When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It’s designed to be redundant, there a duplicate parts throughout the system to reduce the chance of failure. But you could always take over and drive like normal if there was a catastrophic failure
What happens in a normal car today when the human driver has a heart attack/stroke/aneurysm while driving? Is there any redundancy in that system?
It’s designed to be redundant, there a duplicate parts throughout the system to reduce the chance of failure. But you could always take over and drive like normal if there was a catastrophic failure
What happens in a normal car today when the human driver has a heart attack/stroke/aneurysm while driving? Is there any redundancy in that system?
There are not duplicate parts in the system. There is one camera to view each angle, not multiple.
A human is a conscious self aware being, not a computer. There is never going to be a redundancy for that, stop being ignorant. The point of what happens if it fails is a huge point of contention (and is dangerous) and why there are multiple warnings that this is all in beta and you still must have your hands on the wheel. If it was truly self driving I could sit in the back and take a nap but it's not and I can't do that. With all the phantom braking, weird lane following, etc I would not trust this car to drive me places without me in control. It's good, but it's not that good.
Source: Me because I own one and drive it every day.
Originally Posted by Comfy
But but,….. aren’t lidar + radar are the better solution. More sensors = more safety.
Bwwaaaahhhaahhaaaa .
There is enough overlap between the forward looking cameras (five of them) and failure of one will have only some impact. If more than one camera fails and Tesla computer decides that it is not safe to drive without enough sensor input, it will gradually slow down, turn on flashers and stop on a shoulder safely, (just like humans do) whenever possible.
Sam didn’t get the sarcasm in my previous post. But maybe it was my fault since I was too much focussed on laughing. .
There is enough overlap between the forward looking cameras (five of them) and failure of one will have only some impact. If more than one camera fails and Tesla computer decides that it is not safe to drive without enough sensor input, it will gradually slow down, turn on flashers and stop on a shoulder safely, (just like humans do) whenever possible.
Sam didn’t get the sarcasm in my previous post. But maybe it was my fault since I was too much focussed on laughing. .
So...there aren't redundant sensors then...and more sensors isn't better? The forward cameras are not redundant to each other, they look at different things and provide distance measurement. If the camera that fails is on the side of the road that the car needs to pull over to, what happens? Right now, the Tesla computer does not have enough sensor input to drive without human intervention period. The car tells you that every time you flip the autopilot on.
I honestly don't care what youtube/twitter bullshit you guys post since I have MANY MANY MANY more miles, hours, experience, and seat time in a Tesla than either of you two fanbois and I would not ever trust this car to self drive me around town without me being 1000% aware of every thing it's doing and ready to jump in/hover over the brake pedal all the time. At that point it's not self driving at all, it's a novelty. The tech (whether hardware or software) is just not there yet to do it.
How many Tesla FSD processors are on this Hardware 3.0 board? One or two? Can someone who actually owns a Tesla help me out? Since I don't own one I can't count, only real Tesla owners will be able to count and answer to this question. Please I patiently await your reply
How many Tesla FSD processors are on this Hardware 3.0 board? One or two? Can someone who actually owns a Tesla help me out? Since I don't own one I can't count, only real Tesla owners will be able to count and answer to this question. Please I patiently await your reply
There are two but how do you know that 1.) they are FSD processors, and 2.) they are redundant to each other? They could be purposed to do two different things lol. Also, the chances of a chip failure are far more remote than a camera or other such item failing.
When Tesla had their Autonomy Day 2019 event where they unveiled their custom processor and had the chip designer talk in intricate nerdy detail about it for an hour I wonder if they talked about why they had two processors on the same board?
But if the chance of one processor failing is extremely low and they've built a system with 2 processors sounds like it must be a very reliable system.
The guy who built the FSD hardware 3.0 talked about the redundancy of the system at the 4:20 mark of this video. Redundant computers, redundant power steering, redundant power and data connections, you can still steer and brake if the main battery dies
I can't confirm that both of these people in that video own a Tesla so someone like Sam may actually know more about this FSD hardware than them since he owns a Tesla. Actually since they work for Tesla they're probably lying so they can't be trusted.
Thanks for proving that FSD had redundancies when they employed radar. Now that radar is gone though...
Well since radarless only came out a couple days ago IDK if anyone has tested that yet. If it's shown to function the same without radar what will you complain about next?
When Tesla had their Autonomy Day 2019 event where they unveiled their custom processor and had the chip designer talk in intricate nerdy detail about it for an hour I wonder if they talked about why they had two processors on the same board?
But if the chance of one processor failing is extremely low and they've built a system with 2 processors sounds like it must be a very reliable system.
The guy who built the FSD hardware 3.0 talked about the redundancy of the system at the 4:20 mark of this video. Redundant computers, redundant power steering, redundant power and data connections, you can still steer and brake if the main battery dies
I can't confirm that both of these people in that video own a Tesla so someone like Sam may actually know more about this FSD hardware than them since he owns a Tesla. Actually since they work for Tesla they're probably lying so they can't be trusted.
If they built a system with two processors that means that the likelihood of one of them failing is high. You don't build redundancy unless it's required, that's basic engineering DFMEA risk mitigation stuff.
I'll watch this later since I'm interested in this. I HIGHLY doubt there's redundant power steering lol. You know how much weight that would add to a car? No car has that, I'm guessing this is a misunderstanding.
Also, the irony behind the bolded comment is that Tesla themselves said in a legal statement that FSD would never progress beyond a level 2 system yet you continue to believe otherwise.
that's some of the dumbest shit I've ever read, each sentence is battling to be dumber than the rest.
When someone designs an airplane, pacemaker, nuclear reactor, or self-driving car they build redundancy into the system because these are systems where in the unlikely event that something fails or malfunctions it may result in death, or serious injury to people, loss or severe damage to equipment/property, environmental harm.
It never ceases to amaze me how confidently stupid Sam is
that's some of the dumbest shit I've ever read, each sentence is battling to be dumber than the rest.
When someone designs an airplane, pacemaker, nuclear reactor, or self-driving car they build redundancy into the system because these are systems where in the unlikely event that something fails or malfunctions it may result in death, or serious injury to people, loss or severe damage to equipment/property, environmental harm.
It never ceases to amaze me how confidently stupid Sam is
Please, tell me more about the basic engineering know how that you seem to completely lack. Every single thing you post is some bullshit propaganda nonsense that you clearly have no understanding of. At least comfy is obviously trolling, you're just ignorant.
An airplane, pacemaker, and a reactor are all decidedly different in terms of risk and complexity than an optional self driving system that is billed as a beta test. Redundancy is expensive and isn't added unless necessary and defined as such in a risk assessment. Also, most redundant systems aren't just duplicates of the same thing, they use other methods and means of control in the event of a loss because a duplicate is also likely to fail. For example, if power steering fails you can still manually turn your wheel because the mechanical linkage allows you to do so. It sucks and isn't fun but you can still operate the car to safety in the event of a failure. They don't just slap on another pump or electric motor just in case the primary takes a shit. In general, a chip isn't going to take a dump, it'll be the wiring, connector, or end effector that will die before a PCB will. If the PCB dies, it's not as simple as just spooling up another one.
Also, funny you should mention redundancy on a pacemaker....none of them have duplicate systems, if there's a need for redundancy (and the ones I've worked on don't), there's a different means of obtaining data or control. Duplicate systems take up space, energy, and resources and are rarely necessary. Source: Me because my name is on the patent for a few of them.
It’s designed to be redundant, there a duplicate parts throughout the system to reduce the chance of failure. But you could always take over and drive like normal if there was a catastrophic failure
What happens in a normal car today when the human driver has a heart attack/stroke/aneurysm while driving? Is there any redundancy in that system?
Originally Posted by SamDoe1
There are not duplicate parts in the system.
Source: Me because I own one and drive it every day.
Originally Posted by #1 STUNNA
How many Tesla FSD processors are on this Hardware 3.0 board? One or two? Can someone who actually owns a Tesla help me out? Since I don't own one I can't count, only real Tesla owners will be able to count and answer to this question. Please I patiently await your reply
Originally Posted by SamDoe1
There are two but how do you know that 1.) they are FSD processors, and 2.) they are redundant to each other? They could be purposed to do two different things lol. Also, the chances of a chip failure are far more remote than a camera or other such item failing.
Originally Posted by #1 STUNNA
When Tesla had their Autonomy Day 2019 event where they unveiled their custom processor and had the chip designer talk in intricate nerdy detail about it for an hour I wonder if they talked about why they had two processors on the same board?
But if the chance of one processor failing is extremely low and they've built a system with 2 processors sounds like it must be a very reliable system.
The guy who built the FSD hardware 3.0 talked about the redundancy of the system at the 4:20 mark of this video. Redundant computers, redundant power steering, redundant power and data connections, you can still steer and brake if the main battery dies
I can't confirm that both of these people in that video own a Tesla so someone like Sam may actually know more about this FSD hardware than them since he owns a Tesla. Actually since they work for Tesla they're probably lying so they can't be trusted.
Originally Posted by SamDoe1
If they built a system with two processors that means that the likelihood of one of them failing is high. You don't build redundancy unless it's required, that's basic engineering DFMEA risk mitigation stuff.
I'll watch this later since I'm interested in this. I HIGHLY doubt there's redundant power steering lol. You know how much weight that would add to a car? No car has that, I'm guessing this is a misunderstanding.
Originally Posted by #1 STUNNA
that's some of the dumbest shit I've ever read, each sentence is battling to be dumber than the rest.
When someone designs an airplane, pacemaker, nuclear reactor, or self-driving car they build redundancy into the system because these are systems where in the unlikely event that something fails or malfunctions it may result in death, or serious injury to people, loss or severe damage to equipment/property, environmental harm.
It never ceases to amaze me how confidently stupid Sam is
Imagine owning a Tesla (which according to this subforum automatically makes you an expert and their word is gospel) and not knowing that the vehicle they just bought has redundant power steering motors. Then when I post a video of the CEO of the company who's vehicle he just bought telling you that your vehicle has redundant power steering you respond with "I HIGHLY doubt there's redundant power steering lol". Imagine living your life like this.
So to circle back, I've shown that yes as I originally said "It’s designed to be redundant, there are duplicate parts throughout the system to reduce the chance of failure." When Sam said "There are not duplicate parts in the system." Sam was confidently wrong, again. There are redundancies in the power steering, FSD processors, power and data lines, and it will still steer and brake even if the main battery pack dies.
Owning a Tesla has not made Sam an expert on all things Tesla, he's still confidently wrong on many things, and doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. This is why Sam is blocked, long term exposure to his posts can give you brain cancer
Tesla rolled out the Full Self Driving Beta software version 9.0 last Friday, and with the weekend at their disposal, people immediately did Elon Musk's bidding (and Tesla's job, if we're being honest) and went out to test it.
Here Are Eleven Situations Tesla's FSD Beta 9.0 Fails, Some Potentially Fatal
The first batch of trials ended without any reported incidents but watching a few of the clips posted on the Internet (kindly put together by Twitter user Giuliano Giacaglia - @giacaglia), we can see there were a few instances where the driver's quick reactions saved the day. But that's the thing: people are bound to pay a lot more attention when testing the system, and considerably less when commuting back home after a long day at work.
After analyzing only a few videos out there - we count three, but we could be wrong - Giuliano identified eleven different instances where the vision-only system messed up, and at least one of them is seriously scary. You'll know it when you'll see it, but we will point it out, just in case. Better yet, we'll include a "Scare-o-meter" for each instance that uses a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest.
#1: FSD nearly crashes into some planters after taking a left turn. "Scare-o-meter" rating: we'll give this one a five, not because it was particularly dangerous, but because it sat lurking around the corner, so it kind of popped out of nowhere.
#2: FSD fails to see massive concrete pillars in the middle of the road and veers toward them. Twice. "Scare-o-meter" rating: we know we said ten was the highest, but we'll give this one 12. Just look at how quick the driver's reactions needed to be and think of the potential consequences.
#3: FSD thinks the Tesla is a bus and drives in a bus lane. "Scare-o-meter" rating: about one, though the other drivers might give it a higher grade considering how the car was swerving around like mad.
#4: FSD attempts to drive on a one-way street. The wrong way, obviously. "Scare-o-meter" rating: since there was no car coming down the street, we'll give it a three. If there were, it would have scored a solid seven or eight.
#5: FSD can't decide what lane to stay in for a right-hand turn and jumps from one to another. In fairness, it might have been put off by the car in front that sat right in the middle, but still, AI is supposed to be smarter than us, dumb human drivers. "Scare-o-meter" rating: one. It's mostly funny.
#6: FSD wants to take the correct lane for a right turn too late. The driver says there was also another car behind that whose drive would have potentially perceived the maneuver as too aggressive. "Scare-o-meter" rating: we'll give it a five just because it happened at higher speed (50 mph).
#7: FSD goes in one lane, then quickly tries to revert to the original one despite being an illegal maneuver, prompting the driver to intervene. "Scare-o-meter" rating: it's also a five, just because it was all over the place in heavy traffic.
#8: FSD swerves a little to the right in preparation for a left-hand turn. Musk never said anything about the AI doing Scandinavian flicks. "Scare-o-meter" rating: we think it deserves a six just because it was such an abrupt maneuver and there was also a car nearby in the lane to the right.
#9: FSD veers aggressively toward the cars parked on the left side of a two-lane one-way street after making a left turn. "Scare-o-meter" rating: eight. The AI seemed very determined to make contact with those cars.
#10: FSD needs to cross multiple lanes for a left-hand turn and... it just can't. At the start of the clip the driver says, "take three", so this wasn't the AI's first time at this particular rodeo. To be fair, it's a pretty scary situation with three lanes of traffic to cross before having to merge. It's a bit like the old Frogger videogame. "Scare-o-meter" rating: a solid ten. And to make matters worse, the graphics on the display show the "intent vector" making a right turn, despite the navigational map saying a left turn is required. If that doesn't fill you with confidence, we don't know what will.
#11: Finally, the FSD mistakenly reads a stop sign as a double stop sign. Oh, come on, that's harmless. Well, if there was a car behind that assumed the Tesla would just drive off after clearing the first (and only) stop sign, then it's not impossible to imagine the EV stopping for no apparent reason could have resulted in a collision. "Scare-o-meter" rating: we can't give it more than a one, even if it could have potentially led to a crash.
If you made it this far, you probably deserve some sort of a conclusion. Well, the system still appears to be very jerky with confusing information displayed on the screen that would make any sane person switch it off and ask for a refund. Yet it also works for most of the time, and owners seem to tend to focus on that bit. However, some are just delusional. We've included one more clip showing the FSD navigating through some light fog. Unlike the previous clips, it's the actual footage that's relevant here, but what the driver says. He's talking about "within shooting distance of Level 5 autonomy." That's the kind of crazy, dangerous talk you don't want to hear from anyone with access to Tesla's FSD Beta 9.0.
Alright I watched the video and did some searching into what they mean when they said "redundant" and it's not what you think it means.
1.) FSD Computer: The chips are both active all the time and both doing the same calculations to determine what the car should do next. If they agree, the action is executed. If not, it throws an error. Without more reliability data and experience with neural networks, the two systems have to independently come to the same conclusion in order for something to happen. This sort of thing isn't out of the ordinary for early systems with minimal reliability data but it does not mean that the car will function in a FSD mode without both chipsets active. It will likely throw a fault and not allow FSD to function without all the cameras running and both computers working. We do this on a lot of our medical devices to verify function and data before issuing a response. It's standard issue for high risk instances. Point being that there isn't one chipset that does the work while the other sits idle until the primary fails. They both are functioning all the time to ensure that they come to the same conclusion not so that one can take over if the other fails. If a camera or other sensor fails, it will alarm and signal the driver to take over.
2.) Car will steer and brake without main pack: Yes, this is absolutely true but it has nothing to do with redundancy lol. The main pack is a high voltage (350V) pack that runs the drive motors and other high voltage components (AC compressor maybe some other stuff as well). The brake booster and steering rack run off the 12V system which is entirely different. The car will NOT have any forward motive force without the main pack being alive but you can certainly steer it to a stop without it. This is no different than any other car being able to steer and stop without the engine running, I'm pretty sure this is a federal regulation. Also, the car will not allow you to drive (or even get in it lol) without the 12V system being alive and in good health because it won't roll the windows down or pop the door latch to open the door.
3.) Steering Rack: Multiple power feeds to the motor is not the same as two motors. There are definitely not two motors since I found a picture of the steering rack and there is clearly just one. Multiple inverters likely refers to the 12V system as a whole to step down the 350V main pack voltage to the 12V required by most of the car's accessory components like the steering rack and brake booster. This is wise and is different from a normal car in that there's just one alternator on your average consumer ICE car but it's also much cheaper, easier, and efficient to install more than one inverter than it is to strap another alternator onto the belt drive. The redundancy spoken of here is, again, that the power to the drive motor cannot be lost not that there are two motors to drive it. If a drive motor is lost, you lose power assist but can still very much steer the car without it. The steering just gets heavy like any other car.
4.) Additional power/data lines: Sure, whatever. The complexity of a Tesla is FAR FAR FAR less than that of an ICE car so additional short run data and power lines aren't anything revolutionary. That said, they aren't everywhere and are mostly to high risk components like the main system ECU and motor controls.
I can put some tape over the cameras on my car and see what it says about autopilot function. My guess is it'll throw a fault but that's really the only way you're going to believe me.
Honestly you and comfy are a huge part of the problem with Tesla ownership. Can't see beyond your enormous bias towards something you don't even own. A Tesla is a good car but it's not god and neither is Elon.
Agreed. It is because of ppl like them, it makes rest of the us look like we are Tesla hattters because we dont agree with their propaganda Bullshit.
We all know they are fast and they are desirable. We all know that their EV tech is more advanced than the competition (For now) and they have way more charging locations than others (For now).
Elon Musk not only built a brand, he also built a culture (not necessarily a good thing). Those are facts that none of us here will deny.
But the constant Tesla > ALL when Tesla only takes a small fraction of the overall auto market, no ICE cars will be sold by 2025, robotaxi will be available by 2022 and compare Model S to a $3.5M Bugatti type of BS will not help with the cause.
you can compare whatever you want. But i dont think anyone had suggested that Evo is a better and cheaper alternative to a Lambo like what Comfy and you had suggested....
Does Youtube pay you for every video you post? I hope they do cuz u should be making banks by now.
I wish, I just get money from posting twitter affiliate links
But I'll try to prove my point with less information next time, I know it's not fair for your weak arguments when I back up everything I'm saying
The whole point of that Evo video is to show that it's as fast as a lambo for much less. Hate all you want but that's a good selling point. Same thing as saying that a Model S is quicker than a Bugatti that costs 27x more
I wish, I just get money from posting twitter affiliate links
But I'll try to prove my point with less information next time, I know it's not fair for your weak arguments when I back up everything I'm saying
The whole point of that Evo video is to show that it's as fast as a lambo for much less. Hate all you want but that's a good selling point. Same thing as saying that a Model S is quicker than a Bugatti that costs 27x more
You're still missing the point though, STUNNA.
No one was arguing on the impressive 0-60 of the Model S...no one. Sure, it's remarkable. But, if I'm a Bugatti owner and your Tesla happens to go faster than me to the next green light, it won't make me one want your e-car. Same goes for the comparo of the Lamborghini versus a Lancer.
There are so many analogies that you would never end but you didn't get my Tom Ford example or my examples of watches. So, I guess you'll never get this...hence missing the point, IMO.
I'll use @ttribe as an example to illustrate...the guy has a freaking M5. You think he'll care if some guy with a Neon may be faster than him from 0-60?
Sure, maybe ttribe will be impressed the little Neon was modded or tuned to be faster than his M5 but FFS, it's a BMW M5...0-60 time is not the primary reason you'd want a freaking M5.
I'll use @ttribe as an example to illustrate...the guy has a freaking M5. You think he'll care if some guy with a Neon may be faster than him from 0-60?
Sure, maybe ttribe will be impressed the little Neon was modded or tuned to be faster than his M5 but FFS, it's a BMW M5...0-60 time is not the primary reason you'd want a freaking M5.
Tesla can make fart noises... sound much better and attractive than that V8....
I'll use @ttribe as an example to illustrate...the guy has a freaking M5. You think he'll care if some guy with a Neon may be faster than him from 0-60?
Sure, maybe ttribe will be impressed the little Neon was modded or tuned to be faster than his M5 but FFS, it's a BMW M5...0-60 time is not the primary reason you'd want a freaking M5.
A better example would be RDX elite is slow AF at any speed, but that is not the primary reason you would want a RDX Elite.... it is because you get all the 9s and 10s...
07-12-2021, 12:28 AM
. 
of this video. Redundant computers, redundant power steering, redundant power and data connections, you can still steer and brake if the main battery dies
that's some of the dumbest shit I've ever read, each sentence is battling to be dumber than the rest.
