I think the title of the thread is on point - an option for a simple "dumb," speed-based cruise control would be a good addition. This is not uncommon with other manufacturers. There's traditional cruise control, then there is a user-selectable adaptive cruise control with many other vehicles... and then Teslas have autopilot (including autosteer etc...). Part of owning a Tesla, at this point, is dealing with these 'beta' types of capabilities, however providing something like a traditional CC along with these other, more advanced options, would go a long way to making their customer base more comfortable with the car's driver assistance systems.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
“Dumb” cruise control?
- Thread starter JayhawkCRNA
- Start date
Completely fair point, and I don't know the answer to that. I think the removal of radar was a big mistake, and isn't something I really understand.
How does it not work? Mine works fine. I have three friends who's "cruise control" works fine. Can't brush such a broad stroke. How many Teslas have issues with autopilot? Less than 1% or more like .05%? If your model has issues, get it looked at. I've driven on country roads and highways using autopilot. I have no issues.
That said, at ANYTIME if the person behind you hits you due to you braking it is 100% their fault. The responsibility of the vehicle BEHIND YOU is to be far back enough to brake in case of emergency. That's driving 101. People follow too close, that's not your issue - it's theirs (regardless if it's a sedan or trailer). A Tesla phantom braking is no different than a Tesla driver braking as a deer flies into the road. The vehicle behind you should be far back enough to react.
Lastly, if you purchased a Tesla just so you didn't need to drive, that's on you. The technology in these cars are new and buggy. Everyone knows this. Any research on Tesla shows they still has issues. You took that risk when purchasing this car. I didn't purchase a Tesla so it could drive itself. For me, and most people (I believe), it's just a nice perk. This isn't to say it's okay that Tesla has phantom breaking. They are working on it. But, to purchase a Tesla knowing there are still issues with autopilot and FSD...that's the risk you took.
The rule of following a vehicle is at least two full seconds behind. This is driving 101. I was a career firefighter for eight years. I drove both the Engine and Truck. They are difficult to drive, but #1 rule was knowing how the apparatus handles. Doesn't matter if it's 70mph or 30mph. If the person ahead of you slams on their brakes you are SUPPOSE to be far back enough to react.
I'll give you a PERFECT example: Three years ago I was driving home from work on a parkway. Rush hour in my area is busy. At the top of the hill cars started braking. I noticed the car behind me was very close. So as I braked I also honked. Too late. The person behind me didn't break fast enough and rear ended me. Since we were driving up the hill we couldn't see the line of cars already brakes over the hill. Who's responsible? The car behind me. Driving too close.
I agree, very glad my 2021 build still has it.
I wouldn't trust cameras alone with my life or my families. Tesla is hiding behind "its a beta feature and its the drivers responsibility to take control at any time."
I like the feature in stop and go. If traffic is moving along, I'm driving the car.
I try and let it see if it will improve at all. Maybe it is lighting or something else. I usually let it go and try and watch if anyone comes up behind me then I switch it off. But I shouldn’t be having to worry about a function(cruise control) that has been standard in cars for what 20years at least or TACC in other vehicles for more than 5 years
"Brake checking" the car behind you is illegal, and with dash cams becoming more and more common is pretty easy to prove. If you car decides to brake check the car behind you and they have a dash cam, YOU will be the responsible party in the eyes of the law.
You never have issues, this means you either have a radar equipped car, seldom use TACC on two lane highways, or are an apologist who says "that wasn't phantom braking" unless the car throws you forwards into the seat belt.
Keith
JustJohn
Member
You got to my thoughts on that first.
I like my car and the previous responder makes a lot of unfounded assumptions on why I bought my car plus bringing in an additional conflation between autopilot and "full self driving."
I make car parts for a living and if they don't work, we recall them. Autopilot, aka, adaptive cruise control doesn't work for Tesla and it's not new technology. It's actually embarrassing to use with other people in the car because of the phantom braking.
I don't quite understand how some of these owners can't reconcile enjoying their cars while at the same time admitting that some features simply do not work as well as what other automakers have had on the market for years.
This. I just really don't get it. Okay, folks love their Tesla's. Putting up with things like body panel issues, occasional nits, etc. is a bit ridiculous in and of itself for a $50-70k car. But to some extent, okay, they are more nuisances than anything else and you know you're going to have to put up with it more because it's a "newer" brand (despite the fact that Tesla has been around quite some time).
However, safety concerns that are very easily rectifiable via software, that's another story. As someone mentions above, even if "1%" of vehicles are afflicted with an issue on phantom braking, that's a really really bad problem, especially since like it or not, when you're driving on a clear highway with one car in front of you, you're not expecting it to suddenly brake out of the blue from 70mph to 30 as someone mentions above.
What if your wife or child is driving on the highway and using cruise control, which they may have been using on every other car they've ever driven and expect a certain level of basic performance, and out of the blue it brakes and because they're not typical Tesla drivers and therefore apparently should expect that the car just might brake out of the blue for no reason, cause a major accident and/or death? You'd blame the driver behind them?
I would add non defeatable regen braking to this as well for folks in wintery/black ice climates.
Both are simple software fixes, allow them to be defeatable if the driver wants it. There is no real excuse for Tesla not to do so, outside of the desire to make their cars better through customer trial and testing. But this isn't a waffle maker.
The issue is it's folks that continue to say "eh it only happen(s/ed) once, occassionally or hasn't happened to me yet" or the more ludicrous "it's the person behind you responsibility to be aware that the car in front of them may brake hard for no reason out of the blue because their car cruise control is 20 years behind other auto manufacturers" is the reason Tesla ignores it. Not a big enough problem for them to ... quite easily ... fix.
JustJohn
Member
Yes. No dumb-cruise availability is one of the fundamental reasons I will not buy a Tesla.
Having the car occasionally fail its driving test isn't tolerable.
Unfortunately I don't expect this ever to change, even though it's an easy thing to implement since it's essentially adaptive cruise that doesn't see vehicles in front.
The other fundamental reason for not buying a Tesla is non-adjustable heavy regen.
I drive our Volt in Normal and Low (heavy regen). My wife drives our Volt in Sport and Drive (moderate regen).
I drive our Kona in Eco and 3 (heavy regen). My wife drives our Kona in Sport and 0 (no regen).
Tesla can't meet those preferences because of a decision to remove regen configuration.
Yet they have settings for acceleration and steering. Go figure.
Having the car occasionally fail its driving test isn't tolerable.
Unfortunately I don't expect this ever to change, even though it's an easy thing to implement since it's essentially adaptive cruise that doesn't see vehicles in front.
The other fundamental reason for not buying a Tesla is non-adjustable heavy regen.
I drive our Volt in Normal and Low (heavy regen). My wife drives our Volt in Sport and Drive (moderate regen).
I drive our Kona in Eco and 3 (heavy regen). My wife drives our Kona in Sport and 0 (no regen).
Tesla can't meet those preferences because of a decision to remove regen configuration.
Yet they have settings for acceleration and steering. Go figure.
Vote with your pocket book. Dont buy a Tesla for the brand name and prestige/status of owning one. Buy a Tesla knowing you've made a sound judgment at the cash register, and all of the nuances of the Brand are "safe" enough for you and your family, if it isnt then buy another brand you feel is safe and meets your expectations. A radarless Model Y would not have met my standards, if I purchased one and realized afterwards that it wasn't safe, I'd trade it in (which you'll probably make money on the sale at this time).
Only a couple things force change in the Auto Industry:
-loss of market share (competition has a "better" car, and the market votes with their wallet)
-actual recorded/reported accidents attributed to a risky feature and regulators force a recall.
Unfortunately, phantom breaking that doesnt result in a collision, bodily harm or death is considered a "close call" and rarely reported or investigated further. Tesla thinks the risk is acceptable because quarter after quarter they are having record orders and deliveries.
Interesting article from NYT that explains some of the reasoning:
"At the beginning, Autopilot used cameras, radar and sound-wave sensors. But Mr. Musk told engineers that the system should eventually be able to drive autonomously from door to door — and it should do so solely with cameras, according to three people who worked on the project.
They said the Autopilot team continued to develop the system using radar and even planned to expand the number of radar sensors on each car, as well as exploring lidar — “light detection and ranging” devices that measure distances using laser pulses.
But Mr. Musk insisted that his two-eyes metaphor was the way forward and questioned whether radar was ultimately worth the headache and expense of buying and integrating radar technology from third parties, four people who worked on the Autopilot team said.
Over time, the company and the team moved closer to his way of thinking, placing more emphasis on camera technology, these people said.
Other companies developing driver-assistance systems and fully autonomous cars thought cameras were not enough. Google, for example, outfitted its self-driving test cars with expensive lidar devices as big as buckets mounted on the roof.
Cameras, by contrast, were cheap and small, which made them appealing to Tesla for its sleek cars. Radar, which uses radio waves and has been around for decades, was cheaper than lidar, a less common technology. But according to three people who worked on the project, some engineers backed Mr. Musk’s cameras-only approach, arguing that radar was not always accurate and that it was difficult to reconcile radar data with information from cameras."
"At the beginning, Autopilot used cameras, radar and sound-wave sensors. But Mr. Musk told engineers that the system should eventually be able to drive autonomously from door to door — and it should do so solely with cameras, according to three people who worked on the project.
They said the Autopilot team continued to develop the system using radar and even planned to expand the number of radar sensors on each car, as well as exploring lidar — “light detection and ranging” devices that measure distances using laser pulses.
But Mr. Musk insisted that his two-eyes metaphor was the way forward and questioned whether radar was ultimately worth the headache and expense of buying and integrating radar technology from third parties, four people who worked on the Autopilot team said.
Over time, the company and the team moved closer to his way of thinking, placing more emphasis on camera technology, these people said.
Other companies developing driver-assistance systems and fully autonomous cars thought cameras were not enough. Google, for example, outfitted its self-driving test cars with expensive lidar devices as big as buckets mounted on the roof.
Cameras, by contrast, were cheap and small, which made them appealing to Tesla for its sleek cars. Radar, which uses radio waves and has been around for decades, was cheaper than lidar, a less common technology. But according to three people who worked on the project, some engineers backed Mr. Musk’s cameras-only approach, arguing that radar was not always accurate and that it was difficult to reconcile radar data with information from cameras."
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I said a similar thing. Quite frankly, phantom braking is far less dangerous than the car not reacting. That's why I doubt the NHTSA would do anything, especially if that phantom braking almost always only occurs when TACC or AP is active (very rarely is it AEB). You can always vote with your wallet though, but it doesn't really affect Tesla right now given sales are soaring.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The idea is for L5 to ever become a reality, basically the car would have to analyze vision at least as good as a human at some point. But I guess the current issue as it concerns people using L2 features, is that Tesla is very far from L4/L5, and there are very easy ways to get L2 working "better" in the mean time by simply ignoring things (as most L2 systems do anyways). For example, the call for "dumb" cruise control. You can also have "dumb" ACC, one that only tracks the vehicle ahead and at most a car that comes up to in the same lane if it wasn't tracking any car previously, and ignore anything else (even partial lane objects). Basically tune it so it does the bare minimum.
But I doubt Tesla will want to put engineering resources into this, as they are working to address the issues of vision-only (which they have to do anyways for FSD Beta / City Streets) and will eventually merge that with the existing TACC/AP system.
They also want the data collection from all non-FSD cars to enhance the AI that feeds all of their features. For Tesla to collect the data and allow for a dumber cruise control creates a philosophical liability.
If their tech/data can save you but you've elected to turn the safety catches off... you'd literally have to sign a liability waiver everytime you turned the feature on... creating its own nagging liability which would distract the driver and lead to bigger issues.
The whole vision-only system is a problem. Phantom braking combined with countless other "false alerts" via emergency braking due to parked cars is getting old very fast. No other vehicle we've owned has experienced such impactful issues. Nor would it be acceptable, at any price point. And we've had everything from Kia to Audi.
Yes, Tesla's system does some neat stuff that others don't do, but this is useless if it creates unnecessary risk. You can't use the general (and unaware) public as your beta testers. They aren't expecting your car to randomly freak out.
I also filed an NTHSA complaint. If this isn't addressed soon, our new '22 MYLR will have to go.
Yes, Tesla's system does some neat stuff that others don't do, but this is useless if it creates unnecessary risk. You can't use the general (and unaware) public as your beta testers. They aren't expecting your car to randomly freak out.
I also filed an NTHSA complaint. If this isn't addressed soon, our new '22 MYLR will have to go.
update… I took my MYP in for service and was given an older M3LR(with radar). I have had no braking events. I have to say Tesla removing the radar before the camera only can even do basic cruise control borders on maleficence
I have a 2020 M3LR, with a radar and I have had my share of crazy braking for no reason. The radar doesn't fix it. It's very possible that the software running on vision-only cars is currently worse, but I don't think it's because of the lack of a radar device. Tesla have been way too optimistic about their ability to deliver a new FSD stack, which led them to remove the radar a bit early. Ultimately I'm convinced that we won't need it.
Similar threads
