[Sean Nelson]

...there’s no question my EUV is using the mechanical brakes going down hills. I’ve tested both with and without cruise enabled, both with and without one pedal turned on. Regen maxes out at 10kW on cruise, while it goes much higher without cruise. There’s no other explanation for the difference.

I doubt very much that the Bolt EUV uses the hydraulic brakes any more than the Bolt does (which is basically never), considering that it's using the same drivetrain and control electronics.

The reason Regen maxes out at 10kW on cruise is likely because the car never has to slow down by more than around 1km/h and therefore doesn't need to absorb very much energy to do so. When you turn off cruise and use the pedal it's super easy to exceed that simply by slowing down more.

Try going down the hill in cruise and hitting the "Set -" button rapidly so that your speed decreases quickly, that'll require the car to regen more energy in order to slow down.

 

[atc98092]

I doubt very much that the Bolt EUV uses the hydraulic brakes any more than the Bolt does (which is basically never), considering that it's using the same drivetrain and control electronics.

The reason Regen maxes out at 10kW on cruise is likely because the car never has to slow down by more than around 1km/h and therefore doesn't need to absorb very much energy to do so. When you turn off cruise and use the pedal it's super easy to exceed that simply by slowing down more.

Try going down the hill in cruise and hitting the "Set -" button rapidly so that your speed decreases quickly, that'll require the car to regen more energy in order to slow down.

Nope, I turn cruise off on the same hill and I see double the amount of regen. It’s using the brakes.

 

[Sean Nelson]

Nope, I turn cruise off on the same hill and I see double the amount of regen. It’s using the brakes.

I'm sorry, but that's something I just can't believe unless I see it myself.

 

[atc98092]

I'm sorry, but that's something I just can't believe unless I see it myself.

Not my problem if you don’t want to believe it. I’m simply stating the facts as the car shows.

 

[MikeZ]

I give it a year to be chauffeur level.

And if you really believe that, I’ve got some swamp land on Mars to sell you…

 

[NortonCommando]

.... It’s using the brakes.

Measure the temp of the discs, or touch them, carefully...
They would be noticeably warmer than the wheels if used to control CC speed on a downhill.
Be careful on the side of the road....

'Maybe' it's a new feature to control CC speed when the battery is full.
But you have to prove that the friction brakes are working with CC.

 

[cyaopec]

Are you on 10.4 or 10.5. I haven’t had much opportunity to run it through its paces but from what I’ve read, it’s a much bigger improvement than previous .X releases.
And for those interested in getting firsthand feedback, I’d recommend the TMC forum on FSD. With ~13,000 beta users logging millions of miles/month, there’s plenty of feedback. Of course you have to sift through the noise and filter out the negative Nancy’s and Tesla worshippers but the median is filled with tons of anecdotal data, so much so that it can be looked on as just data. Similar to the wide range of opinions on this forum related to EA chargers. In the past, some have claimed the experience, strategy, locations, density, business plan is superior to Tesla’s superchargers while others claim a 50% success rate a major win. Truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sorry. I don't have FSD. I'm only talking about using Auto Pilot on back roads in my Model 3, not Model S. It's not a big deal. I'm just surprised that there's a limit to how it can navigate corners. It's gotten a lot better over the years. It might just be that some design decisions are ones that I would differ with. There may very well be a good reason why it brakes at a turn's apex. It's just that I would wager that most people brake before entering a turn.

 

[Sean Nelson]

There's an piece in the New York Times talking about the NHTSA investigation in to Tesla's self-driving software and how it's been pushed in the company:

Inside Tesla as Elon Musk Pushed an Unflinching Vision for Self-Driving Cars
The automaker may have undermined safety in designing its Autopilot driver-assistance system to fit its chief executive’s vision, former employees say.

Autonomous cars were all the rage a couple of years back, and everyone was saying they'd have fleets out in the wild by now. But everyone's gone pretty quiet. I think what's happened was that development ran into the 80/20 rule - we got to the point where the cars could deal with 80% of the situations out there and everyone got excited, but failed to recognize that dealing with the next 20% of the edge cases would be 80% of the effort. In other words, we solved the easy stuff and the difficult stuff is going to take a lot more work.

 

[bolt-ish]

There's an piece in the New York Times talking about the NHTSA investigation in to Tesla's self-driving software and how it's been pushed in the company:

Political hackery, egged on by the legacies that are falling further behind.

You are absolutely right about the 80:20 -- Musk mentioned it years ago regarding LiDAR.

 

[Sean Nelson]

Political hackery, egged on by the legacies that are falling further behind.

Using the phrases "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" to market what they're actually delivering supports the narrative that they're pushing the idea that the technology can do more than it's really capable of. Given the actual functionality, those terms are misleading at best IMHO.

 

[bolt-ish]

Using the phrases "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" to market what they're actually delivering supports the narrative that they're pushing the idea that the technology can do more than it's really capable of. Given the actual functionality, those terms are misleading at best IMHO.

That is the NHTSA in a nutshell: they cannot take their head out of a paper bag when it comes to fires, but the label 'autopilot' is worthy of non-stop investigations.

 

[atc98092]

Actually, Autopilot isn't really a problem name. The problem is people misunderstand the word. In aircraft, the autopilot is very similar to what Tesla does with theirs. It's not a complete flying solution. It only does what it's programmed to do. The more sophisticated systems can control the aircraft practically from takeoff to landing, but it's not an autonomous system. But people seem to think that word stands for a system that can do "everything".

 

[Sean Nelson]

Actually, Autopilot isn't really a problem name. ... But people seem to think that word stands for a system that can do "everything".

That's exactly my point - you can argue as much as you want about the technical minutia of aircraft autopilot technology, but if most people think it means "does everything" then that's a problem.

And what do you think the phrase "Full Self Driving" might mean to the public?

Remember, this is an age of endless End User License Agreements that everyone is rapidly being conditioned to ignore. Sure, you can argue that the driver is liable because he didn't read the fine print, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people are going to be misled and it's probably going to kill some of them.

When you build and market a system in a way which a bit of common sense and foresight tells you is going to cause problems like this, shouldn't you bear a bit of the responsibility?

 

[atc98092]

And what do you think the phrase "Full Self Driving" might mean to the public?

I have a great deal of trouble with that name. Even if it did 100% what they say it is going to, it's still not "full" self driving.

 

[Sean Nelson]

You have fallen down the trump rabbit hole.

What does Trump have to do with it? There have been deaths and the NHTSA is investigating, it's what they do. You're condemning the judge before the verdict has been issued, that smacks more of bias to me than the investigation does.

 

[atc98092]

OK, stop with the political comments now, or expect a ban. This is an auto forum, not politics.

 

[shrox]

Using the phrases "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" to market what they're actually delivering supports the narrative that they're pushing the idea that the technology can do more than it's really capable of. Given the actual functionality, those terms are misleading at best IMHO.

Part of marketing is to mislead. That's why I quit it.

 

[shocker]

In other words, we solved the easy stuff and the difficult stuff is going to take a lot more work.

90% complete, 90% to go.

Part of marketing is to mislead. That's why I quit it.

LIke psychology experiments. The premise the subject gets told is usually a complete lie.

As far as real autonomy goes... It's so far in the future, I'll be in extreme dotage so my car will chauffeur me to all my doctor appointments.

 

[MichBolt]

Actually, Autopilot isn't really a problem name. The problem is people misunderstand the word. In aircraft, the autopilot is very similar to what Tesla does with theirs. It's not a complete flying solution. It only does what it's programmed to do. The more sophisticated systems can control the aircraft practically from takeoff to landing, but it's not an autonomous system. But people seem to think that word stands for a system that can do "everything".

To be fair, the use of autopilot in planes is different than in cars. In a plane, the pilot typically has plenty of time to react and take control from the autopilot since the plane is, presumably, cruising at altitude with nothing around it. In a car, there may be no margin for error and the driver may need to take control in an instant. While the vehicles' functions may be similar, the demands on the driver's / pilot's attention are different.

 

[atc98092]

Autopilot in aviation can be used for everything other than the actual takeoff roll and landing flare. And there's a small number of aircraft/airports certified for actual auto-land. Yes, the airport has to be certified as well as the aircraft and flight crew. But autopilot is used for climb, cruise, descent and approach, so much more than just cruising at altitude. Available time for a response can differ greatly.

But what aviation autopilot does not do is look for other traffic and alter the aircraft course to avoid. That requires pilot awareness and action. Technology like TCAS provides the pilot with another pair of "eyes" looking ahead, but the pilot must still take the appropriate action. And TCAS can have false positives as well. I work in aviation ATC quality control, and we often have a TCAS event that receives a warning on properly separated aircraft.

So, any sort of autonomous operation in an automobile is going to be vastly more complicated than the "simple" autopilot used in aviation. I agree that the margin for error/time available to determine an action is far shorter for a vehicle based operation. Potential situations can arise as quickly as someone stepping off the curb with the car approaching. Something like that can't happen in the sky. Tesla's Autopilot is much more similar to what is used in aviation than what is required for "self-driving".