Firmware 7.0 Beta Discussion

[green1]

I know this is a controversial subject, but I don't believe in holding the brake while stopped at an intersection specifically in case I am rear-ended. It's simple physics. Do I want me and my car to absorb all (or most of) the force of the approaching car? Therefore causing the maximum damage and injury to the occupants? No, I'd rather be the car that transfers that energy to the car in front of me and dissipate the energy to 2 or more cars. And since I have a front and rear dashcam, I can easily prove that I was at a full stop and not responsible for my car rear-ending the car in front of me.

If you're stopped at an intersection, do you want to be pushed in to oncoming or cross traffic?
Your dash cam will also prove that you ARE at fault for hitting the car in front due to either not enough space left, or brakes not applied.

 

[Stoneymonster]

I'll use my judgement on each individual case and risk level and not rely on "habits". Obviously if there are pedestrians in front of me, I'm not going to allow my car to mow them down. But in general, when there are cars in front of me, no, I don't hold my brakes.

As I get older I find good habits are important. The more inconsistent I am the more likely I am to forget in a different individual case. I also don't agree with your physics here: better for most of the collision energy to be transferred from the seat to your back than to be whipsawed from back to front as you collide with the car in front.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I also don't agree with your physics here: better for most of the collision energy to be transferred from the seat to your back than to be whipsawed from back to front as you collide with the car in front.

I'd rather have 20% of the energy whipsawed than 100% of the energy throwing me into the steering wheel or airbag (if it deploys). The idea is that the car transfers the energy to the car in front instead of absorbing it all and transferring it to the occupants.

 

[green1]

I'd rather have 20% of the energy whipsawed than 100% of the energy throwing me into the steering wheel or airbag (if it deploys). The idea is that the car transfers the energy to the car in front instead of absorbing it all and transferring it to the occupants.

Your tire friction isn't so good that you'll act as a brick wall.

If you don't use the brakes and you hit the person in front of you, you will be considered at fault for that collision by the police and the insurance companies, and you risk even more serious injury.

You are far safer using the brakes than not in these situations. (You may chose to believe me or not, but take a look at my avatar, it may give you a hint as to what experience I have in these matters)

 

[HankLloydRight]

<sigh> Like I said, it's controversial.

I'm not sure how the police would know if I had my foot on the brakes, and if so, how much in order to assign fault to me. My dashcam will prove that I was at a full stop and didn't rear-end the car in front of me. The status of my braking has no bearing on that. Also having known several people in domino rear-end collisions, it's always the last car that started the collision that takes the fault for all the collisions in the chain. Police interview each driver to ascertain how many "hits" they had, and determine who was stopped before the initial collision.

I can't make out what your avatar is.

 

[Duma]

Well, I think you all should watch this YouTube video ... The Future of Computer Vision and Automated Driving by Prof. Amnon Shashua - YouTube (The Future of Computer Vision and Automated Driving by Prof. Amnon Shashua of MobilEye).

I have heard that the later S' are equipped with the chip referred to in this presentation - the current one, not the next one - and that this Summers promised Lane Holding facility will be based on MobilEyes chip and software. It suggests that for autonomous city driving the use of existing hardware would be adequate but perhaps not adequate enough for Mr Musk and his lawyers. It is a fascinating glimpse at what is coming... and coming (IMO) much sooner than people think. Of course, how long it will take to sort out the legal ramifications of the technology is another matter. MW

For everyone concerned about V7.0 lane holding, the video referenced in this post from another thread, is very reassuring. There is a clear statement that the MobilEye EyeQ3 chip is in Model S Autopilot hardware and a strong suggestion that the deep image analysis code is part of the Tesla "summer" release (release is mentioned but Tesla is not specifically named). Note that this code identifies every pixel in the image, including barriers/obstacles, other cars, available road space, and more, and is able to identify a lane without lane markings. Very impressive claims and sample videos.

Interestingly, the examples shown without lane markings are two lane roads. The edge case that Elon mentioned as a problem is a multilane freeway with poor lane markings. Based on this video, I suspect that the problem may be maintaining the correct lane on a multi-lane expressway in combination with poor lane markings, rather than just poor lane markings in general.

 

[eye.surgeon]

I'm looking forward to the improved hill hold as I frequently have wished for it at intersections.

 

[green1]

<sigh> Like I said, it's controversial.

I'm not sure how the police would know if I had my foot on the brakes, and if so, how much in order to assign fault to me. My dashcam will prove that I was at a full stop and didn't rear-end the car in front of me. The status of my braking has no bearing on that. Also having known several people in domino rear-end collisions, it's always the last car that started the collision that takes the fault for all the collisions in the chain. Police interview each driver to ascertain how many "hits" they had, and determine who was stopped before the initial collision.

I can't make out what your avatar is.

If so, the police in your jurisdiction are different from everywhere else I've ever been. Usually they assign fault for each collision in the chain to the vehicle causing it, only the front person is without fault. Logic is that you should stop with enough room, and sufficient brake power, to stop yourself from hitting the person in front if you are hit from behind.
As for how they'll know you weren't braking, you'll move a LOT faster forward than if you had been.

My avatar is an EMS star of life. I'm an EMT, I've been to a few collisions. Keep your foot on the brake for your own safety, and that of others around you.

It's not actually controversial, it's pretty well settled.

 

[liuping]

If so, the police in your jurisdiction are different from everywhere else I've ever been. Usually they assign fault for each collision in the chain to the vehicle causing it, only the front person is without fault. Logic is that you should stop with enough room, and sufficient brake power, to stop yourself from hitting the person in front if you are hit from behind.

That really does not make any sense. If someone hits you from behind and pushes you into another car, it should not be considered your fault. A large vehicle traveling with sufficient velocity can push a small car into another car no matter how hard the brakes are applied and even if they left an entire car length in front of them.

 

[Canuck]

If so, the police in your jurisdiction are different from everywhere else I've ever been. Usually they assign fault for each collision in the chain to the vehicle causing it, only the front person is without fault. Logic is that you should stop with enough room, and sufficient brake power, to stop yourself from hitting the person in front if you are hit from behind.
As for how they'll know you weren't braking, you'll move a LOT faster forward than if you had been.

My avatar is an EMS star of life. I'm an EMT, I've been to a few collisions. Keep your foot on the brake for your own safety, and that of others around you.

It's not actually controversial, it's pretty well settled.

Sorry but you're wrong. I've practiced insurance defence law for over 20 years and I've never seen a case where a front stopped driver was found liable for being pushed into another vehicle, regardless of whether his foot was on the brake or not. The common-law and legislation do not require you to hold the brake while stopped. The wording used is "following too closely" and that requires movement. If we had to keep enough room at stops to have sufficient space to avoid being pushed into someone in front you'd see traffic significantly backed up at every stop sign and light.

"Almost every jurisdiction prohibits following too closely in their respective traffic statute. For example, Ontario's Highway Traffic Act:

"The driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall not follow another vehicle or street car more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of the vehicle and the traffic on and the conditions of the highway.

"The driver of a commercial motor vehicle when driving on a highway at a speed exceeding 60 kilometres per hour shall not follow within 60 metres of another motor vehicle, but this shall not be construed to prevent a commercial motor vehicle overtaking and passing another motor vehicle."​

The same rule is at §162 of the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia, and in Manitobathough the latter requires a 90-metre space between commercial vehicles. In Quebec the rule of traffic law is stated slightly differently:

"The driver of a road vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is prudent and reasonable, taking account of speed, traffic density, atmospheric conditions and the condition of the roadway."​

The law is similar across Canada because it is based on common sense. We cannot see what hazards may face the driver in front of us so we should follow far enough behind to stop suddenly."


Please back up your statement with the section from any motor vehicle act you are referring to. In order for police to issue a citation to a driver they must refer to the motor vehicle act section breach. You will find that there is none.

By the way, I'm not saying not to hold the brake at a stop. I'm just saying there's no legislative or common-law requirement to do so.

 

[green1]

Alberta Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation
18(1) A person driving a vehicle shall not drive the vehicle so as to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having regard for the following: (a) the speed of the vehicles;
(b) the amount and nature of traffic on the highway;
(c) the condition of the highway.

Yes, it requires movement, but if you hit the other person, you were not at a stand still at the time of impact, therefore you were moving. I have seen several people cited for this. Did it hold up in court? I have no idea, I wasn't there for that part.

You are expected to take reasonable precautions, if a big truck slams in to you at 90mph, nobody will be surprised if you hit the car ahead of you, but if a sub-compact hits you at 5mph, there's no way you should touch that car in front of youl.

 

[Canuck]

You've seen several people who were rear ended cited for hitting the person in front? Sorry, but I don't believe you. I've handled hundreds of rear end accidents (they are the most common type of mva) and never seen it once.


I also like the part in your post about moving because the person hit you from behind. Using your reasoning, even if your foot was on the brake, you are liable because you are moving. So everyone better stop with plenty of room in front because in many rear enders with cars stopped in front, the hit car is pushed into the car in front. I've never in over 20 years of handing these claims seen the front car liable but, according to your interpretation of the section, the first car hit has to be liable for hitting the car in front of him because he should have left more room. See how your interpretation breaks down? (pun intended).

 

[HankLloydRight]

You are expected to take reasonable precautions, if a big truck slams in to you at 90mph, nobody will be surprised if you hit the car ahead of you, but if a sub-compact hits you at 5mph, there's no way you should touch that car in front of youl.

But that's completely subjective and there's no clear definition of what car is too big or to small. If the sub compact is traveling at 90 mph what then? Ok how about 60? Or 40? Where is the distinct line when it becomes the person who is stopped fault versus the moving cars fault? Is there a statute that says vehicles over x weight and (or?) traveling over y speed are at fault? The law doesn't work that way.

 

[wk057]

Off topic much?

 

[Dborn]

Simple physics from an Orthopaedic surgeon. Inertia means that when rear ended the body is driven back into the seat. Hence the head restraint. The secondary force, much reduced over the former swings the head forward. However, if there is a secondary collision forward, then inertia applies again and the head jerks forward violently. So, a double impact is far worse than a single rear impact. Keep your brakes on!

 

[jgs]

The current speedometer center display is genius -- tons of information displayed in a clear, concise manor that puts other car UIs to shame. The orange/green arcs for power and regen are essential pieces of information

I agree with this. I do remember finding the current display confusing and cluttered when I test drove the car, although I was completely used to it by the end of my first week of ownership. The thing is, that test drive first impression is probably going to be increasingly important for Tesla going forward, as they saturate the available market of true believers. Thus, I can see that market forces would push them to resolve tensions between usability and superficial curb appeal in favor of the latter. The same thing quite obviously happened with Apple many years ago, and the market doesn't seem to have punished them for it yet. :-(

 

[HankLloydRight]

I agree with this. I do remember finding the current display confusing and cluttered when I test drove the car, although I was completely used to it by the end of my first week of ownership. The thing is, that test drive first impression is probably going to be increasingly important for Tesla going forward, as they saturate the available market of true believers. Thus, I can see that market forces would push them to resolve tensions between usability and superficial curb appeal in favor of the latter. The same thing quite obviously happened with Apple many years ago, and the market doesn't seem to have punished them for it yet. :-(

I can see how for some people the first drive in a Tesla can be a lot of information to quickly absorb and lots of new terms/concepts like Wh/m and regenerative braking and one-pedal driving, etc. So as I've suggested before, have different levels of UI for beginners, intermediate, and advanced users, and while I'm at it, a "super advanced" user interface that shows lots of the internal diag information about the battery, motor(s), charging, etc.

Moving forward, definitely one shoe will NOT fit all users.

 

[jgs]

Simple physics from an Orthopaedic surgeon. Inertia means that when rear ended the body is driven back into the seat. Hence the head restraint. The secondary force, much reduced over the former swings the head forward. However, if there is a secondary collision forward, then inertia applies again and the head jerks forward violently. So, a double impact is far worse than a single rear impact. Keep your brakes on!

I'm not an orthopedic surgeon, but I do have a degree in physics (undergraduate and sadly dated by now, but still), and I agree with you. The only thing you are protecting by leaving your brakes off is – very notionally – your rear bumper. However, in real life a collision such as we are discussing is going to mess your car up pretty badly regardless of the state of your brakes. Your priority as a driver should be to protect yourself and other humans, and keeping your brakes on is the way to do that.

A thought experiment should be enough to demonstrate this. Imagine I have perfect brakes that somehow glue my car to the road surface no matter how much force is applied from the rear. Now, if I'm rear-ended, the passengers in my car will be completely unperturbed, as long as the impact isn't strong enough to crumple the rear of the car up into the passenger area. All the energy of the impact is distributed to the front of the car that hit me, and the back of my car. Now imagine my brakes are not engaged. The energy of the impact will be partly distributed to the front of the car that hit me, partly to the rear of my car, and partly to accelerating my car rapidly from rest to some speed. With luck, the spines of my car's occupants will be protected by the seats. With luck. Now my car is in motion, and we will repeat this dance with the car in front of me, with me playing the part of the car hitting from behind. Now some of the energy will be dissipated into the front of my car, some into the back of the car ahead of me. With luck, the spines of my car's occupants will not be compromised by the sudden stop. With luck. Airbag deployment may help with this, but of course airbag deployment can cause other injuries.

Of course, no car has the perfect brakes I imagined in my first scenario (wasn't that just like a physics undergraduate?). But to the extent I can move away from the second scenario and toward the first, that's what I want to do. And that means applying my brakes when at rest.

In a way, this conversation reminds me of the old "you shouldn't wear your seatbelt, you're safer in a collision if you're thrown free of the vehicle" advice that people – including driver's ed instructors, no lie – used to offer.

 

[MartinAustin]

As an owner of a "classic" pre-autopilot RWD P85, I am very pleased with what I've seen so far of 7.0 and can't wait to get it in my car.

Loving the improved clarity of the UI. Tesla is leading the industry in this regard. Software-driven interfaces need to be as clear as possible, and as quick-to-read as possible. Getting rid of shadows, rims, edges and 3D button effects is part of this. Tesla already started down this road when they revised the dashboard speedometer disc about a year ago.

Hill Hold sounds fantastic, and I could even link to my TMC post on this several months ago, it seems as if they have implemented exactly what I suggested

Torque Sleep implemented when the car is stationary? Sure, I'll take it. I was already telling people that the motor uses no energy when the car is stationary (e.g. in traffic jams), so now I won't be lying!

AC works better and uses less energy? Sounds like they realised they were doing it all wrong. Glad to see it will get fixed and looking forward to the lower Wh/mile.

Smoother performance going back and forth between forward and reverse gears... I think I have experienced the problem they are referring to, though it was never serious. Looking forward to experiencing the change.

Same goes for the low-speed throttle action... I think I know what they are referring to, and it's especially evident when you are holding the car stationary on a hill using the throttle. (instead of using the brake like you should!) Looking forward to sensing this change.

Higher acceleration at all speeds? Sure, but I think the tires are already at the limit of traction, and the traction control just kicks in at low speeds.

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk Jan 29
P85 acceleration will also improve, but not quite as much

Could it be this that they're referring to? I've never really noticed any speed-up this year, nor heard any confirmation that this was ever rolled out.

 

[Kbra]

What time is it Tesla?