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

[navguy12]

Weird thought here.

It’s likely a big percentage of cars with the previous FSD agreement which promised full Robotaxi, also come with lifetime unlimited Supercharging.

If HW2.5 & HW3 cannot support Robotaxi, Tesla can quietly remove these cars from the road, switch out the FSD requirement so it’s just ADAS, remove the lifetime Supercharging, and put them back on the road and retire all that liability.

At some point, Tesla is going to have to settle with the remaining owners who have these older cars with the broader definition of FSD. This may be a way to preempt that cheaply.

To paraphrase an actor who once played Moses, “I'll give you my early build TM3 with FSD when you take it from my cold, dead hands” and so on…

 

[gtrplyr1]

From Webster's dictionary, the definition of the word "Recall".

1. bring (a fact, event, or situation) back into one's mind; remember.

2.officially order (someone) to return to a place.


I can RECALL when people understood the English language.

My car will be updated while I'm asleep and it's sitting in my garage. Not even close to an actual recall ... but that wouldn't be a lot of fun for CNBC to report ... sheesh .. Phil LeBeau gets more moronic every time I hear him.

 

[jerry33]

WTF does your last paragraph even mean? We arent asking them to stop anything, but they took anywhere from 4-15K from people for a feature that isn't fully baked. They already have a history of replacing hardware (HW2.5 to HW3) to implement these features. It may very well make everyone happy eventually but as of right now Tesla is implying the money people paid for a software they can't even recognize full revenue yet is going to be capped based on new hardware they are releasing (3X better than 10X from Elon)...I still fully expect Tesla to deploy a robotaxi in less than 24 months...which will evidently be based off HW4. As a shareholder...I couldn't be more excited, but as someone who paid them 10K for a product that now has questions to its end state...call me worried.

Nobody here is even suggesting Tesla stop innovating or slow down, actually quite far from it.

When you purchase any product that uses software, you buy it for what it can do right now, not what it might do in the future. If it happens, great. This has been the rule since computers began. Myself, what I was most interested in was the alert and then stop safely if the driver falls asleep or is otherwise incapacitated. I figure just this feature is worth every penny.

 

[MC3OZ]

1 or 3 is so much more likely than 2.

I get it, we are dissappointed that FSD is taking longer than we thought and I am not happy about the sonar parking sensor decision(I don't know the full story but it but it seems like a bad decision in hindsight). But let's not forget, we have cars out on the street fully self driving in between the interventions. And there is not any major scenario we know about where we see hardware being the limiting factor, not Chuck style left turns, not complex intersections, not highway driving, not fog, not snow etc.

What's missing is better software, fewer bugs, more data, more capable neural networks. Not higher resolution on the cameras, not cameras in a different angle, not more redundancy...


Regarding HW4 being introduced dissappointing HW3 customers. Imo stop complaining. You are trying to make Tesla fragile instead of antifragile. With antifragility comes some chaos and people being upset, but the alternative is stagnation and eventual death of the company. Better to disrupt yourself than having the competition disrupt you.

My impression is that the biggest difference between HW4 and HW3 is more redundancy.

So HW4 may continue to operate perfectly when a cable is broken or disconnected or a camera is covered.

If you are saying 1. is more likely than 2., on reflection that might be right.

For 3. if HW4 works, the only reason HW3.0 would not work has to be hardware, not software, it would make sense to see if a hardware upgrade could fix the issue.

Unless the regulator is very particular about redundancy, I can't see it being a show stopper.

For some hardware faults, a HW 3.0 Robotaxi might need to pullover and stop where a HW 4.0 Robotaxi could keep going?

 

[betstarship]

When you purchase any product that uses software, you buy it for what it can do right now, not what it might do in the future. If it happens, great. This has been the rule since computers began. Myself, what I was most interested in was the alert and then stop safely if the driver falls asleep or is otherwise incapacitated. I figure just this feature is worth every penny.

The enabled FSD visualization has been worth the money from a safety perspective for me already if paired with the (free) street light chime.

 

[phoggy123]

When you purchase any product that uses software, you buy it for what it can do right now, not what it might do in the future. If it happens, great. This has been the rule since computers began. Myself, what I was most interested in was the alert and then stop safely if the driver falls asleep or is otherwise incapacitated. I figure just this feature is worth every penny.

We arent buying word perfect 1996... you just adequately described legacy auto in your expectations. Tesla and especially Elon sold us something that I hope comes to fruition with either HW3 or HW4+.

 

[GOVA]

HW4 complainers - HW4 exists because of inexorable semiconductor process improvements. Those happen every year. If you keep using the process tech from the initial year you started using your chip, you're leaving efficiency on the table and your competitors will leapfrog you. HW3 was revealed at the Autopilot Day in ~March 2019. It was designed in 2018 (Jim Keller and all that). That's 5 years ago! It is inevitable that Tesla would move to a new process tech, and I think they said so at the time.

One of the goals of a new process tech is to do the same job as the last chip, but for less power, generate less waste heat, and take up less room in the circuit board. HW4 does that, but they have added some new capability. Nobody should be saying HW3 can't do the job.

In 4-5yrs time there will be HW5. After that... HW6. etc. etc. Each time, the chips will use less power, occupy smaller space, generate less heat under the dash, and/or have more capability if Tesla decides to add that. Again... do not complain that HW3 has been usurped or is now proven to be unable to do the original job. That is nonsense. Tesla has revised the CPU in the MCU several times now. Can owners of the original 2012 MCU still run Navigation? Of course!

Having HW4 now makes it more believable that Cybertruck is going into production this year. It makes me happy as a future CT owner that they are locking another piece of the CT puzzle into solid production hardware. It's true to say that the HW4 unit will have had a little in-the-field testing on 4 or 5 other platforms before CT starts using it. Nice!

While most of what you wrote is true, this is NOT the main reason for HW4.

The current HW3 suite is not capable of providing sufficient data flow/computational power for AP to evolve further. Some posters have mentioned it already in this thread.

The HW4 with faster, more numerous data nodes (cameras/radar) and faster computational power as well as heaters to provide uptime for cameras will greatly enhance what's available now.

 

[EVCollies]

While most of what you wrote is true, this is NOT the main reason for HW4.

The current HW3 suite is not capable of providing sufficient data flow/computational power for AP to evolve further. Some posters have mentioned it already in this thread.

The HW4 with faster, more numerous data nodes (cameras/radar) and faster computational power as well as heaters to provide uptime for cameras will greatly enhance what's available now.

Still on HW1 on my 2015 MS, some of the promises made at the time of sale have come true, ACC but not reliable lane tracking or lane changing, but I'm OK as HW2, HW2.5, HW3... have lead to SP rise to exceed my expectations.

 

[heltok]

My impression is that the biggest difference between HW4 and HW3 is more redundancy.

So HW4 may continue to operate perfectly when a cable is broken or disconnected or a camera is covered.

If you are saying 1. is more likely than 2., on reflection that might be right.

For 3. if HW4 works, the only reason HW3.0 would not work has to be hardware, not software, it would make sense to see if a hardware upgrade could fix the issue.

Unless the regulator is very particular about redundancy, I can't see it being a show stopper.

For some hardware faults, a HW 3.0 Robotaxi might need to pullover and stop where a HW 4.0 Robotaxi could keep going?

Green seems to indicate that in some ways redundancy has increased. Not for the power to the network links though:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625905205907795970

In some other ways redundancy has decreased, instead of 3 forward facing cameras there are now 2. Imo Tesla knows what they are doing, they figured out that 2 was enough redundancy and they can get a better system by putting that extra compute and bandwidth somewhere else in the system.

I believe that Tesla are good at what they do and have chosen a good level of redundancy for both HW3 and HW4. And we have no indication that the redundancy of HW3 is not enough. Sure HW4 might be better but is HW3 lacking redundancy to the point that it cannot be 3x safer than a human?

I used to develop self driving cars, back then it was all about achieving ASIL D. This mean making two independent ASIL C systems, C+C=D. But Tesla have decided to not focus on this and instead rely on actual data, they will gather enough miles to statistically prove how safe their system is rather arguing about how many layers of redundancy they have. We will see what regulators decide to approve, but imo it's not like Tesla are not aware of this difference in their approach and everyone else's approach..

Fwiw, I did say that 1 OR 3 > 2, not 1>2. Aspie talk, I mean that you can argue if 1 or 3 is more likely, (imo 1 is more likely) but I think 2 is less likely than 1 and 3 combined

 

[FlamingPIG]

From Tesla:

In Response to False Allegations​

"There is a false allegation that Tesla terminated employees in response to a new union campaign. These are the facts behind the event"

TLDR: those fired employee were already in the process of termination before the union idea form because of poor performance.

 

[Big Dog]

From Webster's dictionary, the definition of the word "Recall".

1. bring (a fact, event, or situation) back into one's mind; remember.

2.officially order (someone) to return to a place.


I can RECALL when people understood the English language.

My car will be updated while I'm asleep and it's sitting in my garage. Not even close to an actual recall ... but that wouldn't be a lot of fun for CNBC to report ... sheesh .. Phil LeBeau gets more moronic every time I hear him.

Recall is a gub-mint regulatory term. Webster has nothing to do with it.

It just means that the manufacturer must fix your car at no charge to you. (and fix it expeditiously) Yes, Tesla will do an OTA update when it can. But what if the fix required HW3/HW4 to work correctly? Then Tesla would have to send a mobile tech to yoru garage to replace the hardware, again, at no charge to you.

 

[navguy12]

From Tesla:

In Response to False Allegations​

"There is a false allegation that Tesla terminated employees in response to a new union campaign. These are the facts behind the event"

TLDR: those fired employee were already in the process of termination before the union idea form because of poor performance.

Glad to see this clear rebuttal.

 

[MC3OZ]

Green seems to indicate that in some ways redundancy has increased. Not for the power to the network links though:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625905205907795970

In some other ways redundancy has decreased, instead of 3 forward facing cameras there are now 2. Imo Tesla knows what they are doing, they figured out that 2 was enough redundancy and they can get a better system by putting that extra compute and bandwidth somewhere else in the system.

I believe that Tesla are good at what they do and have chosen a good level of redundancy for both HW3 and HW4. And we have no indication that the redundancy of HW3 is not enough. Sure HW4 might be better but is HW3 lacking redundancy to the point that it cannot be 3x safer than a human?

I used to develop self driving cars, back then it was all about achieving ASIL D. This mean making two independent ASIL C systems, C+C=D. But Tesla have decided to not focus on this and instead rely on actual data, they will gather enough miles to statistically prove how safe their system is rather arguing about how many layers of redundancy they have. We will see what regulators decide to approve, but imo it's not like Tesla are not aware of this difference in their approach and everyone else's approach..

Fwiw, I did say that 1 OR 3 > 2, not 1>2. Aspie talk, I mean that you can argue if 1 or 3 is more likely, (imo 1 is more likely) but I think 2 is less likely than 1 and 3 combined

Have you seen this wring harness patent:- Investor Engineering Discussions

It has a bidirectional power flow which could be used to provide power redundancy to cameras?

It mostly talks about a redundant data path for getting data from the cameras to the central computer.

Tesla has some really great patents, but we never know if/when they will use them.

From what Green showed HW 4.0 might not be using the harness, I was hoping it would.

 

[Xepa777]

To paraphrase an actor who once played Moses, “I'll give you my early build TM3 with FSD when you take it from my cold, dead hands” and so on…

Yah if I was an owner of one of those cars I’d hold it forever as leverage for the incoming lawsuit. Can probably get FSD transfer and 20% off next car if people play cards right.

 

[AndrewZ]

anyone else suspicious of the timing of this NHTSA recall day after Tesla agrees to open supercharger network to competition .... ?

I’m much more suspicious of them contacting Tesla, after all this time, the day of earnings.

Is it tied to recognition of the FSD revenue? Seems like quite the coincidence.

 

[Prunesquallor]

From Tesla:

In Response to False Allegations​

"There is a false allegation that Tesla terminated employees in response to a new union campaign. These are the facts behind the event"

TLDR: those fired employee were already in the process of termination before the union idea form because of poor performance.

As we suspected.

edit: new legal team at work?

 

[navguy12]

Yah if I was an owner of one of those cars I’d hold it forever as leverage for the incoming lawsuit. Can probably get FSD transfer and 20% off next car if people play cards right.

I always hold onto a car at least 10 years and this one will be no different.

Life is too short to waste it on lawsuits (spoken as someone who had to deal with the justice system once, which is one time too many).

 

[AndrewZ]

WTF does your last paragraph even mean? We arent asking them to stop anything, but they took anywhere from 4-15K from people for a feature that isn't fully baked. They already have a history of replacing hardware (HW2.5 to HW3) to implement these features. It may very well make everyone happy eventually but as of right now Tesla is implying the money people paid for a software they can't even recognize full revenue yet is going to be capped based on new hardware they are releasing (3X better than 10X from Elon)...I still fully expect Tesla to deploy a robotaxi in less than 24 months...which will evidently be based off HW4. As a shareholder...I couldn't be more excited, but as someone who paid them 10K for a product that now has questions to its end state...call me worried.

Nobody here is even suggesting Tesla stop innovating or slow down, actually quite far from it.

Generalized robotaxis are not happening less than 24 months from today lol. We’re already talking about HW5, and then it’ll be HW6, then HW7, and who knows how many more until it happens if it’s even possible to have a truly generalized autonomous vehicle.

The problems cited by the NHTSA here have existed for years, and those are also almost assuredly not being fixed in 2 months. If they could have been fixed in 2 months, they would have been fixed 2> months ago.

 

[Singuy]

Generalized robotaxis are not happening less than 24 months from today lol. We’re already talking about HW5, and then it’ll be HW6, then HW7, and who knows how many more until it happens if it’s even possible to have a truly generalized autonomous vehicle.

The problems cited by the NHTSA here have existed for years, and those are also almost assuredly not being fixed in 2 months. If they could have been fixed in 2 months, they would have been fixed 2> months ago.

Nope, not going to be fixed in 2 months and we should have zero expectations to. If NHTSA wants to play this game then the following will happen until the problem is fixed in.

Tesla releases next software they were going to release anyways to fix the issue
NHTSA spends 3-6 months investigating it-> wants Tesla to issue a recall because it's not fixed
Tesla issues another recall, tries to fix it with the next software update
NHTSA spends 3-6 months investigating it->wants Tesla to issue a recall

We are going to do this until it's fixed. This is what happens with generalized FSD. Who knows if the next set of trained data would fix your edge case. Tesla will always claim that piece of software is to fix the issue because that's the intent. Will it or not? I mean there are a billion different kind of road variations and scenarios, will it be perfect one day? Who knows. But hey that's why there's a driver in the seat ready to take over, hence the purpose of the person in the seat. Maybe NHTSA forgot who is responsible in preventing the car from acting dangerously.

 

[heltok]

Prices increased in China:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626401553363128320