stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing having AEB is not safer than not having it. I think the OP was just responding to your point that not having AEB might mean a fatal accident.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Yes, and about 8 million cars in the US have airbags that could malfunction and shoot shrapnel into passengers when they inflate.
But that's just shrapnel. No AEB is much much, much worse. I'd rather have shards in my face than have to brake myself. Also, let's not forget that this is now a Tesla bashing "sky is falling" forum, so let's get back to it...
Right. It's patently obvious...
Tesla’s Model S outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US
Look what happened to Apple when Steve Jobs was told to go. We need that to happen to Tesla!
There are bad airbags, therefore Tesla should be able to screw up AEB and be deceptive in how they market it. Great argument, eh.
Ooh! I'll buy a NeXTla!
That would be hot if I were in high school and I had a college girlfriend that owned a Tesla (or any nice car) to take me around so I could avoid the school bus. Can't blame this guy for being obsessed!
PJFW8
Red Menace may hurt me
why is that better than selling the hardware sooner so that more people have the newer hardware.
if you are uncomfortable with hardware releases prior to software updates that enable the hardware you should probably buy a Toyota or Cadillac etc. I bought a 2014 car with hardware that was not enabled at all until q4 2015 and is still being refined. I benefited from tesla shipping the hardware before the software was ready. people who don't like that probably shouldn't buy a Tesla.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Perhaps since they designed shadow mode operation for AP 2.0 they are just taking advantage of it.
I should say the difference between hardware releases and software releases is that for hardware they can't really rely on their Early Access Program participants to do the beta testing.
It's obvious why. The 2.0 hardware was inadequate for autopilot.
Kant.Ing
Member
Looks like they really want to try a different radar to help those eight cameras for AP. smh
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
If you said FSD maybe that would have been somewhat plausible, but for HW1 they were able to do AP with the same radar and only one camera, so not seeing how it's possible for HW2 to not be enough for AP.
I somewhat agree with you, but not having examined mobileye technology, I'm not sure if there was any proprietary hardware. I think we can agree that they didn't just do it for the hell of it or because they enjoy spending more money on hardware.
somnambule
Member
Would it?
Just from recent news:
1. Some Chevy Bolts apparently have faulty cells that can completely disable the car without warning (link)
2. Ford Explorers apparently allow carbon monoxide to enter the cabins (link)
3. Honda Accords are apparently catching fire due to faulty battery sensors (link)
4. Toyota Tacomas are apparently stalling (link)
5. Hyundais and Kias apparently have engines that can fail while driving (link)
I would argue these are all far more serious than a planned, temporary disabling of AEB and, yet, none are generating the sort of catastrophic customer reactions you seem to suggest would ensue.
The reality is that people realize that anyone's products can have faults and may, at times need to be fixed.
I totally agree with you. Problems can't be avoided and if something doesn't work, you need to recall it and fix it.
IMO Tesla should disable AP completely and then try to really fix it. Shadow braking, following tar lines etc. that's not really acceptable in a feature that is used by untrained drivers. They can still use shadow mode to improve AP. But they need to make sure that it doesn't cause accidents.
And then add in the features that are tested and really work. If some fault is detected again, then take it back again. IMO they did the right thing with recalling AEB, now do the same thing for EAP.
I'm not arguing for Elon Musk leaving Tesla (the downsides of the PR loss could outweigh any operational gains for one), so consider this just as musings of someone interested in technology history:
Arguably Steve Jobs grew a lot in those years apart and has cited it has his most creative period. It may be, in the end (in the long run), it was better for Apple (and for Steve) he was away. Hard to say what the alternative scenario would have looked like exactly.
Jobs wasn’t running 3 other companies and running around banging models. And when Jobs went on stage and gave a date and a set of functionality, he delivered. There was no EAP-like bs in his playbook. I’d take Jobs any day ronrun Tesla. I wish Apple would make an EV.
I guess some would welcome Tesla using the same recall method for such things. Not necessarily recall to a service center in that sense, but issuing recall bulletins on issues. Instead, Tesla prefers to take rather ambiguous ways out of things they can do with software - perhaps not in this instance, but overall.
Issuing a formal notice of an issue and a remedy plan, that would be perfectly good in my book. Maybe they could start with whatever is wrong with AP2's steering and ghost braking.
They’re also all a lot cheaper than a Tesla.
mmd
Active Member
A RECALL also means that the manufacturer has a solution for the defect. It is bad for the manufacturer (costs money), but good for the consumer.
I'd think, Tesla owners will appreciate a recall for DU failures, or AP2 issues, because it would mean Tesla has found a solution to the problem.
I'd think, Tesla owners will appreciate a recall for DU failures, or AP2 issues, because it would mean Tesla has found a solution to the problem.
Similar threads
- Article
