There is simply no car that compares if you like tech.
And there is no other practical (ie road trips) EV in the US.
These stories tend to be outliers, most people don’t know what a panel gap is and would never think to measure the ground clearance.
And there is no other practical (ie road trips) EV in the US.
These stories tend to be outliers, most people don’t know what a panel gap is and would never think to measure the ground clearance.
That doesn't excuse poor engineering. You also might measure ground clearance if you can't park your car:
" His car has a 12 cm (4.7 in) ground clearance, which will not allow him to enter his parking spot – hence his concern about it. "
Nearly all car manufacturers have adaptive cruise control somewhere in their lineup - they just don't claim to reach FSD with the currently used hardware. But almost all are actively researching FSD with different hardware.
Making EVs doesn't make you a tech company. ICE are even more complicated than electric engines and Tesla doesn't make their batteries themselves.
I'm getting strong WeWork vibes from Tesla's claim to be a tech company.
Adaptive cruise on the other hand is great, but all modern cars have that.
The real issue though is that it's harder to remain alert when the car is effectively doing everything for you... until it doesn't.
Also don’t let the car ping pong, if it loses the lane marking then the car will keep on lane changing with impunity
See Boeing 737 Max and it’s infamous autopilot
I know about the comparisons to a plane's autopilot, but when driving you don't have the luxury of minutes to react. The name puts an image of confidence in drivers' minds while failing to deliver.
(I don't own a Tesla; I just find they terribly misnamed the feature.)
In asking that question, my guess is that you’ve never experienced being a Tesla owner. And that’s fair. I’m a Tesla owner myself, for full disclosure.
I’ve found that a Tesla is truly a computer on wheels; not unlike an iPhone is a computer in your hand. In many ways, Tesla is a software company that makes their own hardware. Unlike every other auto manufacturer, their software has full and complete control over every aspect of their hardware. Their hardware-software vertical integration is for real. They also have single software releases that deploy OTA to their whole fleet of in-service “devices.” From a software and release engineering perspective, incumbent auto manufacturers are decades behind.
> Nearly all car manufacturers have adaptive cruise control somewhere in their lineup
I’d argue the difference is that _every_ vehicle Tesla sells today is cable of being upgraded to the latest state of autonomy—just by an OTA software update and/or flipping some feature flags. While the claim of full Level 5 autonomy without lidar is controversial, it’s possible that most Teslas on the road today will be capable of being upgraded to L5 capability via a software update.
All that said, the QA issues in those photos are pretty jarring. No excuses there.
How can you claim the current hardware on Teslas is capable of L5 when they haven’t even demonstrated L4 capability? Just saying it’s capable for full autonomy doesn’t actually make it so, they need to actually prove it.
Also, you (and Elon Musk) talk about Level 5 so casually when all the self driving companies out there strictly claim to aim for only Level 4.
The question was why it is possible. Not why "it should work today", nor "why it will most definitely 100% happen guaranteed in the next couple of years".
The real answer is nobody knows whether current hardware is enough or not, including Tesla. Until they demonstrate it, it’s just a claim. But they can’t sell the cars on FSD promise if they say it.
Theoretically, yes. But that’s different than confidently claiming it’s “perfectly possible” and that it’s only a question of computation and modeling.
"it’s possible that most Teslas on the road today will be capable of being upgraded to L5 capability via a software update."
He didn't say it will definitely guaranteed happen.
The antonym of the word possible is impossible, which if you try in that same sentence you'll see that it doesn't make any sense that way.
While I personally don't agree with your claim that "tesla categorically saying" those things, the poster still did say it even less.
This is what Tesla claim:
The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
I also personally know several Tesla owners and none of them interpret the company's claims the way you do. So who are all these people who you think are defrauded or lied to? Where are all the angry buyers who thought they were getting Level 5?
I'm responding to Tesla's official claims about FSD hardware.
> You are welcome to present any links or quotes as to where you got the idea that Tesla claims that the vechicle is guaranteed to have FSD in some specific claimed time period (including a time period within each individual vechicle's lifespan).
Way to move the goal post. This whole thread is about hardware, not OTA software updates or a timeframe to deliver FSD. They've repeatedly claimed since 2016 that all Teslas have necessary hardware for Level 5 functionality. I've explained in this comment chain why that claim is disingenuous.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13340938/tesla-autopilot... and repeated Elon Musk tweets.
Sounds like you might not have "experienced being a Tesla owner". There are a ton of Tesla's which, according to the company, will definitely require hardware updates for full self-driving.
https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer
They're not a tech company, but they think (and loudly say) they are, and that causes these kinds of problems. Using tech jargon does not a tech company make.
This reminds me of something or rather some people as it oozes marketing speak when the experience of being a [product] owner is being talked about.
> not unlike an iPhone is a computer in your hand
And there it is.
No, most people would just describe this as 'general poor quality'.
Six Sigma quality manufacturing is all based on reducing deviation and defects - these are red flags.
And although they might not know to check these things, I think if you explained to the average consumer that some cars are 25% lower to the ground, while some are 25% higher, because of general manufacturing inaccuracy, they wouldn't be impressed.