Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[wk057]

No, it certainly doesn't clear it up. What you just described is how a person could detect the difference.
But in post #13631, what you did was really arrogantly talk down to @mvotb , dismissing his idea by telling him it certainly couldn't and didn't happen, and implying he was an idiot or liar:

"So... yeah, sorry: You, or someone else in your vehicle, hit the "schedule install" button instead of dismissing the popup.

Can easily Occam's Razor this one away, just like the "my car suddenly accelerated" nonsense:"

And then when you were caught by him quoting you, admitting before that Tesla CAN and DOES push updates without user authorization, you seem to backpedal, saying that yes, they can do that, and by inspecting the logs, it's possible to tell if that's what happened. But still no apology for your attitude and assumptions.

So no, this is still a case of really bad hypocrisy and being insulting and then trying to excuse it away.

I generally appreciate how informative and knowledgeable your posts are, but you f&@$ed up big time here and got caught. You knew this was something that happens, but were really mean in telling someone it's not possible and didn't get away with it. Geez. Just own up and apologize.

Nope, you seem to be trying to make a big deal out of nothing and twisting what I've said.

My older quote was based on information available at the time. Yes, I had seen instances of Tesla forcing updates, including on two of my own vehicles. And yes, these were done in a way that appeared to show as if a user had scheduled the update.

HOWEVER, even at that time my newest example of this happening was years old, and since that time I've learned quite a bit about the topic. Specifically, to the best of my knowledge, that they've not utilized this ability in several years. I also found out about an older technical issue that caused some vehicles to get forced updates years ago (while those vehicles were erroneously marked undelivered) that was also fixed several years ago, plus my overall understanding of the topic has evolved significantly over the past several years.

So I haven't "[screwed] up big time" on anything here, and I see absolutely no need to apologize for anything I've written either. Nothing I've written is incorrect, nothing was demeaning or otherwise improper towards anyone at all, and everything I've written has fit my understandings at the time of writing.

I stand by my assessment: The schedule button was pressed.

 

[Mucall]

Has anyone updated to 2020.36.11 and had range/charging issues? Currently running 2020.24.11 on 2013 S 85 and a little worried to install the update

My 2013 85 loss over 7 miles on this last update.

 

[mvotb]

Thats... not a lot of people. Plus, as noted, WiFi doesn't matter. If you're connected to 3G or LTE you can and will receive updates.



Yeah I have, and actually I clarified this in my post above. They've manually done this to a few people, such as myself, for various reasons. Every other case I've examined related to forced updates were either due to user error (hitting the install button) or an error on Tesla's side related to the car being marked as undelivered. The latter was fixed years ago. And as of something like 2016 (as far as I'm aware) it takes a technician with a reasonably high level of access on Tesla's side, of which there are not too many, to be able to pull off a forced update... and really, those folks have better things to do.

That's not a-lot of people? Well lets see. How many people in this forum have been refusing V9 for some where around a year or more? I only know of 8 and 6 of them claim they were forced V9, and those 6 all happened around the same time. Interesting, that we all managed to X out of that downgrade for many many months, and then 6 out of 8 of us accidentally hit the wrong button around the same time. No one else drives my car. I can appreciate that high level techs SHOULD have better things to do, but then again, you and I have no way to know who was assigned what to do, or why, at Tesla. This of course is only anecdotal evidence, but it's all that's available to me. I don't believe in coincidences. Hopefully discovery in the lawsuit will provide facts.

 

[trayloader]

@WK

It was actually pulled off much smarter by Tesla.

we discovered that they were actually hiding the install window below another window from another action window.

creepy tactics

 

[Battpower]

creepy tactics

Which shows what we are up against as owners. Who needs to worry about hackers when the manufacturer pretty much hacks your car. OTA access needs urgent regulation. Standards compliance is a nonsense if running adjustments are being made by the manufacturer without even the chance for an owner to be aware beforehand.

I only know of 8 and 6 of them claim they were forced V9,

And this is most likely out of a small subset of owners who care to take note of what happens to their cars and not just accept the BS excuses / explanations usually offered by Tesla service. @WK commented that its unlikely most effected owners are aware of a problem. So 6 out of 8 could be the tip of a much bigger issue.

 

[islandbayy]

I will only comment that I've had a loaner car forced firmware updates. I had to head out late one night to get someone from the airport. It was about 2am. I got in the car, the update available window was on the screen. Before I touched anything the update window disappeared and the countdown clock started. I did cancel it. Got to airport, got out. When I got back to the car it was in the process of installing. We had to wait another 30 or so minutes for it to start. Circa, 2015. P85+

 

[wk057]

I will only comment that I've had a loaner car forced firmware updates. I had to head out late one night to get someone from the airport. It was about 2am. I got in the car, the update available window was on the screen. Before I touched anything the update window disappeared and the countdown clock started. I did cancel it. Got to airport, got out. When I got back to the car it was in the process of installing. We had to wait another 30 or so minutes for it to start. Circa, 2015. P85+

This is normal for Tesla-owned vehicles, and makes a lot of sense. Why should a tech or someone else have to manually install an update on every loaner/demo/unsold vehicle? Basically if the vehicle is not marked "delivered", it will automatically schedule the update once its downloaded. As far as I'm aware, this is expected behavior since about early 2014.

There probably should be an option to note that a loaner is in a customer's possession (half delivered?) that stops this behavior, but probably not enough of an issue to bother.

@WK

It was actually pulled off much smarter by Tesla.

we discovered that they were actually hiding the install window below another window from another action window.

creepy tactics

I'm not 100% sure if this is even possible with the way Tesla handles their UI on MCU1... and I have seen no evidence supporting this. Also seems pretty far fetched.

Edit: Removed reply to post that's likely to be snipped to prevent my post from being snipped.

 

[Chaserr]

I believe you,no need to repeat yourself. In the 90 supercharger throttling thread one of the people who were limited had their configuration file signed and dated stamped by a specific Tesla employee you can look up on linked in. Nobody is denying this happens, Tesla forced updates that benefit them and hurts owners, and post 2019.16 they had one really long weekend where the bulk of remote updates were done manually, probably because of the safety concerns. They won't do it again, hacking is illegal and is a named complaint. Now they make vague threats of losing services to force voluntary updates, and pretty soon the government will issue a recall notice to owners warning them of the need to update.

 

[qwk]

Well they Force Downgraded me from V8 to V9 without me accepting anything. If fact, I had WiFi disconnected on the car and the drivers seat power disconnected, as at one time we believed that could stop updates. I had been refusing the update for a very long time, and certainly never accepted it. One day maybe a few months after others reported being force downgraded on to V9, I go out to the car and when it wakes up it does some blinking and I'm on V9 and my WiFi is back on. I assumed I would have to enter the code again for WiFi to come on again, obviously they stored the code, wish I had thought of changing it. I have yet to hit the gas instead of the brake.

It happened to me also, except it was solicited on my end. This means I was on a most current software version, contacted Tesla about a problem with charging, and got a previous revision battery software pinged.
Tesla used to hand assemble firmware for each car in the early days, so of course it’s possible. It’s not cost efficient to do it that way, but it can be done.

 

[qwk]

Huh. This will be really interesting seeing @wk057 argue against himself--in the earlier thread saying Tesla does force updates and make the logs look like the user did it, but now saying that never happens.

Yeah, same with the battery fires.

“There is a danger on old Software, if you supercharge, or range a lot, you should update”.

Now it’s. “What fires? Pre 2019.16.1 software didn’t cause any fires”.

Give me a break....

 

[wk057]

Yeah, same with the battery fires.

“There is a danger on old Software, if you supercharge, or range a lot, you should update”.

Now it’s. “What fires? Pre 2019.16.1 software didn’t cause any fires”.

Give me a break....

These are not quotes of mine.

I never said there was "danger" or that anything related to any software had anything to do with fires.

I did say if you supercharge or charge to 100% often that you should update, and I stand by that statement.

 

[qwk]

These are not quotes of mine.

I never said there was "danger" or that anything related to any software had anything to do with fires.

I did say if you supercharge or charge to 100% often that you should update, and I stand by that statement.

There was a screenshot of your post a while back in this thread, with that exact statement. I’ll dig it up when I have more time.

Either way, if there is no danger why update and lose charging speed and range? Nerf your car for fun? Makes no sense to any reasonable person.

 

[wk057]

There was a screenshot of your post a while back in this thread, with that exact statement. I’ll dig it up when I have more time.

Either way, if there is no danger why update and lose charging speed and range? Nerf your car for fun? Makes no sense to any reasonable person.

There is no screenshot, because I've never said this.

I've already been over this multiple times, but this thread is thousands of posts long so, here it is again:
Updating a vehicle affected by condition Z will prevent (or at the very least, greatly diminish the chance of) a pack failure. This issue is exaggerated by fast charging, and charging to 100%, hence my recommendation that such folks update.

There's no mention of "danger" or "fire" with this recommendation whatsoever. Clarifying further, this potential failure mode does not result in a fire risk or any danger whatsoever (with the exception of maybe being stranded I guess... maybe if you broke down in a dangerous neighborhood? I dunno.).

Edit: Actually, on second thought, the second thing you quoted, "What fires? Pre 2019.16.1 software didn’t cause any fires" could be something I said at some point (as it is correct), but not sure I actually wrote it...

 

[JRP3]

Either way, if there is no danger why update and lose charging speed and range? Nerf your car for fun? Makes no sense to any reasonable person.

If it's supposed to extend pack life then someone out of warranty or close to it might want to do it.

 

[wk057]

If it's supposed to extend pack life then someone out of warranty or close to it might want to do it.

Yeah, this is exactly the point. There's not much reason to continue to roll the dice, especially if you're close to being out of warranty... or otherwise don't want to deal with breaking down.

 

[raphy3]

Has anyone updated to 2020.36.11 and had range/charging issues? Currently running 2020.24.11 on 2013 S 85 and a little worried to install the update

Just had it forced down my throat as a condition to fix my non functioning door handle
Range before and after appears to be the same. Charging appears to be what the typical 2019.xx sufferer has, so, not as good as the old 2018's (the good ole days).

I need to wait another week or so and do a few SuCs before i can say anything more definitive.

 

[Battpower]

I will only comment that I've had a loaner car forced firmware updates. I had to head out late one night to get someone from the airport. It was about 2am. I got in the car, the update available window was on the screen. Before I touched anything the update window disappeared and the countdown clock started. I did cancel it. Got to airport, got out. When I got back to the car it was in the process of installing. We had to wait another 30 or so minutes for it to start. Circa, 2015. P85+

Basically if the vehicle is not marked "delivered", it will automatically schedule the update

Which (if there was any doubt) seems to confirm a method and a possible justification for Tesla to have an unsupervised update.

Not sure that they use it to ensure vehicles have latest software on delivery to customers, but in that one context such a system might make sense for applying regular updates to stock / service loaner vehicles.

And if they can just change a status flag to turn such a feature on and off, there can't be much doubt that pretty much any update could be slipped in to any connected vehicle, undetectably (to an average owner) if necessary.

 

[Droschke]

Which (if there was any doubt) seems to confirm a method and a possible justification for Tesla to have an unsupervised update.

Not sure that they use it to ensure vehicles have latest software on delivery to customers, but in that one context such a system might make sense for applying regular updates to stock / service loaner vehicles.

And if they can just change a status flag to turn such a feature on and off, there can't be much doubt that pretty much any update could be slipped in to any connected vehicle, undetectably (to an average owner) if necessary.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[Droschke]

@Battpower, obvious to most of us, I should have said.

 

[qwk]

There is no screenshot, because I've never said this.

I've already been over this multiple times, but this thread is thousands of posts long so, here it is again:
Updating a vehicle affected by condition Z will prevent (or at the very least, greatly diminish the chance of) a pack failure. This issue is exaggerated by fast charging, and charging to 100%, hence my recommendation that such folks update.

There's no mention of "danger" or "fire" with this recommendation whatsoever. Clarifying further, this potential failure mode does not result in a fire risk or any danger whatsoever (with the exception of maybe being stranded I guess... maybe if you broke down in a dangerous neighborhood? I dunno.).

Edit: Actually, on second thought, the second thing you quoted, "What fires? Pre 2019.16.1 software didn’t cause any fires" could be something I said at some point (as it is correct), but not sure I actually wrote it...

The internet is forever.