This rollout doesn't make sense. Seems to be just a plain case of pushing Tesla vision to avoid delivery delays due to shortages in the radar supply chain. In the meanwhile new owners 3/Y get the short end of the stick at full price.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla.com - "Transitioning to Tesla Vision"
- Thread starter run-the-joules
- Start date
No man, this is Tesla increasing value in these cars because they weigh less. Nobody used the radar anyway, their data shows it.
Has anyone seen confirmation that safety features such as FCW and AEB will also require auto high beam to be enabled at night? I assume since those are now vision driven that it would be the case, but I haven't seen it specifically mentioned.
rxlawdude
Active Member
BitJam
Active Member
I'm imagine even you would agree that paying full freight for a car that lacks basic functionality (such as non-disco cruise control after dark) and uses very very early software for vital safety features is totally unacceptable. One of the appeals of a Tesla automobile is that AP reduces the chance of an accident by almost a factor of
1) after dark (in non-disco mode)
2) in traffic in inclement weather
3) over 75 MPH
This is a terrible way to treat customers. If people follow your advice and don't complain then Tesla has much less incentive to fix these problems and will probably continue to play bait and switch with their customers in the future. I'm not happy about losing passenger seat lumbar support but disabling key safety features (like AP) takes it to a whole different level.
It's possible that Elon has finally made a prediction about autonomous driving that actually comes true on time and by some magical coincidence the need for radar will evaporate a few weeks after Tesla ran out of radar parts but I will only believe that when I see it. If Tesla was certain they could fix everything in two weeks then they could have avoided this whole mess by simply waiting two weeks instead of delivering crippled cars with promises of fixes in the future.
If this is not worth complaining about then what is? We're not talking about test vehicles. We're talking about production vehicles delivered to paying customers with vital safety features disabled. IMO the promise of a free upgrade to add radar if the radar-free vehicles don't achieve parity would make a huge difference. That way Tesla is taking on the risk if their promises don't pan out. Instead, they chose to foist the risk (both financial and physical) onto their paying customers. I hope to high Heaven that no one gets hurt or killed due to these regressions as we wait for Tesla to add back in the safety features they disabled.
Last edited:
rxlawdude
Active Member
I agree it's lousy PR, and that there should be parity in functionality with radar-equipped, non TeslaVision. But whining and moaning about it (they know who they are) is not going to (or should!) change a release date.
And if Tesla can't deliver all vision FSD (or even basic AP) in a reasonable time frame for TeslaVision cars, they need to either retrofit radar; or offer a rebate to those owners with AP, and refund FSD. But that is the big IF.
Oh no, this again.
Tesla's own data says that AP only reduces the the chance of an accident by 2 vs an identical Tesla with AP turned off.
And even this is problematic, given AP is meant to be used on the highway, which is already 3X safer per mile than surface streets. So AP could actually be more dangerous, but Tesla doesn't give us enough data to know.
What Tesla's data DOES show is that the active safety features (AEB, FCW, lane departure avoidance, etc) are effective, with about a 2X reduction vs a Tesla without them. Of course, Tesla changed those by removing Radar also, so only time will tell if that trend continues.
Yes, a Tesla is a very safe vehicle. But it's not because of AP, it might even be in spite of it.
What time do you consider "reasonable"? It appears earlier you considered this to be less than a month. Would it still be "whining" if it's not at parity in a month?
But then...
We're 5 years into them not delivering FSD for radar cars, which apparently is not an unreasonable time for you, so why is TeslaVision different? Historically you have said they don't ever really owe anyone FSD on any timeframe, and no FSD refund or anything else is required yet. When will that crest into "unreasonable"? Is there any way to determine "reasonable" without a lawsuit given reasonable people and companies are going to disagree about such a vague term?
Tesla required all buyers of Radar only cars to agree to the radar removal? Didn't they absolve themselves of ever needing to put radar on the car since it was no longer part of the purchase agreement?
Last edited:
BitJam
Active Member
Thanks for the correction! I don't know how much the active safety features rely on radar (like AP does) so disabling radar may increase the chance of an accident by more than a factor of 2. But a factor of 2 is still significant.
BitJam
Active Member
I mostly agree! It's too late to change a release date but I hope Tesla takes this very seriously and actually fixes the darn problems. I have zero confidence that Tesla will offer a free retrofit or a rebate if they don't achieve TV parity (unless they are forced to by a law suit). Before I placed my order I was told by SAs that I could pick up my car at a SC 150 miles from my home. After I placed my order I was told I would have to travel over 1200 miles to pick up my car. I asked if I could get my $100 back due to the bait and switch. They said "no". Then the next day this radar SNAFU happened. I absolutely do not trust Tesla to do the right thing after they make a mistake. It is doubly frustrating because I think these are all bad business decisions on their part. My plans to by Tesla stock are on hold.
Yep, that is still significant to me. Would I make a change to my lifestyle so I could cut the risk of cancer in half, of course I would. Or flipping it around, by the safety features not working, you just double my risk.
Having already been in 2 incidents with another car that has radar based AEB, it prevented 2 accidents in poor visibility. I doubt in its current state, Tesla Vision would not have worked as well, or at all, but that is speculation on my part but since it relies on vision, and it was very dark and rainy, it is a safe guess.
They totally bungled this. If people think 3 and Y owners are whining, imagine if they do this to the S/X models.
The biggest issue I see is what real incentive does Tesla have to get this to parity, or better with the old system. They aren't rebating back any money or no promise of retrofit if it doesn't. All the risk is on us. Give Tesla run's on Elon Time, I would wager a grand that it won't be anywhere close to parity with their old system within the next 3-6 months with the use case of poor visibility conditions and inclement weather. Why I would risk my family's life on a promise from Elon?
I do hope all this attention and visibility gets them to do the right thing as quickly as possible. Or maybe it will take an individual lawsuit with injuries for them to mend their ways. Or maybe someone will start a class action lawsuit if they don't.
I do have some time to wait but I'd hate to be someone who took their car now and signed that notice.
Last edited:
Well, not more... Tesla's own data shows a car with nothing vs a car with everything is a factor of 2 (basically pre-AP1 to AP1/2 cars). But yes, nobody knows how a modern radar-less car will compare to an AP1/2 in these features until we have more data. I'm guessing Tesla will never expose that though.
smogne41
Active Member
I absolutely think the vision only cars will be at parity with the older radar cars within a month. Only because Tesla will probably "upgrade" everybody to vision only by then regardless if it works acceptably or not. To do otherwise would be to admit they are perhaps not on the right technical track, and modern Tesla/Elon have shown no capacity for that. It is also speculation that AEB/lane departure will require high beams, but I would frankly be surprised if they did not (and as I said above, this probably means those of us with the older cars as well). I hope not, but realistically this seems like the way things will go down. I really hope I can keep my safety features because I will turn off whatever I have to avoid running auto high beams at night (to do otherwise is unsafe to other drivers and a general big jerk move).
I also sold 1/5 of my shares today. More than covered my initial investment (which is nice), but kinda hard to be optimistic for the medium-term when I realized there is no way in hell I would honestly buy one of their cars right now if I had to replace my 2018 Model 3 (or recommend one to a friend/anybody who asked).
I also sold 1/5 of my shares today. More than covered my initial investment (which is nice), but kinda hard to be optimistic for the medium-term when I realized there is no way in hell I would honestly buy one of their cars right now if I had to replace my 2018 Model 3 (or recommend one to a friend/anybody who asked).
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Complaining here does nothing however (there's some people here that are long running complainers and there is zero change visible in how Tesla does things after all these years). Not buying the vehicle does however (or at the very least postponing delivery). If Tesla still remains supply limited (which is what they are now given the rising prices), then they have no incentive to do anything different. Voting with your wallet is the only sure way for feedback (you can also complain to customer service, but doubt that really filters upward).
Or mass arbitration requests for current customers. Companies are changing their arbitration rules because so many people are using them against them:
After 75,000 Echo arbitration demands, Amazon now lets you sue it
IT-savvy law firms have swamped retailer with arbitration cases.
arstechnica.com
Yes, Tesla's agreement says they will pay for arbitration. So if a bunch of Tesla owners all decided to file at once.....
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The standard AEB, FCW, LDW tests are all done in daylight, so the high beams are irrelevant to meet any standards. If however the question is how they work at night, there is no standard test yet for that.
If any features rely on auto high beam, I think actually that serves as an incentive to improve the core issue (which is in making auto high beam work properly, not to have people be forced to disable it).
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That forces them to change their arbitration rules back to allowing class actions, doesn't force them to change policies. Tesla has settled class actions against AP in the past, but they are still going full steam ahead in the way they develop it (which is make the hardware changes first, worry about software later).Or mass arbitration requests for current customers. Companies are changing their arbitration rules because so many people are using them against them:
After 75,000 Echo arbitration demands, Amazon now lets you sue it
IT-savvy law firms have swamped retailer with arbitration cases.
Yes, Tesla's agreement says they will pay for arbitration. So if a bunch of Tesla owners all decided to file at once.....
A bunch of people costing Tesla money is a form of voting with your wallet. And it's an effective one for people that have already bought cars, and if Tesla sees that they can't keep selling cars the way they do without getting sued one way or another, maybe they would change policies.
Tesla cannot go back and change their arbitration policy. As it says in that article:
Is that video taken in the US? The radar has only been removed from cars in north america.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I mean... when they switched all cars from AP1 to AP2 it was a lot more than a month before they reached parity and they never admitted they weren't on the right track (even though they've since changed tracks multiple times in multiple ways)
Similar threads
- Article
