Why Is Tesla Forcing Software Updates If No Safety Issue Is Involved?

[3mp_kwh]

Many of these all-in "Tesla's precious connection" types are newer posters, with less history than, well, customers. I repeat, why? Why would a group of people who aren't among the first owners of Tesla's cars be so bent on taking advantage? Who's in such a rush for the car=iPhone era?

Wahhhhh! I want to root my car but still use their network.

The entitlement here is disgusting. Either embrace the services or reject them. Complaining that you want to reject them but also benefit from them is bonkers. This sounds like children who always got a trophy.

My wife's car was forced updated to V10, within the past couple weeks. It's regen has been gimped, because your type felt entitled.

Tesla has gimped DCFC, on non-Tesla DCFC chargers. As some commented on Rich Benoits' youtubes, batteries are likely to be pulled further down in charge rates, following what they just did to all salvage titled cars (whether having paid for "re-certification", or not). This has already started under "safety", with reported regen gimping and other remote BMS manipulation (Tesla calls "OTA"). Rich is correct, "You got me" when a Tesla can pull up at a Supercharger (or other DCFC) and the network is programed to do the equivalent of locking the gas cap. Great computer, huh?

The Supercharger network knows your car's VIN. Ask at a service center and you'll see the VIN at each stall. Programing it for a car's age, its data feedback over VPN, or whatever liability reduction the company wants, is leading to some pretty entitled decisions.

Was 60KW of regen ever that harmful to these 18650s, that battery temps really need to clear 60F in order to accept a .6-.7 regen C-rate? These batteries, as WK057 has noted, have charge rate limits expressed in multiples of 5-15+ depending upon chemistries. That Tesla is taking supercharging down to 40-60KW, on a quickening taper is questionable. Feel free to cry conspiracy and disagree, but don't be calling people who spend on these cars "entitled", when they are the hand that feeds.

Offer taking my car off the network. Make me install separate BT, NAV, etc. Get rid of Voice, AP updates. Just don't remotely play with my hardware, under a trumped up "safety" premise.

Amped Realtor is correct.

 

[3mp_kwh]

They say right in the notice this is a security update. It turns out security can impact safety. Having worked in the energy sector the last decade and a half remote digital access to something that controls physical equipment can have devastating impacts.

I work in this space. You disconnect the equipment, or expect that any wired/wireless portal will be exploited. What I don't know, is how frequently venders are the ones screwing around.

 

[Brass Guy]

I have declined updates actually in the name of safety. Everything I use the screen for while driving requires more touches and attention. In two weeks with a loaner, I had more close calls than in two years because of aiming for smaller controls, waiting for sub-menus, or waiting for the + - buttons to come up on the map. With no navigation (remember it used to be an option, and I never missed it), I use the map a lot. With no green traffic, it is much harder to see roads on the grayscale map.

I could go on (and I have), but I have a difficult time imagining the software developers actually drove the cars with the software interface they came up with starting V9.

 

[Brass Guy]

I see there are some who disagree, with no explanation. I find the new interface tedious. I don't think anything is more important from a safety standpoint than driving safely. If the new interface requires more steps to accomplish the same task, I call that less safe.

Nobody can hack my car and make me crash - make me stop maybe, but I have hydraulic brakes and only the driver can steer it. I have zero cameras too.

Can anyone explain how having updated software is more important than a simpler to use interface?