Motortrend Piece on CT issues

[cvalue13]

Most road drive y wire are at 50 ms+.

Is it possible that the standards have to be higher for vehicles of greater mass and slower mechanical/suspension responsive times?

Outside my bailiwick so I’m just gabbin’

Just from my armchair seems possible that in terms of time between wheel input and accomplishing desired change in vehicle behavior that the mass (or higher COG) of a CT + it’s relatively squishy/absorptive suspension means that a CT with 5ms might translate to a sports/sedan with 50ms?

In any event I posted that instead because I wasn’t aware that we had seen any Tesla-internal confirmations that the CT would be DBW? (Admittedly I’m forgetful and haven’t paint much attention to the point.)

Sponsored

 

[Arctic_White]

that may be exactly true, I don’t really take a position on it

but it overlooks the substance of the article’s attempted points: they interview people who are purported industry engineering vets that appear to disagree with you

And I’m not just talking about the one quip people like to focus on, ie, “I’m surprised they’re writing these things down”

mom talking about all/most of the others, saying eg ‘these specific problems here, they are the sort of thing that should’ve been resolved in far earlier prototypes, years out from production’

I mean, find their names and discredit their expertise, or whatever

but it seems to skip over those sort of substantive critiques about the purported experts interviewed in the article, to jump instead to saying “people here reading the article aren’t experts”

no?

Your post tells me that you have very little understanding of what Tesla is about, and their culture of constant innovation.

Think of Tesla as a start-up even though it is now a behemoth of a company. Tesla has one of the best engineers and their lead in manufacturing is unmatched. So who would I believe? Tesla and their team or some random "industry expert" who couldn't make the A-team?

PS: It's also clear you have never owned a Tesla before. Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Kahpernicus]

Is it possible that the standards have to be higher for vehicles of greater mass and slower mechanical/suspension responsive times?

Outside my bailiwick so I’m just gabbin’

Just from my armchair seems possible that in terms of time between wheel input and accomplishing desired change in vehicle behavior that the mass (or higher COG) of a CT + it’s relatively squishy/absorptive suspension means that a CT with 5ms might translate to a sports/sedan with 50ms?

In any event I posted that instead because I wasn’t aware that we had seen any Tesla-internal confirmations that the CT would be DBW? (Admittedly I’m forgetful and haven’t paint much attention to the point.)

Yeah, I think it's only been speculated up until now think. With some Musk Hints™ thrown along the way.

 

[CyberGus]

This review of the Lexus steer-by-wire shows a rather substantial delay between steering input and the wheels. It's completely unacceptable IMHO. Hell, if I had a 50ms lag in Counter-Strike, I'd ragequit

 

[cvalue13]

All I am saying is that the openness and self-criticism reflected in the report is a sign of a very healthy engineering culture. It gives me tremendous confidence that Tesla is tackling them head-on and will have fixed them prior to releasing the vehicle.

roger that!

And I’d add that I find interesting folks interpretation of the one comment on this point in the wired article, because I didn’t not have the same interpretation of the comment.

First of all, that specific comment is not from an engineer, but a former COO of Nissan and CEO of Aston Martin Lagonda - so right off the top we readers are able to qualify the import and context of the views, are we not?

But second, here is the exact comment being characterized quite differently from how I read it:

"'It’s an alpha-stage vehicle, so it's not surprising that it’s some way off its targets,” [but] Palmer says he’s surprised at the frankness of the report. 'You’d be giving the engineers that wrote this stuff a good bollocking. You don’t normally write this down.'”​

​

In this thread, the critiques of this statement seem to jump to the conclusion that the point of the statement was, something like, "you don't write down any critiques/problems." See e.g.:

IMHO, any expert claiming "[never] write these things down" has disqualified himself.

That's one interpretation I suppose, but one that seems incongruent with a fair reading - which fair reading would instead interpret the comment, in the context of the article, to be more along the lines of commentary on the phrasing and characterization of how the engineers are "writ[ing] this down" and their word choices.

And as myself an officer in a technology hardware company, I have quite a bit of sympathy for that fairer read. There is a world of difference between suggesting his comment to mean "engineers should cover up actual liabilities" and instead saying "engineers should not incorrectly and accidentally attribute liabilities where none actually exist."

That's a difference between properly reflecting context in a report vs creating unnecessary fodder that can later be taken out of context to generate liabilities.

And remembering that this COO/CEO's comment lead-in is quite fairly caveated with 'It’s an alpha-stage vehicle, so it's not surprising that it’s some way off its targets,” I think it's worth giving the more generous interpretation consideration, rather than jumping to perhaps unfair and pessimistic reads in order to characterize the entire thing a 'hit piece'.

Which while we're at it, brings me to a related point:

It's difficult to refute an anonymous source, which is why the article's author should have found another source with an opposing viewpoint. This lack of balance implies bias.

Understanding we're just chatting here, so no one is expected to have a Phd level of attention to the details, it's worth being clear:

The only anonymous source in the piece is at the introduction, who provides the sum total of a fairly balanced observation: "[he] says, the company has enormous financial resources which will allow it to address the issues detailed in the report. However, he said, “my first reaction is I am astounded. These are classic mechanical automotive engineering challenges that you have in pretty much any vehicle. I'm blown away that they would be struggling so much with the basics.”

Every other quote in the piece is attributed to a named individual.

And as for lambasting the ethics of the "leak" because it's somehow illegal, this is a misrepresentation of both the facts and the law. The relevant "facts" are that these documents were leaked by a whistleblower actor, which depending on the facts means thatnot only is it possibly not illegal, it is in fact encouraged by the law and public policy.

Courts understand the difference between protecting whistleblowers who access specific pieces of information to support their claims and whistleblowers who are sifting through massive amounts of sensitive information looking for unlawful conduct. Courts want to protect a whistleblower only to the extent necessary to allow them to reveal enough information in matters of public concern.

And as for the disclosure of personally identifying information, apparently, this whistleblower's dataset included PII that as far as we know i likely the subject of whistlebloer protections. Whether the disclosure of PII is reason to find the whistleblower at fault, or Tesla at fault, for that is a matter of facts to which we have no full understanding or access. If the whistleblower had to essentially hack into computer systems that were appropriately safeguarded by Tesla, then the disclosure of that information will be a problem for the whistleblower. If instead that PII was accessed because it was stored by Tesla in a place or manner that is not appropriately safeguarded under the law, then that is a problem for Tesla, not the whistleblower.

And there are allegations here that suggest the problem is with Tesla, not the wistleblower. the whistleblower's dataset included PII that, amongst other things, alleges to show Tesla employees have/had had seemingly unfettered access to videos recorded in customers’ vehicles, and that Tesla employees were sharing clips around the workplace via email — including sharing footage showing car owners and passengers in let's call it "private" moments... I find it hard to understand that people would assume out of hand that all fault here lay with the whistleblower for having disclosed that information to authorities.

That's what whistleblower statutes are for, exactly, and why itwouldn't be illegal.

The theme throughout the post is consistent: acting surprised that media takes a sensationalized slant seems disingenuous - since the dawn of media we've all understood how to read information critically, haven't we? It's our job to contextualize and authority-adjust for materials presented. Applying those basics to these articles, for anyone interested in understanding the "truth," should leave one with at least mixed emotions and a sense of interest. I find it hard to understand any take-away that is instead so stridently in the camp of, essentially, "there's nothing to see here, fake news, only unnamed sources, and anyone who leaks PII should be thrown in the slammer."

Such takes, far from being persuasive of their conclusions, ironically lead people to being suspect of those conclusions.

 

[CyberGus]

roger that!

And I’d add that I find interesting folks interpretation of the one comment on this point in the wired article, because I didn’t not have the same interpretation of the comment.

First of all, that specific comment is not from an engineer, but a former COO of Nissan and CEO of Aston Martin Lagonda - so right off the top we readers are able to qualify the import and context of the views, are we not?

But second, here is the exact comment being characterized quite differently from how I read it:

"'It’s an alpha-stage vehicle, so it's not surprising that it’s some way off its targets,” [but] Palmer says he’s surprised at the frankness of the report. 'You’d be giving the engineers that wrote this stuff a good bollocking. You don’t normally write this down.'”​

​

In this thread, the critiques of this statement seem to jump to the conclusion that the point of the statement was, something like, "you don't write down any critiques/problems." See e.g.:



That's one interpretation I suppose, but one that seems incongruent with a fair reading - which fair reading would instead interpret the comment, in the context of the article, to be more along the lines of commentary on the phrasing and characterization of how the engineers are "writ[ing] this down" and their word choices.

And as myself an officer in a technology hardware company, I have quite a bit of sympathy for that fairer read. There is a world of difference between suggesting his comment to mean "engineers should cover up actual liabilities" and instead saying "engineers should not incorrectly and accidentally attribute liabilities where none actually exist."

That's a difference between properly reflecting context in a report vs creating unnecessary fodder that can later be taken out of context to generate liabilities.

And remembering that this COO/CEO's comment lead-in is quite fairly caveated with 'It’s an alpha-stage vehicle, so it's not surprising that it’s some way off its targets,” I think it's worth giving the more generous interpretation consideration, rather than jumping to perhaps unfair and pessimistic reads in order to characterize the entire thing a 'hit piece'.

Which while we're at it, brings me to a related point:



Understanding we're just chatting here, so no one is expected to have a Phd level of attention to the details, it's worth being clear:

The only anonymous source in the piece is at the introduction, who provides the sum total of a fairly balanced observation: "[he] says, the company has enormous financial resources which will allow it to address the issues detailed in the report. However, he said, “my first reaction is I am astounded. These are classic mechanical automotive engineering challenges that you have in pretty much any vehicle. I'm blown away that they would be struggling so much with the basics.”

Every other quote in the piece is attributed to a named individual.

And as for lambasting the ethics of the "leak" because it's somehow illegal, this is a misrepresentation of both the facts and the law. The relevant "facts" are that these documents were leaked by a whistleblower actor, which depending on the facts means thatnot only is it possibly not illegal, it is in fact encouraged by the law and public policy.

Courts understand the difference between protecting whistleblowers who access specific pieces of information to support their claims and whistleblowers who are sifting through massive amounts of sensitive information looking for unlawful conduct. Courts want to protect a whistleblower only to the extent necessary to allow them to reveal enough information in matters of public concern.

And as for the disclosure of personally identifying information, apparently, this whistleblower's dataset included PII that as far as we know i likely the subject of whistlebloer protections. Whether the disclosure of PII is reason to find the whistleblower at fault, or Tesla at fault, for that is a matter of facts to which we have no full understanding or access. If the whistleblower had to essentially hack into computer systems that were appropriately safeguarded by Tesla, then the disclosure of that information will be a problem for the whistleblower. If instead that PII was accessed because it was stored by Tesla in a place or manner that is not appropriately safeguarded under the law, then that is a problem for Tesla, not the whistleblower.

And there are allegations here that suggest the problem is with Tesla, not the wistleblower. the whistleblower's dataset included PII that, amongst other things, alleges to show Tesla employees have/had had seemingly unfettered access to videos recorded in customers’ vehicles, and that Tesla employees were sharing clips around the workplace via email — including sharing footage showing car owners and passengers in let's call it "private" moments... I find it hard to understand that people would assume out of hand that all fault here lay with the whistleblower for having disclosed that information to authorities.

That's what whistleblower statutes are for, exactly, and why itwouldn't be illegal.

The theme throughout the post is consistent: acting surprised that media takes a sensationalized slant seems disingenuous - since the dawn of media we've all understood how to read information critically, haven't we? It's our job to contextualize and authority-adjust for materials presented. Applying those basics to these articles, for anyone interested in understanding the "truth," should leave one with at least mixed emotions and a sense of interest. I find it hard to understand any take-away that is instead so stridently in the camp of, essentially, "there's nothing to see here, fake news, only unnamed sources, and anyone who leaks PII should be thrown in the slammer."

Such takes, far from being persuasive of their conclusions, ironically lead people to being suspect of those conclusions.

I'm probably just triggered. I've been repeatedly gaslit by developers telling me that an obvious defect is "working as designed" or "isn't that bad" solely because their performance metrics are insanely formulated as "each shipped fix indicates a lower quality product". Fixing fewer things makes for a higher-quality product!

 

[CyberGus]

 

[cvalue13]

Your post tells me that you have very little understanding of what Tesla is about, and their culture of constant innovation.

Think of Tesla as a start-up even though it is now a behemoth of a company. Tesla has one of the best engineers and their lead in manufacturing is unmatched. So who would I believe? Tesla and their team or some random "industry expert" who couldn't make the A-team?

PS: It's also clear you have never owned a Tesla before. Tell me I'm wrong.

No, I haven't owned a Tesla before. For what little it may be worth to you, I have, however, been a close observer of the company and it's products for a long time. I've not owned a Tesla before only because I, for whatever silly reason, have for 30 years driven only full-sized pickup trucks as my daily driver (ignoring my side piece toys).

That said, even if you think only Tesla owners have authority to understand *something* (unclear what exactly, I fail to see what those things have to do with my comments?

Because my comments were about, at bottom, basics of critical thinking/reading. Agnostic to particulars about ownership of a particular vehicle or the company.

But as for particulars about ownership of a particular vehicle or the company, I explicitly invited *you* (the royal 'you') to " I mean, find their names and discredit their expertise, or whatever"

And it does seem that your only report relates to some unclear assertion that the people purported to be experts in the article aren't in fact experts.

However, bizarrely framed as instead telling me that *I'm* not an expert, and in virtue of having not owned a Tesla vehicle?

Sort of, ironically, making exactly my point by example.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm probably just triggered. I've been repeatedly gaslit by developers telling me that an obvious defect is "working as designed" or "isn't that bad" solely because their performance metrics are insanely formulated as "each shipped fix indicates a lower quality product". Fixing fewer things makes for a higher-quality product!

Zero worries, my guy - clearly, *I'm* at least equally triggered.

You're one for whom I can see past the brevity and occasional over-correction to, at bottom, an informed and at balanced degree of curiosity, owing a generous read.

And whom in kind, I also see often affording me the same allowances.

 

[CyberGus]

Zero worries, my guy - clearly, *I'm* at least equally triggered.

You're one for whom I can see past the brevity and occasional over-correction to, at bottom, an informed and at balanced degree of curiosity, owing a generous read.

And whom in kind, I also see often affording me the same allowances.

The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance

Wait, that came out wrong

 

[CyberGus]

Hey...

did we just gloss over the fact that "steer-by-wire" has apparently been confirmed for Cybertruck...??

 

[Kahpernicus]

Hey...

did we just gloss over the fact that "steer-by-wire" has apparently been confirmed for Cybertruck...??

someone tell @cvalue13

 

[Gojuryu]

5ms is their target?

That's ambitious as fuck.

I was thinking the same. since 5 ms = 0.005 seconds.

• A 0.005 is near-to an electronic switch (I/O) response only,
• There is no such thing as a mechanical switch what-so-ever with that low a ratio response.
• A 0.05 = (or) 1/20th of 1 second, sounds excellent, even for steer by wire.
  • Normally such would be near impossible for anyone other than Tesla.

 

[Diehard]

This review of the Lexus steer-by-wire shows a rather substantial delay between steering input and the wheels. It's completely unacceptable IMHO. Hell, if I had a 50ms lag in Counter-Strike, I'd ragequit

did we just gloss over the fact that "steer-by-wire" has apparently been confirmed for Cybertruck...??

Japanese electrons are slower. This would be fixed if Tesla made the same system; mostly because with all the data Tesla is collecting on you, it knows you better than you know yourself. It knows when you are going to make a left so it will compensate by starting to turn before you do.

CT interior camera probably will watch your coffee intake watch your belly radius change and factor in the bathroom break on your trip too.

 

[cvalue13]

Hey...

did we just gloss over the fact that "steer-by-wire" has apparently been confirmed for Cybertruck...??

I think we have just glossed over the face that “steer-by-water” has apparently been confirmed for CyberTrucj

Sponsored