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

FSD Timeline Promises (summary)

Scotty7

Member
Sep 22, 2019
6
8
United Kingdom
if we end up getting HW4 replacements for our HW3 computers I think that would be a big admittance of failure. HW3 would’ve served essentially no purpose, other than displaying bins, and Tesla would’ve spent millions replacing them in thousands of cars.

I feel a looming sense that whatever ‘the-button’ fsd evolves into will quickly become feature-complete by Tesla’s arbitrary standards. They’ll tell us their obligation is fulfilled to past fsd-buyers and only HW4 and beyond will progress past level 2. the only evidence I have against this is that every Cybertruck and roadster we’ve seen so far has a near-identical camera layout to what we have in current cars. That’s possibly done on purpose to avoid commotion.
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
13,207
21,973
NC
I thinking we won't be able to upgrade to full HW4 even if we pay. Suspect it will include 12 camera configuration or other similar major change. Perhaps can upgrade the computer though.

Only info we have today is Elon said it'd use better cameras- he didn't say more cameras. No reason they couldn't upgrade existing ones.

(Honestly even adding a couple wouldn't be THAT hard, but at that point it'd come down to a cost benefit analysis of upgrade costs and goodwill value versus refunding buyers they can't deliver promised features to)



if we end up getting HW4 replacements for our HW3 computers I think that would be a big admittance of failure. HW3 would’ve served essentially no purpose, other than displaying bins, and Tesla would’ve spent millions replacing them in thousands of cars.


FWIW it's entirely possible they can run the full FSD stack on HW3... just not redundantly.

Meaning they could offer it at L2 no problem-(and even 3 since it'd still require a human being there if the computer failed) but they'd need to swap HW4 in for anyone who paid for L4+


I feel a looming sense that whatever ‘the-button’ fsd evolves into will quickly become feature-complete by Tesla’s arbitrary standards. They’ll tell us their obligation is fulfilled to past fsd-buyers and only HW4 and beyond will progress past level 2. the only evidence I have against this is that every Cybertruck and roadster we’ve seen so far has a near-identical camera layout to what we have in current cars. That’s possibly done on purpose to avoid commotion.


That dives down the rabbit hole of pre/post March 2019 buyers :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Microterf

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,094
4,215
Kihei, HI
Well, so far anybody who actually purchased FSD has paid $0.00 for any needed HW upgrades to be swapped in... as long as that remains true for HW4 I don't see any issue.

This is true. And if Tesla actually does achieve full and true FSD during the normal expected lifetime of the cars on which it was paid for, and if Tesla does upgrade those cars with all necessary hardware, then it will have fulfilled its obligation. If, however, those cars age out before true and full FSD becomes available, or if it turns out that it requires hardware that Tesla is not able to retrofit into those cars, then Tesla will have failed to fulfill its promises.

I am of the opinion that the hardware needed for true and full FSD will not be possible to retrofit into the present generation of cars, and that FSD won't even be available before these cars have aged out of the fleet. At which point Tesla could partially redeem itself by refunding the full amount people paid for FSD. It would have been better if Tesla had not promised a technology that did not yet exist, merely on the hope that they could develop it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pilotSteve

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,094
4,215
Kihei, HI
Why would I? They'd have nothing to do with the discussion of getting free HW upgrades in existing vehicles that paid for FSD.

The FSD purchase is tied to the vehicle, not the owner.

The promise was "Your car will be able to drive itself without anybody in it." There is an implied promise that this will happen within the time one expects to own the car. There are people who have been waiting five years and still have nothing but L2 City. And no driverless software yet in sight. A quick google search says that on average people keep new cars for six years. A lot of folks won't get what they paid for.

(I got what I paid for: EAP, which I bought because it existed, and it's the best thing since sliced bread. As someone else --sorry, I don't remember who-- called it: Supervised Self-Driving. And I'll amend that to Supervised Highway Self-Driving since EAP is really not good for city driving.)

Best car on the road! Too bad Elon has to take money from people on a promise he cannot keep.
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
13,207
21,973
NC
The promise was "Your car will be able to drive itself without anybody in it." There is an implied promise that this will happen within the time one expects to own the car.


Sure. I think there's a perfectly reasonable (and legally useful) argument to be made there.


But even if there is, the remedy would be a refund (potentially with interest or penalties)- not "Let me transfer to another car"

We're also not quite there yet.


There are people who have been waiting five years


...well, almost 5.... Oct 19th 2016 is 5 years from when they announced it as available for purchase.... so close enough-- still a bit shy of the average length of new car ownership though.



And no driverless software yet in sight.

Depends on who you ask.

Folks in this section run the gammut from:

driverless is unpossible!
to
Robotaxis coming this year!


I suspect it's somewhere in between myself :)


A quick google search says that on average people keep new cars for six years. A lot of folks won't get what they paid for.

I'll be moderately surprised if nobody has filed a suit over this exact thing once the oldest FSD cars get beyond average age. As I say I certainly think there's a reasonable case to be made at least on this.

Course those are $3000 refunds, not 10k... (plus at least interest)


(I got what I paid for: EAP, which I bought because it existed, and it's the best thing since sliced bread. As someone else --sorry, I don't remember who-- called it: Supervised Self-Driving. And I'll amend that to Supervised Highway Self-Driving since EAP is really not good for city driving.)

I bought EAP too of course, pre-req for FSD.

Mainly I bought FSD based on 3 things:

The promise it'd cost more later (excepting that weird 2 week sale in 2019 that's been true)
and
I knew I'd get any needed HW upgrades free (which has also proved true)
and
I believed the system would be capable of at least L3 highway. I still do, though obviously the SW isn't there yet. I think if vision-only solves the stopped-partly-in-lane issue then the SW IS probably there though. They technically owe me L4 almost everywhere, but I'd be perfectly happy with l3 highway.


I had my last car for 11 years (a Lexus IS350, purchased new)- so I've got a bit of time yet. And not like the last 18 months have had a lot of driving in em anyway.



Best car on the road! Too bad Elon has to take money from people on a promise he cannot keep.


The most legally relevant question would be did he believe he could keep it when he made it?

If so the most he's on the hook for is that 3k I mentioned (plus interest) if he ends up finding he can't deliver.

If subpoenas found internal docs showing another story it might be a different situation.
 

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,094
4,215
Kihei, HI
Folks in this section run the gammut from:

driverless is unpossible!
to
Robotaxis coming this year!


I suspect it's somewhere in between myself :)

Yep. In between. I'm guessing 15 years for true driverless, but whether Tesla will be the first or not, I have no guess. At least 5 years for L3 on the highway at full legal speed with HW5. I'd put real money on that bet, but not over the internet. It would have to be an in-person bet with someone I believed would actually pay up if they lose.

Mainly I bought FSD based on 3 things:

The promise it'd cost more later (excepting that weird 2 week sale in 2019 that's been true)
and
I knew I'd get any needed HW upgrades free (which has also proved true)
and
I believed the system would be capable of at least L3 highway. I still do, though obviously the SW isn't there yet. I think if vision-only solves the stopped-partly-in-lane issue then the SW IS probably there though. They technically owe me L4 almost everywhere, but I'd be perfectly happy with l3 highway.

I believed the price would go up. Problem was, I didn't believe they could deliver before I would be ready to trade up my car after 5 to 10 years. I still believe that. And I don't want the half-way beta. I want a tested system that works. Highway autopilot works. They call it beta, but it's mature and it works.

I believed they would provide the free HW upgrades until they realized that the whole sensor suite was entirely inadequate: They were (and still are) promising that the present hardware is adequate for FSD before they even have FSD. When the software does not even exist yet, how can they be so confident the hardware is sufficient?

I would pay for the upgrade (whatever it costs!) or trade up my car if they released L3 Highway, providing it works on the roads we consider highways here and can operate at the speed limit, or preferably 5 or 10 mph faster since our speed limits are ridiculously low, and are not enforced, and nobody drives at the limit. If it's only limited-access divided freeways, we only have a few miles of that on the highway up towards Makawao and Kula. That would do me no good.

The most legally relevant question would be did he believe he could keep it when he made it?

If so the most he's on the hook for is that 3k I mentioned (plus interest) if he ends up finding he can't deliver.

If subpoenas found internal docs showing another story it might be a different situation.

I would not even venture a guess on the law. But just as they say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, I feel that a scam is no less a scam just because the scammer believes it himself. I think that Elon truly believed everything he said. But he's a smart man and he knows the difference between belief and knowledge. And he knows that things can go wrong and unexpected obstacles can arise. Promising to deliver something that has not been invented yet is a sleazy thing to do.

Just different wording would have gone a long way and made everything right:

"We want to develop FSD. We think we can do it, and we think we can do it with the hardware in your car. But the software does not exist yet and we may never be able to achieve it. Pay us X dollars now, and if we succeed you'll get it. If not, we'll give you whatever software we can produce and validate."

Instead they said:

"You will be able to summon your car from NYC to Los Angeles."
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
13,207
21,973
NC
Yep. In between. I'm guessing 15 years for true driverless, but whether Tesla will be the first or not, I have no guess. At least 5 years for L3 on the highway at full legal speed with HW5. I'd put real money on that bet, but not over the internet. It would have to be an in-person bet with someone I believed would actually pay up if they lose.

Fix the issue with stationary partly-in-lane objects and they have L3 highway at full speed today.

AI day suggested vision only solves this- but we haven't seen the highway version of the unified vision stack (just the objectively inferior old-style vision only highway stack currently on vision only cars) so we can't judge how accurate that suggestion is.




I believed they would provide the free HW upgrades until they realized that the whole sensor suite was entirely inadequate: They were (and still are) promising that the present hardware is adequate for FSD before they even have FSD. When the software does not even exist yet, how can they be so confident the hardware is sufficient?

Completely agree... it's why I pointed out a while ago when we found out HW3 wouldn't be sufficient that Tesla faces a significant problem in that until they actually solve it (even if it was done with say using 99.99% of both nodes of HW3 such that it couldn't support L5 safely due to lack of redundancy) then, and only then could they actually spec a driving computer that can do the job.

Until then they just keep guessing at the compute needed with each HW iteration, and with no inkling if they'll be right each time other than hoping it's "enough"


On the other hand- what's the alternative? I'm unaware of any OTHER, better, method to figure out how much compute you need to do this- and at least each iteration comes with other improvements.



I would not even venture a guess on the law. But just as they say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, I feel that a scam is no less a scam just because the scammer believes it himself.

That's simply not the case though.

Generally speaking fraud, legally, requires intentional deception, it requires intent.

You have to intentionally, knowingly misrepresent a material fact-- aware that it's false-- that someone then justifiably thinks they can rely on and acts on, and suffers an actual loss as a result.

If you believe Elon believed what he promised then it's not legally fraud-- just hubris.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pilotSteve

pilotSteve

Active Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,497
1,423
Prescott Az
“If you believe Elon believed what he promised then it's not legally fraud-- just hubris.”

I believe (now) that I was naive to have paid for FSD in 2016 and think it would actually be delivered as promised by 2019. Or 2020. Or 2021. Or …..
 

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,094
4,215
Kihei, HI
Fix the issue with stationary partly-in-lane objects and they have L3 highway at full speed today.

Note that I said highways, not freeways. Our highways have limited access in that every intersection has either stop signs for traffic entering, or stoplights. L3 highway (by my definition of "highway," which are the highways we have here) would have to recognize stoplights accurately without requiring the driver to confirm. Again, I'm talking about what I would pay for, not some formalized definition. It would also have to be more accurate than mine presently is on speed limits.

Completely agree... it's why I pointed out a while ago when we found out HW3 wouldn't be sufficient that Tesla faces a significant problem in that until they actually solve it (even if it was done with say using 99.99% of both nodes of HW3 such that it couldn't support L5 safely due to lack of redundancy) then, and only then could they actually spec a driving computer that can do the job.

Until then they just keep guessing at the compute needed with each HW iteration, and with no inkling if they'll be right each time other than hoping it's "enough"

On the other hand- what's the alternative? I'm unaware of any OTHER, better, method to figure out how much compute you need to do this- and at least each iteration comes with other improvements.

The alternative, as I keep saying, is simply Don't sell it until it exists. Work on it, develop it, call the intermediate system "Supervised Self-Driving." Don't promise something that does not exist. Or sell it as speculative, rather than as if it were guaranteed.

That's simply not the case though.

Generally speaking fraud, legally, requires intentional deception, it requires intent.

You have to intentionally, knowingly misrepresent a material fact-- aware that it's false-- that someone then justifiably thinks they can rely on and acts on, and suffers an actual loss as a result.

If you believe Elon believed what he promised then it's not legally fraud-- just hubris.

Which is why I distinguish between legal fraud and sleazy behavior. I'm confident that Tesla's lawyers can convince a court that Tesla did not commit fraud. But Elon convinced a lot of people to pay for something that he cannot deliver, and regardless of what he believed to be possible, he's too smart not to understand that technology that does not exist is speculative, and that the really honest thing to do is say "We think we can" rather than "We will."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrerBear

maxkonji

New Member
Sep 18, 2021
3
1
Vic
I give Musk credit and admiration for what Tesla has accomplished. Tesla has made electric cars mainstream, and built the best cars a consumer can buy today. AP/EAP are amazing, and I believe I am safer using EAP on the highway (while remaining attentive and alert!) than I would be without. SpaceX sends people and payloads to the ISS cheaper than any government can, and lands the boosters for re-use. This is impressive and worthy of admiration.

I just take his statements about future technology with a grain of salt, and I ignore his predicted time lines entirely concerning future developments.

There are people who are excellent at their jobs but go off the rails when they speak outside their field. Musk is great at his job of running Tesla and SpaceX, but predicting when (or even if) FSD will become a reality is simply outside Musk's field and he should just be ignored when he talks about it. Like a precocious kid who can play the piano beautifully and it's a joy to listen to, but who also likes to make up stories about the talking hippopotamus who comes to visit at night. You just accept that the stories are part of who the kid is and you let them slide because the music is so beautiful. Elon blows smoke about FSD but I let it slide because I'm driving the best car ever built, thanks to him.
I give Musk credit and admiration for what Tesla has accomplished. Tesla has made electric cars mainstream, and built the best cars a consumer can buy today. AP/EAP are amazing, and I believe I am safer using EAP on the highway (while remaining attentive and alert!) than I would be without. SpaceX sends people and payloads to the ISS cheaper than any government can, and lands the boosters for re-use. This is impressive and worthy of admiration.

I just take his statements about future technology with a grain of salt, and I ignore his predicted time lines entirely concerning future developments.

There are people who are excellent at their jobs but go off the rails when they speak outside their field. Musk is great at his job of running Tesla and SpaceX, but predicting when (or even if) FSD will become a reality is simply outside Musk's field and he should just be ignored when he talks about it. Like a precocious kid who can play the piano beautifully and it's a joy to listen to, but who also likes to make up stories about the talking hippopotamus who comes to visit at night. You just accept that the stories are part of who the kid is and you let them slide because the music is so beautiful. Elon blows smoke about FSD but I let it slide because I'm driving the best car ever built, thanks to him.
I agree completely
Coming from driving a typical car FSD or not who cares. The car is miles ahead of anything you can get these days
CEOs can make all all sorts of promises thru social medial
What matters is what is delivered to the consumer in the end
Personally happy with it so far
 
  • Like
Reactions: Microterf

Microterf

Member
Sep 18, 2020
394
624
Ohio
I agree completely
Coming from driving a typical car FSD or not who cares. The car is miles ahead of anything you can get these days
CEOs can make all all sorts of promises thru social medial
What matters is what is delivered to the consumer in the end
Personally happy with it so far
While this is true and I'm glad youre happy, everyone makes purchases for different reasons. I am not very happy that I'm not running FSD beta in my car yet.

My whole reason for buying the car and FSD was to be part of the the transition to Autonomy.
 

ethankailey

Member
Mar 18, 2020
11
19
Fullerton
While this is true and I'm glad youre happy, everyone makes purchases for different reasons. I am not very happy that I'm not running FSD beta in my car yet.

My whole reason for buying the car and FSD was to be part of the the transition to Autonomy.
Finally a person with the right mind in this forum. I learned not to purchase BETA anything with Tesla. I see a major Class Law Suit coming soon. It's inevitable.
 

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,094
4,215
Kihei, HI
Finally a person with the right mind in this forum. I learned not to purchase BETA anything with Tesla. I see a major Class Law Suit coming soon. It's inevitable.

EAP is still beta. Or more precisely, its features, such as autosteer, etc., are still beta. Most of those features, including all the ones that matter to me, work wonderfully. The problem with FSD beta is not that it's beta. It's that it's not FSD. Level 2 is suitable on the highway where split-second decisions are not an issue. It's not suitable (IMO) in the city where they are.

I'll buy a beta feature if it's demonstrated that it works as intended. I won't pay for a feature that does not exist based on a promise that it will exist "real soon now."

In my experience, predictions about the future never come true, other than for astronomical events. Product announcements are notoriously unreliable. Anybody remember the Obvio? An electric sports car that Zap (maker of the Xebra) was promising when the Tesla Roadster was still in early R&D. Of course, the Obvio never happened. The "artist's conception" pictures sure were cool, though. Or the Aptera, which actually existed in prototype and people made significant payments to reserve one, but it never happened. Or how about ultra-capacitors from EEStor that would make batteries obsolete? FSD will happen some day. But in the present time frame it's just another empty promise that a charismatic but dishonest CEO is convincing people to pay for.
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
13,207
21,973
NC
EAP is still beta. Or more precisely, its features, such as autosteer, etc., are still beta. Most of those features, including all the ones that matter to me, work wonderfully. The problem with FSD beta is not that it's beta. It's that it's not FSD.

This is a spot the code itself (and the CA DMV letters) work a lot better than Elons tweets.

The thing being broadly called FSDBeta right now is just the CityStreets code. That's what it's called IN the code, and what it's refered to as in the CA DMV stuff- and is an accurate description of what it actually is.

It also happens to be the last promised, but not yet delivered, feature of the FSD package as sold since ~march 2019.

Though it remains quite far from what was promised to earlier buyers during purchase.


Or the Aptera, which actually existed in prototype and people made significant payments to reserve one, but it never happened.

It's still happening (or at least they're still taking orders, still promising delivery, and were recently featured on Jay Lenos garage with an alpha vehicle)

 

Nosken

Member
Jan 15, 2015
868
755
Lincoln, CA
EAP is still beta. Or more precisely, its features, such as autosteer, etc., are still beta. Most of those features, including all the ones that matter to me, work wonderfully. The problem with FSD beta is not that it's beta. It's that it's not FSD. Level 2 is suitable on the highway where split-second decisions are not an issue. It's not suitable (IMO) in the city where they are.

I'll buy a beta feature if it's demonstrated that it works as intended. I won't pay for a feature that does not exist based on a promise that it will exist "real soon now."

In my experience, predictions about the future never come true, other than for astronomical events. Product announcements are notoriously unreliable. Anybody remember the Obvio? An electric sports car that Zap (maker of the Xebra) was promising when the Tesla Roadster was still in early R&D. Of course, the Obvio never happened. The "artist's conception" pictures sure were cool, though. Or the Aptera, which actually existed in prototype and people made significant payments to reserve one, but it never happened. Or how about ultra-capacitors from EEStor that would make batteries obsolete? FSD will happen some day. But in the present time frame it's just another empty promise that a charismatic but dishonest CEO is convincing people to pay for.
"In my experience, predictions about the future never come true, other than for astronomical events."

Tesla had a good track record of promising cars and delivering, albeit late or very late.
 

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,094
4,215
Kihei, HI
This is a spot the code itself (and the CA DMV letters) work a lot better than Elons tweets.

The thing being broadly called FSDBeta right now is just the CityStreets code. That's what it's called IN the code, and what it's refered to as in the CA DMV stuff- and is an accurate description of what it actually is.

It also happens to be the last promised, but not yet delivered, feature of the FSD package as sold since ~march 2019.

Though it remains quite far from what was promised to earlier buyers during purchase.

And yet even though they stopped promising full self-driving about two and a half years ago, they're still selling a package they are still calling "FSD" which is understood to be an acronym for "Full Self-Driving," and which everybody ignorant of ElonSpeak believes means the car can drive anywhere with nobody in it.

[Aptera is] still happening (or at least they're still taking orders, still promising delivery, and were recently featured on Jay Lenos garage with an alpha vehicle)

Founded, I think, 16 years ago, before the Tesla Roadster, when it would have been the most revolutionary vehicle available, if it had ever been available. Then it went bankrupt. Now the original founders are again taking orders and deposits. The original design had windows that wouldn't open. They cited aerodynamic efficiency. But nobody had the brains to ask "What happens when you're stopped by a traffic cop who tells you to stay in the car and open the window?" It had no rear-view mirror and instead a camera, and nobody had the brains to ask "What do you do if the camera fails while you're in traffic?" Competent designers have to think of things like that. Now they're talking about a 4-wheel 5-passenger car that they claim will be able to get 41 miles a day from built-in solar cells alone, an incredibly stupid idea since you'd have to leave your car in full sun all day and your solar cells would still be far less efficient than putting those same solar cells on the roof of your house. If they ever actually build and sell this thing, the buyers are going to be royally teed-off when they get 5 miles of solar charge per day instead of 40. They claim they'll sell several thousand in 2022. Sound familiar?

They had a concept that would have been the best thing since sliced bread sixteen years ago, but now is just an over-hyped car that is unlikely to come anywhere near its promised performance. They missed their window, and they're incompetent. Once the Nissan Leaf came out, there was no reason to want an Aptera.
 

Saabstory88

Member
Dec 31, 2018
174
223
Midwest
I'll be moderately surprised if nobody has filed a suit over this exact thing once the oldest FSD cars get beyond average age. As I say I certainly think there's a reasonable case to be made at least on this.

Course those are $3000 refunds, not 10k... (plus at least interest)

There has been a method to recover at least some value from the FSD purchase? I may be in the minority here, but the level of competence of the current FSD Beta stack is absolutely in line with what I thought I was paying for. Autosteer on city streets was how it was marketed to me, and it clearly works about as well as Smart Summon, NOA, or any of the other features. A scope complete L2 system, which is what I want.

What I don't want is for the conditions of my purchase to change. I no longer believe the company will deliver this feature set, which they currently have and I have paid for several times, under the terms of my original purchase. It is clear that they have devised and have implemented additional conditions for the use of this software that are outside the scope of our original agreement. From my point of view, I don't see how putting the beta moniker on the software removes their obligation to ship the software. There is plenty of precedent throughout the history of Tesla of one paying for Beta features, and having them activated immediately, regardless of their level of polish.

So is there in fact a known method to seek partial compensation for this portion of the package? I do not wish to change the conditions of my use of the software as were presented to me when I purchased this option.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top