JRP3
Hyperactive Member
As he's explained, initially he thought there might be a safety issue but since he found the actual problem he realized it's not a safety issue. The words "If" and "I believe" denote conjecture not certainty.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thats not what he said in post #13653. There are a lot of word games being played here, which I equate with lies.As he's explained, initially he thought there might be a safety issue but since he found the actual problem he realized it's not a safety issue. The words "If" and "I believe" denote conjecture not certainty.
The internet is forever.
Yes. Agreed. I think of it like this. Same as a inactive cell phone. A inactive cell phone can still dial 911 in an emergency. Similar feelings with the car. What would have happened if I had been taking someone to the ER, only to find the car in a software update basically bricked until it's completed. I do think they have stopped that practice though. I have a loaner M3 right now that has a update queued and it's not installing itself. thankfully. Always seemed off they would do this.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.
.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
There are a lot of word games being played here,
To me, safety issue, and dangerous go hand in hand. I may have not used the exact wording when I quoted you, but the end result is the same. You are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.So, the internet forever has outdated speculation available. Got it.
I'll briefly point out that this is not backing up your misquote of me in any way.
As explained above, and as I'll go over here again for the hundredth time, this was posted when I believed Tesla was detecting and mitigating instances of "condition X"... which, if this had been the case as I'd thought at the time, would have been quite bad.
However, and as I pointed out many times, this was NOT the case. Tesla was instead detecting a different issue, Z, and mitigating it with the corrections intended to correct X. Once this disparity was realized by Tesla, and seriousness of X, they updated the software to basically lock down the battery if X was detected (0 known cases of this), and implement mitigations if Z was detected.
Again, I _never_ said any update or version was dangerous, never said any update prevented fires, etc. These are things you're fabricating and falsely attributing to me.
Fortunately I'm not the only one who recognizes this.
We couldn’t be more on topic.Can we please get back on topic with the issue at hand and stop all this childish he said/she said.
To me, safety issue, and dangerous go hand in hand. I may have not used the exact wording when I quoted you, but the end result is the same. You are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.
I’m fairly certain that condition X (as you call it), has happened. Cars don’t just burst into flames with condition Z. Can anybody prove it(including yourself). Of course not, as neither of us have the logs from the crispy cars.
Furthermore, Tesla has and will stealth update those on old software, without consent. They absolutely freak out when they see pre 2019.16.1. Maybe not the techs(most of who are clueless), but engineering will have a caniption. Don’t believe me? Start flashing your customers cars with 2018.xx.x, and see what happens. I can guarantee all hell will break loose.
Yes. Agreed. I think of it like this. Same as a inactive cell phone. A inactive cell phone can still dial 911 in an emergency. Similar feelings with the car. What would have happened if I had been taking someone to the ER, only to find the car in a software update basically bricked until it's completed. I do think they have stopped that practice though. I have a loaner M3 right now that has a update queued and it's not installing itself. thankfully. Always seemed off they would do this.
see clearly all changes/revisions made BEFORE installing an update
When I look at this from a non bias perspective, I just cannot see how we could be polar opposites on our opinions. There is no doubt that you see many more cars than I do, yet you claimed to have only experienced condition Z in a couple. My experience is that quite a few of old 60/85kwh cars have condition Z. I have personally seen a 60kwh car that shut down due to a battery error(no longer would function on new software), but when rolled back, it would work. I suspect it had condition X. I wasn’t the one working on it, so no logs/proof, but did see it with my own eyes. It did have a battery failure later(no fire). I guess I just cannot believe your current posts here, as they not only are counterintuitive, but exact polar opposites of my experience.Addressing condition X... can I be 100% certain this hasn't happened anywhere? No, of course not. Can I be certain enough to bet the farm, so to speak, on it having never happened? Yeah.
Like I said, when the first updates that started hunting for condition X started hitting cars, and some false positives were happening (condition Z's), I believe it was pretty clear from the code's evolution that no one expected to see a positive at all. Looking back in hindsight at this point, it seems fairly obvious that whoever was doing these revisions was aware these were false positives, also.
Fast forward to when this was all somewhat finalized in the code (separating out X from Z), the error that is thrown (and the subsequent loss of use of the vehicle/battery) after detecting X is obvious and unambiguous. In fact, I'm pretty sure if anyone had actually ever gotten this particular note it would have made headlines. (I do find it amusing that this is one of the only errors where there's a specific code path for displaying it, and it's obfuscated enough that most would never encounter it in examining the UI code.) Since I've seen zero cases of this occurring anywhere, along with everything else I know about these issues (including convos with insiders)... it's a super safe bet to say there have probably not been any cases of X whatsoever.
I was specifically talking about cars that will never see a service center, so there is absolutely no worry of Tesla techs having to monkey with anything. Tesla can, and still has access to these cars(and ability to make changes over the air), as long as one does not remove their super user access.As for the "freaking out" over older software, this is because all of their internal tools are setup around the latest or near-latest firmware. There's a lot of things they're just no longer able to do when a car is on an older firmware version, especially if that version is prior to the transition from VPN to Websockets connectivity to the mothership. In most cases all they have at their disposal is the ability to get a vehicle on to a newer version manually (with physical access) before proceeding with any other service.
And for the most part, I don't think it's an unreasonable way to handle it. Tesla shouldn't be expected to provide service and support for old versions indefinitely, as this would be a huge ongoing burden in order to deal with the small handful of folks who don't want to update.
That said, I don't think that they should be able to go the Windows 10 "YOUR COMPUTER IS RESTARTING FOR UPDATES RIGHT NOW WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" forced update style of things... but I could easily see it getting to this point if they ever take the time to make it so updates can be applied with minimal downtime. Like, if an update can be installed while a car is charging, and complete with say 2-5 minutes of vehicle downtime... I could see mandatory updates becoming a thing. Again, I believe I should be able to control update (as well as see clearly all changes/revisions made BEFORE installing an update...) but, unfortunately I think we're in the minority on this and it'll just never happen.
When I look at this from a non bias perspective, I just cannot see how we could be polar opposites on our opinions. There is no doubt that you see many more cars than I do, yet you claimed to have only experienced condition Z in a couple. My experience is that quite a few of old 60/85kwh cars have condition Z. I have personally seen a 60kwh car that shut down due to a battery error(no longer would function on new software), but when rolled back, it would work. I suspect it had condition X. I wasn’t the one working on it, so no logs/proof, but did see it with my own eyes. It did have a battery failure later(no fire). I guess I just cannot believe your current posts here, as they not only are counterintuitive, but exact polar opposites of my experience.
I was specifically talking about cars that will never see a service center, so there is absolutely no worry of Tesla techs having to monkey with anything. Tesla can, and still has access to these cars(and ability to make changes over the air), as long as one does not remove their super user access.
Does anybody actually believe that Tesla is paying for connectivity on all cars out of the goodness of their hearts? It’s just not happening.
wk057,
Have you any insights into the emasculation of charge rates for the 90 kw packs that happened a few years ago? Since 2018 (or maybe late 2017) I spend a full one third of my time on road trips at superchargers. Before throttling, I spent about half that amount of time charging.
Is this in any way related to the choking off of charge rates for the 85's?
AACK!The original 90 packs, as noted elsewhere, are garbage. They degrade more than twice as quickly as the 85-type, so would hit issues related to slower charging and the like sooner in life than their 85-type counterparts.
I haven't seen anything related to anything in this thread affecting 90 packs.