Tesla.com - "Transitioning to Tesla Vision"

[texas_star_TM3]

Except the fast charging landscape is much different in EU than USA. Non-Tesla fast charging stations are comparatively rare, and many reports show that in some cases, relying on DCFC in a CCS vehicle can be dangerous to your road trip.

yeah. i couldn't do my travels without the Supercharger network here in Texas. Zero fast charging option between Dallas-Ft Worth and Amarillo for example ... and good luck getting from Amarillo to Denver etc. Meanwhile the Supercharger network totally rocks and it allows me to drive an EV the same routes i would take an ICE.

I fear that *once* charging options for CCS are as widespread as Superchargers ... things might change for Tesla. Hopefully it will force them to be more customer centric when there are plenty of alternatives.

 

[mikes_fsd]

I fear that *once* charging options for CCS are as widespread as Superchargers ... things might change for Tesla. Hopefully it will force them to be more customer centric when there are plenty of alternatives.

That same line has been used for more than a decade of me following the company and now driving Tesla's.
It is always, the competition is coming and will crush.
But the reality has been starkly different... with both legacy entrants into EV business and newcomers to the charging business... ElectrifyAmerica with their stations, that is a literal cluster F#$% when it comes to reliability.

 

[gearchruncher]

That same line has been used for more than a decade of me following the company and now driving Tesla's.
It is always, the competition is coming and will crush.
But the reality has been starkly different... with both legacy entrants into EV business and newcomers to the charging business... ElectrifyAmerica with their stations, that is a literal cluster F#$% when it comes to reliability.

I fully agree with this for Tesla's as EV's. Their charging infrastructure is an amazing competitive moat.

The funny thing is, the exact same thing applies in reverse for Tesla as an autonomy company vs a car company. For a decade now, Tesla is going to come in and crush autonomy, but the reality is it's "a literal cluster F#$% when it comes to reliability."

I think that's why a lot of us are frustrated with how Tesla treats autonomy, and are so skeptical that they are about to make some major breakthrough. History says other EV companies haven't broken through the charging side, so it's unlikely the next "big thing" will either. Perfectly reasonable extrapolation. Tesla has told us amazing things are just around the corner for autonomy for 10 years, but the history is.... slow, incremental progress, just like other charging networks.

In my opinion, Tesla is spending the goodwill they earned with good cars and charging, and they are spending it on very thin, unproven future technologies that are not the primary reason to buy a Tesla. They would be better served making a broad set of truly great, affordable EV's that have support like your Ford dealer does, and crushing that market instead of having endless news cycles about missed dates, fights with regulators, removed features, and their pushback on 3rd party support and right to repair.

The one troublesome issue for Tesla is that charging is something that unquestionably can be solved with money. Any company willing and funded can build Tesla's charging network in 2-3 years. There is no unsolved technical challenge. Meanwhile, Tesla is trying to compete on autonomy, where nobody has any idea when (if ever) this will actually be functional, and all the money in the world couldn't solve this in a short calendar period, yet they are pissing people off with how they behave in this area with the belief that it will pay off in the future. In the middle, they have mediocre product support, and pretty hostile, monopolistic behavior towards their customers that ironically, dealers actually are effective at reducing. It's a very risky proposition compared to the companies that "only" need to figure out charging, and have 100+ years of running an automotive business and some deep brand loyalties.

 

[smogne41]

I totally agree. I wish Tesla would get back to making awesome cars and not seeming to put almost all their effort into self-driving (and compromising their offerings to serve that). They can make what they have already into awesome drivers safety aid tech, or keep seeming to bet the company on FSD when it is becoming clear that is not gonna happen for quite a while (if ever).

Regarding charging, it is really sad CCS has become the 'standard' outside of Tesla. It is just such a technical disaster. A 'standard' so convoluted and absurd that every new car has to be tested and debugged with every brand of charging station to try and get them to work together. The 'standard' is so complicated that nobody knows how to follow it to make universally compatible software and every new device (car or charging station) requires hacks to just get them to work together.

 

[texas_star_TM3]

I fully agree with this for Tesla's as EV's. Their charging infrastructure is an amazing competitive moat.

The funny thing is, the exact same thing applies in reverse for Tesla as an autonomy company vs a car company. For a decade now, Tesla is going to come in and crush autonomy, but the reality is it's "a literal cluster F#$% when it comes to reliability."

100% agree.... with enough funding EA can build up CCS across the country to match the Supercharger network.

The vehicles are there/ coming.... Ford Mach E / ID.4 are compelling offers. And the F150 Lightning / BMW i4 next year look pretty solid as well.
All offering integration of radar and Ford rolling out *hands-free* autopilot on the Mach E - in addition to a huge service network where you get a loaner and spare parts don't take weeks / months to arrive.

 

[Jeff N]

. i couldn't do my travels without the Supercharger network here in Texas. Zero fast charging option between Dallas-Ft Worth and Amarillo for example ... and good luck getting from Amarillo to Denver etc.

A Better Route Planner shows no problem driving a Chevy Bolt EV etc. from Amarillo to Denver via Electrify America. Going from Dallas to Ft Worth probably requires taking I-35 and I-40 which adds ~120 miles beyond the 330 mile route that Supercharging supports.

 

[texas_star_TM3]

A Better Route Planner shows no problem driving a Chevy Bolt EV etc. from Amarillo to Denver via Electrify America. Going from Dallas to Ft Worth probably requires taking I-35 and I-40 which adds ~120 miles beyond the 330 mile route that Supercharging supports.

i was referring to straight routes as an ICE car would take. Shortest route to Amarillo and then over Clayton NM into Colorado vs. taking the interstate detour further south

 

[gearchruncher]

in addition to a huge service network where you get a loaner and spare parts don't take weeks / months to arrive.

And actually lower total cost of ownership because parts are cheaper, insurance is cheaper, and repair procedures are not insane. My local "Tesla Approved" body shop quoted me $7,200 to repair a small rocker panel dent (which is steel) because they charge 2x the normal rate for Teslas, and claimed they needed about 15 hours to deal with the electrical system, and had to break out a window to blend the paint all the way up on the rear quarter.

A local body shop fixed it in 2 days for $600. Because it's a normal freaking car when all you need to do is work with a small dent.

 

[MP3Mike]

Mach E - in addition to a huge service network where you get a loaner and spare parts don't take weeks / months to arrive.

Yep, no problems there, like this one, where it took 41 days to get a good replacement glass roof and get it installed. And they damaged his car while they were at it. So no OEM is devoid of part and service issues.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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:

What I mean is they will go and change their new agreements to allow class actions, which is exactly what Amazon did in that article. Amazon made no change to the monitoring of people with Echo devices (it's still ongoing, and Amazon is still fighting that legal battle). In the same vein, this is likely what will happen. They will change the agreement to allow class actions (assuming they didn't in the first place) and go right back to doing the same thing. The overall cost to them to fight these lawsuits is still only a fraction of the vehicle cost of the affected vehicles.

I'm not saying they can change back to class action in the given lawsuit they are involved in.

 

[gearchruncher]

So no OEM is devoid of part and service issues.

Of course they aren't, but they aren't endemic like they are with Tesla. Also, isn't the argument with Tesla often "it's a new thing, just wait, it will get better"? The Mach-E is pretty new, and everyone is a mess right now with supply chain (except Tesla, right? Radar and Lumbar were totally not a supply chain thing).

If you go with any one negative as evidence, you'll find it for anyone. I feel like the supporters around here are always asking "why do you expect Tesla to be perfect" or "one AP video doesn't prove anything" so it's interesting to see that used the other way.

It took Tesla 29 days to fix my Model X falcon wing door sensor, and they had to repaint the door in the process after messing it up. In another case, I took my Tesla in for a drivers door that wouldn't even open, and when they returned it, the door had a ding *from the inside* that cracked the paint. They've curbed rims, needed 3 tries to align a steering wheel, and they delivered me a car with highly damaged paint on a rocker panel that took 2 weeks to fix. That's one owner over 2 cars. But I'd never say that just because it happened to me that Tesla must be a mess everywhere- it's when I see lots of very similar posts that you realize it's common.

 

[gearchruncher]

They will change the agreement to allow class actions (assuming they didn't in the first place) and go right back to doing the same thing.

Which is a good thing, because class actions are a highly effective way to discourage companies from doing anti-consumer things that impact a large number of customers in small ways. The whole reason they switched to arbitration was because companies were annoyed at how Class Actions were effective, and now people have figured out ways to make arbitration even more effective.
If Tesla goes "right back to doing the same thing" then either it's a good way to do business and is good for customers, or they'll get sued and lose/settle like they have in the past.

 

[Jeff N]

i was referring to straight routes as an ICE car would take. Shortest route to Amarillo and then over Clayton NM into Colorado vs. taking the interstate detour further south

An ICE or Tesla extended range 3 or Y etc. would take that same path at around ~430 miles. A CCS car would likely take a path that is ~530 miles on interstates.

 

[kpedraja]

When that day comes, have at it!

I would love to know how much that "field day" will cost you in legal fees.

The thing is, though, that if there are enough unhappy customers, you can potentially find a law firm that will take on a class action lawsuit on contingency for a substantial portion of the settlement. As I've posted elsewhere, Tesla has not said word 1 about whether cars with HW2.5. have the processing power to support the full range of safety features using TeslaVision. In my case, I paid an additional $2k for basic autopilot more than a year after I bought the car. If those features no longer work as they were advertised when I specifically paid for them, that could be grounds for a lawsuit. Multiply that by thousands if not tens of thousands of Model 3 owners who paid for AP and suddenly we're talking about real money.

 

[mikes_fsd]

If those features no longer work as they were advertised when I specifically paid for them, that could be grounds for a lawsuit.

Satisfy all the criteria needed and file the lawsuit already.

 

[Wheely]

Except the fast charging landscape is much different in EU than USA. Non-Tesla fast charging stations are comparatively rare, and many reports show that in some cases, relying on DCFC in a CCS vehicle can be dangerous to your road trip.

Which is why I said we rely on the supercharger network for now. When we don't as we already don't in Norway, I think Tesla may have to up their game.

I fully agree with this for Tesla's as EV's. Their charging infrastructure is an amazing competitive moat.

The funny thing is, the exact same thing applies in reverse for Tesla as an autonomy company vs a car company. For a decade now, Tesla is going to come in and crush autonomy, but the reality is it's "a literal cluster F#$% when it comes to reliability."

I think that's why a lot of us are frustrated with how Tesla treats autonomy, and are so skeptical that they are about to make some major breakthrough. History says other EV companies haven't broken through the charging side, so it's unlikely the next "big thing" will either. Perfectly reasonable extrapolation. Tesla has told us amazing things are just around the corner for autonomy for 10 years, but the history is.... slow, incremental progress, just like other charging networks.

In my opinion, Tesla is spending the goodwill they earned with good cars and charging, and they are spending it on very thin, unproven future technologies that are not the primary reason to buy a Tesla. They would be better served making a broad set of truly great, affordable EV's that have support like your Ford dealer does, and crushing that market instead of having endless news cycles about missed dates, fights with regulators, removed features, and their pushback on 3rd party support and right to repair.

The one troublesome issue for Tesla is that charging is something that unquestionably can be solved with money. Any company willing and funded can build Tesla's charging network in 2-3 years. There is no unsolved technical challenge. Meanwhile, Tesla is trying to compete on autonomy, where nobody has any idea when (if ever) this will actually be functional, and all the money in the world couldn't solve this in a short calendar period, yet they are pissing people off with how they behave in this area with the belief that it will pay off in the future. In the middle, they have mediocre product support, and pretty hostile, monopolistic behavior towards their customers that ironically, dealers actually are effective at reducing. It's a very risky proposition compared to the companies that "only" need to figure out charging, and have 100+ years of running an automotive business and some deep brand loyalties.

Couldn't agree more. Tesla had a great car in the S and the X but they have been completely sidetracked off what their mission was. To focus now on things like Tesla Vision and a ridiculous concept of the car guessing which direction you want to go in instead of giving us a 360 degree camera which is actually possible. It is infuriating. Elon Mush is an extraordinary visionary but he also a bit of an idiot.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Which is a good thing, because class actions are a highly effective way to discourage companies from doing anti-consumer things that impact a large number of customers in small ways. The whole reason they switched to arbitration was because companies were annoyed at how Class Actions were effective, and now people have figured out ways to make arbitration even more effective.
If Tesla goes "right back to doing the same thing" then either it's a good way to do business and is good for customers, or they'll get sued and lose/settle like they have in the past.

Is it really "highly effective"? Companies definitely don't like them as much as arbitration (at least the "normal" volume of arbitration), but it's doubtful how much effect they have on policies. For example for the AP settlement mentioned, the people got $20 to $280 in compensation. They paid out $5.4 million total (covering legal fees also), covering 33000 owners (averaging out to $163 each). That's nothing vs the cost of the option package ($2500 for AP, $5000 for EAP) at the time, much less the value of the whole car.

Put in another way, assuming roughly $80k for the car price (settlement were for S and X), that's about the cost of 70 vehicles or only about 0.2% of the vehicles covered by the settlement. I think that demonstrates "voting with your wallet" (especially in terms of not buying the whole car) still remains far more effective as a way of feedback.

 

[texas_star_TM3]

if in fact AP / AEB / lane departure warning and lane departure avoidance *require* high-beams at night to function ... then clearly there isn't parity with how the system used to work with radar. add one accident to the mix and any competent lawyer can go shopping for clients and a big lawsuit.

I cannot drive at night with high-beams on ... especially not when the current high-beams do not blend out oncoming traffic...

 

[greenmore]

Yep, no problems there, like this one, where it took 41 days to get a good replacement glass roof and get it installed. And they damaged his car while they were at it. So no OEM is devoid of part and service issues.

Yes, just because the Mach-e is a Ford it doesn't mean it will suddenly have the same ease of servicing as an Escape. It's a completely different kind of beast from ICE Fords.

When I went to the Lincoln dealership to test drive the Mach-e none of the employees knew anything about the car, only that they need to plug it in sometimes. They couldn't answer any of my questions about the technology or the charging infrastructure. I suspect the mechanics are just as informed.

 

[stopcrazypp]

if in fact AP / AEB / lane departure warning and lane departure avoidance *require* high-beams at night to function ... then clearly there isn't parity with how the system used to work with radar. add one accident to the mix and any competent lawyer can go shopping for clients and a big lawsuit.

I cannot drive at night with high-beams on ... especially not when the current high-beams do not blend out oncoming traffic...

I think you are overoptimistic on how the legal process works. Did Tesla guarantee anywhere that all the features will work exactly the same without radar as with radar? In fact, I believe it was the opposite, they said explicitly in the blog that it won't (although they are working on software to bring things back) and I believe it was mentioned people taking delivery have to acknowledge that they agree to take a car without radar before they even assign you a VIN, so that kills any legal argument about being unaware of the change.

Even after NHTSA and IIHS finishes their tests, that will only indicate the AEB/LDW/FCW features satisfy the standard testing, not that it performs exactly the same as the radar implementation in all scenarios.

In fact looking at how the tests are done, there will be some scenarios where the camera system will perform better than radar, for example the false positive tests using a steel plate which manufacturers have complained in comments to NHTSA may be "unfair" to radar given radar tends to be oversensitive to that vs a camera system.