Tesla Begrudgingly “Recalls” FSD Beta for NHTSA

I'm sure this will be a sticky on all of the vehicle forums shortly:

NHTSA Recalls Every Tesla Equipped With 'Full Self-Driving Beta' Over Crash Risks

The safety agency is requiring a software update to Tesla Model S, Model X, Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, saying FSD Beta "may allow the vehicle to act unsafe."

jalopnik.com

(moderator note: related threads here…)
FSD Recall? in Software
Recall FUD in Uk

"Full Self Driving Tesla" by rulenumberone2 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

 

[stopcrazypp]

hang on one second.
Tesla: Hey look everyone, 400k cars all running FSD now, look how great we are
Tesla recall notice: All FSD cars or 367k cars will be getting updates.
What happened to the ( /me runs out of fingers) other 33k cars?
Pretty sure that isn't some kinda rounding error, more like a don't look behind this curtain BS marketing overstretch.

That 400k includes Canada (which this recall doesn't) and was from a Q4 2022 report (with the data possibly being older than that).

FSD Beta is not permanent, people can opt out, and some may have also been subscription users that may not have continued their subscription. Doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have 400k at that given point.

 

[Twiglett]

Canada

Let me keep my conspiracy and lack of trust, I'm driving FSDb after all

 

[2101Guy]

That 400k includes Canada (which this recall doesn't) and was from a Q4 2022 report (with the data possibly being older than that).

FSD Beta is not permanent, people can opt out, and some may have also been subscription users that may not have continued their subscription. Doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have 400k at that given point.

DO we know the global number? I thought it was 1 million + at this point, no?

 

[Supcom]

Lol, so you are ok if NHTSA requires you to never be able to set your set speed higher than the speed limit? I will grab my pitchfork, if this is what it ends up being, especially if it might eventually apply to AP.

You should read the NHTSA recall announcement. If the intent was to prevent the car from exceeding the speed limit, the announcement would have been quite clear on that. This issue is that the car does not respond to speed limit changes (lower, I presume) quickly enough.

 

[JulienW]

DO we know the global number? I thought it was 1 million + at this point, no?

Beta is ONLY available in the US and Canada. So about 400k would be the global number.

 

[JHCCAZ]

The second half specifically mentions the driver setting the speed higher than the speed limit.

I don't think so. I think it refers to the driver reducing the speed using the scroll wheel, but the car not responding to that very quickly at all, the same syndrome as when the car detects the lower speed zone but but the actual slowing is extremely gradual. It does not specifically say higher or faster. Here is the relevant text I see:

3) adjusting vehicle speed while traveling through certain variable speed zones, based on detected speed limit signage and/or the vehicle's speed offset setting that is adjusted by the driver...​

In this context, the offset can be negative, i.e. the driver scrolls down but FSD beta in those cases is responding very slowly. I think this is the simplest and most consistent explanation of the somewhat vaguely-worded issue. It also corresponds to my experience.

It's very clear to me that the vehicle takes too long to slow down if I scroll the speed down significantly. If I scroll up, I think it responds faster but I don't do that very often. (Certainly it responds reasonably quickly when it detects a speed limit sign that increases its prior detection, but in the opposite direction it responds slowly.).

From a feature-safety point of view, it's also consistent that failure to slow down responsively is the problem. The only way the driver has to tell the car to slow down is the scroll wheel - because it's coasting down too slowly on one-pedal control, and touching the brake disengages FSD completely. Conversely, failure to speed up responsively is not a problem, because an accelerator override can be used without forcing an FSD disengagement.

In any case, I think we can agree that the reports and some of the quick reactions to the recall story are overblown. I don't think there's anything in here that says FSD won't be allowed to exceed the speed limit.

 

[2101Guy]

It doesn't matter the source of the complaint. Likely NHTSA notified Tesla of a FSD customer complaint and Tesla opted to do a voluntarily recall. We can imagine what would happen if Tesla didn't opt for a voluntary recall.

18 warranty claims related to the issues was one spark, per the press article..

 

[stopcrazypp]

You should read the NHTSA recall announcement. If the intent was to prevent the car from exceeding the speed limit, the announcement would have been quite clear on that. This issue is that the car does not respond to speed limit changes (lower, I presume) quickly enough.

I did. What you refer to describes only the first have of one of the points. Here's the second half that your point doesn't address:

"not adequately account for the driver's adjustment of the vehicle's speed to exceed posted speed limits".

 

[Nikon201068]

Note that I have reported this thread and asked for it to be combined with the existing discussion (which was at the top of this subforum when you created this new thread)

Tesla Begrudgingly “Recalls” FSD Beta for NHTSA

I'm sure this will be a sticky on all of the vehicle forums shortly: https://jalopnik.com/nhtsa-recalls-every-tesla-equipped-with-full-self-driv-1850123182 (moderator note: related threads here…) FSD Recall? in Software Recall FUD in Uk "Full Self Driving Tesla" by rulenumberone2 is licensed...

teslamotorsclub.com

thank you

 

[2101Guy]

Why do people keep saying "recall"?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1572985952683065345

because Tesla isnt immune nor an exception to the same NHTSA policy/procedures that apply to all carmakers? Because the NHTSA definition of recall applies to Elon as well?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't think so. I think it refers to the driver reducing the speed using the scroll wheel, but the car not responding to that very quickly at all, the same syndrome as when the car detects the lower speed zone but but the actual slowing is extremely gradual. It does not specifically say higher or faster. Here is the relevant text I see:

3) adjusting vehicle speed while traveling through certain variable speed zones, based on detected speed limit signage and/or the vehicle's speed offset setting that is adjusted by the driver...​

In this context, the offset can be negative, i.e. the driver scrolls down but FSD beta in those cases is responding very slowly. I think this is the simplest and most consistent explanation of the somewhat vaguely-worded issue. It also corresponds to my experience.

It's very clear to me that the vehicle takes too long to slow down if I scroll the speed down significantly. If I scroll up, I think it responds faster but I don't do that very often. (Certainly it responds reasonably quickly when it detects a speed limit sign that increases its prior detection, but in the opposite direction it responds slowly.).

From a feature-safety point of view, it's also consistent that failure to slow down responsively is the problem. The only way the driver has to tell the car to slow down is the scroll wheel - because it's coasting down too slowly on one-pedal control, and touching the brake disengages FSD completely. Conversely, failure to speed up responsively is not a problem, because an accelerator override can be used without forcing an FSD disengagement.

In any case, I think we can agree that the reports and some of the quick reactions to the recall story are overblown. I don't think there's anything in here that says FSD won't be allowed to exceed the speed limit.

No. I say what I say because the report specifically uses this terminology:
"not adequately account for the driver's adjustment of the vehicle's speed to exceed posted speed limits".

I certainly hope it doesn't end up as the case of disabling set speeds significantly over the speed limit, which is why I said I have not brought out my pitchfork yet (I'm waiting to see what the actual change is as implemented).

Basically I guess we will find out what it specifically means, I agree the wording is vague.

 

[glide]

Why do people keep saying "recall"?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1572985952683065345

Because it is a recall.

No one gives a *sugar* what Elon thinks it should be called.

 

[Nikon201068]

Why do people keep saying "recall"?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1572985952683065345

Does this mean FSD v11 wide release will be out sooner. Thank god for this recall then. ;-)

 

[JHCCAZ]

No. I say what I say because the report specifically uses this terminology:
"not adequately account for the driver's adjustment of the vehicle's speed to exceed posted speed lim

its".

I certainly hope it doesn't end up that as the case of disabling set speeds significantly over the speed limit, which is why I said I have not brought out my pitchfork yet (I'm waiting to see what the actual change is as implemented).

Interesting. I had downloaded theNHTSA document that was linked by @GSP on page two of the thread:
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF

I'm not seeing the word "exceed" in there. Perhaps there's a companion document that I haven't accessed.

 

[Supcom]

What you observed is likely just the path planner deciding that was the better path, but it could have been equally likely that it would choose to continue straight through if the traffic allowed. This change presumably would be to hard code that the car never travels straight from a turn only lane, regardless of the opportunity presents itself to do so safely.

No. The car had it's left turn signal on up to the point it gave up and turned right. The reroute was to go around the block to get back to the road it turned off of. Hardly a better route, except that it kept the car from stopping in the lane.

 

[GSP]

What does “not adequately account for” mean exactly? How does NHTSA want Tesla to account for said adjustments?

I am glad it doesn’t say ”should not allow driver‘s adjustment of vehicle’s speed to exceed posted speed limits.”

Perhaps they want Tesla to keep statistics on how often drivers set the speed above the preceived limit, and the locations?

GSP

 

[Twiglett]

It does seem to be pretty clearly talking about exceeding speed limits and unlawful in the same sentence.
"FSD Beta software that allows a vehicle to exceed speed limits or travel through intersections in an unlawful or unpredictable manner increases the risk of a crash"

 

[Supcom]

I did. What you refer to describes only the first have of one of the points. Here's the second half that your point doesn't address:

"not adequately account for the driver's adjustment of the vehicle's speed to exceed posted speed limits".

It means that the car did not respond quickly enough to the driver's adjustment, which leads to exceeding the speed limits.

 

[Supcom]

Does this mean FSD v11 wide release will be out sooner. Thank god for this recall then. ;-)

No. v11 will come out when Tesla decides it's good enough to release.

 

[Twiglett]

It means that the car did not respond quickly enough to the driver's adjustment, which leads to exceeding the speed limits.

I interpret it the other way. That FSD doesn't prevent the driver from exceeding the speed limits.
Its a designed in issue that it doesn't slow down with FSD but works great with AP.
AP has had the 5mph over limit for years, but FSD threw it away.