-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Will post-delivery FSD option go away?
- Thread starter cartwright
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fsd eap
What Tesla should do:
- Update the EAP description to clearly state what features will be included with this option (TACC, lane keeping, on-ramp to off-ramp on limited access highways, …), in driver assist mode.
- Replace FSD with an option of a different name (EAP+?), which will include functionality beyond EAP, initially in driver assist mode, and potentially FSD at some point, if/when approved for unmonitored operation. Include in the description a free upgrade to a faster AP processor, should that be required to implement EAP+ (and future FSD). Even without FSD approval, there will be value in EAP+, as the software starts operating in driver assist mode in more situations than EAP.
- For a limited time, to transition from FSD to EAP+:
- Owners who've purchased FSD can request a refund of their FSD option purchase price
- Owners who haven't purchased FSD can purchase it at the after-delivery price quoted when they ordered the car
- Going forward, make the post-delivery upgrade price only an estimate, which Tesla change, if needed to cover hardware upgrade costs
You forgot:
5. Compensate everybody who purchased any AP2 vehicle, regardless of option packages, for the false claim that their vehicles had all the hardware required for full self driving -- to the extent that it could operate in an autonomous ride network and be summoned across the country with no driver -- and would be software upgradable in the future to that level of autonomy. (A claim supported by the misleading demo video and "subject to extensive validation and regulatory approval" marketing language.)
Not going to happen of course.
Why? If the vehicle requires a simple processor swap, they clearly were capable of FSD. The owners merely need to purchase the FSD option and have hardware modified.
I don't disagree the video(s) were misleading and the Tesla "CYA" language fails to cover Tesla's ass for this debacle in roll out but until Tesla actually FAILS, we can't say for certain it is a false claim that the vehicles are not capable of FSD with the existing hardware suite.
Nor can owners who haven't purchased FSD reasonably claim they are impacted by needing a new processor to do FSD because they haven't purchased FSD and therefore are not entitled to this features anyways. It is apparent, based on early releases, that the car is capable of on and off ramp and automated lane changes without driver input. Smart summon is coming. So I think this is a red herring (assuming Tesla delivers). And its not really actionable under FRCP 11 (or whatever good faith legal standard) unless and until we know more information about Tesla's inability to deliver on their claims or recklessness about the veracity of such claims.
What I've always wanted was an honest and clear eyed assessment of the current state of FSD development and a voucher towards the purchase of a new Tesla as an acknowledgement that they took advantage of me by showing deceptive and misleading videos to convey an level of immediacy towards FSD (or at least convey they were working on it when they had, in fact, done nothing of the sort). That is the crux of the misrepresentation (that no code had actually been written for this new hardware and they hacked the video/used Nvidia code that Tesla knew wouldn't actually work for production vehicles but failed to disclose that, and other, material information to buyers).
boonedocks
MS LR Blk/Blk 19”
Agree with your post.
The problem is that these kinds of statements from Mr. Musk really don't help his case at all.
Elon Musk on Twitter
and this:
“We could do a coast-to-coast drive, especially if we pick a specific route and write code to make it work, but that would be kind of gaming the system,” Musk said on the call Wednesday.
I believe the above statement "especially if we pick a specific route and write code to make it work, but that would be kind of gaming the system” IS exactly what the original and still available video for FSD was....Gaming the system with specific code and not a truly autonomous demonstration. Not good at all....
Last edited:
Yes, I agree. That and more. The bounding boxes and all were post processing add ons (it seems) and other tricks. It just sad because Tesla is a great company otherwise. Elon, and it seems Tesla, just does stupid *sugar* for no good reason. They could've been honest and still probably sold 80% of what they ended up doing. Eventually people caught on (especially after Jan 2017 when AP was finally released on HW2 and it was a drunk scary mess for many months). That's negligent. Yes they put everything on the driver but they also shouldn't have released slop. That's just asking for trouble. So Tesla does somethings well but a good deal to do with Autopilot seems to be shady (at least HW2).
I was contemplating the case where true L4 FSD never materializes on AP2-generation vehicles regardless of compute upgrades, which was alluded to in the post I was responding to, by way of changing the FSD option to EAP+ and turning it into a mostly driver-assist system which may be L3 in certain circumstances (but probably never driverless outside of private property for Smart Summon). That was my reading of the post I was responding to anyway, and in fact that is exactly what I think AP2/2.5/3 will ultimately become: A never-driverless, mostly L2 but occasionally L3 (on the highway) driver assistance system.
If it never becomes anything other than that, then the vehicles were not capable of the level of autonomy promised and anybody who bought one of these cars, whether purchasing FSD or not, deserves some compensation because presumably the ability to upgrade to self-driving at a later date was part of the value of the vehicle. Taking away the ability to upgrade to a truly driverless system detracts from the value of the vehicle.
whitex
Well-Known Member
What if FSD is not available for purchase within reasonable lifetime of the vehicle? Wouldn't that fall under good faith expectations that purchasing an FSD capable car will give you an option to enable and use it during the lifetime of the vehicle? Should Tesla be on the hook for providing a new vehicle or refunding the original vehicle price? Yes you got some utility from the car over the 10 years, but what if you only bought a Tesla because of FSD, but would have been happy with a Camry for daily commute? Should Tesla compensate you for the price difference between you 100D and similarly equipped Camry (you didn't buy P100D because you don't care at all about performance) if they don't deliver FSD for your car within its reasonable lifetime?
Damages calculations will depend on the particular claim and any statutory awards. So it depends is the answer I think.
whitex
Well-Known Member
They should have kept using MobileEye for perception, but they suffer from "not invented by Elon" syndrome. The guy thinks he needs to re-invent every wheel from scratch. Read an article recently describing how people in manufacturing were coming up with new names for industry standard ways of doing things because if it was already invented, Elon would reject using it (which I guess would also explain things like why he refused to stick a standard $10 light+rain sensor for automatic lights and $50 radar based blind spot monitoring, and instead insisted on inventing new ways of doing the same, with crappy results).
Yeah - this.
I love my Tesla even without the self driving or I would not have bought it. That being said, I'd be lying if I said the level of automation promised even if it was a good ways off did not contribute significantly to the choice of vehicles I made and the amount I was willing to pay for the vehicle. They never implied it might be capable of driving itself. It was presented as fact and backed up with a video to prove how close they were. I essentially bought into the "future proof" theory intending to hold the vehicle because I was promised it was capable of these new and wonderful things. If it is indeed not capable of what was promised then there has been financial damage. I would not expect a new car out of it, but I would expect damages significantly exceeding what was paid for FSD. I'm doubtful that would ever be realized in a settlement, but I believe those damages exist. On the flip side I do not want Tesla to be bankrupted over a poor marketing choice. If this were Ford or GM, the outrage would be exponentially larger. Tesla seems to get a good deal of leeway on these things which is contributing to the ongoing issues of promises not delivered in my opinion.
whitex
Well-Known Member
They got leeway from early adopters, as expected. But, they are now entering mass market which is not as forgiving, plus they are losing the faith of early adopters too both by not delivering stuff and by "going mainstream" and forcing things like the v9 "unified" interface, or not building out service centers to match the demand - early adopters like flexibility and access to service as the product requires it. What is keeping Tesla in business is the fact that they are still the only game in town for a viable EV, but that's changing quickly. Give it 2-4 more years and Tesla will either have to adapt fast, or they will disappear fast as people will have other good EV options which won't require buying vapourware and wait 2 years for even simple things like blind spot detection. I bought 4 Teslas to date, was a huge fan and believer for a while, but over time reality of buying into a grand vision and getting crap kicked in (think "AP1 will find you anywhere on private property" promised, and "drive in straight line up to 40ft while you hold a dead-man-switch" delivered; or 691hp sold, 463hp delivered). Now awaiting something better to come along (who knows, maybe by the time Taycan comes out a new Model S will be so much better, but considering only features I can verify on delivery day, no future vaporware).
boonedocks
MS LR Blk/Blk 19”
And what about those that leased their vehicles? Although they didn’t pay 100% of the cost of FSD if they added the feature, should Tesla in all good consciousness have sold FSD to somoeome that would be returning the vehicle after a few years having received 0% utility from FSD? I can not believe for a second that even Elon believed FSD would be available before early adopters of EAP FSD leases would be up!!! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I never lease because of miles driven but many do lease.
Autopilot 2.5 ECU has a few more wiring connections than the autopilot 2.0 ECU. I believe these are due to some redundancy elements that were added later. As far as I can tell you can't swap a 2.0 computer for a 2.5, so I'm not holding my breath about this simple upgrade to autopilot 3.0. If the wiring was the same I'd believe it. Doesn't add up. Of course Tesla could make a 3.0 Autopilot ECU to support a number of wiring configurations but that doesn't explain why they changed the wiring between 2.5 and 2.0 in the first place. Logic says 2.0 wiring would need to be upgraded. I actually think by the time regulators catch up, FSD will require a whole number of hardware changes that Elon isn't planning for at the moment. Is 1 autopilot computer safe enough? What about if that one fails? Wheres the backup? I have come to the realisation that my car won't see FSD in its lifetime. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't think so.
Last edited:
whitex
Well-Known Member
A very good point about the people who lease. I would like to add to that:
- What about the lease companies and/or banks? They guaranteed the residual value of the car based on FSD. If it now turns out the FSD is not happening and the car is not capable, they now eat the depreciation. I know it's not popular nowadays, in the era of social justice mobs, to stick up for banks and corporations, but I still think cheating is cheating, regardless of who gets screwed.
- A lot of people don't lease but still only plan to keep the car 3 or 4 years. They don't lease because they don't want to pay the higher interest and other costs associated with leasing. Those people you could argue get double screwed, they never get to use what they paid for plus their car devalues disproportionately high.
Similar threads
- Question
