5 ms·

Cruise Raises $12.5M for Self-Driving Cars, Poaches Tesla’s Lead on Autopilot

80 points by replicatorblog 11y ago

greenyoda 11y ago
A total funding of $16.8 million sounds like a tiny amount of money to be able to develop this kind of complex technology, especially anything related to cars, which are heavily regulated. Their competitors - Tesla, Google and the huge car manufacturers - all have billions of dollars to throw around. "The product to date has been a system that converts existing cars into self-driving cars down highways. ... There are sensor units that go on top of the car near the windshield and then there are actuators that control the steering and driving. There’s also a computer that goes in the trunk... The plan had been to sell Cruise systems for $10,000 each." This doesn't sound like it would get significant acceptance from the public. Are people going to be comfortable getting third-party modifications done on their cars, which would be of unknown quality and safety and surely invalidate their cars' warranties?
- abrichr 11y ago
  I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that there is already a very large market of people who like to tinker with cars. Imagine a self-driving Delorean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_DMC-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_DMC-12)
- 4927a15fe7b0c35 11y ago
  I agree, it doesn't sound like much money. Their poaching of Tesla's head of Autopilot R&D is very interesting though, and is definitely a sign of confidence. I think you're making quite a few assumptions though: (a) Getting third party modifications to make your current car self-driving may look crazy today, but when self-driving cars become more of a thing, it'll certainly be a more attractive option when compared to buying a new car altogether. (b) Right now the quality and safety are unknown, but assuredly they won't be in the future. I'm sure these devices will be tested thoroughly and have to meet specific regulations. (c) I'm not sure they would void the warranty, it would depend on a lot of factors. Regardless, the article hints at an upcoming pivot from Cruise, so the described product may not even hit the market.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    That sort of company usually gets picked up by existing manufacturers. Like perhaps Chinese or Indian manufacturers who will be late to the game. It's a good idea to go this route.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  Im guessing the play is to be purchased by Uber for ridiculous amount of money.
Animats 11y ago
All "Cruise" seems to be talking about is lane keeping plus radar cruise control. BMW, Buick, Cadillac, and Volvo had that years ago. Mercedes is shipping it now. The big problem is keeping drivers from relying too much on a dumb system that almost works[1]. Everyone with a clue in the industry realizes the problem. Semi-automatic driving, with the expectation that the driver is alert and ready to take over, is an accident waiting to happen. Mercedes has a device to check if hands are on the wheel. (See video below for someone defeating that.) Cadillac has a seat vibrator. Most of those semi-auto systems are unable to detect junk such as a mattress on the highway, deer, pedestrians, and work crews. They assume a benign freeway environment. Most won't engage in a non-freeway environment. What bothers me about "Cruise" is that they promote this assist technology as a full self-driving system, like what Google and CMU/Cadillac have in test. See the Cruise ad.[2] The NTSB defines four levels of self-driving: 0 - manual 1 - Function-specific Automation (example: anti-collision radar braking.) 2 - Combined Function Automation (adaptive cruise control plus lane centering.) (current Mercedes, etc. level) 3 - Limited Self-Driving Automation (still needs a driver available to take over.) (current Google level) 4 - Full self-driving automation (driver does nothing, may not even be present) (Google is trying to get there for 25MPH cars.) Cruise is at level 2, but advertises as if at level 3. Driving a level 2 car and thinking it's a level 3 car is deadly. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9JYqhFV-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9JYqhFV-M [2] http://www.getcruise.com/ http://www.getcruise.com/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kvogt 11y ago
  We completely agree with your safety concerns (along with those of many others we've spoken to in the industry). That's one of the reasons we haven't released a product that works in the way currently advertised on our website. While NHTSA has begun thinking about autonomous vehicle safety, there is still much to be done. We plan to release some of our thoughts about this in the next couple of months.
  - 11y ago
ciumonk 11y ago
"I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that there is already a very large market of people who like to tinker with cars. Imagine a self-driving Delorean" Or my own version, a level 3-ish self-driving 1977 VW Rabbit :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCE35zbkciU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCE35zbkciU
- hippich 11y ago
  Tell us more, please!! =)
natewevans 11y ago
Congrats to the team! Best of luck!
cmansley 11y ago
"Vogt couldn’t change lanes because of California state law around autonomous vehicles" This statement is complete bullshit. The California DMV doesn't have any clear details defining operations of vehicles at this point in time. They only have rules about what is required to test on public roads. This includes 5 million dollar bond, applying for permit, etc...[1] This statement alone (if correct from the reporter) makes me nervous about the amount of spin going on. [1] : http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-...
- kvogt 11y ago
  To clarify, the California DMV carefully defines an "Autonomous vehicle" but has carve outs for collision avoidance systems [1]. While adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist are mentioned explicitly as collision avoidance systems, automatic lane changing is not. So we weren't comfortable adding that feature until the DMV published their regulations for the operation of Autonomous Vehicles (which still hasn't happened) and we met those requirements. [1] : https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/bkgd https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/bkgd
mmmBacon 11y ago
Exactly how have they taken the lead here? They bought a bunch of bolt-on stuff and slapped together some software that works in a very limited way. Am I missing something?
- btian 11y ago
  They're basically developing an after market adaptive cruise control + lane centering system. Not revolutionary, but can be very useful nevertheless.
plonh 11y ago
Can someone explain how Google's long running car program fits in? Does Googe license patents (or map data, or...) to companies? Is Google car a PR thing that isn't competitive with the auto industry? Is Google hoping to leapfrog over all the "assisted driving" tech to be the first fully autonomous car?

A total funding of $16.8 million sounds like a tiny amount of money to be able to develop this kind of complex technology, especially anything related to cars, which are heavily regulated. Their competitors - Tesla, Google and the huge car manufacturers - all have billions of dollars to throw around. "The product to date has been a system that converts existing cars into self-driving cars down highways. ... There are sensor units that go on top of the car near the windshield and then there are actuators that control the steering and driving. There’s also a computer that goes in the trunk... The plan had been to sell Cruise systems for $10,000 each." This doesn't sound like it would get significant acceptance from the public. Are people going to be comfortable getting third-party modifications done on their cars, which would be of unknown quality and safety and surely invalidate their cars' warranties?

abrichr 11y ago
I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that there is already a very large market of people who like to tinker with cars. Imagine a self-driving Delorean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_DMC-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_DMC-12)
4927a15fe7b0c35 11y ago
I agree, it doesn't sound like much money. Their poaching of Tesla's head of Autopilot R&D is very interesting though, and is definitely a sign of confidence. I think you're making quite a few assumptions though: (a) Getting third party modifications to make your current car self-driving may look crazy today, but when self-driving cars become more of a thing, it'll certainly be a more attractive option when compared to buying a new car altogether. (b) Right now the quality and safety are unknown, but assuredly they won't be in the future. I'm sure these devices will be tested thoroughly and have to meet specific regulations. (c) I'm not sure they would void the warranty, it would depend on a lot of factors. Regardless, the article hints at an upcoming pivot from Cruise, so the described product may not even hit the market.
- x5n1 11y ago
  That sort of company usually gets picked up by existing manufacturers. Like perhaps Chinese or Indian manufacturers who will be late to the game. It's a good idea to go this route.
rasz_pl 11y ago
Im guessing the play is to be purchased by Uber for ridiculous amount of money.

Animats 11y ago

All "Cruise" seems to be talking about is lane keeping plus radar cruise control. BMW, Buick, Cadillac, and Volvo had that years ago. Mercedes is shipping it now. The big problem is keeping drivers from relying too much on a dumb system that almost works[1]. Everyone with a clue in the industry realizes the problem. Semi-automatic driving, with the expectation that the driver is alert and ready to take over, is an accident waiting to happen. Mercedes has a device to check if hands are on the wheel. (See video below for someone defeating that.) Cadillac has a seat vibrator. Most of those semi-auto systems are unable to detect junk such as a mattress on the highway, deer, pedestrians, and work crews. They assume a benign freeway environment. Most won't engage in a non-freeway environment. What bothers me about "Cruise" is that they promote this assist technology as a full self-driving system, like what Google and CMU/Cadillac have in test. See the Cruise ad.[2] The NTSB defines four levels of self-driving: 0 - manual 1 - Function-specific Automation (example: anti-collision radar braking.) 2 - Combined Function Automation (adaptive cruise control plus lane centering.) (current Mercedes, etc. level) 3 - Limited Self-Driving Automation (still needs a driver available to take over.) (current Google level) 4 - Full self-driving automation (driver does nothing, may not even be present) (Google is trying to get there for 25MPH cars.) Cruise is at level 2, but advertises as if at level 3. Driving a level 2 car and thinking it's a level 3 car is deadly. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9JYqhFV-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9JYqhFV-M [2] http://www.getcruise.com/ http://www.getcruise.com/

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kvogt 11y ago
We completely agree with your safety concerns (along with those of many others we've spoken to in the industry). That's one of the reasons we haven't released a product that works in the way currently advertised on our website. While NHTSA has begun thinking about autonomous vehicle safety, there is still much to be done. We plan to release some of our thoughts about this in the next couple of months.
- 11y ago

ciumonk 11y ago

"I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that there is already a very large market of people who like to tinker with cars. Imagine a self-driving Delorean" Or my own version, a level 3-ish self-driving 1977 VW Rabbit :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCE35zbkciU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCE35zbkciU

hippich 11y ago
Tell us more, please!! =)

natewevans 11y ago

Congrats to the team! Best of luck!

cmansley 11y ago

"Vogt couldn’t change lanes because of California state law around autonomous vehicles" This statement is complete bullshit. The California DMV doesn't have any clear details defining operations of vehicles at this point in time. They only have rules about what is required to test on public roads. This includes 5 million dollar bond, applying for permit, etc...[1] This statement alone (if correct from the reporter) makes me nervous about the amount of spin going on. [1] : http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-...

kvogt 11y ago
To clarify, the California DMV carefully defines an "Autonomous vehicle" but has carve outs for collision avoidance systems [1]. While adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist are mentioned explicitly as collision avoidance systems, automatic lane changing is not. So we weren't comfortable adding that feature until the DMV published their regulations for the operation of Autonomous Vehicles (which still hasn't happened) and we met those requirements. [1] : https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/bkgd https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/bkgd

mmmBacon 11y ago

Exactly how have they taken the lead here? They bought a bunch of bolt-on stuff and slapped together some software that works in a very limited way. Am I missing something?

btian 11y ago
They're basically developing an after market adaptive cruise control + lane centering system. Not revolutionary, but can be very useful nevertheless.

plonh 11y ago

Can someone explain how Google's long running car program fits in? Does Googe license patents (or map data, or...) to companies? Is Google car a PR thing that isn't competitive with the auto industry? Is Google hoping to leapfrog over all the "assisted driving" tech to be the first fully autonomous car?