Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 379 posts

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#331

Post by gamblor956 »

nickik wrote: post #228
wearywanderer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're probably right, and I came to believe this strongly when I heard about the electric F-150 a few days ago. If Ford can make a electric truck that works properly and has all the spare parts availability / 3rd party repairability of a normal truck, then cybertruck seems DOA. Some fanboys might buy it for the memes, but if I intended to buy a truck to actually use as a truck , the choice between these two…

Even if you assume a conversion ratio of 20% for Cybertruck and F-150 reservation, Ford couldn't build that many EV trucks in 3 years. The idea that the Cybertruck who has 100ks of reservations and beats the F-150 on pretty much every technical metric will not sell well is just nonsense. > actually use as a truck So people who 'actually use' a truck don't want to drive long distance or transport a lot of cargo? Or ch…

Ford's EV factory will have the capacity to make at least 1200 trucks/day, or more than 400k/year, with space to double the size of the facility. Once the factory begins production activities, demand will be the constraint on how fast they build Lightnings.

People who go off-road absolutely want better clearance; it's one of the most popular aftermarket modifications made to off-road vehicles. On that front, the Cybertruck has relatively poor experience for a truck (but would for right in with a Subaru wagon).

Unlike Tesla, Ford designed the Lightning with the actual input of the people who would use it, and it shows in all the small features that the Cybertruck is missing.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#332

Post by mtnpuma »

snypher wrote: post #126
bradfitz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla has multiple cameras on the front. See: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36542541/tesla-model-3-mo...

They don't seem very far apart in the Tesla.. https://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/Tesla-Mode... The Subaru cameras are either side of the mirror, probably much more effective for stereo vision.

Subaru Eyesight cameras look different though, they’re further apart. See https://images.app.goo.gl/vAJJ7JuV1cmTaymA8

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#333

Post by nickik »

gamblor956 wrote: post #331
nickik wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you assume a conversion ratio of 20% for Cybertruck and F-150 reservation, Ford couldn't build that many EV trucks in 3 years. The idea that the Cybertruck who has 100ks of reservations and beats the F-150 on pretty much every technical metric will not sell well is just nonsense. > actually use as a truck So people who 'actually use' a truck don't want to drive long distance or transport a lot of cargo? Or ch…

Ford's EV factory will have the capacity to make at least 1200 trucks/day, or more than 400k/year, with space to double the size of the facility. Once the factory begins production activities, demand will be the constraint on how fast they build Lightnings. People who go off-road absolutely want better clearance; it's one of the most popular aftermarket modifications made to off-road vehicles. On that front, the Cybe…

Go calculated the battery need for these 400k/year and try to understand that industry.

And Tesla is building a factory that is equally designed to build that many trucks and the vertically integrate it with a huge battery factory likely even cathode manufacturing and lithium hydroxide production.

The last Ford CEO (not that long ago) still believed Ford didn't even need a battery partnership. And the new CEO has been scrambling like crazy to get a partnership and they want to build a plant but that is still quite far away.

> Unlike Tesla, Ford designed the Lightning with the actual input of the people who would use it

And you know that how?

> People who go off-road absolutely want better clearance; it's one of the most popular aftermarket modifications made to off-road vehicles. On that front, the Cybertruck has relatively poor experience for a truck (but would for right in with a Subaru wagon).

And that modification costs fair amount of money I would bet. The fact is the experience you get for the money is better. And comparing it to a Subaru wagon just tells me you are not actually serious, you just a hater.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#334

Post by nickik »

clintonb wrote: post #268
nickik wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you assume a conversion ratio of 20% for Cybertruck and F-150 reservation, Ford couldn't build that many EV trucks in 3 years. The idea that the Cybertruck who has 100ks of reservations and beats the F-150 on pretty much every technical metric will not sell well is just nonsense. > actually use as a truck So people who 'actually use' a truck don't want to drive long distance or transport a lot of cargo? Or ch…

I only have anecdata. Brand loyalty is strong amongst truck drivers. Those who want the Lightning will either use their current F-150s a little longer or get another ICE/PHEV. Jumping ship for Tesla, even with the better specs, might not even be a consideration for some.

It might not be consider by some but its 800k sales a year and that includes far more non hardcore Ford fans. Just like tons of people who are not hardcore Tesla fans drive Teslas.

I'm not saying F-150 will not sell, I'm saying the people in this thread who use the unveil of the F-150 to shit on Tesla and the CB don't know what they are talking about.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#335

Post by nickik »

wearywanderer wrote: post #238
nickik wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you assume a conversion ratio of 20% for Cybertruck and F-150 reservation, Ford couldn't build that many EV trucks in 3 years. The idea that the Cybertruck who has 100ks of reservations and beats the F-150 on pretty much every technical metric will not sell well is just nonsense. > actually use as a truck So people who 'actually use' a truck don't want to drive long distance or transport a lot of cargo? Or ch…

> What's your objective measure other then the look of the Cybertruck are you applying here. What is your objective basis for believing I have said anything about the appearance of cybertruck? My comment talks about availability of spare parts and third party repair. Tesla vehicles are notoriously poor in these regards. You seem to have read quite a lot that I did not write (Tesla fanboys seem to do this a lot.)

I didn't imply that you said anything about the look, I mentioned it as any example of something that is objectively different.

So you mentioned actual argument, repair parts availability. So you mention one thing and the declare the CB to be DOA. You must release how incredibly dumb that is right? How would you react if a Tesla fan said 'Cybertruck is faster to 60mph therefore the F-150 is DOA'. Its just disingenuous analysis purely driven by, I don't know, I assume you have some sort of dislike for Tesla.

Tesla service is a actually a great experience for many people. The mobile service is amazing for anything that isn't a full crash. The Cybertruck design makes many typical repairs unnecessary. There are just fewer things that can break overall.

In terms of battery and EV motor Tesla has 1000x more experience and have known high reliability and Ford just had to recall their last EV and had to delay another EV for 8 months.

The truck market is 2.5 million in the US alone. EV trucks have significant advantages (including life cycle cost) and they will be production limited for years. To believe that in that environment the Cybertruck is DOA is just incredibly dumb.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#336

Post by nickik »

computerex wrote: post #326
nickik wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. They have been talking about removing radar for a while, that was always part of the plan.

There is a difference between not relying on radar and having it there to provide redundancy and removing the thing altogether and presenting a single point of failure that can cost someone their life. MobilEye for example can run on vision and radar independently and they have been for a while. The reason they don't remove one or the other sensors is to provide redundancy. When your tech can kill people, it's a good…

The redundancy is not free. The false positives cause the car to potentially react in the wrong way and that can also kill people. Tradeoffs have to be made in the real world.

Why don't we force ever car to have radar, sonar, cameras, lidar and so on. Who cares what the cost is? If we can save a single life we should equip all 10 million cars that are sold every year with all of these things.

This is not how safety works, if with vision they can hit the targets they are trying to achieve and radar causes issues, then removing it is a option. Radar also uses energy and is extra weight you have to transport and its extra cost.

This is specially true that because of all their investment into vision their new pure vision solution is better then the old vision+radar solution.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#337

Post by rsj_hn »

I really feel like the whole AI/autopilot is Tesla's achilles heel. It's a great electric car, and they have good product people and should do well in the marketplace. But overselling self-driving risks tarnishing the entire brand and exposing them to claims they misled investors and committed fraud by selling a feature they couldn't deliver. The whole thing seems like a huge distraction from the real story which is electric vehicles.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#338

Post by vardump »

nickik wrote: post #232
c0nsumer wrote: post #5

With a feature being pulled from already-sold vehicles, I wonder if this'll run into some Lemon Law issues. Because the vehicle no longer does what was sold, which is specifically protected by law in many states.

They are actually improving features. This actually FIXES a major issue with the current system. Radar false positives have been the single most complained about problem with Autopilot.

If Tesla can get it working, vision is going to be superior to the radar experience, because it can sense both road geometry and the potential obstacle.

Talking about the industry in general (not only Tesla), so far radar has failed for either being too insensitive and failing to avoid collisions or being too sensitive and causing phantom braking.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#339

Post by Closi »

henrikschroder wrote: post #321
Closi wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is quite simple in all these cases - it doesn't. A self driving car shouldn't be operating on some mysterious black-box AI interpretation of the intention of (often ambiguous) hand signals from drivers and police officers. Any situation with hand-waving should be passed back to a human driver until the hand-waving can be eliminated with future laws and road rules. We aren't going to have full level-5 auton…

Right, so you're saying that actual reality is too hard for self-driving systems to deal with, so we should change reality in order to coddle the self-driving cars so that they can handle it. ...which reinforces the point me and the grandparent post was making: You can't solve self-driving without AGI.

We change reality all the time to adapt to new technology - this is why we interacted with the first computers via punch cards rather than microphones and cameras. Were we coddling computers? Kind of, but solutions have to be a combination of what is possible.

I guess there is a sliding scale with self driving cars:

* Low technology, high societal or infrastructure change (for example we could build a totally different road network and dig cables into it, not practical but possible with technology 20 years ago!) * Medium technology, medium societal or infrastructure change. * High technology, low societal or infrastructure change. * Very high technology, no/little societal or infrastructure change (eg AGI that can interpret hand signals).

All of these are possible versions of self driving cars - there is no “one” solution. Having AGI and going for the last bullet point isn’t the only option.

As an example, when the 1950s imagined robotic vacuum cleaning they pictured a standing robot that would use your existing appliances - so they might have said “we need to work out how to pick up and use a household vaccum cleaner in order to make a useful household robot, which requires AGI!”. We now know that a better solution is the roomba, and AGI isn’t required.

I personally think we will inevitably need some level of societal change, legislation change and possibly even infrastructure change to make self driving cars happen sooner.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#340

Post by computerex »

nickik wrote: post #336
computerex wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between not relying on radar and having it there to provide redundancy and removing the thing altogether and presenting a single point of failure that can cost someone their life. MobilEye for example can run on vision and radar independently and they have been for a while. The reason they don't remove one or the other sensors is to provide redundancy. When your tech can kill people, it's a good…

The redundancy is not free. The false positives cause the car to potentially react in the wrong way and that can also kill people. Tradeoffs have to be made in the real world. Why don't we force ever car to have radar, sonar, cameras, lidar and so on. Who cares what the cost is? If we can save a single life we should equip all 10 million cars that are sold every year with all of these things. This is not how safety w…

The phantom braking is not a radar issue, it's an issue with the vision system. That's why removing radar is such a monumentally stupid idea because Tesla's vision system has proven itself to be a pile of burning dog poop.

If their vision system was actually good/safe and was truly unneeded then they'd have a stronger case for removing radar (but not a watertight case, because redundancy). As it is, their vision system sucks.

Post reply on HN