Frustrated with FSD timeline

[Swift]

Can it be transferred to a new tesla as an option? Just seems like a huge loss if it never happens over 4-5 years esp if new hardware/car required.

It is a loss and one you should not resign yourself to take. Even worse if you bought the car on the promise of FSD.

I’m giving it to the 2/3rds mark of ownership and if it’s not there I’m going back and demanding proof that they submitted to regulators and that’s the holdup. If not, then we’re either settling on a financial arrangement, joining a class action if there is one, or starting a very public action of our own.

 

[P100DHG.]

It is a loss and one you should not resign yourself to take. Even worse if you bought the car on the promise of FSD.

I’m giving it to the 2/3rds mark of ownership and if it’s not there I’m going back and demanding proof that they submitted to regulators and that’s the holdup. If not, then we’re either settling on a financial arrangement, joining a class action if there is one, or starting a very public action of our own.

You took the words out of my mouth!

 

[J Roc]

For those frustrated with the FSD timeline, this article does nothing to help:

Tesla keeps autonomous driving test program opaque, says no testing on California public roads

“For Reporting Year 2017, Tesla did not test any vehicles on public roads in California in autonomous mode, as defined by California law.”

 

[verygreen]

For those frustrated with the FSD timeline, this article does nothing to help:

Tesla keeps autonomous driving test program opaque, says no testing on California public roads

“For Reporting Year 2017, Tesla did not test any vehicles on public roads in California in autonomous mode, as defined by California law.”

Last time when Uber did not test any autonomous vehicles in California as per the CA law, the state disagreed

 

[conman]

Last time when Uber did not test any autonomous vehicles in California as per the CA law, the state disagreed

Here's hoping the state can disagree again then.

 

[Canuck]

It is a loss and one you should not resign yourself to take. Even worse if you bought the car on the promise of FSD.

Can you please point to where Tesla promised FSD? I've been following this issue for a long time and I can only find the exact opposite promised, in that anyone who bought FSD had to agree to the fact that it may never come about with the current hardware, when ordering it, as follows:

Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction.

That means if regulatory approval is not granted (it is "dependent upon... regulatory approval") this condition precedent may never be met -- and that was agreed to by everyone who bought it. It's naive to think Tesla didn't anticipate this and have their lawyers draft the clear and unambiguous wording above to protect them from potential liability should FSD not be regulatory approved with AP2.0's (and even AP2.5's) hardware.

Here's Musk talking about this issue even before AP2.0 came out:

"There’s more that can be done, but the sensor suite is not the full autonomy suite. For full autonomy you’d obviously need 360 cameras, you’d probably need redundant forward cameras, you’d need redundant computer hardware, and like redundant motors and steering rack. For full autonomy you’d really want to have a more comprehensive sensor suite and computer systems that are fail proof."

So then AP2.0 comes out and we get the only part of the FSD caveat that is in bold -- to make sure your attention is drawn to it. If they promised FSD somewhere else, I would sure like to see it.

I understand this may upset the people who disagree with me, probably because they own a couple of AP2.0 Teslas that may become less desirable than a base Model 3 with the redundancy Tesla introduced mid-2017 with AP2.5 -- and I have since learned that:

The 3 also has a second, redundant, power steering motor. I believe this is also crucial for regulatory approval. (Not to mention the interior “selfie cam.”)

That brought my attention back to Musk's 2015 comment on redundant steering rack. It surprises me when people don't think Tesla has planned for this contingency.

People can disagree with me and others, like @MarkS22, but please tell us why you disagree and where we have gone wrong with our analysis?

I would like to be convinced I'm wrong but I need arguments against my position. Otherwise, the "disagrees" to me are just people who wish what I'm saying is not true (and I agree with that wish!) because what I am saying is really tough to stomach, especially if a base Model 3 produced today will be FSD capable in the future, yet a new P100D with no redundant power steering will not. Ouch! That's enough to make me want to disagree with myself.

I won't link to click-bait Seeking Alpha articles, many from shorts, but I will quote one here:

In the meantime, rumor has it that at least 35,000 Tesla owners bought the FSD (Full Self-Driving) option for their cars. Tesla won't deliver on this ability (not before others, and not with the current hardware, anyway), and these 35,000 cars (and growing) will become a giant liability.

In my opinion, Tesla will try to fend off the liability by returning the $3,000 option value per car to the owners, but this won't be sufficient. The reason is simple: those owners can easily argue that they just bought the whole car because in time it would self-drive itself. As a result, the liability will be for the whole car and not just the FSD option.

Funny that the author never quotes Tesla's bolded caveat that I quote above -- because if he did his whole argument would be flushed down the drain. It's also funny that the bold part quoted above is actually in the article (the author's own misleading words are bolded -- as if that makes them more true -- he should have used all CAPS too!) -- yet no bolded Tesla caveat appears at all in his article -- and only one bolded portion will be admitted into evidence in court -- and I think we all know what that is.

 

[lunitiks]

Please show me the "second, redundant, power steering motor". I see none

 

[Swift]

Can you please point to where Tesla promised FSD? I've been following this issue for a long time and I can only find the exact opposite promised, in that anyone who bought FSD had to agree to the fact that it may never come about with the current hardware, when ordering it, as follows:



That means if regulatory approval is not granted (it is "dependent upon... regulatory approval") this condition precedent may never be met -- and that was agreed to by everyone who bought it. It's naive to think Tesla didn't anticipate this and have their lawyers draft the clear and unambiguous wording above to protect them from potential liability should FSD not be regulatory approved with AP2.0's (and even AP2.5's) hardware.

Here's Musk talking about this issue even before AP2.0 came out:

"There’s more that can be done, but the sensor suite is not the full autonomy suite. For full autonomy you’d obviously need 360 cameras, you’d probably need redundant forward cameras, you’d need redundant computer hardware, and like redundant motors and steering rack. For full autonomy you’d really want to have a more comprehensive sensor suite and computer systems that are fail proof."

So then AP2.0 comes out and we get the only part of the FSD caveat that is in bold -- to make sure your attention is drawn to it. If they promised FSD somewhere else, I would sure like to see it.

I understand this may upset the people who disagree with me, probably because they own a couple of AP2.0 Teslas that may become less desirable than a base Model 3 with the redundancy Tesla introduced mid-2017 with AP2.5 -- and I have since learned that:



That brought my attention back to Musk's 2015 comment on redundant steering rack. It surprises me when people don't think Tesla has planned for this contingency.

People can disagree with me and others, like @MarkS22, but please tell us why you disagree and where we have gone wrong with our analysis?

I would like to be convinced I'm wrong but I need arguments against my position. Otherwise, the "disagrees" to me are just people who wish what I'm saying is not true (and I agree with that wish!) because what I am saying is really tough to stomach, especially if a base Model 3 produced today will be FSD capable in the future, yet a new P100D with no redundant power steering will not. Ouch! That's enough to make me want to disagree with myself.

I won't link to click-bait Seeking Alpha articles, many from shorts, but I will quote one here:



Funny that the author never quotes Tesla's bolded caveat that I quote above -- because if he did his whole argument would be flushed down the drain. It's also funny that the bold part quoted above is actually in the article (the author's own misleading words are bolded -- as if that makes them more true -- he should have used all CAPS too!) -- yet no bolded Tesla caveat appears at all in his article -- and only one bolded portion will be admitted into evidence in court -- and I think we all know what that is.

Thank goodness the laws are different here in the United States and specifically in the state of New York.

Things to consider (some are my points, some are others who plan to take action):

- Tesla produced a video of FSD that they used in the sale of the feature as well as the car itself. This video conveys to the average consumer a feature in progress (as in that’s the actual version of it in development.) The video has text in it saying the only reason a driver is present in the front seat is because of regulations.
- While Tesla has subsequently altered the video and the text in the website, the original versions at the time of purchase have been preserved.
- Tesla’s sales staff at the SC also made statements about FSD being available by the end of 2017. They also stated that EAP would be complete by 12/31.
- New York is a “one-party” state where the audio recording of Tesla sales staff (authorized Tesla representatives) by the consumer at the time of sale is both legal and admissible.
- Discovery will demonstrate and contrast what Tesla actually had developed at the time they offered FSD for sale. Also internal conversations and discussions about the video, likelihood of delivering FSD, debates with departing employees, etc, etc will shine a bright light on Tesla’s business practices here.
- New York’s consumer protection laws are strong and they will look at how Tesla marketed and sold the car to the average consumer. Tesla’s behavior as it relates to FSD will be seen as deceptive business practices at best and outright fraud at worst.

I feel pretty good about pursuing this at the appropriate time whether independently, as a class, or via the nys attorney general.

In the meantime, I hope against the facts and all logic that Tesla delivers and it doesn’t come to litigation. I want Tesla to succeed, I really do. Unfortunately, Tesla doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to transparency and meeting commitments.

 

[Canuck]

Thank goodness the laws are different here in the United States and specifically in the state of New York.

Sorry but the Parol Evidence Rule applies in NY -- just like up here. So good luck having your secret recording admitted into evidence. Yes, you can legally record it. Having it admitted into evidence, in an attempt to override what you contractually agreed to, is an entirely other issue, and has no relation to one-party or two-party consent laws.

Now, if you can point me to a clause in NY's statutes that state this common-law rule does not apply, then you will convince me -- but there is none. As such, I can't see how you can get the court to go outside of the terms you contractually agreed to, unless perhaps someone from Tesla held a gun to your head when you clicked that boxed and agreed to it.

The same applies to all of your other "promises" by Tesla.

But I do wish you luck.

In the meantime, I hope against the facts and all logic that Tesla delivers and it doesn’t come to that.

Me too but I just don't see it happening.

I want Tesla to succeed, I really do. Unfortunately, Tesla doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to transparency and meeting commitments.

Agreed.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So then AP2.0 comes out and we get the only part of the FSD caveat that is in bold -- to make sure your attention is drawn to it. If they promised FSD somewhere else, I would sure like to see it.

FWIW, Elon Musk called the AP2 hardware "Level 5 capable" (note: Level 5, not 3 or 4... but 5) - which thus was all over the press (and indeed reported all over Tesla's sales staff) when people ordered AP2 in October 2016. Level 5 capable would have to include whatever hardware Level 5 requires, even if the software is never delivered to take care of it.

If it turns out, the hardware is not even capable of Level 5 that could at the very least constitute as false advertising, no? Something countries with better consumer protection legislations might take action against at least, if North America simply allows a disclaimer to nullify all that's said elsewhere. Here's looking at you, K... Norway.

 

[Swift]

Sorry but the Parol Evidence Rule applies in NY -- just like up here. So good luck having your secret recording admitted into evidence. Yes, you can legally record it. Having it admitted into evidence, in an attempt to override what you contractually agreed to, is an entirely other issue, and has no relation to one-party or two-party consent laws.

Now, if you can point me to a clause in NY's statutes that state this common-law rule does not apply, then you will convince me -- but there is none. As such, I can't see how you can get the court to go outside of the terms you contractually agreed to, unless perhaps someone from Tesla held a gun to your head when you clicked that boxed and agreed to it.

The same applies to all of your other "promises" by Tesla.

But I do wish you luck.



Me too but I just don't see it happening.



Agreed.

Thanks for your opinion and well wishes. I’m working with a group of people who do this for a living and are of a different opinion than yours. Time will certainly tell on this. Look forward to circling back.

 

[schonelucht]

That means if regulatory approval is not granted (it is "dependent upon... regulatory approval") this condition precedent may never be met -- and that was agreed to by everyone who bought it. It's naive to think Tesla didn't anticipate this and have their lawyers draft the clear and unambiguous wording above to protect them from potential liability should FSD not be regulatory approved with AP2.0's (and even AP2.5's) hardware.

Regulatory approval has already been granted. See here http://www.ncsl.org/research/transp...elf-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx (that's just the States, there are als other countries in which Tesla sells the option that have enacted the ability to use autonomous vehicles) In my jurisdiction the next step would be to evaluate if Tesla tried, in good faith, to get its software validated and authorized under the enacted regulation. Don't really know US regulation, but our laws are tougher on misleading business practices, consumer protection and sales fraud. Maybe in US law they can get away with the ambiguity in the wording and refusing to acknowledge the intent of circumstancial communication like the CEO intrducing the feature, the video and not-so-carefully crafted wording from individual sales representatives.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@Canuck Could misrepresentation be used to rescind the contract in this case?

Misrepresentation - Wikipedia
Parol evidence rule - Wikipedia

 

[Swift]

Regulatory approval has already been granted. See here http://www.ncsl.org/research/transp...elf-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx (that's just the States, there are als other countries in which Tesla sells the option that have enacted the ability to use autonomous vehicles) In my jurisdiction the next step would be to evaluate if Tesla tried, in good faith, to get its software validated and authorized under the enacted regulation. Don't really know US regulation, but our laws are tougher on misleading business practices, consumer protection and sales fraud. Maybe in US law they can get away with the ambiguity in the wording and refusing to acknowledge the intent of circumstancial communication like the CEO intrducing the feature, the video and not-so-carefully crafted wording from individual sales representatives.

Completely agree with your points. Tesla still needs to submit for approval under current regulations or claim that regulations changed significantly enough relative to the hardware so as to be a circumstance out of their control. Maybe they’re banking on the latter. Either way, I don’t see Tesla being able to submit for approval during the ownership/lease cycle of those who bought in late 2016.

Consumer protection laws vary state by state here. New York is strong in that regard both in what’s on the books and their wherewithal to pursue high profile cases.

While some of the legal comments above were directed towards individual or class action against Tesla, the first route will be via the consumer protection agency. That’s a whole different animal than direct litigation by the customer(s). They can’t get away with “well they clicked agree on the 23 pages of terms and conditions in 4 point font” in that venue.

Anyway, if we do get to litigation, the discovery will be fascinating I’m sure. Tesla needs to get Fawn Hall on speed dial.

 

[croman]

This wouldn't be a breach of contract claim. The contract has nothing to do with anything. That's a red herring. Any claim would be based outside the contract on consumer protection grounds. Tesla has no viable response.

We've had this discussion before. Volvo didn't learn and now is on the wrong end. Tesla is similarly vulnerable.

http://www.siprut.com/gallery/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Law360-Volvo-article.pdf

Basically, most of the legal argument surrounding contract law is useless. Consumer fraud laws are very clear in a lot of states and Tesla is in trouble if they think they can keep on ignoring customers and failing to deliver.

The language about software validation and regulatory approval won't work to protect Tesla because their software validation efforts would need to be proven and that they submitted the system for regulatory approval and the reason for the denial.

If it is based, in any way, on deficient hardware. Tesla is F'd. They said repeatedly that AP2 cars have all the hardware necessary for FSD. Even @Canuck seems to think AP2 is deficient in a way Tesla did not disclaim (e.g. hardware deficiency) but somehow he concludes that the parol evidence rule would prohibit evidence on that but it will not apply in a consumer fraud context nor does it apply where the four corners are ambiguous and outside information is needed to fairly read the contract. The Four Corners rule is not implemented by many states anymore, it is an anachronistic rule that is no longer strictly enforced unless the contract has an integration clause and is not a form contract (contract of adhesion). Tesla's are 100% contracts of adhesion as they cannot be negotiated and its a company selling something to a consumer.

TLDR: No one should be dissuaded from seeking legal relief just because someone on the internet says you can't or shouldn't or it'd be a waste of time. Consult a real attorney who knows the particular laws of your state/country/judicial region and can advise you of the specific remedies available to you.

Illinois has a very strong consumer protection law that explicitly applies regardless of intent of the "fraudulent" party (fraud being a term that has also greatly departed from its common law roots and therefore I believe @Canuck 's analysis is similarly dated and inapplicable).

And yes, I understand that in the case above it was merely winning a MTD rather than an actual judgment. I also know that statutory claims that are adequately pled succeed in astounding rates as there are few defenses available if you lose a MTD. Facts are facts and the statute is clear. Volvo is ****ed.

Bottom line: Tesla would be wise to reach out and explain where they are in their development, what they intend to do for customers who have purchased EAP and/or FSD, and what compensation they intend to give to customers who have been misled by their extraordinarily deceptive FSD videos and statements.

With some communication, maybe people won't bother to sue if they appreciate why there have been delays, what a reasonable new timeframe is, and why Tesla keeps over-promising so badly and failing to acknowledge their failures and make amends.

 

[J Roc]

I agree that the FSD add-on option doesn't pass the smell test for me, and I think would make for a legitimate claim under your respective state consumer fraud protection statutes. Unfortunately, I hope either your contract didn't contain an arbitration clause or you opted out within 30 days after signing the contract by sending a letter to: Tesla, Inc.; P.O. Box 15430; Fremont, CA 94539- 7970, stating your name and intent to opt out of the arbitration provision.

Otherwise, your class action will be doomed from the start and there will be no fascinating discovery in arbitration for us to enjoy. For those who purchased FSD and want refunded, I would suggest your first course of action would be to send Tesla written notice to [email protected] describing the nature of the dispute and the relief sought.

 

[diplomat33]

For those frustrated with the FSD timeline, this article does nothing to help:

Tesla keeps autonomous driving test program opaque, says no testing on California public roads

“For Reporting Year 2017, Tesla did not test any vehicles on public roads in California in autonomous mode, as defined by California law.”

Means nothing! All it means is that Tesla is not testing on California roads. It does not mean that Tesla is not testing at all or that they are having issues. According to Tesla's own report to the California DMV, Tesla is testing FSD on tracks, roads outside California as well as using simulations and shadow-mode in existing cars. So Tesla is doing plenty of testing.

 

[ChrML]

Means nothing! All it means is that Tesla is not testing on California roads. It does not mean that Tesla is not testing at all or that they are having issues. According to Tesla's own report to the California DMV, Tesla is testing FSD on tracks, roads outside California as well as using simulations and shadow-mode in existing cars. So Tesla is doing plenty of testing.

As well as they are probably doing tests on California roads WITH a responsible driver behind the wheel. Like a very advanced driver's assistance (one where the driver does nothing at all while the system works).

 

[lunitiks]

This wouldn't be a breach of contract claim. The contract has nothing to do with anything. That's a red herring. Any claim would be based outside the contract on consumer protection grounds. Tesla has no viable response.

We've had this discussion before. Volvo didn't learn and now is on the wrong end. Tesla is similarly vulnerable.

http://www.siprut.com/gallery/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Law360-Volvo-article.pdf

Basically, most of the legal argument surrounding contract law is useless. Consumer fraud laws are very clear in a lot of states and Tesla is in trouble if they think they can keep on ignoring customers and failing to deliver.

The language about software validation and regulatory approval won't work to protect Tesla because their software validation efforts would need to be proven and that they submitted the system for regulatory approval and the reason for the denial.

If it is based, in any way, on deficient hardware. Tesla is F'd. They said repeatedly that AP2 cars have all the hardware necessary for FSD. Even @Canuck seems to think AP2 is deficient in a way Tesla did not disclaim (e.g. hardware deficiency) but somehow he concludes that the parol evidence rule would prohibit evidence on that but it will not apply in a consumer fraud context nor does it apply where the four corners are ambiguous and outside information is needed to fairly read the contract. The Four Corners rule is not implemented by many states anymore, it is an anachronistic rule that is no longer strictly enforced unless the contract has an integration clause and is not a form contract (contract of adhesion). Tesla's are 100% contracts of adhesion as they cannot be negotiated and its a company selling something to a consumer.

TLDR: No one should be dissuaded from seeking legal relief just because someone on the internet says you can't or shouldn't or it'd be a waste of time. Consult a real attorney who knows the particular laws of your state/country/judicial region and can advise you of the specific remedies available to you.

Illinois has a very strong consumer protection law that explicitly applies regardless of intent of the "fraudulent" party (fraud being a term that has also greatly departed from its common law roots and therefore I believe @Canuck 's analysis is similarly dated and inapplicable).

And yes, I understand that in the case above it was merely winning a MTD rather than an actual judgment. I also know that statutory claims that are adequately pled succeed in astounding rates as there are few defenses available if you lose a MTD. Facts are facts and the statute is clear. Volvo is ****ed.

Bottom line: Tesla would be wise to reach out and explain where they are in their development, what they intend to do for customers who have purchased EAP and/or FSD, and what compensation they intend to give to customers who have been misled by their extraordinarily deceptive FSD videos and statements.

With some communication, maybe people won't bother to sue if they appreciate why there have been delays, what a reasonable new timeframe is, and why Tesla keeps over-promising so badly and failing to acknowledge their failures and make amends.

Best post on this forum in a long, long time

 

[P85Dave]

As well as they are probably doing tests on California roads WITH a responsible driver behind the wheel. Like a very advanced driver's assistance (one where the driver does nothing at all while the system works).

I agree. Just about every piece of the autonomous driving puzzle can be tested SEPARATELY as a DRIVER ASSISTANCE feature.

No reporting necessary. People are reading too much into this CA report.

Tesla realizes how important this is. Remember when AP1 was released and it took them about a year before releasing it? Okay so AP2 has taken longer but in about a year they have replaced what MobileEye developed over 5+ years.