I don't understand why Tesla chose to implement hill hold in such a complicated way, based on incline and with a time limit. It should be extremely simple: when the car is in Drive, it should not go backwards; when the car is in Reverse, it should not go forward. It should have nothing to do with incline, and the brake should engage for as long as it is necessary to prevent such movements.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 6.1
- Thread starter J1mbo
- Start date
I don't understand why Tesla chose to implement hill hold in such a complicated way, based on incline and with a time limit. It should be extremely simple: when the car is in Drive, it should not go backwards; when the car is in Reverse, it should not go forward. It should have nothing to do with incline, and the brake should engage for as long as it is necessary to prevent such movements.
billarnett
Member
I've never understood why this "feature" is needed in the first place. Just use your left foot on the brake. What's wrong with the Model S is that the "both pedals pressed" warning is much too aggressive. It should not go off unless significant pressure is sensed on both at the same time.
Good suggestion. I have the message every day during winter with my boots... Annoying.
On Windows, Microsoft provides a solution for bad software drivers and updates - there is a way to 'rollback' or 'uninstall' buggy releases.
While these steps may not be easy for Tesla to do, with their current software, by taking three steps, much of the angst and concern among owners could be addressed:
1. Provide more information on what's fixed in each software release, prior to installation. Some software companies do this quite well, such as NVidia with their graphics drivers, reporting both new features, fixed bugs - and even those bugs that they are aware of that have not yet been fixed.
2. Provide the ability to "rollback" to a previous, working, software release. This does introduce some additional difficulties for Tesla because they have to add testing this "rollback" to their testing suite. But if they restricted this to the last "stable" release (not to any arbitrary release), they'd only have to test this to one specific old release each time they pushed out an update. By providing owners the ability to rollback - if they ever did encounter an unexpected problem, it would be their choice as to whether or not they would stay on the new software or go back to the previous version (if they thought it was better)
3. And, provide an open beta test program - allowing all owners the option to "opt in" or "opt out" of receiving early releases. Especially if Tesla added the "rollback" feature, if an unacceptably buggy release was installed, there would be the option to uninstall the beta software.
4. Provide a roadmap of projected releases and rollouts to owners - so owners know roughly when to expect new updates to get to their cars. Even a 30 to 90 day warning of upcoming releases would be very useful.
Out of the above, item 2 would be the most difficult to implement - since it would likely require some changes to the Tesla software to support "rollback".
Tesla really needs to make improvements in this - if they intend to be shipping 500,000 cars each year...
While these steps may not be easy for Tesla to do, with their current software, by taking three steps, much of the angst and concern among owners could be addressed:
1. Provide more information on what's fixed in each software release, prior to installation. Some software companies do this quite well, such as NVidia with their graphics drivers, reporting both new features, fixed bugs - and even those bugs that they are aware of that have not yet been fixed.
2. Provide the ability to "rollback" to a previous, working, software release. This does introduce some additional difficulties for Tesla because they have to add testing this "rollback" to their testing suite. But if they restricted this to the last "stable" release (not to any arbitrary release), they'd only have to test this to one specific old release each time they pushed out an update. By providing owners the ability to rollback - if they ever did encounter an unexpected problem, it would be their choice as to whether or not they would stay on the new software or go back to the previous version (if they thought it was better)
3. And, provide an open beta test program - allowing all owners the option to "opt in" or "opt out" of receiving early releases. Especially if Tesla added the "rollback" feature, if an unacceptably buggy release was installed, there would be the option to uninstall the beta software.
4. Provide a roadmap of projected releases and rollouts to owners - so owners know roughly when to expect new updates to get to their cars. Even a 30 to 90 day warning of upcoming releases would be very useful.
Out of the above, item 2 would be the most difficult to implement - since it would likely require some changes to the Tesla software to support "rollback".
Tesla really needs to make improvements in this - if they intend to be shipping 500,000 cars each year...
HankLloydRight
No Roads
That's too much computer involvement to handle every driving situation out there. There are plenty of times when on an incline that someone might want to roll back. For instance, if they pull up too close to a truck or a car with a manual trans, and that vehicle starts to roll backwards, the driver should be able to let off the brake to allow the car to roll back a little bit. It's too time consuming and complicated to put the car in reverse, roll back a few feet, and then into drive again, when a simple timed hill hold will hold the car for the second or two to allow the driver's foot to move to the accelerator (under normal circumstances), and then free the car to roll however the driver may want. To FORCE the car to never roll in the opposite direction is very unsafe and not the answer for every driving situation out there. I just described one that happens pretty often.
Also sometimes when making very small parking maneuvers on a hill (like parallel parking), you want to take advantage of gravity to do very small rolls to move forward or back an inch or two.. again, I shouldn't need to engage Drive-Reverse-D-R-D-R-D-R just to park. Let the car roll if that's what the driver wants or intends.
And the timed hill hold is the best of both worlds.. holds on a hill just enough time for convenience, and then frees the driver to do whatever they want.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think it would be that difficult. We already know that the car runs a flavor of Linux. Now I have no idea how their platform is built, but most linux installs keep older kernel installs and the boot loader gives me the ability to boot to any previously installed kernel (as long as it hasn't been removed).
Now there's likely a lot more to the Firmware than a linux kernel, so all Tesla would have to do is provide at least two boot partitions (Current and Previous firmware versions), and then in the UI have an advanced feature to boot to the other partition if desired by the user.
So it's not really "rollback" but rather just a dual-boot scenario. New firmware upgrades would just overwrite the "Previous" partition, mark "Current" as "Previous", and then boot the new partition as "Current". These firmware updates aren't huge, so disk drive space shouldn't be a factor.
This also preserves the newest firmware version in case the owner wants to roll-forward to the latest version.
Drove manual trans for several years and understand that part. Disagree with the analogy to MS. With one hand on the steering wheel it takes less than 1 second, a flick of the finger, and I'm in reverse. Same to go back to drive. Indeed, to activate the backup camera sometimes I'm too lazy to go through the touch screen and I just put it in reverse to pull up the camera.
Forcing the car to not roll is NOT unsafe - many models already do this and it is perfectly safe.
I'm fine with MS hill assist features as they are, but I could not help myself from providing a different slant on your post.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
That's pretty clear. I submit that mine is more relevant to the Tesla situation, but I think we'll just have to disagree on that.
Wow! Quite a rant. I note however that you say you were and are a customer, so you complain and yet choose to purchase Apple's product. I think that's telling. For the record, I had and have no responsibility for the quality of clang. Also, for the record, all software sucks.
Uh, no. I think we can agree on that.
I don't know whether there are or not. People do all sorts of stupid things. It's best to use things that are designed for the job you're doing. Yet I've seen pictures of people taking their Model S off road. It's not possible to build things so that they are safe in all the ridiculous situations people might deploy them.
So they are like every other Silicon Valley company -- huge expectations, huge pressure, never enough time. That's not a surprise.
Sounds like they are doing the best job they can given the constraints. I doubt, if I'd talked to this person, that I'd agree with your characterization of the situation. Feel free to PM me contact information -- it's easy. But if I were a Tesla employee I wouldn't be talking to anybody outside the company about what I'm doing.
Don't be absurd. Of course it's the commercial world. It's the consumer world. You can buy the product, as can I. It is not a ship or an airplane or a military system. Expectations are different.
And I know it's much simpler to take things out of context and pretend that all software is the same. It's not. The simple truth is that truth is never simple. We do the best we can, and sometimes it's good to aim for perfection, and sometimes it's better to aim for better than last time. And it's rarely the case that money and time and people are unlimited.
Customers want stuff now. They would rather it be imperfect than late. I am much happier getting TACC as it is now than getting a perfectly safe implementation next summer and having future cars cost twice as much because Tesla spent the money to achieve perfection. I know that most other customers are the same. Are you claiming something different?
I think our only disagreement is that you are saying the software should be better, and I am saying that it's pretty good given the constraints. We agree that it would be nice if it were better, but I think that's not attainable without a big increase in time to delivery and expense, something customers don't actually want. I'm not at all sure whether you think it ought to be better given the current constraints on time and money, or if the constraints should be removed.
That's great! It would be nice to hear whether you have spotted any Tesla engineers there and what they seem to be interested in. Also, if you have any thoughts about new tools or techniques that might be applicable to Tesla software. It would be much more useful than rants about how Tesla should do things like NASA or military contractors.
Thread seems flirting a bit OT...
Anyway, has anyone seen anything > 2.2.167? I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't push a fix for the major issue with D vehicles in .167 yet. I've been keeping an eye out.
I'll note for completeness that the slacker-while-sleeping bug still doesn't appear to be fixed in 2.2.167.
Anyway, has anyone seen anything > 2.2.167? I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't push a fix for the major issue with D vehicles in .167 yet. I've been keeping an eye out.
I'll note for completeness that the slacker-while-sleeping bug still doesn't appear to be fixed in 2.2.167.
Last edited:
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
I haven't tried running this through Google Translate, yet... but IIRC there are only a handful of P85D in Norway so far... and the posts where I could parse the signature appear to be from non-D owners...
Do I dare to ask if there is any change in the Release Notes (*fingers*crossed*)?
You'r absolutly correct. The few lucky owners that has got their P85D the latest few days has been to busy to report what FW version they got, so all I have seen are "good ol' none-D's"
No, I have seen no report about any change in the Release Notes. But one change is reported: International keyboard with support for the Norwegian alphabet (and a lot of other nationals alphabets)! Finally
Adrian
Title(D)
billarnett
Member
I'm sure that would be an interesting experience. But is that why the feature exists in cars with ordinary controls? It seems more likely that it was put in to accommodate drivers who switch their right foot between the two pedals. I learned to drive on manual transmission cars (and that was way too many decades ago :-( so I'm not sure what the current consensus is about left foot braking. But I do seem to recall that it was considered a bad habit back in the days when manuals were more common because it makes it more difficult for someone to switch between transmission types. But nowadays it seems to me that the advantages of left foot braking far outweigh the occasional need to drive a manual.
It's always been pretty clearly taught that using the right foot for accelerator and brake pedals is the correct way to operate the vehicle, and makes perfect sense. I see zero advantage to doing so, not even considering manual transmission driving. At no time should you ever need to use both pedals simultaneously. Reaction time in emergency situation braking isn't going to improve either from "two foot driving" either, since you still need to move your right foot from the accelerator before braking anyway. (Citation available, this study does exist, I just don't feel like trying to dig it up.)
Not braking while putting out power is especially important with the Model S. The electric drive unit has enough power to easily cause serious damage if the brakes are engaged while applying power to the wheels. This really isn't true of ICE vehicles since in this situation where something doesn't give the engine would just stall or the clutch would slip. The electric motor has massive amounts of torque at 0 RPMs, so the potential for damage is greater here.
In 20k+ miles I actually never saw the message about both pedals pressed until my mother (a notorious left-foot-brake/right-foot-go driver, can't drive manual because of this, and has had some ICE vehicle mechanical issues related to this driving style) drove my P85 once shortly before I traded it towards the P85D. I heard the "beep-beep-beep" that accompanies a notification and was immediately concerned, only to find out that it was the two pedal thing I'd never actually seen.
I'm definitely in favor of keeping this the way it is, or even making it a more vocal warning.
Keep in mind that even insignificant pressure on the pedals in the Model S has an actual effect, so limiting it to "significant pressure" would be pointless.
MarcG
Active Member
In the hilly streets of San Francisco, I have run into the problem where hill assist doesn't keep the car from moving after releasing the brake pedal if the hill isn't steep enough.
So if I'm parked parallel to the kerb on a slight uphill and someone decided to park very close behind me, the only way to NOT roll backwards and hit my rear bumper into the other car's front bumper is to keep pressure on the brake pedal with my left foot until enough power is sent to the wheels via the accelerator pedal with my right foot.
Alternatively, moving my right foot from the brake pedal to the accelerator is not fast enough to prevent a slight movement of the car, unless I straddle both pedals with my foot (heal-toe, from the old tracking days) - might as well use both feet at that point.
Anyway, timing this shift of pedal pressure is very tricky, and has often resulted in getting the "both pedal pressed" message. Personally, I'd much rather get the message than damage my (and other cars') bumpers... to each his/her own!
So if I'm parked parallel to the kerb on a slight uphill and someone decided to park very close behind me, the only way to NOT roll backwards and hit my rear bumper into the other car's front bumper is to keep pressure on the brake pedal with my left foot until enough power is sent to the wheels via the accelerator pedal with my right foot.
Alternatively, moving my right foot from the brake pedal to the accelerator is not fast enough to prevent a slight movement of the car, unless I straddle both pedals with my foot (heal-toe, from the old tracking days) - might as well use both feet at that point.
Anyway, timing this shift of pedal pressure is very tricky, and has often resulted in getting the "both pedal pressed" message. Personally, I'd much rather get the message than damage my (and other cars') bumpers... to each his/her own!
billarnett
Member
I would like to see that study. intuitively, what you're saying doesn't make sense. It clearly takes longer to move your foot over to the other pedal than it does to just switch which one has pressure. (If that wasn't the case, the hill hold feature wouldn't be of use to anyone.) I'm GUESSING that the study you're remembering actually said left foot braking doesn't help all that much because the driver's mental reaction time is far greater than the time to physically move the foot. That makes slightly more intuitive sense but I'd like to see the numbers.
The hill-hold situation is the obvious case where using both feet is useful. As are many situations when you're going slow with creep off and you need to make fine adjustments to the speed. Creep ON is kind of like having a bit of pressure on the accelerator; why is that OK when doing it manually isn't?
Sure. But I'm talking about allowing just one or two kW of left pedal while the brake is engaged. Anything more accelerator pedal than that should give the warning and not increase motor power any further.
It happened to me as I drove it out of the parking lot after taking delivery
Was your mother slightly dragging the brakes during normal (not just very slow) driving? That's a common scenario. Of course, that's bad for the brakes and just wastes energy. What the Tesla should do in that case is give the warning but take no other action until the brake is pressed a little more firmly. Then it should cut motor power to zero.
I don't have my car right now so I can't check but if I remember correctly there is a tiny bit of play in the pedals before the warning goes off. I'm slowly learning to deal with it. But going into my garage which has only a couple inches of clearance on both sides is tricky; it would be a lot easier with creep on but I otherwise hate creep.
I taught myself the left foot braking technique a few years ago when I got into serious off-road rock crawling with my Jeep. It is nearly impossible to drive smoothly up a rocky slope by modulating the accelerator alone. It's much easier to keep the accelerator almost constant and adjust speed with the brakes. Mind you, we're talking about less than 1 mph most of the time.
If the Tesla had some regen braking at slow speeds this issue would mostly go away.
And if Tesla made a serious off-road vehicle I would be first in line to buy one!
I do believe reaction time was factored in yes, but the time it takes to lift the right foot and then press the left foot was taken into account. Also, with two foot driving you lose potential leverage with your left foot normally on the dead pedal or other dead space which could help hold you in place when firmly pressing the brakes. It's also common, especially among older individuals who drive with left foot braking, to mix up the pedals... which obviously causes problems. Learning the proper right-foot-only technique is really the only way to avoid that.
We're not talking about on a race track where there is a need to be able to use the left foot for braking, I'm talking about normal driving on public roads.
As for creep, the Model S's creep setup actually doesn't work the way you may think it does, especially with the newer electronically actuated brakes. A minimal, if any, power is actually sent from the motor directly to the friction brakes. It's all a perception created by the electronics properly regulating power output. You're not actually holding the car back in creep mode like you would in an automatic ICE.
Plus the Model S does have hill hold, which works quite nicely. Although as a driver of many manual trans cars over the years, I personally never really need it.
So you're saying applying 2kW of power to the wheels while applying some kW amount of friction, resulting in a net of X kW to the wheels is somehow better than just applying X kW to the wheels in the first place with no braking? This is counter intuitive, so I'm confused.
It happened to me as I drove it out of the parking lot after taking delivery
Was your mother slightly dragging the brakes during normal (not just very slow) driving? That's a common scenario. Of course, that's bad for the brakes and just wastes energy. What the Tesla should do in that case is give the warning but take no other action until the brake is pressed a little more firmly. Then it should cut motor power to zero.
One instance she was turning to back up, had her left foot on the brake and inadvertently pressed it pretty hard to hold herself in position while turned around looking backwards, then pressed the accelerator hard to compensate and ended up breaking a lot of brake components. Another instance was lightly resting of the left foot on the brake pedal, keeping the brake lights on and drag on the brakes. Brakes eventually heated to the point where they failed. Another instance of this that wasn't mechanical was where her brake lights stayed on from the light pressure while driving causing a police officer to think her tail lights were not working.
Not saying she's the best driver in the world, but these are very common occurrences with people who drive with both feet in automatics.
I don't have my car right now so I can't check but if I remember correctly there is a tiny bit of play in the pedals before the warning goes off. I'm slowly learning to deal with it. But going into my garage which has only a couple inches of clearance on both sides is tricky; it would be a lot easier with creep on but I otherwise hate creep.
I taught myself the left foot braking technique a few years ago when I got into serious off-road rock crawling with my Jeep. It is nearly impossible to drive smoothly up a rocky slope by modulating the accelerator alone. It's much easier to keep the accelerator almost constant and adjust speed with the brakes. Mind you, we're talking about less than 1 mph most of the time.
If the Tesla had some regen braking at slow speeds this issue would mostly go away.
And if Tesla made a serious off-road vehicle I would be first in line to buy one!
Well, again, I'm talking about regular public road use. The Model S certainly is not designed for "serious off-road rock crawling" use.
Overall, it just seems much better to just drive with the right foot. More efficient (no power applied + brakes applied) and safer (no pressing the wrong pedal at the wrong time, keeping brakes engaged inadvertently, etc).
Edit: Maybe this needs it's own thread.
These posts about hill hold show why Tesla may have to stick with what they have albeit maybe they should make it selectable. I started a thread about this feature being unreliable and it became a bit of a holy war with some feeling it was a useless feature and some annoyed that it wasn't automatic, always. I guess maybe making it selectable and then more consistent when it is on might be the only change that won't annoy one camp or another, though maybe this would annoy both camps. Just to comment directly on these points, it is only manual transmissions where you can roll backwards anyway and as good as I am with clutch/accelerator or brake/accelerator fiddling, I don't find it particularly enjoyable or critical to my driving experience.
Anyway, I assume you can just flick it into neutral with the current implementation. No waiting for ithe hold to disengage, no brake stand with squawking alerts, no need for go pedal, just a quiet rollback.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
For these situations, would turning creep mode on possibly help or even completely resolve the situation?
Similar threads
