7 degrees of rear steering angle showing on my Cybertruck

[Tony stank]

I thought it was limited to only 3 degrees at delivery.

Sponsored

 

[Celiboy]

Was there a recent OTA update?

 

[JBee]

I thought on release it was limited to 3, but should be available with 10 degrees with a OTA?

7 degrees, seems like a step up, but not quite all of the available range of angle for the rear steering?

Should be a big step up and noticeable upgrade though. Time to relearn how to drive the CT SbW.

 

[Tony stank]

Not recently, only had one on delivery day 2/14 (which delayed my delivery by 4 hours).

The pic was my last update.

 

[Tony stank]

I thought on release it was limited to 3, but should be available with 10 degrees with a OTA?

7 degrees, seems like a step up, but not quite all of the available range of angle for the rear steering?

Should be a big step up and noticeable upgrade though. Time to relearn how to drive the CT SbW.

I think I had 7 degrees the whole time, just never had the data till now.

It would feel much more maneuverable in tight spaces than long wheelbase S class with the base 4 degrees rear wheel steering. (I work on MB self driving SW).

 

[JBee]

I think I had 7 degrees the whole time, just never had the data till now.

It would feel much more maneuverable in tight spaces than long wheelbase S class with the base 4 degrees rear wheel steering. (I work on MB self driving SW).

Hmm ok.
I'm not sure anyone actually confirmed physically what the rear steering angle was. Maybe it has been 7 degrees all along, it's just that nobody measured it.

Have you seen the SbW "Critical Error" reports? Seems like there's a problem with the redundancy sensors.

 

[Tony stank]

Hmm ok.
I'm not sure anyone actually confirmed physically what the rear steering angle was. Maybe it has been 7 degrees all along, it's just that nobody measured it.

Have you seen the SbW "Critical Error" reports? Seems like there's a problem with the redundancy sensors.

Haha yea I seen them, the funny thing is our 223 chassis has the same exact issue on both main and rear racks. The techs just replace the whole rack, aliment and have the cars back in a day. It will be interesting to see how Tesla does it.

 

[JBee]

Haha yea I seen them, the funny thing is our 223 chassis has the same exact issue on both main and rear racks. The techs just replace the whole rack, aliment and have the cars back in a day. It will be interesting to see how Tesla does it.

Doesn't sound like a small problem if they are replacing racks. Not a failure I'd like to experience in the outback, 100miles from the nearest gas station with a tow truck, let alone a thousand or two miles from the nearest Tesla service center.

I'm not sure all the benefits of SbW outweigh the reliability of a mechanical linkage. I think a mechanical variable rate rack would work just as well, and then you can add more control using the RWS which is SbW anyway, just angle limited. Even if the RWS was locked off center for whatever reason in a failure, and the electric front steering assist was out as well, with a mechanical front end you'd still be able to steer at low speeds in a straight line, although you'd be crabbing down the road.

I'm just wondering if EM wanted to push the next step of FSD, by making the human driver a backup system for FSD. I often find it counterintuitive, that FSD is "meant" to be the next best thing in automotive innovation, but at the same time they are trying to market and sell Teslas as a "driver's car" with good driving dynamics. Shouldn't they be concentrating on "passenger" comfort instead, seeing I'm sure nobody will be excited being driven by FSD on the edge of traction at high speed around a racing track.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm not sure all the benefits of SbW outweigh the reliability of a mechanical linkage.

for offroad/outback, always been a contradiction with “technology bandwagon”

 

[cvalue13]

Far as I can tell, the “3° to 10°” statement has only come from Paul Mangiamele, who is in Tesla’s logistics department.

Musk simply said “more.”

Meanwhile, 3+7=10, so it’s possible eg someone in logistics heard 7, thought it was 7 more not 7 total, and from there that’s how to internet.

Meanwhile-meanwhile, there could also be conflation between the change that was made to the rear steering rack vs what steering angle is like be permitted by the software. Eg, it’s possible they changed the rack to permit of 10° mechanically, but hadn’t yet determined if that would be the ultimate allowance in software.

Afterall, the Hummer in crabwalk is at 10°

Imma ask around

 

[MajorVictory]

Doesn't sound like a small problem if they are replacing racks. Not a failure I'd like to experience in the outback, 100miles from the nearest gas station with a tow truck, let alone a thousand or two miles from the nearest Tesla service center.

I'm not sure all the benefits of SbW outweigh the reliability of a mechanical linkage. I think a mechanical variable rate rack would work just as well, and then you can add more control using the RWS which is SbW anyway, just angle limited. Even if the RWS was locked off center for whatever reason in a failure, and the electric front steering assist was out as well, with a mechanical front end you'd still be able to steer at low speeds in a straight line, although you'd be crabbing down the road.

I'm just wondering if EM wanted to push the next step of FSD, by making the human driver a backup system for FSD. I often find it counterintuitive, that FSD is "meant" to be the next best thing in automotive innovation, but at the same time they are trying to market and sell Teslas as a "driver's car" with good driving dynamics. Shouldn't they be concentrating on "passenger" comfort instead, seeing I'm sure nobody will be excited being driven by FSD on the edge of traction at high speed around a racing track.

Some of what you wonder is addressed indirectly here:

 

[Gigahorse]

Far as I can tell, the “3° to 10°” statement has only come from Paul Mangiamele, who is in Tesla’s logistics department.

Musk simply said “more.”

Meanwhile, 3+7=10, so it’s possible eg someone in logistics heard 7, thought it was 7 more not 7 total, and from there that’s how to internet.

Meanwhile-meanwhile, there could also be conflation between the change that was made to the rear steering rack vs what steering angle is like be permitted by the software. Eg, it’s possible they changed the rack to permit of 10° mechanically, but hadn’t yet determined if that would be the ultimate allowance in software.

Afterall, the Hummer in crabwalk is at 10°

Imma ask around

Yea I always thought 10 degrees was the design and what would be eventually released?

 

[JBee]

for offroad/outback, always been a contradiction with “technology bandwagon”

True to some degree, but the moon or mars would technically be more complicated to do too, and even further from a SpaceX service station.

Technology bandwagen need not mean unreliable, if reliability and subsequent safety, by avoiding a steering failure is of more importance than a software programmable variable rate rack. Every tool has a purpose, and I think SbW might still need some work before it is mainstream reliable at this point in the production cycle. FBW in aircraft was a necessity to increase the scale and mass of the aircraft, but remember the 30ton truck I did my semi trailer driver licence lessons on, that didn't have power assisted steering and a massice wheel instead, and I had to double clutch to change gears. The CT is not that big or that heavy that SbW is "necessary".

My point is in the other direction, by questioning why force something to change, like SbW instead of mechanical variable rack, or "drivers car" for FSD, or yoke instead of wheel etc, when they are not really an improvement overall. Especially if they actually reduce functionality or reliability because their implementation is somewhat premature.

In the end progress needs to be made somewhere and somehow, and you can't make progress by making no changes at all, but more often than not, some progress is only the involuntary manifestation of a change for changes sake, but without regard for being also of substantive importance to the resulting outcome.

Neither is all change necessary by default, and doing something different doesn’t automatically make it better. You don't need to break things before you can fix them, neither fix them before they stop working. (I'm the king of common sense I know! )

So in this case I do believe that "technology bandwagon" also needs to be not just different, but also better in every important metric, because a superior outcome has been achieved overall for the product. For some things it might well be the case the CT still has some growing up to do, to fit in that shoe. Probably a bit like EM too, that seems to have some boyish tendency to fulfill a childhood dream. I don't have a problem with someone chasing their dreams, just so long I don't have to suffer because of them, because it's not my yoke to carry.

It would be interesting to see what the current physical angle is of the RWS, and if that has changed at all since release.

 

[Cyberman]

I thought it was limited to only 3 degrees at delivery.

That's really good stuff to know, thanks.

 

[RayzorBEV]

I thought it was limited to only 3 degrees at delivery.

You just voided your warranty

Sponsored