Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation Technology

Consumer Reports Recommends Tesla's Model 3 After Braking Fix (reuters.com) 224

Posted by msmash from the all-good-now dept.
Consumer Reports said on Wednesday that it now recommends Tesla's Model 3 sedan after its latest tests showed that a firmware update improved the car's braking distance by nearly 20 feet. From a report: The magazine last week flagged "big flaws" in the car, including braking slower than a full-sized pickup truck, while also highlighting many positives. In a tweet, Mr. Musk said he really appreciates "the high quality critical feedback from @ConsumerReports. Road noise & ride comfort already addressed too. UI improvements coming via remote software update later this month."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consumer Reports Recommends Tesla's Model 3 After Braking Fix More

Consumer Reports Recommends Tesla's Model 3 After Braking Fix

Comments Filter:

  • Some good news for Tesla? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The Slashdot crowd isn't going to like this...

    • Re:Some good news for Tesla? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @02:37PM (#56701130) Homepage Journal

      I'm more concerned that a) they released the car with crap brakes and didn't notice until Consumer Reports told them about it and b) an over-the-air software update developed in about a week can apparently affect the operation of a critical safety system.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        why? they changed the value ratio of break pedal to caliper pressure.... in a older car they may have had to plug in a thingy to reprogram the same thing, but thsi is what you get with any drive by wire vehical.

        you just have to hope that how they deliver firmware updates is "secure" enough... so you dont get the every pedel/switch/nob/screen is now an accelerator patch

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Joce640k ( 829181 )

        I'm more concerned that a) they released the car with crap brakes and didn't notice until Consumer Reports told them about it and b) an over-the-air software update developed in about a week can apparently affect the operation of a critical safety system.

        It sure must be confusing for you old folks who think cars are dirty, oily things that need you to go in and manually set the gaps every few weeks to make them work properly.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm more concerned that a) they released the car with crap brakes and didn't notice until Consumer Reports told them about it and b) an over-the-air software update developed in about a week can apparently affect the operation of a critical safety system.

          It sure must be confusing for you old folks who think cars are dirty, oily things that need you to go in and manually set the gaps every few weeks to make them work properly.

          At least I could afford the tools to keep my 65 VW Bug running, even if it was a greasy, oily mess to crawl under it every 3,000 miles to change the oil, adjust the valves and breaks.

          These days, getting a full set of tools to maintain all the electronics on your average car is going to cost more than the car.

        • Re:Some good news for Tesla? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:29PM (#56701506) Homepage Journal

          I drive an EV (hate fossil cars), am not that old (I keep telling myself) and write embedded software for a living.

          I test my software for longer than a week before releasing it, and it's not even safety critical.

          • I imagine that the programming was already done and they only had to adjust a few constants/variables. Testing for something like brakes could easily be automated/simulated and then verified in the real world, easily under a week.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I have some experience in this area.

              There must be some limit they were up against. Presumably heating of the brakes or something like that. So they adjust the limit to allow more consecutive hard stops.

              Testing for that kind of thing takes more than a week. You need a good number of samples. Talk to the manufacturer. Do accelerated testing to destruction.

              It's probably fine. Probably.

              • The best theory that I heard was there is some kind of crossover from regenerative braking to friction breaking... favoring power regeneration increases charge life but decreases braking efficiency.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  I wonder if they reduced regen when the battery warmed up after repeated hard stops. Since most people don't do repeated emergency stops in real life it probably won't affect battery longevity.

            • Or someone complained that applying more force in order to brake more quickly wore down the brake pads more quickly or that it increased the amount of harmful particulate matter released into the environment, so they reduced the maximum amount of pressure that could be applied.

              The moral of the story is you don't let penny pinchers or greenies design safety critical systems. They're more concerned about their own financial safety or the safety of a damned tree as opposed to yours.

          • So you don't think that they may have been working on this already from other feedback and reviews they've gotten that said basically the same thing? Who ever said that the Consumer Reports review was the starting gun for this particular software change? Who's to say they didn't already have this ready to go in a larger update, and then cherry-picked this out for a quick update in order to deliver better braking and a needed PR win?

        • It sure must be confusing for you old folks

          Says the person with "640k" in their handle.

      • Re:Some good news for Tesla? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:05PM (#56701334) Homepage

        I'm more concerned that a) they released the car with crap brakes and didn't notice until Consumer Reports told them about it and b) an over-the-air software update developed in about a week can apparently affect the operation of a critical safety system.

        The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?

        A number of reviewers had reviewed the Model 3's brakes previously. Some noticed no issues at all. A couple noticed "inconsistency" in their repeated hard braking tests, but nonetheless rated them well. It was only Consumer Reports that managed to show that it was an actual problem.

        I'm glad Tesla took it seriously. Going from a bad braking review to a fix for all vehicles in a week is really amazing. Compare and contrast to the GM ignition switch scandal [wikipedia.org], where they played the denial game for over a decade.

        Of course, Slashdot is going to be full of people pretending that recalls only affect Tesla, just because media coverage focuses so heavily on Tesla. Literally, within days of the CR brake finding - affecting only repeat emergency braking events, and only to the point of braking like a pickup - Fiat issued a recall [nbcnews.com] for around 5 million vehicles due to a problem where the cruise control could get stuck on and the engine unable to be shut off, leading to the terrifying situation of the driver having to fight the vehicle to a stop with the brakes. But it got almost no coverage versus the Tesla issue.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's good that they fixed it, I just worry because updating such software is not a trivial thing. A mistake could be fatal. And apparently they didn't test it very well in the first place, so with time pressure and Musk demanding a fix... The potential for things to go wrong now and in the future is high.

          There is a reason it takes a long time to develop software for car systems and why it doesn't usually change much. It's not like a phone app where you can roll it out to 10% of users to see if it crashes fo

          • Your concern doesn't make a whole lot of sense. ALL car manufacturers run into problems - some minor, some big. Every new model year they tweak something about the car, test it at their proving ground, and then produce hundreds of thousands of those vehicles to ship out. How is it any different that Tesla was capable of creating a fix, testing it, and sending it out as an update? If there's a problem then they can roll it back, unlike other car manufacturers who have to issue recalls and, even then, many un
            • If a defect is being fixed in a garage, I never want to be one of the first ones there because it may not get fixed correctly. Wait a week or two and they are likely to have done it on thousands of vehicles and worked the kinks out. How many thousands of vehicles will be updated OTA before they realize there is a problem?
          • Did it really need to take long to test. The original reports were on early versions of the car hence using earlier version of the firmware, presumably the later versions had a "fix" already so less testing was needed. And was it just configuration changes as opposed to a firmware rewrite. Hopefully more info will come out soon.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Eloking ( 877834 )

          While I agree with most of what you said,

          The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?

          From CR website :

          Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results. Between each test, the vehicle is driven approximately a mile to cool the brakes and make sure they don’t overheat. In our testing of the Model 3, the first stop we recorded was significantly shorter (around 130 feet, similar to Tesla’s findings), but that distance was not repeated, even

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rei ( 128717 )

            While the cause was not clarified (beyond being related to ABS calibration issues), it was unrelated to heat. It appeared to be related to how much normal brake usage there was between emergency stops.

        • The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?

          I take it you've never been in the car with AmiMoJo? Cuz it happens all the bloody time...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        In this case the change seems to be good, but I do have misgivings about a car I am accustomed to changing it's handling characteristics literally overnight.

      • I'm assuming there's some trade between shortest stopping distance, optimal safety in anti-lock braking, Optimal safety in steering while braking, and optimal regenerative braking. One could always shorten the stopping distance of ANY car. Just put on grippier tires and detune the Antilock breaking. But the car may lose some handling while braking or slide on slippery surfaces.

        it's all trades.

    • Re:Some good news for Tesla? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @02:38PM (#56701134) Homepage Journal

      There was a whole thread last time about how the idea of a firmware update improving the braking was just an absurd idea. I wonder what they'll say about it now.

      • Pass the popcorn, this will be good.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          Should we bother mentioning also that in the past Tesla has also increased acceleration and range over the air, too? ;)

      • There was a whole thread last time about how the idea of a firmware update improving the braking was just an absurd idea.

        It is absurd, they should have done more quality testing before releasing the car publicly.

        Can you imagine the fallout if Ford or Chevy had to recall an entire line because of a deadly programming error? The lawsuits would be endless...

        • Re:Some good news for Tesla? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:09PM (#56701354) Homepage

          They regularly have made defects that have actually had fatal consequences, which they often tried to cover up. The most recent GM one (aka Chevy) being the ignition switch scandal that was settled in 2014, which killed at least 124 people over the 10 years that GM knew about the problem but hid it. In addition to compensating the families they were fined nearly a billion dollars for that stunt.

        • > Can you imagine the fallout if Ford or Chevy had to recall an entire line because of a deadly programming error? The lawsuits would be endless...

          Are you serious? Chevy has had shitloads of dangerous/fatal recall problems. And how in the world can you even bring up Ford without bringing up the specter of the infamous rolling land mine a.k.a. the Pinto?

          https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/

          "For seven years the Ford Motor Company sold cars in which it knew hundreds of people would n

        • Did you forget that whole thing where GM actually killed people with their defective ignition switches, proceeded to deny and stone wall until their CEO was hauled in front of Congress to testify under oath?

          I think I prefer "oh we see the issue, we'll fix it real quick and you don't have to do crap, except park next to some Wi-Fi."

      • There was a whole thread last time about how the idea of a firmware update improving the braking was just an absurd idea.

        Pull out your secret corporate-speak decoder ring:

        "firmware update" == "bribe"

        As in:

        "Some wonks wrote some critical reviews of our product. We'll fix those with some firmware updates."

      • Nothing. They'll just find other excuses to hate on Tesla. If you notice now, a lot of users here are spreading FUD that Tesla was able to "send out" an update within a week. You'll never be able to please these guys.
    • No kidding. The ignorance in this community is astounding. I saw a lot of comments on the last article where people were arguing "You can't change breaking distance with an update! That makes no sense!" Stupid fucks never heard of regenerative breaking and that these cars are probably tuned around having the most amount of electrical return. So many people in the community put such a high degree of confidence in their limited knowledge of topics they really don't know much about.
  • They said CR was wrong [futurism.com] but now apparently they say CR was right...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      CR was both right and wrong. Apparently the brakes did not exhibit this issue in real world use - where you only do an emergency stop once in a while. But CR was doing them back to back to back so that they could get average emergency braking distance. Apparently something in the firmware either took that as "lead brake" (like a lead foot but for stopping) or as "avoid heating the brakes" (as that can be problematic). So the firmware change simply allows that non-real world test to approximate real-world re

      • except that CR drives the car at slow speed to allow the brakes to cool down between each test. No excuse.

        • except that CR drives the car at slow speed to allow the brakes to cool down between each test. No excuse.

          CR accelerates back to 60 mph and drives 1 mile to cool the brakes. It is about 1 minute long. Five hard 60 to 0 braking with 1 minute gap and the regen was turned off.

      • Agree with most of what you said, except the "No real change for actual drivers". The cool down period that CR gave the car was overnight, and yet it still had the problem. We don't know what the actual "cool down" period is, but it's at least 12 hours.

        While I agree it's unusual someone may need to panic brake twice in quick succession, with the number of cars and drivers on the road, it's almost guaranteed to happen. And when "quick succession" becomes "within a 12 hour period or more", there's a ser
        • The test if FIVE hard 60 to 0 braking with 1 mile of cooling lap in between. Then when the results were inconsistent, they repeated it next day giving 24 hours to cool from the test, and did FIVE more hard brakes.
      • Tesla is making a change to fix the brakes. CR was right - Tesla was wrong. Otherwise, why does Tesla need to change anything?

    • Not what they said at all. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brannon ( 221550 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @02:58PM (#56701282)
      CR said: Breaking distance is > 150'

      Tesla said: Our testing says 133'

      CR said: Same, on our first try, subsequent tries were longer.

      Tesla said: Oh crap, that's probably a bug in our regen breaking stuff--thanks for pointing that out.

      Tesla rolls out a fix and CR verifies the fix. It seems like everyone was well-behaved all the way around.

      • Tesla said: Oh crap, that's probably a bug in our regen breaking stuff--thanks for pointing that out.

        I think Tesla blamed the ABS algorithms, not regeneration, because Teslas don't work that way (you don't get more regeneration by pressing the brake pedal).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        Indeed. Literally Musk's first tweet on the subject (and he's not famous for keeping his opinions to himself) was:

        Very strange. Model 3 is designed to have super good stopping distance & others reviewers have confirmed this. If there is vehicle variability, we will figure it out & address. May just be a question of firmware tuning, in which case can be solved by an OTA software update.

        The team remotely diagnosed the problem and created a fix in less than a day. Name another automaker that has ever

        • I'm quite happy my automaker can't just "fix" my car OTA, because that also means they can break it.

          • You know it's a conditional OTA update right? I have a Tesla S and I usually wait a bit, read the reviews, and then do the update.

            • So you think they're going to put "Reduce braking capability" as a feature of the firmware before you install it?

              • You think nobody is going to notice a flaw like that and post to the internet about it?

                He says he waits a bit and then installs after other people get cut by the bleeding edge. The same as I do for OS updates after being burnt too many times.

        • The other auto makers will detect CR doing the test and do a different thing and then return to crappy brakes status quo ante as soon as it detects it is not being tested.

      • "Brake".

        The word you're looking for is "brake".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by steveha ( 103154 )

      That's a pretty amazing news link you shared there.

      Tesla's response seems to indicate that the company is unconcerned with what ought to be troubling test results.

      Yeah, so unconcerned that they whipped out a fix in record time.

      All this as the company, which is hemorrhaging cash, piles expensive features onto the car

      There's some nice, neutral, even-handed reporting for you.

      The car, which was originally slated for a minimum of 35 thousand dollars, is now more likely to first be released with features that bri

  • If an over-the-air update can fix it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @02:40PM (#56701152)
    ... and over-the-air update can also break it. Or take away the "feature" once the car leaves the showroom. If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place? Why did it take a third party tester to find it?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mrops ( 927562 )

      Disclaimer: speculation

      I think they were trying to recover energy from breaking rather aggressively earlier. Some kind of balance between how hard the pads squeeze on the rotors so some breaking happens from magnet/coils to recharge the batteries.

      Something like this could be tweaked rather easily.

      • I think they were trying to recover energy from breaking rather aggressively earlier. Some kind of balance between how hard the pads squeeze on the rotors so some breaking happens from magnet/coils to recharge the batteries.

        I don't think Teslas work that way. You get max regeneration simply by lifting off the accelerator pedal, so the brakes are not modulated to provide more regeneration.

        • Well, I have a Tesla S and it's configurable ( in the UI ). The regeneration kicks in when you let go of the accelerator.

          You can choose
          a) aggressive regeneration that feels like you are driving a heavy car; slows down reasonably quickly
          b) standard regeneration that feels like you are coasting; slows just a touch more then my previous ICE car ( BMW 5 series ) which didn't have any regenerative braking

          I personally use the aggressive option because I like that it slows down reasonably quickly on a light or a s

          • I think you just agreed with me.

            The Model 3 has the same options, although they are named differently: standard and low.

            I don't think either setting allows the car to modulate the brakes for regeneration.

    • Agreed. It is rather alarming that so much safety critical equipment in a Tesla can be easily software tweaked at will by a company stuck in a startup mindset. OTA updates are great, till they are not. I'd freak out if my car suddenly changes how it responded to the the brake pedal. Using your fleet of installed users as unwitting testers is pretty damn sketchy.

      • Re:If an over-the-air update can fix it... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:24PM (#56701464) Homepage

        That's not how OTA updates work.

        1) Tesla creates an update.
        2) The update is tested internally on their own fleet for a period of time. If any problems occur, it goes back to development.
        3) Tesla starts rolling out the update in small batches. Everybody does not receive the update at the same time. If any reports of any problems come in, the rollout is cancelled.
        4) When a user gets an update, it does not just "autoinstall". The user can choose to install immediately, or schedule it for later. Your notion that you're driving along and suddenly your brake behavior changes is just not how it works.

        Installing an OTA update is no different than getting a software update at the dealership except that it's a lot more convenient. And there's a much closer integration with the user. A user can literally activate voice commands, say "Bug report", and file a bug report about any aspect in the vehicle, which goes directly to Tesla's devel team. Along with the user's description, Tesla gets screenshots, vehicle logs, etc. You can also use the bug report feature to make feature requests.

    • If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place?

      The same reason you have bugs in any program you use. Software is complicated and hard. Testing is time consuming, expensive, and difficult. Bugs get out all the time. The difficulty of fixing an issue is nearly independent from the factors that go into finding it in the first place. Once identified, given the severity of the bug, fixing it was obviously crucial, and kudos to Tesla for quickly resolving the issue.

      Why did it take a third party tester to find it?

      Now THAT is a good question.

      • Now THAT is a good question.

        The third party has to find just bug not caught by internal testing. Tesla has to catch every bug.

        • so does every car manufacturer. Check the list of recalls and failure to recall for ICE car companies over the years. These 3rd party testers came about because of the shoddy attention to detail by the manufacturers

    • Re:If an over-the-air update can fix it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eloking ( 877834 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:01PM (#56701300)

      ... and over-the-air update can also break it. Or take away the "feature" once the car leaves the showroom.

      Really, are you serious?

      And why would anyone in Tesla do that?

      If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place? Why did it take a third party tester to find it?

      First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement so it's not like the brake were completely unsafe neither.

      Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough. Not exactly a simple "bit 0 to 1" fix, it would take a lot of on-road testing to find the most optimal value.

      My guess is that the car production was rushed and they decided that the brake performance were "good enough" for now. But it was until CR bashed on it by comparing the brake performance to a F-150.

      • And why would anyone in Tesla do that?

        Why would anyone do that in the first place?

      • First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement so it's not like the brake were completely unsafe neither.

        Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough. Not exactly a simple "bit 0 to 1" fix, it would take a lot of on-road testing to find the most optimal value.

        Let's flip that around: How much on-the-road testing could they really have done if they now were able to eke out a 12.5% improvement in a matter of days?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dabadab ( 126782 )

        First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement

        And that's a HUGE improvement.

        Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough

        I could not see any mention of that in the article linked from the /. summary.

        • "I could not see any mention of that in the article linked from the /. summary." - he probably did a bit more research than you and searched outside /.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Eloking ( 877834 )

          It is pretty serious when someone with wireless OBD-II access can disable your brakes or remotely steer your car off the road.
          I don't know about Tesla specifically, but this has been tested on newer cars. Scary shit. Makes you wonder.

          Well since you're talking about wireless OBD-II and steering the wheel remotely I'll assume you have no idea what's you're talking about so I'll save my breath for someone who does.

        • What, you think their update process is a TFTP box? I'll bet they are using end-to end encryption with code signing because they aren't idiots and it isn't 1994. Comparing this to wireless ODB2 is amazingly ignorant.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jeti ( 105266 )

        ... and over-the-air update can also break it. Or take away the "feature" once the car leaves the showroom.

        And why would anyone in Tesla do that?

        Because Tesla gets sued for patent infringement over a feature and removing it is part of the settlement or does otherwise reduce costs. We've had these things happen with consumer electronics. Why not cars?

    • Is this really the first time you've ever seen a bug in a product? Or are you shorting TSLA?
    • Go read the article about why a 3rd party found it and not Tesla. It's an edge case scenario involving repeated use of emergency breaking. It isn't a mainline scenario, and Tesla never thought to include it in its test bed. Someone found a corner case, reported it, and Tesla fixed it.

  • "Payola" (Score:3, Funny)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @02:53PM (#56701246)
    >> Consumer Reports Recommends Tesla's Model 3 After Braking Fix

    I've never seen "Braking Fix" as a euphemism for "Payola" before.

    • Re:"Payola" (Score:4, Informative)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:27PM (#56701482)

      >> Consumer Reports Recommends Tesla's Model 3 After Braking Fix I've never seen "Braking Fix" as a euphemism for "Payola" before.

      CR actually re-tested the car and it showed a braking improvement of 19 feet shorter -- which is now inline with what Tesla claimed and comparable to other cars of that size. They are also going to rent another Tesla Model 3 and test again.

  • Consumer Reports broke the fix? (Score:4, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @03:23PM (#56701456)

    Consumer Reports Recommends Tesla's Model 3 After Braking Fix

    Seems counter-productive. :-)

  • What happens when another firmware update breaks the fix? No pun intended. Any vehicle with this amount of change possible in firmware should be tested regularly. Tesla certainly won't let anyone know about it.
  • All it means in effect is that Tesla's own testing and QA is so shoddy that it took a 3rd party to point out how dangerously bad the braking distance was. It's good that it can be rectified over the air but it doesn't absolve them putting it out in that condition to begin with. What else did they not bother to test, or allowed to slip past QA for fear of missing their targets?
  • The EVs have significant regenerative braking. It is called dynamic braking in locomotives. It is similar to engine braking in manual transmission vehicles.

    It is ON by default, it reduces brake wear significantly and reduces brake heating and energy wastage significantly.

    But they turned it off while testing Tesla. Why? To be "fair" to the ICE cars? To be "consistent" with earlier testing of gas cars? The test involves 60 to 0 braking hard, five times in a row with one mile of driving in between to cool.

    • With ABS all braking distances are limited by the tire not the braking power.

      Considering that Tesla just reduced the braking distance with a firmware update, this statement is wrong: it is also limited by how aggressive the ABS is designed. Also, in an emergency panic stop regenerative braking is relatively inconsequential.

      • "With ABS all braking distances are limited by the tire not the braking power." No matter how aggressive you get with ABS or Regen braking you cant reduce the stopping distance anymore than these numbers. The shortest possible braking distance is decided by the tire not by brakes. That is the meaning of "limited by the tire, not by the brakes". Of course less aggressive braking can lead to longer braking distances. That seems to have happened in this instance.

        Still not clear what exactly was changed in

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close