minutes to charge from 40% to 90%.
(Ambient temperature 70F)
Started to charge @40% SoC, the display said 30 minutes to 90% (my old 80%).
Charge rate started at a hefty 50 KW to quickly tapering off.
It took 55 mighty minutes to charge from 40% to 90%.
(Ambient temperature 70F)
Ouch. Still better than Level 2 charging, but no where near the speed and convenience from before 2019.16.1.1 You're charging session is well below the chart on ABRP. The chart suggests you should have started charging at 80kW (the old 100kW). Maybe this chart is already outdated.
DJRas
Member
I charged overnight at home with HPWC (my car only has single charger - so 40A max)
I went from 4% to 97% (set to go to 100%) in 7 hours 49 minutes.
I know at 95% it was only using 2kW.
Note that this shows I added 61.3 kWh.
61.3 kWh / 208.87 = 293.5 Wh/mile (about the 295 Wh/Mi magic number)
So 61.3 kWh added/0.93 (percent) = 65.9 kWh full usable pack
This is interesting since I only have 62.3 kWh usable according to the BMS
The BMS shows I added 57.9 kWh for the same 208.9 miles added
57.9 kWh / 208.9 = 277 Wh/mile
I went from 4% to 97% (set to go to 100%) in 7 hours 49 minutes.
I know at 95% it was only using 2kW.
Note that this shows I added 61.3 kWh.
61.3 kWh / 208.87 = 293.5 Wh/mile (about the 295 Wh/Mi magic number)
So 61.3 kWh added/0.93 (percent) = 65.9 kWh full usable pack
This is interesting since I only have 62.3 kWh usable according to the BMS
The BMS shows I added 57.9 kWh for the same 208.9 miles added
57.9 kWh / 208.9 = 277 Wh/mile
Ouch. Still better than Level 2 charging, but no where near the speed and convenience from before 2019.16.1.1 You're charging session is well below the chart on ABRP. The chart suggests you should have started charging at 80kW (the old 100kW). Maybe this chart is already outdated.
Thanks. That chart definitely does not include the impacted cars. The funny part is the car told me it would take only 30 minutes.
Similar threads
