AL Priority with Tesla Model X

[RedRocket]

Would need to know the technical details (signal parameters) of the systems. I believe it has both radar & laser systems, doesn't it ? I think the Gull Wing doors use ultrasonic signal but not 100 % sure.

[jdong]

Would need to know the technical details (signal parameters) of the systems. I believe it has both radar & laser systems, doesn't it ? I think the Gull Wing doors use ultrasonic signal but not 100 % sure.

Teslas only use one forward camera, one forward 77GHz radar, and 12 ultrasonic parking sensors -- more parking sensors on the Model X to protect the falcon wing doors. It won't interfere with ALPs or any other radar or laser system.


After having the car for a week I must admit I am extremely impressed with Autopilot's performance despite having fewer sensors than most of its competitors. The competition still is nowhere close when it comes to semiautonomous driving.

[enzom]

Teslas only use one forward camera, one forward 77GHz radar, and 12 ultrasonic parking sensors -- more parking sensors on the Model X to protect the falcon wing doors. It won't interfere with ALPs or any other radar or laser system.


After having the car for a week I must admit I am extremely impressed with Autopilot's performance despite having fewer sensors than most of its competitors. The competition still is nowhere close when it comes to semiautonomous driving.

Thanks. Haven't tried Autopilot yet.

[RedRocket]

Teslas only use one forward camera, one forward 77GHz radar, and 12 ultrasonic parking sensors -- more parking sensors on the Model X to protect the falcon wing doors. It won't interfere with ALPs or any other radar or laser system.


After having the car for a week I must admit I am extremely impressed with Autopilot's performance despite having fewer sensors than most of its competitors. The competition still is nowhere close when it comes to semiautonomous driving.

Did you see the pix of the "X" model crashed into the front of a business building ? Owner claims the vehicle accelerated "on-its-own" b/c of a faulty collision avoidence sys. There have been several of these type incidents that have been reported. - WTF ?

[jdong]

Did you see the pix of the "X" model crashed into the front of a business building ? Owner claims the vehicle accelerated "on-its-own" b/c of a faulty collision avoidence sys. There have been several of these type incidents that have been reported. - WTF ?

Tesla responded by claiming that the vehicle logs show that the car was in Drive and the driver slammed the accelerator down full force. Since all the Model X's delivered at the time were 600+HP P90D's that is a very fatal mistake to make and will end up in a wall 100% of the time until Elon invents mid-air reverse thrusters for SUV's!


I think it's troublesome that in modern cars, accident investigations put your word against the manufacturer's word since they designed the logging system and are interpreting it. It's the Toyota incidents all over again: does the car have a faulty accelerator sensor or did the guy's wife on one of the very first drives of a brand new super car hit the wrong pedal and launch it into a building? I would honestly say the latter is more probable.

With the ridiculous power of the Model S / Model X we are seeing a lot more "ordinary" drivers have super car performance at their disposal.... for better or for worse!


EDIT: It's worth noting that the owner's other claims are a bit dubious. Tesla's UI will not allow engaging cruise control or Autopilot unless you are going above 18mph except if you are following another car, which was not the case here. And of course, collision "avoidance" systems only kick in under limited circumstances, usually just inattentive rear-endings. Cars are not smart enough yet to prevent 100% of accidents, and no automaker is ballsy enough to program a car to disobey a driver's full-throttle inputs. I would guess most of the folks on this forum would oppose a car that disobeys the driver's intentions because the car's firmware thinks that the action is unsafe!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedRocket]

Tesla responded by claiming that the vehicle logs show that the car was in Drive and the driver slammed the accelerator down full force. Since all the Model X's delivered at the time were 600+HP P90D's that is a very fatal mistake to make and will end up in a wall 100% of the time until Elon invents mid-air reverse thrusters for SUV's! - lol, good one !


I think it's troublesome that in modern cars, accident investigations put your word against the manufacturer's word since they designed the logging system and are interpreting it. It's the Toyota incidents all over again: does the car have a faulty accelerator sensor or did the guy's wife on one of the very first drives of a brand new super car hit the wrong pedal and launch it into a building? I would honestly say the latter is more probable.

With the ridiculous power of the Model S / Model X we are seeing a lot more "ordinary" drivers have super car performance at their disposal.... for better or for worse!


EDIT: It's worth noting that the owner's other claims are a bit dubious. Tesla's UI will not allow engaging cruise control or Autopilot unless you are going above 18mph except if you are following another car, which was not the case here. And of course, collision "avoidance" systems only kick in under limited circumstances, usually just inattentive rear-endings. Cars are not smart enough yet to prevent 100% of accidents, and no automaker is ballsy enough to program a car to disobey a driver's full-throttle inputs. I would guess most of the folks on this forum would oppose a car that disobeys the driver's intentions because the car's firmware thinks that the action is unsafe!

Agree fully, it's a "She" said & "He" said situation when only one side gets 1st look at the in-car data logging....the potential for manipulation of recorded evidence is ever present at this time.

[jdong]

Agree fully, it's a "She" said & "He" said situation when only one side gets 1st look at the in-car data logging....the potential for manipulation of recorded evidence is ever present at this time.

Yeah, I think before long, the NHTSA may need to start taking a NTSB-like role in air craft black box interpretation…. The manufacturer has every interest to design the logging system and interpret the data to their benefit. I think in this particular case it's probably 99% driver error, but that's not good enough. If I were ever involved in a situation like this, I would want a neutral third party to be examining the data and the design of the logging system.

[awj223]

Yeah, I think before long, the NHTSA may need to start taking a NTSB-like role in air craft black box interpretation…. The manufacturer has every interest to design the logging system and interpret the data to their benefit. I think in this particular case it's probably 99% driver error, but that's not good enough. If I were ever involved in a situation like this, I would want a neutral third party to be examining the data and the design of the logging system.

Will be interesting to see how they analyze the logs from this crash. Do they have a camera/visual light capture system so that they can "see" what the driver would have seen?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12...nomous-model-s