Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
"Please note, customers who choose leasing over owning will not have the option to purchase their car at the end of the lease, because with full autonomy coming in the future via an over-the-air software update, we plan to use those vehicles in the Tesla ride-hailing network."
Elon once again promising fully autonomous vehicles in 3 years.
Also, isn't this a rental? A lease normally has a residual, so you can choose whether to buy the car.
There's so many indicators that FSD is ages away from being safe, and so many stories of Tesla's just randomly steering in towards barriers and needing quick action from their drivers, even as recent as last month.
Here's a video from a few days ago of Tesla's Autopilot seemingly getting confused by a line made out of dirt, veering off-road and crashing[1].
Also was there a mention of the car following the dirt line? It seems to me it loses traction way before that, and most likely disengages.
[1] https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/05/23/49...
Also, I believe off-ramp functionality was only added recently with 'navigate on autopilot', if someone tried this without taking over as instructed, well...
The hard part is making it work with crazy cyclists on city streets and blizzard conditions and defending against malicious adversaries who purposely try to confuse the car into crashing into something.
> Musk also promised a demonstration of a fully autonomous drive from Los Angeles to New York by the end of 2017
As in "without the need for a single touch from the driver". Doesn't really matter, AFAIK they are nowhere close.
Don’t say something is impossible while someone else is delivering, slowly and missed deadlines or not.
@sbov (deleted reply while I was replying)
> So are you saying Elon's statement was right? Or are you just saying "its hard, give him some slack for making statements he knows are complete bullshit"?
A pessimist’s “bullshit” is an optimist’s missed deadline and inaccurate forecasting.
There are no fully autonomous cars, he'd have to break entirely new ground for that.
Not at all. I'm unaware of any other heavy lift vehicles developed by a non-government entity that fly for $90 million (versus Delta Heavy's $350 million cost) and are completely reusable besides the second stage and the fairings. I'm unaware of any auto company created in the last century in the US, besides Tesla (and the ghost of GM shepherded through bankruptcy by the Obama administration), that is still in business [1].
So to answer your question, these are "solved" in the same way if you proposed to yourself, "Hey, I can build an iPhone because Apple can build and iPhone". Could you? Absolutely. Are you discounting the enormous amount of work and capital necessary to pull it off? Absolutely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_man... (List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacture...
If these problems are easy, why is Tesla the first to seek solutions to them? Why did Tesla have to struggle to prove the validity of EVs to the public while European car makers committed fraud with diesel emissions? If you're an established car maker, how bad at manufacturing, supply chain management, and product development do you have to be that you can't compete against Tesla with EVs? Questions are rhetorical.
Who cares that the "promised" deadline for Falcon Heavy and rapid reusability was also blown several times. This result is something completely unimaginable couple of years ago and nobody is currently able to match it. It will be similar with Tesla, only much more people feel entitled to talk about cars than rockets, so they forget the bigger picture.
My defense is hard problems have deadlines that will be blown passed, and it's not uncommon unless the problem is incredibly well scoped or you're just lazy and set the bar low by design (ie most automakers).
This is not to say Tesla and Musk don't have problems; they do, but credit should be provided where due.
[1] https://www.inverse.com/article/34976-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-t... (When SpaceX Tried to Buy Missiles From Russia: Vodka and a Run-Around)
> The third and final meeting happened back in Russia. Musk flew there with Cantrell, prepared to purchase three ICBMs for $21 million. But to Musk’s disappointment, the Russians now claimed that they wanted $21 million for each rocket, and then taunted the future SpaceX founder. As Cantrell recounted to Esquire:
> “They said, ‘Oh, little boy, you don’t have the money?”
> This insulting event, however, played a part in inspiring Musk to found SpaceX, which in 2017 alone has successfully launched nine rockets into space and has twelve more launches on the docket this year. On the flight back, Musk turned to Cantrell and said:
> “I think we can build a rocket ourselves.”
Disclaimer: fan of spacex
Well, for starters the Korean automakers managed to go from 0 to several hundred thousand vehicles in under 5 years. Kia went from 26 cars to 95,000 in a year...
A pessimist’s “bullshit” is an optimist’s missed deadline and inaccurate forecasting
An occasional missed deadline is one thing. But missing every self-proclaimed deadline? That's not just inaccurate forecasting--at some point that crosses the line into fraud.
May 2017
This seems like a scheme to both boost future new car sales and effectively “sell” the same car twice.
Doesn't mean anything here, other than it is really hard to predict what "dumb" choices companies will make.
(Imagine the fun news articles about GM selling them cars and then not having repair parts)
However I think it is a good idea to state they have a use for the off lease cars which gives them an out with having to expense new vehicles for such a risk venture; I am not a believer in anyone's autonomy programs.
(disclaimer, I own a TM3)
Also, lots of cars come off lease with under 50k miles on it, so no reason to think the car would just be discounted by the relatively small amount of lowered battery capacity at this mileage.
We don't even have "full autonomous" trains, planes, or trucks yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
Some people think of it as being able to drive anywhere at any time in any condition. This is unlikely to ever happen before AGI. What matters in Tesla's case is more likely being able to drive in some small number of places in specific circumstances without a physical driver in the vehicle (but possibly a remote one to handle unusual circumstances).
Now I don't think Tesla is going to even get to that in 3 years, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Waymo there.
Airport parking/shuttle service. They could even augment the AI by using markers in the roadways. That's about as autonomous as we're going to get in the next decade.
How could that ever work? The "unusual circumstances" that matter will usually require either action in less than a second, like an improvised detour sign, or situational awareness, like a human directing traffic around some random obstacle. At best, Google will be making cars that pull over to the shoulder and call for help in a few years.
Ya, that's pretty much what I was getting at.
Please try to avoid using double or more negates. It’s a bit hard to read.
And don't doubt that Elon/Tesla use this to their fullest advantage.
Rocket science is a matter of applied physics, with materials science thrown in, and a bit of very well understood and straightforward software engineering.
Autonomous driving is a matter of getting AI models functioning to a well enough degree. My understanding of how this is done is you try to find more and better data to throw at it and tweak the models to hopefully make it learn better until the point it seems to pass your tests, which are whatever you've been able to come up with that you can think to test.
It's like trying to throw a pitch over home plate, but in one case you have a pitching machine you can aim and dial in the speed, and in the other you have a living pitcher. Only that living pitcher is an Orangutan you're trying to train.
One of those is a lot more art than science, and as such, getting well understood and reproducible outcomes that don't fall apart at a fundamental level when you add one more variable is harder.
If Tesla’s cars were as good in parking as that, one in six attempts to park a car would lead to a fender-bender or worse.
Yes, that isn’t a valid comparison, but it does show that we accept way higher failure rates for rockets than we do for cars (aside: that also is the reason I don’t see space tourism become popular soon. If, say, the 20th or 30th millionaire who books a flight dies, the market will dry up rapidly)
Edit: one way to realize this is true is if you consider that the rocket already IS fully self driving. Everything after 1 minute mark before the liftoff is fully controlled by onboard computers, people are only there to push the big red autodestruct button if anything goes wrong.
Anyway, my point was something else. That something might seem impossible, and then after just 5 years it can be considered mundane. And I think that's what we will see with self driving too. Unless oil industry manages to manipulate public opinion in a way that stops Tesla before that.
Unfortunately, it seems many people are not going to accept auto-cars with less than airplane like safety levels. Of course that will never happen. So yes, "full autonomous" vehicles are a long way off (probably forever), unless someone (Waymo?, Tesla?) can show they are much safer and some kind of national or state level laws are passed to restrict the legal liability of the makers and owners of such vechiles. Sort of like how ski resorts would not exist without special laws restricting liablity.
[Quick edit: a good question here though is what kind of drivers test is sufficient for us to even begin considering autonomous vehicles? Is that even answered?]
We don't want approximately the same kind of performance, we want much better performance, so it essentially must be different from the human driver
This is incredibly generous assumption, especially given the fact that cars with advertised Autopilot features, like Tesla's offerings, actually make accidents more likely[1][2]. Compared to the driver fatality rate in other luxury vehicles, Tesla's offerings nearly triple driver fatality[3].
This is like theorizing about a car that survives 99.9% of all impacts at any speed. It doesn't exist, nor is there any indication that it will exist, and it doesn't serve a purpose other than to prop up a contrived argument.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-t...
[2] https://driving.ca/tesla/model-s/auto-news/news/iihs-study-s...
[3] https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
> So does that mean that Autosteer actually makes crashes 59 percent more likely? Probably not.
now THIS is a strawman
At level 5, one expects a self-driving car to ride gravel roads, park in highly temporary parking spots, spot police officers and follow their orders, drive short distances on non-roads (e.g. to drive around a car pile-up), etc.
A car that recognizes those cases, stops, and tells it’s passenger “please help me out for a few meters” would be a fantastic accomplishment and very, very successful, but wouldn’t qualify as level 5 autonomous.
It's yet another red flag for buying a Tesla, as if you have something happen that is an uninsured liability to the car, or won't be resolved in the timeframe at the lease, you're stuck.
Weirdly, this hasn't seemed to tarnish the reputation of tesla in the eyes of it's fans.
This is all probably moot, as I imagine Tesla's lease has a clause allowing it to unilaterally change the rules at any time, and it has displayed no reticence in doing so over other issues.
I agree that it seems to be a rental. If the business expects to continue to make updates to the car's software assuming that it will be determining factors for its value, it will be difficult to determine the residual value at the end.
Does that mean that leases will cease to exist? That we will find a way to price the software updates? or that older cars will stop being updated the same way cellphones & OS systems are?
If only it were like software. Producing another marginal unit of software is trivial.
Comparing something to Theranos only works if that something doesn't have a working product. You can see that Tesla's autopilot works. It isn't perfect yet but it is a real thing.
It's one way to double dip on the same vehicle and get more than 100% in revenue in respect to the original MSRP.
But sure throw that line in to cash in on the hype of ride sharing IPOs and FSD so they can raise a nice equity round in the near future.
Tesla is getting a bit desperate. Model 3 demand is obviously not shaping up to what they hoped.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-our-vehicle-lineup
"Given the popularity of the Standard Plus relative to the Standard, we have made the decision to simplify our production operations to better optimize cost, minimize complexity and streamline operations. As a result, Model 3 Standard will now be a software-limited version of the Standard Plus, and we are taking it off the online ordering menu, which just means that to get it, customers will need to call us or visit any one of the several hundred Tesla stores. Deliveries of Model 3 Standard will begin this weekend."
"Its range will be limited by 10%, and several features will be disabled via software (including our onboard music streaming service, navigation with live traffic visualization, and heated seats). Similar to other software-limited vehicles produced in the past, Standard customers will have the option to upgrade to a Standard Plus at any time. Similarly, anyone who has already bought Standard Plus and wants to convert to Standard is welcome to do so, and we will provide a refund for the difference in cost."
It's pretty confident to offer both upgrade and downgrade options between the two.
edit: I did read the link and I still don't understand.
The update is that they won't be making a physically distinct Standard Range model, it will be physically the same as the $39k model with software limitations.
I know they really want to make the Model T of electric cars, but it took about a decade of development for Ford to deliver one under $500. And I don't think Tesla has quite mastered the science of car production yet.
Can you give us some examples of all of this evidence?
When you see a $35000 brand new Tesla actually for sale, please let the rest of the world know. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27120534/tesla-model-3-li...
Unless you have some other definition of bait and switch.
plus the added bonus is that you can yourself choose to buy features you skipped out on earlier. It also would be a boon for resale as well. Letting the buyer decide to add options you passed on.
35k base model should probably been adjusted for inflation but Musk's ego boxed Tesla. Let alone that its one thousand or twelve hundred in delivery plus taxes on top of that 35k price so there never really is a 35k car. In the end I look at it this way, if your budget is so inflexible that less than a five percent change in price is make or break you should not be buying it in the first place.
I wonder if there will ever be a sub 30k car by Tesla someday. The average new car is around 37k now, so about half the market is under that.
Purely as an outsider looking in it seems like there's a lot of caveat emptor about buying a Tesla: wait times seem apt to increase, models seem like they'll be arbitrarily subject to conditions, and random conditions seem to get attached about which models can and can't use chargers.
There also seems a high likelihood of waiting a long time and paying $2,500 deposit for something which never arrives. And if you do get stiffed, there seems to be an attitude of 'it's your fault' (usually for not spending even more money with Tesla).
Not the kind of consistency I'd want when making an investment in a car, to be honest.
Any examples of this? Pretty sure everything has arrived at some point, albeit a delay.
I could understand all the other carmakers being lured by the bells and whistles of "self-driving" marketing blitz over turning their cars into EVs, but I expected more from Tesla.
Making great EVs that are also affordable should have always remained Tesla's #1 priority. Last I checked, Musk said he wanted the world to switch to EVs and the way to do that is through them making cheaper EVs with each generation. The priority shouldn't be to keep adding gimmicks to those Teslas and keeping them more expensive than they need to be. Has he forgotten that?
I think all these self-driving options are being bundled into it because other car companies already add various forms of adaptive cruise/lane-keep to their base models so Tesla wants to have these things to stay competitive (prob adding the 'advanced functionality' to seem like they have a competitive edge).
I wish that Tesla did have a non-smart car option. On the flip side, that makes me sound like one of the tech late-adopters who didn't "need" a smartphone, where a regular phone could have sufficed. In 5 years time, there may not be non-AI (not necessarily full self-driving) cars.
FSD hardware is known as "HW3" (now known as "FSD Computer") and is not in any Teslas at the moment.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111788218142216192?ref_...
For me it's like buying a base laptop. For my personal one, I'll always max the SSD and memory.
(I do like the feature where the car slows/stops when it encounters an obstacle directly ahead. As far as I know it shouldn't require machine-learning/privacy invasion, but it is harder and harder to get one without the other.)
Not sure about the privacy invasion part? I believe a lot of cars with AEB don’t have cellular connections so how could they invade privacy? I’m thinking of stuff like Honda Sensing or Subaru EyeSight here, or whatever Toyota puts on the Prius.
In electric cars such as Tesla, all this has been accelerated. In a recent thread, folks told stories of buying a used car, and receiving the PII and driving history of the previous owner.
It is also used against you, but never for you in regards to law-enforcement. Good reason to be skeptical.
Then you may want to check out the Nissan Leaf instead. Also Ford and Chevy have options. But bells and whistles is kinda Tesla's thing.
The main gripe I see is that Tesla misses deadlines or makes promises they cannot fulfill. Is this not super common in nearly every industry? Have none of you missed deadlines?
I remember this article[1]from last year stating GM would release fully autonomous cars with no steering wheel in 2019! Yet clearly that is not going to happen and I never heard any backlash, but I guess it's not cool to hate GM.
I also am astounded to see people constantly saying Autonomy is a decade+ away. They already have cars driving people 95% of their miles, which would've seemed impossible 6 years ago, and yet here we are, and the last 5% is going to take a decade? How many times are people going to doubt Elon before they realize they're betting against someone whose done the impossible many times over.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16880978/gm-autonomous-ca...
I'm skeptical. I'd be surprised if more than 40% of my miles were freeway.
Call me when we have fully autonomous trains and then I'll start thinking about losing my skepticism about autonomous cars.
I didn't mean this was the average but I probably should have said commutes. My commute is nearly all highway and I basically don't touch the car from on-ramp to exit-ramp.
>Call me when we have fully autonomous trains and then I'll start thinking about losing my skepticism about autonomous cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/12/mining-company-says-fir...
It did take 10 years to build and cost 1.3 Billion dollars. And it is still being remotely monitored.
I plan to buy a Tesla in 2-3 years I just hope they can get their pricing and production streamlined before I do otherwise I’ll buy something German.
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/02/21/iihs-says-these-small-su...
"The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time."
Tesla has over-promised and under-delivered for years while maintaining a tremendous amount of hubris throughout.
The Internet is a weird and ridiculous place.
Some people wanted that for the big 3 auto makers too when they were looking to be bailed out. I'd say very few people fall into that category, but I think more so people are fed up with being over sold on Tesla. Personally I'd be more concerned if there wasn't people being critical of these companies.
How do you figure what they did should be something that is considered a positive? They are raising the price of the base car that was supposed to be for the masses. Now granted to a degree it was a bait and switch anyway given that most people interested in the car want the bells and whistles that they don't get on the base model anyway. Raising the base price to me seems to be something that should be considered a negative no matter the auto maker.
>astounded to see people constantly saying Autonomy is a decade+ away.
Because in all likelihood it is. What they've done in the last 6 years is impressive but wasn't impossible. Even if 95% of their miles can be done autonomously the other 5% is not to be snuffed at as being just as easy. I look at it as 80/20. They've done the 'easy' 80% of it, but the problem is now you're stuck with all the difficult next steps (ie one off situations, roads with no markers, construction, user driving mistakes, ect) as well as the potentials for legal liabilities if they go fully autonomous.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI
The podcast if you prefer:
This whole "Standard Plus model is so much more popular anyway" is a sick joke.
But reading the original Tesla announcement [1], it all seems reasonable. People were buying the Standard Plus model six times more often than the Standard model, so they got rid of it. Good.