11 ms·

Also that it is relatively fragile. It is one thing to have expensive precisions instruments, but in cars, they need to be able take the bumps, shakes and any o

Also that it is relatively fragile. It is one thing to have expensive precisions instruments, but in cars, they need to be able take the bumps, shakes and any other forces that the car takes. That can be tough on tiny bearings with low intended duty cycles. Of course, you can beef up all of that to make it last, but if you avoid mechanical components all together it is definitely better.

sliken 9y ago
Plenty of moving parts in a car, but the vast majority of them are metal and most with pretty forgiving tolerances. Fast spinning mirrors aren't particularly hard, but the tolerances are pretty unforgiving. Being able to tell if a car is partially in your lane at 200 meters is a pretty small angle. Cars take quite a bit of abuse over their 100-200k mile lifetime. Vibration (at numerous frequencies), huge temperature variations (120F to -20F or so). Not sure I buy that Lidar is better than cameras for cars. Especially since they are cheap enough for you to have a dozen of them. Better price point, and more likely to have the same limitations as eyes do (to fit social expectations). Sadly society seems more focused on failures than a strict rational decision of deciding if a technology is worthwhile based on the numbers of lives saved vs lost. Sure, if someone can make a solid state lidar using the lower frequency light (so they can use 40x stronger laser) it might compete. I'd still worry about blind spots because of fog, smog, snow, sleet, rain, blowing dust, sand storms, etc.