Firmware 8.0

[NikeWings]

What's with "potentially unsafe"? Unless now we're going to define as "you have to drive it yourself" as unsafe.

LOL not at all. I was referencing earlier comments suggesting possible reasons for the AP speed limitation included potential technical limitations that could therefore be hazardous. Thus, my question. If true, wouldn't such limitations be disclosed to Tesla buyers living in areas where using AP on roadways where high rates of speed are acceptable? I have not heard of any Euro drivers complaining, but not really following their forums either.

 

[Cyclone]

LOL not at all. I was referencing earlier comments suggesting possible reasons for the AP speed limitation included potential technical limitations that could therefore be hazardous. Thus, my question. If true, wouldn't such limitations be disclosed to Tesla buyers living in areas where using AP on roadways where high rates of speed are acceptable? I have not heard of any Euro drivers complaining, but not really following their forums either.

Due note though that I haven't seen anyone here complain about AP being unavailable at 90 mph, but just people complaining about it continuing to be unavailable at 80, 70, 60, etc. after they drove 90 or above for a moment when AP was active.

 

[Andyw2100]

Due note though that I haven't seen anyone here complain about AP being unavailable at 90 mph, but just people complaining about it continuing to be unavailable at 80, 70, 60, etc. after they drove 90 or above for a moment when AP was active.

You beat me to this!

I was catching up on the thread, and had you not posted this, would have made the same point.

 

[NikeWings]

Due note though that I haven't seen anyone here complain about AP being unavailable at 90 mph, but just people complaining about it continuing to be unavailable at 80, 70, 60, etc. after they drove 90 or above for a moment when AP was active.

You beat me to this!

I was catching up on the thread, and had you not posted this, would have made the same point.

Duly and dually noted.

 

[msnow]

What's with "potentially unsafe"? Unless now we're going to define as "you have to drive it yourself" as unsafe.

If you assume that the car is safer with AP on than off (as Tesla consistently claims) then it would be less safe driving it yourself.

 

[jgs]

If you assume that the car is safer with AP on than off

If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs -- if we had eggs.

(as Tesla consistently claims) then it would be less safe driving it yourself.

I'm pretty sure Tesla has never claimed that the car is safer with AP at speeds above 90. Maybe with AP 3.0.

 

[Andyw2100]

I'm pretty sure Tesla has never claimed that the car is safer with AP at speeds above 90.

And I'm pretty sure no one in this thread has suggested that the car should be able to drive over 90 with autosteer engaged.

The complaint that many of us have is that after the speed is once again below 90, autosteer remains unavailable, as a punishment. This is not reasonable, and is less safe than if autosteer could be re-engaged.

 

[ArtInCT]

90 MPH is about 132 feet per second.... or 40 some odd yards....
Perhaps the forward looking AP1 radar and cameras have a range limit which is not effective beyond that range?
Does anyone know what the forward looking range is on these devices?

Also, the 60 to 0 breaking distance was as I recall about 102 feet on the P85D. So Perhaps the breaking
distance at 90 exceeds the stoping capability of the S in regards to the forward looking sensors?

Just wondering out loud...

 

[TrafficEng]

That's a good point. It does seem like an auditory feedback in advance of 50mph restricted zones would be a good idea. I can understand the notion that AP knows it cannot operate at the requested speed in certain conditions, but that seems like something the system knows at least seconds in advance so the driver can take manual control preemptively if a slowdown to 50mph is not appropriate.

I also experienced sudden deceleration in the middle of a freeway (GA400 in North Atlanta) today. There were no reasons with regards to road conditions for the behavior. The slow down happened to be while the freeway was passing under a bridge. A minute later the speed reverted to the requested freeway target speed that I had set.

This behavior is a bug, I'm sure, resulting in unexpected/undesired behavior. Perhaps bad data in the high-res maps at that point - who knows. My guess this issue will be making it up the bug-tracking process in Tesla.... Hopefully fixed soon.

 

[zambono]

I also experienced sudden deceleration in the middle of a freeway (GA400 in North Atlanta) today. There were no reasons with regards to road conditions for the behavior. The slow down happened to be while the freeway was passing under a bridge. A minute later the speed reverted to the requested freeway target speed that I had set.

This behavior is a bug, I'm sure, resulting in unexpected/undesired behavior. Perhaps bad data in the high-res maps at that point - who knows. My guess this issue will be making it up the bug-tracking process in Tesla.... Hopefully fixed soon.

I've had this happen and also while passing under a bridge or a toll installation. This has also happened on 7.1. The behavior is inconsistent, next time you pass that section you might not get the deceleration

 

[zambono]

I disagree. A warning without punishment is worthless. Why would anybody stop the behavior, if one can continue the "obviously unsafe" behavior after the "warning"? Driving at 90+ mi/h with autosteer is simply unsafe. Period.

The fact that you are pissed at the punishment, means that maybe you won't do it again next time. Outside of hi-ways, I'm all for the punishment of people the "behave" like you. I would not want to be driving behind you or before you.

In front actually, you don't want to be in front because he is doing 90+. You are much safer behind him

 

[msnow]

If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs -- if we had eggs.

I'm pretty sure Tesla has never claimed that the car is safer with AP at speeds above 90. Maybe with AP 3.0.

Yeah, I think you missed the point that they are disabling it at speeds under 90 mph (70, 80) which Tesla claims is safer than cars being driven by humans. I don't buy it but that's their data driven claim.

 

[drklain]

@TrafficEng and @zambono -- we are now seeing some symptoms that appear to indicate why the car suddenly slowing down on a divided, limited access road is taking place. One theory is that the AP is now reacting to what it perceives as a stopped vehicle or object in the adjacent lane, slowing the car to around 50mph. It may well be that the AP is treating the toll-booth and the bridge support leg as a stopped vehicle in the adjacent lane thus triggering the slowdown until it is past the object and then considering things "all clear."

As we have no release notes or explanation from Tesla, none of us know for sure, but I would encourage you to report these incidents as possible bugs. Assuming the "stopped vehicle in an adjacent lane" trigger HAS been deliberately added to AP software, they clearly need to distinguish that from a bridge support or other fixed object where there is no expectation a passing vehicle should slow down.

I think it is far more likely that what you are seeing is NOT a bug in the software but rather the software is doing what it is programmed to do, but the software isn't compensating/disregarding the bridge support. In systems terms, we have a valid detection (the bridge support for example) but the system is failing to identify it as such (or rather identifying it as a stopped vehicle) and thus triggering the "stopped vehicle in adjacent lane" logic. That makes more sense to me than that the AP is randomly doing this....

it would be interesting to see if you consistently are getting this when passing objects of this type.

 

[Maximapolak]

Elon said on twitter:

HW2 Autopilot software uploading to 1000 cars this eve. Will then hold to verify no field issues and upload to rest of fleet next week.

 

[FlatSix911]

Elon said on twitter:

HW2 Autopilot software uploading to 1000 cars this eve. Will then hold to verify no field issues and upload to rest of fleet next week.

More information available here:
Tesla starts pushing new Autopilot 2.0 update: Autosteer at ‘low speed’, Traffic Aware Cruise Control and Forward Collision Warning

 

[yak-55]

More information available here:
Tesla starts pushing new Autopilot 2.0 update: Autosteer at ‘low speed’, Traffic Aware Cruise Control and Forward Collision Warning

Sounds rushed to market to me ... only to be used on highway and below 35 mph ?!?

 

[pilotSteve]

Sounds rushed to market to me ... only to be used on highway and below 35 mph ?!?

rushed to market.... or partial release if early adopters choose to use it. Otherwise don't use/trust it. I prefer this approach (release partial NOW rather than wait for EVERYTHING). It is unique among car makers I must admit....

 

[supratachophobia]

@TrafficEng and @zambono -- we are now seeing some symptoms that appear to indicate why the car suddenly slowing down on a divided, limited access road is taking place. One theory is that the AP is now reacting to what it perceives as a stopped vehicle or object in the adjacent lane, slowing the car to around 50mph. It may well be that the AP is treating the toll-booth and the bridge support leg as a stopped vehicle in the adjacent lane thus triggering the slowdown until it is past the object and then considering things "all clear."

As we have no release notes or explanation from Tesla, none of us know for sure, but I would encourage you to report these incidents as possible bugs. Assuming the "stopped vehicle in an adjacent lane" trigger HAS been deliberately added to AP software, they clearly need to distinguish that from a bridge support or other fixed object where there is no expectation a passing vehicle should slow down.

I think it is far more likely that what you are seeing is NOT a bug in the software but rather the software is doing what it is programmed to do, but the software isn't compensating/disregarding the bridge support. In systems terms, we have a valid detection (the bridge support for example) but the system is failing to identify it as such (or rather identifying it as a stopped vehicle) and thus triggering the "stopped vehicle in adjacent lane" logic. That makes more sense to me than that the AP is randomly doing this....

it would be interesting to see if you consistently are getting this when passing objects of this type.

I had this slowdown happen when I was going over the cross-secting road. So it's not a object detection issue. I still think it's detecting the speed limit on a nearby road from GPS meta data, and adjusting accordingly.

 

[hanstor]

Not being told how it works. ie. lack of documentation

I still fail to see how this exact issue is a danger. On the contrary - One is told not to use auto steer above 90mph (wether it is documented somewhere or just a message, a warning, or maybe you aren't told somewhere, it really doesn't mater). One shall not use auto steer above 90mph. Then one ignores that, the car dislikes it and punishes bad the behavior - so you don't do it again. That is improving safety, not making it more dangerous.

If one fails to see that, then there are bigger issues in ones life that needs to be resolved than inability to have auto steer enabled at +90mph. The car will either way do more than 90mph, you just have to be actively driving it. Im plenty of other scenarios, the car will not enable auto steer, i.e. bad or lacking road markings, bad weather, in the middle of a too steep turn - you have to wait for conditions to be good enough for the system to activate. One condition obviously is speed below 90.

Do you deem inability to enable auto steer in those other conditions as a danger, or just the inconvenience with the inability above 90mph?
Will you sou Tesla over a crash at 90+ with auto steer on, because you then suddenly might agree that it wasn't safe after all (if you live to tell about it)?

 

[zambono]

@TrafficEng and @zambono -- we are now seeing some symptoms that appear to indicate why the car suddenly slowing down on a divided, limited access road is taking place. One theory is that the AP is now reacting to what it perceives as a stopped vehicle or object in the adjacent lane, slowing the car to around 50mph. It may well be that the AP is treating the toll-booth and the bridge support leg as a stopped vehicle in the adjacent lane thus triggering the slowdown until it is past the object and then considering things "all clear."

As we have no release notes or explanation from Tesla, none of us know for sure, but I would encourage you to report these incidents as possible bugs. Assuming the "stopped vehicle in an adjacent lane" trigger HAS been deliberately added to AP software, they clearly need to distinguish that from a bridge support or other fixed object where there is no expectation a passing vehicle should slow down.

I think it is far more likely that what you are seeing is NOT a bug in the software but rather the software is doing what it is programmed to do, but the software isn't compensating/disregarding the bridge support. In systems terms, we have a valid detection (the bridge support for example) but the system is failing to identify it as such (or rather identifying it as a stopped vehicle) and thus triggering the "stopped vehicle in adjacent lane" logic. That makes more sense to me than that the AP is randomly doing this....

it would be interesting to see if you consistently are getting this when passing objects of this type.

It has been inconsistent. Only has happened once on my daily commute, I have not been able to recreate