Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#151

Post by dwighttk » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

leesec wrote: post #122

dwighttk wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They already have cars driving people 95% of their miles I'm skeptical. I'd be surprised if more than 40% of my miles were freeway. Call me when we have fully autonomous trains and then I'll start thinking about losing my skepticism about autonomous cars.

>I'm skeptical. I'd be surprised if more than 40% of my miles were freeway. I didn't mean this was the average but I probably should have said commutes. My commute is nearly all highway and I basically don't touch the car from on-ramp to exit-ramp. >Call me when we have fully autonomous trains and then I'll start thinking about losing my skepticism about autonomous cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automate…

I was thinking more freight trains, and I forgot this article was about a success:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/12/mining-company-says-fir...

It did take 10 years to build and cost 1.3 Billion dollars. And it is still being remotely monitored.

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#152

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #129

toomuchtodo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren't those solved problems though? Like, you're talking manufacturing and scaling up production, and there are other examples of heavy lift vehicles. While they are absolutely great accomplishments, it's tweaks on previous formulas. Not at all. I'm unaware of any other heavy lift vehicles developed by a non-government entity that fly for $90 million (versus Delta Heavy's $350 million cost) and are completely reus…

Your defense against Tesla’s missed deadlines is that its CEO is busy doing things with his other companies? The Obama administration also “shepherded” the massive EV subsidies that Tesla baked into its pricing.

All automakers receive the EV subsidies you mention, not just Tesla. If you want the subsidy, make EVs! If you don't, buy ZEV credits from those who do (many thanks California and the EU) when you don't meet your fleet emissions targets. Will the US government support Tesla if they fail in the same way GM did? Hardly, because the GM bailout was a jobs program.

My defense is hard problems have deadlines that will be blown passed, and it's not uncommon unless the problem is incredibly well scoped or you're just lazy and set the bar low by design (ie most automakers).

This is not to say Tesla and Musk don't have problems; they do, but credit should be provided where due.

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#153

Post by derekp7 » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

mhermher wrote: post #114

trickstra wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you also skeptical about landing orbital rockets 5 years ago?

Wasnt that done in the 90s? Why be skeptical it could be done?

You're thinking of the DC-X demonstration vehicle, which was a scaled down non-orbital vehicle. Similar to the early SpaceX grasshopper vehicle.

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#154

Post by humantiy » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

leesec wrote: post #112

Once again I gotta say the negativity is astounding. People are so stoked to be rooting for this American tech company to fail. I really don't get it. The main gripe I see is that Tesla misses deadlines or makes promises they cannot fulfill. Is this not super common in nearly every industry? Have none of you missed deadlines? I remember this article[1]from last year stating GM would release fully autonomous cars with…

>Once again I gotta say the negativity is astounding.

How do you figure what they did should be something that is considered a positive? They are raising the price of the base car that was supposed to be for the masses. Now granted to a degree it was a bait and switch anyway given that most people interested in the car want the bells and whistles that they don't get on the base model anyway. Raising the base price to me seems to be something that should be considered a negative no matter the auto maker.

>astounded to see people constantly saying Autonomy is a decade+ away.

Because in all likelihood it is. What they've done in the last 6 years is impressive but wasn't impossible. Even if 95% of their miles can be done autonomously the other 5% is not to be snuffed at as being just as easy. I look at it as 80/20. They've done the 'easy' 80% of it, but the problem is now you're stuck with all the difficult next steps (ie one off situations, roads with no markers, construction, user driving mistakes, ect) as well as the potentials for legal liabilities if they go fully autonomous.

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#155

Post by humantiy » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

leesec wrote: post #150

minikites wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I really don't get it. Tesla has over-promised and under-delivered for years while maintaining a tremendous amount of hubris throughout.

So people want the whole company to go bankrupt and for 50k people to lose their jobs and we have no one leading the charge towards electric vehicles? The Internet is a weird and ridiculous place.

> So people want the whole company to go bankrupt and for 50k people to lose their jobs and we have no one leading the charge towards electric vehicles?

Some people wanted that for the big 3 auto makers too when they were looking to be bailed out. I'd say very few people fall into that category, but I think more so people are fed up with being over sold on Tesla. Personally I'd be more concerned if there wasn't people being critical of these companies.

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#156

Post by sctb » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

abc_lisper wrote: post #101

abc_lisper wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why downmod? Why so sensitive.

That got downmodded too.. Aww.. Do this one too.. Pleeze

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#157

Post by dv_dt » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #123

leesec wrote: post #112

Once again I gotta say the negativity is astounding. People are so stoked to be rooting for this American tech company to fail. I really don't get it. The main gripe I see is that Tesla misses deadlines or makes promises they cannot fulfill. Is this not super common in nearly every industry? Have none of you missed deadlines? I remember this article[1]from last year stating GM would release fully autonomous cars with…

People don’t want them to fail. Some are frustrated by the overpromises and Self Driving vaporware Elon has been pushing for years. I’d be fine with Tesla saying they will be the best electric car company in the world with best in class Driver Assist but I guess that’s what CEOs do. I plan to buy a Tesla in 2-3 years I just hope they can get their pricing and production streamlined before I do otherwise I’ll buy some…

A German maker was the only one to strongly fail some preliminary, but much simpler automatic emergency braking tests by the IIHS.

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/02/21/iihs-says-these-small-su...

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#158

Post by trickstra » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

hnhg wrote: post #94

njarboe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would an auto-car that crashed at a rate 1/10th of humans be a successful "full autonomous" vehicle? You could save 30000 lives a year in the US by deploying such vehicles and probably more due to knock-on effects. But that would be about 10 auto-car deaths/per day. No way that works with the current media. Unfortunately, it seems many people are not going to accept auto-cars with less than airplane like safety level…

This is a strawman. We're talking about replicating all of the abilities of a driver in all of the conditions they're supposed to operate in with approximately the same kind of performance. When we get to that point, then we can consider your question. [Quick edit: a good question here though is what kind of drivers test is sufficient for us to even begin considering autonomous vehicles? Is that even answered?]

why would that be a strawman? And why would we be talking about replicating the abilities of human driver? The ultimate point is to have safer transport, not copying a human driver with all of their quirks and flaws. Autonomous driving might look very different from human driving and still be safer. The way human drivers drive today is not necessarily optimal.

We don't want approximately the same kind of performance, we want much better performance, so it essentially must be different from the human driver

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#159

Post by Cookingboy » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

pdq wrote: post #12

Per the new lease: "Please note, customers who choose leasing over owning will not have the option to purchase their car at the end of the lease, because with full autonomy coming in the future via an over-the-air software update, we plan to use those vehicles in the Tesla ride-hailing network." Elon once again promising fully autonomous vehicles in 3 years. Also, isn't this a rental? A lease normally has a residual,…

This has nothing to do with FSD. Tesla can now set the lease rate with a very artificially low residual value so they can charge more monthly (but is offset somewhat by the capitalized cost deduction of the tax rebate), and then actually sell the car at market value after 3 years.

It's one way to double dip on the same vehicle and get more than 100% in revenue in respect to the original MSRP.

But sure throw that line in to cash in on the hype of ride sharing IPOs and FSD so they can raise a nice equity round in the near future.

Re: Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup

#160

Post by trickstra » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #130

njarboe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would an auto-car that crashed at a rate 1/10th of humans be a successful "full autonomous" vehicle? You could save 30000 lives a year in the US by deploying such vehicles and probably more due to knock-on effects. But that would be about 10 auto-car deaths/per day. No way that works with the current media. Unfortunately, it seems many people are not going to accept auto-cars with less than airplane like safety level…

> an auto-car that crashed at a rate 1/10th of humans This is incredibly generous assumption, especially given the fact that cars with advertised Autopilot features, like Tesla's offerings, actually make accidents more likely[1][2]. Compared to the driver fatality rate in other luxury vehicles, Tesla's offerings nearly triple driver fatality[3]. This is like theorizing about a car that survives 99.9% of all impacts a…

quoting from your [1]

> So does that mean that Autosteer actually makes crashes 59 percent more likely? Probably not.