GRA
Posts: 9390
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:33 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:Since you love studies so much, here's an NHTSA report claiming a 40% reduction in airbag deployments with Autopilot v1 (the report is embedded in the article): https://electrek.co/2017/01/19/tesla-cr ... lot-nhtsa/

And it's directly about Tesla, not some side-effect study that you keep pulling up.

Terrific. Now let's have Tesla release all their data which Elon has claimed show that A/P-operating Teslas are safer than non-A/P cars. Professional statisticians pointed out the numerous methodological flaws behind his claims at the time he made that statement, and Consumer Reports and other auto safety organizations have asked for that data to be released. I'll be perfectly happy to acknowledge that semi-autonomous systems such as A/P have lead to an overall reduction in accidents (if not a reduction in accidents that A/P is responsible for) if the data is validated by an independent entity and shown to be scientifically valid.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You've once asked why AEB didn't stop for the parked fire trucks, page9 of the report cites a BMW explanation showing why EVERY AEB system is diliberately defeated when the vehicle exceeds a certain speed. They don't want the cars automatically braking from full speed for false-positives. The more people understand this, the fewer crashes into parked firetrucks and center dividers there would be.

As I noted previously (maybe in other topics) every TACC/AEB system is currently unable to handle this sort of event reliably because they are unable to recognize real positives among the false ones, and as such fails to meet the necessary safety requirements. Since people will continue to use the systems improperly either due to misunderstanding their capabilities (which leads to automation complacency), such systems are simply too ineffective to be safe for use by the general public. As has been previously mentioned, lack of understanding of system capability has been and is a major problem in automation-involved aviation accidents, even among highly-trained commercial/military pilots, never mind the much less qualified and trained general driving public. Until the level of idiot-proofing for these systems is much higher than it currently is, they don't belong in the public sphere. As an extreme example of automation complacency:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ4-2d7C6gg
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:47 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:thirdly, at 70%, the model 3 is still pulling down ~70kw (~4.5miles of charge per minute) most of the non-urban superchargers are near easy on/off ramps,

I don't think this is correct. The kW rate reported is an average for charging session. If you want to know the immediate power you have to multiply Amps * Volts
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

SageBrush
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:51 pm

lpickup wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
lpickup wrote:I posted a query to a (different) forum about the "workflow" used for long distance trips. Basically my query was whether there was any way for the nav system to display "optional" Superchargers along route, with estimated ETA and SOC at each one, even if stopping at said Superchargers was not required per the trip plan. The reason being that even though the car may not need to stop, I may have passengers that need to

Then stop. The Nav will adjust


Of course it will. But If I see that a SC is 30 minutes away and the passenger in question can "hold it", I'll defer stopping until then. If it's 45 minutes away (too far), or if it's only 10 minutes away but my SOC is only going to be at 70% by that point and thus not worth skipping an easy off/easy on rest area to get a relatively slow charge, then I may just want to use the rest area instead.


My advice: if the planned Supercharger is too far away for your passenger comfort, then stop and let the person pee. Be flexible
Last edited by SageBrush on Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
lpickup
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:14 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 16138
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact: Website

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:44 pm

SageBrush wrote:
lpickup wrote:
SageBrush wrote:Then stop. The Nav will adjust


Of course it will. But If I see that a SC is 30 minutes away and the passenger in question can "hold it", I'll defer stopping until then. If it's 45 minutes away (too far), or if it's only 10 minutes away but my SOC is only going to be at 70% by that point and thus not worth skipping an easy off/easy on rest area to get a relatively slow charge, then I may just want to use the rest area instead.


My advice: if the planned Supercharger is too far away for your passenger comfort, then stop and let them pee. Be flexible


You guys are right. The system is perfect as is. I'm going to tweet to Elon that he may as well not even bother with v9 because apparently everything is exactly as it should be.

Sorry, I feel horrible for being snarky like that, but you guys are illustrating the point I was trying to make almost perfectly.
...Lance

Deep Blue Metallic 2018 Tesla Model 3 (31849) (delivered: 7/13/18)
Coulis Red 2016 SV (312310) (bought: 12/23/16 sold: 7/5/18)
Glacier Pearl 2012 SL (016138) (delivered: 12/9/11; traded in 12/23/16)
NOGA$4ME Blog

SageBrush
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:21 pm

Sorry, but you are recommending a lot more complexity and noise in the Tesla UI to accommodate your own inflexibility. The Tesla system can (and will) always improve but it is hard to come up with good suggestions. Don't take it personally, but your suggestion is not a good one. Refusal to laud a bad suggestion does not make me inflexible, it just means the suggestion is bad.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
EVDRIVER
Moderator
Posts: 6472
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:51 am

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:32 pm

SageBrush wrote:Sorry, but you are recommending a lot more complexity and noise in the Tesla UI to accommodate your own inflexibility. The Tesla system can (and will) always improve but it is hard to come up with good suggestions. .


I tend to agree with this based on the demand for real estate.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:22 pm

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:Since you love studies so much, here's an NHTSA report claiming a 40% reduction in airbag deployments with Autopilot v1 (the report is embedded in the article): https://electrek.co/2017/01/19/tesla-cr ... lot-nhtsa/

And it's directly about Tesla, not some side-effect study that you keep pulling up.

Terrific. Now let's have Tesla release all their data which Elon has claimed show that A/P-operating Teslas are safer than non-A/P cars. Professional statisticians pointed out the numerous methodological flaws behind his claims at the time he made that statement, and Consumer Reports and other auto safety organizations have asked for that data to be released. I'll be perfectly happy to acknowledge that semi-autonomous systems such as A/P have lead to an overall reduction in accidents (if not a reduction in accidents that A/P is responsible for) if the data is validated by an independent entity and shown to be scientifically valid.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You've once asked why AEB didn't stop for the parked fire trucks, page9 of the report cites a BMW explanation showing why EVERY AEB system is diliberately defeated when the vehicle exceeds a certain speed. They don't want the cars automatically braking from full speed for false-positives. The more people understand this, the fewer crashes into parked firetrucks and center dividers there would be.

As I noted previously (maybe in other topics) every TACC/AEB system is currently unable to handle this sort of event reliably because they are unable to recognize real positives among the false ones, and as such fails to meet the necessary safety requirements. Since people will continue to use the systems improperly either due to misunderstanding their capabilities (which leads to automation complacency), such systems are simply too ineffective to be safe for use by the general public. As has been previously mentioned, lack of understanding of system capability has been and is a major problem in automation-involved aviation accidents, even among highly-trained commercial/military pilots, never mind the much less qualified and trained general driving public. Until the level of idiot-proofing for these systems is much higher than it currently is, they don't belong in the public sphere. As an extreme example of automation complacency:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ4-2d7C6gg


Then your opinion goes contrary to Consumers Union: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-saf ... ing-guide/

Safer is better than waiting for safest. Considering your tagline, you're a hypocrite.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

User avatar
lpickup
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:14 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 16138
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact: Website

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:03 am

SageBrush wrote:Sorry, but you are recommending a lot more complexity and noise in the Tesla UI to accommodate your own inflexibility. The Tesla system can (and will) always improve but it is hard to come up with good suggestions. Don't take it personally, but your suggestion is not a good one. Refusal to laud a bad suggestion does not make me inflexible, it just means the suggestion is bad.


Not asking for lauds...not even assuming the suggestion is good. But if you have a justifiable reason why it's bad, as you say, other than a very generic "it has a lot more complexity and noise", then let's discuss that.

EVDRIVER wrote:I tend to agree with this based on the demand for real estate.


These two pieces of "feedback" even make me wonder if you guys read my suggestion, or just dismissed it immediately.

First of all, "demand for real estate" on fairly giant screens is an interesting thought. But even if you do feel that real estate is tight, the alternative I proposed actually consumed ZERO extra real estate, so this comment is confusing to me. Of course it does technically add more complexity in that after clicking the Supercharger of interest there is one more click necessary to actually navigate to it, but I believe it reduces the overall confusion because it makes the behavior line up more with nearly every other navigation system I've ever used in that there is always an additional prompt to whether you want to "Add a waypoint", "New Destination" or "Cancel" rather than just immediately starting navigation. And I could easily make the argument that at the overall level, it reduces complexity in the sense that if I am able to add a Supercharger as a waypoint rather than a new destination that the system will be able to immediately replan your trip, and you won't have to re-enter your original destination after you reach the Supercharger.
...Lance

Deep Blue Metallic 2018 Tesla Model 3 (31849) (delivered: 7/13/18)
Coulis Red 2016 SV (312310) (bought: 12/23/16 sold: 7/5/18)
Glacier Pearl 2012 SL (016138) (delivered: 12/9/11; traded in 12/23/16)
NOGA$4ME Blog

User avatar
jlv
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:08 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2014
Leaf Number: 424487
Location: Massachusetts

sleeping 3 doesn't start charging on J1772

Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:53 am

Several 3 owners here at work have discovered a bug that is in the current firmware but that wasn't there back in June; e.g., it was introduced in an OTA update and has not been fixed yet.

The bug: if you plug in a J1772 to the adapter when the car is not awake, it won't start charging. You have to wake the car (either via the app or by simply pressing a door handle) for the car to notice the J1772 is connected and then start charging.

When the first 3 showed up on campus, it didn't have this problem. Sometime around 2018.28 or so this bug showed up. All the 3s here now exhibit this behavior.

We have lots of shared EVSEs at work (2 spots per EVSE). Typically you pull in and leave your charge port open (inserting the J1772 adapter for a Tesla), and when the other car is done charging, someone plugs in your car (we have 100+ plug-ins on campus, so someone is always around to move a plug). So it's often that a 3 is sitting parked and not awake when someone plugs in a J1772.
'13 SL+Prem (mfg 12/13, leased 4/14, bought 5/17, sold 11/18) 34K mi, AHr 58
Tesla S 75D (3/17) 29K mi
Tesla X 100D (ordered, 12/18 delivery)
3 reservation canceled

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: sleeping 3 doesn't start charging on J1772

Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:42 am

jlv wrote:Several 3 owners here at work have discovered a bug that is in the current firmware but that wasn't there back in June; e.g., it was introduced in an OTA update and has not been fixed yet.

The bug: if you plug in a J1772 to the adapter when the car is not awake, it won't start charging. You have to wake the car (either via the app or by simply pressing a door handle) for the car to notice the J1772 is connected and then start charging.

When the first 3 showed up on campus, it didn't have this problem. Sometime around 2018.28 or so this bug showed up. All the 3s here now exhibit this behavior.

We have lots of shared EVSEs at work (2 spots per EVSE). Typically you pull in and leave your charge port open (inserting the J1772 adapter for a Tesla), and when the other car is done charging, someone plugs in your car (we have 100+ plug-ins on campus, so someone is always around to move a plug). So it's often that a 3 is sitting parked and not awake when someone plugs in a J1772.


What version firmware are they on?

I've got 18.34.1 (updated the night before, which was 2 days after another update). Will try this out tonight, since I use the J1772 adapter at home.

Edit: Didn't get a chance to. Will try again one of these days.
Last edited by Oils4AsphaultOnly on Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”