Full Self Driving question

[ai4px]

Just wondering... an idle question.... what happens if I order a car with FSD and Tesla decides 3 years from now that the AP2.5 isn't good enough for FSD? Would they be obligated to upgrade my car to the correct hardware? Or would they kindly refund my money and say "our bad"?

 

[ckoval7]

It will hurt less if you just forget you ever spent that money to begin with.

 

[mikevbf]

But you will get latest greatest super computer upgrade next year some time at no more charge than you paid for FSD when you bought this year:
Tesla aims for new neural net computer in production in 6 months, results in 500-2000% increase in ops/sec, says Elon Musk
Elon loves the ability of things to upgrade.

 

[Tam]

...upgrade my car to the correct hardware...

This is what I think:

I think it's just like a cell phone: New ones will be better older ones.

Tesla is willing to upgrade your hardware for free because you paid for it while it's not even working.

But Tesla will no longer upgrade your hardware for free after getting your car to work with the first version of FSD.

 

[ewoodrick]

I believe that Elon has promised that they will make sure that the car has whatever technology needed to implement FSD, if you have paid for it. This will be exemplified by the upgrade of the computers in about 6 months.

 

[Tam]

...FSD...

Fictionally, it's just like when the phone speed was real slow but if a company was selling a higher speed 2G capability, surely they would upgrade your phone to achieve that goal.

But it doesn't stop at 2G. It goes to 3G, 4G, and in 2020 it'll be 5G.

I think that's the same with FSD. If you paid for it, Tesla will get you there.

But after a while, you might want to pay on your own for newer hardware for better processing power for better FSD.

The spec for Tesla's FSD is: "a safety level we believe will be at least twice as good as the average human driver."

It's a high bar to achieve for now but in future, it'll be very low bar!

 

[ai4px]

The spec for Tesla's FSD is: "a safety level we believe will be at least twice as good as the average human driver."
It's a high bar to achieve for now but in future, it'll be very low bar!

Low bar? Hmm... people's driving skills seem to be going backwards, so to have a machine that's a better driver than human is just a matter of waiting for humans to become God awful.

You know it used to be that you had to look for drunk drivers at 2am when the bars flushed them out. Now with texting, anyone can be a drunk driver in 10 seconds at any time of day.

 

[bob_p]

Just wondering... an idle question.... what happens if I order a car with FSD and Tesla decides 3 years from now that the AP2.5 isn't good enough for FSD? Would they be obligated to upgrade my car to the correct hardware? Or would they kindly refund my money and say "our bad"?

This is an excellent question!

Unfortunately, the answer isn't simple.

Let's assume a worst case - Tesla determines the AP 2.0 and AP 2.5 sensors will never be able to support FSD, and upgrading them to support FSD requires too many changes to the vehicle to make those upgrades practical. Or Tesla gets FSD working, but the government establishes regulations that would force Tesla to make changes that aren't practical (such as requiring all vehicles to use 360 degree lidar).

In these worst case scenarios, we don't know what Tesla would do.

• Would they refund the FSD purchase price? And would owners accept that, since Tesla stated on their website that all cars manufactured since late 2016 have the hardware capable of supporting FSD?
• Would they make extensive changes to the vehicle, costing more than the FSD activation price?
• Would they ask owners to pay for part of the upgrades?
• Would they offer a rebate on trading in the FSD-activated vehicle for a new one actually capable of FSD?

We don't know what would happen in these worst case scenarios. The Purchase Agreement provides no details on what owners get when purchasing FSD, or what would happen if Tesla determines the purchased vehicle configuration isn't sufficient for FSD.

Fortunately, if all that is required is upgrading the AP processor - that should be as simple as a plug-in replacement - and if that's the only hardware change needed to get FSD operating, then it's likely Tesla will provide that for free.

There is clearly risk in purchasing FSD. We don't know if the current hardware will ever be able to operate in Full Self Driving mode, without driver monitoring (there are technical, legal and insurance hurdles). And if Tesla is able to achieve FSD, we don't know when that might happen - and what hardware changes may be needed (are the other manufacturers right that lidar is required?).

Despite this uncertainty, we placed our bets on FSD - and purchased the option with both our 2017 S and 2018 X 100D's, knowing there is considerable risk and no guarantees.

 

[ai4px]

There is clearly risk in purchasing FSD. We don't know if the current hardware will ever be able to operate in Full Self Driving mode, without driver monitoring (there are technical, legal and insurance hurdles).

Tesla really has pushed the idea that a M3 could be fully autonomous, but the million dollar question is about /insurance/. Who is responsible? No one seems to address the issue. Does my insurance cover my car hitting a troop of boyscouts picking up trash on the side of the road? Does my insurance cover my car driving me home from the bar when I've had one too many?

 

[Tam]

...Unfortunately, the answer isn't simple...

It's just like if I fully paid a ticket to the moon orbit already, I don't need to worry about will it be the Falcon Heavy Rocket but wait! SpaceX just stopped working on it so it'll be BFR instead but that's much bigger and much more expensive...

We paid for a feature that is not working yet so to fulfill that contract, Tesla will have to make it work even if it involves hardware/software changes or it will just have to declare failure and buy out that contract.

 

[Tam]

...Who is responsible...

Elon Musk said it's just like an automated elevator. An owner of the building would have insurance covering for elevator accidents too.

He said your Insurance pays first if it's an accident. If it is caused by the system's failure then Tesla would be responsible.

When a passenger is drunk, that is not illegal. If a drunk passenger is caught sitting in a driver seat, then that is another story. The passenger then has to prove that the passenger is not a driver.

If the passenger is drunk and the car gets into an accident then the above Elon Musk's answer applies: Insurance is responsible unless it's Tesla automation's fault.

 

[ai4px]

My grandmother used to say it was better in the old days.... if dad got drunk, the horse knew the way home. FSD could make this a reality once again!! lol.

 

[RDoc]

My opinion still is that if you're considering ordering FSD, put the money into TSLA stock instead. If (or perhaps when) Tesla actually creates a real FSD system, the value of their stock will go up so much you'll be able to easily pay for the retrofit.

If, on the other hand, FSD doesn't appear for a decade or two, you'll still have most of your money.

 

[bob_p]

The manufacturers want responsibility for accidents to be on the owners. And for driver assistance features, when the driver is required to be monitoring operation of the vehicle, behind the steering wheel, ultimately it is the driver's responsibility if the vehicle gets into an accident while operating under driver assistance.

But what happens where the FSD software is completely operating the car - there is no driver monitoring operation - and may not be anyone actually in the vehicle? If the accident is caused by a failure of the software to safely operate, the manufacturers still want the responsibility to be on the owner, who allowed their vehicle to be driven under FSD. But it's the manufacturers who essentially provided the "driver" - and if the FSD software makes a mistake - wouldn't it be the manufacturers responsibility?

Another interesting issue is obeying traffic laws. When operating under FSD, who is responsible if the software fails to follow the law. If the vehicle is speeding under FSD - is it the owner's responsibility (even though no one may be in the car) or the manufacturer's (since they provided the software)?

When running on AutoSteer, I typically drive at speed limit +5 MPH. This can frustrate drivers behind us, because they want to go faster. Technically +5 MPH is breaking the law. Would not be surprised for FSD to drive exactly at the speed limit, come to complete stops at stop signs, and follow the letter of the law in all cases.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It's not just getting the software to work - it's getting it accepted, and that could take longer than developing and testing the software...

 

[Tam]

...responsibility for accidents to be on the owners...

It can be a messy process but in the end, the owner of a property will be likely the first and last one held liable and it's up to the owner to shift that liability to someone else.

Usually, an owner is responsible after a purchase.

If I own a sidewalk and a pedestrian tripped an fall, I'll be the first one to be named for being liable.

I then can shift that liability to home insurance.

Home insurance can shift that liability to the construction company that made the accident-prone sidewalk that has one section sharply uneven.

...But what happens where the FSD software is completely operating the car - there is no driver monitoring operation - and may not be anyone actually in the vehicle?...

Elon Musk said if it's the automation's failure, Tesla will pick that liability up.

But it might be messy to prove it's automation failure such as if the manual says FSD is not meant for snow and an owner didn't read that and the car would automatically pick up a ride in the snow storm.

Tesla might be able to say it's the owner's responsibility to monitor weather and manually block ride booking during a snow.

Thus, it's not the automation failure as it works as intended in clear weather and allowing it to automatically pick up rides in inclement weather is not covered.

...speeding under FSD...

Since there's no driver in FSD, most likely police will give a ticket to the car. The court then looks up who owns the car and hold the owner liable.

It's kind of messy.

It's possible that owner can shift the software malfunction to Tesla as the owner clearly set the system at speed limit but the software ran above speed limits on its own.

Tesla can then pay the ticket monetary penalty but most likey, the owner will have to bear the non-monetary point penalty.

That way, both owner and Tesla can be punished: owner for allowing a malfunctioned car operation and Tesla for software malfunction.

 

[bob_p]

With FSD, the auto manufacturer is essentially providing the driver for the vehicles.

In an accident, if the FSD is negligent, then the manufacturer could be held liable.

Though the owner of the vehicle could also incur liability.

Worst case - if a vehicle operating under FSD causes a death - and the FSD vehicle is determined to be at fault, both the manufacturer and the vehicle owner could be held responsible.

No one seems to be talking about liability for FSD yet. The focus is on getting the technology to work, and in determining what will be required to get regulatory approval. Handling responsibility for accidents (even if FSD is much safer than a human driver, accidents will happen) doesn't yet appear to be part of the discussion on the future use of FSD.

Putting FSD vehicles on something like the Tesla Network could introduce an additional level of complexity. If Tesla is essentially controlling where the FSD vehicles are going, does that increase their responsibility for whatever happens while the vehicle is operating on the Tesla Network - which could include not only accidents caused by the FSD vehicle, but any damage that could be done by people being picked up by the vehicle while on the Tesla Network?

Interesting issues... And since these non-technical issues could take quite a while to get resolved (possibly even longer than getting the technology working), it could be quite a while before we'll see widespread FSD vehicles operating without drivers...

 

[aczeisler]

Well, I decided to bite the bullet and pay the $5,000 + $350 tax on my credit card for Full Self Drive. I’m either ahead of the curve or very foolish. I don’t even know what to expect next. I only know that my intuition led me to believe that I should make the purchase on 12/31/2018, before the end of the year. Please be kind with your comments.

 

[GeoX750]

How long has Tesla been taking money for FSD--have I been seeing the option available for years ?

They have never delivered it and from my AP experience they are a long way off. Seems like a pipe dream that they are using for marketing purposes, while taking people's money for something they will not be able to deliver in the lifetime of the current cars.

 

[bob_p]

FSD has been available as an option since AP2 was introduce in late 2016, until Tesla decided to remove it from the configuration page last year.

While we likely won't see FSD any time soon, what we are likely going to see sometime this year is NOAP (Navigate On AutoPilot) running on more than just limited highways - and activated only on vehicles with FSD purchased. And that will start providing value in our purchase of FSD for our 2017 S and 2018 X.

 

[BerTX]

I think I can safely say that I will never own a car with FSD. I doubt many of us will. Why own a car that sits in your driveway or a parking lot 95% of the time? Someone else will own the car, and I can call it to come pick me up and take me where I want to go. It won't be cheap, but it will be a lot less expensive than owning a car.

I like driving, and I will do it until age prevents me from doing so safely. AP1 does just fine in relieving me on long, boring stretches. I have no desire to own a car that drives itself. Maybe some kind of shared ownership service? I suspect there will just be an Uber-like system, but with no driver.