Just a Place Keeper to See if I Am Right About the Future of AP1

[lolachampcar]

I'm getting a mind's eye picture of Tesla's thinking and it has caused me to speculate about the future of my AP1.

I am beginning to think Tesla is starting to see AP1 as a liability. They do not need it to learn from. They do not need it to hype or sell cars. The only thing that can come from AP1 is an accident which basically detracts Tesla from its mission.

Given there is no data or money to be made from AP1, I'm thinking Tesla will slowly improve it via free over the air updates until it is completely useless and thus no longer used. Not used == no liability. Hey, it is in Beta. They could just decide to end the Beta with no production follow on. If you do not like it, you can always upgrade to AP2 (which Tesla is making money on and which does increase their data pool).

If you think it is outrageous to suggest that Tesla would pull existing functionality then suggest you spend more money with the company to get it back, just go talk to the lucky P90DL V3 battery owners that exceeded the "counter" and had power pulled from their cars. This was all done via undocumented features in a free over the air upgrade courtesy of Tesla management. Tesla's solution to these owners was that they buy the 100 battery as it was not subject to the counter or (currently) subject to any limitations.

If you accepted the latest V8 update, your two lane AP1 went from +5 mph to +0 allowed over the limit. I consider that removing functionality as traveling at the limit in places where it is safe to use my AP1 on two lane roads makes me a moving road block with people backing up behind me. Frustration builds and the passing in no passing zones begins.

Time will tell.
I hope I am wrong.
Something tells me I'm not.

 

[BerTX]

I have had similar thoughts, but not so dire. I think they will eliminate non-divided road use. They did say when the car was sold that it would have AP. They probably would have legal issues if they eliminate it completely. I don't know if they ALWAYS said not to use it on non- divided roads, but I'm pretty sure they said that at the time I bought the car in August 2016.

 

[rowdy]

I think the +5 to +0 is simply for legal reasons.

The car knows the speed limit so should it be programmed to knowingly break it? Who's in trouble if there's an accident/fatality and the car is speeding under autopilot control.

 

[Bullet1]

I would like to be more positive and say that the mapping data and learned experiences collected by AP2 hardware may be useful to AP1 and shared down the line making AP1 more functional as time goes by.

Yes less direct money to be made by Tesla but it would be protecting the future uptake and upgrade by happier customers which will help their bottom line.

I am looking for the convenient time to upgrade to an AP2 car but the time is not right yet.

 

[eloder]

OTA has been used plenty of times to limit dangerous operation of a product. Making a product comply with laws in an area it wasn't even supposed to operate in is not the end of the world.

 

[habanero69]

I think the +5 to +0 is simply for legal reasons.

The car knows the speed limit so should it be programmed to knowingly break it? Who's in trouble if there's an accident/fatality and the car is speeding under autopilot control.

That logic should then apply to ALL speed limits where the car is on APx OR TACC. WHY allow ANY speeding if liability is the issue? Do you think fully autonomous cars will be set/allowed to exceed the posted speed limit? I for one do not. That will be step 1 for the regulators.

 

[Andyw2100]

Do you think fully autonomous cars will be set/allowed to exceed the posted speed limit? I for one do not. That will be step 1 for the regulators.

If fully autonomous cars can't exceed the speed limit no one will be purchasing fully autonomous cars.

 

[Dan43]

AP1 feels like it has 1-2 more software updates to be at its very very best (software/hardware at their peak) then it probably will bow down to what AP2 can do from then.

AP1 I also feel is good for another year to 18 months then AP2 will take over advancing while AP1 stops getting updates but retains the functionality up to that point.

 

[Andyw2100]

Given there is no data or money to be made from AP1, I'm thinking Tesla will slowly improve it via free over the air updates until it is completely useless and thus no longer used.

And let's not forget the features in AP1 that were promised, but have not yet been delivered. Someone asked about this in another thread. The following was my reply:

--
At the D launch, Tesla demo'd cars that were automatically adjusting their speed based on speed limit signs. That functionality does not yet exist, as demonstrated. (It exists now as speed reduction when autosteer is engaged on undivided highways, but that is not at all what was demonstrated.)

I'll include a couple of videos of the test rides below.

The other thing that has not been delivered is the car self driving on private property. Musk promised the car would come pick you up. We're all still waiting for that.

I'll also include the D event video. Forward to 9:50 to hear Musk talk about the car picking you up on private property.

D Event Video:

Test Ride Videos At The D Event:

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Sad commentary about Tesla, but probable given the P90DL "Countergate" debacle. What happenend to Tesla's ethics?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

If fully autonomous cars can't exceed the speed limit no one will be purchasing fully autonomous cars.

Of course fully autonomous cars will not allow drivers to exceed the speed limits. The purpose of autonomy is to reduce traffic accidents and injuries, regulators absolutely will require all autonomous vehicles to strictly follow speed limits. Those who don't think so are burying their heads in the sand. However, when the majority of vehicles on the road are autonomous and have proven a high safety record, I believe there will be a willingness to increase the legal speed limits.

 

[3Victoria]

just go talk to the lucky P90DL V3 battery owners that exceeded the "counter" and had power pulled from their cars.

I have assume that this limitation was to prevent some serious damage or failure to/of the battery pack with continued extreme use.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I have assume that this limitation was to prevent some serious damage or failure to/of the battery pack with continued extreme use.

The point is that no such limitation was communicated to customers BEFORE they forked over the cash for this feature. That is misrepresentation in every sense of the word. If the feature was subject to limitation, that limitation should have been clearly communicated to customers before they made the decision to buy. It's fairly obvious that Tesla discovered that use of this feature could result in increased warranty claims on other components as a result of the added stress, so decided to reduce functionality WITHOUT the approval of the owners who purchased the feature WITHOUT any limitations at the time of sale. Tesla does not have a unilateral right to do this.

I wish more American owners would have the balls to sue Tesla like the Norwegians did. The Norwegians sued over misrepresentation and they won.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If fully autonomous cars can't exceed the speed limit no one will be purchasing fully autonomous cars.

That had me chuckling.

When there are fully autonomous cars, there will be many fewer cars purchased because it'll be much cheaper to take a cab.

_If_ people can afford to buy autonomous cars themselves, I think that the vast majority of people won't give a crap that the car obeys speed limits, because they'll just use navigation software to figure out when to leave, get in and use their favorite electronic device for the rest of the journey.

I'd be perfectly happy to have an autonomous car that obeys speed limits, because I obey speed limits when I drive anyway .
I have no doubt that autonomous cars will have to obey speed limits, but since they'll be paying attention, and will drive in the travel lane where possible, they won't get rear-ended by inattentive speeders.

On the original topic, I think that AP1's limitation could be as a result of the NHTSA having a quiet word.

 

[Andyw2100]

The Norwegians sued over misrepresentation and they won.

That's not exactly right. The Norwegians sued and Tesla chose to settle.

 

[lolachampcar]

OTA has been used plenty of times to limit dangerous operation of a product. Making a product comply with laws in an area it wasn't even supposed to operate in is not the end of the world.

This cracks me up.
I really need to go find my post about driving down a six lane interstate in Ohio with everyone going the EXACT same speed on a beautiful sunny day. All the lanes are blocked with these people just crawling along and then, bam, you have a twenty car pile up for absolutely no reason. I love Ohio and that wonderful speed limit enforcement that creates such calamities.

By the way, I agree that it is not the end of the world. The original post was focused on my guess that Tesla will de-feature AP1 out of any meaningful utility because the feature no longer serves their needs. Even if Tesla does reduce AP1 to a smoldering pile of rubble, it is still not the end of the world. Your perspective is spot on.

 

[bhzmark]

I'm getting a mind's eye picture of Tesla's thinking and it has caused me to speculate about the future of my AP1.

I am beginning to think Tesla is starting to see AP1 as a liability. They do not need it to learn from. They do not need it to hype or sell cars. The only thing that can come from AP1 is an accident which basically detracts Tesla from its mission.

Given there is no data or money to be made from AP1, I'm thinking Tesla will slowly improve it via free over the air updates until it is completely useless and thus no longer used. Not used == no liability. Hey, it is in Beta. They could just decide to end the Beta with no production follow on. If you do not like it, you can always upgrade to AP2 (which Tesla is making money on and which does increase their data pool).

If you think it is outrageous to suggest that Tesla would pull existing functionality then suggest you spend more money with the company to get it back, just go talk to the lucky P90DL V3 battery owners that exceeded the "counter" and had power pulled from their cars. This was all done via undocumented features in a free over the air upgrade courtesy of Tesla management. Tesla's solution to these owners was that they buy the 100 battery as it was not subject to the counter or (currently) subject to any limitations.

If you accepted the latest V8 update, your two lane AP1 went from +5 mph to +0 allowed over the limit. I consider that removing functionality as traveling at the limit in places where it is safe to use my AP1 on two lane roads makes me a moving road block with people backing up behind me. Frustration builds and the passing in no passing zones begins.

Time will tell.
I hope I am wrong.
Something tells me I'm not.

Any two lane functionality is above what they promised which was only divided highway functionality.

Since AP1 accidents will detract from the mission they should make changes to minimize the number and severity of those AP1 accidents and if that means +0 speed limit on 2lane rds ( perhaps by discouraging use on two lane roads ) that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[ericscottf]

The point is that no such limitation was communicated to customers BEFORE they forked over the cash for this feature. That is misrepresentation in every sense of the word. If the feature was subject to limitation, that limitation should have been clearly communicated to customers before they made the decision to buy. It's fairly obvious that Tesla discovered that use of this feature could result in increased warranty claims on other components as a result of the added stress, so decided to reduce functionality WITHOUT the approval of the owners who purchased the feature WITHOUT any limitations at the time of sale. Tesla does not have a unilateral right to do this.

I wish more American owners would have the balls to sue Tesla like the Norwegians did. The Norwegians sued over misrepresentation and they won.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... But didn't the launch feature become available after that version of the car was discontinued? I think the only people who could have paid for it, expecting it are a handful of cpo people, right?

 

[Andyw2100]

Correct me if I'm wrong.... But didn't the launch feature become available after that version of the car was discontinued? I think the only people who could have paid for it, expecting it are a handful of cpo people, right?

I'm not sure whether or not the P85D had been discontinued or not by the time Launch Mode was announced, but that's irrelevant, as there are plenty of P90D customers who purchased after it existed. (I agree that P85D customers that purchased before it was announced would not really have a right to complain if Launch Mode is removed, provided their power is not and will not be limited.)

 

[Trunk Gap]

I'm getting a mind's eye picture of Tesla's thinking and it has caused me to speculate about the future of my AP1.

I am beginning to think Tesla is starting to see AP1 as a liability. They do not need it to learn from. They do not need it to hype or sell cars. The only thing that can come from AP1 is an accident which basically detracts Tesla from its mission.

Given there is no data or money to be made from AP1, I'm thinking Tesla will slowly improve it via free over the air updates until it is completely useless and thus no longer used. Not used == no liability. Hey, it is in Beta. They could just decide to end the Beta with no production follow on. If you do not like it, you can always upgrade to AP2 (which Tesla is making money on and which does increase their data pool).

If you think it is outrageous to suggest that Tesla would pull existing functionality then suggest you spend more money with the company to get it back, just go talk to the lucky P90DL V3 battery owners that exceeded the "counter" and had power pulled from their cars. This was all done via undocumented features in a free over the air upgrade courtesy of Tesla management. Tesla's solution to these owners was that they buy the 100 battery as it was not subject to the counter or (currently) subject to any limitations.

If you accepted the latest V8 update, your two lane AP1 went from +5 mph to +0 allowed over the limit. I consider that removing functionality as traveling at the limit in places where it is safe to use my AP1 on two lane roads makes me a moving road block with people backing up behind me. Frustration builds and the passing in no passing zones begins.

Time will tell.
I hope I am wrong.
Something tells me I'm not.

What is the P90DL situation you speak of, how can you tell if you are included in that? Where is more info?