4 ms·

What's happening in their engineering org is obvious: pressure is being applied to trim every unnecessary cost, even tiny ones, to maximize profit margin. And t

What's happening in their engineering org is obvious: pressure is being applied to trim every unnecessary cost, even tiny ones, to maximize profit margin. And this pressure is clearly coming from the top. We've seen evidence of this from a number of high-profile changes that can't have escaped the notice of executive management: (1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks. What's different in this case is that now these penny-ante cost savings have reached safety-critical components.

antonkochubey 3y ago
I'd argue that physical stalks for windshield wipers and turn signals are also safety-critical.
- canadianfella 3y ago
  [dead]
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks. I remember reading about the removal of the turn-signal stalk, (moving it to buttons on the steering wheel itself) and IMO it's just bonkers. How the heck is someone already in some squiggly turns or a roundabout supposed to identify and touch the correct spot without taking their eyes off the twisting road or compromising their grip on the wheel that wants to return to the neutral position?
Tempest1981 3y ago
We've heard for years that this is also the case at all US auto manufacturers. That they're run by accountants, not enthusiasts.
- organsnyder 3y ago
  Most accountants understand the financial implications of selling products with egregious safety issues.
  - eep_social 3y ago
    indeed: “.. should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.”
nebula8804 3y ago
>(1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks Alternative explanation of this is if they have a vision to move users to a self driving future, it makes sense to start slowly transitioning users by eliminating things that don't make sense in that paradigm. If you can save some cost then its a bonus. (Their cars supposedly get ~30% margins so idk if cost was even really a primary rather than a secondary consideration).
- bamboozled 3y ago
  A break peddle in very important while it’s needed. It is needed.
- jorvi 3y ago
  Having radar allows you to do neat tricks like bounce the signal off of the bottom of the car in front of you, meaning your car can detect slowdowns and collisions way ahead of what direct vision can do. LiDAR similarly augments camera vision to beyond-human capacity.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  "You won't need that if the thing that might never exist one day exists, so we're taking it away now" is a truly _deranged_ design philosophy.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    Why? Thats is SV tech company 101. When Apple does it they call it "courage".
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      It hits a little different with a $100,000 road missile vs a phone.

antonkochubey 3y ago

I'd argue that physical stalks for windshield wipers and turn signals are also safety-critical.

canadianfella 3y ago
[dead]
Terr_ 3y ago
> (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks. I remember reading about the removal of the turn-signal stalk, (moving it to buttons on the steering wheel itself) and IMO it's just bonkers. How the heck is someone already in some squiggly turns or a roundabout supposed to identify and touch the correct spot without taking their eyes off the twisting road or compromising their grip on the wheel that wants to return to the neutral position?

Tempest1981 3y ago

We've heard for years that this is also the case at all US auto manufacturers. That they're run by accountants, not enthusiasts.

organsnyder 3y ago
Most accountants understand the financial implications of selling products with egregious safety issues.
- eep_social 3y ago
  indeed: “.. should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.”

nebula8804 3y ago

>(1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks Alternative explanation of this is if they have a vision to move users to a self driving future, it makes sense to start slowly transitioning users by eliminating things that don't make sense in that paradigm. If you can save some cost then its a bonus. (Their cars supposedly get ~30% margins so idk if cost was even really a primary rather than a secondary consideration).

bamboozled 3y ago
A break peddle in very important while it’s needed. It is needed.
jorvi 3y ago
Having radar allows you to do neat tricks like bounce the signal off of the bottom of the car in front of you, meaning your car can detect slowdowns and collisions way ahead of what direct vision can do. LiDAR similarly augments camera vision to beyond-human capacity.
rsynnott 3y ago
"You won't need that if the thing that might never exist one day exists, so we're taking it away now" is a truly _deranged_ design philosophy.
- nebula8804 3y ago
  Why? Thats is SV tech company 101. When Apple does it they call it "courage".
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    It hits a little different with a $100,000 road missile vs a phone.