Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think this sums up the issue:



So people had ~8 seconds to avoid the collision, but they didn't do anything. i.e. they weren't paying attention.

What I haven't seen NHTSA ask/gather is how many non-Tesla vehicles have had collisions with first responder vehicles. Does Tesla have a non-proportional number of these?
At this point, I'm fully on board with Tesla spending millions in litigation to take to the NHSTA. There's so much bias and Tesla's lawyers could create a mountain of documentation showing the NHSTA purposely goes after Tesla compared to other auto makers. The data is on Tesla's side, I'd love to see them stick it to the NHSTA
 
The system does that today in 2 ways:

1) Like the wide-release ignores of HOLD THE WHEEL it'll lock you out for remainder of drive if you ignore warnings
2) If you get several lockouts total between releases (I think it's 3 or 5 lockouts, it has varied) you are booted from the Beta program


Item 2 will go away in wide release, as nobody who was sold FSD was ever told it'd be conditional in that way.

If you want to suggest it SHOULD be conditional in that way I think there's a fair argument there- but Tesla hasn't done that, and can't do it retroactively to existing customers-- they can only do it in the beta because that's not a specific promised/paid feature.

(Same with requiring data monitoring and a specific safety score that gets sent to Tesla)

I'm not so sure they "can't" do this. Texting is illegal while driving in 48 states. It would be a difficult thing to claim Tesla is violating their TOS by not facilitating in helping you break the law. It's no different than if they added a seatbelt requirement after the fact. When I purchased EAP/FSD I don't recall being told that removing my seatbelt would disable the system, but it does.
 
OT:
I stumbled upon a very interesting conversation between Micheal Liebreich and Ion Yadigaroglu

Ion Yadigaroglu has been Managing Partner at Capricorn Investment Group since 2004, and is an early investor in iconic technology companies including Tesla, SpaceX, Planet, QuantumScape and Saildrone. Capricorn was born from the desire to demonstrate the huge investment potential that resides in breakthrough commercial solutions to the world’s most pressing problems, and as such is one of the original impact investors.

Ion was also a physics assistant who teached JB Straubel, which in retrospect was a huge luck :)

Video, podcast and trascript here:
 
The government offer many things without individual payment, none of them are "free". Are you against "free" parking downtown? How about "free" roads? How about "free" collection/recycling for used motor oil? I pay for that "free" charging whenever I register my EV's for another year, when I pay my property taxes, etc. However, this terrible bill makes it illegal for a non-profit to use city, county or state property to provide free charging services, even when those free services are paid for by a private entity (unless they also provide a free gas pump).

I don't see anything wrong with government providing a location for charging to encourage clean transportation, especially during the early adopter phase. Medicare and Medicaid already provide free subsidies to oil and gas interests by treating those diseases exacerbated by combustion exhaust like asthma, COPD and cancer (to name but a few). Why should local governments be forced to encourage unhealthy transport by requiring the installation of a gas pump just to comply with this silly law (if passed and enacted)? This is what makes this bill ridiculous!

This bill would prevent local governments from letting any private entity or non-profit provide free charging services in a public space unless they also install a gas pump on the same public space. This bill needs to be defeated, not passed into another ridiculous law!If you can pay to give away free charging you can pay for the space. Much better to lease the space to Tesla for superchargers; the govt gets paid for their property and EV owners get a good service at a fair price.

Why not lease the space to Tesla for superchargers? The govt gets paid for our asset and EV owners get good service.

On general principal, I want the govt to limit their actions to when the free market fails. The free market is capable of dealing with EV charging.

What non-profit wants to give away free charging? Who funds them? I'm guessing there's a catch. How will the free market compete with "free" charging? You'll end up with no commercial chargers and a mile long line at the "free" charger. Unintended consequences.

"asthma, COPD and cancer (to name but a few)" are the reasons I'm so pro EV.
 
And now we know why Elon was asking for "pitbull" lawyers to seek employment with Tesla. Hopefully he's learned an aggressive defense is the best defense.

If NHTSA isn't requesting phantom breaking info from other manufs, they are opening themselves up to some serious bias claims. Wonder what the status of this investigation is:
Not only does the NHTSA investigate phantom braking in other manufacturers, as proven by the article you posted, they have sent similar information requests to literally every manufacturer who deploys systems with functionality similar to Autopilot.

Here’s the ODI report for the newly upgraded Autopilot investigation


Here’s a letter to BMW from the Preliminary Evaluation

VW

Mercedes

This is all public info on the NHTSA website
 
Not only does the NHTSA investigate phantom braking in other manufacturers, as proven by the article you posted, they have sent similar information requests to literally every manufacturer who deploys systems with functionality similar to Autopilot.

Here’s the ODI report for the newly upgraded Autopilot investigation


Here’s a letter to BMW from the Preliminary Evaluation

VW

Mercedes
Yes......which means every other auto maker should have a probe opened up and active in the engineering status.

So I'm expecting announcements....any day......for sure they're going to.........any day :rolleyes:

That's bias. And that's what the NHSTA is going to get exposed for
 
Not only does the NHTSA investigate phantom braking in other manufacturers, as proven by the article you posted, they have sent similar information requests to literally every manufacturer who deploys systems with functionality similar to Autopilot.

Here’s the ODI report for the newly upgraded Autopilot investigation


Here’s a letter to BMW from the Preliminary Evaluation

VW

Mercedes

This is all public info on the NHTSA website

Informative, thank you. So apparently it's just the mainstream media making this out to be a "Tesla only" issue.
 
I'm not so sure they "can't" do this. Texting is illegal while driving in 48 states. It would be a difficult thing to claim Tesla is violating their TOS by not facilitating in helping you break the law. It's no different than if they added a seatbelt requirement after the fact. When I purchased EAP/FSD I don't recall being told that removing my seatbelt would disable the system, but it does.
That is different. With the "early limited" release of FSD Beta if you get 3, or 5 depending on vehicle configuration, "strikes" you lose access to the feature. For at least a couple months, if not until it goes to general/wide release.

So I don't think Tesla could permanently take a, paid for, feature away from a vehicle if a single driver abused it. (Even if the driver is now following the rules/conditions.)
 
Yes......which means every other auto maker should have a probe opened up and active in the engineering status.

So I'm expecting announcements....any day......for sure they're going to.........any day :rolleyes:

That's bias. And that's what the NHSTA is going to get exposed for
Tesla might be the only manufacturer that actually has data to investigate.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Tra...icles/Associated Files/MVDefectsandRecall.pdf
Ugly copy/pastev
3. Investigation Investigations.are.conducted.in.two.phases:.the. Preliminary.Evaluation.and.the.Engineering.Analysis .. ➧Preliminary Evaluation (PE) Most.PEs.are.opened.on.the.basis.of.information. submitted.by.DAD,.but.they.may.be.opened.on.the. basis.of.other.information.as.well ..During.the.PE. phase,.ODI.obtains.information.from.the.manufacturer. (including,.but.not.limited.to,.data.on.complaints,. crashes,.injuries,.warranty.claims,.modifications,.and. part.sales).and.determines.whether.further.analysis. is.warranted ..At.this.stage,.the.manufacturer.has.an. opportunity.to.present.its.views.regarding.the.alleged. defect ..PEs.are.generally.resolved.within.four.months. from.the.date.they.are.opened ..They.are.either. closed.on.the.basis.that.further.investigation.is.not. warranted,.or.because.the.manufacturer.has.decided. to.conduct.a.recall ..In.the.event.that.ODI.believes. further.analysis.is.warranted,.the.PE.is.upgraded.to. an.Engineering.Analysis .

➧Engineering Analysis (EA) During.an.EA,.ODI.conducts.a.more.detailed.and. complete.analysis.of.the.character.and.scope.of.the. alleged.defect ..The.EA.builds.on.information.collected.during.the.PE.and.supplements.it.with.appropriate inspections,.tests,.surveys,.and.additional.information. obtained.from.the.manufacturer.and.suppliers ..ODI. attempts.to.resolve.all.EAs.within.one.year.from.the. date.they.are.opened,.but.some.complex.investigations.require.more.time ..At.the.conclusion.of.the.EA,. the.investigation.may.be.closed.if.the.manufacturer. has.notified.the.agency.that.it.will.conduct.a.safety. recall.or.if.the.agency.has.not.identified.a.safetyrelated.defect ..However,.if.ODI.believes.that.the. data.developed.indicates.that.a.safety-related.defect. exists,.the.ODI.investigator.prepares.a.briefing.to.be. presented.to.a.panel.of.experts.from.throughout.the. agency.for.peer.review ..If.the.agency.panel.concurs. with.ODI’s.recommen-dation.that.a.recall.should.be. conducted,.ODI.notifies.the.manufacturer.of.the.panel’s.concurrence.and.may,.if.appropriate,.provide.a. final.opportunity.for.the.manufacturer.to.present.new. analysis.or.data ..ODI.then.sends.a.Recall.Request. Letter.to.the.manufacturer .
 
I think this sums up the issue:



So people had ~8 seconds to avoid the collision, but they didn't do anything. i.e. they weren't paying attention.

What I haven't seen NHTSA ask/gather is how many non-Tesla vehicles have had collisions with first responder vehicles. Does Tesla have a non-proportional number of these?

Tangential, but that ~8s doesn't surprise me at all. When driving these days I see probably 50% of drivers with their eyes on their phones and not the road.
 
Not only does the NHTSA investigate phantom braking in other manufacturers, as proven by the article you posted, they have sent similar information requests to literally every manufacturer who deploys systems with functionality similar to Autopilot.

Here’s the ODI report for the newly upgraded Autopilot investigation


Here’s a letter to BMW from the Preliminary Evaluation

VW

Mercedes

This is all public info on the NHTSA website
The Engineering Analysis investigation NHTSA just opened is not related to Phantom Braking. (It is related to crashes involving First Responder vehicles.)

I haven't seen NHTSA open an investigation into these types of crashes with any other vehicle manufacturer.
 
Tesla might be the only manufacturer that actually has data to investigate.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic Injury Control/Articles/Associated Files/MVDefectsandRecall.pdf
Ugly copy/pastev
To me at least, that would put the NHSTA in an even worse position. Tesla could argue "Why is the NHSTA allowing everyone else to have the same assisted driving features without being able to collect data/statistics?"

And yes there is data to investigate. I could take an hour and find many videos of Ford's drive assists doing very unsafe things.
 
I stopped having anything to do with Cramer’s a while ago. This guy is full of *sugar*, not worth the time!

Lol, Cramer has the morals of an alley cat, but at 30s into this video, he says "Yeah, you really want to buy this stock after you read this. I think the headline says it all: 'time to be bold'".

Hard to argue with that. ;)
 
We should take a moment as another "bear thesis" about Tesla and its valuation, crumbles.

Turns out even when other EV makes hit volume production.......they still can't even get themselves to profitability and struggle to get gross margins even half of what Tesla is hitting. Nio's gross margins went down from 17% to 14% and their forecast isn't for them to rebound anytime soon. BYD, who our favorite fake Tesla investor (Taylor Ogan) has hit volume for a few quarters in a row.................with absolutely dreadful margins. These are Chinese EV makers with the lowest cost of manufacturing in the world. And they still can't even get close to Tesla's margins and profits.

Nio's earnings show the ugly truth for all of Tesla competitors and really shows how incredibly well run and efficient Tesla is.
 
Last edited:
To me at least, that would put the NHSTA in an even worse position. Tesla could argue "Why is the NHSTA allowing everyone else to have the same assisted driving features without being able to collect data/statistics?"

And yes there is data to investigate. I could take an hour and find many videos of Ford's drive assists doing very unsafe things.

NHTSA is investigating/ learning, they have not judged anything as bad at this point. They could even determine Tesla is better than the competition (in performance or data collection).

Videos of Fords != data from Ford.
Don't be an ODowd.