Want to return new Tesla

[HankLloydRight]

I totally agree with this. This speed nanny hit me once as I was just passing a car in front of me that slowed down... so I jammed the pedal to pass for just an instant over 90.. bam, thrown in AP jail. I get disengaging if some rules are broken, but to totally shut down? It's insane.

 

[Electroman]

"totally shutdown"
"ability to use AP taken away"
"cannot use AP again"
"AP disabled for the rest of the trip"

Come on guys enough of this exaggeration. Auto steer is not available until you put it in park. If it is that important you will find a way to get off the highway and enable it again. TACC is available all the time for infinite mph and is never disabled.

What is the funny is the vocal complainers are the ones who think AP is a killah, not trust worthy, but get offended when it is disabled temporarily caused by an infraction.

You can't have it both ways.

All ICE cars do not let me enter address info for GPS when the car is moving. Annoying. But I understand their rationale. They want to err on the side of caution.

 

[McRat]

Perhaps too late:

Florida has a law that puts a cooling off period on purchases that are not completed at a place of business, such as door-to-door sales.

Does that apply to cars? For how long?

Normally cars are not sold mail-order or at your home (internet), so you'd need to study the law or hire someone who has specific experience.

DO NOT assume a lawyer knows the laws of their state or will look them up correctly. They are under no obligation to do so. Find one who specifically has dealt with the issue before. Demand some sort of proof, because they can lie. Learned this the hard way twice.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

"totally shutdown"
"ability to use AP taken away"
"cannot use AP again"
"AP disabled for the rest of the trip"

Come on guys enough of this exaggeration. Auto steer is not available until you put it in park. If it is that important you will find a way to get off the highway and enable it again.

Yeah, I don't think it would really be that much of an inconvenience. In my old CR-V, there were a couple of times where my car was really cold when I continued a road trip in the morning and I was unable to engage cruise control. After about 20 minutes of driving, I just took an off ramp, turned the car off, turned it back on and got back on the highway and then cruise control worked again. If AP is ever disabled, one doesn't need to drive for hours and hundreds of miles before re-enabling it. It shouldn't take more than a minute or two to safely pull over (or off the highway) and put the car in Park. Problem solved!

 

[McRat]

Back to the side issue:

If a car detects the driver acts in dangerous manner to others, it should shut down for 1 hour.

The second time it shuts down for 24h.

Third it calls a towing company.

 

[Carl]

It's not a punishment for the driver acting dangerously, it's a punishment for not obeying some bizarre software programming.

If, e.g. on the Autobahn, I have AP on @ 150 km/h on the left lane and am overtaking someone and I see in my rear view mirror a motorcycle closing in on me, I will push the accelerator to finish my overtaking quickly to keep everyone happy. By hypothesis I am alert to traffic, otherwise I wouldn't be pushing the accelerator. AP disengages with a very audible alert? Very good, no problem with that. Me being "punished" until my next stop because I forgot to first disengage AP manually (which AP would do itself anyway)? Come on. That's simply badly coded; there is no safety, legal, ethical, logical or practical justification.

(and no, I won't pull over to the emergency lane to quickly put my car back into "P" - the emergency lane is a dangerous place to be and not intended for such manoeuvres - so if people end up doing that, than I would say Tesla's solution actually creates additional dangerous situations rather than avoiding them).

 

[McRat]

@u00mem9 - You dislike the idea that dangerous drivers should not be driving. Amazing. Pokemon/Facebook trumps the safety of others? Well, that's way it is today and it's increasing auto deaths since 2015. Why even have safety systems if people would rather ignore the task of driving in non-autonomous vehicles?

I'm not saying 100 mph is too dangerous in all situations. But driving at 100 mph and not watching the road is excessively dangerous in most situations due to current technical limits.

 

[D.E.]

Sell it to me!

PM me with the VIN and asking price.

Or maybe arrange to have the car stolen and make your insurance claim for theft. It's insured, right?

I'm fairly sure that's a felony.

 

[EnjoyingLife]

I want to return my 1 month old tesla too...then I want to get a white one with SAS and the Premium sound lol. Though I like my leather better than the vegan ones. So I guess I can't complaint too much lol

 

[u00mem9]

@u00mem9 - You dislike the idea that dangerous drivers should not be driving. Amazing. Pokemon/Facebook trumps the safety of others? Well, that's way it is today and it's increasing auto deaths since 2015. Why even have safety systems if people would rather ignore the task of driving in non-autonomous vehicles?

I'm not saying 100 mph is too dangerous in all situations. But driving at 100 mph and not watching the road is excessively dangerous in most situations due to current technical limits.

The system assumes a “dangerous driver” if you force it to exceed 90mph. I simply disagree with your conclusion that the criteria chosen is suitable for locking out further engagement of autopilot or any of the other penalties you have fantasized.

 

[mongo]

Alternative possibility (wild, unfounded, pay no attention to it, speculation): Something about current AP2 software is impacted by >90 MPH and requires zero speed data to reset. Long term, the issue would be corrected in software, but short term the easiest option is a lock out.

 

[Darren Donovan]

All ICE cars do not let me enter address info for GPS when the car is moving. Annoying. But I understand their rationale. They want to err on the side of caution.

Wrong.
Both our 2011 and 2017 Acura MDX allow addresses to be entered while the car is in motion. I usually drive, and my wife types in the destination address.

 

[McRat]

The system assumes a “dangerous driver” if you force it to exceed 90mph. I simply disagree with your conclusion that the criteria chosen is suitable for locking out further engagement of autopilot or any of the other penalties you have fantasized.

Personally, I avoid taking my eyes off the road. That is what auto-steering technology is often used for though.
The idea of texters driving at even 90 mph is not something I believe to be advantageous.
Currently, I can often spot non-autosteering texters. They behave very similar to drunk drivers, struggling to maintain lane position and speed control.

 

[u00mem9]

Personally, I avoid taking my eyes off the road. That is what auto-steering technology is often used for though.
The idea of texters driving at even 90 mph is not something I believe to be advantageous.
Currently, I can often spot non-autosteering texters. They behave very similar to drunk drivers, struggling to maintain lane position and speed control.

Fascinating. Any relevance to the discussion here?

 

[McRat]

Wrong.
Both our 2011 and 2017 Acura MDX allow addresses to be entered while the car is in motion. I usually drive, and my wife types in the destination address.

Our 2017 car recently was updated to stop you from typing in directions while driving. You must be stopped. Voice commanded addresses still work though. I can say the address at any speed.

 

[McRat]

Fascinating. Any relevance to the discussion here?

The thread topic branched off into speed limited autosteering being a reason to return a car.

 

[D.E.]

If he's driving at 85-90 MPH or more, there will be more wind and tire noise. That might explain his difficulty hearing the navigation instructions. Since navigation instructions are shown on the smaller screen under the steering wheel, the spoken instructions aren't really necessary. If one is traveling at 85-90, it seems he should be familiar with the road so perhaps the navigation instructions aren't truly necessary while traveling at that speed.

His range will be a lot less as well.

The car will go fast but it is designed and range rated for legal highway speeds. The Autopilot is a feature in beta testing. An operator can correct changes at normal highway speeds but human reaction time is pretty much fixed so will become relatively too slow at some faster speed. It is also reasonable that one would incur a stopping distance greater than the range of the car sensors at some point. It is reasonable that he autopilot is disabled at very high speeds. It isn't that the car won't go at high speed, Tesla just doesn't want Autopilot to be an active participant.

As far as the music goes, he can copy it to a thumb drive then play any song he wants. Mine will connect to my cell phone and play music through the car stereo but I need to select the songs through the phone interface using the car as a speaker system for the phone.

I can connect an iPod to the car through the Bluetooth, but then the phone cannot be connected.

The streaming service limits the free service so that is the reason he doesn't always get the song he wants. It also won't immediately replay the same song. He can subscribe to the service. This is not a shortcoming in the car.

If he buys a car in the future, he might spend an hour or two reading the manual before the purchase. Walking in, buying a car, then reading the manual isn't the best way to make an informed decision. He doesn't seem to understand that a car purchase isn't generally a reversible decision.

 

[bhzmark]

the punishment for taking AP over 90 makes sense. It is an extremely high risk scenario where the worst case can be catastrophic.

If someone got into a bad accident with AP engaged, but while they also had the accel down to get over 90, the news would only report "Tesla AP kills child at 95 mph."

Tesla needs to make people NEVER take their AP over 90. I'm surprised they let it go that fast. if you do you are punished. so you learn not to do it. Tesla thereby lowers the risk of the above headline very significantly.

so I jammed the pedal to pass for just an instant over 90.. bam, thrown in AP jail. I get disengaging if some rules are broken, but to totally shut down? It's insane.

it's a punishment for not obeying some bizarre software programming.

 

[Carl]

the punishment for taking AP over 90 makes sense. It is an extremely high risk scenario where the worst case can be catastrophic.

If someone got into a bad accident with AP engaged, but while they also had the accel down to get over 90, the news would only report "Tesla AP kills child at 95 mph."

Tesla needs to make people NEVER take their AP over 90. I'm surprised they let it go that fast. if you do you are punished. so you learn not to do it. Tesla thereby lowers the risk of the above headline very significantly.

That's not really the point. AP doesn't work over 90mph, period (will automatically disengage), and that we all accept. I fully agree BTW AP should not work above that speed (and I actually also agree we shouldn't have ourselves a cruise speed higher than that). The question is why we have to manually disengage, or be faced with the 'punishment'. That is the part that make no sense.

 

[Sawyer8888]

I'm surprised they let it go that fast. if you do you are punished. so you learn not to do it.

As others have said, the focus of this thread has migrated toward AP2/EAP instead of the OP's overall wish to return his car.

In an effort to at least tie the two together, perhaps the OP experienced something different during his test drive(s).

For instance, the only time EAP is disabled for me is when I fail to touch the steering wheel in the allotted time when prompted. If the visual warnings to grab the wheel are not readily addressed and the subsequent audio alarm is triggered at least three times during a single trip, the EAP is automatically disabled for the remainder of that trip. Having EAP automaticaly disabled for an entire trip simply by exceeding 90 MPH has never happened to me with AP1 or AP2.

• If I attempt to engage EAP in excess of 91 MPH, the display message indicates that it is not available.
• At 91 and under, EAP engages and holds at 90.
• If I press the exellerator while traveling at 90 with EAP engaged, the display message indicates TACC is no longer available, though it continues to steer for me regardless.

Therefore, if the OP experienced and/or read about EAP's behavior and then his car did something completely different, he probably became upset. I would be upset and I would probably feel unhappy with the car as well to some extent.

What am I missing? Does EAP perform differently in different parts of the world, or are newer cars everywhere that have EAP have this "punishment/time-out" feature when exceeding 90 MPH?