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

Robots eat cars

telemetry.endeff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Robots eat cars

#111

Post by ErroneousBosh »

cyberax wrote: post #107
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And a yoke requires progressive steering which is impractical without steer-by-wire. But also look at Citroën's DIRAVI system, used on the CX, SM, and some XMs. There's no direct mechanical link between the steering wheel and the rack when the system is pressurised. When you turn the wheel a kind of dogbone link thing pushes a spool valve one way or the other allowing hydraulic fluid to push the rack along, which p…

That is truly steampunk! Overengineered and crazy but cool!

It would only be overengineered if it was not necessary, and once you drive one you'll realise that all cars should have it.

You can actually get pretty close with electric power steering but that's a lot more involved than a few dozen incredibly finely machined parts and a bunch of thin oil at 180 times atmospheric pressure.

Re: Robots eat cars

#112

Post by otikik »

delichon wrote: post #18
otikik wrote: post #4

Cars that nobody buys replaced by robots that nobody buys

The best selling car in the world in 2025 was the Tesla Model Y, with a little over 1 million sold. ~350k total vehicles have been sold in 2026 as of April. https://www.focus2move.com/world-car-market/ , https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-first-quarter-2026-...

> Tesla Model Y

This is the second paragraph of the article:

> Model S and Model X production is over. Roughly 600 vehicles remain in inventory worldwide. The Fremont factory lines that built those cars

That's the 'other models' section on your second link:

https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-first-quarter-2026-...

My point stands.

Re: Robots eat cars

#113

Post by otikik »

rootusrootus wrote: post #91
MK_Dev wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who bought half a million Model S and Model X?

What kind of weird question is that? Do you not count Ford's F-series trucks in their sales numbers? Guess they are not very popular, either.

Second paragraph on the article:

> Model S and Model X production is over. Roughly 600 vehicles remain in inventory worldwide. The Fremont factory lines that built those cars

So yeah, cars that nobody buys.

Re: Robots eat cars

#114

Post by RaftPeople »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #5

> The Fremont factory lines that built those cars are converting to manufacture Optimus humanoid robots: one million units per year at $20,000 each, with public sales beginning in 2027. Sure, why not? Seems just as likely as Tesla having 1 million robotaxis on the road by the end of 2026. =)

I don't understand the emphasis on humanoid form, especially the legs.

It seems like the focus should be on making the arms extremely capable and just use a wheeled base for some substantial number of use cases.

If there are use cases where wheels are too limiting, then a four legged base like Boston Dynamics dog seems like it would be simpler and possibly adequate for most uses.

Re: Robots eat cars

#115

Post by vessenes »

Scholmo wrote: post #84
vessenes wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying that the original content is low-effort shitposting, and that Tesla has the ability to scale industrial production to over 1mm 'things' per year, as evidenced by production last year. I did the OP the mild courtesy of asking him to open up a useful conversation. For instance, "Is there going to be demand for 1mm robots, and if so, when?" Or "How much actual retooling is necessary in Fremont for this?"…

Bosten dynamics has the better robot which doesn't overheat and can more and they plan to rollout commercially 2028. Musks Robot overheated last year, we have not seen a single non staged real demonstration in public and he already wants to mass produce them. This is just lying at this point and has very little to do how fast someone can scale something if its not ready to be scaled up.

Dynamics can make on the order of 25k robots a year though. Not enough to matter in a gdp sense. There is one US company that can scale this kind of manufacturing currently. So to my mind the question is : can Tesla ever get there on tech, and if so, can they be first to scale to a million units? You don’t need them to have the best robot now. Or ever really if they’re the first to scale.

Re: Robots eat cars

#116

Post by rconti »

Scholmo wrote: post #102
rconti wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

steer-by-wire makes safety nannies way easier, eg, the ones that jerk the wheel out of your hands when they decide you're too close to a line on the road.

I don't think thats true. Its power steering already and cars use that to turn a wheel when you are not driving. So why would that make it safer?

I didn't say safer, I said easier.

https://ddl.stanford.edu/publications/thesis/steer-wire-impl...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/comments/1qnkxpz/reason_for_ad...

Re: Robots eat cars

#117

Post by dangus »

goosejuice wrote: post #108
dangus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Tesla is discontinuing the cars because they no longer serve a purpose to Tesla? Isn’t the purpose of the company to make money by selling products? Can you think of any other successful cars that are being discontinued for a similar reason and aren’t being replaced with a new model? Doesn’t pass the smell test. You said people buy because of trends…well, the trend is away from Tesla and toward other brands…

It's more plausible than what you're implying. Lucid, Rivian, and Tesla all have the same playbook. Sell luxury cars to fund a path towards an affordable platform. Not all products need to continue to be made to be viewed as successful. S and X were low volume, high tech cars that paved the way to 3 and Y. The latter two have now consistently dominated US EV sales. By all accounts they were successful halo vehicles.

This idea makes sense conceptually, but in reality as we observe it, the companies that make low volume luxury products are often the most profitable carmakers in the industry.

BMW is the 2nd most profitable car company in the world and sells many mid/low volume vehicles like the 7 series.

This theory of yours also doesn’t do very well to explain the Cybertruck. Why would Tesla launch a $90k truck when their goal was supposedly to get out of low volume luxury vehicles and focus on high volume?

Re: Robots eat cars

#118

Post by Scholmo »

dyauspitr wrote: post #110
Scholmo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industry has a lot more money and easier use cases. A robot like Optimus will not be a household robot for years to come. Why? If it falls, it will crash into some kind of glas from doors to windows etc. If it falls it might crash a human or animal underneath it. It might trip on a toy or stairs and crash into a wall. I would love to have one robot but 50k? Who buys something for 50k? A normal person has to save…

>A robot like Optimus will not be a household robot for years to come. Why? If it falls, it will crash into some kind of glas from doors to windows etc. If it falls it might crash a human or animal underneath it. It might trip on a toy or stairs and crash into a wall. Strong disagree here we have plenty of machinery that we use that could be very dangerous if it fails, but they just slap a disclaimer on it and that’s…

In a normal household? Like what?

I have nothing compared to a 60kg robot who is moving around in my flat. Even in my daily life the only thing i can come up with, is a car.

Nontheless, industry pays more, faster, has more generic basic use cases and higher incentive to buy.

Re: Robots eat cars

#119

Post by Scholmo »

rconti wrote: post #116
Scholmo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think thats true. Its power steering already and cars use that to turn a wheel when you are not driving. So why would that make it safer?

I didn't say safer, I said easier. https://ddl.stanford.edu/publications/thesis/steer-wire-impl... https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/comments/1qnkxpz/reason_for_ad...

Yeah sry but I meant easier.

But why do you think it would make it easier? Power-steering doesn't mean there are sensors build in or more precise ones.

Your reddit comment references autonomes vehicle and in that case it shouldn't matter if the car also moves a steering wheel no one is using while it moves the wheels which is a lot heavier.

And in case of your nanny, the main argument of your referenced paper are issues with the hands of the driver. In that case it could make it better for the driver, I might agree, but I would then question how the driver acts if the wheel is suddenly / temporarily not aligned with the wheel. I might also argue that in such a case were my thumb gets in the way, it might be an emergency and i wouldn't worry then?

Re: Robots eat cars

#120

Post by goosejuice »

dangus wrote: post #117
goosejuice wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more plausible than what you're implying. Lucid, Rivian, and Tesla all have the same playbook. Sell luxury cars to fund a path towards an affordable platform. Not all products need to continue to be made to be viewed as successful. S and X were low volume, high tech cars that paved the way to 3 and Y. The latter two have now consistently dominated US EV sales. By all accounts they were successful halo vehicles.

This idea makes sense conceptually, but in reality as we observe it, the companies that make low volume luxury products are often the most profitable carmakers in the industry. BMW is the 2nd most profitable car company in the world and sells many mid/low volume vehicles like the 7 series. This theory of yours also doesn’t do very well to explain the Cybertruck. Why would Tesla launch a $90k truck when their goal was…

I don't think Tesla is a normal car company. If they actually wanted to compete with the luxury car makers they have the capital to do so. Even with the brand death, they could easily compete.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers...

> This theory of yours also doesn’t do very well to explain the Cybertruck. Why would Tesla launch a $90k truck when their goal was supposedly to get out of low volume luxury vehicles and focus on high volume?

Well it's not my theory, it already happened. Tesla built a brand with S and X and dominated the EV market for a decade.

The Cybertruck is about as halo as you can get, so I have no idea why they made so many. That said I also can't believe people actually bought it. It outsold the f-150 lightning in 2024. If I were to guess, I'd say the Cybertruck is a product and victim of Musk's psychosis.

Post reply on HN