6 ms·

I see it more as a hedge. I think the prevailing opinion is growing bearish on fully self driving cars. great progress has been made, but as we (the public, at

I see it more as a hedge. I think the prevailing opinion is growing bearish on fully self driving cars. great progress has been made, but as we (the public, at least) learn more, it just seems like production ready vehicles are further away. my take is that the technology is too valuable (and disruptive) to not invest at all, but so expensive and far away that it doesn't make sense for an established manufacturer to give it the full court press.

electriclove 7y ago
I agree it's a hedge.. but for a slightly different reason. The legacy automakers have been fighting BEVs and though they have made many announcements, they really don't offer (and don't want to offer) much in the US that isn't a compliance car. They have been teasing upcoming concepts and electrification (code word for hybrid) because they are trying to prevent disruption of their (automakers, fuel suppliers, trucking, dealerships, gas stations, unions, etc) status quo. With every milestone that is being made by Tesla, Waymo, etc, they are more at risk. This is them hedging against change. "If things truly change, we'll work together and be able to catch up."
- organsnyder 7y ago
  I think they're reacting to what they perceive as market demand. What they often don't seem to realize is that they have the ability to alter market demand—and if they don't, their competitors will do it for them. It's the same story as Apple in its heydays (the two Jobs eras): they radically altered the markets for PCs, MP3 players, and smartphones, largely by realizing that they had the ability to do so.
  - derekp7 7y ago
    The problem is that batteries are too expensive, too heavy, and they wear down eventually. Not only is there the market demand, but there is also the fears of consumer backlash if they don't (or can't) get it 150% correct. Remember the beating that GM took with diesel cars back in the 80's? Here's the items that need to be overcome: 1) For consumers that don't have a garage, they have to use public charging infrastructure. 2) For those who charge at home, if they do any extended driving they need to use public charging infrastructure 3) The current public charging infrastructure doesn't charge fast enough. For case 2, you can get by (sometimes) with charging at 150 miles in half an hour. Not acceptable for case 1. 4) Most importantly, battery wear and cost. Let's say a battery that costs 30K, for 300 miles range, lasts 10 years. Cost of a "fill up" (300 miles) is about $12.00 of electricity, and $60.00 of wear on the battery. Yes, the battery isn't totally worn down, but they are less useful for automotive use if the capacity is significantly lessened. Now the larger the battery size, you can get by with charging to 80% capacity, and discharging to about 15%. This still significantly increase the longevity, but the cost structure is such that 200 mile batteries (or lower) is all you find in "affordable" electric vehicles. So for this to really take off, I believe you need a battery capacity of 500 miles, at a cost of 15k, with charging time of 300 miles range in 15 minutes. (Tesla is there on the charging time with their one example of a "1000 mph" charger, so hopefully this will be rolled out to the wider public across more manufacturers).
    - woodandsteel 7y ago
      >The problem is that batteries are too expensive Battery costs have been dropping rapidly, %35 in the last year alone. Starting around 2023 they will be low enough that the sticker price for an EV will be about equal to a comparable ICE car. Given that EV operating costs are considerably lower, and that governments around the world are pushing EV's, sales of them are going to skyrocket. The big manufacturers have recently realized this, which is why they are switching their EV programs into high gear.
nscalf 7y ago
That's what you think being more tuned in. Most of the people I talk to seem to think it's right around the corner. I think that's because Elon Musk does a good job of making everyone hear him say it's nearly there. If anything, I think it's the opposite. I think they both see production ready AI and being almost here, and they don't have time to figure it out themselves.
- Retric 7y ago
  Full self driving may be a long way away, but driver assist like lane departure and automatic breaking have become major selling points. Further, in customers minds the features are binary rather than something where a slightly better version becomes a selling point. This makes joint ventures a win/win as they reduce the risk of being left behind while significantly reducing R&D costs.
- simion314 7y ago
  Agree, it can't be ready while you have to ignore static objects because the hardware and software is to weak to handle them IMO (please Tesla/Elon fans don't downvote an opinion without letting me know why you thing I am wrong and start a discussions, most of the downvotes I get are on my comments about Tesla's autopilot and Apple's hardware )
  - Retric 7y ago
    From a car companies standpoint, good enough for many people to want to buy and use them is threshold, not good enough that you feel comfortable. Being what I would consider a beta tester for self driving cars seems a silly risk. But, people also pay lots of money driving vintage cars without modern safety systems which seems insane to me.
    - simion314 7y ago
      It can backfire, you need that instead of some random person killed by "autopilot" a bus with children, a family with children or some popular person gets killed, then you will get a ton of bad press like Boeing 747 MAX gets, everyone finding all the shorcuts you made and safety things you ignored for money.
bluGill 7y ago
The real risk isn't that self driving cars will come, it is that they will come and prove enough safer than human drivers (a low bar) the governments ban all sales of new cars without it. At which point whoever has patents can make a killing licensing them. Car makers can hedge this risk cheap today by getting an alliance with someone who has patents thus ensuring if that risk happens they already have access to key patents either directly or by cross licensing. If self driving cars are only equal to good human drivers in risk it is could be a fad.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  There is not really any precedent for banning manual cars from the road. The closest may be the ban on non-motorized vehicles from limited access highways. Automated cars, if/when they are released, will always have to contend with human drivers. Also, PR is pretty sensitive for automated cars. They can't just be statistically equal to human drivers, they have to be at least an order of magnitude better and they cannot afford to make any obvious errors that a sober human would not. Especially if it results in a fatality.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    There is precedent for requiring seat belts and air bags. It probably needs an order of magnitude better, but if that can be shown all new cars will be self driving by law. Note that the ban isn't on all cars on the road, it is all new cars. 15-20 years latter it will come to all cars when human driven cars are mostly collectors items anyway. Until then self driving cars will need to deal with humans.
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      Anything could happen, but at this point we still allow horses and buggies to use the road. Once self-driving cars can adequately deal with unpredictable humans, most/all of the justification for banning manually driven cars goes away. Insurance may be more expensive, but at the high end it should not be any more expensive than it is today.
dageshi 7y ago
I'm thinking that all the countries that have passed legislation to ban new sales of ICE cars in 2040 is the issue here.
mensetmanusman 7y ago
I thought this too until AlphaGo. The prevailing mindset was ‘this will be solved in the next 20 years’ and then Boom! Happened in a year. What if WayMo just starts working next year? Would you really be surprised? The uptake will be ridiculously fast when it happens...

electriclove 7y ago

I agree it's a hedge.. but for a slightly different reason. The legacy automakers have been fighting BEVs and though they have made many announcements, they really don't offer (and don't want to offer) much in the US that isn't a compliance car. They have been teasing upcoming concepts and electrification (code word for hybrid) because they are trying to prevent disruption of their (automakers, fuel suppliers, trucking, dealerships, gas stations, unions, etc) status quo. With every milestone that is being made by Tesla, Waymo, etc, they are more at risk. This is them hedging against change. "If things truly change, we'll work together and be able to catch up."

organsnyder 7y ago
I think they're reacting to what they perceive as market demand. What they often don't seem to realize is that they have the ability to alter market demand—and if they don't, their competitors will do it for them. It's the same story as Apple in its heydays (the two Jobs eras): they radically altered the markets for PCs, MP3 players, and smartphones, largely by realizing that they had the ability to do so.
- derekp7 7y ago
  The problem is that batteries are too expensive, too heavy, and they wear down eventually. Not only is there the market demand, but there is also the fears of consumer backlash if they don't (or can't) get it 150% correct. Remember the beating that GM took with diesel cars back in the 80's? Here's the items that need to be overcome: 1) For consumers that don't have a garage, they have to use public charging infrastructure. 2) For those who charge at home, if they do any extended driving they need to use public charging infrastructure 3) The current public charging infrastructure doesn't charge fast enough. For case 2, you can get by (sometimes) with charging at 150 miles in half an hour. Not acceptable for case 1. 4) Most importantly, battery wear and cost. Let's say a battery that costs 30K, for 300 miles range, lasts 10 years. Cost of a "fill up" (300 miles) is about $12.00 of electricity, and $60.00 of wear on the battery. Yes, the battery isn't totally worn down, but they are less useful for automotive use if the capacity is significantly lessened. Now the larger the battery size, you can get by with charging to 80% capacity, and discharging to about 15%. This still significantly increase the longevity, but the cost structure is such that 200 mile batteries (or lower) is all you find in "affordable" electric vehicles. So for this to really take off, I believe you need a battery capacity of 500 miles, at a cost of 15k, with charging time of 300 miles range in 15 minutes. (Tesla is there on the charging time with their one example of a "1000 mph" charger, so hopefully this will be rolled out to the wider public across more manufacturers).
  - woodandsteel 7y ago
    >The problem is that batteries are too expensive Battery costs have been dropping rapidly, %35 in the last year alone. Starting around 2023 they will be low enough that the sticker price for an EV will be about equal to a comparable ICE car. Given that EV operating costs are considerably lower, and that governments around the world are pushing EV's, sales of them are going to skyrocket. The big manufacturers have recently realized this, which is why they are switching their EV programs into high gear.

nscalf 7y ago

That's what you think being more tuned in. Most of the people I talk to seem to think it's right around the corner. I think that's because Elon Musk does a good job of making everyone hear him say it's nearly there. If anything, I think it's the opposite. I think they both see production ready AI and being almost here, and they don't have time to figure it out themselves.

Retric 7y ago
Full self driving may be a long way away, but driver assist like lane departure and automatic breaking have become major selling points. Further, in customers minds the features are binary rather than something where a slightly better version becomes a selling point. This makes joint ventures a win/win as they reduce the risk of being left behind while significantly reducing R&D costs.
simion314 7y ago
Agree, it can't be ready while you have to ignore static objects because the hardware and software is to weak to handle them IMO (please Tesla/Elon fans don't downvote an opinion without letting me know why you thing I am wrong and start a discussions, most of the downvotes I get are on my comments about Tesla's autopilot and Apple's hardware )
- Retric 7y ago
  From a car companies standpoint, good enough for many people to want to buy and use them is threshold, not good enough that you feel comfortable. Being what I would consider a beta tester for self driving cars seems a silly risk. But, people also pay lots of money driving vintage cars without modern safety systems which seems insane to me.
  - simion314 7y ago
    It can backfire, you need that instead of some random person killed by "autopilot" a bus with children, a family with children or some popular person gets killed, then you will get a ton of bad press like Boeing 747 MAX gets, everyone finding all the shorcuts you made and safety things you ignored for money.

bluGill 7y ago

The real risk isn't that self driving cars will come, it is that they will come and prove enough safer than human drivers (a low bar) the governments ban all sales of new cars without it. At which point whoever has patents can make a killing licensing them. Car makers can hedge this risk cheap today by getting an alliance with someone who has patents thus ensuring if that risk happens they already have access to key patents either directly or by cross licensing. If self driving cars are only equal to good human drivers in risk it is could be a fad.

rootusrootus 7y ago
There is not really any precedent for banning manual cars from the road. The closest may be the ban on non-motorized vehicles from limited access highways. Automated cars, if/when they are released, will always have to contend with human drivers. Also, PR is pretty sensitive for automated cars. They can't just be statistically equal to human drivers, they have to be at least an order of magnitude better and they cannot afford to make any obvious errors that a sober human would not. Especially if it results in a fatality.
- bluGill 7y ago
  There is precedent for requiring seat belts and air bags. It probably needs an order of magnitude better, but if that can be shown all new cars will be self driving by law. Note that the ban isn't on all cars on the road, it is all new cars. 15-20 years latter it will come to all cars when human driven cars are mostly collectors items anyway. Until then self driving cars will need to deal with humans.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Anything could happen, but at this point we still allow horses and buggies to use the road. Once self-driving cars can adequately deal with unpredictable humans, most/all of the justification for banning manually driven cars goes away. Insurance may be more expensive, but at the high end it should not be any more expensive than it is today.

dageshi 7y ago

I'm thinking that all the countries that have passed legislation to ban new sales of ICE cars in 2040 is the issue here.

mensetmanusman 7y ago

I thought this too until AlphaGo. The prevailing mindset was ‘this will be solved in the next 20 years’ and then Boom! Happened in a year. What if WayMo just starts working next year? Would you really be surprised? The uptake will be ridiculously fast when it happens...