When bad software practices become the norm...

[tomas]

Tesla just joined Apple, Nest, and many other software developers in my personal hall of shame. How? By introducing a feature in a new software release, and defaulting it to “on”. In Tesla’s case: cabin overheat protection. So, when I returned to LAX after 4 days expecting to have 140 miles of range, I had 100. And an unplanned supercharge stop on way home. This after weeks of wondering why vampire losses had doubled.

Apple constantly does this. They release new features that consume battery, and turn them on by default. Nest cost me hundreds of $ by issuing new software releases that defaulted features to on that I had explicitly turned off.

This annoying practice has become a convention. If any current or aspiring SW developers read this: please do the courtesy of introducing new features “off”, and by retaining all customer settings. It takes months to tune my device (phone, thermostat, car) to my preferences. Please dont screw that up with each software update!

 

[jaguar36]

New? Cabin overheat protection is like a year and a half old. Not to mention that with the weather at LAX in the past week it seems unlikely to have ever kicked on. Even when it does, it wouldn't use anywhere near that much power running for an hour or two.

 

[BrettS]

I suspect that this is done when the developer believes that the majority of their users will want the feature enabled. It might be nice to include a mention in the release notes that the new feature has been enabled so you can go and disable it if you want, but I suspect that if you’re in the minority of people who want to disable a new feature then you’ll have to do it manually.

As far as cabin overheat protection, it’s only active for a (relatively) short time after the car is turned off (8 or 12 hours, as I recall) so it’s not like your car was sitting at the airport with the air conditioner running for 4 days.

 

[brkaus]

It has been there for a long time and was mentioned on the release update screen about where to turn on/off.

It does stop after some number of hours, I believe 12. So this likely isn’t the cause of the drain.

Weather there reasonable? It might be the cooler nights? I think unseasonably warm now?

 

[ForeverFree]

New? Cabin overheat protection is like a year and a half old. Not to mention that with the weather at LAX in the past week it seems unlikely to have ever kicked on. Even when it does, it wouldn't use anywhere near that much power running for an hour or two.

It was 89 at LAX yesterday ... almost 20 degrees warmer than a typical summer day. LA winter weather is weird ...

 

[jcdenton40]

In the case of many new software features I would probably agree. But this is a bit different in that it's a potentially life-saving feature, even if the likelihood of it coming into play is (compared to most features) very low. I think it makes sense to have it on by default and have a lot of "false positives" (feature on when unnecessary) rather than have it off by default and have pets or children die as a result of not realizing it wasn't enabled. You can imagine the media attention that would generate, given the attention other Tesla "controversies" have received.

 

[BrettS]

In the case of many new software features I would probably agree. But this is a bit different in that it's a potentially life-saving feature, even if the likelihood of it coming into play is (compared to most features) very low. I think it makes sense to have it on by default and have a lot of "false positives" (feature on when unnecessary) rather than have it off by default and have pets or children die as a result of not realizing it wasn't enabled. You can imagine the media attention that would generated, given the attention other Tesla "controversies" have received.

Cabin overheat protection is absolutely not a lifesaving feature. It has never been advertised as one and should not be thought of as one. Limiting the cabin temp to 105 degrees will not save the lives of kids or pets left in the car. It will help cool the car faster when you get back to the car and are ready to start driving and it may help the interior of the car last longer if it doesn’t bake as much, but 105 degrees is still entirely too hot for humans and animals.

 

[jcdenton40]

Cabin overheat protection is absolutely not a lifesaving feature. It has never been advertised as one and should not be thought of as one. Limiting the cabin temp to 105 degrees will not save the lives of kids or pets left in the car. It will help cool the car faster when you get back to the car and are ready to start driving and it may help the interior of the car last longer if it doesn’t bake as much, but 105 degrees is still entirely too hot for humans and animals.

Except it's not as if the moment the temperature reaches 105 degrees all humans and animals inside experience instant death. Simply because a feature may not be 100% effective in preventing death doesn't mean it's "not a lifesaving feature". It still improves the odds of survival if it keeps the temperature from exceeding 105 by prolonging the amount of time humans/animals inside can survive and increasing the odds that they're saved before it's too late.

 

[kavyboy]

Cabin overheat protection is absolutely not a lifesaving feature. It has never been advertised as one and should not be thought of as one. Limiting the cabin temp to 105 degrees will not save the lives of kids or pets left in the car. It will help cool the car faster when you get back to the car and are ready to start driving and it may help the interior of the car last longer if it doesn’t bake as much, but 105 degrees is still entirely too hot for humans and animals.

Phoenix, AZ: Avg. daily high in July: 106.1°F
There were not mass human and animal die-offs in Phoenix before air conditioning.

 

[BrettS]

Except it's not as if the moment the temperature reaches 105 degrees all humans and animals inside experience instant death. Simply because a feature may not be 100% effective in preventing death doesn't mean it's "not a lifesaving feature". It still improves the odds of survival if it keeps the temperature from exceeding 105 by prolonging the amount of time humans/animals inside can survive and increasing the odds that they're saved before it's too late.

While I have no doubt that it’s possible that some lives may be saved I think there is danger in thinking of or advertising this as a life saving feature. As soon as that starts happening people are going to think it’s safe to leave their baby or their dog in the car since cabin overheat protection will keep them safe, when it absolutely will not.

 

[BrettS]

Phoenix, AZ: Avg. daily high in July: 106.1°F
There were not mass human and animal die-offs in Phoenix before air conditioning.

I’m not suggesting that everyone will instrantly die when the temperature reaches 106 degrees. What I am saying is that no one should think that it’s safe to leave a child or an animal in the car because the temperature will be maintained at 105 degrees.

 

[kavyboy]

While I have no doubt that it’s possible that some lives may be saved I think there is danger in thinking of or advertising this as a life saving feature. As soon as that starts happening people are going to think it’s safe to leave their baby or their dog in the car since cabin overheat protection will keep them safe, when it absolutely will not.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[jcdenton40]

While I have no doubt that it’s possible that some lives may be saved I think there is danger in thinking of or advertising this as a life saving feature. As soon as that starts happening people are going to think it’s safe to leave their baby or their dog in the car since cabin overheat protection will keep them safe, when it absolutely will not.

Yes, I agree with that. However it's also simply not accurate to say that would categorically disqualify such a feature from being "life-saving" or "potentially life-saving".

 

[Ande]

This article is really " I did not read the release notes 1-2years back, and don't like the default"

Apple ? Apple would make it go slower once a new model were released, then make it the slowest car around, with 10kwh left after releasing a second newer model...

 

[brkaus]

Except it's not as if the moment the temperature reaches 105 degrees all humans and animals inside experience instant death. Simply because a feature may not be 100% effective in preventing death doesn't mean it's "not a lifesaving feature". It still improves the odds of survival if it keeps the temperature from exceeding 105 by prolonging the amount of time humans/animals inside can survive and increasing the odds that they're saved before it's too late.

Exactly - huge difference between 105 and 125+ in terms of survival times.

Of course - NEVER EVER count on it - it is only a backup.

I do agree w/ the OP, new features should be off. I do recall this one being touted pretty heavily at the time, so not really hidden.

But, I'm not convinced that this battery drain was related to this feature. I’d be curious if the OP finds lower losses over a 4 day with the setting changed. Maybe it doesn’t time out if the API is checking on the car remotely?

 

[Rockster]

Tesla just joined Apple, Nest, and many other software developers in my personal hall of shame. How? By introducing a feature in a new software release, and defaulting it to “on”. In Tesla’s case: cabin overheat protection. So, when I returned to LAX after 4 days expecting to have 140 miles of range, I had 100. And an unplanned supercharge stop on way home. This after weeks of wondering why vampire losses had doubled.

Apple constantly does this. They release new features that consume battery, and turn them on by default. Nest cost me hundreds of $ by issuing new software releases that defaulted features to on that I had explicitly turned off.

This annoying practice has become a convention. If any current or aspiring SW developers read this: please do the courtesy of introducing new features “off”, and by retaining all customer settings. It takes months to tune my device (phone, thermostat, car) to my preferences. Please dont screw that up with each software update!

Cabin overheat only comes on if someone has been in the driver's seat within some limited amount of time, like 10 or 12 hours. It could not have run repeatedly the entire time you were gone.

 

[SMAlset]

You can have Cabin Overheat Protection turned on so it's enabled but it Won't Come On unless you have sat in the car. Then only if the car's interior gets over 103F (I've watched this throughout our summer last year and tracked it. Didn't come on when I hadn't sat in the car). And if your car has less than 20% SOC it won't come on at all. Times out after 12 hours.

Really don't see your car at the airport with no one in it had it's Cabin Overheat Protection actually activated unless it was the first day parked.

As for Cabin Overheat Protection I think it's viewed and promoted as a potential safety feature. Too many kids have died in their parents cars during the summer, and believe Tesla developed this as a way to help address this and buy some time for kids "forgotten" in the car or left unattended in extreme heat (some people don't realize how short of time it takes for the temps to reach a danger level). So I'm sure having this feature be defaulted to ON was the right way to go. I do recall the release notes saying it could be turned off.

 

[scottm]

(people you're focusing on the particular example and forgetting about the thread topic)


New features having a setting that defaults to ON / enabled / active.

It would be a crime if a new feature and setting appeared with a release that was not explained in release notes displayed after the update, telling you how the feature works. Ideally, the release notes would pre-notify of upcoming changes when scheduling the update .. to help you decide if "now" is the best time to take the software.

I generally find current settings of the car are respected (remain as set) after an update. I hadn't noticed how new features are set when they're introduced. I guess they have to pick one way or another...or...

Setting up for success:

What if every possible configurable setting (not just some of them) could be saved in your user profile, and brought back by selecting that profile again after an update? After an update all "new configuration items" (new with the release) prompt for a value as to how you'd like them set, and get saved with the current profile. When a different profile is selected (for the first time after an update) person gets the same walk-through treatment and saved in their profile.

It's sad that only some settings are saved in a user profile, leaving others as 'global' for the car, and constant tug-o-wars between drivers.

 

[ChrML]

I don't agree with threadstarter. Cabin Overheat Protection is a safety feature. You usually don't notice it's missing, but it might save your dog or your child one day (if you're stupid enough to leave them in your car). Same principle as Auto Emergence Breaking if it was introduced one day, but that feature would be even more important to have default on.

On the other hand features such as Auto Present Doors if introduced in an update should of course default to off unless user turns it on.

I don't think it's always bad practice to leave new features default on. In general, for all software during updates, changes that can break a configuration/setup that previously worked or make the user experience vastly different should be left at the state they were at before the update. Security features that less likely impacts daily life and are not noticed should turn on. It's not like they hide release notes for new features, the user can check when the update is installed.

 

[scottm]

Security typically opposes usability. (Increasing one comes at the expense of the other.)

Who's to say "security" is more important than "convenience" for a particular user?

Ordinary people generally peg convenience over security as being more important to them, whereas companies conservatively peg security over usability because of an obligation to make systems secure for their users' expected enjoyment and desire for being protected by a big warm hand. And someone to sue if they don't.

I find Tesla is a bit more liberal than most companies about their user imposed security stance. They like to keep security out of the faces of users, knowing the importance of convenience. They want excellent smooth experiences. .. less security intrusion.

It's a fine line.

Give users the choice by prompting them after the software installs. Involve the user. Let them decide the risk.