Tesla.com - "Transitioning to Tesla Vision"

[gearchruncher]

That is not what NHTSA's statement said. NHTSA never actively called Tesla. It was Tesla that contacted NHTSA about a production change with the removal of radar and as a matter of policy, NHTSA does not give check marks for features they have not tested yet on cars with significant hardware changes.

Source? My source is this:

https://preview.redd.it/yzywm3ut2k171.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f5d2a71bb37f5f8974d6899143b13b848cd3ac61

You are right, it doesn't say who called who, but it also doesn't say Tesla called NHTSA. However, it was WEDNESDAY when Tesla "briefed" the NHTSA on the change, a day after the change was announced to the public. NHTSA was not told before anyone else. In my life in Aerospace, you call your regulator before you push out your press release because you plan ahead for changes that may impact how the regulator evaluates the safety of your product.

 

[wise82guy]

You know that feature where as you approach a wall while parking (like in a garage or at the side of a building or a Supercharger) and you get the on-screen measurement showing the distance between the car and the wall/object... Does that rely on the radar or is there another sensor used for that?

Also, do I understand correctly that there is both front and rear radar, and only the front radar was removed from recent cars? Or do I have that wrong, and there was only one radar, in the front?

 

[qdeathstar]

You know that feature where as you approach a wall while parking (like in a garage or at the side of a building or a Supercharger) and you get the on-screen measurement showing the distance between the car and the wall/object... Does that rely on the radar or is there another sensor used for that?

Also, do I understand correctly that there is both front and rear radar, and only the front radar was removed from recent cars? Or do I have that wrong, and there was only one radar, in the front?

that is the ultrasonic sensors. Radar only in the front.

 

[RichardL]

You know that feature where as you approach a wall while parking (like in a garage or at the side of a building or a Supercharger) and you get the on-screen measurement showing the distance between the car and the wall/object... Does that rely on the radar or is there another sensor used for that?

Also, do I understand correctly that there is both front and rear radar, and only the front radar was removed from recent cars? Or do I have that wrong, and there was only one radar, in the front?

The close in stuff is done using ultrasonic sensors, with a max range of around 8m.

There is only forward facing radar, nothing looking back

 

[CyberGus]

Ah,

My guess is its for interlaced video, but I don't think the sensors Tesla uses support that. Plus he spec'd the full resolution so that to me means 36fps.

Yeah, this confused me also. The meaning of "Hz" is literally "per second", so Hz and FPS should be equal, unless we're somehow measuring interlaced frames. I don't think interlacing is even a thing anymore, and it would certainly be unattractive to a vision-based AI.

 

[qdeathstar]

Yeah, this confused me also. The meaning of "Hz" is literally "per second", so Hz and FPS should be equal, unless we're somehow measuring interlaced frames. I don't think interlacing is even a thing anymore, and it would certainly be unattractive to a vision-based AI.

I would think I interlaced video would almost make tracking objects easier since in one frame you could compare the lines of pixels to determine the speed of an object?

 

[orion2001]

This whole thing seemed FUD'y from the start.

Fair, maybe not YOU specifically, but there has been a LOT of misinformation out there regarding what features have been nerfed and what hasnt. For example, most media outlets are 'reporting' (likely based on forum posts) that Automatic Emergency Braking is not present in newer cars. This is contrary to both Tesla's post AND Elon's direct statement to Electrec.

Lol, I like how everyone has now started to blame this on some FUD conspiracy and jumping on "mainstream media" as well (throw in short-sellers for good measure). Let us review the facts:

1. Tesla dissolved their PR department a long time ago and there is no way to get any official word about anything from the company. The closest you can get is information posted on their website and tweets from Elon Musk.

2. Tesla, out-of-the-blue, removes radar from the M3 and MY. They update the websites ahead of time before making any official announcement (that came later)

3. When they edited their website, Tesla was the one to remove FCW and AEB from their list of features for the M3 and MY!!!!
Proof:

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/nkdf4i

In the absence of any PR department, and their own website taking those features off from their car pages, why should anyone except Tesla get all the blame for this fiasco? I love how the revisionism is already in full-swing, including with the Electrek article from today morning.

This whole thing was so poorly rolled out and implemented. Combine that with Musk trying to sell it as the best thing since sliced bread while releasing gimped functionality to the M3 and MY in the process, and it just looks so bad any way you look at it. If they had just been honest about the situation and why they had to move things up due to shortages, I think it would have been far better than the current spin.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Source? My source is this:

https://preview.redd.it/yzywm3ut2k171.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f5d2a71bb37f5f8974d6899143b13b848cd3ac61

You are right, it doesn't say who called who, but it also doesn't say Tesla called NHTSA. However, it was WEDNESDAY when Tesla "briefed" the NHTSA on the change, a day after the change was announced to the public. NHTSA was not told before anyone else. In my life in Aerospace, you call your regulator before you push out your press release because you plan ahead for changes that may impact how the regulator evaluates the safety of your product.

It doesn't say who "called" who, but it says Tesla "briefed" NHTSA, not the other way around. The active party is Tesla in that statement. When NHTSA initiates something it's called an "inquiry" instead (as below for the recent Taycan issue). There is also zero indication NHTSA took into account other reports (as you suggest) or things like the website editing or Tesla's blog post even. They only mentioned the removal of radar in production. Also NHTSA did not say what date Tesla briefed them, so you can't necessarily assume it was the same day as the NHTSA statement and website change was made.

NHTSA Investigating Porsche Taycan After Owners Complain of Sudden Power Loss

There's also this statement from NHTSA two days ago:
The agency said it "only includes check marks for the model production range for the vehicles tested."
Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features
This statement does not match with theories that suggest this is anything other than NHTSA not having tested the feature(s) yet.

Elon's recent comments are here and they are consistent with NHTSA's statement:
"Just confirmed with the Autopilot team that these features are active in all cars now, including vision-only. NHTSA automatically removes the check mark for any cars with new hardware until they retest, which is happening next week, but the functionality is actually there."
Tesla vehicles without radar still have Autopilot safety features despite what the media is saying - Electrek

 

[powertoold]

3. When they edited their website, Tesla was the one to remove FCW and AEB from their list of features for the M3 and MY!!!!

Sure, but Tesla's omission was immediately spun in a negative way before any actual car was delivered or assessed. Perhaps it takes a few hours or a few days for them to update the website? First, they updated the model 3 radar mentions, then hours or a day later, it was s/x and then the AP page.

 

[gearchruncher]

Perhaps it takes a few hours or a few days for them to update the website?

The thing is, they changed the website to *delete* those, not add them in. It's the fact it was an active change that is important. Why did they go in and change it if it wasn't important? Yet, it's all on the reader to interpret this correctly, as it always is with Tesla and Elon. Those checkout pages form an absolute contract though, right? The ones with no smart summon mentioned?

First, they updated the model 3 radar mentions, then hours or a day later, it was s/x and then the AP page.

...And then deleting blogs....

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Because "shipping" is a feature.

EVERY company in the world works to get out things as quickly as possible and decide on a MVP. Well, atleast tech companies do.

In every project I've done - if we waited for feature parity (esp. with competitors) we'd never ship anything.

I can understand shipping before a non-critical feature is ready like I doubt many people would be really be too concerned over Smart Summons missing for a bit. Plus the communication with that one is clear, and that it's coming.

But, I wouldn't ship a product until all the safety related things were validated and certified. Things like FCW, AEB, etc. The last thing you want to do is lose safety ratings, and cause customer confusion.

Confusion over safety features, and confusion over how the radar will be used exactly seem to be the two biggest issues that have come from this sudden change.

 

[orion2001]

Sure, but Tesla's omission was immediately spun in a negative way before any actual car was delivered or assessed. Perhaps it takes a few hours or a few days for them to update the website? First, they updated the model 3 radar mentions, then hours or a day later, it was s/x and then the AP page.

I really don't see what there is to debate on this.

- Tesla does not provide any avenue to respond to media queries or put out official responses
- Their website was literally updated to remove all mention of AEB and FCW support for the M3 and MY

Why is it anyone else's fault to actually report on that? I just don't get it. Tesla screwed up on many fronts, but removing AEB and FCW from their list of safety features on their own website was a pretty large screw-up. Why in the world would people not respond to that, especially when Tesla provides no other "official" channel of information? Their website is pretty much the most legit source of information (much more so than Musk's twitter account).

There was no "spin" as you call it. They literally reported on the facts as best can be established from the most reliable source for Tesla-related information, their own website!

 

[powertoold]

Tesla screwed up on many fronts, but removing AEB and FCW from their list of safety features on their own website was a pretty large screw-up.

What's the standard for website updates? Everything must be updated same time, instantly with no inconsistencies, within two hours? A day? Upon deliveries?

Literally in the span of two days, all the whining has been mostly clarified, whining which started a day before any cars got delivered, any actual information about the cars were seen in person.

 

[Yoliber]

This conversation has been going on for 2 days now, and it's going in loops. It's pretty clear no one here has the capacity to change their minds. Can we start discussing or pulling info on how the Tesla Vision cars are currently behaving? I've heard that it is driving more "rigid".

 

[stopcrazypp]

I really don't see what there is to debate on this.

- Tesla does not provide any avenue to respond to media queries or put out official responses
- Their website was literally updated to remove all mention of AEB and FCW support for the M3 and MY

You never mention it (I was hoping you would eventually), but it was quickly added back. Also the page that was updated was the general AP page, not M3/MY. What was scrubbed was any mention of radar (given obviously M3/MY doesn't have it any longer).

Why is it anyone else's fault to actually report on that? I just don't get it.

No fault in reporting it, but there is fault to not report the follow up, or to do projections that are not supported by facts.

Tesla screwed up on many fronts, but removing AEB and FCW from their list of safety features on their own website was a pretty large screw-up. Why in the world would people not respond to that, especially when Tesla provides no other "official" channel of information? Their website is pretty much the most legit source of information (much more so than Musk's twitter account).

There was no "spin" as you call it. They literally reported on the facts as best can be established from the most reliable source for Tesla-related information, their own website!

Again, they added it back the same day. It was even mentioned on the reddit thread that reported it! The comments even mentioned they didn't see any change as the edit was so fast.

 

[gearchruncher]

Again, they added it back the same day. It was even mentioned on the reddit thread that reported it! The comments even mentioned they didn't see any change as the edit was so fast.

Yes, and it would have died there if that was it. But then NHTSA and CS and IIHS started dropping ratings, and it became a real news story, because at one level it's true that they don't have AEB if NHTSA won't put it on the NCAP ratings.

However, the real discussion here is if Tesla rushed vision only because of shortages. Some people say no, this was a well thought out long term plan, and isn't driven by supply chain or anything else. It's just Tesla's way to commit to HW before SW and have times where customers have no idea how long they will be without features while the SW catches up, but and we should just accept this, and wait a few months to see how it shakes out. No way Tesla has "doubled down" on vision only without great data that this will work out, and shows that Tesla is committed and in the lead on inexpensive, vision only autonomy.

Others take the totality of data (many edits to website on one day, removal only on 3/Y in NA, not S/X or other countries, no pre-discussion with NHTSA, reduction in features, confusion on if AEB/FCW is there (Even Elon had to "check with the AP engineers", removing blog posts, cars sitting in lots, end of quarter, Elon suddenly talking up vision only about 4 weeks before, etc) as evidence that this was rushed, and not planned, and is not being done because it's "better". Only a very immature company would behave and communicate this way if they knew this was coming. No one detail like the website edit is important, but the totality is really suspicious..

The second path is very problematic, as we've seen it before with Tesla, and it doesn't end up with a good customer experience nor indicate that they are as close to vision only as they keep saying, or that they have things more under control, which just means all other AP and FSD stuff is that far behind the dates they keep giving us, and this is the same old Tesla we've been seeing for 5+ years.

 

[EVNow]

But, I wouldn't ship a product until all the safety related things were validated and certified. Things like FCW, AEB, etc. The last thing you want to do is lose safety ratings, and cause customer confusion.

That can take forever ...

 

[qdeathstar]

That can take forever ...

What’s the rush when you have something that performs better already?

 

[EVNow]

What’s the rush when you have something that performs better already?

Its about co-ordinating the validation/certification with manufacturing. Not easy to say the least.

Thats why legacy OEMs make changes only once a year (and those are generally decided years in advance).

Agility comes with a cost.

 

[qdeathstar]

They have agility to make fast production changes but they need to change hardware ahead of the software to make sure the manufacturer and software peeps can coordinate



To me, those two statements are saying opposite things.