$35,000 Tesla Model III Is Coming In 2017

[XavierMace]

I am kind of surprised that this being a tech-board that more people here don't understand the advantage that Tesla has with it's Auto-Pilot over other systems.

I'm kinda surprised that this being a tech-board some people just keep slurping up all the bullshit Musk shovels. Tesla is bordering on reckless with the way they've pushed/deployed autopilot. They constantly publish skewed/flawed data and whenever they get questioned they either regurgitate the same flawed data or try to attack whoever dares question them.

Right now, I would say it's just as likely that Tesla will sink and we'll end up with Google's tech in all our cars. After all, they're actually self driving and haven't killed people.

 

[Kaido]

Tesla fast charging Supercharger network along with its self-driving tech and software is its moat and ace card. Why would I buy another EV which has inferior slower charging and virtually zero charging network and has the same boring tech as any ICE car? As more competitors release their EV, Tesla's lead in software tech and huge charging advantage will become more apparent.

That's true, I don't know of any other EV where you can get a good amount of charge off 20 minutes at a Supercharger. That's a lot time to sit around, but at least it makes road trips doable! And we have a ton more available in my state now. Whereas when we're in my buddy's EV, it takes hours to fully charge up at Panera Bread, haha.

 

[Kaido]

I'm kinda surprised that this being a tech-board some people just keep slurping up all the bullshit Musk shovels. Tesla is bordering on reckless with the way they've pushed/deployed autopilot. They constantly publish skewed/flawed data and whenever they get questioned they either regurgitate the same flawed data or try to attack whoever dares question them.

Right now, I would say it's just as likely that Tesla will sink and we'll end up with Google's tech in all our cars. After all, they're actually self driving and haven't killed people.

I have mixed feelings about that:

1. I do believe they are being too risky by allowing regular users to beta-test their self-driving software. There is no excuse for the road barrier death; saying "well it warned him for a full six seconds beforehand" when in reality you're zoned out from being used to driving on Autopilot every day is just no excuse. And they keep running into stopped vehicles...fire trucks, cop cars, etc. I'm hoping the FSD release next month actually materializes & solves those problems. I'll keep on driving manually until they figure that stuff out, thank you very much, lol.

2. I can appreciate that overall, statistically, it (supposedly) increases safety by a good margin.

3. I do believe the work needs to be done, and the sooner we can get it onto the roads, the better. People are crazy drivers. Accidents happen all the time. No one else was really making much of an effort until Tesla came along & started pushing the envelope.

Eventually self-driving cars will be a thing just like smartphones are a thing, but until then, 100% safety is a bit of dice roll right now. They've driven billions of miles on Autopilot, but there's an off chance that your car may kill you, so...yeah

 

[Pantoot]

I'm kinda surprised that this being a tech-board some people just keep slurping up all the bullshit Musk shovel.

Right now, I would say it's just as likely that Tesla will sink and we'll end up with Google's tech in all our cars. After all, they're actually self driving and haven't killed people.

With the caveat that this is the internet and nobody changes minds here, coupled with the fact that you are clearly passionate about this, I regret typing this even (the kool-aid I guess)

For the most part people that own, drive and interact with the tech on a daily basis understand the limitations and are willing to put up with the hyperbole of Elon.

When it came time to replace my daily driver there was no other choice when it came to what I wanted. I tried, I swear. I test drove an RS-7. I tried the M5 again. For some reason I have never been a Porsche fan, but I went and drove a Panamera. I did the E63 and the S63. I bought a P90d. So yeah, I really hope Tesla can make it.

As far as the "killing people", I think that the big divide there lays with people who have experienced Tesla's "autopilot" and those that read the marketing and the news. I can understand how people would be led to believe the hype that Elon and Tesla marketing pushes about its capability. Driving the car you know its limitations. You know that you need to pay attention. Forget about concrete barriers and stopped semi's in the road, the car can't even see a tire or a 2x4. You need to pay attention, and I think the majority of people who have driven one are aware of that. I think the vast majority of people see DANGER DANGER when they see the news of another autopilot accident, but at least for the incidents I am aware of, I think most owners understand that there are limitations and know to be aware when driving.

TLDR: yeah...insert relevant xkcd about arguing on the internet

 

[Kaido]

It's one thing for BEV early adopters willing to shell out $100k for a Model X to tolerate some bugs/QA issues/teething pains. These buyers know this going in and are prepared to deal with it. They'll post videos on YT when they have recurring problems that take several attempts (and sometimes tweets) to fix, and they really aren't all that mad about the situation. They know that at $100k ASP, they are the Joneses and everyone else aspires to be like them.

Man, I would flip out if I spent $100k on a car & it had QA issues. Then again, that's the case for most small, high-end car manufacturers. I remember reading a review of a Ferrari in Car & Driver or whatever magazine & the reviewer was positively drooling over it, despite it blasting freon through the vents & other crazy problems. Seems like you get get better luck with mass-produced stuff like a Honda Civic, where they make a zillion of 'em, haha.

 

[Brovane]

I'm kinda surprised that this being a tech-board some people just keep slurping up all the bullshit Musk shovels. Tesla is bordering on reckless with the way they've pushed/deployed autopilot. They constantly publish skewed/flawed data and whenever they get questioned they either regurgitate the same flawed data or try to attack whoever dares question them.

Right now, I would say it's just as likely that Tesla will sink and we'll end up with Google's tech in all our cars. After all, they're actually self driving and haven't killed people.

I post facts you post hyperbole. Let me know when you are ready to have a adult conversation.

I will re-post this part since apparently you missed it.

True autonomous capability for cars is going to be dependent on machine learning, no way around it. To many variables to use conventional methods. In machine learning, "He with the most high quality data wins". Because of the two way communication the Tesla cars on the road are acting as data gathers for Tesla of real world conditions. https://electrek.co/2017/06/14/tesla-autopilot-data-floodgates/ No other manufacturer currently does this type of continuous data gathering. This gives Tesla a huge advantage over every other auto manufacturer autonomous driving systems.

 

[Brovane]

Of course we do. All I can say is it better start learning faster. The well has already been poisoned and the public doesn't want to be subjected to ongoing fatal flaws. We get a few more bad outcomes regardless of if it's Google, Waymo, Uber, Tesla, etc. and congress or the NTSB will have to drop the ban hammer until such time as these science experiments can show more robust reliability in trials. That would stymie progress badly and I hope very much it doesn't come to that.

One of the better articles I've read on the intersection of science and regulation: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...f-driving-cars-is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/

Are you saying that the NTSB is going to ban all driver assist features in all cars?

Tesla has never claimed that the current Auto-Pilot system is capable of full autonomous usage.

 

[Pantoot]

Are you saying that the NTSB is going to ban all driver assist features in all cars?

Tesla has never claimed that the current Auto-Pilot system is capable of full autonomous usage.

I think at least one camp believes that, although tesla never claimed full autonomous usage, Tesla is negligent by allowing drivers to operate their cars as if it were. And, it looks like that group is winning some arguements considering the number of controls that have been added into the cars. (Like sensing if the driver gets out of the seat, or requiring a tug of the steering wheel.)

 

[XavierMace]

I post facts you post hyperbole. Let me know when you are ready to have a adult conversation.

I will re-post this part since apparently you missed it.

True autonomous capability for cars is going to be dependent on machine learning, no way around it. To many variables to use conventional methods. In machine learning, "He with the most high quality data wins". Because of the two way communication the Tesla cars on the road are acting as data gathers for Tesla of real world conditions. https://electrek.co/2017/06/14/tesla-autopilot-data-floodgates/ No other manufacturer currently does this type of continuous data gathering. This gives Tesla a huge advantage over every other auto manufacturer autonomous driving systems.

And? Auto manufacturers aren't the only people in this game. As was already posted in this thread, right now Waymo (Google) is the leader as they actually have autonomous cars on the road (and a lot of them) and they haven't killed anyone.

Are you saying that the NTSB is going to ban all driver assist features in all cars?

Tesla has never claimed that the current Auto-Pilot system is capable of full autonomous usage.

As has been discussed to death, the name alone gives many the impression that it's self driving. The Tesla fan club constantly tells touts it's self driving capability as a reason to buy a Tesla over another EV. Musk walks that line even more on his twitter posts. If you try to compare a Tesla to a "normal" car you immediately get told how superior Tesla's auto pilot is to old fashioned driving assists. See certain people in this very thread if you need examples.

Driving the car you know its limitations. You know that you need to pay attention. Forget about concrete barriers and stopped semi's in the road, the car can't even see a tire or a 2x4. You need to pay attention, and I think the majority of people who have driven one are aware of that. I think the vast majority of people see DANGER DANGER when they see the news of another autopilot accident, but at least for the incidents I am aware of, I think most owners understand that there are limitations and know to be aware when driving.

That's clearly not a global statement otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I've got a coworker, who literally uses his highway commute in his S as time to catch up on his paperwork. He turns on autopilot, puts his laptop in his lap, USB monitor on the passenger seat, and starts working. Does Tesla endorse that behavior? No. Does Tesla enable that behavior? Yes.

This was already explained earlier in this thread, but I'll try to explain again. This is where some of us have an issue and you guys (and Tesla) seem to just gloss over. Tesla is supposedly the leader in driving assists right now. Per their own statements, their hardware is ready (and has been for some time) and they're going to start enabling self driving features in August.

This means one of two things. Either they had the ability to avoid some/most of these fatal accidents and the car choose not to for some reason or they don't consider these fatal accidents an issue. Their PR responses would seem to indicate the latter is the case. Their response to every single fatal accident is "the driver should have been paying more attention". I specifically single out the concrete barrier because that one is pretty much impossible to excuse away. The barrier didn't move, it didn't come out of no where. It was a simple concrete divider for an off ramp that you see in every major city. The accident was in broad daylight in clear weather. Should the driver have been paying more attention? Yes. But if Tesla's tech is as good as they want you to think, at a minimum they should be able to provide a damn good answer for how that accident occurred. I haven't seen one, have you?

 

[Pantoot]

That's clearly not a global statement otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I've got a coworker, who literally uses his highway commute in his S as time to catch up on his paperwork. He turns on autopilot, puts his laptop in his lap, USB monitor on the passenger seat, and starts working. Does Tesla endorse that behavior? No. Does Tesla enable that behavior? Yes.

This was already explained earlier in this thread, but I'll try to explain again. This is where some of us have an issue and you guys (and Tesla) seem to just gloss over. Tesla is supposedly the leader in driving assists right now. Per their own statements, their hardware is ready (and has been for some time) and they're going to start enabling self driving features in August.

This means one of two things. Either they had the ability to avoid some/most of these fatal accidents and the car choose not to for some reason or they don't consider these fatal accidents an issue. Their PR responses would seem to indicate the latter is the case. Their response to every single fatal accident is "the driver should have been paying more attention". I specifically single out the concrete barrier because that one is pretty much impossible to excuse away. The barrier didn't move, it didn't come out of no where. It was a simple concrete divider for an off ramp that you see in every major city. The accident was in broad daylight in clear weather. Should the driver have been paying more attention? Yes. But if Tesla's tech is as good as they want you to think, at a minimum they should be able to provide a damn good answer for how that accident occurred. I haven't seen one, have you?

I concede the point. It's not a globally true statement; clearly if the driver in the barrier incident would have believed this they would still be alive.

It appears you fall into the camp I describe above: because people cannot be trusted Tesla shouldn't have offered this feature. Maybe they should have gone the Cadillac route and had sensors to detect drivers eyes being on the road, but I am sure people would figure out ways to defeat that. Your coworker example is clearly reckless and is no different than me condemning Ford because a Ford owner drinks and drives and Ford enables that behavior.

The reason their response to every incident being the driver should have being paying attention is because that's the truth. Every time you enable autopilot your car tells you exactly that. The manual tells you that. Every day on my commute there is a merge in the HOV lane where traffic from another freeway comes in. I know my car doesn't know how to handle it. That doesn't make the tech worthless or even dangerous any more than a car with standard cruise control which would happily plow through an intersection. The difference is that the limitations of common cruise control is common knowledge (although, much like my global statement above, I am sure there have been crashes due to standard cruise control) and the mass market has been lead to believe that Tesla tech is further along than they are. And Elon/Tesla and the cult of Tesla are to blame for that.

I suspect the reason the vehicle in the barrier crash behaved the way it did is because of how the vehicle handles its lane centering, and can understand why Tesla would be reluctant to state that publicly. I have seen my car behave this same way when there are situations where a single lane widens and becomes two separate lanes. The car sees a big wide lane and tries to center itself.

And I agree with you, I think Tesla is a long way from providing a product that performs to the level that some people think or even are lead to believe by Tesla marketing.

Too many comments of the type: "So when using the AP you need to maintain full situational awareness, plus constantly monitor the performance of the AP?"

The answer is yes. Tesla's autopilot is a driver assistance feature. It is not a driver replacement feature, and I have my doubts that it ever will be. This should more clear to the public and not a question that needs to be asked.

 

[Brovane]

I think at least one camp believes that, although tesla never claimed full autonomous usage, Tesla is negligent by allowing drivers to operate their cars as if it were. And, it looks like that group is winning some arguements considering the number of controls that have been added into the cars. (Like sensing if the driver gets out of the seat, or requiring a tug of the steering wheel.)

Why is Tesla specifically called out for allowing features like auto-steer(lane keeping), adaptive cruise control, etc. when other manufactures have these same features? Either Tesla features are far advanced over every other manufacturers driver assist features or Tesla is being called out specifically for it's driver assist features to promote a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Why is Tesla specifically called out for allowing features like auto-steer(lane keeping), adaptive cruise control, etc. when other manufactures have these same features? Either Tesla features are far advanced over every other manufacturers driver assist features or Tesla is being called out specifically for it's driver assist features to promote a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving.

Oh I dunno.... maybe because it's a Tesla thread?

Last I checked Tesla hadn't turned on autonomous driving yet. I think they better hurry up before they lose the chance to. We will just have to cross our fingers and hope it doesn't kill too many people. Couldn't be any worse than human drivers.

 

[Brovane]

And? Auto manufacturers aren't the only people in this game. As was already posted in this thread, right now Waymo (Google) is the leader as they actually have autonomous cars on the road (and a lot of them) and they haven't killed anyone.

Does Waymo have a fleet of several hundred thousand cars that are raking up Billions of miles of mileage on roads across the entire world? No, of course not. Tesla does and all this data is being uploaded to Tesla servers. Remember the part about machine learning? "He with the most high quality data wins". Tesla has data on real world driving conditions that other people like Waymo can just dream about.

As has been discussed to death, the name alone gives many the impression that it's self driving. The Tesla fan club constantly tells touts it's self driving capability as a reason to buy a Tesla over another EV. Musk walks that line even more on his twitter posts. If you try to compare a Tesla to a "normal" car you immediately get told how superior Tesla's auto pilot is to old fashioned driving assists. See certain people in this very thread if you need examples.

If a plane has auto-pilot does that mean that the pilot isn't responsible for the safe operation of a plane? Of course not. People that promote that concept based on name alone are promoting a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving. The promotion of Tesla's driver assist features is that they are better than other manufacturers driver assist features.

This means one of two things. Either they had the ability to avoid some/most of these fatal accidents and the car choose not to for some reason or they don't consider these fatal accidents an issue. Their PR responses would seem to indicate the latter is the case. Their response to every single fatal accident is "the driver should have been paying more attention". I specifically single out the concrete barrier because that one is pretty much impossible to excuse away. The barrier didn't move, it didn't come out of no where. It was a simple concrete divider for an off ramp that you see in every major city. The accident was in broad daylight in clear weather. Should the driver have been paying more attention? Yes. But if Tesla's tech is as good as they want you to think, at a minimum they should be able to provide a damn good answer for how that accident occurred. I haven't seen one, have you?

I have a answer as to how the accident occurred with stationary objects.

Any driver assist system from any manufacturer has issues dealing with stationary objects. Especially driver assist systems like Tesla that depend on cameras. Why? Because such systems have a hard time telling the difference between a stationary object on the road and a object maybe above the road or to the site of the road like a street sign. We as humans and are eyes can easily do this, but it is much harder trying to program something like this into a vehicle. You don't want false positives and have a system all of a sudden slam on the brakes because it detected a sign over the freeway or a vehicle stopped in the emergency lane on a curve and mistook it for a stopped object on the road. When you have a moving object in front of the vehicle, like another moving car and all of a sudden it stops the systems have no problem handling something like that because the object was previously moving in front of it.

For example when the Tesla slammed into the fire truck on Auto-Pilot. From the point of the car, the fire truck hadn't been moving when it had been detected so the system disregarded it. Same thing with the concrete barrier on the freeway in CA. What was telling about that accident is that the energy absorb-er had been wiped out in a earlier accident at this same spot. Which means that this freeway ramp wasn't probably as clearly marked as it should have been since a regularly driving car also had a accident earlier at this exact same spot.

Eventually with machine learning the driver assist features in cars will become a lot better at telling the different between a stationary object that it should stop for and one that it doesn't need to stop for. It is hard to replicate the decision making process we engage in as second nature between the human eye and our brains.

 

[Brovane]

Oh I dunno.... maybe because it's a Tesla thread?

Last I checked Tesla hadn't turned on autonomous driving yet. I think they better hurry up before they lose the chance to. We will just have to cross our fingers and hope it doesn't kill too many people. Couldn't be any worse than human drivers.

Thank you for confirming this part. Tesla is being called out specifically for it's driver assist features to promote a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving.

 

[JoeBleed]

Why is Tesla specifically called out for allowing features like auto-steer(lane keeping), adaptive cruise control, etc. when other manufactures have these same features? Either Tesla features are far advanced over every other manufacturers driver assist features or Tesla is being called out specifically for it's driver assist features to promote a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving.

Probably because none of the others call it auto piolt, claim their cars have all the hardware to be a real auto piolt but are just in need a software update.... So many people in the public eye seem to think it's a real auto piolt and talk about the self driving that has been coming for a while now. Apparently little was put into place to make sure drivers were being attentive as well. I don't see their existing cars getting this feature with existing hardware or future software. Granted i default to thinking just about everything Elon says is bs.

 

[Brovane]

Probably because none of the others call it auto piolt, claim their cars have all the hardware to be a real auto piolt but are just in need a software update.... So many people in the public eye seem to think it's a real auto piolt and talk about the self driving that has been coming for a while now. Apparently little was put into place to make sure drivers were being attentive as well. I don't see their existing cars getting this feature with existing hardware or future software. Granted i default to thinking just about everything Elon says is bs.

If a plane has auto-pilot does that mean that the pilot isn't responsible for the safe operation of a plane? Of course not. People that promote that concept based on name alone are promoting a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving. You last sentence just confirms that your specific agenda has nothing to do with the technology.

 

[XavierMace]

Does Waymo have a fleet of several hundred thousand cars that are raking up Billions of miles of mileage on roads across the entire world? No, of course not. Tesla does and all this data is being uploaded to Tesla servers. Remember the part about machine learning? "He with the most high quality data wins". Tesla has data on real world driving conditions that other people like Waymo can just dream about.

By your own statements, Tesla doesn't self drive, it assists. Waymo has millions of self driven miles. Therefore Waymo has the most high quality data. Tesla may have a higher overall quantity of data but even that is debatable since Waymo does have billions of simulated miles and if Tesla isn't self driving, then that's all they really have either is simulated data as they have zero miles on self driving. You can't have it both ways, either the Tesla is self driving or it isn't.

If a plane has auto-pilot does that mean that the pilot isn't responsible for the safe operation of a plane? Of course not. People that promote that concept based on name alone are promoting a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving. You last sentence just confirms that your specific agenda has nothing to do with the technology.

Do you see Boeing going around proclaiming their planes have all the hardware to fly itself, they just needs a software update? How many planes have flown into buildings on autopilot over how many miles? How many plane crashes do you think it would take before somebody says "hey, we need to reconsider this"? Auto-pilot on planes is clearly understood by the people flying planes. Auto-pilot on Tesla's clearly isn't and that's at least partially Tesla's fault.

I concede the point. It's not a globally true statement; clearly if the driver in the barrier incident would have believed this they would still be alive.

It appears you fall into the camp I describe above: because people cannot be trusted Tesla shouldn't have offered this feature. Maybe they should have gone the Cadillac route and had sensors to detect drivers eyes being on the road, but I am sure people would figure out ways to defeat that.

I think it would be more accurate to say "because people cannot be trusted, Tesla should have made more of an effort to prevent the system being abused or not used the general public as their guinea pigs". It's the same reason in dash DVD players won't play DVD's while the car is in gear. Can that restriction be bypassed? Sure, but that takes work to do.

I suspect the reason the vehicle in the barrier crash behaved the way it did is because of how the vehicle handles its lane centering, and can understand why Tesla would be reluctant to state that publicly. I have seen my car behave this same way when there are situations where a single lane widens and becomes two separate lanes. The car sees a big wide lane and tries to center itself.

On the contrary, I think stating that rather than just stating "the driver wasn't paying attention" would have been a much more acceptable response. Nobody is arguing the driver shouldn't have been paying more attention. But making automated lane changes and making automated exits is an advertised feature of auto-pilot and this scenario would seem to be covered by those terms. Therefore the system is at least partially at fault.

@Pantoot @Brovane you both seem to agree that Tesla's Autopilot is a driving assist, not self driving and that the driver should have his hands on the wheel and full awareness of his surroundings. In other words, the driver should still be driving. Therefore, I ask you not sarcastically, what does it offer over the driving assists available in "normal" cars? Tesla's have a rather hefty price premium and the two items main items used to defend that are super charger stations and autopilot.

Everybody would have been far better off if they just advertised these as regular driving assists rather than new revolutionary technology. They could sit back, collect data just as they do now, then when the technology was actually ready, announce self driving.

 

[Kaido]

I've got a coworker, who literally uses his highway commute in his S as time to catch up on his paperwork. He turns on autopilot, puts his laptop in his lap, USB monitor on the passenger seat, and starts working. Does Tesla endorse that behavior? No. Does Tesla enable that behavior? Yes.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Gotta take a shot for every time someone uses the word "agenda". Hammered. Wonder who really has the "agenda" as there is only one poster using this term? All I see is a bunch of car enthusiasts having a discussion. Oh, and somebody who is clearly a paid shill.

Some rudimentary skills at trying to divert peoples attention away from the fact that there is no $35k tesla and whole host of other issues surrounding the company instead of discussing the merits of the issues and obstacles facing this pioneering company. It's tough being at the top. I get it. But don't try and drag the conversation into something P&N worthy.

 

[Kaido]

Some rudimentary skills at trying to divert peoples attention away from the fact that there is no $35k tesla and whole host of other issues surrounding the company instead of discussing the merits of the issues and obstacles facing this pioneering company. It's tough being at the top. I get it. But don't try and drag the conversation into something P&N worthy.

Right now, they are saying Q1 2019 for the base $35k Tesla:

https://teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-35k-base-trim-production-q1-2019/

I'm very curious to see how many they sell of that particular model - like actually $35k OTD with no other options. My friend has an order in for one because he's upgrading from an 80-mile EV & wants the 200+ mile range & a cooler design, but he's not getting AWD, Autopilot, or any of the other bells & whistles. He put his reservation down early, but is stuck waiting until next year to get his base model, which kind of stinks, but the delivery date has always been variable, so he's not really too upset because there was never a firm, given date for delivery. But it will be like 3 years of waiting by the time he gets his base model...

 

[Brovane]

]By your own statements, Tesla doesn't self drive, it assists. Waymo has millions of self driven miles. Therefore Waymo has the most high quality data. Tesla may have a higher overall quantity of data but even that is debatable since Waymo does have billions of simulated miles and if Tesla isn't self driving, then that's all they really have either is simulated data as they have zero miles on self driving. You can't have it both ways, either the Tesla is self driving or it isn't.

Even when the Auto-pilot is not even on it is still collecting data. https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles-data-self-driving-program/

To be clear, those are not miles driven on Autopilot (with Autosteer and TACC), but miles driven in cars with Autopilot first generation hardware. Tesla still uses the data even when the Autopilot is not active in order to feed its machine learning system and improve its Autopilot programs: Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot, and Full Self-Driving Capability.

This article was back in 2016 but already 1.3 Billion miles had been vehicles with Auto-Pilot HW.

Do you see Boeing going around proclaiming their planes have all the hardware to fly itself, they just needs a software update? How many planes have flown into buildings on autopilot over how many miles? How many plane crashes do you think it would take before somebody says "hey, we need to reconsider this"? Auto-pilot on planes is clearly understood by the people flying planes. Auto-pilot on Tesla's clearly isn't and that's at least partially Tesla's fault.

The AirFrance crash of 447 in June of 2009 was directly attributed to the Auto-Pilot system and it killed 228 people.

https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-autonomous-plane-autopilot/







I

 

[XavierMace]

Even when the Auto-pilot is not even on it is still collecting data. https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles-data-self-driving-program/

To be clear, those are not miles driven on Autopilot (with Autosteer and TACC), but miles driven in cars with Autopilot first generation hardware. Tesla still uses the data even when the Autopilot is not active in order to feed its machine learning system and improve its Autopilot programs: Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot, and Full Self-Driving Capability.

This article was back in 2016 but already 1.3 Billion miles had been vehicles with Auto-Pilot HW.

Glad to see you missed my point entirely.

The AirFrance crash of 447 in June of 2009 was directly attributed to the Auto-Pilot system and it killed 228 people.

https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-autonomous-plane-autopilot/

More accurately it was attributed to the crew not knowing what to do when the autopilot failed. But lets go ahead and call it the same thing. Now lets use Tesla marketing logic for safety by comparing the number of crashes they've had per mile compared to an utterly pointless data set. We've had auto pilot in various forms on planes for over 50 years, technically closer to 90 years. The most recent crash where autopilot was a factor was 9 years ago as far as I can tell (you found the same flight I did). Unfortunately there isn't really a database of how many miles all the passenger planes in the world log each year, but given the US alone has somewhere 800M passengers a year, it's pretty safe to say planes have flown laughably more miles on autopilot without crashing than Tesla has. Therefore Tesla's are clearly death traps.

If you spent any time looking at some of the other results when you Googled that crash, you'll notice a variety of reputable sources voiced concerns that autopilot in planes was doing more harm than good despite autopilots overall track record. Which just proves my point. The same concerns apply to Tesla's autopilot and those concerns are manifesting themselves far more rapidly than in planes. If you look at Tesla's safety track record without your Musk glasses on, you'll actually realize the numbers really aren't good.

 

[JoeBleed]

If a plane has auto-pilot does that mean that the pilot isn't responsible for the safe operation of a plane? Of course not. People that promote that concept based on name alone are promoting a specific agenda that has nothing to do with the technology around autonomous driving. You last sentence just confirms that your specific agenda has nothing to do with the technology.

Except again, many people think autopilot, even for a plane, does everything with nothing to worry about. when that, as you are aware, not the case. Actual vs believed are different and that's the problem. I have no agenda, i'm just aware of how much bs Elon spews and how much his sheep love it. they really are getting worse than apple fanboys.

Let me also expand on my statement about an aircraft autopilot. Autopilot on an aircraft can do a lot of the flying without issue. It can even land when it and the airport have the proper equipment. People hear about this and think it does everything and pilots are just there in case it fails, mechanically. People tend not to think about the conditions that the autopilot will not handle. What's to blame for this? I have no idea. I can take a guess and that would be movies and media that report on crashes where pilot error is reported as the cause and some ill informed reports says something to the effect if autopilot was engaged this wouldn't have happened. but that's just a wild guess.

 

[Kaido]

I've been seeing more & more Model 3's pop up lately. Color-wise, I'm not a big fan of the white (looks great on the S & X though, especially on the S with the dark rims!). Blue & the dark grey look really good on it. Haven't seen a black one yet. The red was pretty decent, although I like the new Mazda red a lot better (like on the CX-5), but it does look very classy on the 3. I mistook it for an S at first, because it looked so nice. Still have mixed feelings about the aero rims - the red paintjob with the dark gray aero rims was a surprisingly good combination IRL, but in pictures, I didn't like it at all.

 

[JoeBleed]

I've been seeing more & more Model 3's pop up lately. Color-wise, I'm not a big fan of the white (looks great on the S & X though, especially on the S with the dark rims!). Blue & the dark grey look really good on it. Haven't seen a black one yet. The red was pretty decent, although I like the new Mazda red a lot better (like on the CX-5), but it does look very classy on the 3. I mistook it for an S at first, because it looked so nice. Still have mixed feelings about the aero rims - the red paintjob with the dark gray aero rims was a surprisingly good combination IRL, but in pictures, I didn't like it at all.

maybe you've said and i forgot, but what do you think of the dashboard and the traditional instrument cluster location being replaced by that touch screen in the center. and not even embedded, just kind of mounted there.? i can't stand that concept myself. that alone would keep me from even taking one for free. And that's not an exaggeration. One video said the screen isn't movable. ugh..