FSD Update: Tesla tells DMV that FSD will NOT be FSD anytime soon

DarinCT

Well-known member
First Name
Darin
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
357
Reaction score
615
Location
California
Vehicles
M3, CT triM
Country flag
https://www.latimes.com/business/st...ts-it-both-ways-with-telsas-full-self-driving

Tesla touts self-driving to consumers. To the DMV, it tells a different tale


By RUSS MITCHELLSTAFF WRITER
MARCH 9, 2021 5 AM PT
For years, Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has been telling the public that fully autonomous Teslas are just around the corner, no more than a year or two off.
The company has been telling regulators a very different story.
In official correspondence with California’s Department of Motor Vehicles, Tesla lawyers recently admitted the $10,000 option that Tesla sells as Full Self-Driving Capability is not, in fact, capable of full self-driving. “Currently neither Autopilot nor FSD Capability is an autonomous system,” Tesla attorney Eric Williams said in a Dec. 28 letter to the DMV, although that could change, he added.
Not soon, though. Musk has been tweeting plans for a major Full Self-Driving software release. But Williams told the DMV that “we do not expect significant enhancements” that would allow full self-driving, and that the “final release” of a current feature package that lets Teslas stop at traffic lights and turn left and right without human input “will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assist feature.” In plain English, that means the vehicle cannot drive itself, at any time, without constant attention from a human driver.



The emails were revealed after a public records request from the transparency advocacy organization Plainsite. They show the DMV questioning Tesla about its claims around Full Self-Driving technology and asking the company why it has not applied for a driverless vehicle test permit, as six other automakers and tech companies have done.
Bryant Walker Smith, an autonomous vehicle law expert at the University of South Carolina, described the Tesla emails as “cringe-worthy.” He said “it’s so obviously clear that there’s a contradiction between what Tesla is saying in its marketing role” versus what its engineers and lawyers are telling the DMV. “One side is inflating those expectations, the other side is massaging them,” he said.
Although “mushy words” are used throughout the industry to describe robot car technology — from driverless to autonomous to self-driving to driver assist — there is no ambiguity about the word “full” in Full Self-Driving, Smith said. It means a car that drives itself. “There’s a difference between a doctor telling you you’re healthy and telling you you’re completely healthy,” he said.
Musk has reasons to promote Full Self-Driving. The $10,000 option is a balm to Tesla’s revenues and profits, although just how much is unclear: The company doesn’t break out FSD sales. Musk has been selling buyers on the idea that with autonomous technology, Tesla vehicles will appreciate in value.



In April 2019, when cash was short at Tesla, Musk said 1 million fully autonomous robotaxis would be on the road by the end of 2020, making money for their owners. A few weeks later, Tesla sold $3 billion worth of Tesla stock, solving its cash crunch. By the end of 2020 not a single robotaxi had been built. The DMV emails suggest they won’t be anytime soon.
Tesla has no media relations department and could not be reached for comment.
The email exchanges raise an important public safety question: Is the company conducting driverless car experiments that put the public and Tesla’s own customers at unnecessary risk?
So-called Full Self-Driving Capability is an evolution of the company’s Autopilot technology, whose core functions are adaptive cruise control and automatic steering. The FSD option comes with automatic lane change on freeways, automated parking and automated stopping at traffic lights and signs.
The most recent iteration is Autosteer on city streets; when activated, the car can make left- and right-hand turns automatically after stopping at a traffic light or stop sign. That feature is limited to an “early access program” that Tesla last December said totaled about 150 Tesla employees and about 50 nonemployees. The responsibilities and liabilities of those participants are similar to those of the test driver in the infamous 2018 crash in which an experimental Volvo equipped with an Uber self-drive system failed to identify a pedestrian crossing the street and killed her. The driver, who apparently was distracted by her phone, was charged last year with negligent homicide.
The Autosteer city-street feature is scheduled for full-scale rollout later this year.

The DMV emails make clear that Full Self-Driving is, at best, a work in progress. In one letter to the DMV, Tesla attorney Williams noted that “there are circumstances and events to which the system is not capable of recognizing or responding. These include static objects and road debris, emergency vehicles, construction zones, large uncontrolled intersections with multiple incoming ways, occlusions, adverse weather, complicated or adversarial vehicles in the driving path, unmapped roads.” As a result, Williams wrote, “the driver maintains responsibility.”

Musk has said that Teslas with the automated features engaged crash less than those that don’t use them. But the company has yet to release raw data to support this claim, and it has spurned academic researchers who have offered to evaluate the data it holds.
Tesla crashes regularly make headlines, although only insurance companies are able to determine how their crash rate compares with other vehicles’, information they do not publish. Police, courts and safety officials must depend on Tesla to verify after a crash whether Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was engaged because the information is proprietary to Tesla.
The state statute that covers deployment of autonomous vehicles states that a vehicle must be capable of driving itself “without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person” to be considered autonomous under the DMV permit process.
Smith said the statute’s language could justify the DMV requiring that Tesla apply for a permit but could also justify the DMV giving Tesla a pass. For now, Tesla can continue to have it both ways — touting its level of autonomy to consumers while downplaying it to regulators.

***
I do find it interesting that Tesla has not applied for driverless vehicle test permits while other manufactures have. I'd love to get Musk on the record about that one. I get that I'm paying 7K for enhanced autopilot and then it will become FSD sometime in the future, maybe 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades. I'm OK with that. The article does point out how Tesla/Musk is talking out both sides of its mouth.

Thoughts?

 

OneLapper

Well-known member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Threads
11
Messages
438
Reaction score
850
Location
NE Conn
Vehicles
BMW 328d Sportswagon
Country flag
Rob Maurer had a great pod cast on this.

Tesla was referring to a specific FSD version, not future FSD versions.
 
Last edited:

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
93
Messages
10,347
Reaction score
16,973
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Rob Maurer had a great pod cast on this.

Tesla was referring to a specific FSD version, not future FSD versions.
Exactly.

The fact is, we've set up a regulatory hurdle whereby 3-5 require the same leap in AI, so for now, the FSD will be relegated to level 2.

Level 3 automation would require an insane level of mapping, no different than 4, so Tesla is likely looking to leapfrog the entire idea of 3 and 4. (Tho I bet they'll in reality not manage the leap in existing cars.)

So yes, the current FSD beta is Level 2: Where we're watching over a teenage driver and can take over instantly. Once they get disengagement down, it will functionally be 3, but we need better laws for that. Level 4 requires so much knowledge of the current road conditions that all the FSD cars will have to be able to communicate with each other. So it's not actually different to the AI than level 5.

-Crissa
 

Frankenblob

Well-known member
First Name
Frank, USA is the BEST. Communism SUX
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
252
Reaction score
222
Location
Home
Vehicles
M38A-1, Trans-am
Country flag
https://www.latimes.com/business/st...ts-it-both-ways-with-telsas-full-self-driving

Tesla touts self-driving to consumers. To the DMV, it tells a different tale


By RUSS MITCHELLSTAFF WRITER
MARCH 9, 2021 5 AM PT
For years, Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has been telling the public that fully autonomous Teslas are just around the corner, no more than a year or two off.
The company has been telling regulators a very different story.
In official correspondence with California’s Department of Motor Vehicles, Tesla lawyers recently admitted the $10,000 option that Tesla sells as Full Self-Driving Capability is not, in fact, capable of full self-driving. “Currently neither Autopilot nor FSD Capability is an autonomous system,” Tesla attorney Eric Williams said in a Dec. 28 letter to the DMV, although that could change, he added.
Not soon, though. Musk has been tweeting plans for a major Full Self-Driving software release. But Williams told the DMV that “we do not expect significant enhancements” that would allow full self-driving, and that the “final release” of a current feature package that lets Teslas stop at traffic lights and turn left and right without human input “will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assist feature.” In plain English, that means the vehicle cannot drive itself, at any time, without constant attention from a human driver.



The emails were revealed after a public records request from the transparency advocacy organization Plainsite. They show the DMV questioning Tesla about its claims around Full Self-Driving technology and asking the company why it has not applied for a driverless vehicle test permit, as six other automakers and tech companies have done.
Bryant Walker Smith, an autonomous vehicle law expert at the University of South Carolina, described the Tesla emails as “cringe-worthy.” He said “it’s so obviously clear that there’s a contradiction between what Tesla is saying in its marketing role” versus what its engineers and lawyers are telling the DMV. “One side is inflating those expectations, the other side is massaging them,” he said.
Although “mushy words” are used throughout the industry to describe robot car technology — from driverless to autonomous to self-driving to driver assist — there is no ambiguity about the word “full” in Full Self-Driving, Smith said. It means a car that drives itself. “There’s a difference between a doctor telling you you’re healthy and telling you you’re completely healthy,” he said.
Musk has reasons to promote Full Self-Driving. The $10,000 option is a balm to Tesla’s revenues and profits, although just how much is unclear: The company doesn’t break out FSD sales. Musk has been selling buyers on the idea that with autonomous technology, Tesla vehicles will appreciate in value.



In April 2019, when cash was short at Tesla, Musk said 1 million fully autonomous robotaxis would be on the road by the end of 2020, making money for their owners. A few weeks later, Tesla sold $3 billion worth of Tesla stock, solving its cash crunch. By the end of 2020 not a single robotaxi had been built. The DMV emails suggest they won’t be anytime soon.
Tesla has no media relations department and could not be reached for comment.
The email exchanges raise an important public safety question: Is the company conducting driverless car experiments that put the public and Tesla’s own customers at unnecessary risk?
So-called Full Self-Driving Capability is an evolution of the company’s Autopilot technology, whose core functions are adaptive cruise control and automatic steering. The FSD option comes with automatic lane change on freeways, automated parking and automated stopping at traffic lights and signs.
The most recent iteration is Autosteer on city streets; when activated, the car can make left- and right-hand turns automatically after stopping at a traffic light or stop sign. That feature is limited to an “early access program” that Tesla last December said totaled about 150 Tesla employees and about 50 nonemployees. The responsibilities and liabilities of those participants are similar to those of the test driver in the infamous 2018 crash in which an experimental Volvo equipped with an Uber self-drive system failed to identify a pedestrian crossing the street and killed her. The driver, who apparently was distracted by her phone, was charged last year with negligent homicide.
The Autosteer city-street feature is scheduled for full-scale rollout later this year.

The DMV emails make clear that Full Self-Driving is, at best, a work in progress. In one letter to the DMV, Tesla attorney Williams noted that “there are circumstances and events to which the system is not capable of recognizing or responding. These include static objects and road debris, emergency vehicles, construction zones, large uncontrolled intersections with multiple incoming ways, occlusions, adverse weather, complicated or adversarial vehicles in the driving path, unmapped roads.” As a result, Williams wrote, “the driver maintains responsibility.”

Musk has said that Teslas with the automated features engaged crash less than those that don’t use them. But the company has yet to release raw data to support this claim, and it has spurned academic researchers who have offered to evaluate the data it holds.
Tesla crashes regularly make headlines, although only insurance companies are able to determine how their crash rate compares with other vehicles’, information they do not publish. Police, courts and safety officials must depend on Tesla to verify after a crash whether Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was engaged because the information is proprietary to Tesla.
The state statute that covers deployment of autonomous vehicles states that a vehicle must be capable of driving itself “without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person” to be considered autonomous under the DMV permit process.
Smith said the statute’s language could justify the DMV requiring that Tesla apply for a permit but could also justify the DMV giving Tesla a pass. For now, Tesla can continue to have it both ways — touting its level of autonomy to consumers while downplaying it to regulators.

***
I do find it interesting that Tesla has not applied for driverless vehicle test permits while other manufactures have. I'd love to get Musk on the record about that one. I get that I'm paying 7K for enhanced autopilot and then it will become FSD sometime in the future, maybe 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades. I'm OK with that. The article does point out how Tesla/Musk is talking out both sides of its mouth.

Thoughts?
Didn't someone say "Elon lies a lot."

Elon does have lofty goals, no challenging that! But....
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
93
Messages
10,347
Reaction score
16,973
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Didn't someone say "Elon lies a lot."

Elon does have lofty goals, no challenging that! But....
This is just a matter of Tesla having to tell the regulatory body exactly what's in each release of the software.

And Tesla has not given a release date for level 3+ autonomy while they're beta testing, have they? So they have no plans for anything above level 2 for the regulator to test.

They need Dojo and the new sight profile to be beta-tested before they can apply to the regulator. They haven't done that yet.

-Crissa
 


OP
OP

DarinCT

Well-known member
First Name
Darin
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
357
Reaction score
615
Location
California
Vehicles
M3, CT triM
Country flag
...
Tesla was referring to a specific FSD version, not future FSD versions.
"Tesla was referring to a specific Full Self Driving" anything is what the DMV had an issue with. It doesn't matter if it was the next rollout or one ten years down the line. The DMV (rightly) said, "umm...not only is that illegal but you haven't even applied for a permit so what gives".

https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/

My main takeaway was not about them talking out both sides of their mouth (they are); it's that they haven't even applied for a test permit when other manufactures have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo

rarburt

Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
9
Reaction score
8
Location
Denver, Colorado
Vehicles
Ford F150, Chevy Traverse
Occupation
UX Designer
Country flag
"Tesla was referring to a specific Full Self Driving" anything is what the DMV had an issue with. It doesn't matter if it was the next rollout or one ten years down the line. The DMV (rightly) said, "umm...not only is that illegal but you haven't even applied for a permit so what gives".

https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/

My main takeaway was not about them talking out both sides of their mouth (they are); it's that they haven't even applied for a test permit when other manufactures have.
Perhaps a test permit would only slow down actual testing which speaking as a tech professional makes sense to me. Hack life
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
93
Messages
10,347
Reaction score
16,973
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Why would they need a test permit when they're not doing the test the permit is for (driving around without instantaneous response).

As has been discussed before, much of the reason for the failure in the testing was that testers were not motivated to interact with the cars. They were stuffed into machines they didn't understand and then bored with repeated driving patterns unrelated to their lives. They weren't motivated to get anywhere or be anywhere. And then they were expected to have response times better than the average drivers. Paid testing of level 2 systems pretending to be level 4 just doesn't really work. It couldn't work.

So Tesla is testing as much automation as they can while level 2, using people motivated to use the systems to actually get places they want to go.

They aren't sending test mules into the wild with all features enabled, which is what the permits do.

-Crissa
 


ELCTRUK

Member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
14
Reaction score
22
Location
Wylie, TX
Website
www.elctruk.com
Vehicles
Cybertruck Tri Motor AWD w/FSD
Country flag
Exactly.

The fact is, we've set up a regulatory hurdle whereby 3-5 require the same leap in AI, so for now, the FSD will be relegated to level 2.

Level 3 automation would require an insane level of mapping, no different than 4, so Tesla is likely looking to leapfrog the entire idea of 3 and 4. (Tho I bet they'll in reality not manage the leap in existing cars.)

So yes, the current FSD beta is Level 2: Where we're watching over a teenage driver and can take over instantly. Once they get disengagement down, it will functionally be 3, but we need better laws for that. Level 4 requires so much knowledge of the current road conditions that all the FSD cars will have to be able to communicate with each other. So it's not actually different to the AI than level 5.

-Crissa
Crissa, I love reading your posts. You always have so much wisdom on everything, and I am curious how you know all this stuff!
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
93
Messages
10,347
Reaction score
16,973
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Crissa, I love reading your posts. You always have so much wisdom on everything, and I am curious how you know all this stuff!
I read entirely too much. And watch alot of people who read so much more than I do.

Connections are easy for me to remember, but I struggle with names, faces, dates. I used to be able to memorize locations of everything in each book I read!

Everyone has their talents, not all of them useful ^-^

-Crissa

 

 
CYBERBACKPACK
Top