Tesla Turns Off AEB In New Cars Produced Since July

[alcibiades]

These titles can only be so long. otherwise it would be

Tesla has stated they have disabled AEB in all new cars since late July and STATE they INTEND it to be temporary for a 6 week period but we shall see if they are telling the truth.

Perfect!

 

[somnambule]

That was my only issue with where you took the conversation. I’ve explained it a few times.

Indulge me and please explain again. What was the intended interpretation of pointing out that the extremely serous issues I mentioned were in cheaper cars? I know you've criticized my interpretation of that particular statement repeatedly, but don't remember seeing a clarification of what you actually meant.

My key points are:

- the car I test drove had AEB and it was a feature that was highlighted
- the car I received did not have AEB
- AEB was added later (albeit in an incomplete state) after Consumer Reports reduced Tesla’s safety rating for not having it
- it took until June of this year for it to supposedly be fully functional
- I went over 6 months without a key safety feature (AEB) that a number of other vehicles have (including some that were significantly less expensive options for me)
- it’s happening over again as Tesla released HW2.5 and once again AEB is not ready for prime time

As I already said in earlier posts, I don't think this part of your take is unreasonable at all. What I disagree with is the position that this AEB issue is worse than any other issue currently going on with any other automaker. I'm just trying to suggest keeping things in perspective.

 

[oktane]

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.

This. I feel bad for people who saved hard earned money and spent it on something and were defrauded by Tesla getting little in return. Or perhaps people not as technically sophisticated who might be injured using defective products like EAP and non-functional basic safety features.

 

[Swift]

Indulge me and please explain again. What was the intended interpretation of pointing out that the extremely serous issues I mentioned were in cheaper cars? I know you've criticized my interpretation of that particular statement repeatedly, but don't remember seeing a clarification of what you actually meant.

Here you go:

#1

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.

#2

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

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.

As I already said in earlier posts, I don't think this part of your take is unreasonable at all. What I disagree with is the position that this AEB issue is worse than any other issue currently going on with any other automaker. I'm just trying to suggest keeping things in perspective.

I think it is worse with Tesla. They are taking advantage of the over the air update model to introduce vehicles into the market that have unfinished or not fully tested features and fix them later. I think that’s ok to a degree in some places but not when it comes to safety features.

 

[Economite]

Was the change something that completely changed the meaning of the thread title?

OP here...

No... your change did not completely change the meaning of the title thread. I didn't have any problems with your change (or with the subsequent revision to your change), nor would I expect to be asked permission before the change was made. My only concern was that there wasn't a post that said "Hey... I made this change... Here's why."

I think putting in that kind of post is important, just because the system doesn't give any indication to readers of when a title change has been made, though the original poster's name still appears prominently on the thread as if he or she wrote the new title. Also, when a thread has been going as long as this one, I think it's important to make it clear when something established, like a thread title or an old post, is changed. Otherwise, things can look a bit 1984-ish (not really a problem with you change in this thread), as any change to old stuff can change the context for other posts that remain unchanged.

 

[scottm]

Lord have Mercy on the title, and those who read it and click on the title, and on those who change titles and those who want to know why. Mercy on all of us, who are an imperfect lot and maybe need to be reminded of that. All human. (Except those who disagree with this post.)

 

[somnambule]

Here you go:

#1


#2



I think it is worse with Tesla. They are taking advantage of the over the air update model to introduce vehicles into the market that have unfinished or not fully tested features and fix them later. I think that’s ok to a degree in some places but not when it comes to safety features.

None of those posts answer my question based on your original response to me: why you thought it was acceptable for mainstream brands to have potentially catastrophic failures in vehicles they have been selling to customers (all of the examples I listed are things that can cause a vehicle to stall while driving, catch fire, allow CO into the cabin etc.) just because they were cheaper.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this to death at this point.

 

[McRat]

None of those posts answer my question based on your original response to me: why you thought it was acceptable for mainstream brands to have potentially catastrophic failures in vehicles they have been selling to customers (all of the examples I listed are things that can cause a vehicle to stall while driving, catch fire, allow CO into the cabin etc.) just because they were cheaper.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this to death at this point.

Today it's normally a very small % that triggers a recall. Statistically, you'll probably not experience a catastrophic failure due to a recall item.

But in any case, why would the location of a Pinto tank affect AEB on on 2017 new car of a different brand?

Fun fact: Over 2,200,000 Pintos were made. 27 to 180 deaths were caused by rear impact gas fires. The numbers vary depending on what you consider the cause of death. Many of the 180 death count were not survivable even without a fire. Many were not due to an engineering fault either.
But Pinto fire deaths were not significantly different than other rear tank cars made at the time.

Why is it common knowledge? Massive advertising and lobbying by the legal firms involved.

 

[somnambule]

Today it's normally a very small % that triggers a recall. Statistically, you'll probably not experience a catastrophic failure due to a recall item.

But in any case, why would the location of a Pinto tank affect AEB on on 2017 new car of a different brand?

Better question: Who said anything about the Pinto (aside from your post, that is)?

 

[McRat]

Better question: Who said anything about the Pinto (aside from your post, that is)?

You were listing random limited recalls of non-AEB issues. I thought it was fitting.

It was randomly selected, and it was non-AEB, and it only affected a single model.

Didn't it qualify? I did notice you did not include the 'forgot to torque the seatbelts' recall.

But the AEB-delete is not a recall. It is the removal of a safety feature.

Sort of like if they removed stability control from a US car that was not required to have it. Not a biggie. You don't actually need it.

 

[somnambule]

You were listing random limited recalls of non-AEB issues. I thought it was fitting.

It was randomly selected, and it was non-AEB, and it only affected a single model.

Didn't it qualify? I did notice you did not include the 'forgot to torque the seatbelts' recall.

But the AEB-delete is not a recall. It is the removal of a safety feature.

Sort of like if they removed stability control from a US car that was not required to have it. Not a biggie. You don't actually need it.

I listed very serious, recent issues in mainstream vehicles to point out serious issues don't mean people will go ballistic on a manufacturer (which someone said would be the case if GM or Ford did something like what Tesla did here). As you said, I'm not sure what a car from the 1970s has to do with today's cars either. I think I can guess why you brought up the Pinto, but let's let that be.

Let's not overreact. AEB is not "deleted". It's temporarily disabled until they can presumably fix a problem with it. Do you seriously think AEB will be never again be enabled?

Or would you rather that Tesla handle this issue like GM does when they find a software bug? Tell owners to bring their vehicles in for updated software? And don't tell me that GM already has the fix, making that case different from Tesla. I can guarantee you there was some time between discovering the problem and developing the fix, during which time people were driving around in faulty vehicles that can lose steering control. I'm not picking on GM specifically; this is what all other manufacturers do. At least the Tesla approach allows potentially buggy features to be disabled as soon as the issue is discovered without waiting for the fix to be developed. But that approach does open Tesla up for criticism like this thread. If Tesla were to act like the other manufacturers, they would have kept quiet about the bug and pushed out an update once they have a fix and none of us would be any wiser.

 

[Swift]

None of those posts answer my question based on your original response to me: why you thought it was acceptable for mainstream brands to have potentially catastrophic failures in vehicles they have been selling to customers (all of the examples I listed are things that can cause a vehicle to stall while driving, catch fire, allow CO into the cabin etc.) just because they were cheaper.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this to death at this point.

As stated in both examples, the point was about Tesla (the subject of the post and these forums) in comparison to those relatively less expensive vehicles (that no one else here correlated ownership of as an indication of one being a poor person).

The specific point being that Tesla being far more expensive and with far greater margins, has numerous safety related issues including AEB that the relatively less expensive vehicles in many cases did not have despite lower margins and costs.

For the sake of comparison to the specific, potentially catastrophic issues you mentioned, I offer some Tesla equivalents including autopilot near death experiences, doors that open while driving, led headlights that are so poor and unsafe that they get a full F in safety testing, etc.

 

[somnambule]

As stated in both examples, the point was about Tesla (the subject of the post and these forums) in comparison to those relatively less expensive vehicles (that no one else here correlated ownership of as an indication of one being a poor person).

I fail to see at what price stalling in highways or letting CO into the cabin or catching fire becomes acceptable. But, we are going around in circles.

The specific point being that Tesla being far more expensive and with far greater margins, has numerous safety related issues including AEB that the relatively less expensive vehicles in many cases did not have despite lower margins and costs.

This is a whole different tangent. The cost of developing technology is not included in gross margin (which I presume you may know). The fact that Teslas have high margins doesn't mean they have more development resources than other manufacturers due to the lower volume. I'm not saying that exonerates Tesla from not getting something right. It just means higher margins is also not a justification for expecting more.

For the sake of comparison to the specific, potentially catastrophic issues you mentioned, I offer some Tesla equivalents including autopilot near death experiences, doors that open while driving, led headlights that are so poor and unsafe that they get a full F in safety testing, etc.

Fair enough, but this isn't the point I disagreed with. My point was the failures much worse than disabling AEB happen with other manufacturers and the buying public doesn't react to them in the negative way someone suggested they do.

 

[Economite]

But the AEB-delete is not a recall. It is the removal of a safety feature.

Sort of like if they removed stability control from a US car that was not required to have it. Not a biggie. You don't actually need it.

I might be missing sarcasm here, but are you seriously arguing that it would be ok for a manufacturer to remove stability control from a car it has already sold, so long as stability control isn't legally required?

 

[mandersen]

I might be missing sarcasm here, but are you seriously arguing that it would be ok for a manufacturer to remove stability control from a car it has already sold, so long as stability control isn't legally required?

Well it isn't any different than auto window wipers...

 

[Swift]

I fail to see at what price stalling in highways or letting CO into the cabin or catching fire becomes acceptable. But, we are going around in circles.



This is a whole different tangent. The cost of developing technology is not included in gross margin (which I presume you may know). The fact that Teslas have high margins doesn't mean they have more development resources than other manufacturers due to the lower volume. I'm not saying that exonerates Tesla from not getting something right. It just means higher margins is also not a justification for expecting more.



Fair enough, but this isn't the point I disagreed with. My point was the failures much worse than disabling AEB happen with other manufacturers and the buying public doesn't react to them in the negative way someone suggested they do.

Maybe this analogy will help:

I need to buy a car seat for my new baby. I go to the store and see an array of car seats from different manufacturers, all of which meet federal safety standards. Some of the moderately priced seats even have a number of advanced safety features (translation AEB, etc).

I also see a really high-end car seat made by a company that is supposedly revolutionizing car seats with innovative design and advanced safety features. It’s more expensive but worth investing more for the level of safety they promote. The manufacturer is also known to have high margins that they are supposedly reinvesting In other projects (translation Model 3).

However, I find that this high-end model with the supposedly greater safety and corresponding higher cost actually has a number of safety issues and is missing features that the much less expensive models have.

I also find that both the high-end, high-safety seat and the less expensive options have had equally serious safety incidents.

So why am I paying more for a “better” car seat that markets “top safety features”?

Maybe the high-end manufacturer should have invested some of those significantly higher margins in ensuring the safety features actually worked instead of investing them elsewhere?

And to close out the point, the relatively less expensive car seat is made by a big manufacturer (translation Ford/GM) that doesn’t have the cool bubble around them. If they were to fail to deliver an advertised safety feature for their mainstream America car seat, they would be subject to far greater criticism than the tech/California darling that is Tesla.

 

[stopcrazypp]

And to close out the point, the relatively less expensive car seat is made by a big manufacturer (translation Ford/GM) that doesn’t have the cool bubble around them. If they were to fail to deliver an advertised safety feature for their mainstream America car seat, they would be subject to far greater criticism than the tech/California darling that is Tesla.

The point is they won't. They have issues that actually will kill people that is swept under the rug and forgotten. A feature they had to delay really isn't going to have much criticism.

 

[Swift]

The point is they won't. They have issues that actually will kill people that is swept under the rug and forgotten. A feature they had to delay really isn't going to have much criticism.

And how many more cars volume-wise do they produce than Tesla? And at what price point? Sorry, it’s not apples to apples. Tesla makes a much more expensive car and in far, far fewer numbers. If they had as many vehicles on the road, they’d actually be killing a bunch of people due to their defects too.

As for criticism, they are definitely treated differently. Just look at the market cap As an example....

 

[stopcrazypp]

And how many more cars volume-wise do they produce than Tesla? And at what price point? Sorry, it’s not apples to apples. Tesla makes a much more expensive car and in far, far fewer numbers. If they had as many vehicles on the road, they’d actually be killing a bunch of people due to their defects too.

Maybe so, but nothing much to do with the point, which is that the larger automakers won't get much criticism. As for your new point, you can look at the links I gave for Porsche, Maserati, Jaguar, etc. Having an expensive/lower volume car brand doesn't really change the comparison. People in general have gotten desensitized to safety issues since it's so common nowadays.

As for criticism, they are definitely treated differently. Just look at the market cap As an example....

Market cap and criticism are different things. Tesla's market cap is because of the growth potential of the company. The larger companies simply don't have the relative room for growth. In fact, the sky high market cap of Tesla is what invites criticism/controversy (AKA "shorts").

I'll give you one example: Tesla got absolutely crucified in the media for not constantly nagging for hands on steering in the earlier version of Autopilot. However, the Infiniti Q50 not only does not monitor for hands, they don't even monitor for driver in the seat (this was something Tesla immediately updated to monitor when someone tried a similar stunt). No media even brought it up on the Inifiniti, nor was any criticism levied.

 

[Swift]

Maybe so, but nothing much to do with the point, which is that the larger automakers won't get much criticism. As for your new point, you can look at the links I gave from Porsche, Maserati, Jaguar, etc. Having an expensive car doesn't really change the comparison.

Not a new point. Circling back to the original point made that got the Tesla apologists fired up.

Market cap and criticism are different things. Tesla's market cap is because of the growth potential of the company. The larger companies simply don't have the relative room for growth. In fact, the sky high market cap is what invites criticism (AKA "shorts").

Missing that point. Tesla is definitely treated differently. It’s clear as day. I talk to people who bought Tesla stock who barely know more than it’s a “cool company” and “Elon is brilliant.” It’s bizzare.

Anyway, there’s no way the other guys would get away with half the stuff Tesla is doing. But the bubble will burst...