Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Frustrated with FSD timeline

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.
76c73bf729306683ed877111a99996714dfb703807daefd7f9dff6884ed3d137.jpg
 
Best post on this forum in a long, long time
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.

Dude...you're my hero! How much is your retainer? lol
 
  • Funny
Reactions: 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.

The entire issue I have with the FSD package is that Tesla doesn't make any promises with it. Sure there may have been promises made by sales people, but nothing that I see as official from Tesla's website or official communications. A teaser video and a few blurbs don't count for a whole lot.

There is no clear definition of what FSD is.
There is no clear time frame of when to expect it. Tesla can't be be late because there is no target date to miss. Elon has only mentioned vague dates for testing the cross country trip. That date they missed, and the most Elon said was it looked like he now has egg on his face.

Everything regarding the package was vague, and is still vague. On the Volvo case there was a very clear, and testable promise. Where the car simply failed to match specifications as delivered. So it seems like a really clear cut case.

So to add to what you said I hope they will at least at least give all HW2/HW2.5 owners something concrete on the expectations for FSD, and to solidify the unofficial promise of upgrading the current hardware if it isn't up to the task. To also clarify whether that includes all HW2/HW2.5 cars or just those cars where the driver got the FSD package.

They also need to give refunds for the FSD to those who wish to clean their hands of it. That way they can remove that liability because it's likely only a handful of people. From what I've seen most FSD buyers (on this site) are Tesla fans that did it more to support Tesla than actual expectations that the car would be full self-driving.

If I was Elon I'd also be concerned about the loss of credibility as time goes on with this FSD mess still out there. Right at a critical time for Tesla, and in other ventures he's into. Especially those that are heavily involved with credibility (like anything with regulations, hyperloop, etc).
 
Last edited:
The entire issue I have with the FSD package is that Tesla doesn't make any promises with it. Sure there may have been promises made by sales people, but nothing that I see as official from Tesla's website or official communications. A teaser video and a few blurbs don't count for a whole lot.

There is no clear definition of what FSD is.
There is no clear time frame of when to expect it. Tesla can't be be late because there is no target date to miss. Elon has only mentioned vague dates for testing the cross country trip. That date they missed, and the most Elon said was it looked like he now has egg on his face.

Everything regarding the package was vague, and is still vague. On the Volvo case there was a very clear, and testable promise. Where the car simply failed to match specifications as delivered. So it seems like a really clear cut case.

So to add to what you said I hope they will at least at least give all HW2/HW2.5 owners something concrete on the expectations for FSD, and to solidify the unofficial promise of upgrading the current hardware if it isn't up to the task. To also clarify whether that includes all HW2/HW2.5 cars or just those cars where the driver got the FSD package.

They also need to give refunds for the FSD to those who wish to clean their hands of it. That way they can remove that liability because it's likely only a handful of people. From what I've seen most FSD buyers (on this site) are Tesla fans that did it more to support Tesla than actual expectations that the car would be full self-driving.

If I was Elon I'd also be concerned about the loss of credibility as time goes on with this FSD mess still out there. Right at a critical time for Tesla, and in other ventures he's into. Especially those that are heavily involved with credibility (like anything with regulations, hyperloop, etc).

Tesla made tons of promises with FSD capability (it's still says I'll be able to ride-hail my Model S...yea right) but they didn't make a promise of time; Other than Elon saying we should have seen some FSD features starting 6-9 months ago. I understand my AP2.0 may never have FSD but I expect Tesla will make it right when they finally admit it can't be done. I see a lot of pressure coming Tesla's way next year, if the Chevy Cruise AV is approved by "the regulators."
 
Tesla made tons of promises with FSD capability (it's still says I'll be able to ride-hail my Model S...yea right) but they didn't make a promise of time; Other than Elon saying we should have seen some FSD features starting 6-9 months ago. I understand my AP2.0 may never have FSD but I expect Tesla will make it right when they finally admit it can't be done. I see a lot of pressure coming Tesla's way next year, if the Chevy Cruise AV is approved by "the regulators."

Tesla said a lot of stuff if we include things that Elon Tweeted about. Those I tend to dismiss, but other people put a lot of value in.

The Chevy Cruise AV is a ride hailing fleet so I'm not sure if it will put pressure on them. Since it's still specialized vehicles, and not production to where anyone can buy them. This is one of those statements that I'll be happy if I'm wrong on.

The A8 could potentially put pressure on them if it gets regulatory approval. It's a very limited L3 system.

I'm more worried about how Tesla is seen as a brand due to the FSD fiasco, and less worried about other manufactures coming out with anything. I'm a bit a of cynic when it comes to self-driving cars mixing with annoying humans. Like I strongly believe humans will start to bully the self-driving cars. I was saying that way before I heard Jeremy Clarkson say it.
 
The entire issue I have with the FSD package is that Tesla doesn't make any promises with it.

Just listen to Tesla announce Level 5 in all cars. That's very specific. In fact Tesla makes a lot of promises of what it is - and the only question is can the disclaimer about validation and approval nullify those. @Canuck says it can. Others seem to speculate it won't. There may still be time for Tesla to deliver too, though, late as they are.

This announcement then resulted a lot of this being parroted in press and by Tesla sales.


Tesla also lists a lot of scenarios on the website:

Autopilot
 
they didn't make a promise of time; Other than Elon saying we should have seen some FSD features starting 6-9 months ago

Tesla made three timeline promises in October, 2016:

- EAP as pictured below was announced for Q4/2016 - as a single update, not a series of updates. This gave the impression to us buying then that a four-camera, auto-lane-changing motorway system was already in final validation by the time of the announcement and coming out as soon as they give it the finishing touches.

- FSD coast-to-coast demo was announced for before the end of 2017. Again with the video shown back in October 2016 this set the tone of the readiness of the system - including navigating urban and highway streets, finding a parking stop and reading disabled parking signs... (The status of the coast-to-coast drive and the PM_YOUR_NIPS_PAPERS source much discussed here: FSD video completely fake?)

- And as you point out: In January, 2017, Elon Musk announced FSD differentiating features "definitely" by July, 2017. None appeared.

All of these Tesla subsequently missed.

So it is no surprise then if one goes back and looks at both the press and the community reception (e.g. on TMC) of the AP2 announcement in October 2016, it did its trick. We were completely sold on EAP appearing in 2016 (or maybe very early 2017 if it is late) and FSD perhaps around 2018 (or maybe somewhat later) respectively. Even in January 2017 it still seemed like the good stuff was just around the corner...

Reality: February 2018 here and AP2 has not even reached functional AP1 parity (still missing the IC display and speed-sign recognition for example), let alone runs a four-camera EAP, or any FSD differentiating features. Coast-to-coast drive has yet to happen and rumors talk of basically a hardwired demo being arranged and attempted.

The talk has certainly changed a lot since October 2016, but those old announcements and the infromation many of us bought cars under remains as it was. Indeed, even Tesla's Autopilot page with all its forward-looking statements remains: Autopilot

bildschirmfoto-2018-01-22-um-21-59-03-png.275134


Tesla-enhanced-autopilot-upgrade.jpg


As for the FSD timeline, here is PM_YOUR_NIPS_PAPERS' speculation:

duaUIeY.png
 
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.
Yes.

I've actually sued in Illinois for fraud and it's surprisingly reasonable - at least "reasonable" from the consumer side. If an agent of the seller makes even verbal assurances that are false and a reasonable buyer relies on them to make a decision to enter a contract, then that is a fraudulent transaction. The fact the contract is signed is meaningless because the buyer was fraudulently induced to entering the contract. In fact, in my case the judge said the contract itself that we were arguing over was prima facie evidence of fraud. And it was a hell or high water contract that forbade me from suing them!

buyer beware and all that common sense stuff definitely has a place, but imho Tesla overreached. Like by a lot. To this day they sell a fsd option on their website with an accompanying video demonstrating its capability and detailed specs of the computing power and sensor capability necessary to achieve that end. All it's waiting for is validation and regulatory approval. That simply isn't true. It's just not. And they actually take money for it today.

I don't have an axe to grind because I didn't get it and I'm happy to have both hands free to eat my egg mcmuffin on my way to work in the morning thanks to AP. But, imho it's totally fraud and at least in Illinois they'd be very very hard pressed to defend themselves. Im really surprised they still have that video up without a caption like "Imagine a future like this..." or something
 
I don't see it. I see a motor on one side, and the steering column input on the other.

I’m no expert but when I specifically mentioned it as one of the reasons I’m waiting for an S refresh, none of the Tesla employees, including technicians denied it. That’s as recently as this week. It may very well be something else, but you’d think people working on the Model 3 would’ve corrected me. They didn’t appear to be avoiding the question, either. Either way, my dozen other reasons for waiting for a refresh still stand.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AnxietyRanger