# Tesla Vision is a step back



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

After a recent update disabled the radar, I have experienced several unexpected slowdowns that have made me leery of using Autopilot when other cars are close behind me. I'm also getting forward collision warnings for no apparent reasons. This is raising my stress level. I hope it gets corrected soon but my hopes are not high. Maybe it's time to file NHTSA complaints.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

francoisp said:


> After a recent update disabled the radar, I have experienced several unexpected slowdowns that have made me leery of using Autopilot when other cars are close behind me. I'm also getting forward collision warnings for no apparent reasons. This is raising my stress level. I hope it gets corrected soon but my hopes are not high. Maybe it's time to file NHTSA complaints.


Soon as in ”two weeks…elon standard time”


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

francoisp said:


> After a recent update disabled the radar, I have experienced several unexpected slowdowns that have made me leery of using Autopilot when other cars are close behind me. I'm also getting forward collision warnings for no apparent reasons. This is raising my stress level. I hope it gets corrected soon but my hopes are not high. Maybe it's time to file NHTSA complaints.


 I have been getting those false Forward Collision warnings for years - even before I had AP / EAP / FSD. With or without radar.

Just bad programming.


----------



## Ed Woodrick (May 26, 2018)

Trust me, the only thing that a NHTSA complaint will do is to slow down the software that you want. Nothing stifles progress better than government intervention 
You should well know that if you don't like it, turn it off or just wait until the next version


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> Trust me, the only thing that a NHTSA complaint will do is to slow down the software that you want. Nothing stifles progress better than government intervention
> You should well know that if you don't like it, turn it off or just wait until the next version


Maybe Tesla needs to slow down and fixes what's broken. Anyway it's already done and I have no regrets. And I will keep opening tickets every time it happens. Tesla doesn't care about me but it is very responsive to NHTSA inquiries (because it has no choice). This is not a matter of personal preference because this new vision-based ADAS actually makes the car more dangerous to drive than it used to be with the radar.


----------



## Shilliard528 (May 29, 2021)

Same here without my Radar. Also, my 2017 Lincoln does a better job of crossing traffic warning in reverse and blind spot alerts. Oh and where is 'birds-eye' view we were promised? WTH?


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

Shilliard528 said:


> Oh and where is 'birds-eye' view we were promised? WTH?


 Still in the "Two weeks" Queue.


----------



## SalisburySam (Jun 6, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> Trust me, the only thing that a NHTSA complaint will do is to slow down the software that you want. Nothing stifles progress better than government intervention
> You should well know that if you don't like it, turn it off or just wait until the next version


After 108 “next versions” without a solution, I really doubt an NHTSA complaint will slow down anything. Frankly, I’m kinda tired of “progress” and now want “fixes.” “…wait until the next version” might help for glitches in Sonic the Hedgehog, but so far has proven to be futile for stuff some of us actually care about like phantom braking, poor wiper responses, poor high beam controls, etc. I guess all that means that no, I don’t trust you. But you are correct: if you don’t like it don’t use it. Love having things I paid for work so poorly they can’t be used. Had an electric carving knife once like that, never expected it in a car to be honest.

Given Tesla’s software update performance, extensive warm and fuzzy customer service (not!), lack of ability to contact anyone at Tesla about anything, the NHTSA complaint option looks less nuclear and more the only way to be heard at all. Tesla’s policies seem to encourage this very behavior.


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

francoisp said:


> After a recent update disabled the radar, I have experienced several unexpected slowdowns that have made me leery of using Autopilot when other cars are close behind me. I'm also getting forward collision warnings for no apparent reasons. This is raising my stress level. I hope it gets corrected soon but my hopes are not high. Maybe it's time to file NHTSA complaints.


Tesla started selling vision only cars in Q2 2021 so put that into perspective when thinking about “soon”.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

SoFlaModel3 said:


> Tesla started selling vision only cars in Q2 2021 so put that into perspective when thinking about “soon”.


I'm not sure what make of your statement but I'll say this: when a company comes up with a new approach, it is expected that it will meet, maybe even surpass the old approach in a short order. Software glitches are to be expected in such a complex system but the underlying logic should be sound. Tesla, not having solved this annoying, possibly dangerous problem more than 18 months after its release, is sowing doubts in my mind as to the soundness of the chosen path.


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

francoisp said:


> I'm not sure what make of your statement but I'll say this: when a company comes up with a new approach, it is expected that it will meet, maybe even surpass the old approach in a short order. Software glitches are to be expected in such a complex system but the underlying logic should be sound. Tesla, not having solved this annoying, possibly dangerous problem more than 18 months after its release, is sowing doubts in my mind as to the soundness of the chosen path.


I could not agree with you more. Taking the car you purchased backward in functionality is downright unacceptable in my book.

I know I come across as bitter (I am to some extent), but frankly that advantage they used to have with the OTA updates has turned into a disadvantage in my book. This constant tinkering isn’t a positive. It’s one step forward followed by two steps backward each time these days.


----------



## Shilliard528 (May 29, 2021)

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I could not agree with you more. Taking the car you purchased backward in functionality is downright unacceptable in my book.
> 
> I know I come across as bitter (I am to some extent), but frankly that advantage they used to have with the OTA updates has turned into a disadvantage in my book. This constant tinkering isn’t a positive. It’s one step forward followed by two steps backward each time these days.


Selling Vision only was due to Radar short supply and cost, then the marketing to make it sound good, or better.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

This is one of the inherent issues with iterative design - the pressure to get _something_ out and provide frequent updates. If someone like Ford or GM were working on a similar feature like vision based autopilot, they would release nothing at all for several years until all the glitches are worked out - but then owners would feel like they lied about it being software upgradeable.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

JasonF said:


> This is one of the inherent issues with iterative design - the pressure to get _something_ out and provide frequent updates. If someone like Ford or GM were working on a similar feature like vision based autopilot, they would release nothing at all for several years until all the glitches are worked out - but then owners would feel like they lied about it being software upgradeable.


I'm fine with Adobe, Google or Microsoft doing iterative enhancements on their software because a bug won't endanger me. But let me ask you, how would you feel about iterative improvements on a pacemaker implanted in your chest? I expect that you'd want it properly debugged and vetted before implantation, not after. When Tesla makes "improvements" it's its duty to ensure that they can't be harming people. There's got to be some testing standards like with aeronautics, not as stringent but still meaningful because people's life can be at risk.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

francoisp said:


> I'm fine with Adobe, Google or Microsoft doing iterative enhancements on their software because a bug won't endanger me. But let me ask you, how would you feel about iterative improvements on a pacemaker implanted in your chest? I expect that you'd want it properly debugged and vetted before implantation, not after. When Tesla makes "improvements" it's its duty to ensure that they can't be harming people. There's got to be some testing standards like with aeronautics, not as stringent but still meaningful because people's life can be at risk.


That's what I'm saying, there is no separating the two things. Doing that kind of testing takes a lot of time, so it's not a case of Tesla has to release monthly updates but they also still have to make sure it's 100% safe, and if they would just be more careful etc. And that's not a matter of hiring more coders or QA testers, either. Full 100% safety is a very simple equation: It takes repeated testing, over and over, and finding every single flaw. And that takes many months, or possibly even years. Sometimes just the test methodology takes months.

So that's why I was saying that kind of testing ends up sacrificed for iterative design.


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

Shilliard528 said:


> Selling Vision only was due to Radar short supply and cost, then the marketing to make it sound good, or better.


100%


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

JasonF said:


> That's what I'm saying, there is no separating the two things. Doing that kind of testing takes a lot of time, so it's not a case of Tesla has to release monthly updates but they also still have to make sure it's 100% safe, and if they would just be more careful etc. And that's not a matter of hiring more coders or QA testers, either. Full 100% safety is a very simple equation: It takes repeated testing, over and over, and finding every single flaw. And that takes many months, or possibly even years. Sometimes just the test methodology takes months.
> 
> So that's why I was saying that kind of testing ends up sacrificed for iterative design.


Yep it's all about testing. Yesterday I had my tires replaced and the tire pressure of both tires on the left side was 44psi and on the right side it was 38psi. Testing. Lol


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

francoisp said:


> Yep it's all about testing. Yesterday I had my tires replaced and the tire pressure of both tires on the left side was 44psi and on the right side it was 38psi. Testing. Lol


Those two things aren't comparable. Replacing tires is a proven step by step procedure, where working on new tech like Autopilot isn't. So it's not a matter of if developers would just be more careful and follow the steps they're supposed to there wouldn't be any glitches. There are no steps to follow, and there is no procedure.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

JasonF said:


> Those two things aren't comparable. Replacing tires is a proven step by step procedure, where working on new tech like Autopilot isn't. So it's not a matter of if developers would just be more careful and follow the steps they're supposed to there wouldn't be any glitches. There are no steps to follow, and there is no procedure.


What my sarcastic comment meant to convey is that regardless of the task being performed, there should always be a test plan or an equivalent to ensure the quality of the delivered product or service.

As a software developer one of my tasks was to develop a thorough test plan that tried to anticipate all possible outcomes and ensure that my software would handle them properly. There are testing software that will even do that in an automated way. I would expect Tesla to have one of those software and subject its ADAS to real-life driving simulations and ensure that the outcome is as expected. It seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard to record a bunch of instances of "phantom braking", parameterize them, and feed them to its ADAS software before each new release to ensure it's not breaking anything.


----------



## SalisburySam (Jun 6, 2018)

francoisp said:


> …it shouldn't be too hard to record a bunch of instances of "phantom braking", parameterize them, and feed them to its ADAS software before each new release to ensure it's not breaking anything.


Apparently it is too hard, at least for Tesla. Or not a priority when weighed against the more critical importance of hiding icons, making the driving display larger, adding a game or two, and spending a lot of development cycles delivering new ways to eff up the auto high beams, and then making use of them mandatory for AP. Hard to get the tongue out of cheek also.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

francoisp said:


> As a software developer one of my tasks was to develop a thorough test plan that tried to anticipate all possible outcomes and ensure that my software would handle them properly. There are testing software that will even do that in an automated way. I would expect Tesla to have one of those software and subject its ADAS to real-life driving simulations and ensure that the outcome is as expected. It seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard to record a bunch of instances of "phantom braking", parameterize them, and feed them to its ADAS software before each new release to ensure it's not breaking anything.


I'm also a software developer, and nearly everything I develop also has a prescribed testing method - but that only works because all of the software is essentially operating inside of a walled garden.

And I mention the walled garden for good reason. The GM Cruise software, for example, seems to work so much better than Tesla's because it too is operating inside of a walled garden. In this case, that it's only designed to work on roads that GM specifically mapped for it, with a little flavor thrown in where it can deal with things like basic emergencies and road closures - not by "handling" it, but by suddenly turning control over to the driver. Which means they can also have prescribed tests they they can perform on each one of these roads - clear day driving, wet road driving, heavy rain driving, etc - before that road is certified for use.

Tesla instead is developing Autopilot and FSD to be able to operate in the world just based on rules instead. Those rules have no testing method, the only method for it is to make sure it's obeying the rules without fail, and then learn from gathered data either by modifying the rules or creating exceptions to them. They built an entire supercomputer to test those rules in a virtual environment so it's safer to find those needed rule changes and exceptions, but there are just so many variables out there of what _could_ happen, there is a limited amount of certainty.

In the end, we'll see if that's going to be allowed to continue. It might be the NHTSA bans that kind of development and instead forces Tesla to do what GM did - specifically map out roads and only allow Autopilot to operate on them.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

All this talk of testing. REAL testing requires a SPEC or definitions of what the product is supposed to do, and what it is not. Then testing can be done to the spec.

FSD HAS NO SPEC. No one at Tesla has defined what it is supposed to do (except drive itself completely unattended from New York Airport to Los Angeles airport) or what it is not supposed to do (It will do everything - in two weeks). And we're all gonna get rich (well, maybe not Elon-Two-Weeks rich) making $$$$ from Robo-Taxi'ing our Tesla's. And Smart Summon - what a freaking joke ("Hey y'alls - come watch my Tesla damage **** while driving all by itself!").

The current flavor of FSD-ß-ß (over at least the past year) can't even park itself. Can't get out of my neighborhood without human intervention. 

But it appears that FSD is done - finished. Many of the FSD coders have moved onto the next failure - The Robot.

Sad.


----------



## Ed Woodrick (May 26, 2018)

francoisp said:


> But let me ask you, how would you feel about iterative improvements on a pacemaker implanted in your chest?


This is easy, assuming that the pacemaker hasn't been perfected and that no one else has one that is, I'd probably go for the beta model.
Being alive with a 2% chance of failure is much better than dead with 0% chance of failure.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> This is easy, assuming that the pacemaker hasn't been perfected and that no one else has one that is, I'd probably go for the beta model.
> Being alive with a 2% chance of failure is much better than dead with 0% chance of failure.


😂 You do choose your risk level carefully (2%) to make your point. I'm not sure you'd feel that confident knowing the programmers are pushed hard to meet a deadline imposed by some Musk like character.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> This is easy, assuming that the pacemaker hasn't been perfected and that no one else has one that is, I'd probably go for the beta model.
> Being alive with a 2% chance of failure is much better than dead with 0% chance of failure.


That's not a good comparison, since there is no regulatory body that would allow untested updates to be installed on actual in-use pacemakers, and call a few deaths in the name of progress acceptable (by the way, some pacemakers _do_ have software updates).

A car is a little different than that, because even a malfunction isn't a guarantee of someone dying. And even less so when you consider that Tesla actually has multiple firmwares - the ones that control driving systems are much better vetted than Autopilot (which is an optional service) or the MCU "entertainment" side software.


----------



## Ed Woodrick (May 26, 2018)

JasonF said:


> That's not a good comparison, since there is no regulatory body that would allow untested updates to be installed on actual in-use pacemakers, and call a few deaths in the name of progress acceptable (by the way, some pacemakers _do_ have software updates).
> 
> A car is a little different than that, because even a malfunction isn't a guarantee of someone dying. And even less so when you consider that Tesla actually has multiple firmwares - the ones that control driving systems are much better vetted than Autopilot (which is an optional service) or the MCU "entertainment" side software.


I'm sorry, but saying that Tesla updates are untested is just wrong. People complain about Elon announcing updates, but then it takes weeks to get the updates, why? That's because Tesla is testing the updates during that period.
I'm pretty sure that Tesla first tests the updates virtually, then to a small number of test drivers, then to employees, probably in stages, then to some users, and then slowly to more users.

Yes, comparing a pacemaker to a Tesla is unfair, because the pacemaker is infinitely simpler. It's functionality can probably be completely explained in a page or two.

BUT, even with pacemakers, there are NO guarantees, I remember recently a large number of people being impacted by a pacemaker problem. There were a large number of early pacemakers that were impacted by normally occurring magnetic fields. There were LOTS of problems when the first pacemakers were introduced.

With both hardware and software, there really is no such thing as completely tested.

Take a look at the Tacoma Bridge failure as an example.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> I'm sorry, but saying that Tesla updates are untested is just wrong. People complain about Elon announcing updates, but then it takes weeks to get the updates, why? That's because Tesla is testing the updates during that period.
> I'm pretty sure that Tesla first tests the updates virtually, then to a small number of test drivers, then to employees, probably in stages, then to some users, and then slowly to more users.
> 
> Yes, comparing a pacemaker to a Tesla is unfair, because the pacemaker is infinitely simpler. It's functionality can probably be completely explained in a page or two.
> ...


Here's my take on this. A pacemaker being a medical device has to undergo extensive and well documented test procedures that follow government rules and regulations. Yes there has been issues and recalls because despite all precautions there are unknowns. But those are documented and handled according to well established procedures.

Testing of Tesla's ADAS software is a different animal. Firstly all initial testing is done by Tesla and although I'm sure it follows some internally well defined test procedures, as far as I know it's all hush hush and nothing is shared with the outside world. Secondly when ADAS issues do come up, we have no idea how they are handled. To this day we are still plagued by phantom braking. I don't think there are any official government documents produced. Every one outside Tesla is in the dark. Tesla uses the card of "corporate secrets" to keep the lid on all of it.

I'm starting to agree with others that ADAS software development should be properly monitored by governmental bodies not unlike airplane development. To me the issue with ADAS development is that there are no real rail guards when the car acts up beside the driver taking over. For some reason this never bothered me until I got to try FSD. My change of heart happened when I experienced a very hard braking for no good reason. It made me rethink the safety of beta testing this software, not just for me but for others as well.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> With both hardware and software, there really is no such thing as completely tested.


The difference is when you have a pacemaker software update, it's been in rigourous testing for _years _before it's released in certified labs and basically using the same method that vaccines are normally approved with (not the fast track of the covid vaccines). You can't really do that with cars, because by the time a software update is approved, the car be out of manufacture. 

Then you have a spectrum of updates for cars ranging from very infrequent and heavily tested to rapid iterative releases. The second kind is what Tesla uses. They are not _entirely_ untested, but they will intentionally release small bugs because of the _iterative_ part - they aren't "show stoppers", and the next update is assumed to becoming out soon after and will fix the bugs. Car companies doing infrequent updates can't get away with that - they have to hold back the update until every one of those bugs is fixed.

That gives Tesla's software the appearance of lacking polish, because each iterative release fixes a few things, but then breaks a few things that are slated to be fixed in the next update. If you add together all of the updates that occur with Tesla in the time that Ford or GM might release much more slowly, it really does have more customer value even _with_ the bugs.

So there's really nothing with virtually "untested" in an iterative release philosophy, because in the long run you still get more value.


----------



## Ed Woodrick (May 26, 2018)

francoisp said:


> Here's my take on this. A pacemaker being a medical device has to undergo extensive and well documented test procedures that follow government rules and regulations. Yes there has been issues and recalls because despite all precautions there are unknowns. But those are documented and handled according to well established procedures.
> 
> Testing of Tesla's ADAS software is a different animal. Firstly all initial testing is done by Tesla and although I'm sure it follows some internally well defined test procedures, as far as I know it's all hush hush and nothing is shared with the outside world. Secondly when ADAS issues do come up, we have no idea how they are handled. To this day we are still plagued by phantom braking. I don't think there are any official government documents produced. Every one outside Tesla is in the dark. Tesla uses the card of "corporate secrets" to keep the lid on all of it.
> 
> I'm starting to agree with others that ADAS software development should be properly monitored by governmental bodies not unlike airplane development. To me the issue with ADAS development is that there are no real rail guards when the car acts up beside the driver taking over. For some reason this never bothered me until I got to try FSD. My change of heart happened when I experienced a very hard braking for no good reason. It made me rethink the safety of beta testing this software, not just for me but for others as well.


You have evidently not dealt much with the medical world.
For all drugs, ALL testing it done by the company and follows well defined test procedures. It's pretty much all hush hush and rights and patents are a huge deal 

If you want ADAS testing to be "properly" monitored by governmental bodies, just assume that all development will get stifled. After all, the governmental bodies can't even figure out what they want and it tends to change every 4 years. All testing would get done on a governmental schedule and just drive timelines way out into next century.

At this point, Tesla IS listening to users, users just don't realize where their priorities are. Phantom braking? It's not a Tesla problem. Lots of other cars have it. And the ones that don't actually tend to do a lousy job at it. I've driven a few other ADAS vehicles and most of them can't even make it through an intersection. 

Think about when you taught a teenager to drive, was smooth driving the first thing that you focused on? I doubt it.

If you don't like Tesla and FSD, then why are you here? Sell the car to someone else. If you know that it will never work, then why keep worrying about it?

Most importantly, feel free to go to any of the other manufacturers and use their product. 

Oh yeah, Tesla is leaps and bounds beyond anyone else.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> At this point, Tesla IS listening to users, users just don't realize where their priorities are. Phantom braking? It's not a Tesla problem. Lots of other cars have it. And the ones that don't actually tend to do a lousy job at it. I've driven a few other ADAS vehicles and most of them can't even make it through an intersection.


I've seen much of the same thing. Autopilot works well enough to do its job. Honestly I believe a lot of the people who complain bitterly about basic AP (aside from having to turn it off for lane changes) are upset that they can't leave it _completely_ unattended and read Facebook or watch a movie or nap. 

Part of that might be a misconception about the name - that it conjures images of an airplane where the single pilot sets autopilot, pulls out a pillow, and takes a 3 hour nap. But even that's not true! Pilots have to pay attention every moment autopilot is engaged on an aircraft, because it too will do something stupid the moment your back is turned, like suddenly disengage with a very subtle warning tone.

Now FSD, there is a lot more cause for complaint, because it doesn't do at all as the name advertises, and it's definitely not worth $15,000. Probably if it was monthly only, people wouldn't complain as much - both because they can turn it off if they don't like it, and because $200/month doesn't sound too bad to an early adopter with some extra cash considering what it does do right now.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

@garsh What's your phantom braking experience with your new ev?


----------



## SalisburySam (Jun 6, 2018)

francoisp said:


> @garsh What's your phantom braking experience with your new ev?


I’m not @garsh but we got our 2023 Ioniq5 Limited in October. PB = 0 to date. Love it. On my Model 3 running v2022.20.8 phantom braking still happens occasionally but this is the top software version I’ve had for that issue. PB is apparently at best only a minor concern for Tesla, if one at all. For me it is a major one. I hate it every time it happens and did respond with my wallet in getting the Ioniq5. Glad I did.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

francoisp said:


> @garsh What's your phantom braking experience with your new ev?


I haven't had a single occurrence.  

But it's not all unicorns and rainbows. It does a pretty good job, but Hyundai HDA is not as good as Tesla Autosteer at keeping a vehicle within the lane lines. I've had it touch and maybe even slightly go over a line. That tends to happen on some curves. The auto lane changes are slow and clunky, but it's easy to grab the wheel and perform the lane-change myself without HDA disengaging, so I end up doing that.

Overall, it's been fine.


----------



## Rub"Y" (4 mo ago)

Mine does phantom braking in 2 places in the city and it's every time not occasionally, so now when I'm approaching these 2 spots I put foot on the accelerator pedal and compensate. These 2 spots are very similar in design. They are both forks in the road with a black and yellow diagonally stripped sign. I'm assuming the software detects the sign as danger and slows down. Also had it do this for a very fat lady walking on the side of the road. Probably detected her as a moose. lol

Hazard close to the edge of the road. The downward lines show the side on which you may safely pass.


----------

