Regen causing unintended acceleration, according to new study?

[SigNC]

There’s a really good write up I’ve read before (wish I could remember source and link but I can’t) that details the redundant systems working in every Tesla to prevent unintended acceleration.

Sudden Unexpected Acceleration today

 

[MXLRplus]

All makes of cars have had SUA claims made against them.
In today's internet environment, it is fairly inexpensive to taint the jury pool with erroneous or incomplete information. This is why we are seeing an increase in SUA suits and articles/threads such as this.

The only known example of a valid SUA situation caused by poor engineering was Toyota about a decade ago for over a billion dollars. It's a very lucrative gamble for a law firm.

HOWEVER - With EV's, the default operation mode should be regen off for new drivers. Mainly because lots of drivers find it unnerving at first, but also because ABS events combined with regen cause some drivers reporting that their car won't stop. It's not true, but that what if can feel like to ICE automatic driver with limited driving skills.

 

[nvx1977]

Nope.

You are saying that in order for a hypothesis to be true, it must be proven *specifically* by the person who thought up said hypothesis. I am saying that neither the hypothesis nor science cares *who* proves or disproves a hypothesis. Hence I don’t find arguments of “well this scientist needs to prove his hypothesis, if not we should just ignore the hypothesis” terribly compelling.

Case in point:

“The name of 16th century Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus became a household word because he proposed that the Earth revolves around the sun. But the man who finally gathered scientific proof of that theory was English astronomer James Bradley.”

Proving Copernicus Right | Science | AAAS

According to your flawed understanding of science, Copernicus should have kept his dumb hypothesis to himself and just buzzed off. I’m glad he didn’t!

Copernicus absolutely had the burden of proof in his day. The point here was that the general public had no reason to change their beliefs until there was reliable and reproducible proof that the Earth was not the center of our solar system. That eventually came with the advent of the telescope. Your choice of analogy is misleading because the scientific method was not widely adopted half a millennium ago and mainstream beliefs resulted from indoctrination of the church. Today, with science being the backbone of engineering, a radical hypothesis like Belts encourages scientific scrutiny. If science does anything well, it quickly rejects nonsense while being quick to account for inaccuracies of existing theories. It's even gone so far as to adopt "theory" over "law" to account for possible lack of current understanding.

There no conspiracy among the entire general public (all of which have access to Belt's paper) to suppress the viewpoint that Tesla might have a real SUA problem. It's been scrutinized and discredited. Whether you can accept that or not will require either 1) faith, or 2) leveling up on the subject matter so you fully understand the arguments.

 

[Meros]

I read the paper/article. The hypothesis assumes that when the braking system requests an increase in torque from the motor, the motor controller will allow that torque request to produce positive torque instead of just disabling/reducing regen. The summing logic that combines the torque request from the accelerator pedal with the request from the braking system might be more than just a simple summation. It should limit the contribution from the braking system if it exceeds the amount of regen. Then the brake system can only disable regen and can't cause positive torque / acceleration.

 

[lolder]

"Pedal confusion" accidents peak with new drivers and old drivers. They are at a minimum with experienced middle aged drivers. Read this article "Braking Bad": Opinion | Braking Bad

 

[HenryFarkas]

There's a mild unintended acceleration that occurs all the time on my M3. It happens when the car is on the partial FSD that came with the car when I bought it in June, and the car stops itself at a stop sign. The car stops where it's supposed to stop, but often, I can't see around bushes to check for oncoming traffic. So I try to inch forward after the stop, but the car interprets my lightly depressing the accelerator as permission to just drive through the intersection, and I immediately have to apply the brake. In this situation, braking actually does work so nothing bad happens. I hope that when I get the actual FSD update, this behavior will improve.

 

[MP3Mike]

So I try to inch forward after the stop, but the car interprets my lightly depressing the accelerator as permission to just drive through the intersection

That is because pressing the accelerator is you giving it permission to proceed. That is how the feature currently works. It may be unintended by you, but it is commanded by you.

 

[HenryFarkas]

That is because pressing the accelerator is you giving it permission to proceed. That is how the feature currently works. It may be unintended by you, but it is commanded by you.

Yes, I'm aware. That's why I haven't complained about it to Tesla. The point I was making is that once the actual FSD comes down the line, I hope that the car does its own creeping forward to see what's coming down the road before crossing or turning at an intersection.

 

[drtimhill]

Yes, I'm aware. That's why I haven't complained about it to Tesla. The point I was making is that once the actual FSD comes down the line, I hope that the car does its own creeping forward to see what's coming down the road before crossing or turning at an intersection.

It does .. see some of the FSD beta videos. Also note that the cameras in the car are mounted more forward than your head, so the car has (potentially) a better view than you.

 

[Knightshade]

It does .. see some of the FSD beta videos. Also note that the cameras in the car are mounted more forward than your head, so the car has (potentially) a better view than you.

that's not correct... the front left/right looking cameras are in the B pillars... BEHIND the drivers head (a bit).

The only cameras in front of the drivers head are the rear-looking fender cams, and the forward looking cameras on the windshield that don't look left/right

This has been specifically pointed out as a potential issue since if there's a bush or something a human can lean their own head further forward but the car has no way to see there without moving the whole vehicle forward into an intersection it has poor visibility on.

 

[MP3Mike]

So NHTSA has finished their review of the SUA Defect Petition and have rejected it, finding, that as expected, it is pedal misapplication:

After reviewing the available data, ODI has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into SUA in the subject vehicles. In every instance in which event data was available for review by ODI, the evidence shows that SUA crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. There is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. There is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. The theory provided of a potential electronic cause of SUA in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INCLA-DP20001-6158.PDF

 

[EnrgyNDpndnce]

So NHTSA has finished their review of the SUA Defect Petition and have rejected it, finding, that as expected, it is pedal misapplication:

Shocking.

 

[LACALawyer]

Anyone who says "here's my hypothesis, please test it" is legit.