This was the selling point for purchasing FSD ( not beta) before it ever existed. Statements like The cost FSD with robotaxi capability will continue to go up likely to the $100K range and the vehicle had all the equipment required to operate as a robotaxi. Early on there was no mention of levels, so they are not appropriate here. There was the commitment that the FSD investment would guarantee a robotaxi capable vehicle. In hindsight this was gross over commitment, however it is the commitment that FSD was ( maybe not now) sold under.
-
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
Just because HW4 is unlikely to be retrofit, doesn’t mean HW4.1, or HW5 or HW9.3 couldn’t be retrofit.
The reason HW4 is a different form factor is likely that HW4 is a form factor on which future HWx could be built: integrated, larger and easier to cool.
Chips get more powerful per watt every cycle of die shrink and gate size reduction. If Tesla wanted to, they could build a more powerful HW3.1 that would fit in legacy cars (or build two since S/X and 3/Y differ).
Why will they not do this? Because their first goal will be to make FSD work, and Tesla throwing better and more cameras and more processing power makes it more likely to work.
Now Tesla May decide it is better to refund, allow transfer or fight early FSD buyers, than to make their cars work. But maybe it could make the current cameras work with future HWx if it wanted. Or more likely retrofit the current cameras to work with future HWx on our old cars. Heck, there is even a very slim chance that the current hardware will be enough, once several years of new hardware has been thrown at the problem amd the software optimized.
What will happen? I dont think that Musk is going to stop over promising anytime soon and I don’t think people’s impatient nature is going to change. Lawyers aren’t getting less litigious, and the total value of unfulfilled FSD continues to grow. Should be interesting.
The reason HW4 is a different form factor is likely that HW4 is a form factor on which future HWx could be built: integrated, larger and easier to cool.
Chips get more powerful per watt every cycle of die shrink and gate size reduction. If Tesla wanted to, they could build a more powerful HW3.1 that would fit in legacy cars (or build two since S/X and 3/Y differ).
Why will they not do this? Because their first goal will be to make FSD work, and Tesla throwing better and more cameras and more processing power makes it more likely to work.
Now Tesla May decide it is better to refund, allow transfer or fight early FSD buyers, than to make their cars work. But maybe it could make the current cameras work with future HWx if it wanted. Or more likely retrofit the current cameras to work with future HWx on our old cars. Heck, there is even a very slim chance that the current hardware will be enough, once several years of new hardware has been thrown at the problem amd the software optimized.
What will happen? I dont think that Musk is going to stop over promising anytime soon and I don’t think people’s impatient nature is going to change. Lawyers aren’t getting less litigious, and the total value of unfulfilled FSD continues to grow. Should be interesting.
Tesla makes their own chips and writes the software to run on them, so nobody is going to build a plug and play replacement.
But since Hughes put AP1 in a non AP car, and he likely could put AP2 in an AP1 car if he wanted to, you can bet he and others could put the new HW4 in HW3 cars, pull a little more power for them and even figure out how to hack liquid cooling into the older air cooled S/X. If they wanted to.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
All I want is a one time transfer .... FSD is what keeps me from upgrading (though just keeping the '18 3 for my kids when they are old enough to drive in 5 years is enticing).
I don’t understand the argument of “HW3 is good enough so we won’t upgrade anyone to HW4.”
If it’s good enough, then why even release HW4? Or is this one of those we’ll tell you it’s good enough to not waste our money on putting HW4 into HW3 cars because FSD probably won’t run on HW4 either, but we’ll collect more “data”?
If it’s good enough, then why even release HW4? Or is this one of those we’ll tell you it’s good enough to not waste our money on putting HW4 into HW3 cars because FSD probably won’t run on HW4 either, but we’ll collect more “data”?
Smells like the “console quality gaming” in all refresh S/X scam all over again…. The hack has yet to address the issue and is just letting all the 2021 to 2022 refresh owners take a big fat L with their crapshoot infotainment computer that can’t run Steam.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Because Tesla's always improving their parts? For example currently there is no difference in the actual functionality between the Intel and Ryzen Model 3/Y (only some performance improvement), but Tesla still switched cars over. Basically the idea is both will do the same baseline functionality, but the newer hardware gives more on top.
Basically there will always be new hardware coming regardless of the capabilities of the old (HW4 is guaranteed to be outdated in the future).
Another example of you want to look at autonomous cars, both the gen 4 and gen 5 Waymo are level 4 systems, just because the gen 5 is better doesn't change that.
Clearly Musk has long (grossly) misused the term “Full Self Driving.” But I wonder what the not so fine print has said? As I read the current statement for the FSD option, it states what functions are gained over AP and EAP, but it’s not L4 or L5 by any means. It also notes “The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.” Furthermore it says “As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates“ - it does NOT say owners will get hardware upgrades. I understand why owners expect a lot more based on the term FSD, but was there anything written at any time that promised “L4/L5” or whatever owners believe their entitled to? I certainly don’t read the current FSD text as a promiss to provide actual full self driving.
I guess I’m the idiot for paying $10k for garbage software that’ll never be out of beta. Expensive lesson learned. Next car I’ll skip the FSD, at least until it’s released, then reevaluate whether it’s worth it.
I purchased a feature to be delivered in the future. If they can't deliver the feature with the hardware I have then they will have to make it work (by hardware upgrade if necessary) or they won't have delivered the feature and hence will be in breach of contract (to deliver the feature). Given the proximity of my purchase to the release of HW4 (and hence their knowledge of any shortcomings in HW3 which are addressed by HW4 and likely what follows after which is deep into development now) I would contend that selling me the feature and then refusing necessary upgrades to make it functional would be actual and material fraud from Tesla.
Regrading the L3/L4/L5 portion (and hence the meaning of product delivery), this is something that will likely be decided in court unless they deliver the moon such that most everyone who purchased FSD is satisfied.
Please give me the exact date when the future is so I will know that the day after the future has past that Tesla is in breach of contract?
Yeah, unfortunately that is likely to be decided by courts in the future unless Tesla makes alot of miraculous improvements in the near future (there is even a court case about it already)
Yeah, unfortunately that is likely to be decided by courts in the future unless Tesla makes alot of miraculous improvements in the near future (there is even a court case about it already)
I predict that in such a future scenario, the courts will agree with what I said before: the license is tied to the car, and the obvious expectation would be a delivery of the feature during the reasonable future life of that car. What's the reasonable life of a car for these purposes? The drivetrain warranty is a good reference point!
Tesla can plausibly argue they are diligently working on it and it is unrealistic to set a deadline on something that has NEVER been done before. Therefore as an unknowable possibility it is impossible to predict an accurate timeline to completion and all time estimations are based on aspirations. Since there is no standard or reference.
I generally agree with this; I'd also point out that Tesla's motor purchase agreement contains this text:
the "after the expiration of your Warranty" already ties software updates to the warranty period of the car.
Aristotle: Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The problem is what feature were you contracted for? In the recent order pages, the only remaining feature is Autosteer on City streets, a feature which Tesla told regulators is L2 and HW3 can deliver (given FSD Beta is essentially it).
If you ordered before 2019, there were more things promised than that, but you don't fall under that category if you bought in close proximity to HW4.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.Please give me the exact date when the future is so I will know that the day after the future has past that Tesla is in breach of contract?
In the absence of a specific delivery date, the Uniform Commercial Code, which most state likely follow, states that the seller has a 'reasonable' time period in which to deliver the contracted item.
How long is considered to be reasonable obvious depends on the complexity of the task required. Unless Tesla stops supporting the car with updates, it may take some litigation to determine this, so anyone suing for breach of contract should be prepared to make a compelling argument that the reasonable time has expired to develop the features that are claimed to be in breach. Finding good case law for similar complexity development efforts would be most useful to the claimant. Finding a good lawyer may be better.
Similar threads
- Question
