Seriously, why does Elon feel the need to lie about even short-term fsd beta timelines.

[AlanSubie4Life]

I think he does it to put pressure on the engineers.

Maybe, but more likely:

"One of the biggest mistakes people make, and I’m guilty of it too, is wishful thinking. You want something to be true, even if it isn’t true. And so you ignore the real truth because of what you want to be true. This is a very difficult trap to avoid" -EM

 

[2101Guy]

I think he does it to put pressure on the engineers.

as if firing them on the spot when they pushed back, wasnt enough pressure..

 

[sjg98]

If we really are Beta testers, then the development team doesn't "owe" us anything. Our job is to help with development by testing the product.

I'm sorry but as a paying customer this is absolutely the wrong way to view things.
The company which we have given thousands of dollars for beta software does not owe us anything?
We should have higher expectations as a customer.
Tesla is the only car company with the chutzpah to charge thousands of dollars for beta software you need to test into being approved to use.

The Germans might get crazy with all the $500-1500 add-ons, but they aren't offering you vaporware.

 

[glide]

I think he does it to put pressure on the engineers.

So in addition to lying to the people who buy his products, he’s also a *sugar* boss.

Got it.

 

[VanFriscia]

@buyleonard said:
"If we really are Beta testers, then the development team doesn't "owe" us anything. Our job is to help with development by testing the product. Their job isn't to stick to 2 week schedule to make us feel good..."

I'm sorry but as a paying customer this is absolutely the wrong way to view things.
The company which we have given thousands of dollars for beta software does not owe us anything?
We should have higher expectations as a customer.

@sjg98 - This is an oft-stated mindset on the forums, but I'd suggest looking at it another way. We paid to eventually get a complete FSD system of some kind, the capabilities of which vary depending on when you purchased it. We did NOT pay for beta software, and the beta software some of us are getting to test shouldn't be viewed as a delivered product that non-beta people are missing out on, despite having also paid for it. NOBODY has the delivered, paid-for product yet because it doesn't exist (and lord knows if/when it ever will).

Please don't misunderstand me - people have a right to be upset because there's a lot that sucks about this situation. But Tesla doesn't "owe" us anything for being beta testers. They do, however, eventually owe us usable FSD of some kind (hopefully before our cars are in the junk pile ).

EDIT: Quoted the wrong post above sjg98

 

[2101Guy]

Speaking of lies:
I seem to recall certain promises made about benefits (including more range) for 4680 equipped Y’s.

Did those promises pan out?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Speaking of lies:
I seem to recall certain promises made about benefits (including more range) for 4680 equipped Y’s.

Did those promises pan out?

I think you’re getting too far over your skis here. I think it is far too early to understand exactly what the situation is with the 4680 cells. Obviously their initial presentation on them was misleading (particularly the capacity part - duh…much larger cells have much higher energy content and their presentation made it difficult to understand the actual improvement in energy density).

But, I’m pretty sure they’ll turn out to be an improvement! I doubt that this particular promise will be proven to be complete false (would be a massive possibly fatal misstep by Tesla if so). You’d have to specify what you’re talking about exactly, anyway. Maybe I am not familiar with the promise?

In any case I’d be shocked if 4680 Model Y had more range than 2170 Y initially; it would be crazy to do that; exactly the opposite of what Tesla wants. There is capability, and then there is what the market actually will buy.

At a minimum you need to compare apples to apples. For example: if Tesla makes a 4680 50kWh Model Y it makes no sense to compare that to a 2170 82kWh Model Y and complain about the range promises being a lie.

 

[hugh_jassol]

Because the new car warranty only last 4 years. We want to be able to use FSD with good collision avoidance technology before the warranty runs out.

I hope you were missing a /s in there...

 

[2101Guy]

Obviously their initial presentation on them was misleading….

I was only asking if what was promised (pre 4680 rollout) is what was delivered to the customer…

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I was only asking if what was promised (pre 4680 rollout) is what was delivered to the customer…

Weird which quote of mine you picked where I pointed out a particular specific (and unimportant - just annoying) element of their original presentation (which was obviously marketing). Just go back and calculate the energy density they actually claimed and compare to the delivery.

I don’t know, was it? What was the promise? Is it too early to say? I am sorry, I do not follow every twist and turn of the narrative.

But I think this sort of thing is much much different than the FSD situation. It’s a lot easier for Tesla to set specs for a battery and make predictions based on design specs (which are completely achievable - reliability and risk are probably pretty well understood too) than it is for them to predict when an unsolved problem (which may require AGI to be solved) will be solved.

I suspect the 4680 will deliver very close to (and probably exceed) the original promises. Over a reasonable (of course delayed significantly; not a big deal - this pretty much only hurts Tesla) timeframe.

Just not the same as FSD at all. It’s very easy when buying a vehicle to understand how much energy you are getting - just wait until the EPA docs are available and released to buy if it is very important. And if you want to know how 4680 do over time just wait another year. This is standard stuff which any knowledgeable car buyer (from any car manufacturer) knows. Buying a brand new model has significant risks which become evident in appropriate car forum relatively quickly and then you weigh the benefits.

 

[momo3605]

At a minimum you need to compare apples to apples. For example: if Tesla makes a 4680 50kWh Model Y it makes no sense to compare that to a 2170 82kWh Model Y and complain about the range promises being a lie.

The 4680 model Y is 70kWh with 279 range and the 2170 model Y is 82kWh with 326 miles.

So not only is the battery smaller, the weight and efficiency is exactly the same as the LR, so the 4680 is heavier per kw. I don’t remember what the initial promises were, but forget improvements, they have the exact same efficiency.

 

[2101Guy]

Here is Teslas promises of the 4680 on battery day:

“Tesla held its long-awaited Battery Day event on September 22. And in the event, the company announced several breakthroughs. Most notable of which are, a 56 percent reduction in cost per kilowatt-hour, and a 54 percent increase in range.”

“As the name implies, the new jumbo cells are 46 mm in diameter and 80 mm in height. The larger jelly roll packs more active battery material into the casing for a 5× improvement in energy storage and a 6× increase in power.”

 

[!igs]

The 4680 model Y is 70kWh with 279 range and the 2170 model Y is 82kWh with 326 miles.

So not only is the battery smaller, the weight and efficiency is exactly the same as the LR, so the 4680 is heavier per kw. I don’t remember what the initial promises were, but forget improvements, they have the exact same efficiency.

Didn't they fill the empty banks with dead weight for the structure or balance?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The 4680 model Y is 70kWh with 279 range and the 2170 model Y is 82kWh with 326 miles.

So not only is the battery smaller, the weight and efficiency is exactly the same as the LR, so the 4680 is heavier per kw. I don’t remember what the initial promises were, but forget improvements, they have the exact same efficiency.

Most notable of which are, a 56 percent reduction in cost per kilowatt-hour, and a 54 percent increase in range.”

I’ll have to check the videos and EPA data.

It infuriates me that these are in user hands and we don’t know precisely what the (minimum) energy capacity is (this is extremely easily determined - has someone posted it - please link if so!). But anyway it seems to be around 70-75kWh, hard to say exactly without someone taking a very simple picture of the vehicle screen.

Anyway regarding the 54% increase in range, this doesn’t mean that vehicles will actually come with this (obviously!!!). Have to determine the effective energy density (not at vehicle level, and not at pack level, and not at cell level - but at the internal to the pack level), and any efficiency improvement during discharge.

So to me it is unclear at the moment from what has been posted whether Telsa is underdelivering or not.

The question is whether with a pack which uses all available space, what the range is. It’s going to be a combination of the efficiency and the density.

Dig up some documents with the exact specs, and show your work.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

But Tesla doesn't "owe" us anything for being beta testers.

I would argue that ACTUAL beta testers are owed feedback on what they report in some kind of way. Something that makes them feel connected to the entire process.

The more difficult the testing is the more important this feedback is. People will work for free if they feel like what they're doing has a purpose.

With the FSD Beta it felt more like a developer preview. A sort of consolation prize.

I never felt much incentive to put any effort into FSD beta testing. If the reporting tools were better I might have felt more involved, or if it worked better it would have been easier to test.

It was difficult to really test without it making me look like an idiot so I lost interest.

 

[AutoRocket]

I seem to recall seeing an interview with Musk a year or two ago in which he was asked this question. His response, from memory and paraphrased, was to admit that he has a tendency to get excited and optimistic, but that this was a necessary trait in order to aggressively push new and cutting-edge technologies -- that is, without the optimism that leads to inaccurate public timelines, there would be no FSD-on-city-streets (even in its current state), no Model 3, no Model S, etc.

I'm not saying that I accept this explanation. I'm also frustrated by the guessing game of trying to figure out when a promised future feature will actually become available. Right now, for instance, I'm wondering whether I should try the do-it-yourself CCS retrofit on my 2019 Model 3 or wait for the promised official version. Musk could certainly learn to keep his mouth shut publicly when it comes to timelines while still being as "optimistic" as he likes internally. Thus, one can't help but wonder if Musk is doing this deliberately as a way of hyping Tesla and its (at least somewhat) vaporware products. Being publicly "optimistic" about timelines could be an effective business strategy. How many millions of dollars has Tesla raked in on the FSD package, which has yet to deliver anything better than the sort of auto-park features every other automaker already offers and a Flaky Student Driver mode that requires more attention than normal driving? All that cynicism aside, I'm willing to forgive Tesla charging customers for non-existent or alpha-test software if they eventually deliver something that works. It's something like a Kickstarter campaign -- they collect money up front for a feature that's not yet been developed, and in return, early investors get the feature for less money than it'll eventually cost. It's been long enough, though, and long enough past Tesla's timelines from, say, 3.5 years ago, that I personally am losing patience. I paid $5,000 for FSD in early 2019, which is much less than what it costs today, but I still haven't gotten my $5,000 worth, and I'm not confident that I ever will. That said, I knew it was a gamble at that time. Hence, I have mixed feelings on this subject.

It's not a good explanation..... you can keep the pressure on internally while being realistic to the public..... or by saying nothing until it's ready to ship....

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It infuriates me that these are in user hands and we don’t know precisely what the (minimum) energy capacity is (this is extremely easily determined - has someone posted it - please link if so!). But anyway it seems to be around 70-75kWh

The 4680 model Y is 70kWh with 279 range and the 2170 model Y is 82kWh with 326 miles.

First: this thread is about lying about FSD beta short-term promises, so not sure why @2101Guy brought up battery promises. Anyhow...

Catching up on this. I guess it's all common knowledge. Haven't been paying attention! Shouldn't have gotten infuriated, lol.

Anyway, yes, looks like 70kWh pack. Also in the EPA documents. Grabbed it off this video, it's about 68kWh degradation threshold at the moment:

Later in the video it looks like the line is at 248Wh/mi or so (definitely below 249Wh/mi). So 243Wh/mi (248-5 as is the norm).
So that would imply 279mi*243Wh/mi = 67.8kWh.

So all consistent on that current (unlocked) capacity. It might be as high as 70kWh (the 68kWh is just the degradation threshold which is always equal to or lower than the initial capacity, but it's unlikely it would be higher than 70kWh available for use). So sure, we'll assume 70kWh as a reasonable guess for a typical case (this could be a lot higher with a software lock, I have no idea).

Remember the 2170L cells didn't technically exist on battery day, which added 5% capacity. So we should compare to a 78kWh Model Y with 316 miles range, not an 82kWh Model Y with 326 miles.

Combo of efficiency and capacity improvements to give 54% range increase (from 78kWh...so only 49% from 82kWh).

Efficiency on the highway? Looks like it's 151MPGe for 4680, while it is 152MPGe for the 2170. Both 2022 vehicles. As you say, the same.

As you say, the docs claim the weights are the about the same (4356 vs. 4381) which makes it seem like the pack is fully populated...but also makes you wonder if it is correct?

So anyway, unless they magically get some efficiency, or they are hiding a bunch of existing capacity (they might be hiding some but are limited on cells so not too much presumably!) looks like they'd need to be able to cram 78kWh*1.54 = 120kWh into the vehicle, giving it ~486 rated miles of range (49% more than existing vehicle), to meet their Battery Day statements.

I guess we'll see if they can! To me it's very unclear how it's populated (in spite of the weight...). I guess we'll see what the teardown from Munro shows very shortly?

Two questions:
1) How is the pack populated?
2) Is any of the pack in the 279-mile version locked out right now?

Kind of need to know the answer to both questions...we'll only get the answer to one definitively in the initial teardown. Seems pretty far off at the moment, I agree - but I don't know the answers here.

https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54971&flag=1

https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54970&flag=1

Anyway, back to discussion about short-term FSD promises.

 

[DrDabbles]

A good while back now, Elon said 10.13 would be here in two weeks. Now, we all knew that would never occur. The question is, “Why has it gotten to this point?” The point being that we take what Elon says as timelines as complete bs. It doesn’t have to be this way. We would all be so much happier if he just said, “10.X will be here in over a month. We would not be mad that we would be waiting a month, rather we would be glad that we were most likely getting a realistic timeline. I get that it’s hard to estimate over years. But weeks? I hate just sitting around waiting with literally no information about the next version except a “two weeks” that we know to be false.
We love you Elon.
Please be honest.

If he started telling the truth, the tsunami of lawsuits would probably set some kind of record. FSD is a joke, Elon is just making BS up about what it can and can't do. The fact that everyone is comfortable admitting his timelines are lies but not his claims about the software is more of an indictment of the collective than it is of him.

 

[jcasetnl]

A good while back now, Elon said 10.13 would be here in two weeks. Now, we all knew that would never occur. The question is, “Why has it gotten to this point?” The point being that we take what Elon says as timelines as complete bs. It doesn’t have to be this way. We would all be so much happier if he just said, “10.X will be here in over a month. We would not be mad that we would be waiting a month, rather we would be glad that we were most likely getting a realistic timeline. I get that it’s hard to estimate over years. But weeks? I hate just sitting around waiting with literally no information about the next version except a “two weeks” that we know to be false.
We love you Elon.
Please be honest.

Because he's lying to you and you still tolerate it.

Read the writing on the wall. You picked the wrong shepherd.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Has anyone mentioned yet that it’s not a lie if he believes it?