Some trouble for Tesla

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

Two years ago I really wanted to buy an EV. I have owned many BMWs and other Euro brands. I also looked at Mercedes and Audi. I have owned many Fords, and was most likely to buy a Mach E. i compared them all. I ended up with the Model Y. It wasn’t even close. The product is what did that. And it was in spite of Elon Musk and his occasional rants.

Originally Posted by jcl

Some of the same manufacturers are still fighting safety standards, as well as emissions controls. It isn’t that they are losing to Tesla. They aren’t even in the same race,

There are both objective and subjective reasons for the decisions we make about cars, TV's, TT's and just about everything else.

It's interesting that 2 intelligent buyers (I'm hoping it's not a stretch to include both of us ) can look at the data and come to opposite conclusions. No doubt our priorities were somewhat different, but we also looked at multiple EV's and chose the Audi e-Tron a year and a half ago and a Porsche Taycan this year. The Model X we looked at as an alternative to the Audi was, IMO, an $80K car with the interior and fit and finish of a $40K vehicle and Tesla offered nothing that was even on the same planet in terms of styling, overall performance, driving enjoyment and quality as the Taycan. Both cars give up some range to Tesla (not that important for our needs) and the Taycan is more expensive but I believe that you usually get what you pay for.

We're apparently both happy with our choices and that's good. Maybe things will work out between Tesla and the NHTSA.

[skyguyscott]

It is possible that a contributing factor to the NHTSA's interest in Tesla is all those YouTube videos showing drivers literally asleep at the wheel.

I know certain other government agencies are all too happy to be rather lax in enforcement, stretched as they are in manpower and funding, but as soon as there is an accident, or heaven forbid, a high-profile accident, then heaven help you. You are going to be figuratively strip searched, audited, probed and dissected -- and not gently, until they find something.

IMHO, if Tesla had chosen something more innocuous like "LaneAline" instead of "autopilot" the chaos could have been kept to a minimum, but I believe they purposefully choose "autopilot" to attract more attention. Hey Tesla, howsya like this attention?

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

...but I believe they purposefully choose "autopilot" to attract more attention.

Bingo.

[rowiebowie]

So all this mention of "autopilot" being dangerously named. Does anyone think an airplane on "autopilot" does not need a pilot in the cockpit ready take over? I think this is silly to blame the name of a safety system that is multiple times safer than a human driver alone.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

So all this mention of "autopilot" being dangerously named. Does anyone think an airplane on "autopilot" does not need a pilot in the cockpit ready take over? I think this is silly to blame the name of a safety system that is multiple times safer than a human driver alone.

Sophisticated aircraft autopilot systems are capable of performing virtually all in flight functions, including landing the plane, so I think a common understanding of the word autopilot is a device that can operate something without human intervention. I agree there is some nuance associated with the use of the word, as with your example of a pilot needing to be on board, but as you may have noticed, appreciating nuanced language isn't something that people in general are very good at these days. Lots of folks take stuff literally. Anyway, the point isn't that words like "autopilot" and "full self driving" necessarily cause accidents, it's that they are dishonest because they promise something that they can't really deliver.

As for computerized systems being safer than a human driver, statistically that may be partially true given all of the lunkheads, drunks, texters, and otherwise inexperienced and inattentive vehicle operators on the road. Give me systems like brake assist, lane change assist and adaptive cruise control all day but I simply don't believe that any computerized system is currently better in the vast majority of situations than an experienced and attentive human driver. Which is exactly why there are no fully autonomous driving systems authorized for use on the road today despite Tesla's claim that they have a "full self driving" feature.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Sophisticated aircraft autopilot systems are capable of performing virtually all in flight functions, including landing the plane, so I think a common understanding of the word autopilot is a device that can operate something without human intervention. I agree there is some nuance associated with the use of the word, as with your example of a pilot needing to be on board, but as you may have noticed, appreciating nuanced language isn't something that people in general are very good at these days. Lots of folks take stuff literally. Anyway, the point isn't that words like "autopilot" and "full self driving" necessarily cause accidents, it's that they are dishonest because they promise something that they can't really deliver.

As for computerized systems being safer than a human driver, statistically that may be partially true given all of the lunkheads, drunks, texters, and otherwise inexperienced and inattentive vehicle operators on the road. Give me systems like brake assist, lane change assist and adaptive cruise control all day but I simply don't believe that any computerized system is currently better in the vast majority of situations than an experienced and attentive human driver. Which is exactly why there are no fully autonomous driving systems authorized for use on the road today despite Tesla's claim that they have a "full self driving" feature.

The only autopilot I have used myself was on a sailboat. I used to sail, I don’t fly a plane. The device I used held a course so I didn’t need to make constant course corrections. It had no speed control or collision avoidance, it just steered. The manufacturer called it autopilot.

I was just reading about Mercedes’ new system. They call it Drive Pilot. It is advertised as Level 3, and Mercedes promotes that it allows drivers to take their eyes off the road. It turns itself off at night, in the rain, and so on. It is not approved in the US.

As to Tesla claiming that they have a full self driving feature, they make no such claim. On their web site they clearly define their system as Level 2. The following is for the FSD option:

Originally Posted by Tesla web site

The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.

[turk123]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Sophisticated aircraft autopilot systems are capable of performing virtually all in flight functions, including landing the plane, so I think a common understanding of the word autopilot is a device that can operate something without human intervention. I agree there is some nuance associated with the use of the word, as with your example of a pilot needing to be on board, but as you may have noticed, appreciating nuanced language isn't something that people in general are very good at these days. Lots of folks take stuff literally. Anyway, the point isn't that words like "autopilot" and "full self driving" necessarily cause accidents, it's that they are dishonest because they promise something that they can't really deliver.

I'm not quite sure your argument is substantiated by the use of this example. Didn't the FAA approve the use of autopilots? Didn't it help save many lives? Hasn't it improved over the years? Of course, the answer is yes to all of these questions. Why can't Tesla go through the development of making full self-driving a reality without so much criticism? The statistics show it is far more successful than driving the car yourself. My tesla tells me if I can switch lanes successfully. I have one set of eyes, the tesla has ten.

With Tesla, you have to keep one hand on the wheel and apply pressure once in a while. It keeps your hands on the wheel so you can react to any issues that may come up. Tesla has been criticized for implementing that feature as it can be defeated by some (tying a grapefruit to the steering wheel was one person's idea to keep it running without his hand on the wheel). When I heard that Ford does not require that feature (hand-free driving!) I thought, "How can Ford be so stupid!" But it is all in the process of working out how to implement this feature in cars. One day our grandchildren, when looking at old photos of grandpa's car, will be asking, "What is that wheel inside the car for?"

[skyguyscott]

Well, we can speculate all day as to why the U.S. government is investigating Tesla's automated drive system and not Ford's or GM's or Volvo's or Chrysler's or BMW's or Porsche/Volkswagon's or Kia's or Toyota's or Nissan's or Mazda's or any other brand's system.

The article specifically mentions the issue of the system evidently not recognizing emergency vehicles stopped with flashing lights and directional arrows, leading to at least 11 documented collisions with these vehicles so far.

What is the likelihood that after spending the time and manpower to investigate the system, they will not end up recommending any changes?

[ROBERT CROSS]

If you really want autominious driving..UBER it.

Bob
🇺🇸

[jondrew55]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

If you really want autominious driving..UBER it.

Bob
🇺🇸

I had a deposit on a Model 3 when they first came out. The salesman (a complete Tesla freak) told me that if you lease the car, there is no buy at the end because Elon's plan was that by the time these leases were up, they'd have full auto driving enabled (his words) and they planned to create a fleet of autonomous taxis. Now that was just a salesman talking and not an official Tesla spokesperson, but he was certainly pushing the dream of full auto drive.

[RedSHED]

Maybe we need a PPSEL with high performance endorsement and an instrument rating to use "autopilot."

Of course not, but... there's no free lunch. I think of Tesla as a software company that makes car shaped hardware, while Ford et al are foundries making software.

Tesla's weaknesses are not Ford's and vice versa. I was doing contract work in MI several years ago and sat next to a guy doing an FMEA for a pedal or lever. "Did you know," he said one day, "there's an SAE spec for vomit?" I inferred he was interested in viscosity and adhesiveness impacts on the pedal or lever for when someone's kid or SO hurled on it. I sometimes wonder what an FMEA looks like at Tesla, think of the 3's back doors, and wonder some more. (The doors don't have a way to be opened if power is removed, I understand).

What Tesla's autopilot is most likely to do, IMO, is drive some regulations about certification... a little like what you have to do to get an aircraft autopilot certified.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by RedSHED

Maybe we need a PPSEL with high performance endorsement and an instrument rating to use "autopilot."

Of course not, but... there's no free lunch. I think of Tesla as a software company that makes car shaped hardware, while Ford et al are foundries making software.

Tesla's weaknesses are not Ford's and vice versa. I was doing contract work in MI several years ago and sat next to a guy doing an FMEA for a pedal or lever. "Did you know," he said one day, "there's an SAE spec for vomit?" I inferred he was interested in viscosity and adhesiveness impacts on the pedal or lever for when someone's kid or SO hurled on it. I sometimes wonder what an FMEA looks like at Tesla, think of the 3's back doors, and wonder some more. (The doors don't have a way to be opened if power is removed, I understand).

What Tesla's autopilot is most likely to do, IMO, is drive some regulations about certification... a little like what you have to do to get an aircraft autopilot certified.

I think of them as a technology company that makes car shaped hardware, but the theme is the same as your quote.

I suspect the mechanical emergency release for the doors is only on the front doors because the cabin isn’t divided. I have to tell people not to use the passenger front seat one, because it doesn’t drop the glass 1 cm or so like the electric switch does, and that can be hard on the window seals.

I think that if the NHTSA investigation results in more regulations or standards, then Tesla will be the biggest beneficiary. What if they ask for much more detailed incident reporting than most current black boxes can do, and that it be OTA? And not reliant on an OnStar subscription? An industry standard regulation that requires the type of reporting on crashes that Tesla publishes today would be good.

Consider the identification of emergency vehicles. Tesla’s vision based system could likely recognize emergency vehicles to some degree. A system using radar would be more of a challenge. I can see other manufacturers asking for all emergency vehicles to have transponders that vehicles can sense (maybe they have them now, I don't know) Those companies that are ahead technically in this space will have an advantage. Other manufacturers have commented publicly on how far ahead Tesla is. Not on things like door panel gaps, certainly, but on things related to the vehicle’s technical architecture.

[skyguyscott]

Originally Posted by RedSHED

"Did you know," he said one day, "there's an SAE spec for vomit?" I inferred he was interested in viscosity and adhesiveness impacts on the pedal or lever for when someone's kid or SO hurled on it.

Just when you think you've just about heard it all... I never cease to be amazed at what I learn on these forums.

[pwakeling]

I’ve flown planes with autopilots for years. The thing is, when the autopilot is flying my plane, I’m still the pilot in command. If you’re sleeping and the autopilot flys you into a mountain, the NTSB assigns the blames to the PIC, not the electronic box.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

As to Tesla claiming that they have a full self driving feature, they make no such claim. On their web site they clearly define their system as Level 2. The following is for the FSD option:

So you're saying Tesla makes no claim to have a full self driving feature when, in fact, they have a $10K option they literally call "Full Self Driving"? Regardless of what they say in the fine print, that's misleading any way you want to slice it and is a perfect example of Tesla reality not living up to Tesla hype.

Originally Posted by turk123

The statistics show it is far more successful than driving the car yourself. My tesla tells me if I can switch lanes successfully. I have one set of eyes, the tesla has ten....

....But it is all in the process of working out how to implement this feature in cars. One day our grandchildren, when looking at old photos of grandpa's car, will be asking, "What is that wheel inside the car for?"

Again, the statistics (supplied by Tesla; please excuse my skepticism) are a generalization and make a comparison with a universe of drivers some of whom are engaged in many kinds of deviant driving behavior. An experienced, attentive driver is still better equipped to respond to the multitude of potential situations on the road than a computer program. That's one big reason why actual full self driving systems haven't yet been approved.

I have no problem with advancing the process of implementing autonomous systems in cars although, as someone who loves to drive, I'm not particularly looking forward to a day when we remember with nostalgia what a steering wheel was. My problem is, until you've made the necessary advancements, don't make claims and imply that your systems can do something today that they really can't do yet.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

So you're saying Tesla makes no claim to have a full self driving feature when, in fact, they have a $10K option they literally call "Full Self Driving"? Regardless of what they say in the fine print, that's misleading any way you want to slice it and is a perfect example of Tesla reality not living up to Tesla hype.

It isn’t in the fine print, it is front and centre on the page.

If you want all vehicle names to be literally true, you are going to be really disappointed to hear that Ford sold a version of the Mustang called the Mach 1, that could in no way reach the speed of sound. And many here paid good money for the four wheel drive option on their truck, which, without locking diffs, will default to driving fewer than four wheels at the same time when you actually need the traction 🙂

[AKNate]

Originally Posted by jcl

If you want all vehicle names to be literally true, you are going to be really disappointed to hear that Ford sold a version of the Mustang called the Mach 1, that could in no way reach the speed of sound. And many here paid good money for the four wheel drive option on their truck, which, without locking diffs, will default to driving fewer than four wheels at the same time when you actually need the traction [emoji846]

I rented a Ford Fusion once and was very disappointed to discover it did not run on fusion at all and I had to put gas in the thing!

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

It isn’t in the fine print, it is front and centre on the page.

If you want all vehicle names to be literally true, you are going to be really disappointed to hear that Ford sold a version of the Mustang called the Mach I, that could in no way reach the speed of sound. And many here paid good money for the four wheel drive option on their truck, which, without locking diffs, will default to driving fewer than four wheels at the same time when you actually need the traction ��

C'mon, Jeff. I think you know what I mean by fine print. The fact that there is verbiage that explains why the actual title of the option isn't factually descriptive, isn't a viable cover for making the misleading claim in the first place.

Neither is "what-about-ism"; saying that someone else does something similar isn't a defense. Besides, no one is going is going to be misled into thinking that a Mustang Mach 1 will reach the speed of sound. And 4 wheel drive vehicles do at least drive all 4 wheels under some circumstances and when properly optioned they do what the name implies.

OTOH, Teslas are not currently designed to "fully self drive" at all under any reasonable interpretation of the name although I wouldn't blame someone for thinking they were getting real self driving after plunking down 10 grand for the option.

The Mach I thing is barely hyperbolic. The full self driving thing is borderline dishonest and has the potential to be dangerous for someone who doesn't bother to RTFM.

[rowiebowie]

Too much over-thinking going on.


Driver behind the wheel of any car (not just Teslas) is 100% responsible 100% of the time. Any driver that's not doing that is a dangerous idiot or distracted and would be so regardless of the name of the safety system.

[Brian Barry]

If you are a start up and the big boys including the finical institutions do not want you to succeed, you got to make claims.

I am on my second Tesla and have gas vehicles as well. Give me a Tesla any day, auto pilot I use every day but that is the tip of the iceberg, the weight of batteries in middle gives unbelievable road holding, the acceleration, music from all over the world plus games… the list goes on and you get new features many times a year…. He may be late but there is nothing close to his creation including his amazing supercharger network!

He has taken the Saudi’s hold off America and done it single handed!