WyomingEV
Member
I agree, mirages are trouble for AP. It is so nice to have the car drive 287, wish it would handle the lane merges a bit better....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Phantom braking so bad I want to return my car
- Thread starter RHINO SKIN SOL
- Start date
It seems we now know why you don't have any phantom braking with your Subaru, it doesn't even respond to oncoming cars in the lane that will collide with it. So it seems that their solution to the false detections, was just to tune it to be very under sensitive.
Attachments
But but but others have so much better system than Tesla lolIt seems we now know why you don't have any phantom braking with your Subaru, it doesn't even respond to oncoming cars in the lane that will collide with it. So it seems that their solution to the false detections, was just to tune it to be very under sensitive.
View attachment 804325
I don't know about Subaru, but my 2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid had better adaptive cruise control than my 2021 Tesla Model Y did.
For recent comparison, my '22 Model S (with radar) has been better than my '22 Model 3 (without radar) with respect to PB. Absolutely zero events in my S. I shudder to think how many my Y had before I finally sold it.
For recent comparison, my '22 Model S (with radar) has been better than my '22 Model 3 (without radar) with respect to PB. Absolutely zero events in my S. I shudder to think how many my Y had before I finally sold it.
I would consider far less PB events and maintaining speed and distance from other cars as expected, better. You definition may differ.
I drove it 4 years and 50k miles and only had about 5 PB events. Iit did great maintaining the correct speed and spacing I requested from other cars. No type of AP on the Toyota but I rarely use it on the Teslas anyway. I could have 5 PB events in an hour on the Y for comparison.
Apparently all the potholes are where everyone drives centered in the lane. So if I use AP, I am sure to hit almost everyone in the lane I drive along with most of the manhole covers.
I drove it 4 years and 50k miles and only had about 5 PB events. Iit did great maintaining the correct speed and spacing I requested from other cars. No type of AP on the Toyota but I rarely use it on the Teslas anyway. I could have 5 PB events in an hour on the Y for comparison.
Apparently all the potholes are where everyone drives centered in the lane. So if I use AP, I am sure to hit almost everyone in the lane I drive along with most of the manhole covers.
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
I skimmed through the article but didn’t take the time to read all 35 pages it in detail, but there are some key points -
First, the article looked at false negatives. Phantom braking is a problem with false positives. As anyone who works with detection systems knows, the two are related (look up ROC curves.) Designing a system that has low false negatives is easy if you don’t care about false positives.
Second, these are adaptive cruise control systems, they are not designed to be autonomous; (adaptive cruise is considered Level 1 on the SAE autonomy scale) By definition they require driver monitoring and intervention. The cars ‘failed’ the tests because the tests evaluated situations the systems weren’t designed to detect.
This actually goes to illustrate my first point and something many people suspect - the problem with TACC is that it is over sensitive, reacting to what it doesn’t need to. I’ve had many occasions where it applies the brakes within a few meters of the oncoming vehicle. Yeah, it both cars are driving 50 MPH and it doesn’t try to stop until 5 meters before impact it really doesn’t matter. In the simulated test above where the cars were driving 15 and 25 mph. Even in this artifically low-speed and easier test, the Tesla failed to stop in time, so one could say that it failed, too. Of course it didn‘t, it would have required driver intervention, just like the other cars. But that’s the point. TACC is designed to require continuous driver engagement and driver intervention in emergencies.
I could also point out what some of the Tesla defenders tried to use as a defense earlier on - that the systems are only intended for highway use. If you use that criteria, then the oncoming traffic and bicycle tests wouldn‘t apply. Of course my Model Y will still slow down 15 MPH on a highway for no reason, but that‘s the entire problem here, isn’t it?
So yeah, this doesn’t really say that much, other than giving something for the fanboy trolls to regurgitate without actually thinking.
First, the article looked at false negatives. Phantom braking is a problem with false positives. As anyone who works with detection systems knows, the two are related (look up ROC curves.) Designing a system that has low false negatives is easy if you don’t care about false positives.
Second, these are adaptive cruise control systems, they are not designed to be autonomous; (adaptive cruise is considered Level 1 on the SAE autonomy scale) By definition they require driver monitoring and intervention. The cars ‘failed’ the tests because the tests evaluated situations the systems weren’t designed to detect.
This actually goes to illustrate my first point and something many people suspect - the problem with TACC is that it is over sensitive, reacting to what it doesn’t need to. I’ve had many occasions where it applies the brakes within a few meters of the oncoming vehicle. Yeah, it both cars are driving 50 MPH and it doesn’t try to stop until 5 meters before impact it really doesn’t matter. In the simulated test above where the cars were driving 15 and 25 mph. Even in this artifically low-speed and easier test, the Tesla failed to stop in time, so one could say that it failed, too. Of course it didn‘t, it would have required driver intervention, just like the other cars. But that’s the point. TACC is designed to require continuous driver engagement and driver intervention in emergencies.
I could also point out what some of the Tesla defenders tried to use as a defense earlier on - that the systems are only intended for highway use. If you use that criteria, then the oncoming traffic and bicycle tests wouldn‘t apply. Of course my Model Y will still slow down 15 MPH on a highway for no reason, but that‘s the entire problem here, isn’t it?
So yeah, this doesn’t really say that much, other than giving something for the fanboy trolls to regurgitate without actually thinking.
I think you are exactly right. What the test showed is that the Subaru and the Hyundai are not designed to: detect an oncoming vehicle sliding over into your lane, brake, and reduce the force of the impact. The Tesla has software designed to detect an impending head-on and to react.
The question is, do you want your car to have that capability, or do you just want it to be able to follow and react to the car driving your same direction in front of you?
If head-on detection works, I want it as well as active following. As I said above, I wonder how the recent software updates reduced PB for many of us. Did they simply turn off the head-on detection, or did they refine it? Obviously the study was done on cars prior to the software updates.
Given the level of PB on the current version of the software, I definitely want detection on both directions. It's a very small price to pay for some additional insurance against once in a life time event.
Are people really still having significant levels of PBs to irritate daily driving?
Are people really still having significant levels of PBs to irritate daily driving?
I'm not. They seemed to have completely solved the problem with approaching trucks on 2 lane roads.
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
Earlier today I had it slow from 50 down to 40 on a 4 lane divided county road with no one around me. A few days ago I had it slow down from 60 to 45 on the highway, similar conditions.
So yeah, still. Problem. I’m on 2022.4.5.21 (FSD beta) which several versions behind. I’ve seen reports that the newer versions are improved, so I’m hopeful but don’t have any experience to confirm.
On my S and 3 PB was NEVER as bad as my Y. The person who who bought my Y is still having issues even being on the latest SW.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yep, that's what I've been saying previously. The other systems simply tune out the oncoming lane completely, which eliminates a lot of triggers for phantom braking. Of course some people in this thread is calling for Tesla to do the same (especially in TACC mode).
SalisburySam
Active Member
Just give me the damn dumb cruise control. PB goes away, I’m happy.
Because you are assuming that the systems are equally capable of true braking in an emergency. Tesla could solve PB overnight by tuning the system to be less sensitive .. but at the expense of it not braking when a true emergency arises. Is this what you want? Would you be ok with explaining that to people who suffer from crashes and/or personal injury because of the de-tuning just to keep you comfortable?
Sure, I don't like PB either, but I'd rather put up with that and know that the car is ever vigilant for a true emergency. Go watch the videos of Tesla's avoiding or mitigating accidents thanks to AEB, then show me any of a Subaru doing the same.
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
Actually, that would make sense. With TACC, people are expecting adaptive cruise, not auto pilot or FSD.
see above - for many people, PB is making TACC as much of a burden as an aid. If Tesla’s emergency braking algorithms are causing issues then they have them programmed wrong. It’s rather like saying ‘well, if the seatbelt is so tight that you can’t breathe you can unbuckle it completely. Is that what you want?” No both are backups not replacements for the driver.
To an extent, yes, but the poster was saying (basically) “It’s easy to fix cause my Subaru doesnt do this” which, in your analogy, would be equal to the Subaru having comfy seat belts that snapped during a real accident.
Similar threads
