Official Tesla Model 3 thread

LHD EU cars being made/tested?

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

lpickup said:

SageBrush said:

Feedback from a non-owner ?
TACC "concerns" from someone who has never used TACC ?

Click to expand...

Yeah, why not? I was scared to death of TACC myself until I was able to actually use it for several weeks and let it earn my trust (I had constantly been "chickening out" and hitting the brakes). Even now there are certain situations where I am at highway speed and see traffic stopped ahead and wonder if TACC "sees" this or not.

Guy said he had concerns about the safety of TACC. This is his opinion, and I consider it valid. He didn't say Tesla's implementation of TACC sucks and the competition is perfect. So it is a good time to point out (at least I think this is the case) is that if he doesn't trust TACC, he's probably not going to trust EAP, and therefore he shouldn't buy the EAP option, and therefore he is only going to get regular cruise control. And then his right scroll wheel would be completely functionless and he could use it to adjust regen without any fear of inadvertently causing the car to ram into another or brake unexpectedly. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but hearing from someone about how they would never consider flying, because the've read how dangerous flying could be, isn't a good opinion to reference in the 1950's. Tech changes, and thus uninformed opinion is hearsay.

Click to expand...

OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.

GRA said:

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

lpickup said:

Yeah, why not? I was scared to death of TACC myself until I was able to actually use it for several weeks and let it earn my trust (I had constantly been "chickening out" and hitting the brakes). Even now there are certain situations where I am at highway speed and see traffic stopped ahead and wonder if TACC "sees" this or not.

Guy said he had concerns about the safety of TACC. This is his opinion, and I consider it valid. He didn't say Tesla's implementation of TACC sucks and the competition is perfect. So it is a good time to point out (at least I think this is the case) is that if he doesn't trust TACC, he's probably not going to trust EAP, and therefore he shouldn't buy the EAP option, and therefore he is only going to get regular cruise control. And then his right scroll wheel would be completely functionless and he could use it to adjust regen without any fear of inadvertently causing the car to ram into another or brake unexpectedly. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but hearing from someone about how they would never consider flying, because the've read how dangerous flying could be, isn't a good opinion to reference in the 1950's. Tech changes, and thus uninformed opinion is hearsay.

Click to expand...

OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.

Click to expand...

Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

GRA said:

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

I'm sorry, but hearing from someone about how they would never consider flying, because the've read how dangerous flying could be, isn't a good opinion to reference in the 1950's. Tech changes, and thus uninformed opinion is hearsay.

Click to expand...

OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.

Click to expand...

Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.

Click to expand...

Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.

GRA said:

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

GRA said:

OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.

Click to expand...

Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.

Click to expand...

Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.

Click to expand...

No. Regardless of how you word your claim, those studies did not apply.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

GRA said:

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.

Click to expand...

Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.

Click to expand...

No. Regardless of how you word your claim, those studies did not apply.

Click to expand...

So your claim is that Tesla drivers are exempt from the results of studies of human behavior? Man, I guess driving a Tesla really is magic. OTOH:

Tesla Model S Infotainment Screen Among Most Distracting Of 30 New Vehicles Tested

Click to expand...

https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-infotainment-screen-among-distracting/

Some systems distracted drivers for over 40 seconds.

AAA put 130 people behind the wheel of 30 new vehicles to test automaker’s infotainment systems, and the results pointed to the need for major changes in the levels of driver distraction. The agency rated 12 of the models as having a “Very High” demand on a person’s attention, and none of the tech received a “Low” grade of distraction.

AAA worked with researchers from the University of Utah to conduct the study. They used cameras and mental exercises to measure a person’s level of distraction both in terms of not watching the road and paying a lack of attention to it. The testing included having drivers use voice commands and do specific tasks through the infotainment system, like tuning the radio or making a call.

The study defined a Low level of distraction as the amount from listening to music. Very High was equal to balancing a checkbook.

According to the research, the most distracting infotainment systems can take a driver’s attention away from the road for more than 40 seconds during tasks like programming the a navigation destination. In addition, as people become more frustrated with the tech’s operation, their level of distraction increases. . . .

The rating for each of the evaluated models is below:

Low: N/A

Moderate: Chevrolet Equinox LT, Ford F-250 XLT, Hyundai Santa Fe Sport, Lincoln MKC Premiere, Toyota Camry SE, Toyota Corolla SE, Toyota Sienna XLE

High: Cadillac XT5 Luxury, Chevrolet Traverse LT, Ram 1500, Ford Fusion Titanium, Hyundai Sonata Base, Infiniti Q50 Premium, Jeep Compass Sport, Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, Kia Sorento LX, Nissan Maxima SV, Toyota Rav4 XLE

Very High: Audi Q7 QPP, Chrysler 300 C, Dodge Durango GT, Ford Mustang GT, GMC Yukon SLT, Honda Civic Touring, Honda Ridgeline RTL-E, Mazda3 Touring, Nissan Armada SV, Subaru Crosstrek Premium, Tesla Model S, Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription

Click to expand...

Direct link to AAA study as above:

Visual and
Cognitive Demands
of Using In-Vehicle
Infotainment Systems

Click to expand...

http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CDST_Final_Report.pdf

As the Model 3 lacks the S' stalk and initially put virtually everything on the touchscreen, it would have been even worse. Moving the C/C controls to the right thumb wheel was a much needed improvement. Still,

Research finds car touchscreens are distracting whether drivers use them or not

Experiment also finds voice controls take attention away from the road

Click to expand...

https://www.gearbrain.com/car-touchscreens-are-driver-distractions-2579671418.html

Research into the dangers of using a car's touchscreen interface while driving has found that the computer display remains distracting, even when it isn't being used - and voice controls are no better.

The experiment, which involved 21 participants operating a driving simulator with a smartphone at their side to mimic the touchscreen dashboard of many modern cars, also found that, even though it made them more distracted, drivers felt more comfortable when the display was switched on.

The research was carried out by Jacky Li, a product designer at Connected Lab, a Toronto-based software company focused on user interface, AI and machine learning. Li conducted the experiment after noticing how distracted an Uber driver was by the large touchscreen of his Tesla Model X.

In a blog post, Li writes: "While I was excited to learn more about the car, it slowly become apparent to me that the driver's eyes were more glued to the screen than the road. . . ."

First, Li discovered what anyone who has driven a Tesla or used a similar infotainment system will already know - that they can be a major distraction. "It should come as no surprise that interacting with a touchscreen requires more hand-eye coordination than traditional buttons and dials. The lack of tactility of a touchscreen means we are more likely to need our eyes to see where we are pressing than with traditional buttons and dials."

However, what came as "a shock" to Li and his colleagues was that "even when our participants weren't performing tasks associated with the touchscreen, their eyes were still drawn away from the road and towards the screen."

Li continues: "They would routinely glance over to see if there was anything new to look at. This revelation was all the more surprising because screens have been in cars from as far back as 1986". . . .

What about voice control?

Li suggests a solution could be voice control, and in recent years numerous manufacturers have worked on bringing Siri, Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa to the car, in a bid to keep our eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.

But Li found even this is distracting. "Despite all our optimism, when it came down to actually validating our hunch, voice wasn't the hero we were looking for. For starters, it was never our participants' first choice: using voice to control temperature or find something to play felt laborious, and even when we reminded them that voice was an option, they still chose to use the centre console by hand."

The researchers discovered that, while voice systems like Alexa are useful when the TV remote is out of reach, or you can't be bothered getting up to switch a light on, in the car - where everything is within arm's reach - thinking about what to say takes up too much of our attention.

"It turns out that, as with touchscreens, using voice puts a lot of cognitive stress on the user," Li said. "From thinking of what to ask for, to how to word it, to actually asking for it, the participant finds it much quicker and easier to just reach over and press a couple of buttons."

While it is easy to see how the car infotainment system has matured in a similar way to the mobile phone, graduating from only buttons, to a combinations of buttons and a display, then a touchscreen, the two should not be treated the same way. Li concludes: "Designing for the automotive use case can't be approached with the same lens as designing for smartphone use cases.

"For each task a driver has to perform, we need to [be] especially mindful of which input method most minimizes cognitive load. In my eyes, vehicles that primarily use a touchscreen are no different from driving a vehicle with low safety ratings...aesthetics should never trump usability, especially for products that could put people's lives in danger."

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:

GRA said:

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

GRA said:

Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.

Click to expand...

No. Regardless of how you word your claim, those studies did not apply.

Click to expand...

So your claim is that Tesla drivers are exempt from the results of studies of human behavior? Man, I guess driving a Tesla really is magic. OTOH:

Tesla Model S Infotainment Screen Among Most Distracting Of 30 New Vehicles Tested

Click to expand...

https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-infotainment-screen-among-distracting/

Some systems distracted drivers for over 40 seconds.

AAA put 130 people behind the wheel of 30 new vehicles to test automaker’s infotainment systems, and the results pointed to the need for major changes in the levels of driver distraction. The agency rated 12 of the models as having a “Very High” demand on a person’s attention, and none of the tech received a “Low” grade of distraction.

AAA worked with researchers from the University of Utah to conduct the study. They used cameras and mental exercises to measure a person’s level of distraction both in terms of not watching the road and paying a lack of attention to it. The testing included having drivers use voice commands and do specific tasks through the infotainment system, like tuning the radio or making a call.

The study defined a Low level of distraction as the amount from listening to music. Very High was equal to balancing a checkbook.

According to the research, the most distracting infotainment systems can take a driver’s attention away from the road for more than 40 seconds during tasks like programming the a navigation destination. In addition, as people become more frustrated with the tech’s operation, their level of distraction increases. . . .

The rating for each of the evaluated models is below:

Low: N/A

Moderate: Chevrolet Equinox LT, Ford F-250 XLT, Hyundai Santa Fe Sport, Lincoln MKC Premiere, Toyota Camry SE, Toyota Corolla SE, Toyota Sienna XLE

High: Cadillac XT5 Luxury, Chevrolet Traverse LT, Ram 1500, Ford Fusion Titanium, Hyundai Sonata Base, Infiniti Q50 Premium, Jeep Compass Sport, Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, Kia Sorento LX, Nissan Maxima SV, Toyota Rav4 XLE

Very High: Audi Q7 QPP, Chrysler 300 C, Dodge Durango GT, Ford Mustang GT, GMC Yukon SLT, Honda Civic Touring, Honda Ridgeline RTL-E, Mazda3 Touring, Nissan Armada SV, Subaru Crosstrek Premium, Tesla Model S, Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription

Click to expand...

Direct link to AAA study as above:

Visual and
Cognitive Demands
of Using In-Vehicle
Infotainment Systems

Click to expand...

http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CDST_Final_Report.pdf

As the Model 3 lacks the S' stalk and initially put virtually everything on the touchscreen, it would have been even worse. Moving the C/C controls to the right thumb wheel was a much needed improvement. Still,

Research finds car touchscreens are distracting whether drivers use them or not

Experiment also finds voice controls take attention away from the road

Click to expand...

https://www.gearbrain.com/car-touchscreens-are-driver-distractions-2579671418.html

Research into the dangers of using a car's touchscreen interface while driving has found that the computer display remains distracting, even when it isn't being used - and voice controls are no better.

The experiment, which involved 21 participants operating a driving simulator with a smartphone at their side to mimic the touchscreen dashboard of many modern cars, also found that, even though it made them more distracted, drivers felt more comfortable when the display was switched on.

The research was carried out by Jacky Li, a product designer at Connected Lab, a Toronto-based software company focused on user interface, AI and machine learning. Li conducted the experiment after noticing how distracted an Uber driver was by the large touchscreen of his Tesla Model X.

In a blog post, Li writes: "While I was excited to learn more about the car, it slowly become apparent to me that the driver's eyes were more glued to the screen than the road. . . ."

First, Li discovered what anyone who has driven a Tesla or used a similar infotainment system will already know - that they can be a major distraction. "It should come as no surprise that interacting with a touchscreen requires more hand-eye coordination than traditional buttons and dials. The lack of tactility of a touchscreen means we are more likely to need our eyes to see where we are pressing than with traditional buttons and dials."

However, what came as "a shock" to Li and his colleagues was that "even when our participants weren't performing tasks associated with the touchscreen, their eyes were still drawn away from the road and towards the screen."

Li continues: "They would routinely glance over to see if there was anything new to look at. This revelation was all the more surprising because screens have been in cars from as far back as 1986". . . .

What about voice control?

Li suggests a solution could be voice control, and in recent years numerous manufacturers have worked on bringing Siri, Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa to the car, in a bid to keep our eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.

But Li found even this is distracting. "Despite all our optimism, when it came down to actually validating our hunch, voice wasn't the hero we were looking for. For starters, it was never our participants' first choice: using voice to control temperature or find something to play felt laborious, and even when we reminded them that voice was an option, they still chose to use the centre console by hand."

The researchers discovered that, while voice systems like Alexa are useful when the TV remote is out of reach, or you can't be bothered getting up to switch a light on, in the car - where everything is within arm's reach - thinking about what to say takes up too much of our attention.

"It turns out that, as with touchscreens, using voice puts a lot of cognitive stress on the user," Li said. "From thinking of what to ask for, to how to word it, to actually asking for it, the participant finds it much quicker and easier to just reach over and press a couple of buttons."

While it is easy to see how the car infotainment system has matured in a similar way to the mobile phone, graduating from only buttons, to a combinations of buttons and a display, then a touchscreen, the two should not be treated the same way. Li concludes: "Designing for the automotive use case can't be approached with the same lens as designing for smartphone use cases.

"For each task a driver has to perform, we need to [be] especially mindful of which input method most minimizes cognitive load. In my eyes, vehicles that primarily use a touchscreen are no different from driving a vehicle with low safety ratings...aesthetics should never trump usability, especially for products that could put people's lives in danger."

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:

Click to expand...

Absolutely. All your links boil down to the AAA study and an article by Connected Brain. Both of which was about driver distractions and NOT about automation complacency.

I'm not sure how the AAA study was done, but I'm guessing that one flaw has to do with drivers not being acclimated with their cars. Once a comfortable climate setting is found, I've NEVER had to change it regardless of the weather. Yes the ACC is always set to auto, but when you realize how much more electricity is spent just moving the vehicle, it becomes pointless to worry about how much is used to maintain a comfortable temperature in the car. That changes the entire use cases of the vehicle. So what seems to be more distracting, isn't the case, because the usage profile is weighted incorrectly. The common actions are handled by the scroll wheels and voice commands, while the less common actions are set once and never fiddled with again. Anyway, I won't explain further, as you'll never be convinced to "try it before you knock it".

I agree, I drove my truck for 30 min today and it made me crazy becase I constantly have to fiddle with the different AC settings. I never touch the controls on my Tesla, not even the vents. I don’t fiddle with the touch screen for music and changing it I can use a voice command or steering control . Like you said, as soon as you are used to it it’s is much safer becasee I don’t do things I needed to before. Many people resist or fight change or make determinations from internet opinions and studies. There is no doubt that my Tesla is the easiest car to interface with I have ever owned. I hear that from others as well but I did fight it at first and I was doing adjustments I never needed to do. Once I tried what others discovered not what was published in a study it became effortless. Some people will refuse to do things differently, I’m sure there will be an ev with huge knobs for that market, perhaps VW can make a Jitterbug. Until then I don’t need studies or those that cite them to tell me it’s a distraction when they don’t have the same experience with the car. There are also many people that buy products and use them incorrectly. My friend complained about his x on many levels becase it could not do things his Rage Rover could, that was until I showed him. Over a month I solved all his issues becase he never bothered to use the car properly. Lastly, you can’t prevent stupid people from being distracted drivers, I see them every day , blaming the car is like blaming a cell phones. Yes there are many things one can explain are easier to use but I’m not going to spend time convincing a non owners or internet armchair warriors. Forums used to be about posting experiences and getting help from others now it’s posting links to garbage from other garbage sites and having opinions on the opinions of the opinions of other opinions. I think my friend has learned that lesson by reading less opinion pieces by people that don’t own the car. Even reviewers get it really wrong often.

It appears to me that you can go too far the other way: a Tesla owner that refuses to accept that there may in fact be a better way to accomplish something.

A recent example: 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 and this information would quickly show me very relevant information and help me decide whether to stop at an alternate supercharger (and adjust navigation to guide me there with a single click), or just stop at a rest area or fast food joint.

The response I got was that I should have done my research before the trip and become familiar with all superchargers en route and know enough about them that I should click the charger icon on the map, scroll to the supercharger on the map, click it to get status and tentatively navigate to it so I could see what my SOC will be when I get there, what the ETA is, etc. And besides, showing "optional" information on the turn-by-turn list is going to be confusing, take up too much space, etc.

Never mind the fact that it could be an optional setting, and being a graphical UI could display the information in a non-obtrusive and differentiated fashion and even be switchable on the fly. But the attitude I received seemed to be saying: "No, it's perfect the way it is. You have no right to complain. No update required." Seems silly to me (and I'm sure most others) to have OTA software ability if that's the attitude. I would hope that people aren't so enamored with Tesla that they refuse to accept any feedback at all.

Everyone has an opinion, it's a useful function and it's likely not there as it's more code and development and real estate on the screen. That said unless you are going cross country you can simply hit the bolt symbol on the screen and it will show the other chargers, I sometimes do this before or on a trip to see if I want to change my stops, pretty quick and easy. I hope they don't change this as on some trips I use alternates and the sheeple use the recommended stops typically, that way I go to SC stations that have fewer cars in the stalls and don't need to share modules for faster in and out. The vast majority of Tesla owners know very little about these things

I pushed my 3 delivery as I 'm not sure I can let go of my 85D, I would need to go to a 3P to get the same performance and give up free SC and all the cargo space. I do like my 17" screen as well, more space for distraction

lpickup said:

It appears to me that you can go too far the other way: a Tesla owner that refuses to accept that there may in fact be a better way to accomplish something.

A recent example: 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 and this information would quickly show me very relevant information and help me decide whether to stop at an alternate supercharger (and adjust navigation to guide me there with a single click), or just stop at a rest area or fast food joint.

The response I got was that I should have done my research before the trip and become familiar with all superchargers en route and know enough about them that I should click the charger icon on the map, scroll to the supercharger on the map, click it to get status and tentatively navigate to it so I could see what my SOC will be when I get there, what the ETA is, etc. And besides, showing "optional" information on the turn-by-turn list is going to be confusing, take up too much space, etc.

Never mind the fact that it could be an optional setting, and being a graphical UI could display the information in a non-obtrusive and differentiated fashion and even be switchable on the fly. But the attitude I received seemed to be saying: "No, it's perfect the way it is. You have no right to complain. No update required." Seems silly to me (and I'm sure most others) to have OTA software ability if that's the attitude. I would hope that people aren't so enamored with Tesla that they refuse to accept any feedback at all.

Click to expand...

Agreed that some people are just as inflexible in the Tesla camp as well.

As for your question, yes, you can see the list of nearby superchargers by pressing the lightning-bolt icon on the map (even while in a trip navigation). You can get charge estimates by navigating to it. Once done "browsing", you can use the map-search to select the original destination that you were navigating to. All of this requires an LTE connection though, so a little pre-planning on long road trips is prudent until v9 is released (rumored to have pre-downloaded maps and waypoints).

lpickup said:

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

Click to expand...

Then stop. The Nav will adjust

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

As for your question, yes, you can see the list of nearby superchargers by pressing the lightning-bolt icon on the map (even while in a trip navigation). You can get charge estimates by navigating to it. Once done "browsing", you can use the map-search to select the original destination that you were navigating to. All of this requires an LTE connection though, so a little pre-planning on long road trips is prudent until v9 is released (rumored to have pre-downloaded maps and waypoints).

Click to expand...

Guys, I get it...that's the whole point I was making. Having planned (much shorter, but no less challenging) trips in my LEAF, I know very well that I can pre-research my route, get familiar with all the Superchargers on route so I am at least generally aware of them, then use the bolt icon to pan around the map and click on an upcoming Supercharger site and then do a few exploratory clicks and navigates to get the information I am looking for. Just not really the thing I am looking to do after someone says they are starting to have to go to the bathroom and meanwhile trying to keep my eyes on the road, when I can think of a highly unobtrusive--and to me at least--non-confusing way to present this data right on screen: imagine an icon similar to the BOLT icon (or possibly even just make the BOLT icon do this) that zooms out and not just highlight and list the closest 5 SC's, but show a few stats for each one including how many miles/minutes away the SC is; how many minutes a stop there would add to my trip (if in navigation mode); what the estimated battery SOC is upon arrival; and how many stalls are currently in use. Granted, that's possibly a lot of data to display in the simple list, so potentially require a click to get those stats, but when I click, don't immediately start navigating there (like it does today). Instead, show me the expanded stats and provide an "Add Waypoint" button. And if I do have to click to get more data, let's add in some more useful data such as nearby amenities so I can tell if there is even a bathroom to be had nearby.

But the whole point is not about that feature specifically, just the whole attitude of "Well here's how you have to do it in the Tesla, so thou shalt do it that way". Not, "Oh hey, that's not a bad idea", or "I see what you are saying, but here is the problem..." "or "Here's why that will never work".

But since I did elaborate on the UI for locating SC and getting good data on them, I might as well continue. I do like to be able to see the current utilization of the stalls at a Supercharger. Right now I think the display is something simple like "7/8 available", but it might be more helpful to convey even more information. Are there any stalls that are down? If there are only 2/8 available but the charge rate of some of the half pairs indicate that vehicles will either be done soon or are charging at a slow enough rate that if I got the other half pair my charge rate wouldn't be impacted. Obviously the trick is boiling down all that information into something easily digestible from a quick glance at the screen. Maybe something along the lines of a display of the expected charging time at the SC that takes those factors into account (knowing that it's not 100% accurate given the fact that I may still be 25 minutes out), or a "score" where 100% represents the effective charge rate I can assume if I showed up to a perfectly working SC, and going down based on the effective energy I can receive in a given amount of time taking into account broken stalls, having to wait for an open stall, and getting a reduced charging rate due to a busy SC site.

SageBrush said:

lpickup said:

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

Click to expand...

Then stop. The Nav will adjust

Click to expand...

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.

At this point I just don't know why I even bother brainstorming different (and I think better) ways to do things.

lpickup said:

SageBrush said:

lpickup said:

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

Click to expand...

Then stop. The Nav will adjust

Click to expand...

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.

At this point I just don't know why I even bother brainstorming different (and I think better) ways to do things.

Click to expand...

Oh. Then just zoom out in your map. Supercharger stops still show up as red waypoints to give you a rough idea of how far away they are without the other details. I did this when navigating to a mall near Tejon Ranch and there were 3 superchargers along the way.

Secondly, I have yet to reach a supercharger that does NOT have restrooms nearby, so that's a question you shouldn't need to ask.

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, so it's up to you on whether or not to stop at a rest area.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

GRA said:

Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:

Click to expand...

Absolutely. All your links boil down to the AAA study and an article by Connected Brain. Both of which was about driver distractions and NOT about automation complacency.

Click to expand...

You don't see any link between automation bias/complacency and the willingness to be distracted? I refuse to make or receive a phone call while I'm driving, and have it turned off in the car (easier for me to disconnect than for many others; I lived for 9 years without a home phone when growing up), because I know that it requires me to divert a greater amount of cognitive cycles away from driving than I'm comfortable with, but others certainly are so willing (and I have to avoid being run over by them while walking/biking on a bi-monthly basis).

You have said that there's no relevance between aviation studies of such systems and behaviors and similar studies in cars. I've just provided you with examples showing there is in fact exactly similar behavior in the case of touchscreens. There is also the same evidence regarding automation bias/complacency in both aircraft, land systems and cars - I've provided numerous links in both this and the "Tesla's Autopilot, on the road" and "Automated vehicles, LEAF and others" threads, or anyone could just search the net for themselves. But if, as you claim, there's no evidence of automation bias/complacency in Teslas or any other so-called semi-automated cars, despite all the evidence (video and accident reconstruction) showing otherwise, and touchscreens and voice controls aren't far more of a distraction than single-purpose buttons and switches within easy reach when the operator has to keep their attention elsewhere for safety, then you should have no problem whatsoever finding peer-reviewed research that shows that, to counter all the research that says just the opposite. I await your cites.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

I'm not sure how the AAA study was done, but I'm guessing that one flaw has to do with drivers not being acclimated with their cars. Once a comfortable climate setting is found, I've NEVER had to change it regardless of the weather. Yes the ACC is always set to auto, but when you realize how much more electricity is spent just moving the vehicle, it becomes pointless to worry about how much is used to maintain a comfortable temperature in the car. That changes the entire use cases of the vehicle. So what seems to be more distracting, isn't the case, because the usage profile is weighted incorrectly. The common actions are handled by the scroll wheels and voice commands, while the less common actions are set once and never fiddled with again. Anyway, I won't explain further, as you'll never be convinced to "try it before you knock it".

Click to expand...

And I won't bother providing any more research to you, as you've obviously entered "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" reasoning; Tesla is the Holy Grail, and if they say something it must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That you and others are comfortable with Auto Climate Control is terrific, but as I've pointed out others aren't. To quote Clement Attlee, "we would all be very unhappy living in other's paradises." Nor does either of these groups' personal preferences invalidate scientifically conducted research as to distraction and automation bias/complacency.

What Tesla drivers as a percentage or number that know how to use the system are not comfortable with auto climate? I know at least 30 owners and none of them have an issue. Since that's my sample please provide yours. Don't confuse reaching for a touch screen as a substitute for buttons. I rarely need to touch my screen for driving. In fact I don't need to take my eyes of the road and can use steering and voice controls for almost all driving needs. I would say ICE cars with small screens and terrible UI are worse. The LEAF is terrible compared to a Tesla. The majority of complaints come from people that seem to fiddle with things endlessly because the systems are poor in some regard. I bitched and complained about the Tesla climate control until I unlearned my bad habits.

EVDRIVER said:

What Tesla drivers as a percentage or number that know how to use the system are not comfortable with auto climate? I know at least 30 owners and none of them have an issue. Since that's my sample please provide yours. Don't confuse reaching for a touch screen as a substitute for buttons. I rarely need to touch my screen for driving. In fact I don't need to take my eyes of the road and can use steering and voice controls for almost all driving needs. I would say ICE cars with small screens and terrible UI are worse. The LEAF is terrible compared to a Tesla. The majority of complaints come from people that seem to fiddle with things endlessly because the systems are poor in some regard. I bitched and complained about the Tesla climate control until I unlearned my bad habits.

Click to expand...

You are talking about a self-selected sample, 'people who like that sort of thing say that's the sort of thing they like'. A more valuable metric is what % of potential buyers as a whole will simply reject the car outright because they simply don't want to put up with ACC or touchscreen controls, or spend the time to learn how to use it. As for small screens and terrible UI, sure, they're bad; I'd reject them out of hand, because physical buttons controlling single-purpose functions are far superior as far as ease of use and safety; bigger screens and better UI make touchscreens easier to use, but never as easy/safe to use as physical controls, nor, due to cognitive loading, is voice a better option.

I have nothing against touchscreens or voice controls per se, I just reject them for use while driving, flying or for any other purpose when my attention must be elsewhere for safety. Until someone can show that performance and safety are improved under those conditions by the use of touchscreens/voice instead of (well-designed) physical controls, I'm simply unwilling to put my or, more importantly from a societal point of view, other people's lives at greater risk by using them. I also reject cars which have poorly-designed or laid-out, frequently-used (while driving) physical controls for the same reason.

Once autonomous cars have achieved acceptable reliability, my objections to (driver-operated) touchscreen and voice controls go away, because devoting most or all of your attention to operating them will no longer decrease safety.

GRA said:

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

GRA said:

Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:

Click to expand...

Absolutely. All your links boil down to the AAA study and an article by Connected Brain. Both of which was about driver distractions and NOT about automation complacency.

Click to expand...

You don't see any link between automation complacency and the willingness to be distracted? I refuse to make or receive a phone call while I'm driving, because I know that it requires me to divert a greater amount of cognitive cycles away from driving than I'm comfortable with, but others certainly are so willing (and I have to avoid being run over by them while walking/biking on a bi-monthly basis)? You have said that there's no relevance between aviation studies of such systems and behaviors and similar studies in cars. I've just provided you with examples showing there is in fact exactly similar behavior in the case of touchscreens. There is also the same evidence regarding automation bias/complacency in both aircraft, land systems and cars - I've provided numerous links in both this and the "Tesla's autopilot, on the road" and "Automated vehicles, LEAF and others" threads, or anyone could just search for themselves. But if, as you claim, there's no evidence of automation bias/complacency in Teslas or any other so-called semi-automated cars, despite all the evidence (video and accident reconstruction) showing otherwise, and touchscreens and voice controls aren't far more of a distraction than single-purpose buttons and switch within easy reach when the operator has to keep their attention elsewhere for safety, then you should have no problem whatsoever finding peer-reviewed research that shows that, to counter all the research that says just the opposite. I await your cites.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:

I'm not sure how the AAA study was done, but I'm guessing that one flaw has to do with drivers not being acclimated with their cars. Once a comfortable climate setting is found, I've NEVER had to change it regardless of the weather. Yes the ACC is always set to auto, but when you realize how much more electricity is spent just moving the vehicle, it becomes pointless to worry about how much is used to maintain a comfortable temperature in the car. That changes the entire use cases of the vehicle. So what seems to be more distracting, isn't the case, because the usage profile is weighted incorrectly. The common actions are handled by the scroll wheels and voice commands, while the less common actions are set once and never fiddled with again. Anyway, I won't explain further, as you'll never be convinced to "try it before you knock it".

Click to expand...

And I won't bother providing any more research to you, as you've obviously entered "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" reasoning; Tesla is the Holy Grail, and if they say something it must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That you and others are comfortable with Auto Climate Control is terrific, but as I've pointed out others aren't. To quote Clement Attlee, "we would all be very unhappy living in other's paradises." Nor does either of these groups personal opinions invalidate scientifically conducted research as to distraction and automation bias/complacency.

Click to expand...

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-crash-rate-autopilot-nhtsa/

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

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.

GRA said:

EVDRIVER said:

What Tesla drivers as a percentage or number that know how to use the system are not comfortable with auto climate? I know at least 30 owners and none of them have an issue. Since that's my sample please provide yours. Don't confuse reaching for a touch screen as a substitute for buttons. I rarely need to touch my screen for driving. In fact I don't need to take my eyes of the road and can use steering and voice controls for almost all driving needs. I would say ICE cars with small screens and terrible UI are worse. The LEAF is terrible compared to a Tesla. The majority of complaints come from people that seem to fiddle with things endlessly because the systems are poor in some regard. I bitched and complained about the Tesla climate control until I unlearned my bad habits.

Click to expand...

You are talking about a self-selected sample, 'people who like that sort of thing say that's the sort of thing they like'. A more valuable metric is what % of potential buyers as a whole will simply reject the car outright because they simply don't want to put up with ACC or touchscreen controls, or spend the time to learn how to use it. As for small screens and terrible UI, sure, they're bad; I'd reject them out of hand, because physical buttons controlling single-purpose functions are far superior as far as ease of use and safety; bigger screens and better UI make touchscreens easier to use, but never as easy/safe to use as physical controls, nor, due to cognitive loading, is voice a better option.

I have nothing against touchscreens or voice controls per se, I just reject them for use while driving, flying or for any other purpose when my attention must be elsewhere for safety. Until someone can show that performance and safety are improved under those conditions by the use of touchscreens/voice instead of (well-designed) physical controls, I'm simply unwilling to put my or, more importantly from a societal point of view, other people's lives at greater risk by using them. I also reject cars which have poorly-designed or laid-out, frequently-used (while driving) physical controls for the same reason.

Once autonomous cars have achieved acceptable reliability, my objections to (driver-operated) touchscreen and voice controls go away, because devoting most or all of your attention to operating them will no longer decrease safety.

Click to expand...

That group is also a self-selection bias.

At least with EVDriver's sample pool, those drivers started off with being used to buttons (since there weren't any other options) and have had to learn how to use the touchscreen settings.