Electricfan
Active Member
I agree with the whole post, but I like point 3 the best. Absolutely couldn't be said better.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
WARNING: I rear-ended someone today while using Auto Pilot in my brand new P90D!
- Thread starter sandstruck
- Start date
I agree with the whole post, but I like point 3 the best. Absolutely couldn't be said better.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Maybe there has been so much talk about autonomously driving cars that some think they already have a right to expect that from a shipping product, or that it is time for them to participate in product development. Sorry, not there yet.
Yonki, +999
Thank you for writing all that so well. I pray others will comprehend the obvious (to me) sense in that and make this thread more productive and useful.
What are the candidate reasons for why TACC didn't stop the car before rearending the car in front of it?
I think it is likely to do with TACC projecting that the Tesla would drive around the car in front of it rather than into it. Either because thought the other car was in an adjacent lane and its own lane was clear, or the other car quickly moved into the Tesla lane. But eager to hear others ideas of what might have happened in this situation to explain what TACC did and didn't do.
Thank you for writing all that so well. I pray others will comprehend the obvious (to me) sense in that and make this thread more productive and useful.
What are the candidate reasons for why TACC didn't stop the car before rearending the car in front of it?
I think it is likely to do with TACC projecting that the Tesla would drive around the car in front of it rather than into it. Either because thought the other car was in an adjacent lane and its own lane was clear, or the other car quickly moved into the Tesla lane. But eager to hear others ideas of what might have happened in this situation to explain what TACC did and didn't do.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
That's not really how TACC works.
The most likely reason, which I think is that you are trying to get at, is that TACC had not yet recognized the car the OP collided with at all, because it had been tracking a different car as a target car. If that target car changed lanes, TACC would have momentarily and temporarily thought the lane the OP was driving in was clear. TACC would behave as if the lane was clear until picking up another target car in that lane.
TACC does not see a car in your lane, but assume that you will be driving around it. TACC also would not have been tracking the car that was ran into if it had been in the adjacent lane.
jeffro01
Active Member
Right... Or not. I'm not dramatic, I'm using this thing called logic. You know, the logic to not automatically take everything I read on the internet as fact. Good lord...
Jeff
- - - Updated - - -
sandstruck said:
Yes because commercials are always 100% truthful and factual and don't exist in highly controlled environments with specifically desired results shot who knows how many times until they got it just right...
Your Model S has the same functionality, it's been repeated here more times than I care to count. The difference is none of this technology is perfect at the present time.
Your experience sounds like one that I encounter every so often on the freeways I drive on. TACC is tracking the car in front of me, say we're both going 60mph, car changes lanes due to much slower traffic that I (nor the car) can see. Car changes lanes and TACC takes a split second to pick up on the new car in front of me going much, much slower (sometimes even stopped). I instinctively slam on the breaks, car beeps furiously, etc... Collision avoided. Now as for me, I keep my TACC at 2 when the pavement is dry and 4 when the pavement is wet. I'd likely have a less harrowing experience if I didn't have TACC following the car in front of me so close, but that's more of a function of the freeways I drive on and just accept it as an "it is what it is"...
In normal stop and go traffic, I've never had TACC not fully stop\start the car with the flow of traffic. The remaining loop to close, and I'm not sure how you'd close it, is the sudden stoppage of traffic that the car can't see until the car it can see changes lanes.
Jeff
- - - Updated - - -
Wow... Just wow... I'm being accused of overreacting and this post gets support??? Good lord...
So many things to comment on here of which your so far off base it's staggering...
For starters, stop taking the OPs story as 100% fact, I can't imagine you believe everything you read on the internet, so why would you start now? Furthermore, stop trying to give the OP an award for speaking out or whatever you think the OP is doing. I have said this over and over, you are only getting ONE side of the story here... Yet you're acting like you have all of the facts, you aren't even close to that.
AP didn't fail, stop with that right there. I don't get where you come to that conclusion. As it's been explained over, and over, and over, and over again here, the system functioned as it should per the documentation Tesla provides.
Point number #3 is ridiculous as well, Tesla does NOT have a major problem here. I mean seriously, this is first generation technology, your expectations are absurd. This goes to what Elon has said over and over again, there is zero redundancy in the system, the software is still being developed, things will get better. Calm down...
Point #4 is so completely over the top that I don't even know where to start. Obviously Tesla doesn't feel that such an action is warranted so why would you? Because your convinced something nefarious has occurred and you won't stop until full internet justice is achieved?
I was accused of being overly dramatic yet a post like this is "fine" and even supported by subsequent replies...???
I'll keep saying it, don't believe everything you read on the internet...
Jeff
green1
Active Member
You are correct here. I want Tesla to improve as much as anyone else, but I can't stop bringing this up, because some people are still putting blame and responsibility on equipment that was not designed to do what was expected, and has never been portrayed as doing so by Tesla.
I'm starting to actually wish people would sue Tesla so we can point to the outcome to show people how ridiculous they're being here.
Trying to figure out why the system didn't do what was expected is one thing, saying that it should have done so and that the collision is in some way the car's fault because it didn't is something completely different, and something that many of us here will not sit by and listen to.
garygid
Member
I have used TACC often during the past 10 months, all on setting 7.
Occasionally, TACC failed to see a car ahead and zoomed up to it,
failing to begin the hoped-for slowing and stopping.
Over the past 9 months or so, TACC has improved a lot, getting
smoother with both acceleration and deacceleration.
Now, newly on 7.1 (2.9.154), at least once in the last few days,
AP rather aggressively accelerated toward cars not too far ahead,
and one time failed to do the expected slowing for an almost
stopped car ahead, requiring me to hit the brakes because it
did not seem like it was going to stop in time.
From my experience, I am willing to believe that there is still some
"feature" that needs improving, or correcting. I caution folks to use
setting 7 until they are very familiar with the TACC, and be very cautious
when using it. Also, it does seem to take a moment to re-examine the
lane ahead when the vehicle ahead leaves the lane.
There is also the possibility that something turned the TACC/AP Off
just before the OP's accident.
Occasionally, TACC failed to see a car ahead and zoomed up to it,
failing to begin the hoped-for slowing and stopping.
Over the past 9 months or so, TACC has improved a lot, getting
smoother with both acceleration and deacceleration.
Now, newly on 7.1 (2.9.154), at least once in the last few days,
AP rather aggressively accelerated toward cars not too far ahead,
and one time failed to do the expected slowing for an almost
stopped car ahead, requiring me to hit the brakes because it
did not seem like it was going to stop in time.
From my experience, I am willing to believe that there is still some
"feature" that needs improving, or correcting. I caution folks to use
setting 7 until they are very familiar with the TACC, and be very cautious
when using it. Also, it does seem to take a moment to re-examine the
lane ahead when the vehicle ahead leaves the lane.
There is also the possibility that something turned the TACC/AP Off
just before the OP's accident.
Agree. It's about what, if anything, actually happened backed up with empirical data and if it did fix it.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Not according to what the OP was told by the Tesla service manager.
Or, rephrasing, so jeffro01 won't take issue with it...
Not according to what the OP told us he was told by the Tesla service manager.
Competitors AEB systems will bring the car to a stop, but might not do so above speeds of 25kph (15.5mph). At higher speeds, or less than optimal conditions, speed may not be reduced as much and vehicle might not come to a complete stop. You'll find this info in most owner manuals of vehicles equipped with AEB.
Also, very much appreciate you explaining your experience in more detail as it will greatly improve how others both use and interpret the use of these features.
It sounds like Auto-steer was engaged and when it detected the target car getting closer too quickly then FCW (Forward Collision Warning) goes off and then AEB will start to apply brake pressure to slow the car down and reduce crash energy. It sounds like you reacted before the FCW warning sound went off? Is that correct? If you grabbed the steering wheel (providing enough torque to cancel Auto-steer) you may have turned off AEB inadvertently. But if you applied 100% brake (essentially what AEB does) then there just wasn't enough distance to stop.
I've had experiences just yesterday with TACC that disagree.
On the IC, when a vehicle is halfway in/out of a lane, and there's another vehicle ahead, it will ghost both.
It reacts to the slower ghost (even if it's mostly out of your lane)
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you mean by "ghost", but the TACC locks onto one car as a target car. If you are saying that the ghost car in your lane was the target car, and that TACC reacts to the slower ghost, even if it is mostly out of your lane, that is not inconsistent in any way with what I said. In that case TACC was still treating the car leaving your lane as the target car, even as it was mostly out of your lane. The potential problem occurs once TACC decides that car --IS-- completely out of your lane. The time lag, if any, between when that happens and when TACC picks up a new target, in your lane, is perhaps where the issues arise.
Sorry, I call them ghosts, since the toy cars go from black to silver.
Which seems to correspond when TACC starts tracking them.
Couple examples:
- Target car notices slowing traffic in our lane, so they exit the lane without any deacelleration since adjacent lane is clear. As they starting exiting the lane, it reveals another vehicle ahead, which pops up as a black toy car. When the exiting target car is approximately halfway out of the lane, the new car ahead turns silver and the Tesla began deaccelerating.
- Same as above, but reverse. Car coming into my lane is traveling slower than the current target car, the Tesla began deaccelerating when the new car is about halfway into my lane, same time the toy car changes colors. The original target car stays silver until it disappears.
AP most def sees other cars in other lanes. And it has to determine whch lane it thinks the car is in. The display indicates that it is trying to do that. But the point, I think we agree, is that Tesla shld say what exactly happened. And it wld also be good to design out the other reported speeding up to a stopped car ahead.
Green thinks AP working is a binary concept, but it really is just gradual design improvement and tweaking. It is after all beta right?
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
That's not the issue, though.
Yes, the driver assistance systems are aware of multiple cars. But the TACC system only has one car as a target car at any given time. That is the car it is tracking, and basing the Model S' speed on. That is the car that it is trying to avoid rear-ending. That is the car that once out of the Model S' lane, will allow TACC to speed up again, until TACC locks onto another target car.* (See edit.)
There is absolutely no indication that TACC can have more than one target car at a time. Everything in the manual indicates that TACC locks onto one target car at a time. Following is an example, but reading the entire TACC section, you won't find anything that makes reference to multiple target cars:
--
If Model S is equipped with Driver Assistance components (see About Driver Assistance on page 63) and you have purchased the optional Autopilot Tech Package, the forward looking camera and the radar sensor are designed to determine when there is a vehicle in front of you in the same lane. If the area in front of Model S is clear, Traffic-Aware Cruise Control maintains a set driving speed. When a vehicle is detected, Traffic-Aware Cruise Control is designed to slow down Model S as needed to maintain a selected time-based distance from the vehicle in front, up to the set speed. Traffic-Aware Cruise Control does not eliminate the need to watch the road in front of you and to apply the brakes when needed.
--
I think the most likely scenario for what happened in the OP's situation was that TACC had just lost the target car, because it had changed lanes, and TACC had not yet picked up a new target car--the car the OP rear-ended. (Or that by the time TACC did pick up the new target car, it was too late to come to a complete stop.) The reason TACC had not picked up the new target car instantaneously could have been sun, it could have been that the new target car was stationary or moving very slowly, it could have been that it just hadn't had time to do so yet because there is always a gap of x milliseconds, etc.
I wouldn't view any of the above as TACC "failures." It would be interesting, though, for us to know if one of these was the reason the OP's car did not slow down enough, on its own, to not rear-end the car. I imagine as ecarfan has suggested, Tesla won't be forthcoming with this information, because they don't have to be, and because they fear it would be misunderstood. For the many of us who understand what TACC is supposed to do, it would just confirm that TACC was working as it was designed to work.
*Edit: I added that asterisk at the end of my second paragraph above. If I recall correctly, in the earliest iteration of TACC, when a tracked car left the lane you were travelling in, your car would often momentarily speed up if you were travelling below your set speed, even if there was another slow-moving car directly in front of the car that had left your lane. TACC was doing this in the short amount of time when it did not have a target car acquired. More recent improvements to TACC tweaked this behavior, such that TACC does not immediately accelerate when a target car clears your lane, but pauses for at least a short time, to make sure that the lane really is clear. I think this is pretty solid evidence that there is at least some amount of time between when a target car is given up and a new target locked onto. The system does not have a target car, and a secondary target, and is not capable of making the secondary target the target the moment the target has left the lane. It takes a bit of time to acquire a new target.
Last edited:
Only Tesla has the empirical data for that accident and they are not going to release it to the public or to the OP unless they are legally required to do so.
Everyone is of course free to speculate...
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Responding to brec, who a couple of posts above this in post number 377 is apparently (based on the bolding) trying to suggest that what I'm proposing is not possible, by using a quote from the OP's original post:
That post was the OP's first post in this thread. Since that time the OP has acknowledged that it is possible that he was mistaken, and that the car he wound up rear-ending was not the car he had been following for some time, and that there had been a car that had left his lane. He is not certain of this, he does not think this is what happened, but he is allowing for the possibility.
That post was the OP's first post in this thread. Since that time the OP has acknowledged that it is possible that he was mistaken, and that the car he wound up rear-ending was not the car he had been following for some time, and that there had been a car that had left his lane. He is not certain of this, he does not think this is what happened, but he is allowing for the possibility.
That's exactly right and what I said (almost word for word) upthread. The caveat is that it's cost prohibitive in this case.
Similar threads
