racer26
Active Member
I'll admit the forum makes it difficult.
For some reason, it strips nested quotes when you hit the reply button.
Racer26 right now said:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I'll admit the forum makes it difficult.
For some reason, it strips nested quotes when you hit the reply button.
racer26
Active Member
This is exactly why the code that Tesla talks about will ONLY cut torque if it can unambiguously detect that the go pedal was applied in error. In practice, unambiguously identifying that is hard.
The lawsuit seems to be almost admitting driver error and but trying to blame tesla for allowing acceleration to happen anyway.
The lawsuit reads,
“Irrespective of whether the SUA events in the Model X are caused by mechanical issues with the accelerator pedal, an unknown failure in the electronic motor control system, a failure in other aspects of the electrical, mechanical, or computer systems, or some instances of pedal misapplication, the Model X is defective and unsafe. Tesla’s lack of response to this phenomenon is even more confounding when the vehicle is already equipped with the hardware necessary for the vehicle’s computer to be able to intercede to prevent unintended acceleration into fixed objects such as walls, fences, and buildings.
Despite repeated instances of Model X drivers reporting uncommanded full power acceleration while parking, Tesla has failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed objects.This failure to provide a programming fix is especially confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the driver’s home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out an instruction, regardless of whether through an error by the vehicle control systems or by driver pedal misapplication, to accelerate at full power into the garage wall.
Further, not only has Tesla failed to fix the problems, it has chosen instead to follow in the footsteps of other automobile manufacturers and simply blame the driver.”
I believe their goal is to make it a class-action suit. Conceding driver error is likely a tactic to move onto how Tesla should have "foreseen" this problem, or "responded" to this problem, and broaden their litigant pool.
racer26
Active Member
Thanks for the anecdote which all but confirms my intuition - gas cars lag in achieving maximum acceleration from erroneous pedal application enables most instances of this type of mistake to be corrected by the driver before a collision occurs (and therefore go unreported).
Somehow using a creative piece of software and the autopilot sensor suite should be able to mitigate this problem. Its certainly a challenging problem for Tesla to solve - the easy solution is code to make the electric motor behave more like a gas one, and limit maximum acceleration - but that also nixes one of the biggest performance boosts. A better solution is to use the sensor suite to identify the surroundings - perhaps the cameras can be used to unambiguously identify the interior of a garage or the face of a building, and limit maximum acceleration only in those conditions, or something.
Thinking more about this - the car probably should do this if it can detect that it is in a parking lot too. Limiting maximum acceleration would probably reduce collisions with other vehicles and pedestrians alike, never mind a building. Then the only problem becomes identifying if i'm in a parking lot, or in an autocross-type event held in a closed parking lot.
Last edited:
racer26
Active Member
Part of the problem is liability lawyers are congratulated rather than ridiculed for "creative expansion" of liability standards. I hope and expect this is thrown out of court, and hope but don't expect that the lawyers would be sanctioned by the state licensing board. But, rather than that happening, win or loose they will likely be congratulated and celebrated for their mode of attack.
Hmm ... attorneys for plaintiff are listed. I wonder what the general public might do, knowing their contact info?
Richard D. McCune, Esq CA State Bar #132124 [email protected] tel
David C. Wright, Esq CA State Bar # 177468 [email protected]
Both of the above tel (909) 557-1250 fax (909) 557-1275
Benedict O Kwon State Bar #219052 [email protected]
Stephen L Ram, State Bar #240769 [email protected]
Both of the above tel (949) 725-4000 fax (909) 725-4100
Hmm ... attorneys for plaintiff are listed. I wonder what the general public might do, knowing their contact info?
Richard D. McCune, Esq CA State Bar #132124 [email protected] tel
David C. Wright, Esq CA State Bar # 177468 [email protected]
Both of the above tel (909) 557-1250 fax (909) 557-1275
Benedict O Kwon State Bar #219052 [email protected]
Stephen L Ram, State Bar #240769 [email protected]
Both of the above tel (949) 725-4000 fax (909) 725-4100
racer26
Active Member
Likely because of what I mentioned earlier - it strips quotes from the replied-to post. Since my post consisted only of quotes, it stripped the whole thing.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
But how does jumping that hoop improve the thread?! What are we trying to accomplish? I'll attempt to do some analysis using first principles. The useful discussions (bull or bear) are what makes this thread useful . What is the main problem? IMO it's not the 15-20 useless posts speculating on when the numbers will be released, or informing us what the current SP is, because those are so brief that they easy to skip (that said the forum should have the current SP displayed in red or green, in the forum header.). So far we've eliminated the "useless" posts about the numbers and the happy New Years posts from the other thread. Does anyone think that's a substantial improvement? The main problem is the long useless discussions, precipitated either by trolls or bulls reacting emotionally to a perceived problem. Did anyone benefit from all of the pages of discussion about the SCTY merger, triggered by the sky is falling posts?
The only thing that these threads can add to issue of the Q4 numbers the is the discussion about them. Who is going to check in in a few days and need to be caught up on the actual numbers? It sounds like we are trying to put one of these sites into a thread; Tesla News or Electrek.
What's the point?! The only way to substantially improve the quality of this thread is to fix the major problems. Which means to improve the quality and conciseness of the discussions. So that except for censorship or self discipline which I don't don't believe will ever happen, the only possible ways to substantially improve the quality of this thread are to limit posts by known trolls, and or move long discussions to dedicated threads.
Last edited:
Obviously Tesla knows the number of deliveries at this point, just like they knew it yesterday.
If it was a big miss, they should have released by now because it would allow time for investors to digest and mitigate any big drops in SP. So I don't think its a big miss.
This is a tremendous opportunity for Tesla. Being able to reveal delivery numbers following a large (unexpected) rise in share price with a high short interest - showing strong results here could easily propel the stock into the mid to high 200s. And that would open the door to a capital raise if necessary.
I personally would be thrilled if they meet guidance, particularly this quarter with autopilot 2 being introduced.
I'm not expecting a beat, but remain hopeful because a big beat today or tomorrow could change the trajectory of the stock greatly.
Furthermore, it the Gigafactory tour reveals details about TE that are positive including cell production or any large contracts, it would help greatly to support the notion that Tesla is not just a car company but an ENERGY company. That will be necessary for us to overtake OEMs in terms of market cap. And that could happen this year.
Anecdotally, I was at the San Diego service center on Friday. I didn't see much of any delivery activity even though it was 2 days before the end of quarter. Not sure what to make of that but it could just be the time I was there.
If it was a big miss, they should have released by now because it would allow time for investors to digest and mitigate any big drops in SP. So I don't think its a big miss.
This is a tremendous opportunity for Tesla. Being able to reveal delivery numbers following a large (unexpected) rise in share price with a high short interest - showing strong results here could easily propel the stock into the mid to high 200s. And that would open the door to a capital raise if necessary.
I personally would be thrilled if they meet guidance, particularly this quarter with autopilot 2 being introduced.
I'm not expecting a beat, but remain hopeful because a big beat today or tomorrow could change the trajectory of the stock greatly.
Furthermore, it the Gigafactory tour reveals details about TE that are positive including cell production or any large contracts, it would help greatly to support the notion that Tesla is not just a car company but an ENERGY company. That will be necessary for us to overtake OEMs in terms of market cap. And that could happen this year.
Anecdotally, I was at the San Diego service center on Friday. I didn't see much of any delivery activity even though it was 2 days before the end of quarter. Not sure what to make of that but it could just be the time I was there.
The good Q3 numbers were released day before market opened. It is always possible they might combine numbers with the Gigafactory event (although that would break the 3rd day of the month rule they set themselves).
It seems er had a discussion about this earlier and come to the conclusion it was 3 business days which should give them time to Wednesday (Thursday?) before they are officially too late. Though they seem to historically stick to plain 3 days after quarter end.
Cobos
Regarding the order extension of the unlimited Supercharger access deadline...
Someone in the German forum said that there were apparently several unhappy customer who had planned to order after all the usual Christmas chaos was over as Tesla stated order until December 31. They probably did not expect Tesla to move the delivery date for Europe to April ahead of that date, which then made it impossible to qualify. Maybe that feedback in the European SCs led to the extension.
Someone in the German forum said that there were apparently several unhappy customer who had planned to order after all the usual Christmas chaos was over as Tesla stated order until December 31. They probably did not expect Tesla to move the delivery date for Europe to April ahead of that date, which then made it impossible to qualify. Maybe that feedback in the European SCs led to the extension.
This is doable with the current system. IIRC, some have commented after multiple long postings: "Mod, can we move this somewhere else?..."
We should all agree that if there is a rambling long discussion it can be reported to the Mod (making it easier for the Mod to identify) with the comment to the mod to move it to it's own thread. I do not know if it would be easier for the Mod if all the relevant posts be reported as well, or if they link together...
Known "trolls" are harder, as some have flipped back and forth over time. Also having personally reported known trolls (those who have been banned) in the past, it can take some time before the Mods take action.
Ultimately it is up to the users of the Forum to decide whether to use the dual thread or to use a singular thread. I suspect the latter will be the case as evidenced from the relative lack of use of other sticky threads from before (except options, nice thread btw...).
I do miss the running daily charts that was available in the prior forum format. Very useful that was...
Wouldn't a successful case on these grounds open up similar cases against all major auto manufacturers as well? The driver pedal error accident is fairly common with 1,000s of reported incidents a year. You could argue that any car with radar and a forward facing camera (all cars with ACC and emergency breaking feature) are liable in preventing these driver acceleration errors?
According to @FredLambert article today, 16,000 such cases a year.
After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla
racer26
Active Member
Exactly the point I was making. Tesla has even more ability than TACC+AEB competitors do to make the car prevent the driver from commanding a crash, but none of them have even tried to prevent this type of collision. All are theoretically capable of preventing (and should!) their driver from commanding the car to drive forward into a solid object. The biggest challenge comes in ensuring that it doesn't have false-positives.
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
