Tesla Turns Off AEB In New Cars Produced Since July

[Canuck]

comrade above, that safety features should be egalitarian

And this is how you get a level of innovation less than the auto industry outside of Tesla. No thanks. Who would any company invest in R&D for a feature that will (a) cost them R&D, (b) result in liability when it has any behaviors deemed by litigation to be unsafe, (c) cost them hardware and labor to install, and (d) will never result in revenue growth?

I think he was saying it tongue-in-cheek, given the words "comrade" and "egalitarian" in his post. But sarcasm doesn't always come across in print.

 

[u00mem9]

And this is how you get a level of innovation less than the auto industry outside of Tesla. No thanks.

Who would any company invest in R&D for a feature that will (a) cost them R&D, (b) result in liability when it has any behaviors deemed by litigation to be unsafe, (c) cost them hardware and labor to install, and (d) will never result in revenue growth?

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

 

[brianman]

I think he was saying it tongue-in-cheek, given the words "comrade" and "egalitarian" in his post. But sarcasm doesn't always come across in print.

Noted. Totally missed that. So many charged things in this thread, I think my "ignore the potential name-calling and labelling, focus on content" filter blinded me to it.

 

[brianman]

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

Lost me on that one.

A literal answer though: I've played before but got in a bad pattern that was physically painful with my swing -- that I just kept making worse when I tried to correct it. That was probably a decade ago; haven't gone back (yet?).

 

[SO16]

I’d reread the statement as it relates to the manufacturing of aircraft. Here it is again, note the emphasis on major issues and obvious issues.

Yeah right. Remind me not to fly your airline.

Don't worry. I won't ask you to.

And you don't know the "major issues" or "obvious issues" they are running into. To do no testing by Tesla would be absurd. But I highly doubt that's the case.

 

[SO16]

Thankfully the aircraft manufacturers don’t take that approach. Since our kids ride in these cars, I expect vehicle manufacturers to hold themselves to a similar standard.

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

List of aircraft structural failures - Wikipedia

Parked BMWs bursting into flames leave owners with questions

 

[brianman]

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

Thanks for the data, but this reads as a pretty good record from a manufacturing standpoint to me:

• 2016-05-19: under investigation
• 2015-10-31: bombing
• 2014-07-17: airliner shoot down
• 2008-05-30: wing failure
• 2007-01-01: pilot error
• 2005-12-19: maintenance
• 2003-02-01: faulty design
• 2002-05-25: faulty maintenance, metal fatigue
• 2002-04-30: undetected corrosion
• 2001-11-12: pilot error
• ...

Also... while zero is always a better number, 10 this century feels pretty small to me. Especially considering how many flights are in the air worldwide:
Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!

 

[SO16]

Thanks for the data, but this reads as a pretty good record from a manufacturing standpoint to me:

• 2016-05-19: under investigation
• 2015-10-31: bombing
• 2014-07-17: airliner shoot down
• 2008-05-30: wing failure
• 2007-01-01: pilot error
• 2005-12-19: maintenance
• 2003-02-01: faulty design
• 2002-05-25: faulty maintenance, metal fatigue
• 2002-04-30: undetected corrosion
• 2001-11-12: pilot error
• ...

Also... while zero is always a better number, 10 this century feels pretty small to me. Especially considering how many flights are in the air worldwide:
Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!

It is very good. But not perfect. Also, this list just shows complete destruction. Not the number of times a component of the aircraft failed and possibly replaced by the manufacturer due to a faulty design (of which we know nothing about). Big difference.

 

[somnambule]

I think, in agreement with my comrade above, that safety features should be egalitarian. Car companies should be forced to put in gratis any feature that increases the safety of passengers. For example, Tesla should not charge for EAP/FSD (when validated, wink-wink) as to charge for it is to say that the lives of poor(er) people are not worth as much.

Furthermore, lest we be put with our backs against the wall ourselves, if we are to criticize one thing with a price, we must criticize everything similar below that price or else people won't know that we are unbiased against the poor.

Sigh. I didn't say all vehicles should have the same features (even for safety). What I did say is that the failure of crucial components in a way that compromises safety is not acceptable at any price point. Those are very different things. Put another way, at least in my opinion, AEB being temporarily disabled on a $125K car is *not* worse than a $25k car stalling on the highway, or a $35k car catching fire, or a $45k car allowing carbon monoxide into the cabin.

But, on the positive side, witless sarcasm is a step up from ad hominem attacks.

 

[Canuck]

But, on the positive side, witless sarcasm is a step up from ad hominem attacks.

"Witless sarcasm" is an ad hominem attack.

 

[Economite]

Are you sure about the part in bold? Perhaps I'm cynical but I think every company gets away with what they can. Things like the VW diesel emissions scandal, GM ignition issues, Toyota engine sludge problems, Hyundai's over-stated fuel efficiency numbers etc. all reinforce my view. These were all issues the companies involved in all likelihood knew about for a long time but did not address or acknowledge until they had no other option. They all try to hide problems when they can for as long as they can. This is not unique to Tesla.

I think there is a big difference between what Tesla is doing with AEB and the examples you gave.

The Hyundai and VW examples weren't about safety. They were about companies defrauding fuel efficiency and emmissions standards. This sort of fraud is inexcusable and socially abhorrent. It hurts the environment and costs buyers money. But it doesn't cause physical injury/death. Also, note that both of these cases lead to massive fines. If you want to put Tesla's behavior into this same category, keep in mind that there are pretty extreme consequences to companies that engage in regulatory fraud and get caught.

The GM and Toyota examples were about recalls (as I recall). The companies designed their models, did the usual testing, but missed problems. In GM's case, the problem was pretty esoteric-- they didn't catch how the ignition might occasionally react to very heavy key chains. In Toyota's they missed a problem that occurs only occasionally, and then only after the car has been in use for a pretty extended period of time. These are the kind of defects that will sometimes make it through even a good testing regime.

What GM and Toyota did wrong was that they failed to quickly recall the cars once the problem became apparent. I agree with you that all manufacturers have a tendency to do this, since recalls are very expensive and there is always an internal debate about whether the costs of not doing a recall (basically anticipated lawsuits) is higher than the cost of a recall.

Tesla (with AEB) seems to be doing something different. It seems to be assuming that because it can do over-the-air updates at little cost, there is less reason to do extensive testing before releasing the product. That's new. And I don't think it's a trend we want to infect the industry as a whole. I want my car to be well-tested before I buy it. And I don't want to be sharing the road with cars that have been tested in a haphazard way because their manufacture figured they could just use consumers to test the safety critical features on the roads.

 

[somnambule]

"Witless sarcasm" is an ad hominem attack.

Only if the post is the person. Otherwise, it's just a description of the post.

 

[somnambule]

I think there is a big difference between what Tesla is doing with AEB and the examples you gave.

The Hyundai and VW examples weren't about safety. They were about companies defrauding fuel efficiency and emmissions standards. This sort of fraud is inexcusable and socially abhorrent. It hurts the environment and costs buyers money. But it doesn't cause physical injury/death. Also, note that both of these cases lead to massive fines. If you want to put Tesla's behavior into this same category, keep in mind that there are pretty extreme consequences to companies that engage in regulatory fraud and get caught.

The GM and Toyota examples were about recalls (as I recall). The companies designed their models, did the usual testing, but missed problems. In GM's case, the problem was pretty esoteric-- they didn't catch how the ignition might occasionally react to very heavy key chains. In Toyota's they missed a problem that occurs only occasionally, and then only after the car has been in use for a pretty extended period of time. These are the kind of defects that will sometimes make it through even a good testing regime.

What GM and Toyota did wrong was that they failed to quickly recall the cars once the problem became apparent. I agree with you that all manufacturers have a tendency to do this, since recalls are very expensive and there is always an internal debate about whether the costs of not doing a recall (basically anticipated lawsuits) is higher than the cost of a recall.

Tesla (with AEB) seems to be doing something different. It seems to be assuming that because it can do over-the-air updates at little cost, there is less reason to do extensive testing before releasing the product. That's new. And I don't think it's a trend we want to infect the industry as a whole. I want my car to be well-tested before I buy it. And I don't want to be sharing the road with cars that have been tested in a haphazard way because their manufacture figured they could just use consumers to test the safety critical features on the roads.

Sorry, I wasn't clear there. The examples I was referring to were the ones in my earlier post that started this whole tangent when @Swift suggested those examples were immaterial as they were on cheaper vehicles. Those are recent, real safety issues in vehicles from mainstream manufacturers that show these issues aren't unique to Tesla.

Copying from the earlier post for ease here:
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)

 

[Canuck]

Only if the post is the person. Otherwise, it's just a description of the post.

Now that's some strange logic. The post is not the person? Do you also differentiate speech from a person?

"No sir, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. I was attacking his speech when I called him a 'dirty jack wagon', not his person."

Okay, got it now.

 

[Economite]

Sorry, I wasn't clear there. The examples I was referring to were the ones in my earlier post that started this whole tangent when @Swift suggested those examples were immaterial as they were on cheaper vehicles. Those are recent, real safety issues in vehicles from mainstream manufacturers that show these issues aren't unique to Tesla.

Copying from the earlier post for ease here:
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 don't have the time (or really the expertise) to look into each of those examples. To be honest, I don't know that there is that much disagreement between you and I.

I don't disagree that design defects occur in all cars, and that recalls do happen. I'll note, however, that none of those examples seem to be related to poorly tested software, or to the practice of selling cars with promises of features that don't yet exist, but will theoretically be delivered over time via software updates.

I'm not sure of what you (or Swift) were/are saying about cheaper vehicles vs. more expensive vehicles (and don't have time to hunt for the posts about that). From my point of view, the obligation to properly test features before selling them is the same for the manufacturer of any vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's price. A defect/risk is equally troubling whether it is in an inexpensive or pricy car. An inexpensive car might have less features than a pricy car, but each of those features needs to be safe and to work as advertised.

Doubtless complying with this standard will be more expensive (on a per vehicle basis) for a small-volume manufacturer like Tesla than for a larger volume manufacturer like GM or Toyota. GM and Toyota have more sales to spread the costs over. But we can't have one standard for small manufacturers and another for larger manufacturers. Unsafe cars don't just endanger their drivers. they also endanger everyone else on the road.

Some folks here (not necessarily you) seem to think that Tesla should get a pass, either because they trust Elon or because they see Tesla as "disruptive." But if Tesla gets a pass, then so will lots of other manufacturers. And the Tesla drivers won't be happy sharing the road with cars that are made to lower standards but don't happen to be made by a company led by Elon or someone they personally perceive as visionary.

 

[somnambule]

Now that's some strange logic. The post is not the person? Do you also differentiate speech from a person?

"No sir, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. I was attacking his speech when I called him a 'dirty jack wagon', not his person."

Okay, got it now.

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.

 

[alehbaba]

I drive cars with AEB every day. How do they work? Mine go through 3 stages.

1) WARNING phase, not subtle. LED, audible, HUD, seat vibration, etc. You know. Car does not slow.
2) Enhanced brake boost. People with weak legs will be able to go 100% brakes. Car does not slow. IIRC, the brake lights come on.
3) The car SLAMS on the brakes at 100% peak effort, the car shudders >100 times a second from ABS pulse. Can stop the car before it hits the object at most legal speeds. Can be augmented with long range thermal imaging, but always uses visible light camera. High speed needs radar, long range needs thermal imaging.

At ANY point of this cycle I can hit the accelerator and override it. False positives never get past Level 1 in my experience. But they aren't really 'false' they are potential. I've never seen a shadow, railroad Xing, etc, trip Level 1, only cars, bicycles, pedestrians, and plants. Works in reverse too.

Simple demo of AEB system, I had to brace myself hard in the back seat to shoot it:

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.

2:29 forward

 

[somnambule]

I don't have the time (or really the expertise) to look into each of those examples. To be honest, I don't know that there is that much disagreement between you and I.

I don't disagree that design defects occur in all cars, and that recalls do happen. I'll note, however, that none of those examples seem to be related to poorly tested software, or to the practice of selling cars with promises of features that don't yet exist, but will theoretically be delivered over time via software updates.

I'm not sure of what you (or Swift) were/are saying about cheaper vehicles vs. more expensive vehicles (and don't have time to hunt for the posts about that). From my point of view, the obligation to properly test features before selling them is the same for the manufacturer of any vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's price. A defect/risk is equally troubling whether it is in an inexpensive or pricy car. An inexpensive car might have less features than a pricy car, but each of those features needs to be safe and to work as advertised.

Doubtless complying with this standard will be more expensive (on a per vehicle basis) for a small-volume manufacturer like Tesla than for a larger volume manufacturer like GM or Toyota. GM and Toyota have more sales to spread the costs over. But we can't have one standard for small manufacturers and another for larger manufacturers. Unsafe cars don't just endanger their drivers. they also endanger everyone else on the road.

Some folks here (not necessarily you) seem to think that Tesla should get a pass, either because they trust Elon or because they see Tesla as "disruptive." But if Tesla gets a pass, then so will lots of other manufacturers. And the Tesla drivers won't be happy sharing the road with cars that are made to lower standards but don't happen to be made by a company led by Elon or someone they personally perceive as visionary.

I don't think we disagree at all. I don't agree with Tesla's approach here nor do I think the people who are upset with the handling of AEB in this case are being unreasonable. What I disagree with is the notion that Tesla is the only company that releases products that have issues. That's what I was trying to convey with my examples. Everyone's products have issues that slip through QA. This isn't unique to Tesla.

 

[Canuck]

The Hyundai and VW examples weren't about safety. They were about companies defrauding fuel efficiency and emmissions standards. This sort of fraud is inexcusable and socially abhorrent. It hurts the environment and costs buyers money. But it doesn't cause physical injury/death.

It hurts the environment but not us? But no AEB hurts us? Seriously? Having no AEB can never even come close to causing the "physical/injury death" that VW is and will continue to cause, with their excess emissions that were fraudulently shown as lower in order to intentionally fool regulators.

I also think scientists might disagree that intentionally fooling emission standards doesn't cause physical injury/death. The last time I checked pollution caused physical damage to cells in the respiratory system among many other physical injuries and the more pollution the more damage to cells.

I don't think many people remember LA's smog of the 70's and the reason emissions standard were brought into existence in the first place or we wouldn't see comments like this. I guess a lot of people here weren't even alive in those days. Air pollution is toxic and the more of it the worst the physical damage that is being done and it can even lead to death. That's why congress passed the landmark Clean Air Act in 1970 and gave the newly-formed EPA the legal authority to regulate pollution from cars and other forms of transportation. But take a trip to third world countries, like Bangkok, where my lungs were sore after only one day on the streets and you might have a different view of the damage that excess pollution can cause.

What I disagree with is the notion that Tesla is the only company that releases products that have issues. That's what I was trying to convey with my examples. Everyone's products have issues that slip through QA. This isn't unique to Tesla.

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.

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.

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?

Otherwise, what's the point of these forums?

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

 

[Economite]

It hurts the environment but not us? But no AEB hurts us? Seriously? Having no AEB can never even come close to causing the "physical/injury death" that VW is and will continue to cause, with their excess emissions that were fraudulently shown as lower in order to intentionally fool regulators.

I also think scientists might disagree that intentionally fooling emission standards doesn't cause physical injury/death. The last time I checked pollution caused physical damage to cells in the respiratory system among many other physical injuries and the more pollution the more damage to cells.

I don't think many people remember LA's smog of the 70's and the reason emissions standard were brought into existence in the first place or we wouldn't see comments like this. I guess a lot of people here weren't even alive in those days. Air pollution is toxic and the more of it the worst the physical damage that is being done and it can even lead to death. That's why congress passed the landmark Clean Air Act in 1970 and gave the newly-formed EPA the legal authority to regulate pollution from cars and other forms of transportation. But take a trip to third world countries, like Bangkok, where my lungs were sore after only one day on the streets and you might have a different view of the damage that excess pollution can cause.

I'm not in any way defending what VW or Hyundai did. As I said: "This sort of fraud is inexcusable and socially abhorrent. It hurts the environment and costs buyers money." They were fined heavily and deserved to be fined heavily.

All I'm saying is that if I buy a car with AEB, but Tesla takes away the AEB, that car is less safe than what I was promised when I bought the car. Tesla's action has caused a specific risk of personal injury to me, people using my car, and (potentially) others on the road.

Someone who bought a VW diesel that didn't meet emission standards got personally defrauded by VW in the sense that VW didn't deliver a car that performed as VW had promised. But the emissions system didn't put the VW owner at any special personal risk of physical injury. The environmental damage from the emissions (and any resulting health effects) were borne by the public as a whole. This was an injustice caused by VW, and from a societal point of view a much larger injustice than the Tesla AEB situation. But it's an entirely different kind of harm.