Tesla Shuts Off Automatic Braking On Some Model S, X, 3 Pending Validation

1 month ago by Steven Loveday 103

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

Tesla recently regained some points from Consumer Reports for finally updating its Automatic Emergency Braking system to react at highway speeds, but now, due to the necessity to examine real-world data, the automaker has turned the system off in some new Model S, X, and 3 vehicles.

A Tesla spokesperson told Consumer Reports that the automaker must ensure that the system is working properly in real-world situations since some hardware updates have been installed. Tesla has promised the impacted owners that the system will be back on and fully functional inside of six weeks. However, the automaker did sell these vehicles with information stating that the AEB was standard equipment. The company said in August:

Tesla

Tesla Autopilot 2.0 is still undergoing incremental updates/tweaks and software validation to reach parity with the first-generation (Mobileye) system.

“This hardware set has some added computing and wiring redundancy, which very slightly improves reliability.”

A spokesperson from the automaker elaborated this week:

“We recently introduced some minor hardware changes to the Autopilot system in new cars, and we are now in the process of robustly validating the new hardware using real-world driving data. During that process, Automatic Emergency Braking will temporarily be inactive and will instead be in shadow mode, which means it will register how the feature would perform if it were activated, without taking any action. This temporary calibration period is standard Tesla protocol and is done out of an abundance of caution.”

This is an effort by the automaker to assure that all vehicles are safe. Since Model 3 production began in July, apparently Tesla has produced some vehicles that have a different, new hardware configuration. While the system seems to work for those using the vehicles, Tesla needs to be positive that the software and hardware are married and calibrated correctly, so as to function at 100 percent.

While the shut down is an inconvenience, it should only affect a very small number vehicles. Being that Tesla relies on over-the-air (OTA) updates, this type of situation is something that Tesla owners will likely have to expect and accept. Additionally, the automaker doesn’t rely on model years, so when newer, better hardware/parts come along, Tesla may simply add them to the vehicles that are currently being manufactured. Though the owners have to wait for the updates and the validation, in a traditional situation, this may amount to a recall. OEM owners may then have to take their car in for service.

Neither of these situations is positive for the consumer, and hopefully, once the electric automaker achieves full parity with its second-generation Autopilot system, this type of occurrence will become increasingly rare. Though it’s not likely that it will ever go away completely. It comes with the territory of investing in a whole new technology. Our cell phones, laptops, and tablets need to go through updates on a regular basis, and during an update, the technology is rendered unusable. Of course, this often happens at the most inopportune and frustrating times. With technology comes convenience, but at the expense of situations such as these.

Consumer Reports director of automotive testing, Jake Fisher, mentioned the automaker’s unique system:

“Tesla can deliver cars prior to fully developing the software needed for new features, with plans to update the cars later.”

CR also pointed out the amazing potential of the OTA technology with a reference to Hurricane Irma:

“Tesla this week provided owners living in the path of Hurricane Irma whose vehicles have a 60kWh battery a temporary, free over-the-air upgrade to give those vehicles more range in case owners wanted to evacuate. That was possible because Tesla models sold as 60 kWh actually have the capability to be 75 kWh vehicles; normally, the owner would have to pay to expand that battery pack.”

However, Fisher did admit:

“The downside for Tesla owners comes when promised features are delayed. Owners who paid for those missing features have little to no recourse.”

Source: Consumer Reports

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

103 responses to "Tesla Shuts Off Automatic Braking On Some Model S, X, 3 Pending Validation"

  1. theflew says:

    This is where Tesla’s beta feature releasing is going to get them in trouble. Basically you can’t guarantee a feature is available in the case of a real emergency. A traditional OEM might have to recall, but the feature is still available in your car until that period whether it works 10% of the time or 100%.

    Also not having model years will only cause headaches for Tesla and owners as they sell more vehicles. Any OEM could do the same thing but locking a configuration yearly allows the customer to know what they have and the OEM a base to work from. Tesla’s low volume allows this behavior. When they are selling 500k vehicles a year across multiple models I bet you’ll see this stop.

    1. V2 says:

      Why would it matter to the end user that their car is not “tagged” with a specific model year designation? As long as Tesla notifies the correct users and the correct cars receive the OTA update or replacements as needed, there is no downside to not having same hardware for a whole year. I guess it would make a difference if buying used vehicle, but I imagine there is a way to ask Tesla on specifics of a car.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I’m with V2. The problem here isn’t with Tesla not keeping the same hardware in their cars for an entire model year, and the problem isn’t with not using formal model year designations.

        The problem is Tesla rushing hardware changes into production before the software for that new hardware has been fully tested.

        Yes, I understand that Tesla wants to get “the latest and greatest” hardware updates to their customers as soon as possible. I understand that Tesla wants to avoid any customer being unhappy with finding out that Tesla could have put new hardware into the car they just ordered, but chose not to.

        I just don’t agree that this justifies turning off safety features which customers have paid for, because the software hasn’t been fully validated or because the system “needs to calibrate itself”. Calibration should only need to be done once, on one test car; and then that calibration should be cloned and sent to all the rest of the fleet via an OTA update.

        And if the system isn’t set up to allow that… then speaking as a computer programmer, I want to know why the hell isn’t it set up that way?!?!

        1. TomArt says:

          Why should it be set up that way? Every vehicle is slightly different. We’re not talking about a new security patch or an upgraded version of iTunes.

  2. bro1999 says:

    OTA update….FTL!

    I am sure the TSLA cultists will spin this as showing how Tesla “cares” so much about its customers’ safety that it pushes out updates as soon as issues are identified “out of an abundance of caution”.

    Only problem is if TSLA cared so much about customer safety “out of an abundance of caution”, they would have never released these AP2.5 cars without first finishing thorough in-house testing to make sure safety features such as AEB actually worked properly.

    But they decide to ship the unfinished product and let the customers be the beta testers. Something big must have happened (or almost happened) for TSLA to push out OTA updates that REMOVE a feature from its cars.

    This shows Elon values TSLA stock value over the safety of his customers. Perhaps he should step down as TSLA CEO (and go play with his rockets and hyperloops) and let someone else run TSLA.

    1. jelloslug says:

      So what is your stand of the Bolts that were shipped with faulty batteries that could shut down at anytime?

      1. bro1999 says:

        Sorta like the drive unit failures that plagued early Model S’s?

        GM didn’t intentionally have batteries shipped they knew were going to fail.

        Tesla shipped these cars knowing that AEB was not in a finished state, with plans to send OTA updates with the “finished” version. But something forced them to instead deactivate. That something being probably some critical safety fault they found/someone reported.

        1. ffbj says:

          When it comes to doing or not doing something to protect consumers I think you are fighting a loosing battle there trying to protect GM. Regarding their release of faulty products.

        2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          “GM didn’t intentionally have batteries shipped they knew were going to fail.”

          But they did intentionally do nothing for the ignition switch issue till lives were lost AND they tried to hide it and denied it till lives were lost.

          http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/10/news/companies/gm-recall-ignition-switch-death-toll/index.html

          1. bro1999 says:

            Yes yes, and GM also killed the electric car the first time around.

            Let me go punch a random German in the face too because of that whole 1930s/1940’s thing.

            1. David Cary says:

              No one thing would be punishing a company for recent action that killed people, the other is committing a violent illegal act against a person because he is from a country that did something horrible 70 years ago. Moral equivalence – right?

              I know – don’t feed

              1. Get Real says:

                Maybe he gets this from Trump?

                1. Maybe Mar-A-Largo will undergo some form of putting a Bubble or Dome over it to protect it from the ‘Chinese Invented Climate Change, & Hurricanes!’

          2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            But mom, other kids done it even worse!

          3. justanotherguy50 says:

            You are no longer talking about the Bolt. You are moving the goalposts.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          bro1999 continued his Tesla bashing campaign:

          “GM didn’t intentionally have batteries shipped they knew were going to fail.”

          Tesla-bashing trolls FAIL and FLAIL and FAIL again. 🙄

          Honestly, sometimes I think that something must break inside a person’s brain when he decides to start posting anti-Tesla FUD.

          Here, this troll could have stuck to the Truth, because what Tesla is done here is something I think is indefensible, and the Tesla bashers could make a lot out of it… if they would just stick to the truth! But it seems these FUDsters and trolls become compulsive liars, literally unable to stop themselves from lying! :facepalm:

          Dude! Comparing Tesla to GM when it comes to putting hardware into the car that they know doesn’t work properly is a losing argument! How many people died as a result of GM continuing to put faulty ignition switches into their cars, even after GM knew they were faulty? Wikipedia says GM paid compensation for 124 deaths.

          Say what you will about Tesla, at least Tesla does publicly announce — as they have done here — when they have a problem with cars in the hands of its customers, and they need to work on it to fix it. Tesla does not try to hide dangerous faults the way GM does!

          Anti-Tesla FUDsters aren’t just trolls, they are losers!

          1. bro1999 says:

            If there was a “who’s the troll poll” posted here with you and me as the only options, you’d win in a landslide.

      2. L'amata says:

        Maybe you can run Tesla… r o t f l m a o

    2. Krishna says:

      If my car is being manufactured today and Tesla has the new better hardware ready to be installed on the car with just one feature missing on the new hardware, that would be added back in 6 weeks, it doesn’t make sense to not get the new hardware just because the software is not ready yet. If they followed what you propose, then I would not get the new hardware on the car. Why would anyone with a sane mind not want the latest technology when there is an option for them to get it vs not having that new hardware at all. Retrofitting new hardware later is very expensive and not economical.

      1. bro1999 says:

        That’s another downside to Tesla you bring up: the car you buy today could be obsolete literally tomorrow. Such as those that bought a brand new P90DL right before the P100DL was announced, or those that bought a top of the line Tesla right before Autopilot was announced, etc…

        At least with traditional manufacturers, you know if you buy a brand new model year, you know it won’t become obsolete for at least a year.

        1. William says:

          Tell your annual story about obsolescence to the Nissan Leaf buyers, who purchased the S trim level (24kWh) in early 2016, only to have a few months later, in the same 2016 model year, have the 30kWh battery show up in the same S trim level, thereby suddenly making the 24kWh battery obsolete, never to be released again. Interesting Little Leaf factoid!

          1. bro1999 says:

            At least with those 24 kWh Leaf purchasers, they probably got a REALLY good deal.

            With Tesla, you pay list price. Well, unless you don’t.
            https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-email-30-000-off-p100d.96937/

            1. Nix says:

              I love it when the trolls whine and complain that Tesla doesn’t give discounts while Chevy dealers play games with the prices, as if that were some great benefit of buying from a dealership. Then

              And then the same trolls do a whiplash 180 and make snide backhanded comments about Tesla offering discounts!!

              1. justanotherguy50 says:

                When Tesla provides a discount, you still pay what Tesla dictates.

                At a GM dealer, you get to negotiate. You don’t walk into a GM dealer expecting to pay MSRP, or even MSRP minus discounts — because there is almost always negotiation room.

                Tesla, even with discounts, offers no negotiations. That is the difference that makes non-Tesla vehicles often cost much less than what is written on paper.

                1. Nix says:

                  Traditional car makers all create a false MSRP number that doesn’t actually represent the real price. Then you go in and “negotiate” this fake price down to what the real price should have been in the first place.

                  If you buy into their sales tactics, they might even make you feel HAPPY that you didn’t pay the fake price, making you feel like you were some brilliant negotiator for actually paying something closer to the real price.

                  But it is fake. It is a lie. It is sleazy sales tactics.

                  They give you an inflated MSRP in order to create what is called a “perception of value”. In this case a false perception of value, specifically designed to make you FEEL like you got a $50K pickup truck for “only” $45K and you think you paid less for something of more value than you paid. But in reality, it was always a $45K pickup truck. And if you managed to negotiate down to $45K, you only manage to pay what it was worth. Meanwhile they suckered some whale into paying full MSRP or even over MSRP.

                  I’m sorry that you have completely fallen for their sales tactics.

                  1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

                    …..and you spent 4+ hours of your time doing it.

                    MSRP has always been FAKE.

                    There’s also disparate prices from one stealership to another.

                    Are some peeps so stupid that people really think that the time wasting haggled price was given to them because the stealership likes them or from the goodness of the stealerships heart?!?!?!?!?

                  2. justanotherguy50 says:

                    … but yet all of the comparisons done between the Model 3 & the Bolt use the “fake” Bolt 3 MSRP, which is inflated as you admit.

                    So, the Bolt looks much better in comparison if you actually consider people are paying far less than MSRP with their Bolt, while Tesla buyers are paying a fixed “real” MSRP.

                    I’ll happily negotiate for an hour if it means saving thousands, instead of paying thousands more at a Tesla dealership for the “easy and real” MSRP.

                    Falling for sales tactics or just getting a better deal? I say both.

                    1. Nix says:

                      justanotherguy — Yes, many people can buy a stripped LT Bolt for less than a stripped TM3 220 will be in October. As long as they don’t try to lease it and have GM keep the lion’s share of their $7500 fed tax credit and potentially pay OVER the MSRP after factoring in GM keeping most of the fed incentive.

                      Keep in mind that this wasn’t always the case. At initial release some dealerships even added additional profits on top of MSRP, while GM was keeping 100% of the 7500 fed incentive. Between GM finance keeping the incentive, and dealers adding up to $5000 on top of MSRP, some poor folks leasing a Bolt may have paid as much as $12,500 over MSRP:

                      http://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/01/california-dealership-adding-5000-market-adjustment-to-2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-msrp/

                      But yes, the initial high demand dropped off so now there are discounts. While the Tesla Model 3 hasn’t gone through that cycle yet. Tesla does their own style of discounts, and the Model 3 likely will be no different.

                      Whether you personally value the TM3 220 with whatever options to be worth more compared to the features available in the Bolt LT or a Bolt Premium is purely up to each buyer.

                    2. justanotherguy50 says:

                      @Nix,

                      I leased my Bolt and got an excellent deal that will be cheaper than purchasing, even not directly getting the $7500 tax credit.

                      Remember that a “stripped” Model 3 is black and about $36k with the destination charge, and you still have to wait a few months for it at least — when Bolt discounts will even be bigger.

                      The comfort & driver confidence packages are just about $1000 together. What does $1000 get you with a Model 3? Another color.

                      Yes, there were some terrible Bolt deals, and now they have gotten much better. The Model 3 will probably not have such terrible deals with their straightforward pricing, but without any negotiating room, great deals on a Model 3 will likely never happen like they do with a Bolt.

                    3. Nix says:

                      How much of the 7500 did they credit you in the lease payments?

                  3. TomArt says:

                    Agreed, Nix. Always appreciate your posts – thoughtful, clear and concise.

        2. jelloslug says:

          So Tesla should never change anything, never bring out anything, and never update anything….

        3. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          Funny thing about technology, if you keep waiting for the latest and greatest, you’ll never buy anything.

          Hardware evolves. Remember the GM Instar issue where customers bought GM products with Onstar then they decided to move the cell telecomm to a newer protocol, frequency and technology making the slightly older GM products with slightly older Onstar hardware obsolete?

          Nobody is immune to this.

        4. Nix says:

          “the car you buy today could be obsolete literally tomorrow.”

          That describes every EV.

          1. Vexar says:

            But it does not represent an ICE. For that, the ICE car that you buy today has been obsolete for years.

            I love that the trolls are all fired up about a software scenario that is maybe going to last a month. Did you know you can reject a software update on a Tesla? Personally, there have been so many updates which have improved subtle things for my car, I’ve tolerated Slacker going schizo on me and the OMG-I-hate-it 7.0 user interface in exchange for things like a better regen brake curve (saves money on tires) and torque idling, which improved my energy efficiency by about 2%.

            1. Nix says:

              +1

              Yea, the crazy thing is that when Tesla announced this at the beginning of the week, they said 3-6 weeks. Now we are a work-week in already, and just 2 weeks from now this may all be done.

              Yet we will probably see 100+ posts on this story over what may be over with in just 2 weeks. Crazy.

        5. Jason says:

          Hot off the press:
          “The e-Golf Limited Edition at $33,795 adds the fast charging, V-Tex leatherette seats, parking assist and later in the model year will get an accident-avoidance feature called Maneuver Braking.”
          So even the big manufacturers will introduce new features mid model run. Sorry, dude, you should have bought your e-Golf tomorrow!
          Maybe that feature is retro active to the model, or maybe it is new HW, doesn’t really explain that, but certainly happens in the real world.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Krishna asked:

        “Why would anyone with a sane mind not want the latest technology when there is an option for them to get it vs not having that new hardware at all.”

        The short answer is: Because that would leave Tesla open to charges of false advertising, if they sell a car with certain features promised, but those features don’t work when the car is delivered.

        The longer answer: You, as an individual, don’t have sufficient information to make an informed opinion, a judgement, about what safety-critical features of complex hardware and software systems are, or are not, important in order to be able to drive the car safely.

        Every culture has a social contract. One definition of that is “an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.” Children in every society are educated and indoctrinated into that social contract, and taught that this is how things are meant to be.

        Part of that social contract, in first-world countries if not elsewhere, is that we expect manufacturers to test their products, and work out any safety problems before they are offered for sale. Another part of our social contract is that when manufacturers fail to do so properly, they are held liable and can be sued.

        What you are suggesting is that Tesla should be allowed to violate our social contract. Why? If Tesla can do it, why not every manufacturer? Hey, they should be allowed to put the latest and greatest hardware into production without adequate testing, because your kid wants that “hoverboard” today! Nevermind that it doesn’t have an adequate battery management system, so the batteries may overheat and explode. That’s okay; as you said: Why would anyone with a sane mind not want the latest technology when there is an option for them to get it vs not having that new hardware at all.

        Well, I think I’ve adequately explained why. Especially when it comes to safety-critical systems in passenger cars, such as the automatic braking system.

    3. William says:

      I hope your assessment of St. Elon and his alleged callous valuation, of the Tesla Wall Street stock price over the “impacted” Tesla drivers and their passengers, is completely misguided. I think his intentions are based on customer safety, and EV product development, before profits and satisfying his financial obligations to those funding Tesla growth.

    4. Nix says:

      bro1999 mumbled “This shows Elon values TSLA stock value over the safety of his customers.”

      Tesla actually announced this on Monday Sept. 11th. TSLA was $355.55/share on Monday morning.

      Today it is trading roughly $20/share HIGHER than Monday, at around $375/share. TSLA stock prices have nothing to do with this.

    5. Nix says:

      bro1999 — you have a basic misunderstanding of Tesla’s software. It is NOT a static piece of software, it is a LEARNING software that continuously improves itself, and continuously calibrates itself to each car’s individual hardware and individual roads the car drives.

      By this very nature, it is not possible to do a static point-in-time test like you suggest.

      I’m sorry that after posting your hate on so many Tesla stories, that you clearly have learned nothing about Tesla.

  3. Murrysville EV says:

    Is Tesla actually building the 3?

    1. Vexar says:

      Huh? You don’t read here much. I think they are on target for 1500 manufactured in September. it’s their ramp-up period. October is when you should start to see competitive volumes, but you can track the Model III volume figures here:

      http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

      1. Jason says:

        Probably not unexpected, but they missed their August target of 100 vehicles, only 75 recorded. Still, looking positive at this stage. Can’t wait for 2019 when Backlogs are cleared.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…they missed their August target of 100 vehicles, only 75 recorded.”

          Incorrect. I suggest you read what Jay Cole writes about the cars InsideEVs’ monthly sales “report card”; just looking at the chart may give you incomplete info, as is the case here.

          Elon said Tesla had a production target of 100 for August; the “75” on the chart is an estimation of deliveries/sales.

          Some of the cars produced will be in transit to the buyer, and a few of them have reportedly been diverted to use as test cars and/or demo units.

      2. Murrysville EV says:

        @Vexar: I was being sarcastic.

        I’m annoyed that Tesla is managing the message from these early buyers, to the point that that this *production* vehicle doesn’t have any published, instrumented reviews or meaningful YouTube videos or anything.

  4. Ron M says:

    The real story will be when Tesla to announces building another Gigafactory in the USA, one in China and maybe one in Europe. I think we’ll near something by the end of the year.

  5. unlucky says:

    No, this is not something that customers will have to expect and accept. No matter what happens with their hardware going forward or AP 2.0 software development customers will and should never grow to accept Tesla changing hardware and shipping it out with one of the safety features untested.

    That’s not how Tesla should do it or anyone else for that matter. You may not rely on model years, but when you change hardware you have to test it before you release it. Especially safety hardware.

    Phones do not work this way. If a company makes a rolling change in their phones they write new software which makes the new hardware work like the old hardware did and then they test the combination of software and hardware before they send out the new configuration of phones.

    If you are going to make rolling changes get the new hardware before you run out of the old hardware. Then develop the new software for the new hardware and test this combination. Then you ship the product out working from day one. That’s standard procedure, it keeps you from sending out products that don’t have advertised features, in this case advertised safety features.

    There is no reason we should lower our standards to not expecting advertised features to be present. Instead Tesla should revise their procedures to provide a consistent product.

    1. Nix says:

      You have a basic misunderstanding of Tesla’s software and hardware.

      The software isn’t static. It is a LEARNING software that continuously evolves and improves as more miles are driven.

      Each car also learns and calibrates its own individual hardware.

      1. unlucky says:

        No, I don’t have a basic misunderstanding of their hardware and software.

        You’re giving an excuse, same as the article writer did.

        Make the feature work before you release the car. If you change the hardware, make the new hardware and software work before you release cars with the new hardware. Especially if it is a safety feature.

        If you want to make a change you make the change in test vehicles and then drive them a lot until you know it works and then release it.

        As to adaptation, that’s a canard since the feature has to work on day one, if adaptation makes it better then fine. But if other car companies can make automatic braking systems that work on the day you buy the car then Tesla can too and should be required to in order to get the same credit (star rating) for safety as the other companies.

        1. Nix says:

          Explained in detail below.

        2. You Velly ‘Unlucky!’
          Him say, ‘You no buy caa today, me change hardwaae tomollow!’ You say ‘Me No Wait! me get Car Now!’
          Him say, ‘So solly! You new caa must get new training!’ ‘You so impatient you get to have to drive caa you self now, some 2-3 Weeks time’
          ‘Bad Fo You! Haad to wemembe How to Dwive Caa!’

          ;÷)

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “You have a basic misunderstanding of Tesla’s software and hardware.”

        No, he doesn’t. Other companies don’t release “beta versions” and expect customers to pay full price for them. Other companies open themselves up to charges of false advertising when they list features that don’t work when the product is shipped. Tesla may have chosen to ignore that, but it’s going to come back to bite them sooner or later. Actually it already has to some extent, but not nearly hard enough to get them to stop. Sooner or later, it will.

        I appreciate that Tesla is trying to do some things differently, but here they’re getting out over their skis. And the really troubling thing is, they seem to have made a corporate policy of shipping things before they are ready. Sooner or later Tesla is going to have to reign that in. If they don’t do it voluntarily, then the courts will force them to.

        1. Nix says:

          Pushy — you are wrong.

          Let me try to describe it in an analogy.

          A) In the old days cars had carburetors. They would be tuned once, and then you would drive it around until the next tune up. During that time, the carb had been adjusted (calibrated) to one setting. There were no changes in calibration in real time.

          vs.

          B) Modern computers on the other hand can LEARN from the driver’s driving habits and the environment and adjust the computer’s engine control settings in real time. In fact, you can go from performance driving on a hot sunny day, to conservatively driving in a cold fog blank with high humidity, and the computer can adapt in real time to the changes in conditions and driving style.

          You want AutoPilot to be like (A) where you set it once at the factory and you are done. Like a carburetor. But that’s not how it works. It is even more advanced than my example (B), adjusting in real time constantly.

          It learns not only from you, your driving habits, your roads you drive on, your hardware in your car, but it also learns from other cars that also have the same software and hardware. It constantly learns what is a false-positive. It constantly learns what readings from the hardware translate into what object. It learns quirks of the road and how it shows up on the hardware. Etc, etc.

          It isn’t something that is done once before all cars are shipped the same, like setting every car up with identical jets and idle settings at the factory. It is a constant learning process.

          1. unlucky says:

            No one said that the unit cannot self-recalibrate over time. We just want it to actually be in an operable condition before it ships.

            Just like your fuel injection example. The car works from the factory. It may adapt later, but it does actually inject fuel when you buy it.

            Tesla’s system doesn’t work from the factory. It’ll only work later. This is the problem, not that it might change its own settings later.

  6. Get Real says:

    LMFAO, bro-Troll is the single biggest “concern troll” on IEVs on all matters regarding Tesla.

    Doesn’t matter what improvements or how much positive change that Tesla has brought to a stagnant industry, in the myopic eyes of trolls like him Tesla is always wrong.

    Such a hypocrite as he drives his Bolt that WOULDN’T EXIST if not for the pressure that Tesla has brought on the laggard OEMs to compete.

  7. Nix says:

    This is suddenly news?

    We knew about the hardware upgrade a month and a half ago:

    https://electrek.co/2017/08/09/tesla-autopilot-2-5-hardware-computer-autonomous-driving/

    Hardware calibration is exactly what Tesla does every time they do a hardware upgrade. It is specific to each car, calibrating in each individual car’s hardware. This too is nothing new. The calibration period is to weed out false-positives. This exists because Tesla’s software learns, and isn’t a static software program.

    https://electrek.co/2017/09/11/tesla-autopilot-2-5-new-calibration-period-hardware/

    Sadly, bottomless hate for the most popular EV company has become the dominant voice on this EV advocacy site.

    1. DJ says:

      Awww, I almost feel sad for you Tesla fanboys…. ;*(

      I don’t see really this is that big of a deal or a shocker though. Tesla has a knack for releasing something, then pulling back, and then later on putting it back in.

      Personally if I was a Tesla owner I would have been a lot more pissed when they downgraded Autopilot when they went away from Mobileye.

      1. Nix says:

        I feel sorry for all the blind Tesla haters who are either unwittingly or wittingly duped into regurgitating the talking points of groups who are against EV’s. Groups who have adopted a strategy of attacking the EV front-runner as key to keeping EV’s single-digit in sales and keeping ICE cars the dominant mode of transportation.

        Sorry you are blind to that.

      2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        AP……..lol

        I prefer NOT to have it my car.

    2. unlucky says:

      That article is talking about two different things at once and you are conflating.

      The hardware-specific (per-car) calibration is separate from the time for them to make their AEB work with new hardware. Their cars require a short calibration even if they have the same hardware as they’ve been shipping for weeks or months. This other calibration is something specific to the new hardware and only is on some cars and clearly takes longer.

      The per-car calibration should be done by Tesla at the factory. If it takes a few miles to get the system working then they should drive each car a few miles.

      It’s likely to account for the slightly different each camera is mounted at due to production variances. In order to get sensor fusion (to turn an image from two cameras that overlap into one big image) you have to calibrate for those slightly varying angles. Tesla could do this by putting the car in a room with fiducial markers on the walls for a few moments if driving each car on the road is too much expense/trouble.

      1. Nix says:

        per-car calibration, and calibration to individual roads that drivers travel on, software updates, etc is Continuous.

        There has never been, and will never be just a single point in time where the software stands still. Maybe some other car companies never improve their safety software, but that’s not how Tesla’s software works.

        It is based upon a model of Learning Software that features Continual Improvement that will keep getting better and better over the life of the car. Every second, every mile driven, the entire Tesla autopilot network learns and keeps improving. There is no difference between any stage of learning, whether it is done before release or after, and the more miles driven the more it learns.

        This is a BENEFIT of the Tesla software over systems that are static and don’t learn like you talk about. I’m sorry you are stuck in a mindset of static software, and are dead-set not to understand the difference. I’ve led you to water, your refusal to drink is your problem.

        1. unlucky says:

          No, having a feature not work is not a BENEFIT.

          Even if you have continuing improvement that is not an excuse for not getting the feature to a working level before cutting the hardware over.

          You want to talk about learning software?

          https://medium.com/@timanglade/how-hbos-silicon-valley-built-not-hotdog-with-mobile-tensorflow-keras-react-native-ef03260747f3

          Read how the Not Hot Dog app was created. Did he make the app, then ship it out and say “in 5 months it’ll start working if you all help train it”? No.

          He made the software, trained it for months and then sent it out.

          Tesla can and should do the same. Yes, Tesla’s problem is harder and more complex. But it’s also not just a joke to promote a TV show. It is their bread and butter business.

          Everyone else can fully qualify a new emergency braking system before cutting over the hardware to it. Tesla can too. Them not doing so is simply bad business.

          Any new hardware should get its training and qualification before it is released. Any individual training that must be done for a car should be done before it is shipped from the factory. Obviously the former is more complicated and takes longer, but you only do it when you get new hardware. The latter is much simpler, it can be done to every car by Tesla.

          Whether it can and should continue to learn after first release is a different question. You can do it either way. It’s up to Tesla to decide which is the right way for them.

          1. Nix says:

            unlucky, you have as much a false understanding of other car maker’s auto braking software as you have of Tesla’s.

            First off, there is no such thing as a bright line between works and doesn’t work. All car makers have a continuum of false-positives and failing to activate in time to 100% avoid an accident.

            https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/forward-collision-warning-systems-are-not-all-created-equal/

            You seem to believe that every other car maker has perfect tested 100% flawless systems. And that they get there by just testing them before putting them in any cars.

            That couldn’t be any further from the truth. In fact, it borders on blind delusion. In reality, the vast majority of car makers have brought the best they have to the market, including all the bugs and flaws, because even with failures they are selling their product to willing buyers.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-regulator-probes-complaints-on-brakes-1434486713

            The only thing that is unique about Tesla is that when Tesla finds something after they release their product, they can fix it over the air, or disable it while they collect data if need be.

            All the rest of the car makers have problems too. Sometimes big, big problems. But they can’t push a fix in a few weeks. Those owners just have to suffer with whatever software flaws they got the day they bought the car.

            Enough of your 100% false meme that every other car maker somehow has perfect automatic braking. It shows you have zero actual knowledge about auto braking.

            Post 4 links to stories about flaws in other car maker’s collision avoidance systems before responding to me again. If you don’t, you are just proving you are WILLFULLY remaining intentionally blind to what is actually going on in the real world, and you are just trolling anti-Tesla hate.

            1. unlucky says:

              Nix, you’re wrong if you think I don’t understand this.

              Your bright line thing is a canard. You only need a bright line between working sufficiently well to satisfy the advertised capabilities and not doing so. Don’t ship the car before it is over this line. If you want to improve it later or let it improve itself later then that is a separate issue. But it doesn’t mean one cannot draw a line as to what is considered sufficient performance. That line can be drawn and drawing it at “not working at all” (as Tesla has done) is not a good way to do it.

              I never said any other maker has a flawless system. Do you see the word flawless in my posts? Other makers ship systems that work from day one. That’s what I said. So don’t tell me what I’m blind to, you’ve created a strawman, you created this supposition, not me. If it’s 100% false, then you’re the one who proposed something that is 100% false.

              1. Nix says:

                Unlucky said: “Your bright line thing is a canard … That line can be drawn and drawing it at “not working at all” (as Tesla has done)”

                Really? Where EXACTLY did Tesla say it was “not working at all”?? Because they absolutely did not say this. This is the bright line YOU created. YOU did that. All Tesla said they were putting it into shadow mode while they made some changes. They absolutely never said it didn’t work “AT ALL”. But you did, repeatedly, all without proof:

                “Tesla’s system doesn’t work from the factory” –unlucky
                “the feature has to work on day one” –unlucky
                “Make the feature work before you release the car.” –unlucky
                “having a feature not work is not a BENEFIT.” –unlucky
                “other car companies can make automatic braking systems that work on the day you buy the car” –unlucky

                Who says it didn’t work “at all”? It has actually been operational and working at some level for over a month. That IS in evidence, with the proof being that they have put it into shadow mode after it has already been up and running at some level of performance that Tesla isn’t satisfied with for some reason out of their typical approach to safety.

                And Tesla is notorious for their conservative approach to safety. They once recalled EVERY SINGLE Tesla, because they found a SINGLE car with an incorrectly installed seatbelt bolt. They even went to the extreme of hanging out at Superchargers until they checked every single car and found it was only 1 bolt in 1 car that was affected.

                So when you draw a bright line and say it is “not working at all”, you better damn be able to prove that they put it in shadow mode for a few weeks because it was “not working at all”, and not out of just an abundance of caution. Because that is you making assumptions and drawing a bright line saying it isn’t working “at all”.

                If you are now being so rational, you should have no problem retracting those bright line statements that you made, and conceed that Tesla may have put a system that was working at some level of performance into shadow mode out of an abundance of caution for what may be a single oddball test case that they might be concerned about.

                ____________________________________________________________________

                You further make bright line false claims not in evidence that Tesla did no testing, when that is an absolutely absurd claim, with no proof in evidence, and doesn’t even pass the sniff test at all. Who says they did no testing? Again, if you are now being rational, you should have no problem retracting these false statements clearly not in evidence, if you now understand that there are shades of grey in levels of testing and levels of operation:

                “shipping it out with one of the safety features untested” –unlucky
                “you have to test it before you release it” –unlucky
                “engineer and test new hardware before you stop making the old hardware,”

                If you truly believe that bright lines are a canard, then you should have no problem retracting the bright lines you drew and we can start having a rational conversation.

            2. bro1999 says:

              What’s also unique is they sell features to customers that don’t currently work and then lie about when update will be pushed out to activate them.
              Like the huge FSD debacle. Class action lawsuit to be filed in the future against Tesla guaranteed.

              1. Nix says:

                What “lie” are you talking about? Because Tesla is very, very clear that they are making no such promise on any date for FSD:

                “Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.”

                https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

                Stop the nonsense.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Nix said:

      “The calibration period is to weed out false-positives. This exists because Tesla’s software learns, and isn’t a static software program.”

      Speaking as a computer programmer:

      Other devices and software don’t work like this. If we buy a piece of professional software, even “learning” software, then we expect it to work as soon as it’s loaded, right out of the box. We don’t expect the software to need a “calibration period” before it will start functioning at all.

      Tesla should do the same. The hardware should come pre-calibrated. If Tesla has the software designed to be “learning”, to adapt to how individual drivers drive and adapt to the individual roads they drive on, then that’s all to the good. But there should be default software settings for the average driver and average conditions, in which Autopilot (and its various driver assist and/or safety features) should operate, without needing any “calibration period” in which they don’t work at all.

      And yes, I realize that I don’t understand everything about how Tesla’s software and hardware work. That’s rather beside the point. The point is that Tesla seems to think that somehow it’s immune to the same rules that every other company that makes hardware with software loaded onto it is subject to.

      Again, I appreciate that Tesla is trying to be innovative and trying to do things differently. But safety systems in a car should work as people expect them to. There’s no good reason for Tesla do be doing things differently; Tesla’s reasons for shipping beta units instead of fully tested products are not good reasons.

      1. Nix says:

        Do you write AI?

        See my response to your post above.

  8. GeorgeS says:

    Tesla quote:

    ““We recently introduced some minor hardware changes to the Autopilot system in new cars,”

    That’s not what Tesla said earlier. They said all the AP2 hardware was the same and could be used even for upcoming full autonomy.

    So what’s that mean?? Does Tesla now have recall all the version 1 AP2 cars and put in this new hardware??

    1. Nix says:

      This was answered a month and a half ago. I’m not sure why this is suddenly a “sky is falling” topic:

      Our sources say that Tesla’s new Autopilot 2.5 suite is using a secondary node to enable more computing power, which brings the capacity closer to chipmaker’s own idea of the power needed to enable level 5 full autonomy – Tesla’s ultimate goal for the Autopilot program.

      After announcing Autopilot 2.0, Musk said that he believes Tesla could achieve self-driving capability on the computer, but he left the door open for an upgrade and highlighted that they build the mount under the glove box to be easily accessible if they need to swap the system for a more powerful computer.

      Tesla still believes that it can achieve the promised full autonomy on the 2.0 suite, but they now say that they could upgrade HW 2.0 cars with the new 2.5 hardware at no cost in the “highly unlikely” possibility that it is actually needed:

      “However, we still expect to achieve full self-driving capability with safety more than twice as good as the average human driver without making any hardware changes to HW 2.0. If this does not turn out to be the case, which we think is highly unlikely, we will upgrade customers to the 2.5 computer at no cost.”

      https://electrek.co/2017/08/09/tesla-autopilot-2-5-hardware-computer-autonomous-driving/

      1. georgeS says:

        OK thx nix

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      GeorgeS said:

      “Tesla… said all the AP2 hardware was the same and could be used even for upcoming full autonomy.

      “So what’s that mean?? Does Tesla now have recall all the version 1 AP2 cars and put in this new hardware??”

      Over on the Tesla Motors Club forum (didn’t I recently see a post from you there, George?), they are talking about Autopilot Hardware 2.5 which was just starting to be put into new production cars — I assume that’s what this article is talking about, even tho it doesn’t use the designation HW 2.5 — and they say Tesla is working on HW 3.0.

      I have believed for some time now that Tesla’s claim that HW 2.0 was sufficient for full autonomy, would prove to be flat wrong. Just what Tesla will do if and when it’s forced to admit that… is a question that remains to be answered. Whatever the answer is, if I’m right, it won’t be good for Tesla. Since Tesla has, apparently, “promised” that HW 2.0 will be sufficient for full autonomy, and has sold cars with that promise in mind, then my guess is that Tesla will have to do a very expensive and very widespread recall to install whatever hardware system they finally wind up with that can support full autonomy.

      As a Tesla fan I of course hope to be wrong on this… but as I’ve said numerous times, I don’t believe that a camera-based system is adequate for full autonomy. IMHO any self-driving vehicle, including Teslae, needs long-range active scanning (lidar or radar) pointed in all direction of the compass… not just front-facing. And when I say “long-range”, I mean out to something like 100 yards/meters, not the very short-ranged, 10′-20′ radars which are bizarrely mis-labeled “long-range” on some diagrams of Tesla cars which I’ve seen.

      1. Nix says:

        Hardware 2.5 is a control computer upgrade (see the link above). It is designed to be easy to replace. Tesla says they don’t believe replacement will be needed, but have said if it is needed they will. All detailed in the link I posted above.

  9. Get Real says:

    The “sky is falling” for all the serial anti-Tesla trolls who have to constantly justify to themselves why they bought a different product that is static and will never improve until from when they bought it all the way until they get rid of it.

    Also, the shills, shorters and hater-trolls are getting very nervous as we are literally only a short time from excellent Model 3 reports and reviews from growing numbers of owners.

    I predict that their hater heads will start exploding around Halloween!

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…the shills, shorters and hater-trolls are getting very nervous as we are literally only a short time from excellent Model 3 reports and reviews from growing numbers of owners.”

      Yes, indeed!

      Notice how the FUDsters and haters keep trying to sell us the Big Lie that the Model 3 “isn’t really in production”, and that sales of TM3 to SpaceX and Tesla’s employees “don’t count”. They really, really don’t want to admit that Tesla actually did manage to get production of the Model 3 started on time!

      They are twisting in the wind, and they will very likely twist much harder and faster when professional and amateur reviews start coming in for the Model 3.

      Motor Trend already has a “First Drive” review of the Model 3 out. Here’s the first sentence in that review:

      “The Tesla Model 3 is here, and it is the most important vehicle of the century.” (link below)

      Should we feel sorry for the FUDsters, trolls, and haters being even bigger losers than they already are?
      😀 😀 😀

      Nah. They deserve every bit of it. Ah, schadenfreude! 🙂

      http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive-tesla-model-3-first-drive-review/

    2. bro1999 says:

      You Tesla apologists are so predictable. I could write your responses ahead of time in response to my posts if I wanted to. Lol

  10. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Speaking as a computer programmer…

    I think this is totally unacceptable. If Tesla needed to take a certain number of units “offline” for whatever purpose, they should use their own test cars, and not use cars which customers have paid for as test units. And that testing should have been done before Tesla put any new hardware into production.

    My kneejerk reaction is to say that one or more people on Tesla’s software team should be fired, but on further thought, I suspect the problem lies at the top, not in the software team. It wasn’t the software team who decided to put the new hardware into production cars before it had been fully tested.

    Also, I don’t get the entire “It takes several days or even weeks to calibrate the system” situation with Autopilot. Why can’t Tesla just send pre-calibrated software into their cars as another OTA update? Why does each car have to calibrate the system individually?

    I don’t understand why Tesla’s top management finds this acceptable, because I do not.

    1. unlucky says:

      It’s less confusing when you think of it as calibrating the design and calibrating the individual unit.

      The point of calibrating the design is to make a working feature/product. You want it to brake in emergencies, right? You make a product that does that on the hardware you plan to use. You make it work for “model hardware”, meaning hardware you hand calibrated, etc.

      Then for each unit variances in the hardware could make it so that the software as designed doesn’t work. So you need to calibrate the software to that individual hardware. In this case the unit self-calibrates.

      After you do this, you have individual units working as designed. And then you ship them.

      I agree with you that the reason for this is likely a policy decision, and the policy is defined above the engineer pay grade.

      The normal thing to do would be, as you say, engineer and test new hardware before you stop making the old hardware, then cut over.

      I would like to think that if Tesla had any real competition in their EV space they would have to produce a more consistent product. It is a testament to how far ahead of the industry they are with the S/X that customers see this as a small thing compared to what they are getting that they can’t get elsewhere.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        If the problem is that individual variances in hardware, even though mass-produced, are sufficient to cause malfunctions or false positives in the software, so that the software needs to be calibrated for the individual system it’s loaded into, then the proper solution would be for Tesla to figure out some way to subject each car to some sort of virtual reality display until the system is properly calibrated, before the car is shipped.

        And if that is a high bar to overcome… well, nobody said that developing a fully autonomous driving system was supposed to be easy!

        I agree with your point about competition. As you say, if Tesla had real competition for its self-driving system, then it wouldn’t be able to get away with shipping out un-calibrated systems.

        1. Nix says:

          The calibration isn’t just hardware. The calibration isn’t just software. The calibration is between individual hardware, software, individual driver habits, and stored road data for the roads driven.

          The calibration is continually comparing what is on each car’s hardware, to not only data about individual roads, but to what you and other drivers have done when their hardware experienced similar input.

          What you have in your mind about your definition of “calibration” is not the same as what Tesla is doing with their software and hardware.

          You have a concept like a company that manufactures tape measures making sure that the tape measures all have marks at the correct location during production. Something you do once and then duplicate a thousand times and then test a sample to make sure the product is being built correctly.

          That’s not the kind of calibration that Tesla is doing.

        2. unlucky says:

          I agree. Tesla should calibrate the car before it is sold.

          Drive it on the road if you must, but if that’s too expensive then make a room in the factory to calibrate it in.

          Other companies do offer driver assist systems and automatic braking. And they work from the moment of delivery. Tesla can do this also.

  11. Four Electrics says:

    This is an ominous forshadowing of the day when Tesla’s rushed autopilot kills someone again. Elon seems to have a learning disability.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      What a perfect textbook example of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

      Well, by that argument, Mr. Tesla hater, you should turn off the air bags in your car immediately. After all, several people have been killed or maimed by exploding air bags. It might happen again. In fact, it probably will!

      Sooner or later, someone will get killed in another accident involving a Tesla car under control of Autopilot. That’s mathematically inevitable. But claiming Tesla should stop trying to improve the system because people will occasionally get hurt or killed, is every bit as ridiculous, and downright stupid, as telling us we should all turn off our air bag systems because people occasionally get hurt or killed when one explodes.

      “The thing to keep in mind is that self-driving cars don’t have to be perfect to change the world. They just have to be better than human beings.” — Deepak Ahuja, CFO of Tesla Inc.

  12. Get Real says:

    So says the troll who is a serial Tesla-basher repetitively repeating his same “ominous” whiney FUD even though it has been thoroughly discredited many times before.

  13. Get Real says:

    Pushy, they put the hardware in the cars first and they are steadily expanding its capabilities by continuously developing and refining the software.

    Under the circumstances I don’t think a minor pause to calibrate a few cars is a big deal although I guess Tesla could offer the owners affected something to compensate like some free supercharging credits or something.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      But why do those “few cars” (your words) need to be ones that have been delivered to customers? Why can’t Tesla use its own test fleet to test whatever needs testing?

      This article says “the automaker has turned the system off in some new Model S, X, and 3 vehicles.”

      What does “some” mean? Does it mean every car that has shipped with HW 2.5? Or only some of them; perhaps a certain production run that is somehow different than the others?

      Perhaps this is a case of unanticipated malfunction in only a small number of units. If so, then no foul on Tesla’s part; that happens to all auto makers from time to time. But Tesla keeps putting hardware and software into its cars before it has been fully tested, and it looks like this problem is a result of that. Discussion on the Tesla Motors Club form about HW 2.5 very recently being put into production cars seems to supports this hypothesis, or at least it seems so to me.

      “Get Real”, this isn’t a binary, either/or case of right or wrong. Clearly we can, and do, have different opinions. You perhaps think Tesla should continue using customers as beta testers? Okay; I don’t. We have an honest difference of opinion, and we’re both saying what we honestly believe… unlike the trolls and FUDsters. I respect your opinion, even though I disagree; I hope you’ll return the favor. That’s how civil discussion and debate is supposed to work, even if our society increasingly seems to forget that.

      1. Nix says:

        “this isn’t a binary, either/or case”

        And that’s exactly what I’ve been saying about EVERY collision avoidance system. It isn’t a binary either it works or it doesn’t work.

        There is no QA sign-off of “Done-Done” on collision avoidance systems, where they suddenly work 100% of the time, or they don’t.

        ALL collision avoidance systems have their drawbacks, and every car delivers what they can. The difference with Tesla is that they have the ability to change things on the fly and FIX their weaknesses.

        A perfect collision avoidance system is the enemy of the good.

  14. Jason says:

    I wonder what the legal implications would be if the vehicle is advertised with AEB, the customer purchases the vehicle with the understanding it has AEB, then the ARAB is deactivated and an incident happens that involves the situation where ARAB would have clearly mitigated such incident?
    Not being a Tesla owner, and certainly not a 2.5HW owner, and I didn’t see this in the article, but were owners made aware their ARAB was being deactivated? I would think that was the case given Tesla’s very proactive safety stance. And if yes, was the owner given a choice as to whether they wanted to deactivate it? I’m just wondering what liability is transferred to Tesla as they tweak their system at the possible expense of safety.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Questions like this, and the occasional obscenely high judgements in personal injury lawsuits, are one of the reasons why the USA has a bloated, excessive number of personal injury lawyers. 🙁

      I’m not a lawyer, but hypothetically if I was Tesla’s lawyer in such a case, I would argue that AEB (Automatic Emergency Braking) systems in their current state of development are not dependable, regardless of the auto maker; and so there would be no way to determine if the system would have prevented the accident in question, even if it had been active and working as well as any other.

      Of course, the plaintiff’s lawyer would argue that I was just trying to weasel out of responsibility.

      Who knows how courts would rule? Especially if you get the case in front of a jury, because juries are all too often swayed more by emotional arguments than logical ones.

    2. Nix says:

      The driver is ALWAYS responsible for the operation of their vehicle!!!

      No car maker GUARANTEES that their collision avoidance systems will stop all accidents, or even any accident.

      The internet is full of anecdotes of collision avoidance systems not living up to expectations. The most famous being a Volvo:

      Collision avoidance systems do NOT replace driver responsibility. There are no Level 5 automated vehicles. Until then, the driver is 100% responsible for avoiding collisions. Any assists are purely a backup to the driver’s responsibility to control the vehicle.

  15. Jason says:

    Agree with other comments, any hardware, and even software, changes should be validated prior to customer deliveries. Supplier contacts are negotiated well in advance and last for a very long time, so it shouldn’t be a situation where the supplier goes, “sorry we can’t deliver X part, you’ll have to have Y part as a replacement”. Part X and Part Y would already be on the build list and therefore should already been validated.
    Given Tesla does not have model years and just introduced new systems when they are available, installing Part Z in test vehicles in June and then releasing Part Z to production in August would be better than introducing invalidated Part Z to production in June and then negative press when Part Z had some issues. 2 months makes no difference to the consumer, they didn’t know about it anyway.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      ^^ this.

  16. EVShopper says:

    What Tesla giveth, Tesla can taketh away.

  17. Scott says:

    I own a Model X. I knew it was bleeding edge technology when I bought it. I buy the newest iPhone as tech people embrace change. When it comes to safety, I am fully satisfied what Tesla decides eventhougjI paid for it. OTA updates are done so conveniently and does not take years to repair going to dealerships that are too backed up with all their recalls!!

  18. georgeS says:

    I think every one has gone OT as usual.

    So Tesla has some new AP2.5 hardware in the field they need to turn off and update/fix. So what.

    The fascinating part is in what the hardware is.

    It all has to do with the AP computer board that’s in the glove compartment area. There’s 2 boards now because Tesla needed more computing power.

    So Tesla may have to replace the OLD HW1 boards with the HW2 boards.

    So what?

  19. bro1999 says:

    Fast forward to 2:00 to see an AEB system from a mature manufacturer that works properly out of the gate. Tesla can’t be bothered with extensive testing that other manufacturers do.

    1. bro1999 says:

      Now compare to Tesla’s AEB:

      Supposedly that Tesla had AEB. LOL

      1. Nix says:

        bro1999 — all you have proven is that you don’t understand a valid test from an invalid test. Bjorn Nyland already established over 2 years ago that styrofoam isn’t a valid test surface. But actual valid tests show a high level of success:

        PS — if you watch your OWN video, you will see that in one of the test cases for the Opel, it actually strikes a pedestrian at 2:15 into the video. It is easy to spot, because the leg goes flying off the dummy, but apparently you missed that. This just goes to show that EVERY collision avoidance system is a best-effort system and none are fool-proof. Any attempt to pretend a system doesn’t work based upon anecdotal evidence of some corner case not working is bad science.

        This reminds me of the bullcrap you tried to pull with the Volvo crash test, where you fabricated a complete lie saying the Volvo was going twice as fast at the Model 3 in the exact same test. When are you going to admit you were wrong on that too? Even after completely being crushed repeatedly by authoritative source after authoritative source, you didn’t even have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong.

        http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-side-pole-impact-test-compared-to-volvo-s60-video/

        Maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself.

  20. Nix says:

    The level of whining about a safety system being in shadow mode for a few weeks is insane. Especially when you compare it to something like the Takata airbag recall where car makers drug their feet for years, and may not complete the recall until years from now.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/business/takata-airbags-automakers-class-action.html?mcubz=0

    Tesla is doing the EXACT right thing. They found something they are concerned about soon after a release, and acted immediately to resolve the issue in weeks.

  21. Nix says:

    4 weeks later, Tesla is already starting to bring these cars back out of shadow mode:

    https://electrek.co/2017/10/11/tesla-autopilot-2-5-automatic-emergency-braking-fleet/

    Complete freakout over nothing.

Leave a Reply