Autopilot "2.5" hardware released. Available on all cars ordered today

[BigD0g]

My thought: If they've bumped the hardware, even slightly they are already inclined to think its needed ...

Or the price is the same for a dual gpu as a single gpu because of the incoming xavier release at the end of this year. The old gpu's probably went down by 1/2 like nvidia video cards, so if I can have two for the price of one, why not?

I wouldn't get to worried until we see a second pascal cpu, then we know they missed the hardware mark for FSD and require a retrofit.

 

[BigD0g]

@alcibiades I think Tesla is on the hook for all cars that decide to purchase the FSD package. If you order the FSD package now or tomorrow then Tesla is on the hook for the upgrade(s) necessary to enable that package. However, cars that never purchase FSD would make very little sense to bring them in for a hardware upgrade they wouldn't be able to leverage. I think of this just like the ludicrous upgrade. Oh you want this upgrade it's $4000 and you need to swing by the SC or have a ranger visit to enable it etc.

 

[alcibiades]

Reread my post more carefully. I never said it didn't have the 2.0 hardware by default. Owners who have paid for EAP/FSD will get the 2.5 hardware retrofit. However, there's no need to automatically retrofit a 2.0 car with 2.5 hardware if the owner did not purchase EAP/FSD. Tesla is selling a capability that requires a combination of hardware and software. If you're choosing not to pay for the software, then by definition you don't have AP capability. You only have basic safety features and you don't need the 2.5 hardware for that basic capability; the existing 2.0 HW is able to handle that nicely. Should you or a subsequent owner decide to add EAP/FSD to the car, then Tesla will need to provide the 2.5 HW retrofit at that time because it's part of the overall AP capability being purchased.

I understand what you're saying. Why retrofit a car before the person wants to activate FSD? Or, really, why retrofit any car if they never write software that needs it (the most likely scenario)? But you're looking at this from TSLA's perspective, not the consumer's.

The problem here, from the consumer standpoint, is that I paid for a car with the hardware capable of FSD (I am happy to post the image again!). If 2.5 is needed, then my car does not have the hardware capable of FSD. The terms of my purchase were not that they would add the hardware capable when I wanted the software. It already HAD it.

(They don't have to provide tires only if I want to drive the car.)

Even if it makes sense for Tesla not to want to proactively replace the hardware for people who have not yet paid for FSD enabling (it is a cost, of course Tesla wouldn't want to do it!), it is a contractual obligation set independent of whether or not an owner bought the FSD option.

I'm talking about contracts, not what is best from Tesla's perspective. I frankly don't care what is best from Tesla's perspective.

 

[croman]

The issue is standing. If you don't have FSD purchased, I don't see standing to sue to enforce the K. Tesla may say you have the hardware for FSD and if it turns out HW2 isn't sufficient, it is irrelevant because you didn't buy the software to run the hardware. You'd never know the difference and thus don't have any injury. Say you want to sell your car to someone who does want FSD, when they buy the option, Tesla will upgrade the hardware. No injury.

So what I think you need to do is articulate your actual injury and perhaps it will be clearer why Tesla needs to expend money upgrading cars that won't notice a difference.

 

[J1mbo]

I understand what you're saying. Why retrofit a car before the person wants to activate FSD? Or, really, why retrofit any car if they never write software that needs it (the most likely scenario)? But you're looking at this from TSLA's perspective, not the consumer's.

The problem here, from the consumer standpoint, is that I paid for a car with the hardware capable of FSD (I am happy to post the image again!). If 2.5 is needed, then my car does not have the hardware capable of FSD. The terms of my purchase were not that they would add the hardware capable when I wanted the software. It already HAD it.

(They don't have to provide tires only if I want to drive the car.)

Even if it makes sense for Tesla not to want to proactively replace the hardware for people who have not yet paid for FSD enabling (it is a cost, of course Tesla wouldn't want to do it!), it is a contractual obligation set independent of whether or not an owner bought the FSD option.

I'm talking about contracts, not what is best from Tesla's perspective. I frankly don't care what is best from Tesla's perspective.

Sorry, but you are about 10 years too late if you want to apply that meme to Tesla.

Anyway.

Firstly, no cars are FSD capable at the moment. No software.

Secondly, what material difference does it make to you and your non-FSD car?

Thirdly, why not wait and see what FSD actually looks like before you start telling people the sky is falling? Who knows, maybe it will run on the 2016 hardware.

 

[electracity]

He wants to waste everyone's time installing hardware that he doesn't want to activate and can't articulate a constructive reason why.

Trade in value.

 

[alcibiades]

Sorry, but you are about 10 years too late if you want to apply that meme to Tesla.

Sorry?

Anyway.

Firstly, no cars are FSD capable at the moment. No software.

Secondly, what material difference does it make to you and your non-FSD car?

Thirdly, why not wait and see what FSD actually looks like before you start telling people the sky is falling? Who knows, maybe it will run on the 2016 hardware.

I don't think the sky is falling -- don't be dramatic. I'm saying that IF HW2.5 is necessary, then it goes in every car sold after Oct 2016 regardless of whether a person ever is going to activate it or not. "But you might not use it" doesn't make a difference at all.

I do think Tesla had no idea what it would take in terms both of hardware and software to realize EAP and FSD, but at the same time they were happy to pretend that they did in order to sell cars. I owe them no goodwill on this.

How I use my car and its features is up to me. This in no way changes the terms of what I purchased.

Look, I don't know how I can make it any clearer that I understand why from a business or investor angle a person would not want to fulfill their contracts if they can avoid doing so. But I am a consumer. I demand and am owed that for which I paid. And I paid for....wait for it....wait for it....

 

[croman]

@alcibiades --

 

[verygreen]

Or the price is the same for a dual gpu as a single gpu because of the incoming xavier release at the end of this year. The old gpu's probably went down by 1/2 like nvidia video cards, so if I can have two for the price of one, why not?

it's a bit more complicated than that.
Remember Tesla rolls out their own custom boards. The HW2 board we've seen in the teardown does not have space for the second PX2.
So they went to all the trouble of significantly redoing the board to accommodate the dual setup - this is a significant (Even though a one time, I imagine) expense.
I also think it means there are no immediate Xavier plans.

 

[Bebop]

I can see this being an issue if they realized...

"crap...8 cameras is not enough..."

In this case, it looks like a simple computer hardware swap. No big deal. I just hope they at least give out some updates on FSD and where it stands in the development. Are we going to get any basic features to start with? We are in the dark about this. I'm sure in the next major update in September/October, more details will come out.

 

[MXWing]

Trade in value.

Trade in value to whom? New owner who pays FSD gets it.

 

[mitchellh3]

I can see this being an issue if they realized...

"crap...8 cameras is not enough..."

Totally agree. I was greatly relieved to see the production Model 3s had the same external camera package. For a car that they plan to produce 10s of thousands of in 2017 and hundreds of thousands by 2018 (they PLAN to, I know there is contention around delivery), its a mistake they can't really make.

So if the production Model 3s selling FSD have the same external camera package, it bodes well for their confidence.

Going from words to action, well, thats a never ending debate in every thread and I'm not trying to go there here.

 

[calisnow]

That argument might work on a two year old. And I mean might.

You contribute nothing to this club with posts like that. You gave no information. You didn't explain why his claim is implausible. And you insulted a member. Why are you here?

 

[calisnow]

I understand what you're saying. Why retrofit a car before the person wants to activate FSD? Or, really, why retrofit any car if they never write software that needs it (the most likely scenario)? But you're looking at this from TSLA's perspective, not the consumer's.

The problem here, from the consumer standpoint, is that I paid for a car with the hardware capable of FSD (I am happy to post the image again!). If 2.5 is needed, then my car does not have the hardware capable of FSD. The terms of my purchase were not that they would add the hardware capable when I wanted the software. It already HAD it.

(They don't have to provide tires only if I want to drive the car.)

Even if it makes sense for Tesla not to want to proactively replace the hardware for people who have not yet paid for FSD enabling (it is a cost, of course Tesla wouldn't want to do it!), it is a contractual obligation set independent of whether or not an owner bought the FSD option.

I'm talking about contracts, not what is best from Tesla's perspective. I frankly don't care what is best from Tesla's perspective.

Sure but in the real world you must have something called "damages" to make the contract issue relevant in court. If Tesla adopts a policy of retrofitting 2.0 hardware to 2.X or 3 etc when customers ask for FSD but not before they ask for it - no court is going to hear a lawsuit and no lawyer would go to the expense of taking the case and sue Tesla because there are no damages to the consumer. There's nothing to sue over - so the contract issue is irrelevant in this case.

 

[alcibiades]

Sure but in the real world you must have something called "damages" to make the contract issue relevant in court. If Tesla adopts a policy of retrofitting 2.0 hardware to 2.X or 3 etc when customers ask for FSD but not before they ask for it - no court is going to hear a lawsuit and no lawyer would go to the expense of taking the case and sue Tesla because there are no damages to the consumer. There's nothing to sue over - so the contract issue is irrelevant in this case.

I'm going to confess that this is the last message of yours I will ever read. It's all part of the bigger fraud without which I wouldn't have purchased the car when I did.

 

[BluestarE3]

Keep in mind that it is up to Tesla to deem whether or not AP 2.0 will be sufficient to run FSD or not. Right now, they are claiming it will. It's like installing a new version of an operating system on an older PC. It may run and provide all the promised functionality, but maybe not as well as on a new system with the latest CPU/GPU. This discussion is moot if Tesla can demonstrate FSD runs on AP 2.0 hardware and chooses not to retrofit 2.0 cars with 2.5 hardware. I'm not saying they will be able to make it work on 2.0, but for now, this hand-wringing is premature because there is no FSD yet.

 

[Bladerskb]

You contribute nothing to this club with posts like that. You gave no information. You didn't explain why his claim is implausible. And you insulted a member. Why are you here?

umm all you do is throw insults left and right and claim others insulted others.
seriously get a grip!

@oktane - this isn't a troll or a flame - but honestly dude you seem a bit wigged out. Like your brain is stuck on some kind of endless circuit - you've got anger issues man. Are you under financial stress to buy this car? That's all I can think of as to why you wouldn't have worked through it by this point.

You've become a mix of a sad and comic caricature - someone to pity because you're clearly stuck inside your own head. Someday you will be old and near death - if somebody asked you how you spent the fall and spring of 16/17 and you have to respond "I was mad because my car didn't drive itself and I was lied to, so I spent every day on message boards expressing the anger I felt over my car" - the joke will be on you dude.

My AP2 Tesla also does not drive itself - and I'm happy as a clam! My choice whether to groan about its failings or focus on how cool it is that it's learning over time. You need therapy man - you need to learn to move on.

Very sorry but you are ignorant on this issue.

What do the mods on this forum do other than harass me all the time for being 100% right on all my statements?

 

[Canuck]

But you're looking at this from TSLA's perspective, not the consumer's.

It seems to me that everyone other than you are looking at it from both a legal and equitable perspective, which is how the courts would look at it.

The problem here, from the consumer standpoint, is that I paid for a car with the hardware capable of FSD (I am happy to post the image again!). If 2.5 is needed, then my car does not have the hardware capable of FSD. The terms of my purchase were not that they would add the hardware capable when I wanted the software. It already HAD it.
(They don't have to provide tires only if I want to drive the car.)
Even if it makes sense for Tesla not to want to proactively replace the hardware for people who have not yet paid for FSD enabling (it is a cost, of course Tesla wouldn't want to do it!), it is a contractual obligation set independent of whether or not an owner bought the FSD option.
I'm talking about contracts, not what is best from Tesla's perspective. I frankly don't care what is best from Tesla's perspective.

This has nothing to do with what is best from Tesla's perspective. It has everything to do with legal principles and common sense. But that might escape you since I can already see the judge's eyes roll when you make your tire analogy. The fact that you can't see the difference between FSD hardware that does nothing unless activated, and tires on a vehicle, is astonishing. I can sue for breach of contract for not getting tires because I have sustained a loss (i.e. damages). There is no loss, or damages, to someone who can get the 2.5 hardware upon activation of FSD. This is really a simple concept but there are people like you who sue for frivolous matters and the courts don't take kindly to wasting their time which is why most jurisdictions given judges discretion to penalize such nonsense with costs or increased costs.

Sure but in the real world you must have something called "damages" to make the contract issue relevant in court.

He has damages, just like not getting tires, the judge will understand, even though none of us do.

I don't think the sky is falling -- don't be dramatic.

It's all part of the bigger fraud

You're calling it all part of the bigger fraud and you call out others for being dramatic?

I'm going to confess that this is the last message of yours I will ever read.

While this wasn't directed at me, I can see you saying the same thing to me since all calisnow did was explain a concept of law to you called damages that didn't fit with your narrative. As a result, you felt the need to insult him with what you strangely called a confession. When you hit ignore for me, please leave out the insult masquerading as a false confession. Here's a tip: You don't need to confess anything before hitting ignore.

 

[MXWing]

The issue is standing. If you don't have FSD purchased, I don't see standing to sue to enforce the K. Tesla may say you have the hardware for FSD and if it turns out HW2 isn't sufficient, it is irrelevant because you didn't buy the software to run the hardware. You'd never know the difference and thus don't have any injury. Say you want to sell your car to someone who does want FSD, when they buy the option, Tesla will upgrade the hardware. No injury.

So what I think you need to do is articulate your actual injury and perhaps it will be clearer why Tesla needs to expend money upgrading cars that won't notice a difference.

So much common sense. I know what you mean but to put a stamp on whining on a technicality -
Adding in extra hardware without the FSD upgrade isn't just "noticing a difference" - it is "makes NO difference".

So on top of no actual harm/damages, there is not even perceived loss/damages.

Still have not seen anything other than denials and I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT. (but I can't tell you why, except I WANT IT). - Even if it can't be used.

Hopefully he starts his own thread and reiterates the same arguments. He'll block everyone who disagrees with him, and find the forums completely devoid of posts.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I think where things get iffy is if the FSD upgrade to AP2 cars becomes significantly more expensive down the line due to needing to include a HW upgrade. I mean, not an inflation check, but a major ballpark change because the car didn't have full self-driving hardware as advertised with software upgradeability... Say, instead of $4,000 it now would cost $8,000 to upgrade after purchase.

That is where I think someone might actually have a moral case, basically the damage would be the cost difference in upgrading as well as the reason why that cost difference exists (hardware not as advertised). The other moral case I see if is AP2s car get terribly bad FSD due to HW2 and Tesla is refusing the CPU/GPU upgrade to save money, so the hardware people are getting would not fit the descriptions given.

IMO these are the scenarios that would not be OK. If the HW upgrade is included in similar pricing as just software, that's morally OK to me, especially given that Tesla publicly has stated from the start that FSD might (unlikely) need this HW upgrade.

Just talking about morals IMO. Legal cases I leave for others to ponder.