Ya that's a pretty busy street too. So parking in the middle of it is VERY odd
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Found the roadster in Malibu!...oh and it was BROKEN
- Thread starter incrediwoah
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster 2020
Ya that's a pretty busy street too. So parking in the middle of it is VERY odd
Yep.
That company really would benefit from a culture change towards just some brutal transparency once in a while. Or the ability to take a joke.
Tesla is great at orchestrated popular culture references. A prototype breaking down on a street would have been the perfect opportunity for some light-hearted, non-orchestrated self-irony.
They should hire @buttershrimp to provide great rap references for situations like this.
"Yeah, the Roadster was playing Sittin On Chrome by Masta Ace and then this happened! (Just kidding.)"
Now THAT would have been a great PR statement. Saying it didn't break down when it is "parked" in the middle of the road with chocks and rollers out, not so much.
I mean, even Elon seems to fare better at this at SpaceX, than at Tesla. What's with that. Is it the public company pressure getting to them?
Last edited:
From Electrek: “Tesla says that the car didn’t “break down” and it was able to drive off on its own,”
I think it is possible to argue that if the car was able to continue under its own power and didn’t need a tow, than it didn’t “break down”. However, it also seems reasonable to say that the car did “break down” because for some period of time it could not move under its own power (which is an assumption on my part, I can’t be certain of that) but then the issue was resolved (OTA firmware fix?) and the car continued on its way.
I would say that in the context of a vehicle, a “breakdown” means the vehicle cannot be driven in a safe manner or can’t move on its own and needs to be towed.
I think it is possible to argue that if the car was able to continue under its own power and didn’t need a tow, than it didn’t “break down”. However, it also seems reasonable to say that the car did “break down” because for some period of time it could not move under its own power (which is an assumption on my part, I can’t be certain of that) but then the issue was resolved (OTA firmware fix?) and the car continued on its way.
Hey y'all,
@AnxietyRanger
So, to the dictionary point: I had checked the dictionary to verify my understanding of breakdown being typical of a hardware issue. (As opposed to pulling out the dictionary to see how one could spin more on that at end).
@McRat I'm 99% sure it doesn't have functional parking brakes at this point (you can see the block behind the tire in the Tesla Roadster page video). So having chocks in the car is not strange. I am guessing (as with all things) they were thinking of straping off from the truck or X to get the vehicle more out of the way. The deployed rollers say to me they never thought that they needed to be towed, otherwise why bother with dangerous stop gap.
@ecarfan I think we're on the same page. What I am suggesting is that they chose to not move the car, not that they couldn't. Depends on if it required an OTA fix or not.
Back to AR,
It's not spin to say it didn't break down if it really wasn't incapacitated.
Gas car stalls (or misses for a few seconds), there are no OTA diagnostics possible, driver restarts/ engine smooths out and the drive continues.
Electric car throws a motor fault and stops, engineer can be on line in 5 minutes to diagnose. Car is secured as-is where-is, testing/ data collection is performed, car is restarted, drive continues.
Did either/both of these car breakdown? Both had temporary issues, difference was in (hypothetically) how they were dealt with.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm asking: if this is what happened, is it wrong to push back against the term breakdown?
@AnxietyRanger
So, to the dictionary point: I had checked the dictionary to verify my understanding of breakdown being typical of a hardware issue. (As opposed to pulling out the dictionary to see how one could spin more on that at end).
@McRat I'm 99% sure it doesn't have functional parking brakes at this point (you can see the block behind the tire in the Tesla Roadster page video). So having chocks in the car is not strange. I am guessing (as with all things) they were thinking of straping off from the truck or X to get the vehicle more out of the way. The deployed rollers say to me they never thought that they needed to be towed, otherwise why bother with dangerous stop gap.
@ecarfan I think we're on the same page. What I am suggesting is that they chose to not move the car, not that they couldn't. Depends on if it required an OTA fix or not.
Back to AR,
It's not spin to say it didn't break down if it really wasn't incapacitated.
Gas car stalls (or misses for a few seconds), there are no OTA diagnostics possible, driver restarts/ engine smooths out and the drive continues.
Electric car throws a motor fault and stops, engineer can be on line in 5 minutes to diagnose. Car is secured as-is where-is, testing/ data collection is performed, car is restarted, drive continues.
Did either/both of these car breakdown? Both had temporary issues, difference was in (hypothetically) how they were dealt with.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm asking: if this is what happened, is it wrong to push back against the term breakdown?
@mongo I guess after all that's happened it comes down to this: IMO Tesla has sufficiently lost their benefit of the doubt, so much so that I find your interpretation unrealistically optimistic. I concede it is possible it is the boy who cried wolf and this time there really was one.
But given the history, why dispute this? Really? We have a car that is clearly stalled mid-road in an unintended fashion and Tesla chooses to fight the semantics? Even if their semantics would be right, why fight this one. It just makes them look silly.
It is the same advice wise people give to Trump. Don't fight every single thing.
If my rap fun above was too much, why not something like this: "Yes, we can confirm this is our prototype enjoying the California sun. It eventually got back to base on its own after some on-site TLC."
But given the history, why dispute this? Really? We have a car that is clearly stalled mid-road in an unintended fashion and Tesla chooses to fight the semantics? Even if their semantics would be right, why fight this one. It just makes them look silly.
It is the same advice wise people give to Trump. Don't fight every single thing.
If my rap fun above was too much, why not something like this: "Yes, we can confirm this is our prototype enjoying the California sun. It eventually got back to base on its own after some on-site TLC."
Last edited:
I understand the sentiment, but not the supporting data.
How has/ did Tesla lost the benefit of the doubt? That implies that had the benefit, but then did something to lose it.
I'm also unclear on this whole 'fight' interpretation. Electrek published a piece, Tesla said it wasn't a break down. Where is the fight? Why is it not meerly a correction? Just look at what the thread title is to see why Tesla would contact Fred. All caps: broken. Has Tesla continued a media campaign of roadster-gate?
Am I missing a big chunk of this story?
I think anyone following Tesla for the past few years would know the reason: P85D HP, P90DL counter gate, EAP/FSD debacle, continued product delays (vs. public statements) etc. Tesla's word has lost some of its glow and realistically a certain amount of scepticism may have become warranted.
For whatever reason Tesla PR felt a need to disagree with the post. Electrek's glowingly positive reporting of all things. Unwise and unnecessary IMO. That was what I referred to.
Why is it not meerly a correction? Just look at what the thread title is to see why Tesla would contact Fred. All caps: broken. Has Tesla continued a media campaign of roadster-gate?
Am I missing a big chunk of this story?
IMO there was no need for such a correction, when obviously broken down can apply to that situation. The only reason I would have for such a correction would be necessary if the photographer mis-interpreted the situation and Franz had simply stopped mid-road to take a call or had a personal emergency or something similar. Obviously that was not the case with the chocks in and rollers out and the other guy standing watch over traffic...
My interpretation is that it seems possible Tesla's PR seems to have gotten semantical about it in an effort to smoothen what they perhaps felt was a negative report. I find that terribly unnecessary and just makes them look silly.
There was no roadster-gate before this. If this remains a butt of jokes it is exactly because it left the impression that Tesla is redefinining the word "broken down". Before this it was just a prototype breaking down, as they do. Silly responses just make things bigger than they are. Now we have this new term coined for broken down...
A beautiful car and a beautiful set of photos. They could have left it at that. Just odd. Plain and simply an odd response from Tesla PR.
@AnxietyRanger
For most folks/ situation breakdown vs stalled isn't a big deal. Others live in a world of conflagration v.s. explosion v.s. RUD.
In their favor, they only sent a message as opposed to a subpoena/ cease and desist.
Full disclosure: I'll admit being an engineer who gets peeved if someone says my stuff is broken when it isn't.
For most folks/ situation breakdown vs stalled isn't a big deal. Others live in a world of conflagration v.s. explosion v.s. RUD.
In their favor, they only sent a message as opposed to a subpoena/ cease and desist.
Full disclosure: I'll admit being an engineer who gets peeved if someone says my stuff is broken when it isn't.
I sympathize. That's why being intelligent is different from being wise.
I too could use some wisdom at times, as my fellow TMC members would probably testify.
I sympathize. That's why being intelligent is different from being wise.
I too could use some wisdom at times, as my fellow TMC members would probably testify.
Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is knowing not to put tomatoes in a fruit salad.
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
An interesting theory. Can anyone place that road on the map and measure distance from the HQ?
I'd vote (perhaps out of hope) that it was a software issue, and that they simply needed to get some analysis from HQ and possibly a patch downloaded. Better to get some benefit out of the event than to simply reboot and carry on. That scenario matches what we can observe. Franz is presumably on the phone talking to someone about what happened. I assume the dollies were being considered for deployment, given the car was definitely in a bad spot, but that Engineering came through in time with an OTA fix or got their data and gave Franz the go-ahead to reboot and move on. If so, 10 points to Franz and the on-site team for letting the engineers do their thing. I've also been in way too many situations where valuable forensics were lost due to tester impatience.
But to the transparency point, it would have been much better if Tesla PR had said just a little more about the cause of the incident. We don't need source code, but a bit more than a simple denial would have made the whole thing a lot more believable, and turned the incident in to a positive thing (reflecting on their ability to diagnose faults remotely).
But to the transparency point, it would have been much better if Tesla PR had said just a little more about the cause of the incident. We don't need source code, but a bit more than a simple denial would have made the whole thing a lot more believable, and turned the incident in to a positive thing (reflecting on their ability to diagnose faults remotely).
I like @gregd's comment.
I'd just add one more thing to clarify my opinion. IMO not even the transparency was needed, if they'd just left out the unnecessary denial in that case. "We can confirm our prototype car was there, but have no further comment." would IMO have been perfectly fine. Choosing not to comment at all was a perfectly valid option too, I wouldn't blame a company for not commenting on prototype cars.
It is just that I can imagine tons of better replies than just saying to apparent broken down car photos than denying it having "broken down", especially without an explanation given. That's just sloppy at best and disingenious at worst. You don't deny the apparent without explaining how/why, if the how/why isn't readily apparent or readily plausible. That's "very stable genius" territory. You don't have to say you're a "very stable genius", but if you do, expect ridicule if you won't back it up. Same with commenting on apparent broken down car photos with no, it did not "break down". Not wise.
Finally, if the "why" was a software glitch vs. a hardware glitch, that's IMO borderline in any case - both can easily be called breaking down and a denial would be unnecessary and possibly misleading. If a car breaks down due to software, it still breaks down. If it then is fixed via a remote connection, fine, then it was repaired and good to go again (which I do believe it was in this case).
The silliest thing is: there's nothing wrong with a prototype failing on a test drive. That's why prototypes and test drives exist. The car is years from production. This was a nice photo-op and could have been left at that.
I'd just add one more thing to clarify my opinion. IMO not even the transparency was needed, if they'd just left out the unnecessary denial in that case. "We can confirm our prototype car was there, but have no further comment." would IMO have been perfectly fine. Choosing not to comment at all was a perfectly valid option too, I wouldn't blame a company for not commenting on prototype cars.
It is just that I can imagine tons of better replies than just saying to apparent broken down car photos than denying it having "broken down", especially without an explanation given. That's just sloppy at best and disingenious at worst. You don't deny the apparent without explaining how/why, if the how/why isn't readily apparent or readily plausible. That's "very stable genius" territory. You don't have to say you're a "very stable genius", but if you do, expect ridicule if you won't back it up. Same with commenting on apparent broken down car photos with no, it did not "break down". Not wise.
Finally, if the "why" was a software glitch vs. a hardware glitch, that's IMO borderline in any case - both can easily be called breaking down and a denial would be unnecessary and possibly misleading. If a car breaks down due to software, it still breaks down. If it then is fixed via a remote connection, fine, then it was repaired and good to go again (which I do believe it was in this case).
The silliest thing is: there's nothing wrong with a prototype failing on a test drive. That's why prototypes and test drives exist. The car is years from production. This was a nice photo-op and could have been left at that.
Last edited:
Prototypes do not work perfectly. Obviously this prototype performed impressively the night of the reveal. Just as obviously, this prototype had a problem during a drive out in public. The problem was resolved. Time to move on...
I say it's likely a software issue. The code isn't fully ironed out, system crashed and they had to wait for it to reboot. Probably just a couple minutes. During that time they could not engage the parking brake.
I invented a technique - differential allocated memory analysis - to identify nasty memory leaks in my days as a software engineer. This is a situation where an app, some middleware, a device driver, or the OS kernel keeps allocating more and more RAM until there is no more free space and boom. Virtual memory (swap space) also isn't infinite, it just postpones the inevitable outcome.
Those leaks can be a bugger to find.
BTW, I personally hate Java. Garbage. Collection. Makes programmers lazy, and too much performance overhead.
I invented a technique - differential allocated memory analysis - to identify nasty memory leaks in my days as a software engineer. This is a situation where an app, some middleware, a device driver, or the OS kernel keeps allocating more and more RAM until there is no more free space and boom. Virtual memory (swap space) also isn't infinite, it just postpones the inevitable outcome.
Those leaks can be a bugger to find.
BTW, I personally hate Java. Garbage. Collection. Makes programmers lazy, and too much performance overhead.
Joe F
Disruption is hard.
Some people are incapable of moving on.
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men..."
