Meanwhile they've done amazing things that most considered impossible. They went for it despite the difficulty and actually changed an industry. Electric cars were thought of as golf carts! Not so anymore. The idea of covering the country with chargers was a pipe dream. Now it's reality.
Here's hoping Telsa continues doing big things.
But nobody has said it would be impossible to build a big expensive electric sedan with high range. Nor did anyone say it would be impossible to build a wide coverage fastcharge network. Surely they are impressive feats, but not "thought to be impossible".
In fact, other companies have managed to build similar things. Today the Jaguar and Audi e-SUVs are competing with the Model X, in a few months the Porsche Taycan is competing with Model S, and the ChaDeMo charger network is the same size as the Supercharger one (both have 12,000 units deployed globally).
No.
> Camera-based autonomy.
That's among the reasons the former isn't true.
> $35k price point
That PR point has largely been abandoned. I mean, nominally they’ll still sell it to you if you jump through hoops, but they’ve deliberately made it less accessible because, as much as it was an important PR point, it was never really viable.
At this point I think it's clear that they have a high chance of succeeding.
And I think the core argument is correct: If you don't have a neural net that can estimate depth from cameras as well as a human, you don't have a viable FSD system. The classifications that the system has to do to actually implement all the requirements of true FSD, is way harder than what's needed to make Lidar redundant with cameras and radar. Lidar is a shortcut to get a proof-of-concept running when your vision system is too weak to actually do full FSD.
> as much as it was an important PR point, it was never really viable.
Of course it's viable. It's just a question of time. It's pretty silly to think that sommehow, right this year, batteries will stop falling in price and Tesla will find no other ways to continue to reduce costs.
I agree that this statement is probably correct. But they're assuming the positive outcome here, and we have no proof that's correct.
In fact, it may well turn out that the current approaches to autonomous driving using neural networks won't ever yield a viable FSD system. In fact I'd take that side of the bet, to be honest.
If you've got some spare time, go read some third party research on how cameras might actually be better. Lidar superiority is a myth. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07179.pdf
The numbers actually show pseudo-LiDAR being worse in general and significantly worse at longer distances.
"it is plausible that image-based 3D object detection for autonomous vehicle will become a reality in the near future."
The issue isn't whether it works or not. The issue is whether you need LiDAR in the mix as well. And your paper says unequivocally that the answer is "yes we do".
here we go: > Best crash test ratings.
partly false. there are 30 cars in the same category. kias, hyundays you name it.
> Highest owner satisfaction.
partly false. only the model 3 got it. model s was dropped due to how crappy it is.
> First US-owned factory in China. Built in about 6 months.
false. it’s not built. and there are so many other corps out there that own china factories it’s not even funny.
> Willingness and ability to put auto-pilot on the road for consumers.
how many people died because of this?
> Better chip than Nvidia.
proven to be false.
> Top 2 auto battery supplier.
false. that would be Panasonic.
> Dramatically better battery efficiency.
false. same efficiency as a kia.
> No dealerships.
this is very bad.
> Plausible FSD story.
false. debunked.
> $35k price point.
false. they don’t sell $35k cars.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0037-0037
Model 3 not only the very best results, but by a wider margin.
And the last. Tesla absolutely sells a $35k Model 3: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-our-vehicle-lineup
That's arguably false. Nvidia has a more powerful FSD chip. But performance/watt might be better for Teslas chip.
Is this also a joke? They've been doing impossible stuff for literally 10 years, there's plenty examples of people claiming so.
Consider this, there isn't a better car than the one they produced in 2012, and GM's best effort at an EV (the Bolt) lost somewhere between 4-8k per unit.
Aside from Autopilot and the everymans model 3, Tesla has delivered some pretty damn incredible tech that actually works in the real world. I would love to own a Model S, maybe when V2 comes out, I will be in a position to get one. Lets hope they still exist when that happens.
I personally don't understand why someone would wish for them to fail. Maybe to prove that how they feel about Elon was "right", who knows. I see some issues with autopilot coming to a head at some point. They are either going to deliver or have a giant rebate due at some point in the future. I don't see any other option. If I bought a car in 2018, and had to wait 4 years for a feature my car would be about used up(I drive about 26,000 miles a year).
It really makes you think, "Hey, if they can do all that rocket science, they can probably make a sedan."
(This is mostly a joke... but it's also not entirely a joke)
Can't find it now, but Musk said something like "For a rocket, manufacturing is 10 times harder than building the actual rocket. For cars, it's 100 times harder".
This is not that surprising, the incumbent manufacturers have decades of experience, vast amounts of know how and optimized supply chains. There's a reason why no new manufacturers have emerged.
Elon said that Tesla would have a version of the software that could do full self driving by the end of this year. Then he very clearly spelled out that it would not be available to consumers until regulators approve it at some later date (possibly years).
Why? We (the general public) don’t know exactly but rumors are that some issues were uncovered and Tesla decided to slow down the rollout of this feature until the issues are fixed.
That’s good that they slowed down the rollout. I’d rather wait for a safer, better version of the feature than get a dangerous version, if that’s part of the issue.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this picture except for people interpreting forward-looking statements as 100% locked-in promises. They are not promises.
In technology, people predict stuff all the time and sometimes the predictions come true on time; other times they take longer. Perfectly normal stuff but outsiders don’t always get this. Elon has correctly predicted plenty of stuff that has come to pass. Not always on time, but it is a given that schedules can slip in technology.
So if they can make it capable of detecting stationary objects they're basically already there.
Still amazingly far from "full" self driving.
He was saying only that the internal development versions of the software would be able to do that by then.
Besides being able to drive you home when you’re drunk, what can you smart car do for you that you couldn’t already do with a regular car? Cruise for parking? These are just minor conveniences and for large swathes of the population, they’re likely not welcome either.
Save millions of lives by being safer driving than humans?
Drive you home the rest of the time?
Drive you cross country overnight while you sleep?
Come and pick you up at the airport after a holiday?
Make you money during the day as an autotaxi while you're not using it?
Save your life by avoiding accidents you didn't see?
Radically bring down the cost of taxis and car hire for those who don't own a car?
In our lifetimes all cars will be electric driverless cars in at least some countries. It may not be Tesla but the future is coming.
That’s not a perceptible change. It’s a wonderful thing and I’m all for people not dying, but people aren’t suddenly going to notice the difference. It’s not like people entering a car think “Am I going to die?!” every time they go to work.
> Drive you home the rest of the time?
Again I don’t see this as being more than a convenience. At beta it leads to more screen time zoning out with a Netflix a la train commuting.
> Drive you cross country overnight while you sleep?
The vast majority of people can’t afford to take a week off to travel across the country so they would not notice this.
> Come and pick you up at the airport after a holiday?
Again a convenience, not a major change. One can already call an Uber from the airport.
> Make you money during the day as an autotaxi while you're not using it?
I don’t see this being as popular an idea as people make it out to be. The phrase “Make money while you sleep” has been pitched for years and in the case of renting your car out overnight, doesn’t factor insurance costs and the race to the bottom on pricing . Once that catches up there won’t be much money to be made.
> Save your life by avoiding accidents you didn't see?
Again this is a great thing but not perceptible to the daily user.
> Radically bring down the cost of taxis and car hire for those who don't own a car?
It’s already lower than the cost of ownership thanks to VC money.
> In our lifetimes all cars will be electric driverless cars in at least some countries. It may not be Tesla but the future is coming.
Electric has nothing to do with “smart”. It can be a gas engine. It can be a fuel cell. It could be something we don’t even know about yet.
Electric has nothing to do with “smart”.
This is the same mistake big automakers are still making. Electric is the future, it is also radically simpler, allows for automated recharges etc. It's be very hard to build an autonomous gas car.
Will be interesting to see how it plays out - it's quite possible other manufacturers will see the light and start producing autonomous cars (they certainly have a production advantage at the moment), but I think the advantage Tesla has is that they own the whole stack and know where they're going.
https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...
I think you're significantly underestimating the impact it would have.
So what game changing functionality do you think smart cars provide?
One of my bets is that it will result in people moving away from the city - one of the major drawbacks of rural life is driving distance.
The used luxury car market has out-dated electronics that cannot be upgraded.
Not as bad as epoxying an iPad2 to the dash, but close enough.
Meanwhile, I think Tesla’s are at the equivalent stage of the original iPhone or the 3gs.
We still have a way to go before this is a commoditized standard.
Also, a Tesla car is an iPhone in a world of flip phones. The Tesla design ethos fits Apple pretty nicely.
Still, to get more wide adoption they should fix the irritations for the next iteration. There is no reason for either electricity or self driving to imply doors that are tricky to open or a strange center console closure. Fixing those distractions would make it easier to sell more.
The rest of the car is garbage, and areas where the established incumbents should naturally be superior.
But the good news for Tesla is they should be able to improve the build quality and general car/manufacturing stuff relatively quickly now that the important differentiating foundation bits have been done spectacularly, if they can just survive long enough to iterate.
Musk should forget about trying to save this planet and focus on getting to the red one.
SpaceX isn't open about their financials, but all indications are that they are losing money.
Rocket launch demand is growing like crazy. The market is not competitive. And if SpaceX doesn't fuck up, it likely never will be. In that kind of market, margins will be impressive.
Personally, I'd never live somewhere where a car is mandatory.
On a long enough timeline the world normalizes. These classifications of "first world" vs. "third world" countries can be viewed as an ordering of arrival to the modern high-energy high-tech life. Third-world countries don't stay in mud huts indefinitely. China is the fastest growing automotive market in the world, it wasn't too long ago they were riding bicycles in droves. Now we're hearing about manufacturing migrating from China to India where it's still cheap, the cycle repeats.
I don't think we can say that everyone in the world will ever be in the market for SpaceX products and services. But we can definitely say that's possible about electric vehicles. They are already often owned and operated by individuals, and the common utility is incredibly obvious.
All I'm hearing in your comment is that they're currently too expensive for most people. The price will decrease as the economies of scale take over, the buying power and interest across the world population will increase in spurts, it's only a matter of time.
Once EV-capable batteries are as commonplace as propane tanks, this picture is going to change dramatically. Eliminating a transmission and ICE from a vehicle design substantially lowers the cost to manufacture it. There's very little precision machining left in an EV, it's basically the steering rack, and myriad ball/roller bearings, wheel hubs, brake rotors and calipers, what else? It's a big difference.
I could afford to buy a car, but I have an amazing electric bike, and live in a city with fantastic public transport. The 5 days a year I actually NEED a car, I can just rent one. So why buy?
SpaceX laid off 10% this year and their recent attempt to raise money didn't go well.
I hope those quarterly profits, trucks, and SUVs are worth it when climate change hits its stride. Humans can be irrational, ignorant animals.
They're not rooting for internal combustion engines, they're rooting for electric cars and annoyed when the company (or Musk) flounders from self-inflicted damage. At least, that seems like most of the criticism here. No one is going to respond well to an advocate of a technology they want to succeed saying and doing stuff that actively harms the cause (prime examples: George Hotz with autonomous vehicles, RMS with basically everything that RMS has ever advocated, or Julian Assange allowing Wikileaks to become a tool of corrupt governments rather than a force against them).
It's great to give credit where credit is due, but even more important to hold people and companies accountable when they screw up, especially people and companies that you want to succeed.
But I only care because I was an unashamed fanboy earlier in life. Musk kept flipping the coin to bet the company, and succeeded against all odds. It was riveting to watch.
But once Tesla got large... nothing changed. He's still flipping. Model 3? Flip. Automated factory? Flip. Autonomous driving? Flip. 420? Flip. Solar City? Flip. Tesla is a single misstep away from bankruptcy, and it need not be.
I no longer see him as someone undeterred by the odds to achieve something great, but more like a narcissistic gambler. He's not taking risks to achieve a goal, the risks are the goal. His Twitter antics don't help.
The only thing that makes it ok is that competition is legitimately catching up now. Maybe not in the smart car arena, but we are seeing real electrified competition.
I don't give a fuck if people buy cars with a cute UI or not. I do care that we move to electrification. If Tesla dies, the latter will happen at a largely uninterrupted schedule with the state of the industry in 2019. I love the idea of legislation that moves that along faster. I'd happily take a tax hike to make it happen.
Tesla fans love to hate on the "shorts" as if the only possible motivation to criticize Tesla is profit based. To that strawman I've blatantly constructed I hypocritically reply: stop arguing against strawmen.
We are getting close though but need Tesla to keep the pressure on for a couple more years.
If Tesla (and Nissan) never existed, this entire timeline may have been offset by 5-10 years. I believe they deserve credit for lighting the fire, but by now it's self sustaining.
Ford sold one million F-150s last year. A F-150 every 29 seconds. That’s only one model.
Without going off on a tangent, large companies aren’t able to innovate like smaller companies can. They prefer to buy or partner with smaller company to build someone, Mazda developed the old Ford Ranger. Ford just invested $500m in Rivian.
There are strong arguments that Tesla is being ran very poorly by Musk (solar city acq, VW cash denied, SEC fines, etc.) despite the company being one of the champions for electric vehicles.
1) Stop making ridiculous promises about self-driving capabilities.
2) Stop giving out timelines that everyone knows aren't going to be hit for every single model.
3) Get production quality under control. Seriously, a stupid percentage of Model 3s are getting handed to customers with defects that would keep them from even making it out of the factory at any other OEM.
4) Get aftermarket logistics figured out so people aren't waiting months for their cars to get repaired.
5) Stop flip-flopping on sales models. Is Tesla selling via brick and mortar stores or not? Is it using low pressure guidance-oriented sales or calling up customers with pre-orders trying to pressure them into upgrading to a more expensive configuration? Is their pricing fixed or going to drop another $1,000 next month?
6) Stop treating employees like churnable garbage. I work in the auto industry and the number of ex-Tesla employees floating around who got burned out or sick of political bullshit in record time is astounding in comparison to every other OEM.
7) Stop treating driver safety as a suggestion. I mean that in the broad sense, not in the mechanical engineering sense. Ex. autopilot should never have been released in any capacity that allowed drivers to take a nap or read a book while the car happily plowed into a semi-truck or median.
Tesla basically creating a market for EAV is very cool, and no matter what, I think Musk deserves a place in the history books for it.
I love the autopilot feature, but the cars are still great without it. Tesla can be very successful and sell a lot of cars without any more self driving features.
* Battery-electric vehicles manufactured by other companies
* Plugin hybrid-electric vehicles manufactured by other companies
* Reducing automobile usage in general
* Developing energy-efficient processes to synthesize carbon-neutral liquid fuels using carbon-neutral energy sources
* Developing new and more efficient carbon-neutral energy sources and using them to synthesize carbon-neutral liquid fuels
* Developing the technology to trap or sequester carbon emissions
* Some combination of the above
So while it not be completely fair, at least Tesla is getting substantial financial contributions from the carbon producing ICE competitors.
Of course moving to electric vehicles is a necessary step towards getting off of the petrocarbons, but it isn't sufficient, production of electricity also has to move off of them.
The "just not fast enough" happens to be an important factor.
Also, Tesla is an easy target to make fun of, because of its narcistic, arrogant CEO that seems to think that he can outsmart everyone, when in fact his business is a total mess.
And yet we do not collect that tax, hence heavily subsidizing ICEs. This is credited by our children and grandchildren, who will end up with a massively changed (for the worse) planet.
Subsidies do not have to be in the form of cash: many come in the form of tax breaks and I would consider this to be one such case.
I like that Musk is narcissistic and arrogant in public. He doesn’t hide it like the execs at every automaker who was part of Dieselgate. Be an asshole, by all means, just deliver faster. (Credit to BYD and their electric bus fleet efforts, and China’s renewables push in general; I would be remiss if I made it sound like Musk alone was working towards these goals).
I do love someone who doesn’t cultivate an image. I think this is 100% who Musk has become, for better and worse, and I respect someone who is genuine about who they are, warts and all.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/public-bravado-private-doubts-h...
This, of course, will ultimately catch up with Musk, just like it did for Jobs.
Elon success relies on the same 'distortion reality' shield that Jobs relied on. It forces his staff to keep trying to achieve his practically impossible demands.
Continued success requires that it keep working over and over while not burning out critical staff and burning through your investor's deep pockets.
1997 Jobs was a way more humble and realistic version than 1984 Jobs. And that probably made him a better manager and CEO.
What's not reported in the media is how self driving / autopilot has saved lives. There are plenty of videos online about Teslas making the right split second decision to swerve (in the right direction) or apply the brakes to avoid an accident.
There's way too much focus on accidents due to self driving when there are a lot more accidents happening from non-self-driving vehicles.
To me, self driving means that I can not care. If I must pay attention to avoid being killed, it is at most some glorified adaptive lane keeping and/or emergency braking. That's nice to have, but it's not self driving.
But anyway... That doesn't change the argument, if only it is more worrying