Tesla tells HW3 owner to 'be patient' after 7 years of waiting for FSD
Tesla owners who paid for “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) years ago, particularly in Europe and on older HW3 hardware, say they still haven’t received the capabilities they were sold, despite newer cars now running more advanced versions. Commenters debate whether this amounts to fraud or merely overoptimistic marketing, touching on class-action efforts, regulatory limits in the EU, and the difficulty of delivering higher autonomy levels on legacy hardware. Many also contrast Tesla’s FSD (a Level 2 driver-assistance system that still requires constant supervision) with rival systems and question whether partial automation actually reduces or increases driver workload and risk.
Legal, refunds, and class actions
- Many argue early FSD buyers should seek to void contracts or demand refunds, especially after years without promised functionality.
- Some note that in many jurisdictions, voiding a contract could imply returning the car for a full purchase refund; others question if that’s realistic for a 7‑year‑old vehicle.
- EU and Australian class actions are mentioned; one Dutch site coordinates HW3-related claims.
- Several expect regulators or courts (especially in the EU) to eventually force refunds or sanctions; others point out US arbitration clauses make redress harder.
HW3 vs HW4 and regional restrictions
- Broad consensus that HW4 FSD is substantially better; HW3 suffers from phantom braking and appears to be hitting hardware limits.
- Many believe HW3 cars will never get feature‑parity FSD, yet pay the same subscription price as HW4, which some call insulting.
- EU regulations limit lateral acceleration and require lane‑change cancellation, leading to “nerfed” behavior on earlier systems.
- Latest FSD, running only on HW4, is said to be approved in the Netherlands without some earlier EU constraints, but still requires driver supervision.
User experiences: impressive vs dangerous / stressful
- Positive reports: long highway trips (hundreds to thousands of miles) with minimal or no interventions; some find FSD vastly better than weak human drivers.
- Negative reports: phantom braking, erratic lane changes, poor city performance, failure on curved streets, stopping mid‑intersection, and nearly hitting pedestrians.
- Several say the need to “babysit” an unpredictable system is more mentally exhausting than manual driving; comparisons are made to supervising a junior coworker or an LLM that can catastrophically fail.
Automation level, safety, and trust
- Multiple comments emphasize Tesla’s system is still Level 2 ADAS: driver is responsible 100% of the time.
- Debate over whether thousands of miles without intervention have actually been achieved and whether anecdotal cases are meaningful evidence.
- Some see FSD as uniquely capable among consumer systems; others say rivals (Ford, GM, Hyundai, Rivian, comma.ai, etc.) are comparable or better for their use cases.
Critique of marketing and Musk
- Many view “Full Self-Driving” branding and past promises as deceptive or “puffery,” with frustration that regulators haven’t acted more forcefully.
- Tesla’s pattern of promising “next version will fix it” and repeated hardware revisions (HW2→3→4→5) fuels cynicism that early buyers will never get what was advertised.