17.9.3

[Joe F]

By take control I meant disengage Auto Steer. I should have been more clear. Thanks.

Ah, got it, thanks. As this was my first use of 17.9.3 on a non highway, I wanted to see if it were any improvements WRT AS, which in the intersection case, there wasn't.

Hopefully posting results here, positive and negative, will benefit others. Was truly surprised how hard it tried to rip the wheel from my hands. Fortunately, easily recoverable by a tighter grip which disengages without moving out of the lane.

 

[Sather]

I had AP1 on a MS 90D. Now AP2 on a new MS 90D. 2 is not even in the same league, which was confirmed by driving a P100D loaner with AP1 for the past two days.

Always 100% relaxed with AP1. Attentive of course. It is just so smooth, predictable, safe.

I forgot how nice AP is driving on the freeway. And how nice little first world things like auto dimming and auto rain sense are. Can't wait for equivalency. Would be bothered if I leased. More relaxed since I want (need) to own mine a long time

 

[martinicus]

I used 17.9.3 today driving back from a weekend trip. In stop-and-go traffic, the TACC's acceleration and braking was WAY too abrupt and jerky. Needs to be smoothed out for a better passenger experience. My wife is pregnant and was already bordering on nausea, it was so bad I had to turn AP off right away.

 

[dhanson865]

Hi, @dhanson865,

Do you have a citation to support your claim?

I haven't seen anything that supports the claim that Tesla permitting a new, greater level of speed in Autosteer can be taken as an endorsement that previous speeds are AP1-equivalent. Much less better.

I have never had personal experience with AP1, only with AP2. One unexpected "benefit" of AP2: I find its behavior sufficiently unpredictable that I am tense while using it, hence way more alert than I am with AP2 off. On this basis alone, AP2 may be cutting down my risk of driver-caused accidents.

Thanks,
Alan

You seem to have made a leap there.

I said when they up the limit lower speeds are safer than the were under the prior revision. That means safer than the prior revision. It does not mean as safe as AP1 or as safe as you want or as safe as needed or any other comparison. Just version .xx.yy.zz2 is safer than .xx.yy.zz1 at some speed.

"moving along and improving to" means improving, does not mean "reaching". For example I can be moving to the door but still be in the room. Safety can improve by some small measurement and still not be at its final destination. The only reason I used that phrase was because the person I responded to used it.

I was simply refuting the false logic that they implied that Tesla upped the speed limit without fixing or improving functions. My contention is that every code release has multiple changes in it and they would only raise the speed limit if they felt they had improved safety vs the prior revision that was released.

Go back and read what drshan wrote and see my reply as a reply not as a stand alone statement. In context is the only way what I said will make full sense.

 

[Pollux]

You seem to have made a leap there.

I said when they up the limit lower speeds are safer than the were under the prior revision. That means safer than the prior revision. It does not mean as safe as AP1 or as safe as you want or as safe as needed or any other comparison. Just version .xx.yy.zz2 is safer than .xx.yy.zz1 at some speed.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

"moving along and improving to" means improving, does not mean "reaching". For example I can be moving to the door but still be in the room. Safety can improve by some small measurement and still not be at its final destination. The only reason I used that phrase was because the person I responded to used it.

Agreed.

I was simply refuting the false logic that they implied that Tesla upped the speed limit without fixing or improving functions.

I believe it is equally false logic to take the fact that Tesla upped the speed limit to imply that Tesla DID or DID NOT fix/improve functions. Both positions are assertions without any citations that I'm aware of. And having worked with software teams (as you well may have yourself), my direct experience is that a change in a subsequent release, no matter how seemingly beneficial, is in no way a guarantee of improvements in any other arena, no matter how related. Incidentally, my hope is that your contention is correct; I just don't agree that you or I can know that it's correct, given the current lack of additional information.

My contention is that every code release has multiple changes in it and they would only raise the speed limit if they felt they had improved safety vs the prior revision that was released.

Labelled as a contention, rather than as an implication that somehow must be true -- I got no problem with that.

Go back and read what drshan wrote and see my reply as a reply not as a stand alone statement. In context is the only way what I said will make full sense.

Thank you for arguing with me!

Regards,
Alan

 

[Pollux]

I thought FCW had already been added.

Thank you, @MP3Mike, I'll try to find the relevant section in the manual tomorrow.