7 ms·

Curious though, would you buy this car over a Tesla (basing your decision on the self driving features only)? The reason I ask is because if I buy a Tesla, I ha

Curious though, would you buy this car over a Tesla (basing your decision on the self driving features only)? The reason I ask is because if I buy a Tesla, I have the idea that one day it will be completely self driving one day. With this Cadillac, I would expect it to only do this specific subset of self driving for the life of the car.

ghaff 9y ago
Probably the Cadillac. I have no expectation of a Tesla or anyone else having a 100% autonomous vehicle during the lifetime of current cars, much less one that it retrofitted to current hardware.
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
> I have the idea that one day it will be completely self driving one day Why do you think that? Can you explain how this would happen, when the car appears to lack the physical hardware (e.g. LIDARs, computing power) to do so in anything but clear conditions on highways? Moreover, why would Tesla be interested in doing so? They gain nothing, reduce a customer's desire to upgrade to the latest model, and put themselves into major extra liability if the system ever fucks up.
- trevyn 9y ago
  They would gain a massive fleet of self-driving cars overnight. Remember, Elon doesn’t think like other industrialists. I fully believe that he views profit as little more than a tool to reach his other goals. Also, having worked on autonomous vehicles, my opinion is that LIDAR is really overrated, and if compute power is an issue, that can be a straightforward modular upgrade.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Here's the thing: if upgrading the hardware is as straightforward as you say it is, than GM is in a far better position to provide true self-driving in its cars. After all, it's already got the hardware and hardpoints for installing hardware. Swapping out existing LIDAR arrays for newer arrays, or current processors for optimized self-driving processors, would be a piece of cake. Especially with GM's extremely large supply chain, capable of producing more cars in an hour than Tesla can produce in a year, and the corresponding parts for all of those cars.
  - bonestamp2 9y ago
    > LIDAR is really overrated Fair enough, although it does have better range than ultrasonic and it can see through rain/fog/snow better than cameras.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- icebraining 9y ago
  Tesla claims every new car already has the necessary hardware, and they're already pre-selling the upgrade. They could very well be lying, of course.
  - sf_rob 9y ago
    Which really means that a major motivator for Tesla at this point will be the threat of a class action lawsuit for selling a feature that doesn't exist and whose timeline keeps getting pushed back.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Too late: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-class-action-lawsuit-autopilot-2-2017-4 http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-class-action-lawsuit-aut...
- bluGill 9y ago
  Tesla is interested because cars are expensive enough that people don't completely replace them regularly - they might trade them in every 3 years, but they are able to trade them in because somebody else is willing to buy a 3 year old car. Thus for all car makers an important consideration is resale value - they don't directly gain anything from it, but they know if their cars have a poor resale value that translates into a lot of potential customers unable to afford to come back and buy a new car. Even if they do buy a new one they will look to a different brand with better resale because that resale value translates into cash into their pocket (there are a few rich exceptions but not enough to buy a large company on) All car makers would love it if they could reduce the lifespan of their car. I'm just old enough to remember my parents getting calls because a car was about to turn 100,000 miles - they would fill the car with people to see that event - they had to put oil in before and after that 10 mile drive, and you could see the road through the floor boards. Today even the worst cars are expected to make it to 200,000 miles with just minimal maintenance, and still meet emissions - this is to the auto makers loss. However if anyone tries to go down the road of planned obsolescence they rightly believe that will catch up to them. Gm still hasn't complete shaken that reputation - you can see it when they put a GM name on a Japanese car and it is rated lower in reliability than the maker's version.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  > Why do you think that? Can you explain how this would happen, when the car appears to lack the physical hardware You're thinking like the Javascript Generation. People do impossible things all the time on so-called "outdated" gear. And a Tesla is far from outdated. It could very well be a hardware problem that can be solved in software.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > Moreover, why would Tesla be interested in doing so? They gain nothing, reduce a customer's desire to upgrade to the latest model, and put themselves into major extra liability if the system ever fucks up. This keeps the vehicle resale value high, which constrains demand, which keeps their margins higher than all other auto manufacturers.
telchar 9y ago
As a Tesla model 3 reservation holder, I wish they would decide they're an electric car company, not an electric autonomous car company. I badly want the former. I'm not interested in the self-driving part until it's really good. This half-hearted level 2 stuff is uninteresting to me - I see it as dangerous and marginally useful. The fact that it comes with heavy handed control and surveillance by the company makes it worse. I'd rather wait 5-10 years for someone like Waymo to figure it out and then roll it out than see a car I really want today get crapped up with features that are incidental to its raison d'etre. Honestly this and the delays may be enough to make me cancel my res.
aetherson 9y ago
Nobody outside of Tesla appear to buy the idea that a car without LIDAR can be fully autonomous within a relevant timeline. I mean, sure, maybe we'll solve fully autonomy with only the limited sensors on a Tesla in 20 years, but question whether you will still have a car you buy tomorrow 20 years from now. Tesla claims that they can do it with the sensors they have, but please do note that none of the other autonomous vehicle players -- many of whom appear to have much more sophisticated offerings than Tesla -- think it can be done.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > but question whether you will still have a car you buy tomorrow 20 years from now I know I'm in the minority, but both of my cars that I drive are almost 20 years old (one's a 1999, the other a 2004). Prior to the 2004, I owned a truck from 1996 (ran great until I spun a journal bearing for no good reason). I also once owned a 1979 Ford Bronco...
013a 9y ago
Personally, neither. I strongly believe that the only autonomous tech a general purpose, manned car should ever have is assistive and emergency systems, not replicative systems. Meaning, collision breaking, lane-keep assist, road-departure warning, adaptive cruise, blind spot monitoring, etc. You can get these on an Accord nowadays. General purpose cars are used in too many situations for general purpose autonomous systems to operate in. Moreover, the addition of autonomous systems means that the human behind the wheel will be less vigilant about keeping themselves and other drivers safe. I very strongly believe that autonomous systems beyond L2 actually do not make the car safer, except in situations where the driver is impaired; they just make the car more convenient. L4 has definite possibility for things like uber where pickup and dropoff are within the same city. But it seems increasingly unlikely that we'll see L5 within our lifetimes, at least from any ethical company who doesn't oversell what the system is capable of.

ghaff 9y ago

Probably the Cadillac. I have no expectation of a Tesla or anyone else having a 100% autonomous vehicle during the lifetime of current cars, much less one that it retrofitted to current hardware.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago

> I have the idea that one day it will be completely self driving one day Why do you think that? Can you explain how this would happen, when the car appears to lack the physical hardware (e.g. LIDARs, computing power) to do so in anything but clear conditions on highways? Moreover, why would Tesla be interested in doing so? They gain nothing, reduce a customer's desire to upgrade to the latest model, and put themselves into major extra liability if the system ever fucks up.

trevyn 9y ago
They would gain a massive fleet of self-driving cars overnight. Remember, Elon doesn’t think like other industrialists. I fully believe that he views profit as little more than a tool to reach his other goals. Also, having worked on autonomous vehicles, my opinion is that LIDAR is really overrated, and if compute power is an issue, that can be a straightforward modular upgrade.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Here's the thing: if upgrading the hardware is as straightforward as you say it is, than GM is in a far better position to provide true self-driving in its cars. After all, it's already got the hardware and hardpoints for installing hardware. Swapping out existing LIDAR arrays for newer arrays, or current processors for optimized self-driving processors, would be a piece of cake. Especially with GM's extremely large supply chain, capable of producing more cars in an hour than Tesla can produce in a year, and the corresponding parts for all of those cars.
- bonestamp2 9y ago
  > LIDAR is really overrated Fair enough, although it does have better range than ultrasonic and it can see through rain/fog/snow better than cameras.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
icebraining 9y ago
Tesla claims every new car already has the necessary hardware, and they're already pre-selling the upgrade. They could very well be lying, of course.
- sf_rob 9y ago
  Which really means that a major motivator for Tesla at this point will be the threat of a class action lawsuit for selling a feature that doesn't exist and whose timeline keeps getting pushed back.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Too late: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-class-action-lawsuit-autopilot-2-2017-4 http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-class-action-lawsuit-aut...
bluGill 9y ago
Tesla is interested because cars are expensive enough that people don't completely replace them regularly - they might trade them in every 3 years, but they are able to trade them in because somebody else is willing to buy a 3 year old car. Thus for all car makers an important consideration is resale value - they don't directly gain anything from it, but they know if their cars have a poor resale value that translates into a lot of potential customers unable to afford to come back and buy a new car. Even if they do buy a new one they will look to a different brand with better resale because that resale value translates into cash into their pocket (there are a few rich exceptions but not enough to buy a large company on) All car makers would love it if they could reduce the lifespan of their car. I'm just old enough to remember my parents getting calls because a car was about to turn 100,000 miles - they would fill the car with people to see that event - they had to put oil in before and after that 10 mile drive, and you could see the road through the floor boards. Today even the worst cars are expected to make it to 200,000 miles with just minimal maintenance, and still meet emissions - this is to the auto makers loss. However if anyone tries to go down the road of planned obsolescence they rightly believe that will catch up to them. Gm still hasn't complete shaken that reputation - you can see it when they put a GM name on a Japanese car and it is rated lower in reliability than the maker's version.
reaperducer 9y ago
> Why do you think that? Can you explain how this would happen, when the car appears to lack the physical hardware You're thinking like the Javascript Generation. People do impossible things all the time on so-called "outdated" gear. And a Tesla is far from outdated. It could very well be a hardware problem that can be solved in software.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
> Moreover, why would Tesla be interested in doing so? They gain nothing, reduce a customer's desire to upgrade to the latest model, and put themselves into major extra liability if the system ever fucks up. This keeps the vehicle resale value high, which constrains demand, which keeps their margins higher than all other auto manufacturers.

telchar 9y ago

As a Tesla model 3 reservation holder, I wish they would decide they're an electric car company, not an electric autonomous car company. I badly want the former. I'm not interested in the self-driving part until it's really good. This half-hearted level 2 stuff is uninteresting to me - I see it as dangerous and marginally useful. The fact that it comes with heavy handed control and surveillance by the company makes it worse. I'd rather wait 5-10 years for someone like Waymo to figure it out and then roll it out than see a car I really want today get crapped up with features that are incidental to its raison d'etre. Honestly this and the delays may be enough to make me cancel my res.

aetherson 9y ago

Nobody outside of Tesla appear to buy the idea that a car without LIDAR can be fully autonomous within a relevant timeline. I mean, sure, maybe we'll solve fully autonomy with only the limited sensors on a Tesla in 20 years, but question whether you will still have a car you buy tomorrow 20 years from now. Tesla claims that they can do it with the sensors they have, but please do note that none of the other autonomous vehicle players -- many of whom appear to have much more sophisticated offerings than Tesla -- think it can be done.

cr0sh 9y ago
> but question whether you will still have a car you buy tomorrow 20 years from now I know I'm in the minority, but both of my cars that I drive are almost 20 years old (one's a 1999, the other a 2004). Prior to the 2004, I owned a truck from 1996 (ran great until I spun a journal bearing for no good reason). I also once owned a 1979 Ford Bronco...

013a 9y ago

Personally, neither. I strongly believe that the only autonomous tech a general purpose, manned car should ever have is assistive and emergency systems, not replicative systems. Meaning, collision breaking, lane-keep assist, road-departure warning, adaptive cruise, blind spot monitoring, etc. You can get these on an Accord nowadays. General purpose cars are used in too many situations for general purpose autonomous systems to operate in. Moreover, the addition of autonomous systems means that the human behind the wheel will be less vigilant about keeping themselves and other drivers safe. I very strongly believe that autonomous systems beyond L2 actually do not make the car safer, except in situations where the driver is impaired; they just make the car more convenient. L4 has definite possibility for things like uber where pickup and dropoff are within the same city. But it seems increasingly unlikely that we'll see L5 within our lifetimes, at least from any ethical company who doesn't oversell what the system is capable of.