-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Letter to Mr. Musk from a 1-day old outdated Model S owner
- Thread starter phaduman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Elon Musk Tesla Inc.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Of course not. Anyone buying FSD has to check a box that has written within it the following (the bold lettering is done by Tesla -- not me) all other parts of this clause are not bolded:
If FSD is "dependent" upon "regulatory approval", and regulatory approval requires redundancy that Tesla does not currently have, or more cameras than Tesla currently has, or whatever else that Tesla doesn't have and the regulators require, then Tesla just points to this clause which everyone who bought FSD had to have agreed to. They even put it in bold lettering. Tesla will likely say AP2.0 can do FSD -- just watch our videos -- but the regulators won't allow it --and we specifically provided a caveat in bold that it was subject to regulatory approval.
If my theory is right it will only be another of countless times where people are done wrong by the fine print -- except that in this case it's not fine print -- it's bolded print.
Caveat emptor.
I am thrilled to see the progress Tesla is making on the new Model S/X/3 towards full autonomous vehicles. I am very disheartened that I bought (not leased, as I think Model S is a car worth 10yr of supremely enjoyable ownership) a $90K Model S brand new from your factory on Tuesday (18th Oct) that is already "outdated" and perhaps has a significant devaluation. When I put the deposit for this car in September, I even bought TSLA stock as I believe in the future Tesla has. But my car is no longer a "futuristic" car.
What I am most disheartened about is the fact that I waited so long to finally buy the dream car, and the excitement didn't last more than 24hours :-((.
I would like for Mr. Musk to consider this request not just for my case, but likely for many of those new car buyers that bought the X and S in the last quarter (Q3), and offer them some options:
(1) return vehicles with < 1K miles and refund the full money
(2) give them a "credit" for trade-in (e.g. $10K) to account for the devaluation that just happened
(3) even better option:
- offer the NVIDIA/compute upgrade for all AP1.0 cars
- optionally include the tri-camera h/w upgrade
The reason #3 is valuable in that, (a) you will instantly win the hearts of all your early adopters and supporters. (b) you will get a chance to remove all MBLEYE chipsets from all Teslas. This will help your firmware and s/w team to deliver code on one platform, whether AP1 or APX cars. Trust me - I have been in silicon valley for 18yrs and managed projects where engineers had to support code on multiple gen of platforms and it impacted the performance, time, and quality of the final delivery by at least 30% - and allowed newcomers to gain upper hand with faster releases with a single new platform.
Thoughts for your Area 51 (Yes we did the tour and it was cool to see the name) leaders:
- when next-gen AP s/w is ready, also make it work with Gen1 AP sensors (1-camera, 1-radar, low-sensitive sonars, backup camera possibly)
- offer a one-time service fee to replace the MBLEYE compute chipsets
Now, you have 3 tiers of sensors the NVIDIA chipsets & s/w will work with:
(1) gen-1 sensors: 1-camera, 1-radar, gen-1 sonars, and (un)likely backup camera
(2a) gen-2 APE sensors: 4 cameras, 1 radar, 12 new sonars
(3b) gen-2 APF sensors: the full array of cameras
In my opinion, the NVIDIA is ready for even more in the future. Some thoughts:
(3) gen-3 APF2 sensors (future, likely 2yrs from now, Oct 2018 would be my guess
(4) gen-4 APF3 activators: now that Tesla cars and occupants are safe, it is time to make the world a bit safer for non-Tesla drivers. e.g. Gen1-4 h/w above likely cannot avoid a rear-ending if the car/driver behind is distracted (texting). How about the rear camera/sensor not only senses the vehicle speed behind and notes the rate of acceleration difference between that car and the Tesla, but also has a rear-pointing honk/bright flashing lights/laser lights/radio-jamming RF transmitters etc to communicate with the driver behind to get their attention. We might just save a rear-ending accident situation (assuming the Tesla cannot make last minute maneuver to get out of the lane altogether, sometimes that may not be possible).
(5) Gen-5: all cloud intelligence that sends to each vehicle (whether Tesla or not) the other cars conditions on the road so they become "social" cars after all and can maintain a better distance/space between each other, all from a "cloud" connected central nervous system. I know your team is already working on the central neural networks, and even Gen-1 cars will likely benefit from this over time, but it is time to make the whole world a better place, not just the Teslas on the road. I assume in about 10yrs from now, hopefully, 10% of the cars in the world would be Teslas. The rest 90% can still have their own sensors to protect from local instantaneous dangerous situations, but they could benefit by having a central nervous system (in the cloud) that can exchange real-time update of "vehicles" near me that are beyond visibility (beyond 250m).
Mr. Musk,
Would you please bring along the Gen-1 car owners, your most loyal and devoted fans, with you as you journey into the future? Would you consider this request?
Your newest fan (1-day old AP1.0 Gen Model S owner) and likely speaking on behalf of all AP1.0 car owners
Are these people for real? You're mad your car is outdated? Ha! No kidding it's outdated. What car isn't once you drive it off the lot? And I'm sure your like some sort of compensation like everyone on TMC?
Sell the Tesla, they don't need customers like you.
Barklikeadog
Active Member
I think you are confusing the words' functionality' with 'capability'
Why does Tesla have to use so much fine print? I thought they were a different kind of car company
Letter to Mr. Musk from a 1-day old outdated Model S owner
I'm interested solely in what makes someone an outdated owner.
Asking for a friend.
I'm interested solely in what makes someone an outdated owner.
Asking for a friend.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
So you think Tesla is liable because they used ' functionality' instead of 'capability'. Hmmm... it doesn't seem much different to me...
That sure looks like a tough argument to me, especially if you look at the definition of both words. No matter how you slice it, it seem to me that Tesla's lawyers have thought this one through -- thus the bolded caveat.
It's not fine print. In fact, it's the opposite since it's bolded print. Still, most people just don't read close enough and think FSD was "promised"...
The human minds often believes what it wants to believe rather than what is written down in black and white.
"I know what it says your honour, but that's not what it means to me."
Good luck!
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
Why not bump your number up to 20 or 30 cameras. I suspect the answer will be the same.
Welcome to the club... You can always join this: Tesla Autopilot 2 (AP2) Defect | Hagens Berman | National Class Action Litigation Firm based in Seattle, WA
If they cant provide the promised FSD that I paid for a year ago then I dont want the car.
Out of interest, what would - in your opinion - be Tesla meeting delivering on their FSD commitments, taking into consideration the bolded print and the rest of it.
Nothing, if they can't get regulatory approval?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I guess you must have ordered your vehicle other than by the webpage where you have to check the box that says they can't promise FSD since it is subject to regulatory approval and no ones knows if AP2.0 hardware meets regulatory approval since the regs have yet to be drafted.
What does it mean to you?
I don't think it takes an "opinion" as to what it means since it's spelled out quite clearly, at least to me. Do we need an opinion on whether 2 + 2 = 4?
I don't know what it means.
Do you mean that if regulators deny full self-driving approval (whatever that means), Tesla can simply stay at EAP and leave it at that, in your view?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Doesn't it mean exactly what it says?
They'd have to refund the money for anyone who paid for FSD but I guess that goes without saying. Other than that, FSD was..."dependent upon... regulatory approval" so no regulatory approval = no FSD.
IMO it comes down to what is considered regulatory approval.
Fair enough if there is a blanket denial, but I find that unlikely.
Put it this way - what does the FSD disclaimer do, in your view, in this scenario, which I find much more likely than a blanket denial:
- Level 2 full self-driving with nags is allowed by regulators (by all accounts, it should be allowed already today...)
- Level 3-5 full self-driving is not allowed by regulators on AP2/2.5 (speculatively turns out, for whatever reason)
- or alternatively some form of Level 3 is allowed, but not full-on Level 4-5
Do you think Tesla would be obliged to provide an eight camera full self-driving Level 2 (or Level 3) feature, or could they excuse themselves based on the second point and say, sorry, four camera EAP is the best you get?
Or do you think Tesla is obliged to provide full self-driving to the extent allowed by regulators, whatever that extent may be? Or something in-between and, if so, what?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Anyone who bought AP2.0 FSD checked a box that said it was subject to regulatory approval. I do not agree that regulatory approval is piecemeal, at least when it comes to interpretation of that clause.
OK, the problem IMO is that the FSD description is so vague that it does for many scenarios where regulatory approval would be likely or even guaranteed for this suite once software is ready (Level 2 good weather driving) - but could also be interpreted in a manner that regulatory approval would be surely denied (Level 5 all weather driving).
Would the customer's reasonable expectation limit Tesla here at all in your view? Or could Tesla simply say the FSD they wanted to do was Level 5 all weather (and thus sabotage their own regulatory request) and the regs said No, sorry. Or would Tesla be obliged to attempt to get approval for an FSD that is more reasonably closer to what a customer could have expected?
We have already had this discussion way too many times to do it all over again. Tesla released its self driving video and then starting selling the feature as though it was almost ready. Website description has changed several times over the past year but what has not changed is their hardware limitation which is now becoming clear with them moving away from 2.0 and going to 2.5 in just a years time. Everyone was promised a car that would FSD. If the vehicle will not have this capability then I no longer want it and I signed up for the class action suit: Tesla Autopilot 2 (AP2) Defect | Hagens Berman | National Class Action Litigation Firm based in Seattle, WA and I will let the courts decide if Tesla made false promises and continues to do so..
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You can't just make things up. This is what is promised...
If something different was promised to you during your purchase, please tell us what it was. But don't tell us that "everyone" was promised something different than what is written down in bold lettering when people order. Otherwise, you are asking me to suspend my reading comprehension, (and reality) and go with what you say, with no evidence at all in support of your position, over what is written down in bolded black and white. Sorry but you lose out.
Sounds like a cop out to me. You could have told me exactly what you were promised regarding FSD when you purchased from the webpage or your purchase agreement instead of saying what you said above. If it says something different, and promises you FSD, then great for you. But you're not "everyone" and until I read it, I won't believe it, since you believe the current wording promises FSD when that's clearly not the case. There's not even any ambiguity about what it says.
That's what you base your promise on?
Good luck with that one.
Commencing a lawsuit means nothing. You must know that? I can sue you right now for AP. No one vets the cause of action at the registry when it's submitted for filing. That's for trial. As to letting the courts decide, the majority of class actions cases settle and settlements usually do not admit liability but are done for economic reasons usually by insurers who owe a duty to defend but perhaps not to indemnify depending on the facts as found at trial.
Last edited:
Similar threads
