Owner experiences steering and brake failure

[CyberGus]

I thought yahoo was a chocolate drink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!

Geez, it's a thirty year old search engine and news source. I have a friend that works there. It's still operated, despite no longer being independent.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

This seems to be the case with the SbW and brakes failing at the same time, which should never be allowed in a vehicle design.

Losing all controls in a vehicle will certainly have deadly consequences, but I know of no reported instances.

ICE vehicles with a serpentine belt can lose power to steering, brakes, alternator, and cooling all at the same time. Now THAT'S a SPOF.

 

[Crissa]

4. Again- it’s not about how many camera you have. It’s same technology with common failure mode.

That's gibberish.

This thread clearly went somewhere weird when someone decided that 'never' because they don't see a pathway to L3 when they admit there's no organized path anyhow.

Ugh.

What a waste of time to read.

-Crissa

 

[Dazureus]

I'm seeing two conversations going on here. There's the Cybertruck/Tesla enthusiast that is highly defensive of any critical discussion because we've had to weather all kinds of FUD attacks and have (mostly) been on the right side of the discussion. They're very sensitive to any questioning of Tesla implementation because in the past, have always had to tamp down rumors about all kinds of implied failures. We've most recently seen all the hit pieces about stainless steel rusting or lack of performance due to getting "stuck". Rightly so, any discussion that has a whiff of criticism is reactively shut down since Tesla does have a history of making good in the end, for the most part.

The other side of the conversation, specifically from krispykreme, Jbee, and a few others comes from a direct technical knowledge of automotive engineering and a healthy dose of how things work in the engineering world. An engineer will be the first person to tell you that things can go, and do go, sideways, because we're living the day to day of anomalies and bug fixes. We're privy to the incredible amount of man power needed to bring a product to market and the amount of after release support required (and always written into supply contracts) years after release. As talented as Tesla engineers are, the release product isn't infailable so we introduce discussion about what could have happened, and what we're seeing in the engineering domain.

Both sides aren't wrong and have good reason to converse the way they do. I'm not entirely sure about JBee and others, but it seems like krispykreme, and I (to some limited degree) have direct access to Tesla engineering experiences. The talk around my office is literally "Tesla produces a product and refines the software after release because they can do it OTA". It's not a snipe, it's just the M.O. The software release situation on the legacy products at the company I work at is vastly reworked when dealing with Telsa. We normally have multiple levels of software release for each negotiated stage in the schedule. Various levels have different testing and required documentation proceedures to ensure quality and have been developed and built upon past experiences and failures. Unending checklists, SIL/PIL testing of components and whole integrations, MISRA compliance, static ram test, fault injection test, throughput measurements, steering feel test, memory metric reports, the list goes on and on and on. Even still, things slip through and are scheduled for fixes in later releases, all before "okay to buy".

Since Tesla has the power of a robust OTA, their validation mindset is vastly different than legacy automotive. It's not to say that it's worse, but they're not as beholden to the same development schdules the legacy manufactures have developed. It very much feels like the new brash player vs the old deeply rooted one, and it's seems like a strength since legacy is trying to emulate it to some degree. It will introduce the possibility of some required refinement after release, but as consumers, we can't let confidence in Tesla blind us to these issues that may arise.

There are enough of these "critical error" posts that it should be a concern and that's just what's posted on this forum. There are probably a good percentage of current Cybertruck owners that don't frequent this board, especially since many have been released to "special status holders". We can have confidence that it will be resolved, while still being concerned about the inoperability of the vehicle.

 

[krispykreme]

I'm seeing two conversations going on here. There's the Cybertruck/Tesla enthusiast that is highly defensive of any critical discussion because we've had to weather all kinds of FUD attacks and have (mostly) been on the right side of the discussion. They're very sensitive to any questioning of Tesla implementation because in the past, have always had to tamp down rumors about all kinds of implied failures. We've most recently seen all the hit pieces about stainless steel rusting or lack of performance due to getting "stuck". Rightly so, any discussion that has a whiff of criticism is reactively shut down since Tesla does have a history of making good in the end, for the most part.

The other side of the conversation, specifically from krispykreme, Jbee, and a few others comes from a direct technical knowledge of automotive engineering and a healthy dose of how things work in the engineering world. An engineer will be the first person to tell you that things can go, and do go, sideways, because we're living the day to day of anomalies and bug fixes. We're privy to the incredible amount of man power needed to bring a product to market and the amount of after release support required (and always written into supply contracts) years after release. As talented as Tesla engineers are, the release product isn't infailable so we introduce discussion about what could have happened, and what we're seeing in the engineering domain.

Both sides aren't wrong and have good reason to converse the way they do. I'm not entirely sure about JBee and others, but it seems like krispykreme, and I (to some limited degree) have direct access to Tesla engineering experiences. The talk around my office is literally "Tesla produces a product and refines the software after release because they can do it OTA". It's not a snipe, it's just the M.O. The software release situation on the legacy products at the company I work at is vastly reworked when dealing with Telsa. We normally have multiple levels of software release for each negotiated stage in the schedule. Various levels have different testing and required documentation proceedures to ensure quality and have been developed and built upon past experiences and failures. Unending checklists, SIL/PIL testing of components and whole integrations, MISRA compliance, static ram test, fault injection test, throughput measurements, steering feel test, memory metric reports, the list goes on and on and on. Even still, things slip through and are scheduled for fixes in later releases, all before "okay to buy".

Since Tesla has the power of a robust OTA, their validation mindset is vastly different than legacy automotive. It's not to say that it's worse, but they're not as beholden to the same development schdules the legacy manufactures have developed. It very much feels like the new brash player vs the old deeply rooted one, and it's seems like a strength since legacy is trying to emulate it to some degree. It will introduce the possibility of some required refinement after release, but as consumers, we can't let confidence in Tesla blind us to these issues that may arise.

There are enough of these "critical error" posts that it should be a concern and that's just what's posted on this forum. There are probably a good percentage of current Cybertruck owners that don't frequent this board, especially since many have been released to "special status holders". We can have confidence that it will be resolved, while still being concerned about the inoperability of the vehicle.

This is absolutely correct. Especially from an engineer mindset.

I do have friends working at Tesla (old Apple colleague). I have friends working at pretty much all startup in EV field in the valley. Plus I also work in AD. So if you have first hand experience it’s not difficult to see what each other is doing. Btw- I don’t compete with any of the EV guys. Automotive supply base isn’t that broad. It’s quite easy to tell which sub-level systems comes from who.

Rely everything on OTA to eventually fix all bug at least my opinion is really dangerous. But then again- it’s just my opinion.

The main reason why I joined this topic is simply stating things I know as well as what really is going on from the regulation side- which I doubt majority of audience would be able to get exposed.

The good thing at least we know that the sub-system is working at it intended. The integration- well since there is no legal or regulation to push for ASIL-D on power supply for L2 and below. Hence Tesla has every right to not have 2nd power source.

It is what it is.

 

[HaulingAss]

Statistics based on what? Elon and Tesla own data?

The reason why NHTSA opened EP22-02 back in 2021 is based on 3 fatal death and 17 injuries.

No- Tesla car is not unsafe. It's enabling lazy and bad behavior by drivers with a system that lacks proper redundancy.

If what you say is true, then why do so many more people die in non-Tesla than in Tesla per mile travelled.

To be clear, it's not even close so accusing Tesla of providing false data (which comes with huge risks) is not gonna fly with me. It makes zero sense and there is zero evidence that is happening.

Given Tesla's fleet size, 3 deaths and 17 injuries is only a drop in a very large bucket. You seem to have a fixation on these 20 car accidents. Even if everyone of them was directly cause by poor, innattentive driving behavior that you think was encouraged by having advanced driver aides, the death and injury rates are still below those of cars without these features.

In case you didn't follow, Tesla without FSD are safer than the rest of the auto fleet and Tesla with FSD are safer than Tesla without FSD. Obviously, Tesla with FSD are insanely more safe than all the non-Tesla. You sound like one of those angry, irrational TSLAQ types that lost all their money shorting Tesla and want to try to paint them as MORE dangerous than other cars.

 

[krispykreme]

If what you say is true, then why do so many more people die in non-Tesla than in Tesla per mile travelled.

To be clear, it's not even close so accusing Tesla of providing false data (which comes with huge risks) is not gonna fly with me. It makes zero sense and there is zero evidence that is happening.

Given Tesla's fleet size, 3 deaths and 17 injuries is only a drop in a very large bucket. You seem to have a fixation on these 20 car accidents. Even if everyone of them was directly cause by poor, innattentive driving behavior that you think was encouraged by having advanced driver aides, the death and injury rates are still below those of cars without these features.

In case you didn't follow, Tesla without FSD are safer than the rest of the auto fleet and Tesla with FSD are safer than Tesla without FSD. Obviously, Tesla with FSD are insanely more safe than all the non-Tesla. You sound like one of those angry, irrational TSLAQ types that lost all their money shorting Tesla and want to try to paint them as MORE dangerous than other cars.

Base on what? Tesla word of mouth?

All safety feature are designed to protect driver as long as you use it as intended.

The issue here is promoting something and enable bad and lazy driver behavior. There is no proper DMS nor required redundancy.

I think you totally misunderstood the point here. It’s enabling bad human behavior and over promising that is the issue here.

It’s not the car itself that is the problem. Same it’s not guns kill people is the person using the gun that kills people.

 

[HaulingAss]

Base on what? Tesla word of mouth?

All safety feature are designed to protect driver as long as you use it as intended.

The issue here is promoting something and enable bad and lazy driver behavior. There is no proper DMS nor required redundancy.

I think you totally misunderstood the point here. It’s enabling bad human behavior and over promising that is the issue here.

It’s not the car itself that is the problem. Same it’s not guns kill people is the person using the gun that kills people.

You missed the point entirely.

It's the results that matter. Fewer deaths, fewer injuries, fewer insurance claims = net benefit. Full stop.

 

[Bill837]

Losing all controls in a vehicle will certainly have deadly consequences, but I know of no reported instances.

ICE vehicles with a serpentine belt can lose power to steering, brakes, alternator, and cooling all at the same time. Now THAT'S a SPOF.

So, nine pages which I admittedly did not read as it devolved into this highly technical discussion.

What I've not seen was if the above is what happens in this case? Did the person, any o=anyone else for that matter, lose control(s)? Or were they given the warning and still had the ability to safely pull over.

I'm not trying to minimize the size of this problem. But losing your controls and being told you should pull over as you may lose then are two different risk levels. Wifes 2015 Cherokee up and died on me once as I entered a crazy complex intersection. Engine cut off, screens went black, dash display went out. Not fun and since I was at a low speed, in an intersection, not many options. Luckily I was able to put it in part and restart. Would have much rather gotten a "You should pull over soon" message.

 

[HaulingAss]

So, nine pages which I admittedly did not read as it devolved into this highly technical discussion.

I skipped most of it when I saw it was automotive engineer wanna-bees, spewing technical details to try to support their opinion that Tesla is on the wrong path. But I don't fall for being blinded by technical details. Sure, there is room for disagreement on the safest, best path to take based on technical arguments, but using technical arguments is just that, an argument based on technological principles. Tesla has some of these arguments internally too. But their internal debates are far more advanced than the amateur arguments we see presented here. It's easy to get lost in constricted, narrow thinking though. What matters is the net result, not how you get there. And no auto company has more data to work with to figure out the best path forward than Tesla.

Outside criticism, looking in, will always be outside criticism looking in.

I find it to be all very narrow-minded considering the amount of real-world data Tesla uses to inform their decisions. Don't be blinded by people acting like they know more than the best engineers in the world, with the access to the most pertinent data.

These clowns would have you believe Tesla is failing in one of their primary goals, to make the safest vehicles in the world. This is not a future goal, it's a current goal, even before FSD is safe enough to use without human oversight. The data is clear, Tesla is leading the way. Narrow technical arguments cannot over-ride the reality of what is actually happening in the real world.

 

[agordon117]

I skipped most of it when I saw it was automotive engineer wanna-bees, spewing technical details to try to support their opinion that Tesla is on the wrong path. But I don't fall for being blinded by technical details. Sure, there is room for disagreement on the safest, best path to take based on technical arguments, but using technical arguments is just that, an argument based on technological principles. Tesla has some of these arguments internally too. But far advanced from the arguments we see presented here. It's easy to get lost in constricted, narrow thinking though. What matters is the net result, not how you get there. And no auto company has more data to work with to figure out the best path forward than Tesla.

Outside criticism, looking in, will always be outside criticism looking in.

I find it to be all very narrow-minded considering the amount of real-world data Tesla uses to inform their decisions. Don't be blinded by people acting like they know more than the best engineers in the world, with the access to the most pertinent data.

These clowns would have you believe Tesla is failing in one of their primary goals, to make the safest vehicles in the world. This is not a future goal, it's a current goal, even before FSD is safe enough to use without human oversight. The data is clear, Tesla is leading the way. Narrow technical arguments cannot over-ride the reality of what is actually happening in the real world.

Alright well hold on. How can you discount all criticism that comes from "outside". People who work at tesla cannot and will not come in here and explain what their potential shortcomings are. So if you say that outside criticism is not meaningful, then does that mean you would only believe there are issues/potential issues if tesla themselves comes out and talks about them?

 

[HaulingAss]

Alright well hold on. How can you discount all criticism that comes from "outside". People who work at tesla cannot and will not come in here and explain what their potential shortcomings are. So if you say that outside criticism is not meaningful, then does that mean you would only believe there are issues/potential issues if tesla themselves comes out and talks about them?

There will always be issues/potential issues. Tesla deals with them 24/7, 365 days per year. I'm saying you need data to know what the issues are and how to best address them. It's not like Tesla doesn't know how to follow the data they collect every day. This isn't the early Apollo program where every decision about how to most safely get a lunar module onto the moon, and the astronauts back home had to made on a theoretical basis, with only limited data from the laboratory. The Apollo program didn't have millions of lunar landers landing every day to inform which was safer, they had to use theoretical arguments and hope they weren't over-looking important principles. Tesla has streams of data in realtime. No other auto company can implement changes as quickly as Tesla, it's not even close.

One can make theoretical arguments all day long about what the absolute safest way is to do anything, but math and data really informs in the end. In the U.S. alone, 100 people die in auto accidents every day. That's almost 37,000 dead people per year. Just in one country! Tesla is making the roads safer, not more dangerous.

These wanna-be auto engineers have little clue what they are talking about, they just wanna spew technical principles, puff their chests out, and say all the engineers at Tesla are on the wrong path. A rational person is not going to fall for that kind of fluff when 37,000 people are dying every year in the U.S. In otherwords, look at the actual facts, not a bunch of wannabe auto engineers filled with theoretical arguments and no real-world data to back it up. It's really just FUD. Anyone who can't see that is too stupid to worry about.

 

[Bill837]

What I've not seen was if the above is what happens in this case? Did the person, any or anyone else for that matter, lose control(s)? Or were they given the warning and still had the ability to safely pull over.

So, after another page of multi paragraph debate, do we know the answer to the above question?

 

[krispykreme]

I skipped most of it when I saw it was automotive engineer wanna-bees, spewing technical details to try to support their opinion that Tesla is on the wrong path. But I don't fall for being blinded by technical details. Sure, there is room for disagreement on the safest, best path to take based on technical arguments, but using technical arguments is just that, an argument based on technological principles. Tesla has some of these arguments internally too. But their internal debates are far more advanced than the amateur arguments we see presented here. It's easy to get lost in constricted, narrow thinking though. What matters is the net result, not how you get there. And no auto company has more data to work with to figure out the best path forward than Tesla.

Outside criticism, looking in, will always be outside criticism looking in.

I find it to be all very narrow-minded considering the amount of real-world data Tesla uses to inform their decisions. Don't be blinded by people acting like they know more than the best engineers in the world, with the access to the most pertinent data.

These clowns would have you believe Tesla is failing in one of their primary goals, to make the safest vehicles in the world. This is not a future goal, it's a current goal, even before FSD is safe enough to use without human oversight. The data is clear, Tesla is leading the way. Narrow technical arguments cannot over-ride the reality of what is actually happening in the real world.

1. Tesla is not leading the way. If it is, it wouldn’t be target of DMV and NHTSA.

2. Amount of data doesn’t equate to quality of data. This is where you fall into trap. Just because you have piles of garbage data it serves no purpose.

Garbage in garbage out. That is what you fail the understand.

3. L3 and above the design concept and discrepancy faced is vastly more complicated.

While every single L3 system is dealing with conflicting information and trailing their algorithm to deal with that. Tesla approach is- I can’t handle conflict. Let just toss it.

This is what bad behavior and echo chamber are formed.

It’s similar to Boeing. Same trap.

 

[krispykreme]

So, after another page of multi paragraph debate, do we know the answer to the above question?

the other case. The driver did have amble time to pull over as individual subsystem worked with redundancy as intended

Sponsored