Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Yeah he’s not admitting anything. It’s completely consistent with everything he said before and standard AV industry practices. Everyone has a steering wheel while the software is in development.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
There will be NO HW4 upgrade for HW3 owners
- Thread starter macmee
- Start date
True. Prob another software update recall.
That being said no other car still has highway autopilot like Tesla.
Elon’s definition of L2-5 means doesn’t matter. He said the car will drive around like Uber and make you money when you are not using it. Clearly, it means you are not behind the wheel. It’s as clear as it gets. It doesn’t matter how the world defines L2,3,4,5..
And it doesn’t it matter if it’s HW 4,5 or 10.
Verbatim during 2019 autonomy day: he said that in 2019 that all cars produced today will be capable of that. That’s not an aspirational statement
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I guarantee Zoox tests their software on a vehicle with a steering wheel. Cruise is also building a robotaxi without a steering wheel. Elon confirmed that they could just remove the steering wheel of a Model 3 and install a cover once FSD is reliable enough.
I had forgot that he also said that remote assistance was possible. It seems like that would require a geofencing to areas with cellphone reception.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
He said he believes they had the hardware necessary to eventually do whatever he claims (which does not necessarily match what you say as he put plenty of qualifiers), but he was clear a driver needed to be on the driver's seat to take over (see the part I was discussing with others upthread) and there's still a lot of software/regulatory work needed to work beyond that. That definitely is an aspirational, forward looking statement, given the software wasn't there yet when he made the statement.
It would be a different story if he said every car you bought that day you could already have it running without a driver in the seat off the lot. That clearly is not the case.
From your own example of Trevor Milton, he got in trouble because he lied about the current state of his prototypes (that they were already fully functional and could move under its own power), that the Badger was already at advanced stages of development when he only had sketches, that he was already producing hydrogen at reduced cost, he already had in-house EV batteries, he had many binding orders for his trucks, etc. None of these were forward looking statements, they were false statements made about the current state of the company.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
But I'm not talking about money here.very true - but nobody on that list is selling a product for $15k
Some have delivered less capable systems for a great deal less, but those don't have the word "Beta" tagged on at the end either
LiamPope
Member
My sentiment exactly. I will probably keep EAP wrapped up in my loan since will use that more regularly (and it's a much smaller pill to swallow) and pay for fsd sub if/when i decide it's "worth it" at the $99/mo. i can def see the argument you're making to just purchase no EAP/FSD w/loan, but i can convince myself EAP "works"
Remember 60% of EAP features are currently disabled on a new car with no timeline for a solution which may or may not work anyway! OK the most useful driving features are still there, but is EAP currently 'worth it'? Well that's up to you!
Only problem is, that Tesla doesn't have a fix for recall problems. If it had, it would already have done it.
Problems described in the recall have been on the FSD since the day one
DanCar
Active Member
Lie: no vehicle is being recalled because of this issue.
DanCar
Active Member
Thanks, I clarified the context in the original message.
jombolo
Member
This was my exact sentiment.
The only thing I can think is that v11 fixes the majority of these situations? And this is the update they are referring to?
That's the boat I'm in. And I don't even have the EAP features they killed due to no USS. As soon as newer MYs come out with the features I don't have, but was promised, my lawyer will be writing to them.
Ideally, but unlikely. Doesn't stop me from filling for it though. Let the judge decide.
Sure, but they'll have to do that one at a time, and their lawyers cost more than ours. If they want to show up to small claims courts around the world, they're more than welcome. Even in arbitration, we're taking about hundreds of thousands of cases on their dime and time. It's going to cost them just to process the unrest.
Well, some didn't even get EAP features. Just ask for the most, and let the arbiter or judge decide.
This sounds like when what’s her face said “we have alternative…facts.” Lol
at “Elons definition doesn’t match THE INDUSTRYS DEFINITION”Phanboys go to ANY EXTREME to defend Elon. Lol!
Last edited:
Indeed, but that is a MUCH higher mountain to climb, which was my point in several posts in this thread. If you have a legal document that says something, then the only legal finesse you have is in the interpretation of the language (itself fraught with peril, see Rogers Victory in the Comma Case - Adams on Contract Drafting). If you are arguing from culpability you have to argue intent, which is incredibly hard to do.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well it's a fact that these terms are in flux and very few people understand the SAE J3016 document (which itself have been revised a couple of times already). I have been in plenty of discussions where people argue about what category a car falls into and they don't know what they are talking about in regards to SAE levels. If you look at how Elon describes "feature complete self-driving" it matches SAE L2 (albeit door-to-door) given he explicitly says the driver still needs to pay attention under his definition.This sounds like when what’s her face said “we have alternative…facts.” Lol
Phanboys go to ANY EXTREME to defend Elon. Lol!
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
”The level of driving automation system feature corresponds to the feature’s production design intent ... As such, it is incorrect to classify a level 4 design-intended ADS feature equipped on a test vehicle as level 2 simply because on-road testing requires a test driver to supervise the feature while engaged, and to intervene if necessary to maintain safe operation.” - SAE J3016
I will die on this hill. Haha
DarkForest
10.69 made me a shill
Nah, that isn’t true.
Watch the Tesla Autonomy Day from April 2019 at 3:31:44.
And the whole “my L5 isn’t your L5” is just some alternative facts business right there. Stop moving the goal posts.
I understand the challenge. I litigate for a living.
Yes, having a written agreement signed by Elon Musk with blah blah blah written in all caps is ideal (no argument there!), but it's not the end all be all and "intent" isn't always a difficult climb.
Regardless, I hope its a bridge that none of us ever have to cross. Time will tell.
Similar threads
- Question
