FSD - Level 2

[AlanSubie4Life]

I am fully in the camp that Tesla should admit that they are testing autonomous driving and they should submit disengagement reports to the CA DMV. I think it would be more honest and more transparent.

I'm not really in this camp, since they are not testing autonomous driving! I certainly understand people who have safety concerns about Tesla's approach, but it's very clear they are not testing an autonomous driving system (by that I mean above level 2; if level 2 is “autonomous” per SAE (no idea, not going to read the text again) that just isn’t what I am defining as autonomous in this context), at least to me it seems clear.

I think Tesla is pursuing an optimal strategy for themselves, based on where they find themselves technically amongst the competition, and they are making (potential) use of their strength - fleet size.

I don’t see any benefit in having regulatory oversight at this point, given the current capability of their system. It would immediately take away one of their advantages!

We’ll see if it works out for them. At some point it might make sense to start testing in California. I know some people think they are testing autonomous driving (consistently) elsewhere but I suspect we’d have evidence of that if they were. The simplest explanation is that for where they are, there is currently no need. That makes sense, since they haven’t yet finished perception (according to Elon anyway).

 

[mark95476]

There are way too many people telling Elon and Tesla how to run their business. They've done fine so far and it's not like they're getting lapped by their competitors.

I'm genuinely surprised that the other major OEMs, the ones that have been building 10M's of vehicles yearly for decades with their substantially larger budgets, have only managed to tread water compared to Tesla.

OG Roadster is a relic. MS is old. MY is old. M3 is old and it's pack is from ~4 years ago. MY is using the same old pack from M3.

Why don't these OEMs just CRUSH Tesla and bankrupt Elon?

I think it's possible to be pro-Tesla and be an owner and shareholder, while still insisting that for shareholders (and owners), it's best that Tesla deliver on their commitments to owners who purchased under the pre-2019 version of FSD.

No one is really goading Tesla into releasing FSD Beta early. Elon was the one who said they were going to do it (and then reneged on that)! I think it's also possible as a shareholder to think that having Elon make responsible statements, which bear out in reality, based on the actual state of current development, are good for shareholders. I understand Elon is an ambitious and enthusiastic guy, but I tend to think having optimism grounded in facts is probably better for stability of the development team, and probably also better for the long term success of their autonomous development. Imagine the power if Elon could make statements on Twitter which were generally regarded as true (notwithstanding current SEC limitations)!

I also think it's fine for Tesla to keep their development entirely under wraps and not have Elon tweeting about it, but that's a different strategy (not one they're pursuing right now), and I'm agnostic about which one is best.

 

[diplomat33]

I'm not really in this camp, since they are not testing autonomous driving! I certainly understand people who have safety concerns about Tesla's approach, but it's very clear they are not testing an autonomous driving system (by that I mean above level 2; if level 2 is “autonomous” per SAE (no idea, not going to read the text again) that just isn’t what I am defining as autonomous in this context), at least to me it seems clear.

I think Tesla is pursuing an optimal strategy for themselves, based on where they find themselves technically amongst the competition, and they are making (potential) use of their strength - fleet size.

I don’t see any benefit in having regulatory oversight at this point, given the current capability of their system. It would immediately take away one of their advantages!

We’ll see if it works out for them. At some point it might make sense to start testing in California. I know some people think they are testing autonomous driving (consistently) elsewhere but I suspect we’d have evidence of that if they were. The simplest explanation is that for where they are, there is currently no need. That makes sense, since they haven’t yet finished perception (according to Elon anyway).

I guess I feel that Tesla should pick a lane.

I agree that the current FSD is not autonomous since it is L2. So I would be also be ok with Tesla not reporting but then not promising FSD, not promising L5, not promising robotaxis. Call it "Autopilot Plus" or something instead of "Full Self-Driving".

OR

Since the intent is clearly to achieve FSD at some point, report disengagements and follow the rules for testing something that is intended to be FSD.

It just seems to me like Tesla is trying to have the best of both worlds: develop FSD without having to report FSD. Tesla can do all the testing and development as L2 and then when it's ready, deploy it as L5, skipping all the L5 reporting or testing.

But I agree that it is a win-win for Tesla. They can deploy a system to customers immediately without having to wait, get feedback to improve the system, and promise L5 for whenever the system becomes L5.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

They've done fine so far and it's not like they're getting lapped by their competitors.

I own stock, so I want them to do even better than they have been. To me, it seems their execution and Elon’s tweet strategy has not been flawless.

I have no interest in telling them how to run their business, but it’s just generally true that good execution and a good reputation is helpful for a business. That’s all I am saying. I’m not saying they should adopt a low-risk strategy, or however you might interpret it.

There’s always room for improvement and part of improving is acknowledging places where improvement is needed.

I guess I feel that Tesla should pick a lane.

They definitely have. They are currently advertising a level 2 product.

Since the intent is clearly to achieve FSD at some point, report disengagements and follow the rules for testing something that is intended to be FSD.

While somewhat in conflict with certain aspirational public statements (by Elon primarily), I think it's pretty clear the design intent of what they have in the limited beta right now is NOT a L3+ system. Obviously this is the topic of a lot of debate around here, though! Clearly Tesla is stating that the limited beta product is not intended, by design, to be an L3+ system - they've said as much to the regulators in the email that started this thread. I don't think it's a convenient lie to work a little loophole, either. It's what they really believe! (And it's what has been promised to after-early-2019 buyers.)

While Tesla clearly eventually intends to achieve L3+, it's also pretty clear that's not currently what they're doing, so why would they follow rules not intended for their current development?

It'll be a more interesting question once the beta is no longer particularly limited. Then people will start asking questions about how things will go from there, when Tesla will start registering autonomous testing miles, when the design intent will change, and how we will know. When will that happen? I have no idea. Maybe the next couple months, if Elon is to be believed, but seems like 6 months is more likely with their pure vision development in its inchoate stages. There will certainly be an accident or two that occur while FSD is in use (maybe no fault of FSD), which will add extra wrinkles to the timeline. Exciting times!

 

[GZDongles]

The FAA has sooo much credibility after the Boeing 737 MAX debacle. /SARCASM

It's an unfortunate outcome of regulatory capture.

Again not to get sidetracked, but if you aren't in the industry you are missing a lot of nuance here. If anything the FAA was too pro business and gave the Boeing too much authority to essentially self-certify their aircraft. If you want to blame Boeing for the FAA becoming slightly more conservative that's fine, but you can't both argue that the FAA doesn't do a good job and that they should be less stringent with SpaceX.

Anyway, back to the main discussion, I am personally excited about a Level 2 FSD on city streets and the beta if and when it arrives, but I don't understand the need of Tesla owners to constantly shield Tesla from the criticism of imaginary enemies.

I want to be completely clear. My Model 3 is the best car I have ever owned. Any minor annoyances are more than compensated for by the performance, handling, and electric powertrain. I think it's fair to call Tesla out for some of their over promising and misleading marketing. Elon Musk is clearly a technical and business genius, but he is also frustratingly optimistic sometimes. If that's a necessary side effect of him being a visionary I think that's a fair trade. I just wish it were easier to take Tesla's marketing statements at face value.

 

[Tesomega]

The goal, vision, hope can be different than what the legal language is written for a consumer to buy.

I don't think Tesla will stop at L2. It will try its best to move to L3 and beyond.

By reading the legal language on an ordering page with a price attached to it, what consumers bought is not a guarantee. What it has always said that for your money, you might get what you want but there is no guarantee.

Tesla has always listed the conditions for Tesla to fulfill the vision but if those conditions are not met, then the consumers won't get robotaxi ever.

This is true. However, they misled people to think they will complete Coast to Coast Drive and all they have to do is get the regulators approval. Not to mention all the hardware required for FSD.

 

[mikes_fsd]

if SpaceX were better organized they could easily meet them

More organized for what? to meet some bureaucrats paperwork?
SpaceX is organized optimally to achieve one goal, making life multiplanetary!

They've proven that they are optimized for hard and real engineering work over and over again.

Organizing your company to meet gov't regs is a sure way to get nowhere --- ** waves at Blue Origin **

 

[mark95476]

Typical cost-plus contract for Old Space--

- COTS, but "engineering" is always behind.
- Schedules are delayed by decades and insanely over-budget, but bonuses are paid for "performance".
- Revolving door between industry and government.
- Costs to taxpayers are essentially infinite.

More organized for what? to meet some bureaucrats paperwork?
SpaceX is organized optimally to achieve one goal, making life multiplanetary!

They've proven that they are optimized for hard and real engineering work over and over again.

Organizing your company to meet gov't regs is a sure way to get nowhere --- ** waves at Blue Origin **

 

[ac_power]

They've done fine so far and it's not like they're getting lapped by their competitors.

Mmm ? Are you reading news ?

Honda Legend Sedan with Level 3 Autonomy Available for Lease in Japan

Honda says its Sensing Elite technology means the driver of the limited-edition sedan won't have to pay attention under some conditions.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[M109Rider]

Mmm ? Are you reading news ?

Honda Legend Sedan with Level 3 Autonomy Available for Lease in Japan

Honda says its Sensing Elite technology means the driver of the limited-edition sedan won't have to pay attention under some conditions.

www.caranddriver.com

In my opinion, A system that only achieves level 3 in congested traffic, isn’t level 3.
Using that logic, my Tesla model 3 already achieves Level 5 autonomy for 30 second intervals on the Highway in all conditions. ...
Some here would suggest level 3 is not level 3, if it only works in limited scenarios. Well, maybe it’s just me suggesting that though.

 

[diplomat33]

In my opinion, A system that only achieves level 3 in congested traffic, isn’t level 3.
Using that logic, my Tesla model 3 already achieves Level 5 autonomy for 30 second intervals on the Highway in all conditions. ...
Some here would suggest level 3 is not level 3, if it only works in limited scenarios. Well, maybe it’s just me suggesting that though.

You clearly don't understand the SAE levels.

 

[M109Rider]

You clearly don't understand the SAE levels.

You clearly don’t understand light humour. Unless it’s at Tesla’s expense, then you’re all over it.

I think I used the words “In my opinion”, rather than the words “According to SAE Levels”.

I do understand SAE levels, just didn’t agree with the post implying Honda had a better system based on its limited use case.

I assume you feel their system as stated, is true level 3, and therefore ahead of Tesla. ?

 

[ac_power]

I assume you feel their system as stated, is true level 3, and therefore ahead of Tesla. ?

It does not really matter what we assume.
As the matter of fact, Honda got certified for Level 3 (and Waymo already has limited clearance for fully autonomous driving for two years or so, in commercial application though), while Tesla recently admitted that Level 3 certification is not in close plans even.

 

[M109Rider]

It does not really matter what we assume.
As the matter of fact, Honda got certified for Level 3 (and Waymo already has limited clearance for fully autonomous driving for two years or so, in commercial application though), while Tesla recently admitted that Level 3 certification is not in close plans even.

Not sure what certification over there entailes. But if it’s only level three in a traffic jam, I don’t see that as legit. I don’t understand how you can certify a car for any level if you start breaking it into categories. Again, just my two cents.
Can you imagine if Certifications started breaking it out like this for everything.
Level 4 for parking lots only. Level 3 for dessert roads only, or level 5 for a 10 square mile area only...
Not really legit in my eyes.

 

[robdavmil]

Not sure what certification over there entailes. But if it’s only level three in a traffic jam, I don’t see that as legit. I don’t understand how you can certify a car for any level if you start breaking it into categories. Again, just my two cents.
Can you imagine if Certifications started breaking it out like this for everything.
Level 4 for parking lots only. Level 3 for dessert roads only, or level 5 for a 10 square mile area only...
Not really legit in my eyes.

My car is level 5 when parked in my garage!

 

[ac_power]

Not sure what certification over there entailes. But if it’s only level three in a traffic jam, I don’t see that as legit. I don’t understand how you can certify a car for any level if you start breaking it into categories. Again, just my two cents.
Can you imagine if Certifications started breaking it out like this for everything.
Level 4 for parking lots only. Level 3 for dessert roads only, or level 5 for a 10 square mile area only...
Not really legit in my eyes.

This:

You clearly don't understand the SAE levels.

 

[diplomat33]

Level 4 for parking lots only. Level 3 for dessert roads only, or level 5 for a 10 square mile area only...

This is how I know that you don't understand the SAE levels. There is no such thing as "L5 for a 10 sq mi area". By definition, L5 is FSD that works everywhere. So, if it only works in a 10 sq mi area, then it can't be L5. It has to be L4.

 

[EVNow]

but I don't understand the need of Tesla owners to constantly shield Tesla from the criticism of imaginary enemies.

Because the enemies aren't exactly imaginary. Afterall Tesla can't sell cars (or even service ?) in your state because of these "imaginary" enemies.

In general Tesla has an antagonistic relationship with rest of OEMs and bureaucracy related to them because of
- general anti-regulation attitude of Musk
- general apathy of Tesla to the way bureaucrats and rest of the industry work
- suspicion of the bureaucrats with regard to anything to do with the "new-kid-on-the-block" Tesla

As you noted - OEMs and Bureaucracy have become too cozy and formed a mutually beneficial relationship to the detriment of the interests of the people who the regulators are tasked to protect.

 

[diplomat33]

It probably should be noted that L3 is a bit of an odd level. It is a sort of "hybrid" because it is self-driving in some conditions but still requires a driver to take over in other conditions. Honda's system is a textbook example of L3: the car is trusted to do all the driving in that limited condition of congested traffic. During those conditions, the driver can disengage and does not need to pay attention to the road. But when the congestion clears up, the car will notify the driver in advance to take over again. The fact that the car has to notify a driver in advance to take over is seen as problematic since the driver has go from not paying attention to paying attention again.

I think most companies are focused on either L2 or L4 because the distinction is much clearer. L2 means the driver always has to pay attention. L4 means the driver never has to pay attention. It removes the ambiguity of L3.

 

[M109Rider]

This is how I know that you don't understand the SAE levels. There is no such thing as "L5 for a 10 sq mi area". By definition, L5 is FSD that works everywhere. So, if it only works in a 10 sq mi area, then it can't be L5. It has to be L4.

I don’t think you picked up on what I was throwing down.
I know there is no such thing as level 5 for 10 square miles.
That was kind of the point I was making, that you missed.
It’s why level 3 for traffic jams seems silly to me, especially when it’s implied that they are ahead of Tesla as a result of it.