JRP3
Hyperactive Member
What part concerns you? It just confirms the driver was not paying attention, even after warnings.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Based on that NTSB description, veteran users of AP will understand exactly what happened:
1. Model X was following a lead car.
2. That lead car was in the "non-travel lane", finally realized their mistake, and moved over at 7 seconds prior to the crash. That's why the steering begin to shift left--it was trying to follow the lead car, but saw the lane markings and then stopped following the lead car.
3. Model X then sped up to driver's set speed as it wasn't following a lead car anymore.
4. When a lead car changes lanes, AP can take a little extra time for the radar to lock on a new target (and stationary targets will be disregarded). That's a time where the driver needs to be paying extra-close attention. Same issue with the firetruck. AP following a car, car changes lanes, AP car runs into firetruck.
Recommendations:
1. Driver must stay engaged.
2. Tesla should work on rapid acquisition of stationary objects in radar's path of travel.
3. CalTran needs to update their road markings and improve signage/safety in that area.
Note that this scenario (lead car changes lanes to reveal a hazard) is explicitly covered in the manual. While Tesla should work on it, I wouldn't be too concerned about restrictive action. He who follows not the manual may experience negative results.
Case closed.
This is the second time I've closed an NTSB Autopilot investigation early for them. I think they need to start paying me.
1. Model X was following a lead car.
2. That lead car was in the "non-travel lane", finally realized their mistake, and moved over at 7 seconds prior to the crash. That's why the steering begin to shift left--it was trying to follow the lead car, but saw the lane markings and then stopped following the lead car.
3. Model X then sped up to driver's set speed as it wasn't following a lead car anymore.
4. When a lead car changes lanes, AP can take a little extra time for the radar to lock on a new target (and stationary targets will be disregarded). That's a time where the driver needs to be paying extra-close attention. Same issue with the firetruck. AP following a car, car changes lanes, AP car runs into firetruck.
Recommendations:
1. Driver must stay engaged.
2. Tesla should work on rapid acquisition of stationary objects in radar's path of travel.
3. CalTran needs to update their road markings and improve signage/safety in that area.
Note that this scenario (lead car changes lanes to reveal a hazard) is explicitly covered in the manual. While Tesla should work on it, I wouldn't be too concerned about restrictive action. He who follows not the manual may experience negative results.
Case closed.
This is the second time I've closed an NTSB Autopilot investigation early for them. I think they need to start paying me.
Last edited:
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Regarding NTSB report, please go directly to the report (thx to @JRP3's post), instead of give clicks to SA.
The report basically stated all the facts that are already known. At the end of the report it says:
Probable Cause
The information in this preliminary report is subject to change and may contain errors.
It will be supplemented or corrected during the course of the investigation.
No determination of probable cause is included in this preliminary report.
The report basically stated all the facts that are already known. At the end of the report it says:
Probable Cause
The information in this preliminary report is subject to change and may contain errors.
It will be supplemented or corrected during the course of the investigation.
No determination of probable cause is included in this preliminary report.
for that scenerio, read "Autofac" or watch the video treatment on Amazon Prime "Electric dreams" (things go sideways)
Words of HABIT
Active Member
Hey, enough already. Take your vegan talk to the other thread.
Anyone have weekly calls this week?
I was buying them a few weeks back, at the 300 dollar call strike. Thinking was, make a few bucks hovering between 280-300. After a few weeks though, I stopped as was losing money. As the 'shareholder' meeting has really never caused a pop in the stock since I have been following, I had no weeklies this week, and presumed as in years past, it would be a 'non-event'.
I was buying them a few weeks back, at the 300 dollar call strike. Thinking was, make a few bucks hovering between 280-300. After a few weeks though, I stopped as was losing money. As the 'shareholder' meeting has really never caused a pop in the stock since I have been following, I had no weeklies this week, and presumed as in years past, it would be a 'non-event'.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
At that price I'd be happy to sell 10 to 15 shares. A Model 3 for my wife and each my kids, a Model X for me, etc. My goal has been to sell no more than 200 shares in the next 5 years, and I'm going to have to sell half that just to cover RMD.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Surprised we are so volatile in both directions today, and that for a moment there we gave up all of the morning's goodies. Could be:
1. Profit-taking.
2. New short positions.
3. All we see for now until 5000/wk is confirmed.
If (3), we should see another runup with confirmation of production rate.
Q2 call will cause another runup as it adds credence to profitability and production rate.
Profit/cash flow confirmation at end of Q3 will cause another runup.
Continued improvements to cash/income at end of Q4 will cause another runup.
1. Profit-taking.
2. New short positions.
3. All we see for now until 5000/wk is confirmed.
If (3), we should see another runup with confirmation of production rate.
Q2 call will cause another runup as it adds credence to profitability and production rate.
Profit/cash flow confirmation at end of Q3 will cause another runup.
Continued improvements to cash/income at end of Q4 will cause another runup.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Without giving back a significant chunk of yesterday's gains, shorts will still need to cover. Doesn't look to me like profit-taking is going to get these guys back below $320.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
Taking a required minimum distribution doesn't require selling. Please don't spread bad information. We get enough of that from the FUDsters.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
I don't have enough cash in my IRA to cover without that. If the cash I take out is more than I need, I put some of it back into TSLA in my TDAmeritrade account.
I have an IRA with 100% TSLA, how can I RMD without selling any?
You should be able to transfer some of the shares to your taxable account as your distribution. (Obviously you would need other money to pay the taxes due, if any.)
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T055-C000-S004-shift-stock-to-satisfy-your-rmd.html
http://figuide.com/does-your-required-minimum-distribution-have-to-be-in-cash.html
Note: I'm not sure every broker allows/supports that.
Last edited:
Ah, basically the same as selling from the IRA and buying in the other account... (without risk of market movement)
Now, if I had a Tesla on order, I could do the IRA to Roth net tax free swap...
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Wow, $8 swing up and down today. Looks like it's going to be a rollercoaster ride. Strap in and hold on!
Dan
Dan
I expected this year's shareholder meeting to give the stock a nice boost. Therefore I uncharacteristically bought June 8 TSLA 295 calls on Tuesday afternoon. Still have them. About 40 minutes ago @option_snipper bought this week's TSLA 320 calls and next week's 330 calls.
Last edited:
If you sell them don't you have to wait a couple days for the trades to settle before the cash can be transferred? Which puts the risk of market movement fairly high. You, also, save the trading fees, if you have them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
