Please itemize these "wide range of safety features" for us that other manufacturers do not have or did not have until Tesla innovated them.
> They invest in own crash test facilities. Only Volvo is kind of on par.
Audi owns one, for just one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KR2N_Q8ep8
Tesla roll out cars in generations. So just take a $40k Model 3/Y platform was introduced in 2017 and compare it with any car been introduced that year. My friend bought a BMW in 2019 for similar money, it doesn't have half of that. Maybe you can have them but you have to buy extra packages for extra money.
Tesla don't sell safety features for extra price. The only extra feature is Autopilot. But hardware, camera's , lane departure avoidance, blind spot collision warning etc in every car.
You can even take such a simple feature as forward collision warning system. When you drive it is super accurate it uses the same data and models from Autopilot to predict when there is a crash. If your slowing down dynamic is not good or the car in front/back change it dynamics it will warn you immediately. Only this feature saved me several times from collision. I'm not a good driver.
As I said in 2022 there are many car brands that catching up in some cases they doing better. And this is good.
Human is a bad, constantly distracted driver. Technology is the only way to make our life safer.
Forward collision warning became standard in 2016 by at least ten manufacturers: Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.
Without speaking to Blind Spot, my Audi does similar intelligent things. If you change lanes next to a vehicle or just in front of it, but you have a positive speed differential, it won't activate. If there is a vehicle in your blind spot approaching you but their speed differential to you is low, it will activate later. If there's a much higher speed differential (say they're in a HOV lane, and you're in a much slower regular lane), it will activate much earlier.
And yes for these minor exceptions Tesla offers a retrofit.
Based on what? "Understanding what is around", and "Tesla is far better at understanding the context" - my Audi has never attempted to drive into stopped traffic.
Your vision (and not just about Audi) that all other manufacturers have these dumb, simple systems and no context of what's going on around is simply, and factually, wrong.
My Audi (and I'm not saying they are the leader, I'm just speaking on them because of my experience) has no fewer than 13 radar sensors around the vehicle and will tell me of incursions into the vehicle's "space". It will recognize that some incursions are more "concerning" than others and alert appropriately.
I really have no idea what you mean by "Audi is not super good" about safety systems.
You have proof for that statement?
I drive a 2021 Audi A1, the most basic version. From Tesla's safety page, this Audi has:
- Impact protection
- Structural integrity
- Crumple zones
- Lane departure warning/prevention
- Collision detection
- Emergency braking
The only thing it doesn't have is the blind spot sensor. But, again, it's on an entry-level car that costs easily 10 thousand dollars less than the cheapest Tesla.
Ah yeah, and all that works in Swedish conditions where Tesla's would be blind for a significant amount of time (the sun hanging just above the horizon for a prolonged time, an reflecting from a snowy/wet road).
But sure. As maxdo would have us believe, "it's hard to match what Tesla offers".
Also, if your saying FSD is going finally, finally be properly released this year — I doubt it.
Your strong pro-Tesla bias and your sweeping, unfocused and unsubstantiated allegations against other car makers undermine your argument completely.
Not currently; I just bought a 2022 Jeep Wrangler that doesn’t have anything of the sort.
Suffice it to say, I don't foresee myself ever buying or leasing a BMW or Audi again. Telsa is so far ahead that it probably won't compute unless you've driven one for a while.
That's an incredibly bad example, because in German brands you have to pay extra for basic safety features(famously in the new Polo you have to pay extra to have more than the basic 3 airbags, I don't even know how that's allowed). Look at a brand new Peugeot/Citroen/Kia/Hyundai and you will pay less than what a Model 3 costs and get just as many safety features. Yes, all the stuff that is optional in a BMW - but look outside of Audi/Merc/BMW/Volkswagen and you will find that this stuff is also completely standard.
And humans are infinitely worse when they have to look after a mostly-ok automation. We can’t pay attention to static things for a prolonged time.
But regarding less “clever” safety features, I agree with you.
#1 lesson of buying cars is:
1. Don't buy German cars if you don't have to (or if you buy them, never complain about the price of their optional equipment).
The corollary is:
1". Buy Korean or Japanese cars.
Volvo built their crash test facilities before Tesla came to existence.
I want the controls on my car to constantly change out from under me as much as I want my miter saw and power drill to startle me with a new interface. Screwing with safety critical controls does NOT make people safer.
It is not a goddamn webpage where fking up the fonts will make it temporarily miss some icons.
Today, other car manufacturers are standardizing safety features across their model lineups while manufacturing cars that are a third the price of the cheapest Tesla.
Pretty much every major manufacturer makes safety features standard on the base models across their lineup today.
Perhaps true, but I've seen more people asleep at the wheel in Teslas in the last 2 years (two) than the rest of my life combined (zero).
1. It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria
2. As the adjusted data clearl shows, it's not that hard to match it. And since you mention Volvo, they definitely match it. They are honest enough though not to call it "autopilot", or "full safe driving" or pin the plame for its failures on the driver.
Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.
Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve the proper climb/descent. There are other times on e.g. approach, or ground collision warnings with even narrower margins for disengaging autopilot.
Pilots generally know when they need to be hyper-aware with autopilot and so do competent Tesla drivers. If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.
If a drivers license required as much training as a pilots license then you might have a point.
When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms.
It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers-autopilot-swerve...
In the example video the car starts turning at 40 seconds and passes the barrier at 47 seconds.
Pilots require extensive training (an re-training). The must meet certain criteria to even fly certain types of plains. And they have to go through additional training if they have to switch planes (going from Airbus to Boeing for example).
So, if we're making "teh same argument" for Tesla, then Tesla needs all that to call its system an autopilot.
An IMO important difference with pilots is that pilots are professionals that get trained and periodically retrained on how specific planes and their autopilots work.
Tesla drivers, on the other hand, hear Tesla’s at times optimistic marketing, and may just learn how to switch autopilot on and off without understanding when to use it and when not to use it.
And most airlines ended up cancelling pending orders for the 737 Max and switched to a different brand that didn't play nearly as fast and loose with safety.
It does seem quite comparable in capabilities to the actual autopilot in aircraft. And that’s what’s confusing to people; most don’t realize that an autopilot is a control used by a driver or pilot to reduce their workload. (As a pilot, I am still logging flight time as the “sole manipulator of controls” during the time the autopilot is engaged.)
You know like that claim about human being there just because of pesky regulations and laws. Not because human would be needed.
including the system's assumption that the operator of the vehicle is doing so as a trained professional in that skill, including the extensive continuous training requirements required to maintain professional-level expertise?
Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe. They also promote hybrid Cars that has highest chances to catch on fire compares to EV and regular ICE cars.
But yeah, naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc. That's a logic media is trying to put in our head. Don't think.
That's... quite a leap.
> Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"?
That would be just that: a screaming article.
> so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe.
Ah, yes. Because the only way to make a car safe is to make it electric.
1. I was responding to the ridiculous claim of "if you care about safety it's hard to match with what Tesla offers".
This claim is bullshit, and Volvo easily matches what Tesla offers when it comes to car safety
2. Volvo XC40 Recharge, C40 Recharge are the cars that exist, but you chose to ignore them
> Naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc.
I tried to parse this sentense, and I couldn't. Are you saying that Volvo doesn't do real tech, or doesn't do crash tests etc.? If so, are you delusional?
BTW, here's Volvo's purpose-built crash-test laboratory: https://www.media.volvocars.com/se/sv-se/media/videos/154740...
Dude, really?
https://group.volvocars.com/company/innovation/electrificati...
In fact tesla is about to release structural batteries cars, that will use battery as part of the cars body, makes it even more safe. Model Y with structural pack will be out in March 2022.
Volvo at this moment promoting hybrids and ICE that doesn't have this features, because it's bloody business. And money is money.
Just compare real actions of Volvo who claim one of the safest brand and Tesla.
> In fact tesla is about to release structural batteries cars, that will use battery as part of the cars body, makes it even more safe. Model Y with structural pack will be out in March 2022.
I'll believe that when I see it. How's the Tesla Semi release going? Especially since structural batteries are still an active research topic that actual researchers think will be in mass production in 5 years or more.
And it can nicely burst into flames that burn for hours on, without any easy way to put it out. I sure as hell would rather have a broken arm over being burnt alive in a steel frame.
That's not actually why.
It's because carmakers are huge advertisers. You get on their bad side, they pull their advertising.
Tesla's advertising consists of Elon Musk's Twitter account, so Tesla gets the reporting the others would get if the authors weren't reliant on the subjects of those stories for their paychecks.