Official Tesla Model S thread

[WetEV]

I've got a friend who could,

You and your friend are not representative of the entirety of the USA. I used to live next door, in Marlboro MA, to a family that had never been farther away from home than Springfield MA. A 200 mile range BEV would need no workaround or put any limits on their travels.

BEVs are currently a niche car, not yet for the average person. Sure, the niche is expanding with time, but still isn't close to a majority of people. BEVs have both advantages and disadvantages relative to gasoline cars, unlike hydrogen cars, which have only disadvantages relative to gasoline cars.

Want to accelerate 0-60 MPH in 2.8 seconds? Best choice is an electric. Sure, not anything I personally need or want, but there is a market for it. Witness the Tesla Model S.

Want to commute in a mild climate, have average to cheap electric power, a place to charge at home or work, a second car in the household, and a predictable commute from 20 to 40 miles round trip? Cheapest choice is an electric. There are other advantages to electrics over gasoline or hydrogen cars: smooth, quiet, and no standing in the wet cold wind pumping gasoline or hydrogen. But yes, this is a subset of commuters.

 

[GRA]

I've got a friend who could,

You and your friend are not representative of the entirety of the USA. I used to live next door, in Marlboro MA, to a family that had never been farther away from home than Springfield MA. A 200 mile range BEV would need no workaround or put any limits on their travels.

Do you think that they are representative? In California (and most of the west) they'd certainly be the odd family out. The state's almost 800 miles long and 200-250 wide. It's ca. 380 miles between the two largest metro areas, and almost everyone has done the drive at least once.

BEVs are currently a niche car, not yet for the average person. Sure, the niche is expanding with time, but still isn't close to a majority of people. BEVs have both advantages and disadvantages relative to gasoline cars, unlike hydrogen cars, which have only disadvantages relative to gasoline cars.

As has been pointed out numerous times FCEVs have two major advantages over gasoline cars, for those (few, currently) who care: they are ZEVs , and they can run on 100% renewably produced H2.

Want to accelerate 0-60 MPH in 2.8 seconds? Best choice is an electric. Sure, not anything I personally need or want, but there is a market for it. Witness the Tesla Model S.

Uh huh, and eventually if the market is there and the price of the stacks come down someone will produce an FCEV that will do the same, because, you know it IS an electric. There are FCEV race cars that can provide such accel now, and at least they have some rational justification for it.

Want to commute in a mild climate, have average to cheap electric power, a place to charge at home or work, a second car in the household, and a predictable commute from 20 to 40 miles round trip? Cheapest choice is an electric. There are other advantages to electrics over gasoline or hydrogen cars: smooth, quiet, and no standing in the wet cold wind pumping gasoline or hydrogen. But yes, this is a subset of commuters.

One more time, I agree with all given the above conditions (have I ever said otherwise?) except to point out yet again that FCEVs are electric cars which can be and usually are every bit as smooth and (depending on the design specifics and the acceleration) quiet as BEVs.

Once again, can we get back to the Model S, without rehashing the whole BEV/FCEV argument for the hundredth time, in every thread in addition to the H2 and FCEV one?

 

[WetEV]

I've got a friend who could,

You and your friend are not representative of the entirety of the USA. I used to live next door, in Marlboro MA, to a family that had never been farther away from home than Springfield MA. A 200 mile range BEV would need no workaround or put any limits on their travels.

In California (and most of the west) they'd certainly be the odd family out.

And you would be rather out of place in lots of the USA. For lots of different reasons... Assuming everyone is just like you and your friend is usually wrong.

People vary. A lot. Get used to it. Get over it.

BEVs are currently a niche car, not yet for the average person. Sure, the niche is expanding with time, but still isn't close to a majority of people. BEVs have both advantages and disadvantages relative to gasoline cars, unlike hydrogen cars, which have only disadvantages relative to gasoline cars.

they are ZEVs , and they can run on 100% renewably produced H2.

That is not an advantage to the driver/owner the way many people view it. I though for sure you would mention smooth and quiet, like a BEV, an advantage, is true, but yes a small one. But back to the driver/owner. A gasoline car is refueled at a central station, like a hydrogen car, but there are a lot more such stations now and for at least decades to come. Renewably produced hydrogen is very expensive, and gasoline is probably cheaper for the foreseeable future. Gasoline cars can fairly easily be refueled remotely if they run out of fuel. Hydrogen cars need a tow to a fueling station. Gasoline cars have more range then hydrogen. Far more choice in capabilities in gasoline cars. Mostly far cheaper cars, and fuel. Gasoline wins.

Want to accelerate 0-60 MPH in 2.8 seconds? Best choice is an electric. Sure, not anything I personally need or want, but there is a market for it. Witness the Tesla Model S.

Uh huh, and eventually if the market is there and the price of the stacks come down someone will produce an FCEV that will do the same, because, you know it IS an electric. There are FCEV race cars that can provide such accel now, and at least they have some rational justification for it.

Notice how when I talk about the Model S, you bring up hydrogen cars... The fastest hydrogen fuel cell powered car I could find any reference to was "under 4 seconds".

Want to commute in a mild climate, have average to cheap electric power, a place to charge at home or work, a second car in the household, and a predictable commute from 20 to 40 miles round trip? Cheapest choice is an electric. There are other advantages to electrics over gasoline or hydrogen cars: smooth, quiet, and no standing in the wet cold wind pumping gasoline or hydrogen. But yes, this is a subset of commuters.

One more time, I agree with all given the above conditions (have I ever said otherwise?) except to point out yet again that FCEVs are electric cars which can be and usually are every bit as smooth and (depending on the design specifics and the acceleration) quiet as BEVs.

A Model S can be refueled with equipment costing under $1000. A hydrogen car needs a $1,000,000 plus station.

Once again, can we get back to the Model S, without rehashing the whole BEV/FCEV argument for the hundredth time, in every thread in addition to the H2 and FCEV one?

Can we? I know I can. Can you?

 

[GRA]

You and your friend are not representative of the entirety of the USA. I used to live next door, in Marlboro MA, to a family that had never been farther away from home than Springfield MA. A 200 mile range BEV would need no workaround or put any limits on their travels.

In California (and most of the west) they'd certainly be the odd family out.

And you would be rather out of place in lots of the USA. For lots of different reasons... Assuming everyone is just like you and your friend is usually wrong.

People vary. A lot. Get used to it. Get over it.

Never been under it. In fact, it's because people's needs vary so much that I believe providing a variety of ZEV techs will be necessary to serve them all, in the U.S. AND the rest of the world.

They are ZEVs , and they can run on 100% renewably produced H2.

That is not an advantage to the driver/owner the way many people view it.

But it is an advantage for that small segment, whether BEV or FCEV, who do care about that.

I though for sure you would mention smooth and quiet, like a BEV, an advantage, is true, but yes a small one. But back to the driver/owner. A gasoline car is refueled at a central station, like a hydrogen car, but there are a lot more such stations now and for at least decades to come. Renewably produced hydrogen is very expensive, and gasoline is probably cheaper for the foreseeable future. Gasoline cars can fairly easily be refueled remotely if they run out of fuel. Hydrogen cars need a tow to a fueling station. Gasoline cars have more range then hydrogen. Far more choice in capabilities in gasoline cars. Mostly far cheaper cars, and fuel. Gasoline wins.

Sure, for now, for the people who don't care about emissions, which as I said is most of them. Just as most people don't care about BEVs for the same reason, and the transition will take decades for them as well. I've said all along that H2 would be cost-effective in Europe well before it is in the the U.S. They tax fossil fuels so highly already that H2 is much closer to competitive there now. Renewably produced hydrogen can be quite cheap, if you're otherwise forced to curtail wind or PV-produced electricity, or else export it at times that drive the spot market negative. Denmark's losing an average of something like 20 eurocents per kWh on the price difference between electricity they export (low) and import (high), which is why they'll be using their excess wind to make H2 instead.

Uh huh, and eventually if the market is there and the price of the stacks come down someone will produce an FCEV that will do the same, because, you know it IS an electric. There are FCEV race cars that can provide such accel now, and at least they have some rational justification for it.

Notice how when I talk about the Model S, you bring up hydrogen cars... The fastest hydrogen fuel cell powered car I could find any reference to was "under 4 seconds".

Of course I talk about it, because you act as if such speed can't be achieved by an FCEV. Now provide some justification for either on public streets - no one needs that kind of accel to drive safely. Put a battery pack with sufficient power density and a big enough motor in an FCHEV and it will accelerate just as fast as any BEV, it's all a question of the design intent. Maybe pure FCEVs will be able to achieve similar ramp rates someday, but in the meantime FCHEVs work just fine. The Mirai and Clarity are clearly not trying to compete with the Model S, nor should they.

One more time, I agree with all given the above conditions (have I ever said otherwise?) except to point out yet again that FCEVs are electric cars which can be and usually are every bit as smooth and (depending on the design specifics and the acceleration) quiet as BEVs.

A Model S can be refueled with equipment costing under $1000. A hydrogen car needs a $1,000,000 plus station.

Sure, shared between numerous cars, just like a gas station pump/dispenser is. Like almost any other product, the more that are built, the less they'll cost. The 671 Mirais sold this year, plus a couple of hundred (forget the exact number) last year and the 100 or so Tucsons on the road in California are currently served by 21 full retail stations. If each cost $3 million, that's $63 million / say 900 cars = $70k each and dropping all the time, with each station currently serving just 42.5 cars.

Once again, can we get back to the Model S, without rehashing the whole BEV/FCEV argument for the hundredth time, in every thread in addition to the H2 and FCEV one?

Can we? I know I can. Can you?

No problem at all. If I weren't constantly replying to you on points we've already covered numerous times (many of which I agree with), we'd long since have done so.

 

[edatoakrun]

Tesla driver dies in a Model S after hitting a tree, battery caught fire, Tesla launches an investigation

RTV NH reports (Translated from Dutch):

“Technical Tesla employees have arrived at the scene of the accident and advise the fire department on how they can best proceed with the salvage of the body without being electrocuted.”

Update: Other Dutch media reports claim that the fire originated from the batteries falling out of the broken battery pack.

Apparently, the problem wasn’t due to a lack of knowledge on how to handle a crashed electric vehicle, but because of the state of the wreckage. Ronald Boer, a spokesman for the firefighters, said:


“If the car was on four wheels, the fire brigade normally has no difficulty to turn off the batteries. However, this car is completely destroyed, hampering the recovery. In this situation, you never know what can happen.”

Some of the battery modules reportedly fell out of the battery pack after the crash and subsequent fire.

Here are some pictures of the aftermath:

https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-driver-dies-burning-model-s-hitting-tree-tesla-investigation/

 

[Firetruck41]

Tesla driver dies in a Model S after hitting a tree, battery caught fire, Tesla launches an investigation

RTV NH reports (Translated from Dutch):

“Technical Tesla employees have arrived at the scene of the accident and advise the fire department on how they can best proceed with the salvage of the body without being electrocuted.”

Update: Other Dutch media reports claim that the fire originated from the batteries falling out of the broken battery pack.

Apparently, the problem wasn’t due to a lack of knowledge on how to handle a crashed electric vehicle, but because of the state of the wreckage. Ronald Boer, a spokesman for the firefighters, said:


“If the car was on four wheels, the fire brigade normally has no difficulty to turn off the batteries. However, this car is completely destroyed, hampering the recovery. In this situation, you never know what can happen.”

Some of the battery modules reportedly fell out of the battery pack after the crash and subsequent fire.

Here are some pictures of the aftermath:

https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-driver-dies-burning-model-s-hitting-tree-tesla-investigation/

Drama much? That car looks very un-burned, compared to most car fires. Passenger compartment and trunk look basically untouched by flames, from the few pics in that article. Can't see much of the frunk in the pics.

 

[edatoakrun]

...That car looks very un-burned, compared to most car fires...

But as compared to most BEV crashes?

Still no more details in the news reports, yet:

Tesla, Dutch Authorities Investigate Fatal Car Crash

Tesla vehicle crashes south of Amsterdam, killing occupant; company declines to say if self-driving system engaged at the time

Tesla Motors Inc. and Dutch authorities Wednesday were investigating the fatal crash of one of the company’s vehicles in a town south of Amsterdam, raising the specter that the car’s self-driving system might have played a role in the driver’s death.

Tesla had technical personnel at the scene taking part in the investigation though no other details were immediately available and the company declined to say whether the self-driving features were being used at the time of the crash. The Associated Press reported that the driver, a 53-year-old man, died when his car slammed into a tree and burst into flames.

“We are undertaking a full investigation and will share our findings as soon as possible,” the Tesla spokesman said...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-dutch-authorities-investigate-fatal-car-crash-1473269364

 

[Firetruck41]

Most car crashes do not result in fire. Most BEV crashes do not result in fire. Most Tesla crashes do not result in fire.

edited for spelling

 

[edatoakrun]

Must car crashes do not result in fire...

But many do.

Facts and Figures

•Automobile fires were involved in 10% of reported U.S. fires, 6% of U.S. fire deaths.

•On average, 17 automobile fires were reported per hour. These fires killed an average of four people every week.

•Mechanical or electrical failures or malfunctions were factors in roughly two-thirds of the automobile fires.


•Collisions and overturns were factors in only 4% of highway vehicle fires, but these incidents accounted for three of every five (60%) automobile fire deaths.


•Only 2% of automobile fires began in fuel tanks or fuel lines, but these incidents caused 15% of the automobile fire deaths

http://www.nfpa.org/public-education/by-topic/property-type-and-vehicles/vehicles

="Firetruck41"...Most BEV crashes do not result in fire...

None, that I am aware of, other than a few crashes by Teslas.

="Firetruck41"...Most Tesla crashes do not result in fire...

Only those crashes severe enough to compromise the pack seem to have caused fires, as reported to date.

And several Tesla's have also reportedly caught fire and burned, without any collision at all.

The fact is among mass-market and compliance USA BEV manufacturers, only Tesla chose to use a battery design that was not extremely fire-resistant, and apparently did so primarily to reduce costs.

Tesla also has heavily hyped its claims of superior safety and autopilot features, to promote X and S sales.

Every time an X or S crashes and burns it's probably going to make the news, for some time to come.

 

[Firetruck41]

deleted

 

[Firetruck41]

Most car crashes do not result in fire...

But many do.

Some do, yes.. I would not say "many" do, as that implies a significant percentage.

Facts and Figures

•Automobile fires were involved in 10% of reported U.S. fires, 6% of U.S. fire deaths.

•On average, 17 automobile fires were reported per hour. These fires killed an average of four people every week.

•Mechanical or electrical failures or malfunctions were factors in roughly two-thirds of the automobile fires.


•Collisions and overturns were factors in only 4% of highway vehicle fires, but these incidents accounted for three of every five (60%) automobile fire deaths.


•Only 2% of automobile fires began in fuel tanks or fuel lines, but these incidents caused 15% of the automobile fire deaths
http://www.nfpa.org/public-education/by-topic/property-type-and-vehicles/vehicles

Yes, most vehicle fires do not start as a result of a crash.

...Most BEV crashes do not result in fire...

None, that I am aware of, other than a few crashes by Teslas.

I don't know about every fire, so I will take your word for it.

...Most Tesla crashes do not result in fire...

Only those crashes severe enough to compromise the pack seem to have caused fires, as reported to date.

And several Tesla's have also reportedly caught fire and burned, without any collision at all.

The fact is among mass-market and compliance USA BEV manufacturers, only Tesla chose to use a battery design that was not extremely fire-resistant, and apparently did so primarily to reduce costs.

I believe cost factors into almost every decision that a car manufacturer makes about their vehicle. Is that supposed to be bad? Every vehicle is dangerous. I'm no engineer, so I won't speculate, but their safety record so far doesn't worry me. Applied to a conventional car, there wouldn't even be blip after this incident.

Tesla also has heavily hyped its claims of superior safety and autopilot features, to promote X and S sales.

Every time an X or S crashes and burns it's probably going to make the news, for some time to come.

Well, Tesla hyped, and now you are hyping...

 

[Rebel44]

Model S, that crashed in Netherlands was travelling at 95+mph (155kph) at the time of the crash and AP wasnt used in that drive at all.

http://insideevs.com/tesla-begins-investigation-of-fatal-model-s-crash-in-the-netherlands-car-was-going-96-mph/

 

[edatoakrun]

="edatoakrun

Tesla also has heavily hyped its claims of superior safety and autopilot features, to promote X and S sales.

Every time an X or S crashes and burns it's probably going to make the news, for some time to come.

Well, Tesla hyped, and now you are hyping...

I think you are misusing the term hype, considering I posted the story on as obscure a forum as MNL.

But it looks like I may be wrong about all Tesla battery fires making the news.

This one seems to have been largely overlooked by the press, maybe due to the lake of fatalities.

Behind the scene look at how firefighters disable a Tesla battery while extinguishing a Model S fire

Last week, a 62-year-old Tesla Model S owner drove into a sign announcing a construction site on the highway in Gratkorn, Austria. The sedan continued traveling down the highway for ~200 meters before coming to a stop and bursting into flames, according to local media reports (German).

Fortunately, the driver was reportedly able to get out OK. Overall a fairly banal accident, but the fire department shared a few interesting pictures of their attempt at extinguishing the fire and securing the vehicle...

https://electrek.co/2016/09/10/tesla-fire-firefighters-behind-the-scene-disable-battery/

="Firetruck41
...I believe cost factors into almost every decision that a car manufacturer makes about their vehicle. Is that supposed to be bad?...

Well, I doubt TSLA wants to advertise the fact that it uses the cheapest possible batteries in the cars it markets at such high prices.

Actually, I think flammable battery packs may be a bigger problem for TSLA, when and if it sells large numbers of lower priced BEVs, such as the model three.

More sales would inevitably result in more fires from crashes, even if TSLA can correct in its future models, all the design and construction flaws in the S and X that can set a pack on fire without a collision.

While it's probably a given that any Tesla will always be far less likely to cause deaths and injuries from fire than any ICEV carrying a tankful of explosive fuel, the buying public may begin to ask, why can't Tesla build a battery pack that doesn't catch fire?, as (apparently) most all other BEV manufactures can.

BTW, TSLA recently reported (without much detail) the cause of last month's S test-drive fire:

Bad electrical connection blamed for Tesla Model S fire in France

A fire that destroyed a Tesla in France last month was caused by a loose electrical connection, according to the automaker.

The blaze occurred outside the city of Biarritz on August 15th during a promotional test drive event called the Electric Road Trip.

Two guests and a Tesla representative were in the Model S 90D when the driver, Nicholas Cano, says there was a loud noise and the Tesla employee told him to pull over. The three got out safely just before a fire started that fully engulfed the car in flames within five minutes...

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/09/09/bad-electrical-connection-blamed-for-tesla-model-s-fire-in-france/

 

[scottf200]

Upgrading Autopilot: Seeing the World in Radar - The Tesla Team September 11, 2016

https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar

<snip>
The first part of solving that problem is having a more detailed point cloud. Software 8.0 unlocks access to six times as many radar objects with the same hardware with a lot more information per object.

The second part consists of assembling those radar snapshots, which take place every tenth of a second, into a 3D "picture" of the world. It is hard to tell from a single frame whether an object is moving or stationary or to distinguish spurious reflections. By comparing several contiguous frames against vehicle velocity and expected path, the car can tell if something is real and assess the probability of collision.

The third part is a lot more difficult. When the car is approaching an overhead highway road sign positioned on a rise in the road or a bridge where the road dips underneath, this often looks like a collision course. The navigation data and height accuracy of the GPS are not enough to know whether the car will pass under the object or not. By the time the car is close and the road pitch changes, it is too late to brake.

This is where fleet learning comes in handy. Initially, the vehicle fleet will take no action except to note the position of road signs, bridges and other stationary objects, mapping the world according to radar. The car computer will then silently compare when it would have braked to the driver action and upload that to the Tesla database. If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist.

When the data shows that false braking events would be rare, the car will begin mild braking using radar, even if the camera doesn't notice the object ahead. As the system confidence level rises, the braking force will gradually increase to full strength when it is approximately 99.99% certain of a collision. This may not always prevent a collision entirely, but the impact speed will be dramatically reduced to the point where there are unlikely to be serious injuries to the vehicle occupants.
<snip>

 

[GRA]

Upgrading Autopilot: Seeing the World in Radar - The Tesla Team September 11, 2016

https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar

<snip><snip>

After careful consideration, we now believe it can be used as a primary control sensor without requiring the camera to confirm visual image recognition.

My translation of bolded section: "After our lawyers told us in no uncertain terms that we'd be dead meat in court when any car being driven by autopilot was in an accident that resulted in injury or death to passengers or non-occupants, we've been frantically working to upgrade the system to provide something approaching the capabilities that it should have had in the first place, before we allowed the general public to use it."

Have they released V8.0 and started to upgrade cars yet?

 

[scottf200]

Upgrading Autopilot: Seeing the World in Radar - The Tesla Team September 11, 2016
https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar
<snip><snip>

After careful consideration, we now believe it can be used as a primary control sensor without requiring the camera to confirm visual image recognition.

My translation of bolded section: ""After our lawyers told us in no uncertain terms that we'd be dead meat in court when any car being driven by autopilot was in an accident that resulted in injury or death to passengers or non-occupants, we've been frantically working to upgrade the system to provide something approaching the capabilities that it should have had in the first place, before we allowed the general public to use it."

Have they released V8.0 and started to upgrade cars yet?

It sure seems other car companies are using the Mobileeye cameras as the main thing to do lane keep assist / auto steering. They are using lidar for autonomous driving tho.

 

[lorenfb]

The third part is a lot more difficult. When the car is approaching an overhead highway road sign positioned on a rise in the road or a bridge where the road dips underneath, this often looks like a collision course. The navigation data and height accuracy of the GPS are not enough to know whether the car will pass under the object or not. By the time the car is close and the road pitch changes, it is too late to brake.

This is where fleet learning comes in handy. Initially, the vehicle fleet will take no action except to note the position of road signs, bridges and other stationary objects, mapping the world according to radar. The car computer will then silently compare when it would have braked to the driver action and upload that to the Tesla database. If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist.

When the data shows that false braking events would be rare, the car will begin mild braking using radar, even if the camera doesn't notice the object ahead. As the system confidence level rises, the braking force will gradually increase to full strength when it is approximately 99.99% certain of a collision. This may not always prevent a collision entirely, but the impact speed will be dramatically reduced to the point where there are unlikely to be serious injuries to the vehicle occupants.
<snip>

1. In the interim, accidents will occur as the databases are developed and as the overall system "learns".
2. There will still be a probability distribution that an accident will occur, resulting in Tesla's liability.
Yes, the probability may decline over time, but the issue is whether it will reach an acceptable level
for the consumer's acceptance & trust.

It's hard to believe that the MS "autopilot" system design failed to anticipate not seeing a trailer slightly above
the MS' height. Since many vehicles, e.g. M/B, use radar for adaptive cruise, the MS system should've had
that capability avoiding the accident death. Given that oversight, what might the MS version 8.0 be lacking,
or all future "autopilot" systems?

 

[DaveEV]

My translation of bolded section

That seems to be completely off the mark. Autopilot is already safer than regular drivers. It appears that all accidents that have occurred have occurred because the users have not been paying attention when they should be. It appears that Tesla will be adding more tweaks in V8 to help enforce this.

Have they released V8.0 and started to upgrade cars yet?

Public release is in about 2 weeks, currently still in limited beta release.

 

[cwerdna]

Autopilot is already safer than regular drivers.

Don't agree with this at all. Tesla's made a bunch of misleading assertions (e.g. at https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss) and lots of people have run with them.

(For the below, the reference to "above" I made to is what someone else posted "The differences are not very subtle at all. Autopilot doesn't even deal with things like traffic lights and stop signs...")

As I've posted elsewhere:
There are TONS of conditions and things that autopilot can't handle like the above. IIRC, it can't deal w/pedestrians nor make left or right turns beyond changing lanes. It most definitely can't handle gestures from police officers esp. if they contradict traffic lights.

AP was presumably only engaged in conditions that are safe/relatively safe for AP and that AP could handle. It's being compared to overall miles driven, many of which AP can't handle. And, in some parts of the world, the driving behavior there is nuts (e.g. India and Taiwan) and AP surely couldn't handle those.

If AP were on all the time, all over the world, the accident and death rate would surely be WAY worse.

The only fair comparison would be to only include miles that AP can safely handle when comparing the three.

And:
"TMC" had a pointer to http://ideas.4brad.com/man-dies-while-driven-tesla-autopilot, who is supposedly a consultant to Google sometimes.

To quote him:
"Tesla’s claim of 130M miles is a bit misleading, because most of those miles actually were supervised by humans. So that’s like reporting the record of student drivers with a driving instructor always there to take over. And indeed there are reports of many, many people taking over for the Tesla Autopilot, as Tesla says they should. So at best Tesla can claim that the supervised autopilot has a similar record to human drivers, ie. is no better than the humans on their own. Though one incident does not a driving record make."

I agree w/the instructor taking over analogy. So, yes, this is yet another problem w/their misleading stats. If people couldn't take over from AP and AP were on all the time, w/all its current limitations and quirks, the AP death rate per xx million miles would probably be horrific vs. human drivers.

BTW, re: India, just search on YouTube for traffic in india. Or, take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVUDFizBLxw, which I believe I've seen at work before. I'm sure Tesla autopilot in its current form wouldn't be able to handle driving there w/o the driver constantly needing to take over.

 

[RegGuheert]

Autopilot is already safer than regular drivers.

Don't agree with this at all. Tesla's made a bunch of misleading assertions (e.g. at https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss) and lots of people have run with them.

Exactly. We need to be careful not to repeat nonsense.

As I said elsewhere, Tesla cannot claim that Autopilot was driving all those miles and then turn around and say it was the driver's fault when there is an accident. There are really only two possibilities here:

1) If the accidents were the drivers' faults, then Autopilot gets credit for precisely ZERO miles driven without an accident.
or
2) If Autopilot is to be credited with millions of miles of safe driving, then Tesla gets full legal and financial liability for ALL accidents which occur when a car is driven by Autopilot (ACC plus autosteer).