Tesla Turns Off AEB In New Cars Produced Since July

[brianman]

If you want to take my comment out of context, that's entirely within your rights.

Yes, there is a difference between a post and a person as well as speech and a person. Posts and speech expresses ideas that anyone can disagree with. Otherwise, what's the point of these forums? However, aside from disagreeing with the tenor and content of his/her post, I'm not judging the poster in any way.

Hesitant to wade in but...

I think @Canuck is saying that if you say the comment is "witless", you're implying that the author has no wit. I think you're saying "the author was not using his/her wit when posting it, whether or not he/she has wit". There's a fine distinction, if I'm understanding correctly.

 

[jimmy_d]

-cringe-

Are you sure about this?

Just took delivery today. I'll report back after I have some miles on it. Of course, you probably won't be able to trust what I say - having bought it now I might be unable to accept that I made a bad call. But who knows. I drive huge autopilot miles on a regular route (SF/LA) that I know really well, so it should be harder for me to kid myself that someone who mixes it up a lot more.

 

[jimmy_d]

Link? I tried search but...well you know.

Here's one: HW2.5 capabilities

If I recall right were some others later where people were debating the different numbers, the specs weren't totally apples to apples so there's some wiggle room but the Conti seems to be a meaningful improvement from a simple reading. Of course, my take on the consensus was just my read so YMMV.

 

[jimmy_d]

I'm with you. My Google-fu says the only thing "continental" about a Tesla is (was) the rubber.

You can go to the thread and search inside the thread on the forum (at least, that's what I did and it seemed to work for me). Of course, not everyone uses the word continental in all the relevant posts, so you still have to poke around a bit.

 

[somnambule]

The problem is that there was hope Tesla would be a leader in this field, and they gave us that hope with presentations and videos intended to make us believe that. But the reality, especially of late, and with the release of AP2.0, is not only that they can't meet their promises while others are advancing, but things that are out are not even working. Even to this Tesla supporter, it doesn't look good at all.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the notion that other manufacturers' products are free of faults or that their faults should be forgiven because they are cheaper.

You call him "witless" and that's "not judging the poster in any way"? Because "there is a difference between a post and a person as well as speech and a person"? So if someone calls a person racist because their speech is racist, then they can respond by saying there's a difference between them and their speech? And that all makes sense to you?

I didn't call the poster witless. I called the post witless. Every one of us are complex individuals. I don't think any of us can be judged on the basis of a few posts here and I will not do so. I'm sure that if I were judged solely on a few selected actions, you would arrive at a very different conclusion from what you would think if you knew me.

IIRC, you are a legal professional, right? To use your example, people can only be guilty of hate crimes. They can't be guilty of being a racist. Even the law doesn't pretend to be able to judge individuals at the level you are suggesting.

You are generally a very reasonable poster and I tend to respect and agree with your points quite often. But, in this case, we are just going to have to disagree.

To debate without personal attacks including calling someone "witless". Just deal with the issues.

That was what I wanted to do. But instead of answering the question I raised, the poster I was responding to called me "disingenuous", "insane" and followed that up with a witless, sarcastic post mocking the point I was trying to make rather than a logical rebuttal. I would have loved to stick to the issues.

 

[somnambule]

Hesitant to wade in but...

I think @Canuck is saying that if you say the comment is "witless", you're implying that the author has no wit. I think you're saying "the author was not using his/her wit when posting it, whether or not he/she has wit". There's a fine distinction, if I'm understanding correctly.

That is precisely the distinction I'm making. As I said in the previous post, I don't know any of the folks here well enough to judge them. I can only judge the contents of the posts.

 

[Swift]

The bias in your post was not implied. It was very explicit. The entire point was that Teslas need to be safer just because they are more expensive. Was there any other way to interpret what you said?

Yes. If much less expensive cars can successfully implement features like AEB when the margins are small, Tesla really has no excuse to not be able to do the same when their margins are significantly higher.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes. If much less expensive cars can successfully implement features like AEB when the margins are small, Tesla really has no excuse to not be able to do the same when their margins are significantly higher.

@somnambule's point wasn't talking about AEB (none of his examples were about AEB from less expensive cars) but rather safety issues in general. He was responding to a post that suggested that the reaction would be very different (in a negative way) if GM or Ford did something similar. His examples suggest that this would not be the case; there really isn't that much of a reaction from the general public even for more serious safety issues. A lot of people don't even take their cars in for a recall; recalls just seem to be a fact of life nowadays.

It's easy to substitute examples from more expensive brands and it won't change his point at all:
A million Mercedes-Benz models recalled for fire risk
Over 576,000 Audis recalled for fire and airbag-rupture risks
After Being Challenged By Feds, BMW Recalls 46,000 More Vehicles
2016-2018 Infiniti Q50, 2017 Infiniti Q60 recalled over stalling concerns
Porsche recalls vehicles with fuel system issue
Three Maserati models face recalls for two different types of fire risk
Model year 2017 Jaguar XE and F-Type vehicles recalled

It seems you are talking about a completely different point, so I agree with him that you probably did not really understand his post (or the context). In context to his post talking about safety issues, your short response really did seem like you were suggesting that it is more acceptable for less expensive vehicles to have more serious safety issues.

 

[Swift]

You believe airline manufacturers have 100% perfection on every system of the aircraft before shipment? Wow. Talk about naive

No need for more name calling in this thread.

To be clear, no. I (and most reasonably intelligent people here) do not expect 100% perfection.

Re-quoting your earlier post:

If companies shipped product before they were 100% ready for prime time with no major issues, we wouldn't have hardly any products. We certainly wouldn't have computers or software. Besides, even thorough testing cannot simply be done ahead of time. You can only hope to get most obvious issues fixed ahead of time.

I do expect extensive, thorough testing to be done and redundant systems to be in place before putting my family in said aircraft.

 

[Economite]

Yes. If much less expensive cars can successfully implement features like AEB when the margins are small, Tesla really has no excuse to not be able to do the same when their margins are significantly higher.

Tesla is hemorrhaging money, and its two models that are actually available are produced at low volumes relative to many inexpensive car models. Therefore, if anything, it is actually harder for Tesla, when compared to other companies, to spend the money to get things right.

That said, I don't think this fact in any way excuses what Tesla has been doing. It has a moral (and likely legal) obligation to create safe products and to use honest marketing and sales techniques.

To me, "we can't afford to do this right" or "we have to do it this way because otherwise things will go too slowly and we'll run out of money" are just as lousy defences for bad behavior as "but everyone else is doing it."

 

[Swift]

@somnambule's point wasn't talking about AEB but rather safety issues in general. He was responding to a post that suggested that the reaction would be very different (in a negative way) if GM or Ford did something similar.

It seems you are talking about a completely different point, so I agree with him that you probably did not really understand his post.

Yes, he was responding to @bro1999‘s post about GM and Ford regarding AEB as follows.

Imagine GM or Ford pulled this stunt. The reaction would be very different (and not in a good way).

I took the opportunity to respond to both of their posts in that that GM, Ford, along with the the manufacturers somnambule cited, all were significantly less expensive on average. Point being that Tesla really has no excuse given the premium they charge for their vehicles and the often cited significantly higher margins they make.

Somehow that resulted in this response:

Are you suggesting poor people's lives matter less?

Regardless, I (and I’m sure other reasonable people here) do not consider the owners of GM, Ford, and the vehicles somnambule listed, to be poor people. That speaks to his view of them not mine.

 

[somnambule]

Yes, he was responding to @bro1999‘s post about GM and Ford regarding AEB as follows.

I took the opportunity to respond to both of their posts in that that GM, Ford, along with the the manufacturers somnambule cited, all were significantly less expensive on average. Point being that Tesla really has no excuse given the premium they charge for their vehicles and the often cited significantly higher margins they make.

You keep missing the point that the examples I cited are far more serious issues than a temporary disabling of AEB. They are not things that are acceptable at any price. And, yet, you claim they are okay as they occurred in mainstream products.

@stopcrazypp summarized the gist of my sequence of posts better than I could. Recalls or the release of features/components that need subsequent fixes/replacement are not unique to Tesla. Tesla has an additional tool at its disposal (OTA updates) that perhaps make these sorts of things more visible as we see the updates get pushed out. But faults get through every manufacturer's testing procedures.

If your position is that you only care about the Tesla issues because the other stuff doesn't affect you, that's different. It's not relevant to the point I was making, but a perfectly reasonable position nonetheless. But I fail to see how anyone could justify saying dangerous flaws are acceptable in cheaper vehicles but temporary disabling of non-critical systems on a Tesla is not.

Regardless, I (and I’m sure other reasonable people here) do not consider the owners of GM, Ford, and the vehicles somnambule listed, to be poor people. That speaks to his view of them not mine.

If you need to resort to syntax over semantics to defend your point of view, I think that says enough by itself. FWIW, I used to drive a GM vehicle before I switched to my current car about a year ago.

 

[scottm]

The 'beta' thing with Tesla has had its day, I chuckle each time I see that. Sure it was hip in the beginning and made people feel like they're "in" on something good and new. They were playing with semantics back then and still are...

"A beta tester is someone who tests a product before it is released. Product testers help companies identify weak points in their products that could cause consumer frustration. They also identify specific issues that need to be corrected before a product can be released. Typically, these individuals test several incarnations of a product until it is deemed ready for release. They most commonly work with electronics and software."
-- wisegeek.org


Pushing software to consumer purchased cars is the act of releasing it. Tesla pushes don't come down as an "invitation to test", release notes often don't even list changes to look out for, and nobody asks you to specifically try / test things before deciding to enable them for use.

If Tesla says new software is "beta" it implies there is some previous version that is presumably a stable base, that should be offered to all users to revert to (or remain on) based on individual risk tolerance / desire for experimentation.

Where's the "No Thanks Take Me Back" button... brings you to previous stable version? Some folks have continually rejected the "install now / timer" pop-up to defer new Tesla software... for years... Until service required the shop to force a new version as part of the resolution for problems. But I'm sure many would still be happy with Windows 98 on their home PC, or Tesla 6.2 UI is just fine for the life of the car.

On the other hand, Tesla demoting a feature and disabling it remotely due to safety, beta or not.. is a responsible thing to do and they have an easy way (OTA) to do it. But it's a very embarrassing thing and PR problem for the manufacturer to subtract features this way -- for any reason. Legacy industry is a recall letter and voluntarily drive to dealer to have software turned off when you pick up the car it has one less feature... or worse fuel economy than when you brought it in.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

wow..tesla is way behind Cadillac in this respect for sure!!!! For 100k telsa should have these same safty features/gizmos as the caddy in that vid i would expect.
Even the night vission on the Cadillac is way cool idea and also seems far beyond the telsa s model. I know caddilac is ICE but still its got some pretty amazing high tech in it!!!. I mean sure tesla has a huge screen but its mostly maps and music...Would be great to have nightvision and that tech on that center screen when driving...seems like all that realestate on the tesla screen in kind of wasted on maps and music and internet searches. Would rather have it dedicated to thise caddy things in vids i have seen.

Sadly, the only way you are going to get such competitive and useful features in a Tesla is if Musk steps down as CEO. In the last four years he has shown the world that he is utterly incapable of developing the most basic convenience and safety features, like auto high beams, wipers, and AEB, while being supremely adept at defrauding customers out of thousands of dollars for features that either did not fulfill what was originally promised, or have not even been developed yet.

 

[scottm]

while being supremely adept at defrauding customers out of thousands of dollars for features that either did not fulfill what was originally promised, or have not even been developed yet.

But you've just described a perfect CEO in a Capitalist world!

 

[bhzmark]

I'm shaking my head a bit... flabbergasted that you feel I was rude and insulting or that you needed defending, especially for the post you quoted me in. I congratulated you! Sure, I offered you some unsolicited advice, but I wasn't rude about it.

Sorry if you felt otherwise.

Your enjoyment of the forum will increase if you put people like the one you are shaking your head at on the ignore list instead of replying to them. Happily, my screen isn't polluted with the other side of the debate you are having, but it still pains me to read even one half of a fruitless exchange.

Use the ignore function liberally.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

maybe you'll consider that your great fortune could come with some moral responsibility. I'm not saying you should stick with Tesla if you're not happy, but maybe you could recognized that the environmental goals of the EV movement are vastly more important than theoretical injuries that may or may not happen due to testing that may or may not occur in a way you may or may not approve. Support Tesla, sue Tesla...

Some people here are definitely anti-Tesla for moral and ethical reasons. There definitely are people who feel Tesla has acted unethically in the recent times. @oktane, I feel, is one of them.

I know that is not the direction or the type of leadership you called out for, but it does exist.

 

[supratachophobia]

Great for consumers would be not installing a new version of safety critical hardware (in place of a working version) until after the new version has been fully tested. That's what other manufacturers try to do.

You make me want to create multiple accounts so I can Like your comment more.

 

[Economite]

You make me want to create multiple accounts so I can Like your comment more.

Thanks!

 

[Swift]

You keep missing the point that the examples I cited are far more serious issues than a temporary disabling of AEB.

Not at all, you are saying these vehicles have greater safety issues than Tesla does. As if AEB is the only safety issue with Tesla. It's not.

And, yet, you claim they are okay as they occurred in mainstream products.

Where do I say that?

If your position is that you only care about the Tesla issues because the other stuff doesn't affect you, that's different. It's not relevant to the point I was making, but a perfectly reasonable position nonetheless. But I fail to see how anyone could justify saying dangerous flaws are acceptable in cheaper vehicles but temporary disabling of non-critical systems on a Tesla is not.

Where do I say that?

If you need to resort to syntax over semantics to defend your point of view, I think that says enough by itself. FWIW, I used to drive a GM vehicle before I switched to my current car about a year ago.

Then it would appear that we’re in agreement that people who drive GM, Ford, and the cars you cited should not be characterized as poor. But you’re the guy coming back with provocative, outrageous conclusions/statements:

Are you suggesting poor people's lives matter less?

Where do I say that? Other members call you out on it:

Yours is pretty much the only entirely bizarre way to interpret it.

And you’re the guy playing games with syntax and semantics; you get called on that as well:

You call him "witless" and that's "not judging the poster in any way"? Because "there is a difference between a post and a person as well as speech and a person"? So if someone calls a person racist because their speech is racist, then they can respond by saying there's a difference between them and their speech? And that all makes sense to you?