4 ms·

Lidar doesn't make sense for Tesla with the failure rate alone. They're mechanical devices, and they often have defects when produced at scale. They need to be

by CardenB 10y ago

Lidar doesn't make sense for Tesla with the failure rate alone. They're mechanical devices, and they often have defects when produced at scale. They need to be replaced very often. This makes sense when you're doing vehicles as a service, but not as much for Tesla's use case.

phreeza 10y ago
What about the solid state LIDAR mentioned by the GP?
- ilaksh 10y ago
  Needs to be mounted high up and then the car doesn't look cool anymore.
  - Animats 10y ago
    Once the cost goes down, multiple LIDAR units can be mounted behind the windshield. Cars designed for automatic driving should reserve the top inch or so of the windshield for sensors, with the optical sensor suite mounted at the front edge of the roof and covered with padding matched to the headliner. (Yes, auto glass today is often infrared-opaque to reduce heat input, but the IR-opaque layer could be omitted for the top inch.) Putting cameras behind the rear view mirror is already done, but more space may be needed. The rotating Velodyne thing Google uses is an interim research tool. In production, expect to see better design. With enough LIDAR units, full-circle coverage can be achieved. This is already being done with cameras. The rear and side units need less power and range than the front-facing units, so they can have a smaller collecting aperture, making them easier to place. For the front-facing units, the emitter can be spread out, allowing higher power. The rules on eye safety are concerned with the maximum power coming through a 1/4" hole (human eye pupil). If the laser emitters are spread out over the width of the windshield, the maximum power per unit area is reduced. The CMU/Cadillac demo a few years ago managed to conceal all the sensors. It can be done. It just costs too much until one of the three companies claiming to be building low-cost automotive LIDARs Real Soon Now manages to deliver.
    - sharmajai 10y ago
      > Once the cost goes down... > ...expect to see better design. > ...costs too much until one of the three companies claiming to be building low-cost automotive LIDARs Real Soon Now manages to deliver. All I see is future promises. Tesla wants to do this now, that too at mass market costs, independent of whether those promises materialize or not. It also depends on how much you trust their R&D team. If they thought this was a week sensor suite and something else was just around the corner, they won't risk fitting their cars with inferior technology which would be obsolete in a couple of years, making all the collected data worthless. Yes I am aware they did this to existing cars lacking the full autonomy hardware, but I find that OK, since, for them, they never promised full autonomy to begin with.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        > It also depends on how much you trust their R&D team R&D doesn't make top-level budget decisions. If the product fails, that's on Musk and Musk alone. He takes credit for its successes. He can take responsibility for its failures too, as we would expect from any respectable CEO.
      - Animats 10y ago
        No, Tesla doesn't want to do automatic driving now. They want to hype it now. The software isn't ready yet. In their announcement, they say that the new hardware will, right now, support fewer automatic driving features than the current hardware. Low-cost LIDAR is a problem that can be solved with money and a customer ready to buy a lot of units. So far, no car company has said "we'll take a million units a year at $100 if they meet these specs." It's lack of demand, not lack of technology. It's a risk for the LIDAR maker. There are automotive radars available better than those currently on cars, but they don't have a volume buyer yet.
        sharmajai 10y ago
        You provided no evidence for the hype claim but even then you are contradicting yourself: Statement A: Tesla is just hyping autonomous driving since no technology can deliver fully autonomous driving right now. Statement ~A: Low-cost LIDAR is available to any high-volume customer, of which Tesla is one, given Model 3 demand. And LIDAR can deliver fully autonomous driving. The point simply being, I have a hard time believing that even with good-looking, cheap LIDAR being a possibility, as you claim, Tesla chose to go with an inferior sensor suite, for no apparent reason.
  - aedron 10y ago
    As far as I understood the Volvo LIDAR is windshield mounted? http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/web/516/11702_15456.jpg http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/web/516/11702_15456.jpg
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    Making the necessary gubbins look cool is a job for the company's designers. Spinny LIDAR on top is never gonna look cool unless your aesthetic is "Ghostbusters", but it's also already looking technologically obsolete.
  - blacksmythe 10y ago
    >> then the car doesn't look cool anymore. This doesn't look cool either: >> There are videos of three separate Tesla crashes where the Tesla plowed into a vehicle partially blocking a lane.

by CardenB 10y ago

phreeza 10y ago

What about the solid state LIDAR mentioned by the GP?

ilaksh 10y ago
Needs to be mounted high up and then the car doesn't look cool anymore.
- Animats 10y ago
  Once the cost goes down, multiple LIDAR units can be mounted behind the windshield. Cars designed for automatic driving should reserve the top inch or so of the windshield for sensors, with the optical sensor suite mounted at the front edge of the roof and covered with padding matched to the headliner. (Yes, auto glass today is often infrared-opaque to reduce heat input, but the IR-opaque layer could be omitted for the top inch.) Putting cameras behind the rear view mirror is already done, but more space may be needed. The rotating Velodyne thing Google uses is an interim research tool. In production, expect to see better design. With enough LIDAR units, full-circle coverage can be achieved. This is already being done with cameras. The rear and side units need less power and range than the front-facing units, so they can have a smaller collecting aperture, making them easier to place. For the front-facing units, the emitter can be spread out, allowing higher power. The rules on eye safety are concerned with the maximum power coming through a 1/4" hole (human eye pupil). If the laser emitters are spread out over the width of the windshield, the maximum power per unit area is reduced. The CMU/Cadillac demo a few years ago managed to conceal all the sensors. It can be done. It just costs too much until one of the three companies claiming to be building low-cost automotive LIDARs Real Soon Now manages to deliver.
  - sharmajai 10y ago
    > Once the cost goes down... > ...expect to see better design. > ...costs too much until one of the three companies claiming to be building low-cost automotive LIDARs Real Soon Now manages to deliver. All I see is future promises. Tesla wants to do this now, that too at mass market costs, independent of whether those promises materialize or not. It also depends on how much you trust their R&D team. If they thought this was a week sensor suite and something else was just around the corner, they won't risk fitting their cars with inferior technology which would be obsolete in a couple of years, making all the collected data worthless. Yes I am aware they did this to existing cars lacking the full autonomy hardware, but I find that OK, since, for them, they never promised full autonomy to begin with.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > It also depends on how much you trust their R&D team R&D doesn't make top-level budget decisions. If the product fails, that's on Musk and Musk alone. He takes credit for its successes. He can take responsibility for its failures too, as we would expect from any respectable CEO.
    - Animats 10y ago
      No, Tesla doesn't want to do automatic driving now. They want to hype it now. The software isn't ready yet. In their announcement, they say that the new hardware will, right now, support fewer automatic driving features than the current hardware. Low-cost LIDAR is a problem that can be solved with money and a customer ready to buy a lot of units. So far, no car company has said "we'll take a million units a year at $100 if they meet these specs." It's lack of demand, not lack of technology. It's a risk for the LIDAR maker. There are automotive radars available better than those currently on cars, but they don't have a volume buyer yet.
      - sharmajai 10y ago
        You provided no evidence for the hype claim but even then you are contradicting yourself: Statement A: Tesla is just hyping autonomous driving since no technology can deliver fully autonomous driving right now. Statement ~A: Low-cost LIDAR is available to any high-volume customer, of which Tesla is one, given Model 3 demand. And LIDAR can deliver fully autonomous driving. The point simply being, I have a hard time believing that even with good-looking, cheap LIDAR being a possibility, as you claim, Tesla chose to go with an inferior sensor suite, for no apparent reason.
- aedron 10y ago
  As far as I understood the Volvo LIDAR is windshield mounted? http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/web/516/11702_15456.jpg http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/web/516/11702_15456.jpg
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Making the necessary gubbins look cool is a job for the company's designers. Spinny LIDAR on top is never gonna look cool unless your aesthetic is "Ghostbusters", but it's also already looking technologically obsolete.
- blacksmythe 10y ago
  >> then the car doesn't look cool anymore. This doesn't look cool either: >> There are videos of three separate Tesla crashes where the Tesla plowed into a vehicle partially blocking a lane.