CR just published a head line this week saying the GM Super Cruise system which is almost non existant in vehicles on the road is superior to Tesla's Autopilot. You open it up and realize even CR recognizes the old autopilot (not the leap forward beta) is objectively greatly superior to Super Cruise but then CR idiotically rates Super Cruise ultimately higher because they claim it is better at telling the driver that it isn't working which is all the time. What amount of payola and blackmail was required for this?
Consumer Reports has no credibility anymore
- Thread starter 101101
- Start date
- Replies 7
- Views 1K
The article seems pretty balanced and well-reasoned to me. As someone who will soon be shopping for a car, I found the article to have useful information about a rapidly changing area of technology. CR explains why they consider certain safety properties important, citing studies by the National Transportation Safety Board. They also break down the ratings into multiple categories and explain the pros and cons of each system. It's not just about who gets the highest score. Although the safety categories lifted Super Cruise to the highest overall score, they do score Autopilot above Super Cruise in two areas—Capabilities and Performance and Ease of Use.
I'm surprised that Honda Sensing scored as high as it did in Capabilities and Performance. The ACC and steering assist on my Honda Clarity BEV sort of do their job, but not well enough for me or my wife ever to rely on them.
I'm surprised that Honda Sensing scored as high as it did in Capabilities and Performance. The ACC and steering assist on my Honda Clarity BEV sort of do their job, but not well enough for me or my wife ever to rely on them.
First off, I'm no fan of Consumer Reports (CR) because of a decade of poor Prius reporting. Yet their annual subscriber surveys came back with a strong affirmation of the Prius. CR never adjusted their review criteria to match what the owners reported. However, I do have an online account and looked for Autopilot articles:
Autopark does not always work but it would be useful to document how many times it worked, failed, or was attempted. A subjective 'score' by the CR staff does not hold weight. Reporting the occasional failures is OK provided the measured rate is shared.
“It seems like Tesla is focused on being the automaker with the most features rather than ensuring that the features work well,” Funkhouser says. “Its time and energy could be better spent on developing a driver monitoring system for Autopilot to significantly improve the safety and usefulness of that system.”
In this quote, I disagree. I would rather have as many features, even buggy, than just one that is perfect. But their fix, "a driver monitoring system" is not the answer.
"Cadillac's Super Cruise Outperforms Other Driving Assistance Systems" starts out with a strong CR endorsement of driver in-the-loop monitoring, the Super Cruise approach:
“The evidence is clear: If a car makes it easier for people to take their attention off the road, they’re going to do so—with potentially deadly consequences,” says William Wallace, manager of safety policy for Consumer Reports. “It’s critical for active driving assistance systems to come with safety features that actually verify drivers are paying attention and are ready to take action at all times. Otherwise, these systems’ safety risks could end up outweighing their benefits.”
The rest of the CR article makes sure to restate their endorsement of the Super Cruise approach and neglect to mention what others, like Tesla does. This is a significant omission because different systems have different criteria. I have experience with BMW i3-REx (magic eye), Toyota TSS-P, and Tesla Autopilot, these were not quantified but just an arbitrary score applied without the backup data! Facts and data are needed and this 'trust us' does not work after a decade of CR Prius pissing.
I'm not going to cut-and-paste the arbitrary scores assigned but list these were their evaluation criteria: Capability and Performance; Keeping the Driver Engaged; Ease of Use; Clear When Safe to Use, and; Unresponsive Driver. As mentioned before, recording the success and failures works, not an arbitrary score dreamed up by CR staffers.
CONCLUSIONS
Both articles endorse only Super Cruise monitoring of the driver. They did not even list what Tesla, Toyota, or other vendors do. But this is not the first time CR makes up their minds, don't inject facts and data, like they did the the Prius and the CR subscribers be d*mned.
They omitted that Super Cruise is an extra cost, $2,500 to $6,150, but Autopilot is standard on all Tesla. Autopilot is getting more use and monitoring so Tesla reports, 2020 Q3:
In the 3rd quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.59 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.42 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 1.79 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 479,000 miles.
Source: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
One wonders if anyone is evaluating Super Cruise performance in the real world ... or the sample size may be too small.
The biggest CR omission is where Autopilot and Super Cruise can be used:
Supercruise is limited to certain roads. In contrast, Autopilot works every where. So which one provides more miles of service?
In the past, I would send this report to Consumer Reports but experience has shown they really don't want another point of view. They've made up their mind so don't confuse them with the facts and data. I'm not bitter but interested in sharing an accurate synopsis.
Bob Wilson
ps. @Domenick feel free to share this with the 'brain trust.'
pps. CR did not mention "phantom braking" with Autopilot which experienced Tesla owners fully know about.
- "Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its Name" - The $10,000 option doesn’t make the car self-driving, though it does offer a host of advanced features. CR evaluated all of them.
By Mike Monticello Last updated: October 23, 2020 - "Cadillac's Super Cruise Outperforms Other Driving Assistance Systems" - Other automakers close in on Tesla's Autopilot, now a distant second, in Consumer Reports' new ratings of 17 systems
By Mike Monticello October 28, 2020
Autopark does not always work but it would be useful to document how many times it worked, failed, or was attempted. A subjective 'score' by the CR staff does not hold weight. Reporting the occasional failures is OK provided the measured rate is shared.
“It seems like Tesla is focused on being the automaker with the most features rather than ensuring that the features work well,” Funkhouser says. “Its time and energy could be better spent on developing a driver monitoring system for Autopilot to significantly improve the safety and usefulness of that system.”
In this quote, I disagree. I would rather have as many features, even buggy, than just one that is perfect. But their fix, "a driver monitoring system" is not the answer.
"Cadillac's Super Cruise Outperforms Other Driving Assistance Systems" starts out with a strong CR endorsement of driver in-the-loop monitoring, the Super Cruise approach:
“The evidence is clear: If a car makes it easier for people to take their attention off the road, they’re going to do so—with potentially deadly consequences,” says William Wallace, manager of safety policy for Consumer Reports. “It’s critical for active driving assistance systems to come with safety features that actually verify drivers are paying attention and are ready to take action at all times. Otherwise, these systems’ safety risks could end up outweighing their benefits.”
The rest of the CR article makes sure to restate their endorsement of the Super Cruise approach and neglect to mention what others, like Tesla does. This is a significant omission because different systems have different criteria. I have experience with BMW i3-REx (magic eye), Toyota TSS-P, and Tesla Autopilot, these were not quantified but just an arbitrary score applied without the backup data! Facts and data are needed and this 'trust us' does not work after a decade of CR Prius pissing.
I'm not going to cut-and-paste the arbitrary scores assigned but list these were their evaluation criteria: Capability and Performance; Keeping the Driver Engaged; Ease of Use; Clear When Safe to Use, and; Unresponsive Driver. As mentioned before, recording the success and failures works, not an arbitrary score dreamed up by CR staffers.
CONCLUSIONS
Both articles endorse only Super Cruise monitoring of the driver. They did not even list what Tesla, Toyota, or other vendors do. But this is not the first time CR makes up their minds, don't inject facts and data, like they did the the Prius and the CR subscribers be d*mned.
They omitted that Super Cruise is an extra cost, $2,500 to $6,150, but Autopilot is standard on all Tesla. Autopilot is getting more use and monitoring so Tesla reports, 2020 Q3:
In the 3rd quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.59 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.42 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 1.79 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 479,000 miles.
Source: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
One wonders if anyone is evaluating Super Cruise performance in the real world ... or the sample size may be too small.
The biggest CR omission is where Autopilot and Super Cruise can be used:
Supercruise is limited to certain roads. In contrast, Autopilot works every where. So which one provides more miles of service?
In the past, I would send this report to Consumer Reports but experience has shown they really don't want another point of view. They've made up their mind so don't confuse them with the facts and data. I'm not bitter but interested in sharing an accurate synopsis.
Bob Wilson
ps. @Domenick feel free to share this with the 'brain trust.'
pps. CR did not mention "phantom braking" with Autopilot which experienced Tesla owners fully know about.
Last edited:
CR has certainly bashed Tesla into the ground for their implementation of AutoPilot. They do have a point, but the data from Tesla seems to indicate that they are overselling the danger.
I do have to say I was a bit disappointed to see one of the so called "safe drivers" having one hand on the lower part of the steering wheel while testing beta self-driving.
I do have to say I was a bit disappointed to see one of the so called "safe drivers" having one hand on the lower part of the steering wheel while testing beta self-driving.
Unlike standard Autopilot, Supercruise is a costly and limited option. I would go with MagicEye before Supercruise.
Bob Wilson
Lets give some recent context to the FUD with CR at the center.
Remember GM with its Nikola disaster?
Per Nash its 2 flavors of laws suits including a "derivative" law suit and reading between the lines the principals are attempting to take the money and run Skilling style.
Well right after Consumer reports brilliantly said Cruz which doesn't work 90+ percent of the time and is only good at telling you its not working is the best self driving system because 9/10 of the time it will remind you its out of service. This was supposed to be vastly superior Tesla Autopilot which they acknowledge works better- but which crucially works almost everywhere (limit for the current release systems has been highways) Its total obvious BS and it sounded a lot like when CR recently tried to say FCA was the most reliable brand or when it said GM vehicles were more reliable than Hondas and Honda. Seeing a crack smoking pattern out of CR? Now it can't recommend any Tesla vehicles except Model 3 because old S and X models have an issue with screens and back up cameras making Teslas as a brand unsafe and unreliable. But everyone knows Tesla's are the safest vehicles ever made by a huge margin. Now CR also says Tesla's are the least reliable vehicles of all brands- just like CR saying FCA is the most reliable when everyone knows its least reliable. The truth is the Tesla power train is going to be way more reliable than any ICE ever made and reliability is about doesn't strand you not the games CR tries to play with the word to push its lies. "A decal came off" is not a reliability issue unless its the paint wearing of a cheap plastic start button in a BMW 750 or 760.
And while CR has been pushing this BS GM had to recall all of its Bolts for fires- five caught fire while parked. But then FUD mag the Drive puts out that a Tesla in a wreck spewed burning batteries into a residence. 1. The batteries never come out of the pack in wrecks. 2. If there was going to be fire with an individual cylidrical cell- once impact frees it from its battery module the circuit is broken and good luck getting even a damaged cell to ignite. You have to wait 20 minutes for a pack to catch on fire from an impact if at all! Then dig out a burning cell and throw it.
But then Tesla gets admitted to the S&P and suddenly GM has to make a presentation to Barclays or the same group Monro addressed so they could leak against NDA about him supposedly saying Tesla can't sell cheap electric cars profitably because it can't get under 70kwh when what Monro said in public is battery day anouncements get Tesla to $47 a khw at the pack level in part because there is no pack.
But really these stupid headlines I think are there to hide that ole Warren Buffet is investing in Tesla and Musk is about to oust Gates in life's rich pageant. Which looks like it puts the kibosh on the idiot view from for instance the head of the VDA that it would be impractical to ban ICE cars in the EU by 2025 or that stupid 'alternative' liquid fuels are needed when they are based on obsolete NG or its front of bio fuels. The corruption isn't needed.
Remember GM with its Nikola disaster?
Per Nash its 2 flavors of laws suits including a "derivative" law suit and reading between the lines the principals are attempting to take the money and run Skilling style.
Well right after Consumer reports brilliantly said Cruz which doesn't work 90+ percent of the time and is only good at telling you its not working is the best self driving system because 9/10 of the time it will remind you its out of service. This was supposed to be vastly superior Tesla Autopilot which they acknowledge works better- but which crucially works almost everywhere (limit for the current release systems has been highways) Its total obvious BS and it sounded a lot like when CR recently tried to say FCA was the most reliable brand or when it said GM vehicles were more reliable than Hondas and Honda. Seeing a crack smoking pattern out of CR? Now it can't recommend any Tesla vehicles except Model 3 because old S and X models have an issue with screens and back up cameras making Teslas as a brand unsafe and unreliable. But everyone knows Tesla's are the safest vehicles ever made by a huge margin. Now CR also says Tesla's are the least reliable vehicles of all brands- just like CR saying FCA is the most reliable when everyone knows its least reliable. The truth is the Tesla power train is going to be way more reliable than any ICE ever made and reliability is about doesn't strand you not the games CR tries to play with the word to push its lies. "A decal came off" is not a reliability issue unless its the paint wearing of a cheap plastic start button in a BMW 750 or 760.
And while CR has been pushing this BS GM had to recall all of its Bolts for fires- five caught fire while parked. But then FUD mag the Drive puts out that a Tesla in a wreck spewed burning batteries into a residence. 1. The batteries never come out of the pack in wrecks. 2. If there was going to be fire with an individual cylidrical cell- once impact frees it from its battery module the circuit is broken and good luck getting even a damaged cell to ignite. You have to wait 20 minutes for a pack to catch on fire from an impact if at all! Then dig out a burning cell and throw it.
But then Tesla gets admitted to the S&P and suddenly GM has to make a presentation to Barclays or the same group Monro addressed so they could leak against NDA about him supposedly saying Tesla can't sell cheap electric cars profitably because it can't get under 70kwh when what Monro said in public is battery day anouncements get Tesla to $47 a khw at the pack level in part because there is no pack.
But really these stupid headlines I think are there to hide that ole Warren Buffet is investing in Tesla and Musk is about to oust Gates in life's rich pageant. Which looks like it puts the kibosh on the idiot view from for instance the head of the VDA that it would be impractical to ban ICE cars in the EU by 2025 or that stupid 'alternative' liquid fuels are needed when they are based on obsolete NG or its front of bio fuels. The corruption isn't needed.