FSD v13 and Hardware 4 Partition Limit

[CyberTexas]

The fact that you think it isn't already extremely optimized is dumbfounding to me ?

Just quoting the guy above. Never said one way or the other. Just pointed out that memory limit.

Sponsored

 

[dalton108]

I’m surprised to see that a lot of information about this issue is actually being sourced from the Rivian Forum operated by this very site. In fact at least one of our users appears contributing to the discussion over there.

I think that this is all a bit over-blown. I expect Tesla to stand by their word that my vehicle will be capable of “full self driving” as promised before 09/09/24, which is when they updated the website to say that what you were purchasing [after that point] was in fact, a vehicle that was capable of “full self driving (supervised).”

So, as far as I’m concerned, my Model S Plaid and my Cybertruck which were purchased in advance of that date, were purchased with the legally binding assurance that I would have full self driving capability - no caveats! That means unsupervised full-self driving capability. That was the bargain. PERIOD.

So, Tesla will do whatever is necessary to deliver on that promise without any cost to me or I will sue them - it’s as plain and simple as that.

It’s exactly why Elon is going to have to update HW3 cars (at least for people who purchased FSD) and why he’s already publicly conceded that point; acknowledged that it’s going to be expensive and said that he’s glad more people didn’t buy it outright. Even for people who wanted to lease FSD he’s already been told by one judge that he has to upgrade their hardware for free as well.

The next thing that they did after realizing the predicament that they placed themselves in was to update the language. Now, they were forced by litigation losses in California to update the nomenclature for full-self driving to “full self driving (supervised)” so as to minimize potential customer confusion/misrepresentation. That was a separate issue focusing only on what the thing was being called at the then present time. That case was about semantics it was important but it was only about word choices.

But on the sales page, until 09/09/24, they were still using the prospective language (what the car you were buying could do at some unspecified point in the future) was “full self driving capability.” Legal, or someone then realized that the nomenclature that had been forced upon them for other reasons (explained above) would be a good way to limit future liability for cars that may not have sufficient hardware and they then changed that page to also say that what you were getting was a car that was capable of “full self driving (supervised).”

So, that modified promise is what was made to anybody who purchased on or after that date (09/10/24). Those people, including my wife [because we purchased her model X at the end of September], will have a much harder case to make that they’re entitled to HW5 because they already have FSD supervised, which is all that was ever promised.

I’m pretty sure I called this out at the time. It was a clever way to limit their future liability to pay for all of these retrofits or even offer them.

They’re gonna have a problem with me and everyone who purchased before that date though and I’m sure they know it.

 

[SCTesla]

I’m surprised to see that a lot of information about this issue is actually being sourced from the Rivian Forum operated by this very site. In fact at least one of our users appears contributing to the discussion over there.

I think that this is all a bit over-blown. I expect Tesla to stand by their word that my vehicle will be capable of “full self driving” as promised before 09/09/24, which is when they updated the website to say that what you were purchasing [after that point] was in fact, a vehicle that was capable of “full self driving (supervised).”

So, as far as I’m concerned, my Model S Plaid and my Cybertruck which were purchased in advance of that date, were purchased with the legally binding assurance that I would have self driving - no caveats! That means unsupervised full-self driving. That was the bargain. PERIOD.

So, Tesla will do whatever is necessary to deliver on that promise without any cost to me or I will sue them - it’s as plain and simple as that.

It’s exactly why Elon is going to have to update HW3 cars (at least for people who purchased FSD) and why he’s already publicly conceded that point; acknowledged that it’s going to be expensive and said that he’s glad more people didn’t buy it outright. Even for people who wanted to lease FSD he’s already been told by one judge that he has to upgrade their hardware for free as well.

The next thing that they did after realizing the predicament that they placed themselves in was to update the language. Now, they were forced by litigation losses in California to update the nomenclature for full-self driving to “full self driving (supervised)” so as to minimize potential customer confusion/misrepresentation. That was a separate issue focused only on what the thing was being called at the then present time.

But on the sales page, until 09/09/24, they were still using the prospective language (what the car you were buying could do at some unspecified point in the future) was “full self driving capability.” Legal, or someone then realized that the nomenclature that had been forced upon them for other reasons (explained above) would be a good way to limit future liability for cars that may not have sufficient hardware and they then changed that page to also say that what you were getting was a car that was capable of “full self driving (supervised).”

So, that modified promise is what was made to anybody who purchased on or after that date (09/10/24). Those people, including my wife [because we purchased her model X at the end of September], will have a much harder case to make that they’re entitled to HW5 because they already have FSD supervised, which is all that was ever promised.

I’m pretty sure I called this out at the time. It was a clever way to limit their future liability to pay for all of these retrofits or even offer them.

They’re gonna have a problem with me and everyone who purchased before that date though and I’m sure they know it.

Technically, Tesla has only promised coast to coast autonomous driving pre-2018. They've even recently deleted old articles touting it.

The newer stuff that came with FSD Beta was considered fully delivered by Tesla and they've finally cashed in the profits that were sitting aside(starting in December 2023, when Elon/Tesla deemed FSD "feature complete")

Tesla has always stated that Full Self Driving is a level 2 ADAS as they argued in California court. The added Supervised was to remove it from Beta and further separate the nomenclature.

 

[dalton108]

Technically, Tesla has only promised coast to coast autonomous driving pre-2018. They've even recently deleted old articles touting it.

The newer stuff that came with FSD Beta was considered fully delivered by Tesla and they've finally cashed in the profits that were sitting aside(starting in December 2023, when Elon/Tesla deemed FSD "feature complete")

Tesla has always stated that Full Self Driving is a level 2 ADAS as they argued in California court. The added Supervised was to remove it from Beta and further separate the nomenclature.

Hard disagree. The measure isn’t “technically” the measure is “legally.” I’ve been watching this not as a consumer, but as a lawyer from the day I bought my first Tesla in 2019. This is nothing like the 500 mile range promise with CT. These are legally binding promises, it’s not a close call.

And again, even arguendo, in order to reach your conclusion you would have to ignore that Elon already publicly conceding that he had to update HW3 to HW4 it wasn’t for the sake of updating the hardware to have new hardware it was to deliver on the promise.

At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. Everyone else can do what they will I will sue, and I will prevail if they don’t update my hardware in the cars that are subject to that binding offer which I accepted. Full stop.

I don’t think it will come to that because Tesla already knows this and public statements and actions clearly demonstrate they understand. But if they don’t, this isn’t a tough case - for anybody who purchased between 10/19/16 and 09/10/24.

 

[SCTesla]

Hard disagree. I’ve been watching this not as a consumer but as a lawyer from the day I bought my first Tesla in 2019.

And again in order to reach your conclusion you would have to discount Elon already publicly conceding that he had to update HW3 to HW4 it wasn’t for the sake of updating the hardware to have new hardware it was to deliver on the promise.

At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. Everyone else can do what they will I will sue, and I will prevail if they don’t update my hardware in the cars that are subject to that binding offer which I accepted. Full stop.

I don’t think it will come to that because Tesla already knows this and public statements and actions clearly demonstrate they understand. But if they don’t, this isn’t a tough case.

Will you also sue if Tesla says FSDU is an additional 15k?

There's too much up in the air at this point to know what they will do. There's very little chance consumers have access to FSDU nationwide for the next 2 years due to state by state regulations.

This year will be Austin and another city. A geofenced version with limited testers. My point in this is that, like most things, Tesla will change their mind and make "corporate puffery statements" like they've done since 2016 (FSD will drice from coast to coast with out a driver this year).

I guess I'm saying don't get your hopes up. There's been a lot of small claims victories about FSD refunds, but all large cases Tesla wins. Elon's statements aren't promises from Tesla, FSD was always a level 2 ADAS , and other things established by mostly California courts.

 

[dalton108]

Will you also sue if Tesla says FSDU is an additional 15k?

There's too much up in the air at this point to know what they will do. There's very little chance consumers have access to FSDU nationwide for the next 2 years due to state by state regulations.

This year will be Austin and another city. A geofenced version with limited testers. My point in this is that, like most things, Tesla will change their mind and make "corporate puffery statements" like they've done since 2016 (FSD will drice from coast to coast with out a driver this year).

I guess I'm saying don't get your hopes up. There's been a lot of small claims victories about FSD refunds, but all large cases Tesla wins. Elon's statements aren't promises from Tesla, FSD was always a level 2 ADAS , and other things established by mostly California courts.

I’m not relying on hope, my friend I’m relying on training and experience. This is what I do for a living. I’m not reading tea leaves; I’m telling you ANCIENT, unambiguous black-letter law.

It’s not mysterious to me or anybody else who understands how this works.

“Will you also sue if Tesla says FSDU is an additional 15k?”

The actionable binding promise was that my car would be capable of FSD with no caveats. Adding a “U” to the terms years after the fact doesn’t change anything.

The actionable promise doesn’t include a cost provision. Those are things that we could argue about and test through trial. I warrant no outcome on that. I can’t address that hypothetical without more information. But that isn’t what I’ve been talking about. So, let’s move that goal post right back where I put it.

Precisely no additional information is needed for the assertion that I have made. That cake is already baked. Believe it; don’t believe it doesn’t matter to me.

If HW4 doesn’t do it, Tesla will be installing HW5 or HW25 in my car without it costing me one single quarter. They’ll be paying my lawyer’s fees as well. ?

Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[SCTesla]

I’m not relying on hope, my friend I’m relying on training and experience. This is what I do for a living. I’m not reading leaves I’m telling you black law.

It’s not mysterious to me or anybody else who understands how this works.

They always seem to win these big cases based on FSD promises. They are open record to read about.

 

[dalton108]

They always seem to win these big cases based on FSD promises. They are open record to read about.

They do not. And I’ve already explained that above. In fact, they’ve already lost on this issue. And for the fifth time Elon has already conceded his liability on this front as it pertains to HW3 vehicle vehicles. The change made to the website on 09/10/24 was not marketing, it was legal. That, in and of itself, is powerful evidence supporting my contention.

I’ve said all I’m going to say. Remain as skeptical as you like; I wasn’t really soliciting debate.

I don’t argue with laymen about legal matters. If any of the other lawyers here would like challenge me on this, by all means - bring it. They won’t though, because this one ain’t hard.

Very basic, antiquated contract law.

 

[scottf200]

I think that this is all a bit over-blown. I expect Tesla to stand by their word that my vehicle will be capable of “full self driving” as promised before 09/09/24, which is when they updated the website to say that what you were purchasing [after that point] was in fact, a vehicle that was capable of “full self driving (supervised).”

Curious. I suspect Tesla will drag their "beta" and "supervised" nomenclature on for many years. (eg. what will be the claimed 'complete' date - years from now). My June built 2017 TMX was prior to HW2.5 but I paid for "FSD" so I did get HW3 and upgraded cameras. The new cameras (along with more capable wiring) and HW4 equivalent will be tough to install. Suspect they'll just pay people out.

The Rivian Gen 1 folks are pretty upset because they thought they were promised "FSD". Now Rivian Gen 2 is only getting "FSD" (haha ... I equate to HW4 in concept). We know that Tesla has gone thru many generations of hardware (cameras, wiring, and the FSD computer) to even come close to "FSD" unsupervised. Certainly, them learning what Tesla has had to do to get to this point gives them a different perspective... or should.

GreenTheOnly/Green on X/Twitter has been the main source of hardware changes. Certainly not from Rivan, Waymo, or other car forums

https://teslatap.com/articles/autopilot-processors-and-hardware-mcu-hw-demystified/

 

[dalton108]

Curious. I suspect Tesla will drag their "beta" and "supervised" nomenclature on for many years. My June built 2017 TMX was prior to HW2.5 but I paid for "FSD" so I did get HW3 and upgraded cameras. The new cameras (along with more capable wiring) and HW4 equivalent will be tough to install. Suspect they'll just pay people out.

The Rivian Gen 1 folks are pretty upset because they thought they were promised "FSD". Now Rivian Gen 2 is only getting "FSD" (haha ... I equate to HW4 in concept). We know that Tesla has gone thru many generations of hardware (cameras, wiring, and the FSD computer) to even come close to "FSD" unsupervised. Certainly, them learning what Tesla has had to do to get to this point gives them a different perspective... or should.

GreenTheOnly/Green on X/Twitter has been the main source of hardware changes. Certainly not from Rivan, Waymo, or other car forums

https://teslatap.com/articles/autopilot-processors-and-hardware-mcu-hw-demystified/

What they’ve done in the past or what they do in the future is irrelevant. What matters is what they were saying (and what those words meant in plain English) at the time the offer was made and accepted. Those are the key ingredients of a contract.

Again on 09/10/24 they modified what was on offer to clearly indicate that what they were selling you was “FSD supervised“ that was smart! I called it out the day they did it!

What they had been doing up until that time was cocky and dumb and has bound them to those of us who accepted that offer in ways that no other company would have ever allowed to happen. It’s as simple as that.

The terms are the terms. I didn’t buy a car that was “full self driving beta capable.” I didn’t buy a car that had any limitations on FSD being “supervised.” I didn’t buy a car that had any caveats or adjectives associated with full self driving. That’s legally significant and it’s not subject to subsequent modifications. They owe me what they owe me. The law does not allow for welching or the kinds of goofy technicalities that people think exist because of TV dramas.

 

[dalton108]

Suspect they'll just pay people out.

They’ll settle with some people and different people at different times will be differently situated.

Someone who bought FSD in 2016 will not be in exactly the same position as someone who bought it after they released HW4 and before legal at Tesla realized that they were fucking themselves with the offer they were making until they changed it on 09/10/24.

I’m not offering anybody legal advice on this, to be crystal clear. I’ve stated what my position is, and what I will do if the offer I accepted is breached. Some people will be similarly situated to me in terms of what they were offered, others will not. My wife is probably SOL on her Model X. She was only promised full self driving (supervised) and guess what? She already has that today. [Although there’s a colorable argument that since she ordered and gave them earnest money (down payment) in advance of 09/10/24, that they made to her the same broader promise that they made to me. ]

If the time comes and Tesla doesn’t make this right; which again I fully expect them to … you’ll want to consult with someone who has the training and license required to assist you navigate that.

 

[scottf200]

Again on 09/10/24 they modified what was on offer to clearly indicate that what they were selling you was “FSD supervised“ that was smart! I called it out the day they did it!

What they have been doing up until that time was cocky and dumb and has bound them to those of us who accepted that offer in ways that no other company would have ever allowed to happen. It’s as simple as that.

To be clear, I'm not at all doubting your expertise here. I rather like your no-nonsense logical post.

I have followed AP & later FSD pretty closely and have used it since my 2016 Signature TMX (ordered 3 yrs before that ... thinking it would be 1 yr or less!).

Here is the million dollar question in my mind tho. eg fuzzy. At what point and what event or statement do you (and all others) have the legal ability to say Tesla just commited that they hit "FSD" "unsupervised" that was promised. eg. what triggers the legal ability to sue and file a claim.

TBH, I don't even know the legal defn of "unsupervised" ... eyes-off for X amount of time and/or hands-off for Y amount of time. That all seems fuzzy.

 

[dalton108]

To be clear, I'm not at all doubting your expertise here. I rather like your no-nonsense logical post.

I have followed AP & later FSD pretty closely and have used it since my 2016 Signature TMX (ordered 3 yrs before that ... thinking it would be 1 yr or less!).

Here is the million dollar question in my mind tho. eg fuzzy. At what point and what event or statement do you (and all others) have the legal ability to say Tesla just commited that they hit "FSD" "unsupervised" that was promised. eg. what triggers the legal ability to sue and file a claim.

TBH, I don't even know the legal defn of "unsupervised" ... eyes-off for X amount of time and/or hands-off for Y amount of time. That all seems fuzzy.

You are right, that is the million question! I’m supervising/reviewing and editing it, but I’m going to let Chat do some of this work for full disclosure (this applies to this response and this response only):

Editorial from me in brackets. * Never rely on an LLM for legal advice. I promise you’ll regret it, at least today and for the near term.

1. Affirmative Representations and Reliance

From October 19, 2016, Tesla explicitly marketed vehicles as “Full Self-Driving Capable” on the purchase page. That wasn’t abstract branding—it was a purchase inducement, offered for a defined price and included on order documentation. Buyers weren’t guessing. Tesla told them the hardware was installed and future software would unlock autonomy. That’s a classic affirmative representation made to induce reliance and purchase.

If the vehicles turn out to be incapable of full self-driving—due to insufficient hardware, regulatory infeasibility [I don’t necessarily agree with this], or intentional product segmentation (e.g., restricting features to newer hardware)— [BINGO as I said above] then Tesla faces potential liability under:

• Breach of express warranty
• Breach of contract
• Fraudulent inducement or negligent misrepresentation
• Unfair or deceptive trade practices (UDAP) under state consumer protection statutes

2. Determinable Performance Standard [This gets to the heart of your question]

Tesla wasn’t vague. It described the FSD package as enabling the car to eventually:

• Navigate city streets
• Handle intersections
• Operate with no driver input

This sets an implied performance standard. If Tesla later says Hardware 3 or 4 cannot deliver that without an upgrade—and does not provide the upgrade gratis—they may have breached the bargain. [“May” is doing a lot of work here but it’s important.]

3. Course of Performance and Remedial Conduct

Tesla’s decision to retrofit HW2/HW2.5 vehicles with HW3 at no charge for FSD buyers can [WILL] be seen as:

• An acknowledgment that hardware capability was essential to fulfilling the offer
• A precedent reinforcing the notion that the hardware-software integration was promised, not aspirational

Tesla likely has significant legal exposure to FSD buyers who relied on the “Full Self-Driving Capability” language in the Design Studio and sales documentation. If the hardware they purchased turns out to be incapable of delivering unsupervised autonomy—and Tesla refuses to retrofit or compensate—then a cause of action exists. The more Tesla pivots to reframe the offering as “Supervised,” or attempts to re-segment functionality by hardware tier (HW5+), the stronger the argument for consumer misrepresentation and breach becomes.

[This last part echoes exactly what I said above. While it definitely changes the terms of the agreement for purchasers after 09/09/24; it virtually proves the case of those of us who bought under the prior language. The cake is baked! Rushing around and trying to change the ingredients after the fact only proves that you know it’s cooked!]

The last time this came up, I did a long dissertation about it as well. And where we closed that discussion is where we are now there’s no question about the liability the only question is when can you ring the bell. I think it’s rung as soon as there is a car in the fleet that can go and pick somebody up by itself and drop them off at a location and then go on about its business. On that day my car better be able to do it also, or beyond track to get retrofitted so that it can.

 

[scottf200]

I think it’s rung as soon as there is a car in the fleet that can go and pick somebody up by itself and drop them off at a location and then go on about its business.

Thanks much for all that. Very interesting indeed.

The above part to me is still fuzzy in that I don't know if a robotaxi is a 'car in the fleet.' eg. in their public purchasable fleet or a specialized Tesla taxi fleet with a different legal defn. Also I think the specialized geofenced (etc) Operational Design Domain (ODD) may add a twist to this too.

Anyway you don't need to respond to this. I just think there are aspects that are not as cut and dry as others (website changed, Elon admitted HW3 may need to be upgraded, etc).

 

[dalton108]

Thanks much for all that. Very interesting indeed.

The above part to me is still fuzzy in that I don't know if a robotaxi is a 'car in the fleet.' eg. in their public purchasable fleet or a specialized Tesla taxi fleet with a different legal defn. Also I think the specialized geofenced (etc) Operational Design Domain (ODD) may add a twist to this too.

Anyway you don't need to respond to this. I just think there are aspects that are not as cut and dry as others (website changed, Elon admitted HW3 may need to be upgraded, etc).

This is why we “practice” law. The applicable law is not complex or fluid. The facts are. When has the breach occurred? Is a Robo-taxi enough? Maybe. Does it have to be a Robo taxi that was sold to a consumer? Can’t say. There will be a bright line that will be visible on the other side I don’t know that I can predict it in advance like the famous legal definition of pornography, we’ll know it when we see it! Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)

If I can find the other post where I went through this before I’ll link it. But I am going to bed now.

Sponsored