Tesla say the logs show ...

[thegruf]

As a huge Tesla fan I actually feel bad to raise this issue, but Tesla's behaviour on occasion over recent months has me concerned about the veracity of much of what emanates from them.

statements of features never delivered
statements of power not delivered
statements of performance not delivered
statements of battery capacity inaccurate
yada yada

all the above have been debated endlessly, and the intention is not to reopen those wounds here, but the perception is of over ambitious/inaccurate claims and subsequent rather unseemly efforts on Tesla's part to mitigate the ensuing mess.

So to the point of discussion

We regularly hear following accidents Tesla state "the logs show ... driver error".
However these are Tesla logs from Telsa cars with analysis performed at Tesla by Tesla and diagnosis published by Tesla.

There is no independent oversight of this process whatsoever.

I have no reason to disbelieve any Tesla statements issued regarding logs, but with all the less than precise information released elsewhere I have to say that my confidence is not 100%. Maybe others feel differently?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Well, I do think the record is starting to suggest Tesla having a tendency of omitting certain types of important information and clarifications.

People often chalk this up as Tesla having "terrible comms", but I don't think that holds up anymore. Terrible comms would be them trying their best to communicate everything relevant and just failing at comms. Instead, I think people have been arguing two trends emerging (feel free to correct me if I missed something):

1) Tesla seems unrealistically optimistic on both schedules and Performance car features, repeatedly
2) Tesla seems willing to omit and delay/avoid sharing information that could be seen as problematic, repeatedly

Both of these are arguably no longer in the territory of being bad at getting your message across. Arguably, they show intent and choice. First of these has been labelled Tesla Time or Elon Time. Second has no name yet, I guess "comms is terrible" is the closest label there is to it, but it seems it is starting to ring hollow to a lot of followers.

I'm not blaming you, @thegruf. It is getting harder to explain such repeatedness by anything other than Tesla choosing to do so. It does not seem completely out of the real of possibility that unfavourable log information might be withheld if this trend continues, even though I do not personally believe it is in the crash cases at hand.

 

[Barklikeadog]

Computer software is never wrong.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Tesla being under the microscope is the most likely cause. Stating anything factually incorrect would do WAY more harm than what is perceived as a communication issue.

Unlike AR, I don't have similar reservations.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla being under the microscope is the most likely cause. Stating anything factually incorrect would do WAY more harm than what is perceived as a communication issue.

Unlike AR, I don't have similar reservations.

But that's the thing. What is factually incorrect? Was the P85D hp communicated in a factually incorrect manner? Was the P90DL Launch Mode? A lot of things can be rationalized in different way or opinions can differ on what is factually correct and what should have been disclosed or what was okay to be omitted...

It's the grey area that is probably the most contentious one. Does Tesla show a record of disclosing the grey area straight up when it is not in their immediate interest to do so? I guess opinions - and thus expectations - vary.

A lot less people feel "Tesla will make it right" these days than used to, on TMC, that's for sure.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

But that's the thing. What is factually incorrect? Was the P85D hp communicated in a factually incorrect manner? Was the P90DL Launch Mode? A lot of things can be rationalized in different way or opinions can differ on what is factually correct and what should have been disclosed or what was okay to be omitted...

It's the grey area that is probably the most contentious one. Does Tesla show a record of disclosing the grey area straight up when it is not in their immediate interest to do so? I guess opinions - and thus expectations - vary.

A lot less people feel "Tesla will make it right" these days than used to, on TMC, that's for sure.

I'm more interested in Tesla's success under the pressure from outside entities, than pacifying personal niggles.

Obviously, there are others that feel differently, and that's completely understandable.

 

[David99]

When Tesla provides logs from a car as evidence in a court case, they can't just make something up. If a court would find out that there is anything manipulated and omitted it would end up bad for Tesla. So I think chances for getting incorrect information from car logs is slim.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

When Tesla provides logs from a car as evidence in a court case, they can't just make something up. If a court would find out that there is anything manipulated and omitted it would end up bad for Tesla. So I think chances for getting incorrect information from car logs is slim.

I agree in court the likelihood is close to zero.

But what about the public statements? That could be a whole different ballgame theoretically. Tesla is not disclosing the logs, apparently they did not disclose the logs in the latest case even to the customer at first, though he may have gotten some later.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm more interested in Tesla's success under the pressure from outside entities, than pacifying personal niggles.

Obviously, there are others that feel differently, and that's completely understandable.

That's fine, of course. But it hardly answers the question the OP has. If you have no interest in Tesla's comms accuracy from a personal standpoint, you may not have interest in the thing OP is asking for. In fact, Tesla's success might be at odds with transparent comms to outside entities at times. I am sure you recognize that as you made such a comment.

For example, consider this: Do you think the record shows Tesla would disclose a future troublesome anomaly in the logs? Something maybe a cause of concern, but not obviously an issue - especially if looking at it optimistically... Or would they rather than disclosing everything, merely make a more generic trouble-free statement and omit that detail initially? No lie, of course not, but not transparent either.

I think that is the level of nuance most people are concerned with, rather than expecting Tesla making things up. And on that kind of stuff, the track-record on both public scheduling as well as things like Performance car marketing suggests Tesla is quite optimistic publicly.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

That's fine, of course. But it hardly answers the question the OP has. If you have no interest in Tesla's comms accuracy from a personal standpoint, you may not have interest in the thing OP is asking for. In fact, Tesla's success might be at odds with transparent comms to outside entities at times. I am sure you recognize that as you made such a comment

It appears he was asking about the accuracy of Tesla's logs, in the context of recent high profile cases. My answer is that I do not believe Tesla is withholding/modifying data in a way that presents inaccurate information.

That was my interpretation, anyway.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It appears he was asking about the accuracy of Tesla's logs, in the context of recent high profile cases. My answer is that I do not believe Tesla is withholding/modifying data in a way that presents inaccurate information.

That was my interpretation, anyway.

If discussing logs in court, we don't disagree of course as I stated a few messages up.

I read the OP as asking about public statements in general.

We regularly hear following accidents Tesla state "the logs show ... driver error".

 

[David99]

I agree in court the likelihood is close to zero.

But what about the public statements? That could be a whole different ballgame theoretically. Tesla is not disclosing the logs, apparently they did not disclose the logs in the latest case even to the customer at first, though he may have gotten some later.

I don't see any risk of incorrect info here as well. A court can get a search warrant and force Tesla to release logs. Tesla would not risk communicating incorrect information where there is a chance later in a court case the logs will become evidence. And that can happen pretty much any time.

 

[msnow]

As a huge Tesla fan I actually feel bad to raise this issue, but Tesla's behaviour on occasion over recent months has me concerned about the veracity of much of what emanates from them.

statements of features never delivered
statements of power not delivered
statements of performance not delivered
statements of battery capacity inaccurate
yada yada

all the above have been debated endlessly, and the intention is not to reopen those wounds here, but the perception is of over ambitious/inaccurate claims and subsequent rather unseemly efforts on Tesla's part to mitigate the ensuing mess.

So to the point of discussion

We regularly hear following accidents Tesla state "the logs show ... driver error".
However these are Tesla logs from Telsa cars with analysis performed at Tesla by Tesla and diagnosis published by Tesla.

There is no independent oversight of this process whatsoever.

I have no reason to disbelieve any Tesla statements issued regarding logs, but with all the less than precise information released elsewhere I have to say that my confidence is not 100%. Maybe others feel differently?

Along the same lines, I remember when I was experiencing very high range loss and Tesla said they would check my logs. They came back to me and said my range loss was "in spec" not excessive and consistent with other cars in the fleet. I responded that I wanted to see that data because their statement could also indicate that all cars like mine "in the fleet" could all be broken. They refused which made me not trust them. As it turned out all car's with my battery did have significant range loss which was fixed with a simple firmware update.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I don't see any risk of incorrect info here as well. A court can get a search warrant and force Tesla to release logs. Tesla would not risk communicating incorrect information where there is a chance later in a court case the logs will become evidence. And that can happen pretty much any time.

Probably not in a slam dunk case, I agree. If the logs do not show pedal as pressed, I would not expect Tesla to say it was pressed.

But would they be as quick and forthcoming about something less obvious... Hmm. Things like @msnow says above and the Performance model debacles makes one wonder certainly. Saying something vague and omitting something is quite a different risk compared to making a fabricated statement.

 

[Nosken]

Yes, there is a consistent "over promise, and under deliver". But, really, when you look at the whole picture IMHO, the cars are awesome in many ways, and so much better than any alternative. I guess it's, that I am an eternal optimist, but all I can say is, the Tesla is a great, I really love driving this car!

 

[trils0n]

We regularly hear following accidents Tesla state "the logs show ... driver error".
However these are Tesla logs from Telsa cars with analysis performed at Tesla by Tesla and diagnosis published by Tesla.

There is no independent oversight of this process whatsoever.

I have no reason to disbelieve any Tesla statements issued regarding logs, but with all the less than precise information released elsewhere I have to say that my confidence is not 100%. Maybe others feel differently?

The only data point we have is wk07 bought one of salvage cars that was crashed through a wall and blamed on autopilot. When he looked at the logs (independent of Tesla), it showed the pedal was mashed, just as Tesla said. Driver error.

So in absence of other data, the fact that it is much less risky for Tesla to tell the truth, and Tesla has been very proactive about other potential safety issues (seat belt recall, etc.) it seems like trusting them about safety issues is reasonable. The other things (mostly power/performance specs) are much less trustworthy.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The only data point we have is wk07 bought one of salvage cars that was crashed through a wall and blamed on autopilot. When he looked at the logs (independent of Tesla), it showed the pedal was mashed, just as Tesla said. Driver error.

Full review of the logs was impossible due to the proprietary format, so any nuances would be missed, but I agree Tesla would not claim a pedal press had there been none. That is not the kind of level where concern would IMO be warranted.

So in absence of other data, the fact that it is much less risky for Tesla to tell the truth, and Tesla has been very proactive about other potential safety issues (seat belt recall, etc.) it seems like trusting them about safety issues is reasonable. The other things (mostly power/performance specs) are much less trustworthy.

Many of the fixes and openness issues Tesla has addressed in recent times have either been fairly cheap to implement (checking the fleet seatbelts was a really quick and superficial check-up requiring no dismantling that caused very few actual fixes) or can be done over software.

On the other hand, the Model X windshield ghosting issue - something one certainly could consider a safety issue too - remains unsolved after a year and still oftentimes uncommunicated:

Double vision (ghosting) at night through windshield?

Do note, I would assume most everyone agrees this criticism would not be the same for Tesla of 2012 to early 2014. They did some wonderful things then. As the fleet grew, their priorities seem to have shifted.

 

[Waiting4M3]

IMO Tesla has issues with these things because they actually have new features coming out on quarterly basis, and announce them to the public, and also have detailed logs that they are willing to discuss with the public. What other auto makers do this? Or even other industries. If your iPhone crashes does Apple even tell you what they find in the logs? How many other auto makers lie about their performance, hide their defects for years, and only admit to them when many people get hurt? How long has it been for Samsung on the exploding phone and do we know why? Tesla is not perfect, but I still appreciate how much they try.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

IMO Tesla has issues with these things because they actually have new features coming out on quarterly basis, and announce them to the public, and also have detailed logs that they are willing to discuss with the public. What other auto makers do this? Or even other industries. If your iPhone crashes does Apple even tell you what they find in the logs? How many other auto makers lie about their performance, hide their defects for years, and only admit to them when many people get hurt? How long has it been for Samsung on the exploding phone and do we know why? Tesla is not perfect, but I still appreciate how much they try.

Well, arguably Tesla is only using the logs in public to say there is no fault with the car. They have gone public even in cases where the customer hasn't. So, I would say their public use of the logs is more of an ethics issue than some victory for transparency at this stage.

 

[xborg]

The only data point we have is wk07 bought one of salvage cars that was crashed through a wall and blamed on autopilot. When he looked at the logs (independent of Tesla), it showed the pedal was mashed, just as Tesla said. Driver error.

So in absence of other data, the fact that it is much less risky for Tesla to tell the truth, and Tesla has been very proactive about other potential safety issues (seat belt recall, etc.) it seems like trusting them about safety issues is reasonable. The other things (mostly power/performance specs) are much less trustworthy.

Logs are not 100% trustworthy, they are also created by the car's computer. If sensors are detecting the pedal is pressed, the car would accelerate and logs would show that the pedal is pressed. But there is no way to know/prove that the pedal is actually pressed or not, unless the owner have a camera pointed to pedals.
My point is; even if there are redundant sensors, logs may not be 100% true. But Tesla is using 'logs' as an easy getaway ticket.