Tesla has been very clear that the new hardware (multiple ultrasonic sensors in the bumpers, forward radar and front camera) cannot be retrofitted to older cars. Period. They won't do it.
That has been discussed multiple times in multiple threads.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Adaptive Cruise Control (experience post FW v6.1)
- Thread starter wk057
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S User Interface
Tesla has been very clear that the new hardware (multiple ultrasonic sensors in the bumpers, forward radar and front camera) cannot be retrofitted to older cars. Period. They won't do it.
That has been discussed multiple times in multiple threads.
MarcG
Active Member
The only time I got the "Cruise control not available" message is when I already had TACC engaged but decided I wanted to take a layer off as it got warmer in the cabin, so as I took my seatbelt off the message popped up.
After clicking my seatbelt back in, I was able to resume TACC and never saw the message again.
Omg. This forum is amazing. You are great.
Tacc doesn't work w/o seat belt. I think that was it. Some short segments it wasn't working. Reset car. Turn off car. No difference. Leave car and come back and it works. Must have been me changing seat belt off to on. If your driving and unbuckle the belt, Tacc shuts off.
Email to SC and them to engineers... All wasted someone's time. 99% sure this is it. Next few days will tell.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
I had a chance to try TACC today for the first time. When following a car to a stop I thought the system braked way late, even when set to the max following distance. It doesn't give you any time to react should it fail to slow down since it stops at the last minute.
Also, it tucks in way too close after coming to a complete stop. It consistently leaves less than half a car length between me and the car in front. Most frustratingly, increasing the following distance makes no difference to the final stop distance. I normally leave at least a full car length, so that in the event I get rear ended I won't get pushed into the car in front of me.
Also, it tucks in way too close after coming to a complete stop. It consistently leaves less than half a car length between me and the car in front. Most frustratingly, increasing the following distance makes no difference to the final stop distance. I normally leave at least a full car length, so that in the event I get rear ended I won't get pushed into the car in front of me.
MarcG
Active Member
Omg. This forum is amazing. You are great.
Tacc doesn't work w/o seat belt. I think that was it. Some short segments it wasn't working. Reset car. Turn off car. No difference. Leave car and come back and it works. Must have been me changing seat belt off to on. If your driving and unbuckle the belt, Tacc shuts off.
Email to SC and them to engineers... All wasted someone's time. 99% sure this is it. Next few days will tell.
Haha awesome! I thought the seatbelt thing was a long-shot but figured it wouldn't hurt to share my experience
Do keep me posted if that's what the issue ended up being.
Yeah! Maybe this will decrease the number of people leaving large gaps at red lights thereby causing the turn lane to be blocked. I hate missing the turn light just because I can't get into the lane; all due to a few cars leaving large gaps instead of pulling up. It seems like I am often about 10' shy of being able to get into the turn lane.
I agree with this, especially in circumstances where you are closing on a car that is traveling much more slowly than you. When you are already at the desired following distance, it seems to react appropriately.
I like the stopping distance.
I ran into an interesting situation today. On an ramp from one highway to another, the car was driving slowly behind a semi under TACC. This particular offramp has a turn off on the outside of the curve to a Department of Transportation location. When the semi reached the turnoff, the car somehow misinterpreted the road and decided the truck was no longer in my way (I guess it thought he turned right and I was going to veer off to the DoT site) and began to accelerate quickly. I stabbed the brakes before I could determine if it would recover. I drive this route every day, so when I'm no so surprised by it I'll do a better test.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Yeah! Maybe this will decrease the number of people leaving large gaps at red lights thereby causing the turn lane to be blocked. I hate missing the turn light just because I can't get into the lane; all due to a few cars leaving large gaps instead of pulling up. It seems like I am often about 10' shy of being able to get into the turn lane.
Hey man, whatever floats your boat or lifts your wings. To each their own. I'm just saying it should be a function of the distance control knob and user controlled. Set it to 1 and get up real close and personal every time you stop. Set it to 7 and keep enough space you could get hit from behind by a semi and still not end up the car in front of you's rear.
Actually I want the 3 second rule i.e. three seconds spacing. I don't want to be three feet behind at 70 but at a stop that is fine. The LAST thing I want is to stop 5 car lengths behind someone and cause a backup be it others not being able to cross the intersection behind me or their being unable to get to a turn lane. Yeah this is a pet peeve of mine because I see it most days. People can't turn because people block turn lane access or you don't get across the intersection on the green because people don't pull up either of which means you have to wait through another long light cycle. I just want people to be considerate of others. In a similar vein I hate people cutting across double white lines to get into the exit of 285 onto 141 north when I'm sitting a mile back in the line waiting my turn. When I lived in a small town where rush minute was three cars at the four way stop this didn't bother me. In Atlanta it does.
I think the distance it comes to a complete stop at is actually way further than normal, honestly, and thus fine in my book.
However it does slow down abruptly when coming to that stop, much more so than I would personally. I think part of this can be chalked up to it following the speed of the car in front, since most people seem to brake late anyway, combined with an algorithm that decreases the needed following distance based on the lower speed making the car think it can get closer and thus not yet need to slow down until that gap is closed, then play catch up once the car ahead continues to slow needing the use of the friction brakes.
I almost never use the friction brakes when driving in town aside from holding the car stopped. So, I'm probably going to stop using TACC for coming to stops like that until they can feather it out a bit. It's a cool toy, but not really enjoyable in this instance just yet. On the highway it's great, though.
However it does slow down abruptly when coming to that stop, much more so than I would personally. I think part of this can be chalked up to it following the speed of the car in front, since most people seem to brake late anyway, combined with an algorithm that decreases the needed following distance based on the lower speed making the car think it can get closer and thus not yet need to slow down until that gap is closed, then play catch up once the car ahead continues to slow needing the use of the friction brakes.
I almost never use the friction brakes when driving in town aside from holding the car stopped. So, I'm probably going to stop using TACC for coming to stops like that until they can feather it out a bit. It's a cool toy, but not really enjoyable in this instance just yet. On the highway it's great, though.
Likely because the radar can't distinguish between a car in front but a lane over vs a car in your lane but on a curve. The angle is the same. The safer response is what the car did- maintain speed. Otherwise the car might accelerate towards a car directly in front of you when it entered a curve but you're still tens to hundred feet from the entrance of the curve.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
This is pretty much what I was getting at with a post I made the first day we were all using TACC when I suggested Tesla may want to tweak things by adding options to either maximize efficiency or maximize the proximity to the car being tracked. In the current mode, it is maximizing the proximity to the car being tracked, braking too hard and too late (for some of our tastes), and also accelerating too hard at times, in an attempt to stay close. Adding a "range optimizing TACC mode" would allow us to let the Model S drive more "normally", which would also be more efficiently, at the expense of "losing" the target car more frequently. People who love the TACC exactly as it is now would choose the proximity priority mode. People who think it is a little too aggressive would choose the range optimizing, more mellow TACC mode.
I think adding a mode like this would actually be relatively simple, as compared to all that has already gone into the development of the TACC, and would actually increase the usefulness of the TACC by quite a bit.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
The 3 second rule is great and all, but it accounts for a different concern - reaction time - which only applies when moving. Leaving an adequate buffer when stopped is for different reasons. Both are important precautions.
I'm not talking about giving the option to leave 6 car lengths, just simply the option of 1/2 to 2 car lengths based on the follow distance knob setting.
Man, you guys really do tuck in too close.
Just remember this - if you get rear ended, it's on their insurance. If you get rear ended and pushed into the car in front of you, that's on your insurance.
I can replicate this every time. It looks like the TACC thinks there are two lanes, mistaking the entrance to the DoT facility as a travel lane and it wants to surge. Once I pass the turn-off, it sees the car ahead again and pounds the brakes. It generates some adreneline and I was a half-second from stomping the brake myself. Despite being uncomfortably close by my estimation, it didn't set off the collision warning.
I love the TACC, but I really do wish it would brake more slowly and use more regen, especially when coming to a complete stop. Because it closes the gap at slower speeds, it really does kind of abruptly stop at the end. I like a relatively low number for the gap at high speeds and a much higher one at lower speeds. It really does seem quite futuristic.
Is there a detailed break down of the stalk functions in the manual? I'm still sometimes suprised by the difference in behavior between functions when you are below, at or above the current set speed.
It didn't maintain speed in this scenario, it reduced speed (I believe only using regen braking, not friction brakes). I agree that maintaining for a second or two is fine, but slowing down is not.
Also, as far as a turn goes ... The car knows the position of the steering wheel.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Not according to Nolo:
Rear-End Accidents Involving Multiple Vehicles
In some situations, both you and the car *behind you will be stopped when a third car runs into the car behind you and pushes it into the rear of your car. In that sort of "chain reaction" crash, it is the driver of the third car who is at fault and against whose liability insurance you would file a claim.Similar threads
