Tesla's self-driving tech ditched by 98 percent of customers that tried it

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Tesla’s latest “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) trial reportedly converted only about 2% of users into paying customers, prompting debate over both the product’s value and the accuracy of the headline framing. Commenters highlight that FSD still requires constant driver supervision, behaves unpredictably in many real-world scenarios, and is priced at around $8,000 or $100–$200/month—factors that, combined with years of overoptimistic autonomy promises and ongoing legal scrutiny, make the offering hard to justify for most owners. A minority of users report major improvements in version 12 and say it meaningfully reduces driving stress, especially on highways, but even they largely agree it falls short of true self-driving.

What “self-driving” should mean

  • Many define “real” self-driving as:
    • The manufacturer assumes legal liability for crashes while the system is active.
    • The human need not constantly supervise or be ready to instantly take over.
  • By this standard, commenters argue Tesla does not have true self-driving and is unlikely to in the near term; current systems are seen as advanced driver assistance.

User experiences with FSD

  • Strongly mixed reports:
    • Negative: phantom braking, abrupt speed changes, poor city behavior, trouble with pedestrians, parked cars, on-ramps, roundabouts, and narrow residential streets; often described as more stressful than manual driving.
    • Positive: recent v12 versions seen by some as a big leap, “drives like a human,” excellent on highways, good at lane keeping, passing, exits, and long trips; some use it almost all the time.
  • Several analogies liken it to riding with a nervous teenage driver: capable, but unpredictable.

Pricing, adoption, and the “98% ditched” claim

  • FSD costs around $8k upfront or ~$100–$200/month.
  • Only ~2% of those given a 30‑day trial bought it; some call that a solid conversion rate for a high-ticket add‑on, others see it as disastrous given how central FSD is to Tesla’s story.
  • Many say the feature is interesting but not worth the price, especially when cars are already underwater in value.

Safety, legality, and accountability

  • Debate over legal frameworks: retail vehicles generally require a supervising driver, while some robotaxis operate without one in constrained areas.
  • Concerns about Tesla allegedly disabling Autopilot right before crashes and about long-running, overly optimistic FSD marketing.
  • References to regulatory and legal actions, including federal probes and class-action efforts, with arbitration clauses seen as a barrier.

Competition and alternatives

  • Waymo is widely viewed as leading in true driverless service, but only as a taxi, not an owned product.
  • Other EVs (VW, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Polestar, etc.) are discussed; some find them inferior overall to Tesla on value, software, and charging, others think they now match or beat Tesla.

Human behavior and usability

  • Wheel “nags” and constant supervision make FSD feel pointless to some; planned removal of steering-wheel nudges raises fears of increased inattention.
  • Tension between strict speed-limit adherence and real-world traffic norms is unresolved and seen as a hard problem for autonomy.

Outlook on full autonomy

  • Optimists believe recent progress suggests robotaxis are only a few years away.
  • Skeptics argue driving is effectively AGI-level, neural nets handle edge cases poorly, and the decade-plus of missed timelines undermines credibility.