Tesla Rip Off- Full Self Driving

[whitex]

In the Fall/Winter of 2016 and Spring of 2017, we were told and shown multiple things in a short period of time that a) were not accurate and b) many people based purchase decisions upon.

Here's a short list:

1. AP2 would be at parity with AP1. Remains false to this day.
2. FSD demonstrated in a Model S via video 12/2016. It was not disclosed that the video was effectively staged after how many tries?
3. Included supercharging would go away for all orders after 1/15/2017 delivered by 4/15/2017. A few days after 5/15/2017, including supercharging returned and all cars charged were credited back in full. The only remaining difference is that cars so ordered after 1/15/2017 and delivered after 4/15/2017 no longer retain included supercharging when sold to subsequent owners.
4. Owners whose 90Ds were in the queue in February/March were told they could upgrade to 100Ds (for the customary fee) but would lose included supercharging. This proved false given the 5/15ish disclosure a few weeks after that group got their cars.
5. Cross country FSD trip would occur at the end of 2017, then 2018, then...

Suggesting that people should disregard all of that *AT THE TIME* to come to the conclusion that FSD wouldn't exist AT ALL 2 years later is absurd. We were told a larger set of things that turned out to be false. FSD was just part of it and NOBODY outside Tesla knew the gap between AP2 and AP1 would be so disturbing (some would say wobbly) upon release.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Here's how Tesla doesn't get successfully sued or have to make significant reparations: All they have to do is deliver a single FSD feature - doesn't matter which one - within the 3-year lease window and that's that. Or they may just refund the small number of $3,000 customers and be done with it.

However, given the commitment to a new SoC/board, and with the progress Karpathy is making, we may yet be pleasantly surprised later this year and next (board not expected for a bit, yet).

However however, what will remain at issue is the degree to which AP2 owners will be satisfied, and where the line will be drawn for functionality across AP2, AP2.5, and the Model 3 platform (see interior camera as an example of one difference there).

1. What does your #3 and #4 have to do with this topic? What Tesla gives or doesn't give to other people has no bearing on what you paid for. If they slashed Model S prices in half one day after you picked up yours, it's their right to do so.
2. Why do you assume only $3,000 should be refunded? If your car stopped driving because the motor wasn't working and Tesla couldn't fix it for 2 years, would you think a refund for the bad motor (say $10K) would be sufficient reparation because the rest of the car is capable of driving? What if someone's primary reason for buying a Tesla was FSD? Should get get a full refund for their car?

This arsTechnica article describes very well why this "pre-sale and deliver late" technique while working for Tesla with other features, is really a bad idea for something like FSD. It also brings a good point how the different levels of autonomy probably mislead everyone into thinking you can actually get there incrementally - think what if EV range had levels, Level 0 - 50 miles, Level 1 - 100 miles, Level 2 - 200 miles, ..., Level 10 - able to fly to the moon and back. Incrementally increasing range of an EV will never make it be able to reach the moon, same with driving assistance and full self driving.

I said it before and will say it again, Elon has a better change of being Miss Teen USA than AP2 cars ever being able to do everything Elon promised (let's pick a simple and clear one that Elon promised - summon anywhere on the continent, say New York to Seattle).

 

[smac]

I too think there will be a big number of lease cars going back with FSD paid for but not delivered within the lease window.

Not sure how it would work in the US, but talking to the lease company would probably be another avenue to explore. I would reach out to them and ask for a reduction in payment to what it would have been had you never selected the option.

I'd argue you had a financial contract with the lease company to provide you with a car with a specific spec. That spec hasn't been delivered by the finance company to you, irrespective of what Tesla supplied the finance company.

(Now at least here the UK, financial consumer protection laws are stricter/ more heavily regulated and presided over by an independent ombudsman. )

 

[GSP]

People who paid Tesla $3,000 for full self-driving might be out of luck

Thanks for the link, that was a well written article. I particularly liked this part:

"In driver-assistance systems, a human driver is expected to pay attention 100 percent of the time and correct any mistakes the driver assistance system makes. In contrast, a fully self-driving system is built on the assumption that a human driver will never need to take over.

Systems in the middle—with human driver and software both sharing some responsibility—are a safety hazard. Once a self-driving system gets pretty good, humans start to trust it and stop paying attention to the road. This can happen long before the system is actually safer than a human driver, leading to more fatalities rather than fewer."

GSP

PS. I voted that it was fair to sell FSD, but Tesla absolutely should refund money to customers who ask to have the "future feature" removed. Once they deliver FSD, then it would be fair to not offer refunds. I did not buy FSD, but if I did and Tesla did not refund my money after 1.5 years into a 3 year lease, I would not accept "no" for and answer without escalating to management, and to small claims court if necessary.

 

[sillydriver]

Whenever I've played around with the configurator during the time since the two automated driving options were introduced (not that I want to replace my AP1 P85D) I've checked EAP but not FSD, which has reflected what I think is realistic and what I would actually pay for. So I'm not surprised FSD is still vaporware, but I am a little surprised that EAP hasn't overtaken AP1 (which I believe is the case according to most people who have compared the two).

 

[Dborn]

1. What does your #3 and #4 have to do with this topic? What Tesla gives or doesn't give to other people has no bearing on what you paid for. If they slashed Model S prices in half one day after you picked up yours, it's their right to do so.
2. Why do you assume only $3,000 should be refunded? If your car stopped driving because the motor wasn't working and Tesla couldn't fix it for 2 years, would you think a refund for the bad motor (say $10K) would be sufficient reparation because the rest of the car is capable of driving? What if someone's primary reason for buying a Tesla was FSD? Should get get a full refund for their car?

This arsTechnica article describes very well why this "pre-sale and deliver late" technique while working for Tesla with other features, is really a bad idea for something like FSD. It also brings a good point how the different levels of autonomy probably mislead everyone into thinking you can actually get there incrementally - think what if EV range had levels, Level 0 - 50 miles, Level 1 - 100 miles, Level 2 - 200 miles, ..., Level 10 - able to fly to the moon and back. Incrementally increasing range of an EV will never make it be able to reach the moon, same with driving assistance and full self driving.

I said it before and will say it again, Elon has a better change of being Miss Teen USA than AP2 cars ever being able to do everything Elon promised (let's pick a simple and clear one that Elon promised - summon anywhere on the continent, say New York to Seattle).

How about an AP1 car supposed to be able to be summoned to your front door? One of the original promises. VERY far from reality!

 

[croman]

Regardless of Tesla's technical capabilities, in this short of a time frame the legal hurdles are probably more of a barrier than the technical hurdles. Even if AP2 FSD worked perfectly in the lab on day 1, they'd have a heck of a time getting it bureaucratically approved in time for 3-year leaseholders to enjoy it. Or do you think (knowing Elon) they might just release it as soon as it's ready, and ask forgiveness afterward?

This is completely untrue. There are no legal hurdles in many jurisdictions and there is no federal law prohibiting it. It's just that Tesla has nothing. Don't even dream regulations are affecting anything.

 

[tstafford]

Whatever the case, it's disappointing. The pace of improvement of the MS/MX has dropped dramatically since the time when FSD was added as a purchase option. The time from 2014-2016 showed a massive set of meaningful hardware and software upgrades to MS. There's really been nothing of particular consequence (IMHO) for the MS since the rollout of AP1.

As I mentioned in another post I'm bailing out on Tesla at the conclusion of my lease in August. I've had my fun and can't justify plunking down another big load of cash for what's currently being offered.

 

[Shock-On-T]

You have to remember what it was like in October 2016. AP 1 was already pretty solid, and Tesla had just announced a new system with 8(!) cameras that was going to be up to the AP 1 level by December 2016. Then they released this awesome video of a Tesla driving itself in town, dropping its passenger off and parking itself! They also announced they would do a self driving demo across the country by the end of 2017. Wow, with all the new hardware, Tesla already has AP 1 mostly figured out, they for sure will soon be surpassing it with EAP (surely in a few months max), so full self driving features will be shortly behind, right? That was even “confirmed” in a now infamous Elon tweet.

That is what the feeling here in the forums was back then. And really, no one knew we would still be waiting for AP 1 parity today let alone actual Enhanced Autopilot. So I don’t blame folks who bought into the hype and jumped in for FSD. Even ones with leases.

Exactly this!
I was heartbroken when my Oct 2016 AP1 car was superseded just a month after I bought it.
The new AP2 system had a beautiful graphic on the config page, and FSD seemed completely plausible. At the time I was totally sure Tesla had it all worked out and I’d just missed the action.
If I’d bought a month later I’d have been very tempted to get FSD, and would be pretty annoyed in April 2018.

 

[bob_p]

Ultimately it's the owner's decision on purchasing FSD.

In the purchase agreement, Tesla doesn't provide any information as to what you are actually getting with FSD or what happens should additional hardware be needed to get FSD working or if they discover they'll never get FSD working. Will Tesla install hardware upgrades for no charge? Will they provide a refund? We don't know.

But, all of this is known when the purchase agreement is executed (though most people aren't paying attention to this).

Since we expect to keep our S 100D and our new Model 3 (when they offer the configuration we want) for around 100K miles each, we're willing to risk the FSD purchase to lock in the price now - and we expect (as Musk stated recently) to see EAP start using the extra 4 cameras and providing support for AP in more situations, in driver assist mode, within the next 12 months. So even if the software isn't FSD - we'll get better AP by using the extra 4 cameras.

Leases are a different issue - since the lease is for a much shorter time frame. Including FSD probably doesn't make much sense, since most of the value for having FSD will happen later in the lease (or possibly after). For leases, Tesla should remove the FSD option now. When EAP starts using the extra cameras, they could charge a monthly subscription to use EAP with the extra cameras and if/when they do get approval to operate under FSD, increase the subscription fee for the remainder of the lease. And if the owner decides to purchase the car at the end of the lease, apply the subscription payments to the FSD purchase price.

 

[Tiger]

Life isn't fair.

 

[tstafford]

Exactly this!
I was heartbroken when my Oct 2016 AP1 car was superseded just a month after I bought it.
The new AP2 system had a beautiful graphic on the config page, and FSD seemed completely plausible. At the time I was totally sure Tesla had it all worked out and I’d just missed the action.
If I’d bought a month later I’d have been very tempted to get FSD, and would be pretty annoyed in April 2018.

I had bought about a year earlier and was thrilled by the announcement because I figured the two years left in my lease would allow them to get it fully production ready. The pace of change back then was awesome and it felt like there was so much momentum behind Tesla.

 

[Zythryn]

OP has a point and I agree with them. If I paid for something that wasn't delivered then I would want my money back. The service has failed to deliver what was purchased. You are not buying an investment into FSD when choosing it from the order form on the Tesla website. You are buying functionality. If it never comes to fruition you should be entitled to a refund.

Someone who orders FSD is buying an investment.
It states very clearly FSD is not available, but if you order it now, the functionality will be enabled in your car at some point in the future.
You get to pay less for it now, than it will cost in the future.

So yes, you are making a payment now, in order to save money.
In other words, an investment.

As long as Tesla is transparent with their plans and status. I have no issues with it.
However, Tesla isn’t very transparent with the technology and their development status.
As such, I wouldn’t suggest anyone buy it in advance. The timeline is simply to uncertain.

 

[jorobsand]

Doesn't the FSD option on the ordering page provide the necessary disclaimers on what you are paying for at the time? I seem to recall that it indicates that even though you are purchasing it with the vehicle, it is absolutely dependent on extensive testing and regulatory approval. I read that to mean that the buyer is assuming the risk of the overall timeline in which that may or may not happen. And that purchasing the FSD option is in no way a guarantee that it will actually ever be available.

 

[mmmk]

Yea their big media push about FSD in 2016, the BS videos of the car driving itself with 'no driver intervention' and even the BS claims from sales people strike me as obvious fraud. It's not an investment either, and it's not the fault of buyer that they were 'dumb enough' to trust the unambiguous claims coming from Musk and Tesla reps. That's blaming the victim. I think it's pretty dumb of people to let a dealership for other cars pad their loan interest rate by 5% just to get a cut from the customer, but I blame the snake in the suit not the customer. My biggest thought recently is how Tesla will handle the situation when current owners who bought FSD like myself are ready to upgrade or swap for a new car. If FSD hasn't been brought into reality by the time I'm ready to sell my FSD model S I hope they have the ability to credit it toward my next purchase. Otherwise I'll have such bad view of them I'll find an alternative EV.

 

[buttershrimp]

I want to start a movement to rename AP 2.5 to AP 2.1. I also want to start a movement to rename kWh to kilowatt per sec per meter per joule per kelvin meter squared

 

[diplomat33]

I bought a Tesla X, 60 kw in Nov 2016 with all the options. Musk, at that time, stated that full self-driving should be complete by the end of 2017, so I purchased the $3000 option. Having been almost 1.5 years into my lease of 3 years and it being unlikely that this Full Self Driving will come out sometime soon, I called Tesla to see if I could apply that $3000 to the $4500 it costs to upgrade the battery to 75 kw. They said no! How does a company charge you for an option, not deliver the option, and still refuse to either give you your money back or apply to other alternative options that are available through a software update?

Yes, it's fair for Tesla to charge for FSD now because a) Tesla made it clear when you paid for it that it was not available yet and b) Tesla fully intends to deliver FSD when it is ready.

 

[NOLA_Mike]

Yes it's fair for Tesla to sell FSD when it's not ready. It's consumers choice to buy it - not being forced to.

Yes, it's also fair to feel "hoodwinked" by Tesla when Elon's ridiculous timeline claims probably influenced many to buy it when they may not have had they known the real timeline to getting FSD.

I'm getting ready to trade in my Model S on a Model 3. I paid for FSD on my Model S (and I'm paying for it again on Model 3) in December 2016 and have zero value from that purchase. Personally, I think Tesla should refund what I paid for FSD on the Model S when I trade it in just like they refund the unused portion of the Maintenance Agreement when you trade in. Or, at the very least let me transfer that $3,000 FSD from the Model S to the Model 3 without having to pay for it again.

Having said all that, I feel like the money I'm spending on FSD is donating to the Tesla cause and apparently I'm okay with that since I keep repeating it...

 

[croman]

Life isn't fair.

While that's true it's really unfortunate that's your sentiment. Do taunt everyone misfortune? Right and wrong matter. Justice matters.

We can change the status quo and improve but not with that kind of attitude.

Tesla misled customers and that isn't fair and there are remedies for that. Justice is blind to apathy.

 

[croman]

Doesn't the FSD option on the ordering page provide the necessary disclaimers on what you are paying for at the time? I seem to recall that it indicates that even though you are purchasing it with the vehicle, it is absolutely dependent on extensive testing and regulatory approval. I read that to mean that the buyer is assuming the risk of the overall timeline in which that may or may not happen. And that purchasing the FSD option is in no way a guarantee that it will actually ever be available.

It certainly doesn't mean squat if Tesla were misleading people which seems almost proven since the videos were faked. No software existed but they didn't tell anyone that. So the contact terms, which don't seem to actually cover failure to deliver due to Tesla failing due to hardware deficiency, are almost irrelevant.

 

[McRat]

IMO - worth all of .02 cents before taxes:

Small claims court. But first you should have documentation that you tried to settle out of court. Their refusal should be in writing or on a recording where you ask if it is OK to record. If they say no, then turn off the recorder and take notes, you will use the refusal, and lack of written response as proof of your attempt to keep it out of court. Some judges will dismiss a case if you didn't try to keep it out of court. Usually small claims does not allow actual lawyers to present the case.

All you will need is your window sticker, the purchase/lease agreement, and Tesla's video where Tesla is the car is self-driving and only waiting on regulatory approval. Validation of video date is important. Have more than 2 sources. That claim was not correct.
You can only sue for actual documented damages, so it might not be worth your time since you are leasing.

That is if you are allowed to file a small claims in FL against Tesla. There are restrictions.

But there is a small chance since it's cheaper to just activate your battery for $1500 than to have a rep in a Florida court and prep work, and the risk of harmful publicity, that they will settle. It's amounts to a net profit for them, but they are worried about setting a precedent of having to give back money to multiple people it it becomes common knowledge.

When presenting, compare it something the judge will understand well, like air conditioning. "Imagine my invoice said I the car's price was raised by it having an air conditioning option, which is a luxury convenience feature. They told me it would work soon, and was just waiting for the government approval. It has been XXX days and there is still no planned date to install that feature in the car. There is no status available to buyers concerning the so-called government approval delay, if it even exists at all. The defendant should provide some kind of solid proof that there is only a government paperwork delay that stops the system from operation. They need to show the paperwork from the NHTSA who controls such matter at the national level and Tesla acknowledges as the highest authority in automobile safety systems, which is what Tesla claims the Full Self Driving is.

Cliff Notes - This is not going to be worth your time and money unless you work at McDonalds. You stand a solid chance of winning on paper, but for those of us who spent thousands getting a slam-dunk award from a defendant, good luck breaking even.
It's a hard lesson everybody should try at least once get some insight how justice in civil matters actually functions. You can have someone as big as Microsoft standing over the body with a smoking gun and a confession on tape, and you stand no chance of 'winning' anywhere but small claims, which limits maximum damages. 'Winning' means breaking even or better.