Want to return new Tesla

[bhzmark]

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.

that's not correct. it doesn't disengage. the lane keeping stays on while you accelerate above 90. but you are penalized for doing so.

at least last time I did it. but that was a while ago because I learned my lesson and simply disengage when I need go over 90. it's no burden.

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.

yes. I agree. and that is probably what OP did and experienced and now he wants to return the car because it was confusing to him.

 

[Sawyer8888]

yes. I agree. and that is probably what OP did and experienced and now he wants to return the car because it was confusing to him.

However most seem to be indicating that EAP disengages for the remainder of the trip if exceeding 90 MPH. I do not see that that is the case. Once I release the accelerator, EAP pulls the car back to 90 without disengaging or disabling the system. So I cannot relate to this automatic disengagement as it is being described here.

Perhaps the OP experienced this complete and automatic disabling of EAP for the first time at this high speed and it was unnerving. It would have been for me.

I have never experienced this. EAP does not disengage by itself and shut down completely unless I ignore three audio warnings, so this does not make sense to me, as I am sure it did not make sense for the OP...

AP doesn't work over 90mph, period (will automatically disengage),

 

[Carl]

I'm on AP1. Maybe Tesla corrected this with EAP?

 

[DarkMatter]

You have to disengage Autosteer before exceeding 90 mph. The automatic disengagement will still result in it being disabled for the driving session. This makes sense and is still annoying the first time you discover it during a fast passing manoeuvre. It also is not likely to be a legally established reason to return a car.

 

[Electroman]

How hard is to disengage with a flick of a button, increase the speed to 180mph and then engage AP again after you have done the James Bond maneuver?

Sheesh !

 

[HankLloydRight]

How hard is to disengage with a flick of a button, increase the speed to 180mph and then engage AP again after you have done the James Bond maneuver?

Sometimes you don't have that kind of advanced warning or reaction time to manually disengage AP before said maneuver.

 

[Sawyer8888]

You have to disengage Autosteer before exceeding 90 mph. The automatic disengagement will still result in it being disabled for the driving session. This makes sense and is still annoying the first time you discover it during a fast passing manoeuvre. It also is not likely to be a legally established reason to return a car.

I guess it's another one of those cases where you learn something new every day. Glad I stuck with this thread. EAP does disengage if you try to accelerate past 90 with it on, and it stays off for the rest of the trip, just like everyone said. I guess I just never experienced that until today when I gave it a try. I suppose it's a good time to go back to the manual and see what else I may be missing.

For me, I don't think that this safety feature would be one of the deal-breakers as the OP suggests.

It would be nice if all deliveries would be consistent with specific important topics being covered, instead of the delivery specialist just winging it. IMO, this may help in having the proper expectations set for folks like the OP.

 

[Tony8489]

10 Pages of insanity so far. Lotta jerks, lotta nice guys, lotta advice. Suprised the OP even came back after reading some of your responses. My ONLY question for @robertjs is how did you purchase the car?

For example, were you in a mall and went to the Tesla store and sat in a showroom floor car, played with it some, then purchased it with the sales staff? Did you go to a service center and meet with someone after submitting a "lead" on the internet? Does someone you know have a Tesla and you've been in it a few times and thus decided to build one out and buy it on the Tesla.com site?

Your entire purchase experience will probably clue us all in on your state of mind when buying the car. Perhaps you were lied to or misled, perhaps you didn't do enough or any research. We won't know unless you describe your process to us, and perhaps someone will be able to relate to you and offer you some situational advice!

I agree answers to these questions would be illuminating. If someone is a pure luxury car buyer with minimal interest in the new technology or the zero emissions, Tesla is not the right choice. Given the new technology, that calls for EXTRA research and diligence before purchasing. That's why I found this forum before I placed my order.

Most of us believe the superior driving dynamics outweigh the quirks and are thus pleased with our Teslas. So I would also be interested in how the OP is impressed with the acceleration, regen braking, absence of NVH that most of us enjoy so much. If the features that are annoying him are more important, so be it. But if so he should have investigated those features closely before ordering

 

[bhzmark]

If someone is a pure luxury car buyer with minimal interest in the new technology or the zero emissions, Tesla is not the right choice.

exactly right. Some people are simply better off in a Hyundai or Toyota or Cadillac or whatever. Tesla should probably do better to screen out those people who would be better off in a Hyundai or whatever.

what they did with the model three worked well where they committed the first few hundred thousand model 3s to go to those people who put down a deposit and likely educated and informed themselves about the car.

 

[cwerdna]

(Yes, I know I'm way late to the this thread.)

All states have a 'grace' period in which you can return the car, no questions asked. However, I believe 3 days is typical. I doubt any are a couple of weeks.

I've never heard of such a thing. I've asked questions on this topic in 2012 at which states have a "cooling off"/return period on new cars?. Nobody ever replied with the any proof or credible reference that any state in the US has a mandatory/mandated cooling off period/x day return policy on new car purchases.

If anyone has anything credible to the contrary which applies to a state, county, city or metro area in the US, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

"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.

...

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.

Nobody here questions the fact that - or the reason why - Autopilot disengages at 90 mph, that is perfectly understandable. Locking out writing navigation addresses while driving, while annoying if you have a co-pilot, at least makes certain sense too.

However, nobody has ever been able to explain what "caution" is served by disabling Autopilot for the duration of the drive for exceeding 90 mph.

What is the rationale for why disengagement should be followed by a disabling of the Autopilot for the duration of the drive? The driver was in manual control, Autopilot did disengage, why need anything more than that?

People dislike stupid rules.

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.

There is no inconsistency. We are consistently pointing out flaws that we'd actually like to see fixed, including the reliability of AP2 as well as fixing things that make no sense.

Alternatively, I would love to hear from Tesla a reasonable explanation why 90+ mph disabling is required.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

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!

But the question is WHY?

I mean, by your account, the car could randomly disable AP during some of your drivers and it is not a big deal, just stop and re-start...

If you put it that way, nothing is "that much of an inconvenience".

But the question is: Why are we facing that inconvenience in the first place? And is that reason reasonable?

What reasonable or required problem does AP disabling solve that AP disengagement would not solve?

And then there is the added problem: If the car is thus encouraging indirectly to make unscheduled stops during a drive, will those unscheduled stops affect safety? I can totally see this increasing stoppings by the side of the road and that definitely does not add to safety... Nor does encouraging avoiding exceeding 90 mph or fiddling with AP controls in that instance when it might be necessary to exceed the speed to avoid some impending disaster necessarily help at all either.

And if the policy is to avoid speeding, why not lock down AP every time actual speed limit exceeded?

So, not only is there no reasonable known reason for this policy, it can easily be seen as adding to danger, not lessening it.

 

[bhzmark]

(Yes, I know I'm way late to the this thread.)

I've never heard of such a thing. I've asked questions on this topic in 2012 at which states have a "cooling off"/return period on new cars?. Nobody ever replied with the any proof or credible reference that any state in the US has a mandatory/mandated cooling off period/x day return policy on new car purchases.

If anyone has anything credible to the contrary which applies to a state, county, city or metro area in the US, I'd love to hear about it.

it doesn't exist. some individual dealers may say, as a marketing gimmick, that you can return, but you would still have to buy something else from them and would have to be a price taker.

 

[schonelucht]

Sometimes you don't have that kind of advanced warning or reaction time to manually disengage AP before said maneuver.

With the current quality of AP, if you are driving in circumstances that could force you to suddenly need to go over 90, then you shouldn't have been using AP in the first place.

 

[davidc18]

Average speeds down here in S. FL on the turnpike/interstate regularly over 85 MPH (non rush hour). No issues with AP 1.0 (fw 7.1) at these speeds.

 

[HankLloydRight]

With the current quality of AP, if you are driving in circumstances that could force you to suddenly need to go over 90, then you shouldn't have been using AP in the first place.

Come on, that's not the point. I could be crusing along at 80 or 85, perfectly fine for AP (according to 'stupid AP rules') and someone cuts me off or stops or slows down suddenly right in front of me, and you have to swerve and/or accellerate to avoid a collision.

Which is EXACTLY what happened to me the one time I got thrown in AP jail.

And as for just 'pulling over' to reset AP ... as mentioned above, that's extremely hazardous on the highway shoulder. And in some cases, like the NJTP, the next rest stop might be 30 miles away, and pulling off an exit requires two toll booths and additional, unnecessary tolls. Along longer stretches of highway in the central part of the country, exits and rest stops could be 50 miles apart.

There's just no valid, logical, explainable reason why this punishment exists. I'm all for automatically disabling AP when exceeding it's own pre-defined speed limits, but don't slap my hand like a third grader who drew on the wall with a crayon. GO SIT IN THE CORNER FOR AN HOUR.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

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!

I guess there were some who misunderstood what I was saying above. When I mentioned "safely pull(ing) over", I was envisioning the use of off and on ramps. When I mentioned "off the highway" I meant the use of rest stops, travel plazas, etc. and didn't mean the emergency lane, shoulder, etc.

Honestly, I didn't take toll roads into account because I haven't needed to use one in the last 20 years. When I used toll roads in college, they all had restaurants and gas stations in the middle that did allow the driver to access them without needing to go through a toll gate to exit the highway. Admittedly, they weren't as common as on and off ramps on non-toll highways.

With that said, I've never had a problem with AP locking me out since I don't drive that fast. even if I did, the highways I take all have off ramps every few miles so it probably wouldn't affect me for more than 10 minutes or so before I was able to safely pull over and put it into park while off the highway, not endangering others. YMMV.

 

[schonelucht]

Come on, that's not the point. I could be crusing along at 80 or 85, perfectly fine for AP (according to 'stupid AP rules') and someone cuts me off or stops or slows down suddenly right in front of me, and you have to swerve and/or accellerate to avoid a collision.

I have a hard time seeing how someone can cut you off and the right response would be to accelerate. No sudden braking to keep control when executing a steering movement, sure, but accelerating from 80 to 90? Sorry but that is just not right. It seems highly impossible that such an acceleration would at the same time 1) safely put you past a car on the lane you want to merge into 2) not accelerate you even closer to the car the suddenly swerved in front of you.

But again, if you are driving in traffic where cut offs can be so sudden that the only reasonable response is a sharp swerve instead of the more reasonably let go of the accelerator, then re-establish proper distance before overtaking, then those are circumstances that you shouldn't be using AP. Because even the time to bring yourself back into the action as it happens is already too much at speeds of 80 miles/hour.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I have a hard time seeing how someone can cut you off and the right response would be to accelerate. No sudden braking to keep control when executing a steering movement, sure, but accelerating from 80 to 90? Sorry but that is just not right. It seems highly impossible that such an acceleration would at the same time 1) safely put you past a car on the lane you want to merge into 2) not accelerate you even closer to the car the suddenly swerved in front of you.

I guess in your world everyone is a perfect driver and accidents don't happen.

In my example (which really did happen), one would need to change lanes and accelerate in order to avoid the car in front stopping short AND avoid being rear-ended by the car behind you which doesn't even see what's going on. Or if there's a tiny gap in which to move to the left, but there's a car approaching quickly, you need to accelerate to avoid that car and the cars in front slowing down.

And according to the 'stupid AP rules', it could be simply accelerating from 85 to 90, or even 89 to 90. In an accident avoidance maneuver, it doesn't take much to accelerate just 5mph.

That's why it's a stupid rule. Sure, disengage over 90, or even 85, but re-engage when a safe speed is resumed. Simple. Effective.

 

[John5396]

This is a bit of a thread hijack (not that it seems to be going anywhere anyway), but I've been thinking about renting a newer Model S from Turo, but all of the 2016 and 2017 models have the condition that you must be 30+ years old. I'm a bit short of this. Do you know of any way to get around this, or perhaps if there are other alternatives to Turo?

Thanks.

I suggest an aging potion... See Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for details.... ;^)