42 ms·

Lidar might have dropped in price, but please show me the Lidar that can produce that quality output, is incredibly cheap, easy to manufacture and integrate int

Lidar might have dropped in price, but please show me the Lidar that can produce that quality output, is incredibly cheap, easy to manufacture and integrate into the car and available millions of time by next year. And it would be great if it something that almost never broke as things that move a lot tend to. As far as I know static lidar are nowhere near as good. Then if the difference in quality is not actually that great, doing the development effort once will scale to millions of cars the next few years. So we are literally talking many, many years of millions of lidars produced and integrated (and not replacing other sensors) to maybe have a slightly better outcome. However that depends on your sensor fusion and how the lidar handles weather conditions and other complexities. But I am sure its all ego.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> And it would be great if it something that almost never broke as things that move a lot tend to. As far as I know static lidar are nowhere near as good. Keep in mind you're saying this about something that attaches to a car, which already has dozens or hundreds of parts that rotate at hundreds or thousands of RPM. > Then if the difference in quality is not actually that great, doing the development effort once will scale to millions of cars the next few years The adage "do things that don't scale" comes to mind. If your options are "have tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles" or "have none", I'm not sure how the second is better. And we know that hundreds of thousands or even millions of lidar units are being produced (cruise and waymo and co have multiple units per vehicle and collectively hundreds of thousands of vehicles).
- panick21 5y ago
  Adding more rotating parts is exactly what you are trying to avoid. For example, go look at how Tesla designed the heating and cooling system. The integrated all the different streams of hot and cold in one system duplicate these parts that can break easily. In some cases it can simply not be avoided of course but you better make sure that you really need it if you are gone add it to millions of cars. > cruise and waymo and co have multiple units per vehicle and collectively hundreds of thousands of vehicles Waymo has vehicle count of a few 1000s as far as I know. I don't know about cruise but I don't think the have even 100k vehicles. Please show me a source. And even if that were the case, the build those fleets of quite a long time and the cost per vehicle they currently have is nowhere near close to what would be possible for a car like the Model 3 or future cheaper models. Margins in car industry are incredibly tight, car companies invest gigantic amount of capital to remove a few $ per car. These vehicles need to be able to be produced at a run rate of millions per year. If you are proposing to add something that cost 100-1000$ that is a absolute killer. In addition its an additional part that can hold up your production. This current chip shortage is a perfect example where having a Lidar would just introduce a whole host of new chips that might be in a shortage.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    You didn't really address the meat of the comment: The adage "do things that don't scale" comes to mind. If your options are "have tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles" or "have none", I'm not sure how the second is better. Waymo and cruise especially, but even a number of others, have demonstrated better autonomy than Tesla. Musk has been claiming full self driving is 6 months away for 5 years now, and he hasn't gotten that much closer.
    - panick21 5y ago
      > Waymo and cruise especially, but even a number of others, have demonstrated better autonomy than Tesla. Have they? They have a different approach where they focus huge effort on individual Geo-fenced locations and they both are losing 100M of $ every year. Neither has given any timeline for general availability in all locations. The race, as far as I am concerned is still open. It is not at all clear to me that Waymo is ahead at what actually matters. > Musk has been claiming full self driving is 6 months away for 5 years now, and he hasn't gotten that much closer. The claim they made no progress is objectively false.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > They have a different approach where they focus huge effort on individual Geo-fenced locations Where they actually have driverless vehicles. That's the key difference. Waymo and cruise have demonstrated driverless vehicles. People get driverless taxi rides today from waymo, and I think cruise as well. Tesla doesn't. It's still sitting in driver assist land and isn't particularly better than other luxury vehicle driver assist. > The claim they made no progress is objectively false. Thankfully that's not what I said.
        tibyat 5y ago
        Then this would be a wonderful place to put your ego down and better explain what point you were making, because that's how "hasn't gotten that much closer" reads.
c-cube 5y ago
Just because not needing lidar would be great for Tesla, doesn't make it real. That's wishful thinking. Tesla is not entitled to a well working lidar-free solution just because they need to sell cars right now.
- panick21 5y ago
  Can you point me to literally any evidence what so ever that the results fake? Is the FSD Beta regularly crashing into things it put at the wrong range? Tesla has cars with Lidar on the road to check the models as well. And who says anything about entitled, they have spent a huge amount of effort and therefore money into a solution that they think will be better. Nobody with Lidar has delivered either so what is better is still an open question. Tesla has picked their strategy and working on it. Others do the same. My point is simply, not that Tesla has the perfect solution, rather the idea that Tesla is operating based on 'ego' is idiotic. Elon Musk and his companies have repeatably shown that they are very willing, comically so, to throw away work and go back to the beginning if they have encountered a problem. E lon is well known for not falling into the sunk cost fallacy. Consider the manufacturing of Model 3. Consider Starship being planned to be built from carbon fiber, and switching to stainless steel. Do you really believe they know lidar would be better and they not changing because of what Musk said 4 years ago? That is literally the opposite of how his company have operated.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > Is the FSD Beta regularly crashing into things it put at the wrong range? As a matter of fact, yes: self-driving Teslas have been crashing into emergency vehicles so often, they are being investigated[1] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28197355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28197355
    - Cogito 5y ago
      Just in case you missed it, the person you're replying to asked a focused question about the new FSD Beta software. The investigation you reference stems from previous versions of the softawre. The broader context can't be ignored when discussing the new software, but it's reasonable to point to progress as demonstration that the chosen technology path is a viable one.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> And it would be great if it something that almost never broke as things that move a lot tend to. As far as I know static lidar are nowhere near as good. Keep in mind you're saying this about something that attaches to a car, which already has dozens or hundreds of parts that rotate at hundreds or thousands of RPM. > Then if the difference in quality is not actually that great, doing the development effort once will scale to millions of cars the next few years The adage "do things that don't scale" comes to mind. If your options are "have tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles" or "have none", I'm not sure how the second is better. And we know that hundreds of thousands or even millions of lidar units are being produced (cruise and waymo and co have multiple units per vehicle and collectively hundreds of thousands of vehicles).

panick21 5y ago
Adding more rotating parts is exactly what you are trying to avoid. For example, go look at how Tesla designed the heating and cooling system. The integrated all the different streams of hot and cold in one system duplicate these parts that can break easily. In some cases it can simply not be avoided of course but you better make sure that you really need it if you are gone add it to millions of cars. > cruise and waymo and co have multiple units per vehicle and collectively hundreds of thousands of vehicles Waymo has vehicle count of a few 1000s as far as I know. I don't know about cruise but I don't think the have even 100k vehicles. Please show me a source. And even if that were the case, the build those fleets of quite a long time and the cost per vehicle they currently have is nowhere near close to what would be possible for a car like the Model 3 or future cheaper models. Margins in car industry are incredibly tight, car companies invest gigantic amount of capital to remove a few $ per car. These vehicles need to be able to be produced at a run rate of millions per year. If you are proposing to add something that cost 100-1000$ that is a absolute killer. In addition its an additional part that can hold up your production. This current chip shortage is a perfect example where having a Lidar would just introduce a whole host of new chips that might be in a shortage.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  You didn't really address the meat of the comment: The adage "do things that don't scale" comes to mind. If your options are "have tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles" or "have none", I'm not sure how the second is better. Waymo and cruise especially, but even a number of others, have demonstrated better autonomy than Tesla. Musk has been claiming full self driving is 6 months away for 5 years now, and he hasn't gotten that much closer.
  - panick21 5y ago
    > Waymo and cruise especially, but even a number of others, have demonstrated better autonomy than Tesla. Have they? They have a different approach where they focus huge effort on individual Geo-fenced locations and they both are losing 100M of $ every year. Neither has given any timeline for general availability in all locations. The race, as far as I am concerned is still open. It is not at all clear to me that Waymo is ahead at what actually matters. > Musk has been claiming full self driving is 6 months away for 5 years now, and he hasn't gotten that much closer. The claim they made no progress is objectively false.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > They have a different approach where they focus huge effort on individual Geo-fenced locations Where they actually have driverless vehicles. That's the key difference. Waymo and cruise have demonstrated driverless vehicles. People get driverless taxi rides today from waymo, and I think cruise as well. Tesla doesn't. It's still sitting in driver assist land and isn't particularly better than other luxury vehicle driver assist. > The claim they made no progress is objectively false. Thankfully that's not what I said.
      - tibyat 5y ago
        Then this would be a wonderful place to put your ego down and better explain what point you were making, because that's how "hasn't gotten that much closer" reads.

c-cube 5y ago

Just because not needing lidar would be great for Tesla, doesn't make it real. That's wishful thinking. Tesla is not entitled to a well working lidar-free solution just because they need to sell cars right now.

panick21 5y ago
Can you point me to literally any evidence what so ever that the results fake? Is the FSD Beta regularly crashing into things it put at the wrong range? Tesla has cars with Lidar on the road to check the models as well. And who says anything about entitled, they have spent a huge amount of effort and therefore money into a solution that they think will be better. Nobody with Lidar has delivered either so what is better is still an open question. Tesla has picked their strategy and working on it. Others do the same. My point is simply, not that Tesla has the perfect solution, rather the idea that Tesla is operating based on 'ego' is idiotic. Elon Musk and his companies have repeatably shown that they are very willing, comically so, to throw away work and go back to the beginning if they have encountered a problem. E lon is well known for not falling into the sunk cost fallacy. Consider the manufacturing of Model 3. Consider Starship being planned to be built from carbon fiber, and switching to stainless steel. Do you really believe they know lidar would be better and they not changing because of what Musk said 4 years ago? That is literally the opposite of how his company have operated.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > Is the FSD Beta regularly crashing into things it put at the wrong range? As a matter of fact, yes: self-driving Teslas have been crashing into emergency vehicles so often, they are being investigated[1] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28197355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28197355
  - Cogito 5y ago
    Just in case you missed it, the person you're replying to asked a focused question about the new FSD Beta software. The investigation you reference stems from previous versions of the softawre. The broader context can't be ignored when discussing the new software, but it's reasonable to point to progress as demonstration that the chosen technology path is a viable one.