Tesla Turns Off AEB In New Cars Produced Since July

[wdolson]

You are not alone. The whole ev car itself is cool and heads above any other full ev in usa on the market NOW. Its styling is bar non EV wise. However the company does do some shady things and it leaves a bad taste in many owners mouths. Many non owners dont really know about these "shady" issues...YET....I just hope porsche and other sportier companies ramp up the ev cars to give some real competition. I know many say but the whole charging infastructure is tesla and how can say porsche compete but i hope somehow they will and can. Not that others will be better but maybe serious competition will cause tesla to stop these "shady" tactics just to sell cars.

Porsche Mission E May Upset Tesla Model S Sales

if this doesnt give tesla a run for the $$ then i cant think of many that would.

It might cut into Model S sales a little, but it still looks like a weirdmobile. One thing I love about the Model S is someone has to know what it is before they are going to notice it. Another thing the Model S has that it doesn't look like the Mission E is going to have is cargo space. Before we got my Model S, my SO's Subarus were the cargo haulers, but the Model S has more cargo capacity than any Subaru she's ever had. The Mission E also looks like it's going to have worse backseat headroom than the Model S.

If Porsche is relying on roll out of high speed CCS for long range driving, they might be OK in countries where the government gets involved, but in places where it's left up to the free market, coverage will likely be spotty for some time to come.

I'm sure some people will buy the Mission E over the Model S because of the name and the sports car look, but I wouldn't. To each their own though.

 

[SO16]

It is unfortunate. Did Tesla have a good reason to switch vendors? Were they forced to switch when they did? If so, do they stop selling cars until AEB is working?

It might cut into Model S sales a little, but it still looks like a weirdmobile. One thing I love about the Model S is someone has to know what it is before they are going to notice it. Another thing the Model S has that it doesn't look like the Mission E is going to have is cargo space. Before we got my Model S, my SO's Subarus were the cargo haulers, but the Model S has more cargo capacity than any Subaru she's ever had. The Mission E also looks like it's going to have worse backseat headroom than the Model S.

If Porsche is relying on roll out of high speed CCS for long range driving, they might be OK in countries where the government gets involved, but in places where it's left up to the free market, coverage will likely be spotty for some time to come.

I'm sure some people will buy the Mission E over the Model S because of the name and the sports car look, but I wouldn't. To each their own though.

i wouldn't either. I like the fact that I can use my Model S as an everyday car, travel car as well as fun sporty weekender. The porsche does not look like a good trip car.

 

[lolachampcar]

We just need to get used to Tesla being a SV company. Like most young tech/software companies, customers are disposable and, because they are new and changing/saving the world, the old rules about quality of work, setting expectations and thoughtfulness/respect for their customer's interests do not apply. That will change with time (Zuckerberg has a wake up call coming like a freight train but he will not see it) but its still in full swing as of today.

I do not say the above as condemnation; I'm just pointing out a reality. SV companies do not treat their customers the same as ole main line traditional companies. There are some positives that come from that like high speed innovation/product development and rapid transition across cost curves. There are some down sides like, as a customer, sometimes you will be the bug and not the wind shield and sometimes (like, a lot) the company will get out over its skis with setting expectations (691 hp ten second 1/4 mile AP2 parity with AP1 full self driving......) and not perform. They may even screw up and have to yank back something they have already hyped and shipped (1600 amp batteries emergency braking....).

At the end of the day, I think it is clear the new SV model will prevail. There will be some collateral damage on the customer/reputation side but the model allows for this provided you are on the early adoption side of the curve and there are plenty more customers where the other ones came from This theory will be tested by Porsche, BMW, MB and others coming out with their BeVs. They most certainly will not be moving at Tesla speed so you will eventually get your side by side comparison of how to do business. Tesla will likely have matured a bit by that time as well and it is likely Elon (arguably most of the + and - of the above) will be gone at the helm.

My approach is to take the company off the spectacular pedestal I'd put them on and realize they are just another company with their own set of fleas. I'm no longer interested in chasing their best as those customers are the ones getting done over the most. I'm keeping my P85DL though out my normal car cycle instead of going for a P100DL. We had the chance on my wife's last car to cancel the AP1 order and go to AP2. We decided to keep the AP1 order for all the reasons above. When I replace my car, I'll likely do it with the then available battery in an S instead of the P. The performance is not worth the aggravation of being exposed to the way Tesla is doing business. The S', for the most part, deliver on the promise and just skate along under Tesla's rough water radar.

May we live in interesting days.

 

[yak-55]

We just need to get used to Tesla being a SV company. Like most young tech/software companies, customers are disposable and, because they are new and changing/saving the world, the old rules about quality of work, setting expectations and thoughtfulness/respect for their customer's interests do not apply. That will change with time (Zuckerberg has a wake up call coming like a freight train but he will not see it) but its still in full swing as of today.

I do not say the above as condemnation; I'm just pointing out a reality. SV companies do not treat their customers the same as ole main line traditional companies. There are some positives that come from that like high speed innovation/product development and rapid transition across cost curves. There are some down sides like, as a customer, sometimes you will be the bug and not the wind shield and sometimes (like, a lot) the company will get out over its skis with setting expectations (691 hp ten second 1/4 mile AP2 parity with AP1 full self driving......) and not perform. They may even screw up and have to yank back something they have already hyped and shipped (1600 amp batteries emergency braking....).

At the end of the day, I think it is clear the new SV model will prevail. There will be some collateral damage on the customer/reputation side but the model allows for this provided you are on the early adoption side of the curve and there are plenty more customers where the other ones came from This theory will be tested by Porsche, BMW, MB and others coming out with their BeVs. They most certainly will not be moving at Tesla speed so you will eventually get your side by side comparison of how to do business. Tesla will likely have matured a bit by that time as well and it is likely Elon (arguably most of the + and - of the above) will be gone at the helm.

My approach is to take the company off the spectacular pedestal I'd put them on and realize they are just another company with their own set of fleas. I'm no longer interested in chasing their best as those customers are the ones getting done over the most. I'm keeping my P85DL though out my normal car cycle instead of going for a P100DL. We had the chance on my wife's last car to cancel the AP1 order and go to AP2. We decided to keep the AP1 order for all the reasons above. When I replace my car, I'll likely do it with the then available battery in an S instead of the P. The performance is not worth the aggravation of being exposed to the way Tesla is doing business. The S', for the most part, deliver on the promise and just skate along under Tesla's rough water radar.

May we live in interesting days.

This has been my experience, and response as well.

As to the business model, this is just business in immature markets - as long as there are many more potential (future) customers (big TAM, see M3 reservations...) there is no need to care about current customers ("we already have their money, and don't need their repeat business"). So it's perfectly rational (but to me a bit sleazy) to abuse the most aggressive early adopters. LOTS will change as this market matures. What is surprising, and impressive, to me is that Tesla has been able to define a new (immature) market segment at all. Soon they are all going to be "just cars" or "just transportation" and the bogus saving-humanity myth will evaporate.

I won't be "that guy" again. In the mean time, it's a great car (produced by an unappealing company and business model) so I plan to drive the wheels off of it.

 

[SO16]

This has been my experience, and response as well.

As to the business model, this is just business in immature markets - as long as there are many more potential (future) customers (big TAM, see M3 reservations...) there is no need to care about current customers ("we already have their money, and don't need their repeat business"). So it's perfectly rational (but to me a bit sleezy) to abuse the most aggressive early adopters. LOTS will change as this market matures. What is surprising, and impressive, to me is that Tesla has been able to define a new (immature) market segment at all. Soon they are all going to be "just cars" or "just transportation" and the bogus saving-humanity myth will evaporate.

I won't be "that guy" again. In the mean time, it's a great car (produced by an unappealing company and business model) so I plan to drive the wheels off of it.

I think all other car companies are unappealing with a bad business model.

GM ignition scandal. VW dieselgate. Ford fires.

Tesla is not perfect. But considering they are the least sleezy AND the youngest company by far, that says something. (Perhaps this will get worse over time but too early to say.)

 

[McRat]

...
GM ignition scandal. ...

Tell me what you believe that is.

If you answer the car turns off while driving normally, you are wrong.

But no, GM has not disabled either FCW or AEB on any of our cars.

 

[u00mem9]

We just need to get used to Tesla being a SV company. Like most young tech/software companies, customers are disposable and, because they are new and changing/saving the world, the old rules about quality of work, setting expectations and thoughtfulness/respect for their customer's interests do not apply. That will change with time (Zuckerberg has a wake up call coming like a freight train but he will not see it) but its still in full swing as of today.

I do not say the above as condemnation; I'm just pointing out a reality. SV companies do not treat their customers the same as ole main line traditional companies. There are some positives that come from that like high speed innovation/product development and rapid transition across cost curves. There are some down sides like, as a customer, sometimes you will be the bug and not the wind shield and sometimes (like, a lot) the company will get out over its skis with setting expectations (691 hp ten second 1/4 mile AP2 parity with AP1 full self driving......) and not perform. They may even screw up and have to yank back something they have already hyped and shipped (1600 amp batteries emergency braking....).

At the end of the day, I think it is clear the new SV model will prevail. There will be some collateral damage on the customer/reputation side but the model allows for this provided you are on the early adoption side of the curve and there are plenty more customers where the other ones came from This theory will be tested by Porsche, BMW, MB and others coming out with their BeVs. They most certainly will not be moving at Tesla speed so you will eventually get your side by side comparison of how to do business. Tesla will likely have matured a bit by that time as well and it is likely Elon (arguably most of the + and - of the above) will be gone at the helm.

My approach is to take the company off the spectacular pedestal I'd put them on and realize they are just another company with their own set of fleas. I'm no longer interested in chasing their best as those customers are the ones getting done over the most. I'm keeping my P85DL though out my normal car cycle instead of going for a P100DL. We had the chance on my wife's last car to cancel the AP1 order and go to AP2. We decided to keep the AP1 order for all the reasons above. When I replace my car, I'll likely do it with the then available battery in an S instead of the P. The performance is not worth the aggravation of being exposed to the way Tesla is doing business. The S', for the most part, deliver on the promise and just skate along under Tesla's rough water radar.

May we live in interesting days.

I liked your post and mostly agree. However, most of the posts here completely miss the point that our society established a framework for protecting the auto customer after the 1960s.

These regulations and responsibilities are continuing to change but the basic philosophy is constant: the OEM is in a unique position to understand the safety aspects of their vehicles and is expected to divulge important data to the regulators and the market. I’m not going to generalize because there are so many different requirements, but as an example, EVERY fatal accident must be reported to NHTSA. That requirement derives from a premise that the OEM may not always be able or motivated to identify trends that could threaten customers. Where the OEM suffers a conflict of interest in reporting bad news, the regulators have made that reporting compulsory. Many of you are aware of the Takata airbag disaster, but a fewer number are aware that the scope and damage to human life of that was made much worse by Honda’s simultaneously violating their responsibilities to report the early fatal accidents. Additional people have died DIRECTLY BECAUSE Honda didn’t report that data to the people who can objectively analyze it to find trends without internal company pressures to quietly correct the problem and move on with minimal PR impact. In this case “moving on” meant lying about the root cause of the issue and delaying the solution. If you’re some poor bastard driving around in a 2001 Civic, you probably would like to reiterate why our society establishes these customer protection systems.

So while I get that ‘loose and fast’ gets innovation gains better than the conservative methods used by the squares, this is still a regulated industry. It’s not Tesla’s prerogative to put untested systems in the hands of customers any more than it would be their prerogative to build a commercial airliner that meets no FAA requirements. If we as a society want to change that, go nuts...but that hasn’t happened yet. And when your uninformed mother goes into a Tesla Mall store, she shouldn’t have to read these frickin forums to make a safe decision.

 

[SO16]

Tell me what you believe that is.

If you answer the car turns off while driving normally, you are wrong.

But no, GM has not disabled either FCW or AEB on any of our cars.

General Motors ignition switch recalls - Wikipedia

 

[Economite]

We just need to get used to Tesla being a SV company.

To my mind, this is just plain wrong. The SV model exists (and kind of works) for free (ad supported)/ or inexpensive products that are basically software. Such products have no safety impacts for the user, and one consumer's choice to use the product (even if it fails) has no impact on anyone other than the consumer. If something doesn't work as advertised, it's not a big deal. The companies can (and do) basically ignore their customers and provide crappy customer service. This is because, commensurate with the tiny amount of money they get from each customer, any attempt by their tiny staffs to provide decent customer service to the huge mass of customers is bound to fail and break their bank.

This model can't be extended to automobiles. A car is the second largest purchase (after a home) that most consumers make. Its functioning it critical to their lives, since they depend on it for transportation and spend a great deal of time in it. Because it is a long-lived asset, and so expensive (and quick to depreciate), a customer is more-or-less stuck with the car they buy. If they get frustrated with the company, or don't like how the car functions, it is very expensive to switch to a new car. And, the functioning and use of the car has many safety impacts, not only for the driver, but for his or her passengers and for all the other cars with whom he or she shares the road.

I get it. You trust Elon Musk and think that complying with normal consumer protection rules and other regulations would just slow down his innovations and impose costs that might drive him out of business. But if he "disrupts" the auto industry and other manufacturers (and new market entrants) start to follow his lead, will you be happy with their "experimentation" at the buyers (and other traffics) expense?

 

[SO16]

To my mind, this is just plain wrong. The SV model exists (and kind of works) for free (ad supported)/ or inexpensive products that are basically software. Such products have no safety impacts for the user, and one consumer's choice to use the product (even if it fails) has no impact on anyone other than the consumer. If something doesn't work as advertised, it's not a big deal. The companies can (and do) basically ignore their customers and provide crappy customer service. This is because, commensurate with the tiny amount of money they get from each customer, any attempt by their tiny staffs to provide decent customer service to the huge mass of customers is bound to fail and break their bank.

This model can't be extended to automobiles. A car is the second largest purchase (after a home) that most consumers make. Its functioning it critical to their lives, since they depend on it for transportation and spend a great deal of time in it. Because it is a long-lived asset, and so expensive (and quick to depreciate), a customer is more-or-less stuck with the car they buy. If they get frustrated with the company, or don't like how the car functions, it is very expensive to switch to a new car. And, the functioning and use of the car has many safety impacts, not only for the driver, but for his or her passengers and for all the other cars with whom he or she shares the road.

I get it. You trust Elon Musk and think that complying with normal consumer protection rules and other regulations would just slow down his innovations and impose costs that might drive him out of business. But if he "disrupts" the auto industry and other manufacturers (and new market entrants) start to follow his lead, will you be happy with their "experimentation" at the buyers (and other traffics) expense?

I get it. You trust other companies that they fully vet their products before launch. Already proved to you before (even in aeronautics), that is simply not the case. But you Ignored it. Ah well. Ignorance is bliss... right?

 

[lolachampcar]

Economite,

What in my comments makes you think I endorse the practices? Was it the part about moving on?

 

[Economite]

Economite,

What in my comments makes you think I endorse the practices? Was it the part about moving on?

Apologies... I think by the time I got to the end of my post (and wrote its final paragraph), I had forgotten the nuances of your post and was probably really responding to something someone else had written.

That said, I worry when people continue to buy Teslas, and argue that we need to accept that this is how Tesla does things and move on. Acceptance of bad business practices encourages the practices to continue, and to spread to other companies. It also leads politicians to think that people don't care about consumer protection and safety regulation, so it's ok to loosen the rules. There are only two choices for me: (i) speak out or (ii) don't do business with the company. Saying "this sucks, but it's the way Tesla is, and since I love EV's I'll keep buying Teslas and accept the way they are" isn't an option I'll choose, so long as there are other car manufacturers out there who produce cars without the "SV" semi-frauds.

 

[Economite]

Already proved to you before (even in aeronautics), that is simply not the case. But you Ignored it. Ah well. Ignorance is bliss... right?

Wow... That's kind of rude.

Side note: I've never bought or flown a small plane. And to use general aviation as a comparison for a normal consumer product is a bit odd.

 

[bhzmark]

Apologies... I think by the time I got to the end of my post (and wrote its final paragraph), I had forgotten the nuances of your post and was probably really responding to something someone else had written.

That said, I worry when people continue to buy Teslas, and argue that we need to accept that this is how Tesla does things and move on. Acceptance of bad business practices encourages the practices to continue, and to spread to other companies. It also leads politicians to think that people don't care about consumer protection and safety regulation, so it's ok to loosen the rules. There are only two choices for me: (i) speak out or (ii) don't do business with the company. Saying "this sucks, but it's the way Tesla is, and since I love EV's I'll keep buying Teslas and accept the way they are" isn't an option I'll choose, so long as there are other car manufacturers out there who produce cars without the "SV" semi-frauds.

It's not bad business practice. It is just different. It makes sense to me. and others. but you -- and others like you -- won't understand that business practice.

Some people can't get used to the idea that cars have software that can be updated and pushing the latest hardware out asap, even when the software (and its updates) will follow, further enabling, refining and tweaking, is better than holding the hardware until the software is fully baked. By getting the hardware out early in the long run more cars will have the best hardware and software combination.

All cars produced from Oct 2014 to October 2015 have the AP hardware. But the software wasn't there until ~ nov 2015. But by getting the hardware out early, those cars now have the benefit of AP1. It took a while, but that was a better business decision. That makes sense.

But some people will just never get it. So you, and those others like you would be better off in something else. Probably something that comes out in model years, with hardware technology that is years old.

 

[Economite]

It's not bad business practice. It is just different. It makes sense to me. and others. but you -- and others like you -- won't understand that business practice.

Some people can't get used to the idea that cars have software that can be updated and pushing the latest hardware out asap, even when the software (and its updates) will follow, further enabling, refining and tweaking, is better than holding the hardware until the software is fully baked. By getting the hardware out early in the long run more cars will have the best hardware and software combination.

All cars produced from Oct 2014 to October 2015 have the AP hardware. But the software wasn't there until ~ nov 2015. But by getting the hardware out early, those cars now have the benefit of AP1. It took a while, but that was a better business decision. That makes sense.

But some people will just never get it. So you, and those others like you would be better off in something else. Probably something that comes out in model years, with hardware technology that is years old.

The problem for me, and the point where a line is crossed, is when the company starts selling its product based not on what the product can actually do at the time you purchase it, but based on vague and unenforceable promises of what the hardware will supposedly be able to do in the future.

 

[bhzmark]

The problem for me, and the point where a line is crossed, is when the company starts selling its product based not on what the product can actually do at the time you purchase it, but based on vague and unenforceable promises of what the hardware will supposedly be able to do in the future.

Yep. That's a problem for you.

My car is faster and better and has more functionality than when I got it. A source of delight and glee for me. Half full/half empty.

Maybe you'd be better off in a CPO or at least older inventory so as to not be tortured by the vagaries of the bleeding edge.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The problem for me, and the point where a line is crossed, is when the company starts selling its product based not on what the product can actually do at the time you purchase it, but based on vague and unenforceable promises of what the hardware will supposedly be able to do in the future.

Well that's your standard, in which case you are better off buying another brand, not opting for the option with the promised feature, or waiting until the actual features are released until buying the entire car itself.

Others are fine with this scheme and would rather have the hardware first and also know what kind of capabilities they can eventually expect. I think the biggest beef people have had is actually when Tesla does promise (or say they "expect") a timeline and then doesn't make it. If Tesla isn't sure it can release at a certain time, it's better not to promise any timeline at all.

This kind of scheme is common in phones nowadays. They sell based on promises of upgradeability to later versions. They used to also give some promised dates, but that practice changed when lawyers determined it would introduce liability when those dates are missed (so now there is no promised dates). However, the ability to upgrade to a later version is still a huge marketing point and significant to consumers in their purchasing decisions.

 

[McRat]

General Motors ignition switch recalls - Wikipedia

Wiki is written by the public. How much of the content of that Wiki article was written by those who were paid by lawyers involved in the suit? Normally such articles are often written by legal aids to promote their firm and settlements.

Here's what the problem was, minus the hype:

On all cars, when 12v power is cut, the airbags will not go off. This is a safety feature.

On all key style cars, if you hang enough weight off the key and shake the vehicle violently, the switch will rotate. The fact the switch can be rotated to the OFF position while moving is a design feature on all cars, so you can turn off the engine in case of emergencies such as engine stuck at WOT, or fire.

GM's new switch design had a lower rotational torque than the previous switches. While the key itself could not rotate to OFF by violent agitation, the amount of weight added to key to get it to rotate was now lower. So the incidents of GM cars where the switch rotated to OFF while moving was higher than many other cars. All key style cars can do it with enough weight though.

Note: It is unknown if all 124 deaths would have avoided with higher rotation torque settings. If an airbag did not deploy due to the ignition being off and there was a death, it was assumed in that the death was caused by the lack of airbag deployment, but obviously cannot be proven.

 

[Economite]

Well that's your standard, in which case you are better off buying another brand, not opting for the option with the promised feature, or waiting until the actual features are released until buying the entire car itself.

My other problem is that I believe that these practices permit/encourage Tesla to release half-baked/not safe features on the theory that they can always be fixed in software later.

I don't particularly want to be sharing the road with folks who are (knowingly or unknowingly) serving as beta testers for products that only kind of work.

 

[McRat]

...
This kind of scheme is common in phones nowadays. They sell based on promises of upgradeability to later versions. ...

Really? All the advertised features on my iPhones worked right away. My Android (Dell Streak) was no different.