Hacker News Reader

Comment by ModernMech | Hacker News Reader

> What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle.

Oh, I would agree with you there as well.

> I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else.

I think that's where we were differing. I think Volvo is many years ahead of Tesla only because Volvo is using the state of the art in driverless tech. Other rivals like Google, BMW, and VW are doing the same. On the other hand, Tesla is choosing to use technology the robotics field had proven to be ineffective over 10 years ago.

View on HN

Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Most people don't realize a single sensor can cost $20,000 - now imagine you have 10 of them. That's an order of magnitude more expensive than the car.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, just pointing out that it's a fiendishly difficult problem. I like what Tesla did, I just dislike how they handled the PR.

Likewise I like what Volvo is doing, and I'm curious how they're going to price it.

> Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars.

Actually selling cars to the public is an exceptionally poor excuse for -- as it has been described upthread -- using technology that is known to be inadequate to safe implementation of the feature set.

If a feature cannot be safely implemented at a price point suitable for the target market of the vehicle, then it shouldn't be in the vehicle. Deliberately choosing otherwise goes beyond mere negligence into actual recklessness, IMO. (Note, I'm not saying that Tesla is doing this, I'm saying that the use of the excuse "they're actually selling cars" as a response to the claim of proven inadequacy of the sensor choice made upthread is an inadequate excuse, since if that was the reason and if the sensor choice was proven to be as inadequate as described, then that would be reckless.)

The real issue with Tesla is that they marketed it as a self-driving feature when really they had developed cruise control plus. Lots of manufacturers have had cruise control and lane following with automatic braking for some time, but they didn't hype it the same way Tesla did. I don't think Tesla built a bad system, they just made it out to be more than it was, and given the circumstances I agree it was arguably reckless (it's hard to say how much they directly marketed it and how much was just hype from the public in general, as they obviously can't control users uploading videos of hands free driving on YouTube).

I do think the way they've handled the crashes lately though has been pretty poor - especially spinning bad statistics to justify what happened rather than admitting fault.

> The real issue with Tesla is that they marketed it as a self-driving feature when really they had developed cruise control plus.

Yes, I think that this is part of the real issue, but there is also a real engineering issue. Other vehicles with cruise-control-plus require hands on wheel at all time. Tesla seems to alert you when your hands are off, but the autopilot will continue on merrily. The Tesla that drove under the semi had its roof torn off, the driver decapitated, and it continued driving only until it was stopped by a pole. Also the crash happened in the first place because the AP was essentially blind (it couldn't even see the semi). You and I both know there are ways to tell when you're blind (usually involving orthogonal sensors suites, something the Tesla lacks).

Yes. Your very logical argument ought to be shared more.

Most people are unaware of Tesla's second-rate sensor system. They think it is grade-A because it is called autopilot.

That may not constitute false advertising. It is, at least, highly suspect.

> Most people don't realize a single sensor can cost $20,000 - now imagine you have 10 of them.

True, but part of that cost is an economies of scale issue, and we are finally seeing lasers like the velodyne come down in price. The 64 laser version used in the Urban Challenge cost over $75,000. Today, you can get a smaller version for $7k. Still a lot, but the price is coming down and it's coming down fast. Even putting one of these guys on board would be a huge improvement of sensing capabilities over what they have.

Remember, people are paying $5500 for the autopilot alone and as much as $130k for the whole car. If anyone would be willing to pay a premium for some better sensors, it's Tesla's customers.

Sure, the cost will come down. But comparing the cheaper $7k sensor to the original $90k sensor is disingenuous, as the original is still several times better than the cheaper one in terms of FOV.

I was referring to IBEO sensors which are already used in automotive manufacturing. When these cars are actually commercialized, the sensor suite is still going to cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Anyway, I'm sick of coming across as so negative. I think self-driving cars are awesome (it's pretty surreal when you actually sit in one driving around a city) and I look forward to them becoming more common. I just think it will take longer, and cost more, than most people like to admit.

> Anyway, I'm sick of coming across as so negative.

Oh quite contrary, I believe your input has added greatly to this discussion. Thank you.

> I just think it will take longer, and cost more, than most people like to admit.

Agreed. Even Google now seems to be tempering their predictions, saying anything from 3 to 30 years. I say, they will be here when then are ready and no sooner. Don't rush it.

> I like what Tesla did, I just dislike how they handled the PR.

Are they not being a bit irresponsible unleashing a beta feature on the public and using them as guinea pigs? Do you feel they should require hands on the wheel more than once every few minutes?

These are design decisions to (a) collect more user data and (b) enable the easiest way for users to abuse the system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com