Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 593  
Prev  |  Next
time2roll

Southern California

Senior Member

Joined: 03/21/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 06/01/20 07:48pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BenK wrote:

Turtle, here is the rest of the story to the image you posted...really got me interested how it could have crashed into an already turned on it's side truck

Was wondering if it was or wasn't in auto pilot moce


Tesla Model 3 Drives Straight Into Overt........ck In What Seems To Be Autopilot Failure
.
.
.
.
and this one from the opposite angle...brake lights didn't come on from what I can see

https://twitter.com/jsin86524368/status/1267305509297758209
Why are we still attributing every Tesla wreck to a feature that does not exist?

There is no system that transfers driving responsibility away from the driver.


2001 F150 SuperCrew
2006 Keystone Springdale 249FWBHLS
675w Solar pictures back up

Turtle n Peeps

California

Senior Member

Joined: 06/23/2008

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 07:48pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BenK if you look at the head on angle you will see when the car passes the truck driver you will see smoke come off of the tires. It was on AP for sure.

The cameras didn't see the white background on the truck top. Junk software. No lidar will kill you.


~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~


"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."- Abraham Lincoln


Reisender

NA

Senior Member

Joined: 12/09/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 08:00pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BenK wrote:

Turtle, here is the rest of the story to the image you posted...really got me interested how it could have crashed into an already turned on it's side truck

Was wondering if it was or wasn't in auto pilot moce


Tesla Model 3 Drives Straight Into Overt........ck In What Seems To Be Autopilot Failure
.
.
.
.
and this one from the opposite angle...brake lights didn't come on from what I can see

https://twitter.com/jsin86524368/status/1267305509297758209


Ben the Taiwan cars (eg made in China???) may be different but at least on my wifes car there is no function of autopilot that would have braked and brought the car to a stop. The car does have AEB which can help in this kind of situation. Tesla AEB is really no different than any other manufacturers AEB. (Automatic emergency braking). So this gets a little dicey as it is included in the Autopilots suite of safety features but is not enabled by enabling autopilot. It is also included in cars that do not have autopilot like the 35000 dollar Model standard range. AEB will slow the car to reduce damage but not bring it to a stop. Nissan and Toyota do the same. It does have to be turned on but stays on unless specifically turned off, in other words you don't have to turn it on for every trip. To be clear, it must be turned on independently of Autopilot. I can put up a screen shot if it would make things clearer.

For what its worth, in one report the driver says he had TACC enabled but not Autopilot. But like I say, Autopilot has to do with steering not speed control which is done by TACC or Traffic aware cruise control. So for example, we don't use Autopilot in the city but use TACC pretty much all the time. TACC will keep your car up to 7 car lengths from the person in front of you and will actually bring your car to a stop if the person stops in front of you. But its not designed to avoid something like what you see in the video. Both TACC and Autopilot need to be supervised and the driver is reminded of that every time he enables it. Honestly it works pretty good and makes for very relaxing road trips. But it needs to be monitored in its current form. We use it as it is supposed to be used.

One report indicates the driver indicates he was braking for the pedestrian trying to flag him down but did not see the truck until just before he hit it. Time will tell and the logs will be examined closely I'm sure but to me it looks like the AEB might have came on as the damage to the car is not indicative of a high speed impact. If he was braking than neither TACC or Autopliot were on as both are cancelled as soon as you touch the brake pedal.

* This post was edited 06/01/20 08:51pm by Reisender *

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/01/20 08:21pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Reisender wrote:



I don’t follow this much but does NASA even do rockets anymore? I thought it was all contracted out to Space X and Boeing. I actually don’t know.


And NASA is contracting this to SpaceX because it's a lot cheaper.

I don't know if Elon is already making profit -- but it will be incidental if he is, meaning, NASA wants it cheap and don't care if Elon is making profit.



So you are saying that NASA scientist must be stupid because not only was SpaceX able to do it cheaper, but you are claiming that it is cleaner too?

Truth is, NASA has to abide by the Clean Air Act as a government entity which tightened even more in the late 2000's along with budget cuts. It is very expensive to launch environmentally friendlier rocket fuel into the air. So most non essential space flights stopped due to budget reductions.

However, since Elon lobbied to keep emissions out of the commercial space act, he does not have to abide by such rules and therefor it is much cheaper for him to shoot rockets into space which allowed SpaceX to be profitable for many years according to their president.


Let me repeat, I'm not playing least you'll get offended should I say you have reading comprehension issues and hearing voices (or, reading something that I did not write).

So, I hope this will my last response to your irrelevant post.

Again, this is about semis or related EV technology.



LOL. When you stated that what I was saying was a false analogy, you said "SpaceX is meant to replace singlee-use expensive and more environmental harmful rockets". So do you have data backing that statement up that they are more harmful to the environment? I already proved that the "single-use" portion of that statement is incorrect.....

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/01/20 08:38pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

time2roll wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Trusting your numbers.... each car is 4 tones/yr and a launch is 400 tones. A launch would seem to be equivalent to 100 cars/yr vs 87 million. What is the additional multiplier?


Sorry, that is actually 400 metric tons of kerosene based on the link below, not actual CO2. I was using two different calculators when doing the total math and typed the wrong thing.

"Upon reaching orbit, the world’s heaviest operational rocket will have burned about 400 metric tons of kerosene and emitted more carbon dioxide in a few minutes than an average car would in more than two centuries. That kind of shock to the atmosphere is stoking concerns about the effect that launching into orbit has on Earth, and it’s about to get worse."

Can we get to space without damaging the Earth through huge carbon emissions?

Of course this also does not take into account the CO2 emitted to slow the rocket as it lands back on earth.
I did not see the comparison to vehicles in that article.

I think a typical 22mpg car would burn 3,272 pounds of fuel in a year to go 12,000 miles. That is about 1.5 metric Tonnes.

So assuming the fuels emit the same CO2 it takes 2,666 cars to burn 4,000 metric tonnes in a year. OK maybe round up to 4,000 vehicles because rocket fuel is worse.

I believe Tesla produces over 1,000 cars per day.

Would it be better if some other company made and launched rockets? Or should these other companies produce more electric vehicles?


RP-1 fuel actually has considerable more carbon then gasoline and these rockets also use another unknown tonnage of LOX as fuel as well. RP-1 and LOX together not only create a lot of CO2, but also a lot more NOx due to the heat. It also produces a lot of soot(rolling coal). Then you have to think about the fact that SpaceX plans to launch one of these every week to two weeks. This is a lot of emissions that does not need to be added if the environment are as bad as all the alarmist and BEV fanboys say it is. It must not be that bad if you guys think this amount of emissions is okay just so he can make more of a profit versu the costlier but more environmentally friend hydrogen fueled rockets.

I mean, they are chastising Trump for pulling out of the Paris accord to keep the temp less than 1.5C difference over the next 100 years yet celebrate rolling coal rockets being blasted into space? Huh.... That is a bit hypocritical. It would be better if Elon and other Tesla/BEV fanboys would not be so hypocritical in their chastising of ICE owners for their pollution and then turn around and praise Elon as a god for putting all this unneeded pollution in the air so he can put more money in his pocket to go on more jet rides.

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/01/20 08:41pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

NJRVer wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Reisender wrote:



I don’t follow this much but does NASA even do rockets anymore? I thought it was all contracted out to Space X and Boeing. I actually don’t know.


And NASA is contracting this to SpaceX because it's a lot cheaper.

I don't know if Elon is already making profit -- but it will be incidental if he is, meaning, NASA wants it cheap and don't care if Elon is making profit.



So you are saying that NASA scientist must be stupid because not only was SpaceX able to do it cheaper, but you are claiming that it is cleaner too?

Truth is, NASA has to abide by the Clean Air Act as a government entity which tightened even more in the late 2000's along with budget cuts. It is very expensive to launch environmentally friendlier rocket fuel into the air. So most non essential space flights stopped due to budget reductions.

However, since Elon lobbied to keep emissions out of the commercial space act, he does not have to abide by such rules and therefor it is much cheaper for him to shoot rockets into space which allowed SpaceX to be profitable for many years according to their president.


Well if you were truly interested in rocket pollution you would be comparing levels of Russian rockets, Indian rockets, Chinese rockets, NASA rockets, Boeing rockets, SpaceX rockets.


No, I am not as I said earlier. I am just interested in calling out hypocrites and double standards of people buying cars because they are environmentally friendly and then turning around and celebrating a rolling coal rocket.

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 08:48pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

time2roll wrote:

BenK wrote:

Turtle, here is the rest of the story to the image you posted...really got me interested how it could have crashed into an already turned on it's side truck

Was wondering if it was or wasn't in auto pilot moce


Tesla Model 3 Drives Straight Into Overt........ck In What Seems To Be Autopilot Failure
.
.
.
.
and this one from the opposite angle...brake lights didn't come on from what I can see

https://twitter.com/jsin86524368/status/1267305509297758209
Why are we still attributing every Tesla wreck to a feature that does not exist?

There is no system that transfers driving responsibility away from the driver.


And that's still the outstanding issue on legislating auto pilot car features.

Dadoffourgirls

China, MI USA

Senior Member

Joined: 05/29/2003

View Profile



Posted: 06/02/20 12:31am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:


No, I am not as I said earlier. I am just interested in calling out hypocrites and double standards of people buying cars because they are environmentally friendly and then turning around and celebrating a rolling coal rocket.


I did not lease my Bolt EV believing it was environmentally friendly. I watch them roll coal off the freighter, roll coal with the dozer, and roll coal into the plant to generate electricity. I know it is not friendly.

I leased my Bolt EV because it was a fantastic deal, the power company reimbursed me for a charger (actually power company customers), it is cheaper to operate, and fun to drive.


Dad of Four Girls
Wife
Employee of GM, all opinions are my own!
2017 Express Ext 3500 (Code named "BIGGER ED" by daughters)
2011 Jayco Jayflight G2 32BHDS

time2roll

Southern California

Senior Member

Joined: 03/21/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 06/02/20 10:26am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:

No, I am not as I said earlier. I am just interested in calling out hypocrites and double standards of people buying cars because they are environmentally friendly and then turning around and celebrating a rolling coal rocket.
Rockets have a purpose. Rolling coal is deliberate pollution for no purpose.

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/02/20 10:58am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

time2roll wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

No, I am not as I said earlier. I am just interested in calling out hypocrites and double standards of people buying cars because they are environmentally friendly and then turning around and celebrating a rolling coal rocket.
Rockets have a purpose. Rolling coal is deliberate pollution for no purpose.


Rockets do have a purpose and there are many launches(like sending a car into orbit) that are not needed. If the environment is really as bad as they say it is, then do you really think we should start launching people into into space just for pure enjoyment like SpaceX wants to do? The other parts is that ICE diesel truck owners have to spend all this extra money for more emissions friendly diesel yet Elon does not have to spend more money on emissions friendly rocket fuel just so he can make more of a profit.

If anyone is okay with Elon sending these rolling coal rockets just to make a profit off of people, companies, and government entities, then I do not want to hear one word from them about deleted diesels or modded gas engines. The only difference between Elon and deleted diesel truck owners(other than Elon polluting way more) is that Elon has enough money lobbying the right people to have a voice in Congress to keep what he is doing from being illegal while diesel truck owners do not.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 593  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.