SammichLover
Banned
Which ones?
Besides, 373 Max was in a lot of ways a hardware, and software no giving a proper failsafe for hardware, issue.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
( LDA ) will save lives.
- Thread starter M109Rider
- Start date
Besides, 373 Max was in a lot of ways a hardware, and software no giving a proper failsafe for hardware, issue.
gnuarm
Model X 100 with 72 amp chargers
So you are saying the software wasn't designed appropriately? Yes, that's what I thought.
SammichLover
Banned
LOL "One of the words is the same, must be the same thing!"
Which accidents, again? Or is your silence acknowledgement that there aren't any?
Air accidents can happen in a fraction of a second as well, but the congestion is generally less in the airspace. All told, there are somewhere around 10,000 airplanes in the skies according to FlightFinder (carrying over 1.2 million passengers) at any given time globally. We have more vehicles than this on the roads in my city alone during rush-hour.
The 737-MAX issue has been well documented, and it is my understanding that there were compromises with flight-dynamics of the plane itself that contributed to the problems - in other words, this was not purely the fault of software implementation. In Boeing's case, the aircraft tended to pitch upwards because of the forward positioning of the engines (which were larger). They also made a fateful decision to exclude secondary sensory input in their standard build (offered for a mere 50K less on a plane which cost 100M).
I do believe there is much to learn from Boeing's mistakes, which boils down to five primary issues:
- Rapid push to get to market
- Cost reduction strategies and Build Selection errors (which should have made redundant sensors standard)
- Poor oversight and testing
- Lack of communication and training for pilots
- Use of Software to compensate for Hardware design flaws
Take from this what you may! I will also state that it is much easier for us to comment than it is for Tesla to implement. For such a small organization, it is pretty incredible that they've managed to create several of the safest vehicles on the roads. It is expected that their software will not detract, but rather increase their overall road safety!
halfricanguy
Model 3 - LR RWD - MSM
It WILL brake for you...but only down to 25 mph, at which it returns control to the driver. It will also only work (to my knowledge) on cars or people (i.e. not for light-weight models of cars)
verystandard
Member
Did you even see the video I linked? I'm referring to the AEB that will bring the car to dead stop, not up to 25mph.
That subaru will brake to dead stop if there is car in front of it. I have a SR+, I don't think my car will do that....yet with manual driving. It will still crash the car in front of me.
If I'm on a stop and go traffic in a city and i don't do more than 25mph, this automatic brake feature in tesla you mentioned won't saves me from fender bender. We need Tesla to upgrade the AEB features on our model 3 so that at least we have one less thing to worry about (especially let your wife, son, significant others or your incompetent friends driving your car, and somehow they forget what's the difference between brake and gas pedal on the last minutes)
Last edited:
halfricanguy
Model 3 - LR RWD - MSM
Did you read your owners manual? Because Tesla’s AEB feature does operate as long as the vehicle travels over 7mph (and below 90). What happens under that 25mph threshold (does it stop completely?) I have no idea. But I do agree that the circumstances you mentioned (ex. pressing the accelerator) would cause an accident. That’s where Suburu has a one up, as it apparently cuts the throttle.
That being said, none of these systems are entirely reliable. “No car in our test could avoid a collision beyond 30 mph, and as we neared that upper limit, the Tesla and the Subaru provided no warning or braking.” (Source). However I question the validity of their tests because it looks like they’re using a cardboard/foam model car and I don’t think any car’s AEB can reliably pick that up consistently.
SammichLover
Banned
My understanding is that the 25mph is just an engineering performance target, informing at what distance vs speed the system will engage, which is why the AEB on the Model 3 will continue to brake past that if impact hasn't already occurred. I don't know where it'll stop braking at, though.
There have been attacks against Tesla’s sensor systems (including its front facing radar) which caused it to believe an object was no longer there. See: Hackers Fool Tesla S's Autopilot to Hide and Spoof Obstacles but I haven’t seen any evidence to support the claim that model cars made from softer materials (presumably to reduce damage on collision) don’t properly reflect radar and sensor systems in automobiles.
The test is likely valid and merely points out the differences in implementations without the need to harm cars when collisions do occur. We probably would have heard a response from auto manufacturers has there been an issue with the test methodology.
In the first few weeks of owning our model 3, I was brought to a complete stop by the emergency braking system when a car came to a sudden stop in front of us on city streets. Fortunately it provided enough stopping power to avoid impact.
Moderator note: a number of posts were moved to Snippiness.
Civility on TMC is not an option, it is a requirement.
Thank you.
Civility on TMC is not an option, it is a requirement.
Thank you.
Ok, I will reiterate what I posted yesterday that was apparently "snippy"....This should not be an opt-out option. It can be very dangerous for people who are not expecting it to engage and it is clear that many people are having the same issue of over correction. I love the safety features of this car, but this one needs to be ironed out a little more before being fully implemented. People need to have the ability to drive their own >$40,000 car as they see fit.
Kilotango74
Active Member
The Boeing problem is the perfect comparison. The software is putting people in danger and the pilots can't override it. Boeing insisted nothing was wrong until a bunch of people got killed. Tesla insists nothing is wrong. When I called Tesla to complain about my experience with the system almost causing an accident the woman told me they only accept email and not phone complaints in a real snipity voice and then she hung up on me.
Kilotango74
Active Member
Actually the pilots could shut it off but were not properly trained on the procedure. The MCAS software implementation was just one of a few fails on the part of Boeing, but it mainly fell on a lack of training on the new system. Pilots didn’t know or were unfamiliar with how the software operated and fought it when it was activated thinking the plane was malfunctioning. This caused a loop of sorts where the pilot would try and force the plane up and the software in turn thought the Angle of Attack was to great and therefore pushed the nose down. If there had been training implemented there would not have been a problem. Also aTesla crash will not kill 300+ people.
Last edited:
Kilotango74
Active Member
Oh yeah your terrible interaction with one lady on the phone totally makes the comparison to an event that led to two airline crashes and the death of hundreds. Oh the humanity...
I'm sorry, but your continuous insistence of being "snippy" will get your posts deleted again.
"snippy" == failing to warship each and every Tesla feature as life-saving.
a
P.S.: Have you seen those wheel lug nuts?!
Kilotango74
Active Member
halfricanguy
Model 3 - LR RWD - MSM
Kilotango74
Active Member
Similar threads
