Suspected repeater camera defect that affects FSD performance

[drtimhill]

Counterpoint: this car with no headlights
You're relying on the headlights of the other car to compensate for the defect in your blind spot camera.

But the point remains that the car has been using repeaters to provide safe lane changes for years now in a large fleet of cars, and doesnt ever seem to have any trouble. If the car really was blinded do you not think we'd have seen a vast litany of people complain of the car making unsafe lane changes a la phantom braking? Where are they all?

This seems to me pretty strong evidence that the cameras/NNs can cope quite well with the light leakage (and see my earlier posts for a discussion of why this is probably the case).

 

[nvx1977]

Counterpoint: this car with no headlights
You're relying on the headlights of the other car to compensate for the defect in your blind spot camera.

And if a car without headlights approaches when I'm manually trying to change lanes, there's a good chance I might not see the car either.

In essence, I'm relying on the headlights of the other car to compensate for my own limitations for seeing in dark conditions. And that's why it's illegal to drive without headlights at night.

 

[STS-134]

Counterpoint: this car with no headlights
You're relying on the headlights of the other car to compensate for the defect in your blind spot camera.

Countercounterpoint: Car with no headlights AND a strong source of glare behind said car. If FSD cannot handle this scenario, it can't drive the vehicle safely. Period. Glare from the turn signals is pretty easy to handle compared to all of the other stuff it has to do. It seems to annoy humans but it really shouldn't affect the computers.

Tesla's obviously known about this for years. If it was really an issue, they'd have recalled all existing cars and redesigned the camera PCBs many years ago. They didn't.

 

[Scotty7]

In my on-going saga with Tesla support I received this reply back after providing evidence (receipts and communication) of service appointments of other owners receiving warranty replacements (read: not goodwill replacements as they tried to argue) for this issue:

"Good Afternoon [Scotty],

Thank you for you for your email and further comments.

We are not authorised to discuss vehicles which are not your own with you. Therefore, we would be unable to advise on the status of another owner’s repairs. However, we do wish to inform you that whilst a vehicle might have a similar symptom that does not always imply the root cause to be the same. Additionally, if another vehicle is incorrectly charged as warranty, this would not automatically entitle all other owners of the same concern to eligible for warranty replacements, as such, we could not consider this as sufficient grounds for a reconsideration of the decision presented to you previously.

We understand this is not necessarily the outcome you may sought, however, it is the only response we can provide to you at this time."

Pretty horrific customer service.

 

[stopcrazypp]

In my on-going saga with Tesla support I received this reply back after providing evidence (receipts and communication) of service appointments of other owners receiving warranty replacements (read: not goodwill replacements as they tried to argue) for this issue:

"Good Afternoon [Scotty],

Thank you for you for your email and further comments.

We are not authorised to discuss vehicles which are not your own with you. Therefore, we would be unable to advise on the status of another owner’s repairs. However, we do wish to inform you that whilst a vehicle might have a similar symptom that does not always imply the root cause to be the same. Additionally, if another vehicle is incorrectly charged as warranty, this would not automatically entitle all other owners of the same concern to eligible for warranty replacements, as such, we could not consider this as sufficient grounds for a reconsideration of the decision presented to you previously.

We understand this is not necessarily the outcome you may sought, however, it is the only response we can provide to you at this time."

Pretty horrific customer service.

Other than the ones that have the issue only on one camera, I believe I only read of one case that had it marked as warranty (correct me if I'm wrong). Unless they had an internal policy change that decided to count all the glare cases as warranty (in which case they presumably won't be arguing with you about it), they are unlikely to really care about someone getting something covered by warranty somewhere, as that might be an individual decision by the particular service center (where it might be something as simple as someone forgetting to mark it as goodwill when creating the invoice). That might matter in a court, but even then I believe the court would look at the circumstances on how that got approved as warranty and whether it was applicable to your case also.

From other discussions, it seems the UK doesn't have the D models yet (the only models guaranteed to solve the issue), so they might not be able to reliably address it anyways in the UK (even if other jurisdictions can).

 

[Scotty7]

Hey all,

It looks like we might be seeing tesla replacing repeater cams free of charge. Someone on reddit posted this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/u789w7

More noteworthy is what they said about the experience:

"Took my 2020 model 3 in for windshield replacement and the service rep told me they would also be replacing my repeaters. She didn’t even know why, just that it was added to my visit. I don’t think it’s common knowledge that they’ll be replacing them for free because of the blinking issue on rear view display—I’ll delete if this is actually common knowledge, but I’ve been living the past few months with blinding blinkers and would have loved to know they’d replace them without charge."

Will keep you all posted on whether or not this is actually an initiative to replace defective repeater cams. If it is, I imagine there'll be a lot of miffed off owners who've paid out of pocket as I suspected might happen months ago.

 

[JVINFL]

Yep, me for one. If they won't do a refund, perhaps I can barter with them for a free alignment or other service. The new repeater cams really make a difference. Now the yellow/orange flashing is gone, I realize now how distracting the yellow/orange flashing on the screen was at night, even for the few seconds it happens signaling a lane change.

 

[sleepydoc]

Yep, me for one. If they won't do a refund, perhaps I can barter with them for a free alignment or other service. The new repeater cams really make a difference. Now the yellow/orange flashing is gone, I realize now how distracting the yellow/orange flashing on the screen was at night, even for the few seconds it happens signaling a lane change.

have you noticed any difference in the performance of AP/FSD/TACC? I saw another post suspecting a repeater camera malfunction might be causing AP issues.

 

[JVINFL]

have you noticed any difference in the performance of AP/FSD/TACC? I saw another post suspecting a repeater camera malfunction might be causing AP issues.

Nothing noticeable so far. I was getting a camera error saying it couldn't see at night when I was going down a very dark stretch of road. It would be disabled for a minute to two then start working again. I haven't noticed that error since the camera was replaced. It was an intermitent problem.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Nothing noticeable so far. I was getting a camera error saying it couldn't see at night when I was going down a very dark stretch of road. It would be disabled for a minute to two then start working again. I haven't noticed that error since the camera was replaced. It was an intermitent problem.

I don't think that would have anything to do with the turn signals and repeater cams. I have an error pop up also in pitch black roads, but it was for the pillar cams.

 

[Scotty7]

Another report of a recent warranty replacement for the side repeaters:

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/uhqzqk

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

The other night I was driving home from Portland, and I noticed that on a few occasions a manually initiated Auto-lane change into the left lane wouldn't happen due to the camera being blinded (or simply not able to see). Visually it looked like it always does at night with a ton of glare and the blinker light washing stuff out.

It was a clear night, and my repeater cameras are clean.

Once I get them replaced I'm going to see how much of an impact that has an auto-lane change.

Auto-Lane change by far is my favorite feature of the entire EAP/FSD stuff. So I'd like to give it the best possible image to work with. The current image is so crappy I'd have a hard time using it to make a safe lane change.

 

[Graham J]

Here’s my saga with this issue (see attachments)

I then asked to have this in writing and received the following:

As per our conversation you had requested I write you an email stating that we will not be replacing your side repeater cameras under your vehicles warranty.

The side repeater cameras and your vehicle were manufactured prior to the blind spot viewing feature on your touchscreen.

The blind spot camera performance on older vehicles is neither a defect of materials or workmanship. It is a characteristic of the product. And it’s a characteristic that has been design enhanced in newer vehicle production.



There is an option to upgrade to newer camera technology if you wish to purchase it.

I hope this helps clarify.


To which I replied:

A camera module that doesn't provide a stable view of its surroundings is defective.

It's very disappointing that you choose to view both this and my previous request about the tailgate frequently not opening properly - which still happens despite a firmware update and, like this, is a widespread issue - as perfectly fine. This is not how warranties are supposed to work.

I'll definitely remember this when considering my next vehicle purchase.

 

[Scotty7]

Here’s my saga with this issue (see attachments)

View attachment 800206View attachment 800207View attachment 800208View attachment 800209
I then asked to have this in writing and received the following:

As per our conversation you had requested I write you an email stating that we will not be replacing your side repeater cameras under your vehicles warranty.

The side repeater cameras and your vehicle were manufactured prior to the blind spot viewing feature on your touchscreen.

The blind spot camera performance on older vehicles is neither a defect of materials or workmanship. It is a characteristic of the product. And it’s a characteristic that has been design enhanced in newer vehicle production.



There is an option to upgrade to newer camera technology if you wish to purchase it.

I hope this helps clarify.


To which I replied:

A camera module that doesn't provide a stable view of its surroundings is defective.

It's very disappointing that you choose to view both this and my previous request about the tailgate frequently not opening properly - which still happens despite a firmware update and, like this, is a widespread issue - as perfectly fine. This is not how warranties are supposed to work.

I'll definitely remember this when considering my next vehicle purchase.

You articulated it absolutely brilliantly in your messages - really, you did it way better than I did. I went through the same hoops and escalated it via email. I essentially got told the same thing. I emphasise how utterly infuriating it is for them to lie through their teeth to you while trying to make you feel like an idiot.

 

[Graham J]

You articulated it absolutely brilliantly in your messages - really, you did it way better than I did. I went through the same hoops and escalated it via email. I essentially got told the same thing. I emphasise how utterly infuriating it is for them to lie through their teeth to you while trying to make you feel like an idiot.

Thanks. In the end I'm not too worried about it as I don't really use the camera view anyway, mostly drive during the day and haven't noticed AP issues. Still it just bugs me that the cameras are broken and they won't fix them regardless of whether it actually affects me or not.

It's a 2021 so still plenty of warranty left. I'll probably try again before the warranty is up.

 

[JVINFL]

First off, let me set the record, I paid to have my repeaters replaced.

As to blaming Tesla not to replace the repeater cameras under warranty, I have to agree with them. This is not a design defect or manufacturing issue of the cameras. I originally asked if they would replace them under warranty and they explained their reasoning, which I may not like but I must agree. They function correctly based on the design of the car at the time of manufacture and features offered.

If you purchased a Dell computer and they add a new security feature but let's say the network card in the system doesn't support that feature, is the network card hence the computer defective? I think not. It is working the way it was designed at the time. IMHO, the same applies to the car. Tesla offered the feature as a FREE enhancement and it is your choice to use it or not. I didn't like the way the new free feature worked at night with the old design of the repeaters so I CHOSE to upgrade my repeater cameras at my cost. Is it any different than spending money on carbon fiber covers because the dash accents are wood and you like carbon fiber?

Just my 2 cents...

 

[STS-134]

First off, let me set the record, I paid to have my repeaters replaced.

As to blaming Tesla not to replace the repeater cameras under warranty, I have to agree with them. This is not a design defect or manufacturing issue of the cameras.

Wait...you're seriously suggesting that they INTENTIONALLY wanted the cameras to be designed such that light from the turn signals bleeds into the camera? The only thing their engineering department could have done that is more idiotic than ACCIDENTALLY doing this is doing it INTENTIONALLY by putting holes in the PCB in just the spot where it'll cause these issues because...well I don't know, maybe it amuses them to watch the flashes of light?

 

[Graham J]

This is not a design defect

It is. You're never going to convince me that while designing the module the EE went "Here let's put some holes in the PCB so the LEDs will wash out the image. That'll be great!"

They didn't realize this would happen at design time and I'll bet dollars to donuts it wasn't noticed until someone working on AP or FSD tried it out at night and discovered the cameras were useless half the time, by which time it was too late to change the hardware design. They then had to deal with this in software, most likely by simply ignoring frames when the indicator is on, which is obviously suboptimal.

This is more like that Dell's network interface intermittently not sending data and my only noticing that due to them shipping an app that shows a network graph or something. Sure maybe I didn't notice before but it's still broken. Warranties should cover things that are broken.

 

[MP3Mike]

It is. You're never going to convince me that while designing the module the EE went "Here let's put some holes in the PCB so the LEDs will wash out the image. That'll be great!"

They didn't realize this would happen at design time and I'll bet dollars to donuts it wasn't noticed until someone working on AP or FSD tried it out at night and discovered the cameras were useless half the time, by which time it was too late to change the hardware design. They then had to deal with this in software, most likely by simply ignoring frames when the indicator is on, which is obviously suboptimal.

This is more like that Dell's network interface intermittently not sending data and my only noticing that due to them shipping an app that shows a network graph or something. Sure maybe I didn't notice before but it's still broken. Warranties should cover things that are broken.

It really doesn't matter that you want to call it a design defect, the warranty doesn't cover design defects:

Neither the materials nor workmanship of the part is defective. And this has been tested in the courts, with them ruling that a design defect is not covered by the warranty.

Here is one example:

Your GM Warranty Does Not Cover Design Flaws

The Coral Gables tire defect attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert handle injury lawsuits related to defective auto parts.

www.tiredefectattorney.com

The second claim in the lawsuit related to the breach of warranty. The plaintiffs claimed that the oil consumption problem breached the vehicle’s warranty and thus should be compensable. However, GM claimed that the warranty only covers manufacturing defects—not design defects. The judge concurred and dismissed the case.

 

[Graham J]

It really doesn't matter that you want to call it a design defect, the warranty doesn't cover design defects:

JVINFL said it's not a design defect so I was responding to that.

As for the warranty I would have thought a repeater module is a material and/or that the assembly process not covering the holes would be a workmanship issue.