Does currently sold Tesla vehicles support V2X technology ?
Or can be upgraded to support it?

kastytis.zilinskas | 15 september 2017

v2x improves autodriving

schulzzy | 11 marts 2019

I would like to know the answer to this question as well.

reed_lewis | 11 marts 2019

Right now the Tesla has no specific V2X except for its cell modem.

Earl and Nagin ... | 12 marts 2019

Assuming V2x = Vehicle to 'something else',
Of course it does. All legal cars have some form of it although Teslas go a bit further.
It has a cellular modem that provides RF data connectivity to anything it wants via IP data networks. It has Bluetooth and WiFi modems to enable RF connectivity with such devices. It also uses near-field passive RF for access. The Model S and X have short range RF for access control as well.
As all street legal cars do, Teslas also have multiple transmitters and receivers that use free space optics to communicate with anyone around it using spatial and frequency domain modulation and multiple access. This automatically indicate intention to change directions, deviate from the main course, decelerate, and direction of travel.
Now, if you're talking about the new garbage (veiled in dumb "V2x" jargon) that dumb geeks who don't fully grasp the subtle fundamentals of wireless communications are milking even dumber investors to try to develop, of course they don't - there isn't any such thing. | 12 marts 2019

@kastytis."v2x improves autodriving". Well no.

V2X has the potential too, but since there is zero public V2X infrastructure and zero ways to pay for it, it may be 30-40 years before it becomes useful for autopilot. V2V might have slightly more use between two cars, but then you need enough cars to have the same V2V tech - which the standards are not really released yet. Then you need a significant number of cars to have the compatible V2V tech. Again this is likely to take decades to become useful.

Since any FSD system requires dealing with all vehicles with or without V2X, there may not be enough pressure to make it mandatory.

I've been following the V2X tech, and it is conceptually really cool. Practically, I sort of doubt it will do anything useful for decades due to limitations unrelated to the technology.

jdyork99 | 8 februar 2020

I am just beginning to think of buying a Tesla with an eye on level 4 autonomy. So when I read this it didn't make much sense, almost everyone has a cell phone and most have location enabled so they are basically broadcasting their location. That seems to me something a level 4 car would like to know. | 8 februar 2020

@jdyork99 - There are huge privacy concerns about letting everyone know exactly where you are (although Google likely knows). Broadcasting your location is also not entirely useful - you need to know the direction of travel and speed. Ideally, you also want to have a high-precision GPS location. Phones normally do not have a high-precision GPS as it's more costly and consumes more power. A location +/- 50 feet that the phone is aware of could be deadly for assuming car positions around you. Then if your phone is constantly transmitting this info, I wonder if the phone would have enough power to last more than an hour or two with a full charge.

I may be overlooking something, but I don't think using your phone would be a practical solution for assisting with autonomous driving.

bp | 9 februar 2020

While V2X and V2I look like great ideas, they would also introduce a new class of potential problems if vehicles rely on V2X/V2I that could be false or incorrect.

Even with V2X and V2I present, vehicles must be able to operate without relying on this information, based on the area surrounding the vehicle, just like a human driver does today.

And if V2X and V2I become available, they should only be used as secondary, not primary, data sources - additional information that could help the FSD software make a decision if the primary data sources are inconclusive on what to do.