Join The Community

Cruise Control minimum speed

The minimum speed for the cruise control on my Tesla Roadster is 30 mph. I prefer for Model S this minimum speed will to be lower. Using Cruise Control, even at low speeds, makes driving safer. It is better to look outside the car and scan for what is going on on the road with your right foot ready to brake instead of concentrating on your speedometer and your right foot on the accelerator to avoid a ticket.

I agree with you Paul, and if we can set cruise control as low as say 3 MPH, we wouldn't even need creep as an option, we can set the speed ourselves. Wonder how fast creep would be in relation to an ICE? My guess was about 3 MPH.

I drive a Mercedes S and the cruise control together with a distace radar is 0 mph
I prefer that kind. It is very convinient especially in a stop and go situation. The car stops automatically and as soon as you touch the cruise control stick it starts again to go to the set speed

@Norbert.Vienna, I like that even more... :)

Or add laser guided like my 03 Infiniti which will slow all the way down and speed back up for you automatically.

Discussion about adaptive cruise control:

In short: Like other driver assistant features, adaptive cruise control is on the wish list for the Model S and will likely be available at some point. At this point, it is more important to get version 1.0 out the door, and more electronic assistants would have delayed availability.

I think they will add a fully automated robot driver at some point not far into future. Google already has successful robot driver, and because that is basically just an extension of computer tech knowing how fast that goes forward it doesn't take long to have that in any new car. Ten years max to perfect the tech, and another ten max to get it as standard equipment to all cars.

It just takes some sensors not common in normal cars. Cameras, radar, maybe lidar. More passive than active, heat cameras etc.

Keeping in mind that this would still be drivers car, consider that robot driver as silent co-pilot that you can activate when you feel you need it.

Am I wrong that the "New features" part of the service plan should mean that if I have the service plan I will get adaptive cruise when it is available? along with proximity detectors.....

Sudre_, it depends.

If a feature can be enabled merely by software, I understand that everybody (not only those with a service plan) will get the new feature, sooner or later, and for free. Examples are configurable creep, or a chime on speed limit.

Other features, including adaptive cruise control, may need additional hardware (sensors, in particular). It may or may not be possible to retrofit that hardware to cars that are already on the road, and if it is possible, it is likely a paid option (and equally likely, when it becomes available, it will be a paid option in new cars for new customers as well).

Robotic driver control is my idea of hell. I love driving. If you hate driving get a taxi. :)

They already said the wiring is there for certain features. I am hoping that it includes most all updates to the car so I am not getting the early adopter punishment if I get the service plan. I will be asking that question before getting the service plan.

@Mark E, I hear you, but sometimes you need to answer a call or something comes up, an autopilot would be awesome in order to avoid the Hands Free Ticket I have already received (and paid $460 on by the way). It wouldn't even allow me to pay the fine online, I had to go to the Courthouse, wait in a ridiculous line and then find out that they don't accept VISA!?!?

BYT: if you need to answer a call then you need a full hands free kit in the car. If its a call that demands a lot of attention pull over and park. I don't want to be killed because someone is driving a 2 ton projectile at 60 mph and not concentrating on the road and traffic around them.

I've had hands free kits in my cars since getting my first mobile phone in 1991. With Bluetooth kits being so cheap these days there is no excuse for not having one.

As a motorcyclist as well as a car enthusiast I'm amazed at how easy it is to spot the drivers who aren't using hands free, just by the jerking corrections being made as they drive. $460 is cheap compared to the guilt you'd have if you killed someone while distracted.

Here in Australia you also face prison if your negligence results in a serious accident.

@Mark E, I agree that there are dangerous drivers on the road that can't talk and drive (even with that damn headset in their ear). In my case, I was sitting at a red light that takes 2 minutes to change before entering a private parking lot. I don't text and drive, I don't apply makeup at 55MPH while slowly swerving into me in the fast lane and pressing me into the cement wall divider, I don't drive oblivious to those around me. On that note, I don't agree that stupid laws fix anything because I still see people with phones to their ears all the time and it frankly seems to do nothing to the true offenders.

Please bring a user enable/disable-able auto-pilot! :)

@BYT: I don't think that the hands free requirement is a 'stupid law' at all. If the penalty for driving with a phone held to your ear was immediate disqualification then maybe you wouldn't see as many people ignoring it.

Driver distraction and inattention are two of the biggest contributors to accidents - above speed and about at the same level as fatigue.

Will 'autopilot' read the conditions of the road in front of you and recognise a minivan with kids getting out or some other 'early warning', to immediately slow down and take care the way a responsible driver will? My guess is that it will continue at speed until it sees an obstacle, then it will take emergency avoidance actions.

At best it will mean that people who aren't interested in driving will hand over to it. At worst it has the potential to lead even more people to being even more lazy when driving.

Do hands think and see? Hands-free achieves nothing.

@Brian H: When people are using a hand held device in a car they spend a lot of time looking at it or not having their hands on the controls. I have witnessed this.

Further, when they are talking on the phone holding it to one ear for some reason there is a propensity to not look and check blind spots etc. I have witnessed this.

When the phone is in a cradle you don't need to fumble around to find it and answer it.

Of course, if the conversation that you are having requires a lot of thought then you should not have it while driving.

Hands-free does make a massive difference.

Have to agree with Brian on this one. There is no safety advantage in hands-free (Bluetooth) vs. physical handset. It may seem that way for the reasons mentioned by Mark, but numerous studies clearly show the human brain was never designed for multitasking. Performance in all areas tested decreases as additional tasks are added. These days when I hear someone proudly proclaim they are a "multitasker", I wonder what task they're performing suboptimally.

If people are serious about reducing accident rates, phones could easily be temporarily auto-disabled when their GPS signal indicated speed above X mph. I doubt any politician would want to end his career advocating for disabling legislation.

@Mark E, robot driver as it is done in Demolition Man. Flip a switch and you are in control, but you can give control to car as well.

Full-time robot driver would be bad IMO, it would just take fun out of driving. Maybe as emergency assistant (computers react couple of thousand times faster than humans), but nothing more while you are driving.

Why settle to one when you can get both?

Brian H, hands free achieves something. No huge difference but it is not negligible. For one you have both of your hands free to act which is important (muscle memory), second the things Mark E mentions, people tend to look at the phone time to time, and in very worst case you drop it and start to dig it out from the floor while driving (I have seen this). When you hold it at your ear it becomes physical distraction instead of just mental distraction.

If hands-free is dangerous, why are passengers allowed?

Passenger is a bit different than phone, because passengers are in same situation as driver and usually don't keep babbling about something unimportant when car is are situation which requires drivers full attention. If passengers would keep on talking to driver while he tries to avoid head-on collision with drunken driver there would be something to keep them shut down.

I have seen signs in public transportation that prohibit talking with the driver probably just because that.

is are / is at. I have started to think my FF auto-corrects my texts, there have been some very weird typos recently in my texts (actual words, but in strange places).

Mark -- Robotic driver control is my idea of hell. I love driving.

Sometimes I want to drive but sometimes I want to get there without being bothered or I want to look at the scenery on the way there or take a nap rather than the road. Taxis work in places like New York and Tokyo because you never go very far. They are ruinously expensive elsewhere, and I don't want to spend hours with some stranger--even if I could afford it. An auto-pilot would be a great idea--and I suspect it would be a great idea for about 90% of the folks out there.

Having said that I never use cruise control, but that's because cruise control kills mpg.

I love to drive, but I would love to have a real auto-polit for some situations. I have a long drive to work with some heavy slow and go sections where I get no driving enjoyment. Passing off to an auto-pilot while I get a head start on morning email would be worth a $10k option for me.

The one autopilot feature that would be even better is auto-valet. I am getting sick of watching valets fumble getting my LEAF in drive. I would rather not have them touch my car and it go park/charge itself.


I haven't even seen a place where there was valet parking since the early seventies. However, it's scary when the "Prius certified technician" doesn't know how to start the car.

I was just driving over a mountain pass tonight. I allways drive with cruise control. Who needs a speeding ticket, right? Only problem is downhill where cruise would need to break or downshift on an ice. And so I end up going way over the limit, and someday im gonna get it if im not carefull. Was just thinking that tesla cruse control probably maintains set speed, even on downhill stretches. No reason why it shouldnt be able to have precise control, regardless of grade.

Yep, it should. The Leaf does, to an extent. The Leaf can only use as much regen in cruise as is available on the accelerator pedal. Thus it can regen more in eco than in D but the full 30kW amount is not available for CC to use since one has to push the brake pedal to get full regen.

This should not be an issue with the Model S since it has all the regen on the accelerator (yay!).

But if the hill's slope goes past some angle, the amount of regen needed to keep it at a constant speed (set by cruise control) may be too much for the system. In that case you'd have to step on the brakes.

For a Model S with 60kW regen that angle would be _steep_. So steep that you could not keep the same speed going up using 60kW.

Tesla wouldn't be the first to have the cruise control actually engage brakes to maintain the preset speed.

I wouldn't want it to do that. An increase in speed is more energy efficient.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen