Closing out this saga for me - mobile service tech came last week and replaced the passenger side campers under warranty. He insisted that this is indeed a warranty issue and the people who communicate via the service app are not well informed. In my case what forced the warranty claim was the photographic evidence which clearly showed it only occurring on one camera. YMMV.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Glare from side repeaters in blind spot camera?
- Thread starter Drlev
- Start date
Tesla replaced both repeater camera with parts D under warranty. Both sides look perfectly at night
In this tweet someone shows what the 10-bit uncompressed image looks like from a camera with the light bleed:
It appears to not cause significant problems in most cases.
It appears to not cause significant problems in most cases.
And here is a link to show what is displayed on the MCU vs what you can get if you apply better processing to the raw image:
It still impacts it some, but not near as much. So software changes could make it a lot better without replacing the cameras.
It still impacts it some, but not near as much. So software changes could make it a lot better without replacing the cameras.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Even using the 8-bit images, the rest of the thread analyzed the issues it might or might not cause. For static objects, the impact seems to be minimal. For cars (like if used to make a lane change decision) the headlights of the cars overwhelm the glare, so there is pretty much no impact.
The main thing is when the road is pitch black and there is like for example a cyclist or pedestrian next to you, although there is the suggestion the camera isn't good in that scenario either (note humans) and that it can still capture info when the blink is off.
For those wanting to argue this in a lawsuit over AP or FSD it'll be an uphill battle even based on the 8-bit and further tougher based on the 10-bit (where glare shows up far less).
Of course as it relates to the blind spot camera issue, unless Tesla makes use of the 10-bit for that, the impact remains.
Last edited:
Which was my point when everyone was running around in a panic waving their hands saying "AP/FSD is going to crash!!!! The car can't see anything!!! Run for the hill!!" (ignoring the fact that the car was seeing stuff quite clearly on the repeaters for years). The issue was NEVER with the car view of the world, it was just the poor UI rendering for human consumption on the screen.
An interesting update for me…
I’ve had a job open to get my repeaters replaced (paid, not under warranty). It was supposed to be done in February but on the eve of the job it was discovered that the “C” variant had been ordered and apparently that “attaching the parts to the job means the system will automatically change the part to the correct one for the VIN”, so the mobile tech ordered the “D” version for stock instead.
Just got a call to tell me that, apparently, Tesla (UK at least) won’t sell or supply the “D” version “until stock of the C version has run out”, so I’ve been offered to have my job bumped again (and again until this situation changes), or to cancel it and “try again near the end of the year”.
Pretty annoyed with this to be honest because I consider the cameras unusable for blind spot at night with the glare.
I’ve had a job open to get my repeaters replaced (paid, not under warranty). It was supposed to be done in February but on the eve of the job it was discovered that the “C” variant had been ordered and apparently that “attaching the parts to the job means the system will automatically change the part to the correct one for the VIN”, so the mobile tech ordered the “D” version for stock instead.
Just got a call to tell me that, apparently, Tesla (UK at least) won’t sell or supply the “D” version “until stock of the C version has run out”, so I’ve been offered to have my job bumped again (and again until this situation changes), or to cancel it and “try again near the end of the year”.
Pretty annoyed with this to be honest because I consider the cameras unusable for blind spot at night with the glare.
TomServo
Active Member
Can you post a copy of your official Tesla Invoice for this, I was charged $475 and want to use that to go back and fight Tesla.
Thanks
android04
Active Member
Their experience and others' have shown that it's only covered under warranty if glare is present in 1 of the 2 cameras.
Beg to differ: On my 2018 M3 LR RWD, both cameras had it; and the mobile tech replaced both of them under warranty.
However, I gave my invoice number to, I think, three people. One had success, one had denied, and one never reported back, so YMMV.
Tesla are wise to it now and I would say that the window to “trick” them into doing it for free has probably closed. I’ve heard the boilerplate memo “characteristic of the camera as delivered at the point of sale” enough times to know that they’re wise to it.
No harm in trying of course, but while there is precedent for people getting it done under warranty, there’s also evidence of people paying for it too.
No harm in trying of course, but while there is precedent for people getting it done under warranty, there’s also evidence of people paying for it too.
Tevo Solutions
Former Vendor
We got 1125106-50-J & 1125107-50-J from parts a couple of weeks ago. This is the alternate part with no glare. Pretty easy just to order them and replace yourself.
Going through this now. My right repeater broke and was replaced under warranty, and it seems they also used the updated no-glare part. I tried making a service appointment to replace my left camera as it is still blinded, and they are trying to charge $300. I'm trying to push back saying this should be considered a defect since I now have 1 blinded and 1 unblinded camera
I think the best bet is to show up and talk to the service advisor in person. I was pushed the normal canned response 'this is a design change, not a defect, etc." so I just went ahead and approved the invoice. Showed up and talked to them, they zero'd out the charge right on the spot, no pushback at all. Worst you can do at that point is try and convince them and then walk away.
Managed to order these two parts for fitment on Friday. Hopefully they are 100% resolved as you say, rather than you getting parts that happen to be fixed by luck (no offence). Are the internals on these two parts the same as the -D ?
It seems a bit silly for them to update the cameras for free if I actually have a warranty issue with them. Looks like I'll have to find a way to "break" the other one
Update. Service told me they had a recent internal notice telling them that they should not be doing these replacements under warranty, and that I would have to pay to get it replaced.
Not sure what to think. She tried to tell me people are only getting them repaired for free because their repeaters have separate issues, but this thread seems to say otherwise.
I wouldn't necessarily try and find reason or logic in it.
Each person requesting these to be replaced might happen to catch someone unaware, or catch someone who is sympathetic, or perhaps a tech who fancies going above and beyond. Tesla policy on these repeaters - passed down via memo as an edict - is that "the behaviour is not a failure of design or of workmanship. Newer cameras have been improved. If you want the newer cameras you're more than welcome to buy them", etc.
Logically, if they didn't adopt this stance then they'd essentially be legitimising a "soft recall" and would have to shoulder the cost of replacing 2 cameras on everyone's car. As it is I've had to jump through hoops just to acquire the fixed parts, because Tesla really wants to keep fitting the "C" variant that only almost fixes the problem.
Each person requesting these to be replaced might happen to catch someone unaware, or catch someone who is sympathetic, or perhaps a tech who fancies going above and beyond. Tesla policy on these repeaters - passed down via memo as an edict - is that "the behaviour is not a failure of design or of workmanship. Newer cameras have been improved. If you want the newer cameras you're more than welcome to buy them", etc.
Logically, if they didn't adopt this stance then they'd essentially be legitimising a "soft recall" and would have to shoulder the cost of replacing 2 cameras on everyone's car. As it is I've had to jump through hoops just to acquire the fixed parts, because Tesla really wants to keep fitting the "C" variant that only almost fixes the problem.
Just thought I'd dig this up. I'm not sure how useful it is to say "here's what it looks like if you apply better image processing to the image". Surely what matters is what image processing the hardware inside the car is capable of doing? Whatever a PC can do with it, with whatever content aware logic GIMP or Photoshop or whatever can do, is purely an academic exercise. What matters is what the car sees, and to a lesser (but still important) extent what the driver sees.
For me the glare on both repeaters was so distracting at night as to want to make me disable the feature, which itself is annoying because it's perfectly servicable - and useful - during daylight hours. I therefore resolved to get it sorted even if it cost me money, because I don't want to have to keep enabling or disabling the feature based on time of day.
Tevo Solutions
Former Vendor
No, the internals look to me like they are from two different manufacturers but it's impossible to say why they are so different. Dual sourcing perhaps?
Similar threads
