I think Musk has no choice but to ditch Lidar. He has promised to provide full self driving on cars already on the road, and retrofitting all of those cars with Lidar is incredibly expensive.

Bologna. He had/has a choice, he chose snakeoil salesman. Tesla could have focused on affordable (or luxury) electric vehicles. The choice to add self-driving was all Musk.

> He has promised to provide full self driving on cars

I continue to be surprised he hasn't been taken to court yet for selling a $6K package that isn't anything but an empty promise.

Plus LIDARs aren't aesthetically pleasing in their current incarnations.

I agree with Musk and George Hotz that lidar is never going to get there. That's because in Michigan the terrain that lidar has mastered changes drastically every time it snows. For those of us in snowy climates limiting us to self-driving to seven months a year isn't going to cut it.

But this doesn't explain why self-driving cars won't succeed in Arizona. They don't need to take over the world at once, they just need to work somewhere and that would be a good start.

Lidar has no problem with snow, only when its _snowing_. However, if visibility is reduced, a pure visual approach is going to be even worse.

Musk made a mistake, and he's spending billions to prove that he never made it.

snow makes HD maps somewhat less useful, as the terrain changes shape. But then, you need a map that evolves. Sadly for musky, the only company that can do that using purely visual data is Scape Technologies. Not even lyft can do that.

>Lidar has no problem with snow, only when its _snowing_. However, if visibility is reduced, a pure visual approach is going to be even worse.

Good thing Teslas have radar...which penetrates falling snow.

>Musk made a mistake, and he's spending billions to prove that he never made it.

People drive fairly well with only visual sensors (eyes). That is proof of concept. Lidar seems like overkill.

That radar is utterly worthless for this sort of application, it has awful angular resolution. It can't tell the difference between a building next to the street and a truck parked in the middle of the street.

Just because lidar is not working in certain places and certain conditions does not mean that it's always useless. It just means that an AV cannot rely [only ]on lidar. Lidar could be used as a suplementary sensor - that is providing additional sensory data when appropriate and switching to non-lidar mode when conditions require. This is one of the things where AV can have a clear advantage over [even above ]average driver: a superior sensory system

If you switch to non-lidar mode for unfavorable condition, why don't just use the non-lidar for all conditions. A system that is safe for unfavorable conditions is likely to be the system that is safe for all conditions.

Because one system might work better in one situation and the other in a different situation and you are going to encounter both situations?

Just like in cooking you can use meat cleaver and a paring knife or in a network you use switches and routers.

Because lidar allows faster travel in the modes where it works. When there is heavy rain/snow the only safe speed is very slow anyway. When roads are clear and dry I really want my car to go faster than the elderly walk (I walk faster than that normally), and lidar may be required for that mode.

GM. Ford. Chrysler.

lidar isn't cheap or small (yet), and you need cameras either way, can add lidar to the sensor suite later if it gets cheaper