Has anyone noticed that the air-ride no longer lowers at 65 mph.
Yes, quite a few of us have. There are many complaints on one of the software update threads.
Yes! There is a lengthy thread on this. Has to be a bug in my mind. We will see.
Personally I'm unhappy about buying air suspension and it being taken with out my permission, is this the way its going to be? It was advertised as such, and I want it back!! Lower and slower would really be my preference.
and Low is not as low anymore :)
There is a lengthy thread about this on the TMC forums. There's a good chance that this might be unintentional. It actually does lower - just at 96 mph instead of 60. There's a possibility that this is just a units error (96 kph is 60 mph). Let's see what they come back with. Regardless, it looks like Low might not be as Low anymore even if this change gets reverted.
@pgiralt - are you serious? 96 mph? That's actually pretty funny. Can't wait for verification from the forum members - I guarantee there is a Grin-er out there right now testing this out.
It isn't like the air ride suspension isn't there -- you still can raise it (which was the primary reason I got it), and you still get active leveling. Granted, if there is a range hit, I will not be happy with losing the low setting -- make me manually set it if like, and put that behind a warning dialog if you must (like the 80A charging).
Yes for the Autobahn speeds of US freeways is a most have.
We should have gone metric decades ago.
I got it up to 88 mph. Won't go to low. Not enough room to do 100. Maybe tomorrow.
I think I saw the clock for a moment though :)
@Got Amped, yes - I had to confirm it for myself so used the opportunity to pass someone on the highway to try it :-) Once it goes Low, it will stay there until you get back down under 60 mph.
I just tested with 5.8 and it did not go to low when driving 60 but I could manually lower it but it never raised up. Even at a stop sign it did not go up. I put in park at the stop sign and it did not raise up. I finally had to manually raise it.
I spoke to Tesla customer service and the person opened a ticket and suggested it may be a glitch in the 5.8 update.
Is it 96? When I tested it I thought it switched at 100, but the difference between 96 and 100 gets closed pretty quickly when you've got your foot mashed. It could have been 96. But that would strike me as odd too because the newly available owner's manual (in-car) says between 55-75 for > 30 sec. or immediately at 75. Neither or which corresponds to 96 KPH or 100 KPH. So who knows?
I thought it was 196? ;p
That's what Elon gets for hiring ex-NASA Mars Orbiter programmers. >:(
If you raise the car it's less likely to hit a loose tow hitch on the road. Did the PR team submit a firmware patch? ;-)
It takes several attempts to achieve and indicated Low at 60 MPH. When it shows Low on the slider, the car does not seem to show low (on the display) nor does the car seem to be in low. When you stop, the car appears to be in Standard and you do not hear the pump run when you move the slider to Standard.
This seems like a false indication of Low to me.
The simple message is that in the previous FW, these settings were better and should be returned..
Elon's blog says we will have control over the change come January (14). Stay tuned :)
Just read it also. Great. Finally, the true potential will be released...
This is in reaction to the press over the fires...that's why we all got 5.8 so quickly. In the next rollout we get to decide whether this behavior continues. Amazing.
The fact that so many people (on here, and other Tesla forums, Facebook groups, etc) refused to accept the very plausible logical conclusion that this was an intended (yet initially undocumented) part of the software update specifically intended to address the Model S underbelly strikes/resulting fires is the reason that Tesla haters and/or sensatalitional journalists are fond of referring Tesla owners as biased, irrational, and even conspiracy theorists.
Principal of Ockham's razor, people...The conclusion that relies on the fewest assumptions is often the correct one (paraphrased).
While it clearly is, according to Musk:
While we believe the evidence is clear that there is no safer car on the road than the Model S, we are taking three specific actions.
First, we have rolled out an over-the-air update to the air suspension that will result in greater ground clearance at highway speeds. To be clear, this is about reducing the chances of underbody impact damage, not improving safety. The theoretical probability of a fire injury is already vanishingly small and the actual number to date is zero. Another software update expected in January will give the driver direct control of the air suspension ride height transitions.
Second, we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as soon as possible into the fire incidents. While we think it is highly unlikely, if something is discovered that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars. Given that the incidence of fires in the Model S is far lower than combustion cars and that there have been no resulting injuries, this did not at first seem like a good use of NHTSA’s time compared to the hundreds of gasoline fire deaths per year that warrant their attention. However, there is a larger issue at stake: if a false perception about the safety of electric cars is allowed to linger, it will delay the advent of sustainable transport and increase the risk of global climate change, with potentially disastrous consequences worldwide. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer.
All of these actions are taken in order to make clear the confidence we have in our product and to eliminate any misperceptions regarding the integrity of our technology and the safety of our cars.
Now that's the response I was looking for! (but not expecting)
This is why I love Tesla and believe in you.
Between this thread and Elon’s blog posting it appears that there has been a quick and prudent response to reduce the risk of impact-induced battery damage and fires which have received such rabid hostility from the general unsophisticated press. And at first glance it appears that there is also a unit conversion error as 96kph is 60 mph. Given the apparent speed at which this was implemented the error is somewhat understandable. If that is the case then the “fix” carries with it the near certainty of yet more press backlash in that “Tesla cannot correct problems without introducing more problems”. A little more due diligence would have gone a long way.
Given the car’s range performance susceptibility to drag I’m quite surprised that the suspension lowering function was not activated until 65mph. with it being a step function relationship – normal at 64.9mph, fully lowered at 65mph. I would have thought that 55mph would have been the onset speed for suspension lowering. While a “fully lowered” stance might not be ideal at 55 mph a ramp function ride height relationship that was implemented from 55mph to 65 would certainly be appropriate for most driving circumstances, especially for the international market where 55mph represents a significant proportion of highways speed limits.
Going forward I would like to see the “new low” ride height implemented at no higher a speed than 60 mph, preferably implemented as a ramp function between the speeds of 55 and 60mph. In addition to the programmed “new low” ride height there would also be a “driver override” capability to set the car to the “original low” height activated at any speed above, for arguments sake, 55mph. This might have to come with a caveat that the Tesla battery impact/fire warranty is voided if an impact/fire event were to occur whilst the car was being operated at the “original low” ride height thus firmly placing the accountability for safe driving on the driver and financial liability onto the owner to maintain appropriate comprehensive insurance coverage on his/her car. Such an approach would meet any potential NHTSA requirements of the manufacturer, placate the irrational rantings of the general press and still allow the driver to reap the greatest range possible is he/she chooses to accept the potential liability to implement the “original low” ride height settings.
My thoughts anyway. YMMV.
Thanks and Cheers
This morning it was verified by Tesla and Elon Musk that it was intentional. While I understand this was probably encouraged by their chorus of lawyers.....I want my $2250 back. It's a "PR" move and I don't want to pay for putting our tails between our legs and cowering to the "paparazzi" mentality of the mainstream press. I love the car, I have an engineering background, I trust the safety features of the car. As others have posted here.....give us the choice to engage the highway speed lowering. Or give me my 2250 back...I will take cash or check.
@rod...his blog also said you'll have that choice in January. Pipe down and relax
No fires due to running over something between now and January 14, and the low setting will return, I betcha.
Ben Franklin tsk-tsking in his grave.
X Deutschland Site Besuchen