FSD may require a hardware upgrade...

[calisnow]

Welps - I was still wavering on a loaded-to-the-gills inventory 90D or a bare bones 60. This sealed it - 60 it is. Depreciation hit will be minimal should I need to upgrade yet again in 12 months. @sir guacamolof - AP2 I think will be good enough but not AP1 on highways. AP1 behaves so well I want to read and nap - but I know it can't handle a lot of corner cases. AP2 may not be smart enough for in city driving with the existing PX2 brain but it should significantly enhance highway autopilot reliability - making dozing off safer than it is now.

 

[Sir Guacamolaf]

@calisnow you still won't be able to doze off. So if you need to pay attention as if your life depended on it, I don't see the point of AP2 being better than AP1.

As far as 0-60 times, yeah those glamorous things attract attention, but that horse is dead beaten and done.
People are really questioning reliability now. And plenty of owners are talking about service center issues, and wait times.
The referral program for instance, a lot of wannabe owners that I know of personally, have changed their mind once they found out about repair costs, service center issues, and wait times. So don't underestimate the importance of reliability and cost of ownership.

You yourself looked at depreciation right? Cost & hassle of ownership ranks pretty damned high.

 

[stopcrazypp]

They'd have to offer a buyback as an option as well as I'm sure some folks bought for the sole reason that they'd have an FSD car. If Tesla never delivers on that, refunding the FSD fee won't be enough.

Without the disclaimers I would agree. However, with the disclaimers it makes it more iffy. The disclaimer allows for the possibility of FSD never even being activated at all. This is way beyond even AP1 (where it was vague about features, but did not suggest it would never be active).

 

[outie]

For AP1, blind spot detection was touted on the Tesla site as a feature. They have renamed it blind spot warning and more correctly state its capability. At various times, WiFi hotspot, red light detection, entry/exit from highways, and many more things have been promised and not delivered.

Autopark, auto high-beams, auto wipers and more don't currently work well enough to be relied upon, but are listed as features. Tesla has never bothered to get those working well and instead focuses on acceleration tricks.

Or them Christmas dances for the X.

 

[calisnow]

@calisnow you still won't be able to doze off. So if you need to pay attention as if your life depended on it, I don't see the point of AP2 being better than AP1.

As far as 0-60 times, yeah those glamorous things attract attention, but that horse is dead beaten and done.
People are really questioning reliability now. And plenty of owners are talking about service center issues, and wait times.
The referral program for instance, a lot of wannabe owners that I know of personally, have changed their mind once they found out about repair costs, service center issues, and wait times. So don't underestimate the importance of reliability and cost of ownership.

You yourself looked at depreciation right? Cost & hassle of ownership ranks pretty damned high.

As for dozing off - that's a personal decision and I can do what I like. If AP2 statistically is as good or better than an average human driver on freeways and I also am sitting in a very safe car - I'll doze off thanks. That's what deep front tinted windows, lawyers and large umbrella policies are for. Cost benefit analysis is how I live my life. I could care less what a regulator thinks. :shrug:

I suppose I've been lucky - zero service center visits in 20K+ miles so far on an inventory 2016 70D - so it colors my experience. Until the data shows a drop off in sales it's very difficult to argue Tesla isn't doing the right thing. We've groused for years about reliability problems - which go down every year - as sales and stock go up.

I'm also somewhat biased because I come from a lifetime of finicky performance car ownership - being on a first name basis with BMW and MBZ service techs has always been normal for me. If I came from Toyota ownership I suppose it would be different.

 

[croman]

Without the disclaimers I would agree. However, with the disclaimers it makes it more iffy. The disclaimer allows for the possibility of FSD never even being activated at all. This is way beyond even AP1 (where it was vague about features, but did not suggest it would never be active).

Nothing in the disclaimer says that Tesla's hardware may prove insufficient. In fact, they did a big press blitz about how after October 18th, all Teslas produced will come with hardware for FULL SELF DRIVING. It was their #1 selling point and something that differentiated them further from their competition. It spurred Q4 sales, including my own. This will be the last time I say this. Tesla's "fine print" does not adequately disclose any shortcomings in hardware to do FSD. Tesla will deliver this for free, no other option remains for them.

 

[Reeler]

Buy a Tesla for what it can do today and then be pleasantly surprised if software allows it to do more in the future. Tesla will deliver FSD functionality in some form. They will not upgrade for free or for extra money.

The only way to get FSD will be to wait until they have that feature working and trade in your car for a new one. I personally believe they will need 360 degree radar or lidar added to the 8 video cameras to get FSD approved by regulators.

Hate to be the voice of reality here, but this is my third Tesla and they will do with FSD what they have done dozens of times before with other features.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Let me be clear: I am an attorney and have sued many many companies for consumer fraud back when I started. This is about as open/shut as they come. Tesla can't decide how to make a consumer whole. As @sorka stated -- many consumers bought a Tesla because of FSD. It was the feature that compelled the entire purchase. Putting aside a slam dunk consumer fraud claim -- even under a breach of contract theory, the buyer is entitled to be made entirely whole if they can prove they would've bought a different car and FSD was what pushed them towards a Tesla. Tesla made a contract and despite what people think about Tesla's "fine print" -- a hardware limitation isn't going to cut it as an excuse for a material breach.

Throw in a slam dunk consumer fraud case and Tesla really better deliver free of charge or they will drown in litigation. Remember, I used to do these lawsuits as a young attorney because attorneys fees are baked in to most state consumer fraud laws. Nothing better than a slam dunk case where the other side fights (its like those Chinese finger traps -- the more you struggle the worse it becomes).

Lets just assume Tesla will eat whatever cost there is (remember if its in the future, the tech cost will drop as compared to present value). Tesla gets $100k+ at 30+% margins from us now, so it can't be that big of a deal to them to upgrade purchasers for free to avoid breaching a contract.

I'm not an attorney, but presuming it was an open-shut case in terms of full car buy-back, I'm curious why no attorney has taken up that case with the horsepower and 0-60 issue that had been subject to much discussion here in TMC. I will have to dig up the reference, but I believe someone did argue in Norway (which is more consumer friendly than the US) for the full Performance option price and the judge denied even that, given the rest of the option package adds value to the vehicle. Full vehicle buy-back was never even on the table, even though you can certainly argue the acceleration/power compelled the entire purchase.

 

[eloder]

Wow, folks are drunk on that snake oil. There is a list of like 15 things that Tesla talked about or EM tweeted about, but never delivered.

What if FSD is offered on closed tracks, below 40mph, or single lanes in sunny conditions? Does that fulfill their promise? I think they only promised to have hardware that could do it maybe and probably will under some circumstances. But, the driver will always have to be alert and ready to take over.

Until I can sleep in the back seat, who cares about FSD?

Perhaps people should stop buying software-downloadable options on a car until they're happy with said option. Multiple broken promise Elon is still light-years ahead of the best of the best provided by other auto manufacturers.

The disclosures were/are pretty clear. If they never deliver on a feature, at worst their liability is refunding part of the cost and nothing more. There was never a timeframe guaranteed upfront, and even AP1 software is in fact still in beta mode.

 

[croman]

I'm not an attorney, but presuming it was an open-shut case in terms of full car buy-back, I'm curious why no attorney has taken up that case with the horsepower and 0-60 issue that had been subject to much discussion here in TMC. I will have to dig up the reference, but I believe someone did argue in Norway (which is more consumer friendly than the US) for the full Performance option price and the judge denied even that, given the rest of the option package adds value to the vehicle. Full vehicle buy-back was never even on the table, even though you can certainly argue the acceleration/power compelled the entire purchase.

There is no case currently. This is a discussion if Tesla were to announce that the hardware present in the vehicle is, in fact, insufficient to perform the promised functions.

Secondly, this isn't Norway (or I should say I have no idea what Norway's laws are). I'm solely speaking about the US. While each consumer has varying consumer fraud laws (based on their state), there are some overarching FTC and other federal laws that would apply to the kind of innocent (even) misrepresentation. The issue of making a plaintiff whole (that is their remedy at law) depends on the consumer's mindset. If they swear they only bought a Tesla because of FSD and Tesla is (for whatever reason) unwilling to pay to upgrade the hardware, then yes, I think it is entirely possible to obtain a buy back.

Now, let me be clear, I have little doubt Tesla will do the right thing and upgrade everyone for free. Nothing else makes sense given the language concerning self driving hardware being present.

 

[sorka]

Without the disclaimers I would agree. However, with the disclaimers it makes it more iffy. The disclaimer allows for the possibility of FSD never even being activated at all. This is way beyond even AP1 (where it was vague about features, but did not suggest it would never be active).

Elon had a disclaimer related to regulatory approval. If the current hardware is not found to be suitable for government approval of FSD, he could always fall back on that. But that's the fine print. I think if FSD is not enabled within the next 6 months, you will see far more people rebelling in the public than you did when Tesla sold us P85Ds with 228 hp less than what was advertised.

 

[azred]

Let me be clear: I am an attorney and have sued many many companies for consumer fraud back when I started. This is about as open/shut as they come. Tesla can't decide how to make a consumer whole. As @sorka stated -- many consumers bought a Tesla because of FSD. It was the feature that compelled the entire purchase. Putting aside a slam dunk consumer fraud claim -- even under a breach of contract theory, the buyer is entitled to be made entirely whole if they can prove they would've bought a different car and FSD was what pushed them towards a Tesla. Tesla made a contract and despite what people think about Tesla's "fine print" -- a hardware limitation isn't going to cut it as an excuse for a material breach.

Throw in a slam dunk consumer fraud case and Tesla really better deliver free of charge or they will drown in litigation. Remember, I used to do these lawsuits as a young attorney because attorneys fees are baked in to most state consumer fraud laws. Nothing better than a slam dunk case where the other side fights (its like those Chinese finger traps -- the more you struggle the worse it becomes).

Lets just assume Tesla will eat whatever cost there is (remember if its in the future, the tech cost will drop as compared to present value). Tesla gets $100k+ at 30+% margins from us now, so it can't be that big of a deal to them to upgrade purchasers for free to avoid breaching a contract.

Slam dunk? I' m surprised to hear any fellow attorney make that comment.

 

[croman]

Slam dunk? I' m surprised to hear any fellow attorney make that comment.

This isn't a legal analysis. However, I don't see anything in any papers I received from Tesla to make me believe that if Tesla determines 2 Drive PX2 chips were required and only 1 provided that I would have to purchase that or pay for it. Its my opinion, its not legal advice. I'm an attorney, not your attorney.

If I was your attorney, I probably would have many many pages of disclaimers

While Tesla does have a regulatory disclaimer -- I'm skeptical that encompasses the situation I was addressing (a hardware shortcoming that was foreseeable).

 

[Haxster]

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but based on the substantive challenges of FSD and the AP2 rate of progress being made on HW2 cars, it’s possible that by the time FSD is actually enabled on HW2 cars, a PX3 class controller will be available and required, additional cameras and sensors will need to be retrofitted, and many owners will choose to buy new vehicles with HW3 rather than pay for the upgrades to get more than “limited” FSD on their “old” HW2s cars.

I hope I’m wrong…

 

[sorka]

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but based on the substantive challenges of FSD and the AP2 rate of progress being made on HW2 cars, it’s possible that by the time FSD is actually enabled on HW2 cars, a PX3 class controller will be available and required, additional cameras and sensors will need to be retrofitted, and many owners will choose to buy new vehicles with HW3 rather than pay for the upgrades to get more than “limited” FSD on their “old” HW2s cars.

I hope I’m wrong…

I think what everyone is expecting as far as functionality is what the Tesla with FSD did in the demo video. If I had a late model tesla with the current FSD hardware and I didn't get that functionality in the next 6 months, I'd be royally pissed.

 

[calisnow]

This isn't a legal analysis. However, I don't see anything in any papers I received from Tesla to make me believe that if Tesla determines 2 Drive PX2 chips were required and only 1 provided that I would have to purchase that or pay for it. Its my opinion, its not legal advice. I'm an attorney, not your attorney.

If I was your attorney, I probably would have many many pages of disclaimers

While Tesla does have a regulatory disclaimer -- I'm skeptical that encompasses the situation I was addressing (a hardware shortcoming that was foreseeable).

I'm not an attorney - you are. So, tell me if you think I'm wrong - but doesn't Tesla have quite a bit of wiggle room to define "full self driving"? For example - couldn't they eventually decide the car can fully self drive (ie no hands on wheel required - no "nags") but only on divided freeways? That's a much easier problem to solve than around town - yet it would give them a defense, yes?

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but based on the substantive challenges of FSD and the AP2 rate of progress being made on HW2 cars, it’s possible that by the time FSD is actually enabled on HW2 cars, a PX3 class controller will be available and required, additional cameras and sensors will need to be retrofitted, and many owners will choose to buy new vehicles with HW3 rather than pay for the upgrades to get more than “limited” FSD on their “old” HW2s cars.

I hope I’m wrong…

I fear you're right.

 

[MP3Mike]

I think what everyone is expecting as far as functionality is what the Tesla with FSD did in the demo video. If I had a late model tesla with the current FSD hardware and I didn't get that functionality in the next 6 months, I'd be royally pissed.

I can almost guarantee you that the level of FSD in the demo video will not be available in the next 6 months. Elon said that they hope to be able to show a cross country demo video by the end of the year. Which is 10 more months away.

 

[sorka]

I can almost guarantee you that the level of FSD in the demo video will not be available in the next 6 months. Elon said that they hope to be able to show a cross country demo video by the end of the year. Which is 10 more months away.

So you agree, then why did you mark "disagree" on every one of my posts???

 

[croman]

I'm not an attorney - you are. So, tell me if you think I'm wrong - but doesn't Tesla have quite a bit of wiggle room to define "full self driving"? For example - couldn't they eventually decide the car can fully self drive (ie no hands on wheel required - no "nags") but only on divided freeways? That's a much easier problem to solve than around town - yet it would give them a defense, yes?

I don't believe that the Tesla FSD video(s) had the driver limiting his route to only divided freeways before engaging FSD. I think they even showed some local driving in one of the videos.

In those videos, they state the driver is present with his hands touching the wheel for regulatory purposes only (California). They don't seem to signal to consumers that there will be this kind of limitation you allude to (solely due to hardware). Now, there are myriad facts that could come into play. I just think if its proven that Tesla should have provided better hardware to support their promises and claims -- then they should provide that to buyers free of charge to avoid defending themselves as to allegations they are misrepresenting to consumers what they are buying.

 

[sorka]

I'm not an attorney - you are. So, tell me if you think I'm wrong - but doesn't Tesla have quite a bit of wiggle room to define "full self driving"? For example - couldn't they eventually decide the car can fully self drive (ie no hands on wheel required - no "nags") but only on divided freeways? That's a much easier problem to solve than around town - yet it would give them a defense, yes?

I suspect you're spot on.