Tesla Master Plan: Part Deux

[Tornado]

So?

 

[MatskiMonk]

How are they going to just patch it to work? It doesn't sound like its faulty, it's just not very good. If Tesla can put out an update to make it functionally fit for purpose in two weeks, why haven't they done it already?

 

[EngieDiesel]

Nothing more than an over-the-air software update for vehicles subscribed to FSD software package.
NHTSA definitely needs to update their 'recall' terminology, as there's nothing to differentiate this from traditional physical recalls.

It's still a potentially dangerous defect that requires direct manufacturer action to correct. Changing the method in which that action is delivered doesn't make it less severe of a defect, nor does it warrant a more flowery name to make it seem as such.

 

[Joey D]

NHTSA definitely needs to update their 'recall' terminology, as there's nothing to differentiate this from traditional physical recalls.

A recall doesn't mean the vehicle absolutely must go in for service per the NHTSA.

A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.

Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.

There's nothing to differentiate. Something is broken, the manufacturer rectifies it.

 

[Famine]

"The official government body for road safety should use a less charged term" really isn't the necessary takeaway here.

 

[JacoJa]

An overnight OTA update where the customer needs to do absolutely nothing, vs. a physical recall where the person needs to take the morning off work to drop their car to the dealer, I think, warrants an entirely different word. If the product doesn't need to be returned to the manufacturer, then by definition, it is not a product recall. This is the case with any manufacturer who's software may need an OTA update patch, not just Tesla.

How are they going to just patch it to work? It doesn't sound like its faulty, it's just not very good. If Tesla can put out an update to make it functionally fit for purpose in two weeks, why haven't they done it already?

The issues will be patched, and they don't seem too complex - especially number 2. These are my thoughts on the four sections from NHTSA, so correct me if my interpretations on their comments are wrong;

"1) Traveling or turning through certain intersections during a stale yellow traffic light:"

They'll need to adjust the aggressiveness. If it's now been added to the top of the priority list, I'm sure we'll see improvements in the near future. Much like Teslas focus on unprotected turns, the improvements they made after just a few weeks in mid-2022 was staggering (Chuck Cook's videos on the progress was super interesting).

"2) The perceived duration of the vehicle’s static position at certain intersections with
a stop sign, particularly when the intersection is clear of any other road users"

I read maybe a couple of years ago that FSD software has deliberately been programmed to crawl through some stop signs, as it mimics most real world drivers in empty intersections. They used to stop dead at stop signs, then Tesla changed it to a rolling stop, now NHTSA have asked them to revert back to a complete stop. Tesla said they will comply, so there's no difficulty in changing this again. Though I think it's a shame that this feature will be removed.

"3) adjusting vehicle speed while traveling through certain variable speed
zones, based on detected speed limit signage and/or the vehicle's speed offset
setting that is adjusted by the driver"

I'd image the safety issue here would be exceeding the speed limit by the offset amount specified by the driver? If the car does variate +/- 5mph from the speed limit, it'll normally do this to match the speed of surrounding vehicles, which in my opinion is safer than driving 5mph slower than everyone else on a motorway, impacting the flow of traffic.

"4) Negotiating a lane change out of certain turn-only lanes to continue traveling straight."

Yeah, they need to fix that for sure.

 

[Joey D]

If the product doesn't need to be returned to the manufacturer, then by definition, it is not a product recall.

Except the NHSTA doesn't state that the product must be returned to the manufacturer for anything. It states that the manufacturer must repair, replace, or refund.

Yes, one definition of recall is to return something to the manufacturer, but that's not how the NHTSA uses the word.

 

[Northstar]

If the product doesn't need to be returned to the manufacturer, then by definition, it is not a product recall.

Recalls are regularly issued for food items, the required action is pretty much always toss any unused/unsold product covered by the recall.

The term is used as more of an alert notice rather than the literal meaning.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

NHTSA defines a recall as

A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.

Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.

Recalls | NHTSA

Use our VIN lookup tool to check for recalls on your car, or search by make and model. Also, get recall information on car seats, tires and equipment.

www.nhtsa.gov

CPSC calls it a "corrective action plan", but uses the term "recall" as it is more publiclly understood

The term "corrective action plan" (CAP) generally includes any type of remedial action taken by a firm. A CAP could, for example, provide for the return of a product to the manufacturer or retailer for a cash refund or a replacement product; for the repair of a product; and/or for public notice of the hazard. A CAP may include multiple measures that are necessary to protect consumers. The Commission staff refers to corrective actions as "recalls" because the public and media more readily recognize and respond to that description.

(page 5)
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/8002.pdf


The FDA defines a recall as the following

Recall means a firm's removal or correction of a marketed product that the Food and Drug Administration considers to be in violation of the laws it administers and against which the agency would initiate legal action, e.g., seizure. Recall does not include a market withdrawal or a stock recovery.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.3

In any of these cases, I think what happened to Tesla can be considered a recall. The car is defective and imposes an unnecessary safety risk that needs to be addressed. It just needs to be remedied in a way so that it is no longer dangerous and by "recalling" it alerts the public of the dangers so that it can be accurately addressed

 

[JacoJa]

that's not how the NHTSA uses the word.

Guys, I'm well aware of how FDA and NHSTA currently use the word, I'm saying I disagree with the clarity of the term and it should be updated to suit vehicles with OTA updates.

 

[MatskiMonk]

NHTSA issues FUFU?

Feature Unfit For Use...

 

[Tornado]

Why?

 

[TexRex]

Why?

Because this one thinks Elon Musk is super neat.

 

[EngieDiesel]

Maybe he could take a cue from ol' Vladimir and call it a "Special Maintenance Action".

 

[Keef]

This is the first video test I've seen but today is a glorious day, my friends. Tesla has installed several non-Tesla adapters around the country and allowed non-Tesla charging without or without a membership. And guess what?



They work so damn well that it starts charging before you can even get in your car to check if it's charging.

 

[JacoJa]

Here's the full investors day presentation. It's 3.5 hours, but well worth the watch for anyone interested in the long-term plans for Tesla, or our renewables future in general.

Oh, and Giga factory Mexico is officially confirmed. 👍

 

[Keef]

This company won't quit innovating and expanding. It's magnificent. They truly do need to get better and building cars but Lucid and Rivian need to get better at making money.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Did they patch FSD to work yet?

 

[ProjectWHaT]

(42:41)

This is an incredibly confusing slide.

This section of the presentation is Tesla's master plan of how to move to a more sustainable future by switching over to renewables and EVs. They claim that they'll release a white paper explaining their calculations, but I don't think they've released it yet?

During this slide, he says "Our goal is to do 20 million electric vehicles a year". They then say "there are roughly 2 billion cars and trucks in operation today. What we show here is roughly 1.4 billion or so. The numbers in this presentation are around 85 million vehicles a year produced"

Are they saying, they plan to reach the milestone of 20 million Teslas per year? Toyota only produced 8.6 million cars in 2021 (source). Are they saying they expect there to be 1.4 billion Teslas by the completion of this master plan? They say the numbers are based on 85 million vehicles produced per year, but in 2021, only 79.1 million vehicles were made (source)

My problem with all this is I fundamentally disagree with the concept that to become sustainable, our only solution is to trust these entrepreneurs who claim they have the only solution, which is to invest in new their technologies and to consume more. I personally think the solution is for degrowth and to reduce our consumption drastically

Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help

Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy if they abandon economic growth as an objective.

www.nature.com

I think switching to renewables like solar and wind is 100% necessary, but won't be enough to become sustainable if we don't reduce our consumption of it. There's already so many problems concerning cobalt mining and other resource extractions harming the environment and the workers themselves. We can't continue to grow when there's finite resources

 

[Keef]

View attachment 1235946

(42:41)

This is an incredibly confusing slide.

This section of the presentation is Tesla's master plan of how to move to a more sustainable future by switching over to renewables and EVs. They claim that they'll release a white paper explaining their calculations, but I don't think they've released it yet?

During this slide, he says "Our goal is to do 20 million electric vehicles a year". They then say "there are roughly 2 billion cars and trucks in operation today. What we show here is roughly 1.4 billion or so. The numbers in this presentation are around 85 million vehicles a year produced"

Are they saying, they plan to reach the milestone of 20 million Teslas per year? Toyota only produced 8.6 million cars in 2021 (source). Are they saying they expect there to be 1.4 billion Teslas by the completion of this master plan? They say the numbers are based on 85 million vehicles produced per year, but in 2021, only 79.1 million vehicles were made (source)

My problem with all this is I fundamentally disagree with the concept that to become sustainable, our only solution is to trust these entrepreneurs who claim they have the only solution, which is to invest in new their technologies and to consume more. I personally think the solution is for degrowth and to reduce our consumption drastically

Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help

Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy if they abandon economic growth as an objective.

www.nature.com

I think switching to renewables like solar and wind is 100% necessary, but won't be enough to become sustainable if we don't reduce our consumption of it. There's already so many problems concerning cobalt mining and other resource extractions harming the environment and the workers themselves. We can't continue to grow when there's finite resources

There are so many things that would have to be happening at the same time for degrowth to work that it is impossibly complex to discuss for non-experts. It's a total rehash of a market economy requiring numerous social economic aspects during transition. For example, "reducing the purchasing power of the rich" but also "reducing mass-produced (i.e. inexpensive) foods, fast fasion (i.e. inexpensive), planned obsolescence (i.e. inexpensive)" all of which effect the poor. These people already have reduced purchasing power and the largest company on the planet two largest companies on the planet have built their entire business models on serving poor people. Poor people simply cannot afford fresh foods without assistance, they cannot afford quality clothing items without assistance, and they cannot afford most things built with lasting quality without assistance. The food industry is already massively subsidized across the globe, the clothing industry is one of the greediest ones, and quality materials are extremely expensive to source.

And then there's the problem of one country choosing to transform its economy toward degrowth - say the United States - which simply leaves an opportunity for another country to accelerate its focus on growth - say China.

I don't see how it would work. Half these assholes can't even read lines on a map, how the hell does anything thing global economy cooperation to make less money is ever going to work? How about we just let the market decide because it already seems to be growing toward sciency things rapidly while degrowing away from unsciency things at the same time. Isn't that the entire goal? Windmills go in, coal goes out, you can't explain that.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

There are so many things that would have to be happening at the same time for degrowth to work that it is impossibly complex to discuss for non-experts. It's a total rehash of a market economy requiring numerous social economic aspects during transition. For example, "reducing the purchasing power of the rich" but also "reducing mass-produced (i.e. inexpensive) foods, fast fasion (i.e. inexpensive), planned obsolescence (i.e. inexpensive)" all of which effect the poor. These people already have reduced purchasing power and the largest company on the planet two largest companies on the planet have built their entire business models on serving poor people. Poor people simply cannot afford fresh foods without assistance, they cannot afford quality clothing items without assistance, and they cannot afford most things built with lasting quality without assistance. The food industry is already massively subsidized across the globe, the clothing industry is one of the greediest ones, and quality materials are extremely expensive to source.

And then there's the problem of one country choosing to transform its economy toward degrowth - say the United States - which simply leaves an opportunity for another country to accelerate its focus on growth - say China.

I don't see how it would work. Half these assholes can't even read lines on a map, how the hell does anything thing global economy cooperation to make less money is ever going to work?

Of course there's a lot of hurdles to overcome for degrowth to happen, but I think it is the direction we should be aiming for as a collective humanity, regardless of politics. I don't think we should dismiss it immediately just because there are so many greedy people and other political forces at play currently. We should be aiming for some sort of ideal that will work for everyone, forgoing the us vs them mentality

How about we just let the market decide because it already seems to be growing toward sciency things rapidly while degrowing away from unsciency things at the same time. Isn't that the entire goal? Windmills go in, coal goes out, you can't explain that.

Of course it's good that through the market, we are already transitioning to renewables, but I don't think it'll be sustainable to continue to grow our use of resources on a finite planet. It's not possible to continue to chase higher and higher profits when you reach a limit of consumers and resources

Anyways, this is going way off topic again

Normalizing crash risk of partially automated vehicles under sparse data

The safety of increasingly automated vehicles is of great concern to regulators, yet crash rates are generally reported by manufacturers using proprietary metrics with limited source data. Without ...

www.tandfonline.com

Tesla's AutoPilot safety claims were debunked in a peer reviewed paper. The paper takes Tesla's accident data and normalizes it on road type. Doing so reduces their claim from 43% lower crash rates to only 10%. Controlling for age would then increase the crash rate to 11% when using Level 2 autonomy over Level 1.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to establish methods to normalize automated vehicle crash rates using one manufacturer’s crash reports as a case study. The manufacturer’s quarterly crash rates for vehicles using SAE Level 1 and Level 2 automation were compared. Road type was controlled for using data from a naturalistic driving study with the same model vehicles, while driver age was controlled for using demographic ownership surveys. Although Level 2 vehicles were claimed to have a 43% lower crash rate than Level 1 vehicles, their improvement was only 10% after controlling for different rates of freeway driving. Direct comparison with general public driving was impossible due to unclear crash severity thresholds in the manufacturer’s reports, but analysis showed that controlling for driver age would increase reported crash rates by 11%. These results establish the need for detailed crash data, crash definitions, and exposure and demographic data in order to accurately assess automated vehicle safety.

4. Results
Autopilot is used predominately on freeways, as surface street functionality was only released recently to select users and remains in beta. A naturalistic driving study has shown that 93% of Autopilot usage is on roads with speed limits of 55 mi/hr or greater. In contrast, of the miles traveled using active safety only, only 30% occurred on roads with speed limits only greater than 55 mi/hr (Fridman et al., 2018).

Assuming this ratio holds for the manufacturer data, then the crash rates can be adjusted using the methods in the previous section. Variables for Q1 2021 are provided in Table 4. The crash rate after adjusting for freeway and non-freeway use is shown in Table 5 and Figures 2 and 3. Although Autopilot was claimed to have a 43% lower crash rate than active safety only, this improvement reduces to 10% (average of all quarterly reports) after controlling for different rates of freeway driving.

The same procedure was used to adjust for driver demographics. Tesla owners are concentrated in the 50 to 70-year-old age brackets and underrepresented among drivers ages 16–39 and 75 and older (Hardman et al., 2019). Table 6 lists the percentage of drivers in each bin for both samples. The results compare the crashes per 100 million miles for Autopilot and active safety in unadjusted numbers, adjusted for road type, and adjusted for both road type and owner age. Crash rates adjusted for road classification and owner age are shown in Figure 4. Averaging over each quarter, controlling for driver age increased the reported crash rates by approximately 11%.

5. Discussion
By correcting for roadway usage differences between the Autopilot and active safety only data, much of the crash reduction seen by vehicles using Autopilot appears to be explained by lower crash rates experienced on freeways. While the raw crash rate shows an average 43% reduction in crash rate for Autopilot compared to active safety only, this improvement is only 10% after controlling for different rates of freeway driving. Correcting for age demographics likewise produced an 11% increase in the estimated crash rate.

Several other factors may explain difference in safety rates of new vehicle technologies based on who is using them, where they are being used, and when they are being used. Some safety features cannot be used in rain or snow, for example, which may bias the data toward clear weather and lower crash rates generally. In another example, drivers often disengage Autopilot to change lanes or prepare to exit a freeway (Morando et al.,2020), both areas of increased crash risk. While Tesla includes crashes where Autopilot was deactivated less than five seconds prior to impact, there remains a potential for Autopilot use to be biased toward safer, within-lane driving. With more data regarding not only the crashes but also the use of vehicle technologies can allow for more accurate and thorough assessments of vehicle safety benefits.

 

[Famine]

Interesting that Tesla scheduled the Investor Day on March 1st, of all days...

 

[EngieDiesel]

You really don't hear much about the Model Y, so much so that I kinda forgot it even exists until it came out that the steering wheel fell off of a couple of them.

In both instances, the NHTSA said the Model Ys were delivered to owners without the inclusion of a rather critical retaining bolt that prevented such rapid unscheduled disassembly of the wheel. That left friction fitting between the wheel and column splines to hold everything together, the NHTSA said, and "when the force exerted on the steering wheel overcame the resistance of the fiction fit" at least one of the owners ended up with a wheel right in his lap.

 

[Tornado]

Just needs an OTA update.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Just needs an OTA update.

It will totally not be a recall and just an update to keep the wheel from falling off unexpectedly.

 

[Darla Starch]

It will totally not be a recall and just an update to keep the wheel from falling off unexpectedly.

involuntary FSD promotional tool

 

[EngieDiesel]

The Tesla semi is facing a recall for faulty parking brake valves, and the NHTSA report might have given away some manufacturing figures Tesla refuses to.

As we've noted previously, it's been tough to pin down any numbers on the Tesla Semi: the automaker has excluded the vehicle from its quarterly and annual statements since production began last October, and not even the price has been publicly disclosed.


PepsiCo, the first customer to take delivery of the electric Semi, has reportedly ordered 100 of them, though as of December was only fielding 36.

That said, the NHTSA's recall notice provides a bit of insight into Tesla Semi numbers with the population of Tesla's recall: 35 trucks manufactured between November 30, 2022 and the end of February.


According to NHTSA documents, it estimates 100 percent of the vehicles included in the recall contain the defective parts, which were manufactured by Ohio-based Bendix, a company that manufactures safety components for commercial vehicles.

(Ohio ruins everything yet again, amirite)

 

[JacoJa]

You really don't hear much about the Model Y

Funny that, because I'm hearing a lot about the Model Y. Production numbers are continuing to ramp for Giga Texas and Berlin, and Q1 2023 has been another record quarter. Current run rate is 4000 per week at Texas, 5000 per week at Berlin. I'm also seeing them on the roads everywhere, even in my neck of the woods.

Meanwhile, GM has delivered 2 Hummer EV's for all of Q1 2023. No, that wasn't a typo... they made two Hummers. Along with just 19,700 Bolt EV's, and 968 Lyriqs. Ford on the other hand are at a 40% margin loss for their 'Model E' segment.

 

[TheCracker]

Funny that, because I'm hearing a lot about the Model Y. Production numbers are continuing to ramp for Giga Texas and Berlin, and Q1 2023 has been another record quarter. Current run rate is 4000 per week at Texas, 5000 per week at Berlin. I'm also seeing them on the roads everywhere, even in my neck of the woods.

Must be a US/North America thing. The Model Y is much more prolific than the X or the S on UK roads. Probably considered too small for the average american family-sized car.

edit - In fact it appears to be by far the best selling EV in the UK in 2022. 35,551 Model Ys compared to 19,071 Model 3s (2nd highest selling) and 11,197 Kia E-Niros in 3rd.

 

[Keef]

You really don't hear much about the Model Y, so much so that I kinda forgot it even exists until it came out that the steering wheel fell off of a couple of them.

Funny that, because I'm hearing a lot about the Model Y. Production numbers are continuing to ramp for Giga Texas and Berlin, and Q1 2023 has been another record quarter. Current run rate is 4000 per week at Texas, 5000 per week at Berlin. I'm also seeing them on the roads everywhere, even in my neck of the woods.


View attachment 1245223

Meanwhile, GM has delivered 2 Hummer EV's for all of Q1 2023. No, that wasn't a typo... they made two Hummers. Along with just 19,700 Bolt EV's, and 968 Lyriqs. Ford on the other hand are at a 40% margin loss for their 'Model E' segment.

Must be a US/North America thing. The Model Y is much more prolific than the X or the S on UK roads. Probably considered too small for the average american family-sized car.

edit - In fact it appears to be by far the best selling EV in the UK in 2022. 35,551 Model Ys compared to 19,071 Model 3s (2nd highest selling) and 11,197 Kia E-Niros in 3rd.

Imo it's a good thing we're not "hearing" about the car which probably means its selling fine and is a good car. I think in the US production is meeting demand so there's no more drama. I see as many Model Ys as I do Model 3s, and that's despite the price difference and the fact the Model 3 has been out longer.