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

A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

viksnewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 187 posts

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#151

Post by [deleted] »

UltraSane wrote: post #81
jaimex2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They went deep down the wrong path and need to justify their mistake. Waymo will be killed off any day now.

I find opinions like this to be almost as crazy as saying that the earth is flat because Waymo has a working, truly self-driving taxi service RIGHT FREAKING NOW while Musk is still promising to have one some day in the hazy future while NEVER making a single vehicle that can actually drive without someone in the car. Musk rejecting LIDAR means that he fundamentally doesn't understand the technological challenge of se…

[deleted]

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#152

Post by rightbyte »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137
rightbyte wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messing with machines have a way lower ethical threshold for most people. Like fooling vending machines to give you soda. Nothing 'my teenage friend' lost sleep over.

> Messing with machines have a way lower ethical threshold for most people We’re in the regime of throwing rocks at a freeway from a bridge to cutting brake lines as a prank. The attack surface here isn’t new and isn’t difficult to think through. Someone who can’t is going to be equally dangerous, machine or man.

I don't think e.g. 'kids' will see it like cutting a brake line.

I agree, as a former ECU programmer, though. I am terrified of drive by wire.

More like making the Google computer do silly things.

More comparable would be the prank of tying some soda tin cans in a string to the exhaust etc, in how I believe my scapegoat kids would see it.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#153

Post by 0_____0 »

rightbyte wrote: post #96
itishappy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious if the design of the Cybertruck affects readings at all. It's got angles straight outta an F-117.

I think "stealth" planes assumes the radar is under the plane on the ground? For the geometry. And they have some color or alloy that reflect less.

It's cooler than that these days - under the paint are antennas plated? printed? onto the skin panels that are tuned to absorb specific frequencies of interest.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#154

Post by 0_____0 »

itishappy wrote: post #67
0_____0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reckon it's probably not that bad, there are big surfaces that are almost normal to what would be incoming radio energy. Stealth shapes tend to reflect energy in a completely different direction from the source.

Here's the closest thing to data I've been able to find. I have no idea what to do with this info. https://x.com/jwt0625/status/1848218860513628203

The polar plot at the end would be useful if there were plots for other cars and trucks to compare to. I'm assuming that it's a simulation?

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#155

Post by GoToRO »

luos2 wrote: post #123
asdasdsddd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the benchmarks that say Mercedes, BMW, and Honda have the best level 3 features.

It's not a benchmark, but there is a youtube channel (Out of Spec) which tests these systems, and I think they also say Mercedes are the best in their "Hogback challenge". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK3NcHSH49Q&list=PLVa4b_Vn4g... Worth checking out, many cars are very bad.

Sponsored by Magna, probably the contractor selling them the system...

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#156

Post by kube-system »

hammock wrote: post #130
itishappy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question! You're right, this is surprisingly hard to Google. It looks like the FDA is responsible. I would not have guessed that! The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would have been my guess, but I'm not finding much there. They have a spec for LIDAR speed measurement devices, and one for the required sensors in vehicles, but nothing on the the output of said sensors. > For manufacturers o…

Sorry, I don’t believe the FDA is doing anything more than stamping a Class 1 or class 2 sticker on component parts. They are not testing LIDAR arrays in situ under simulated driving conditions I would like to see crash test dummy style research around vehicular LIDAR

Crash tests in the US are also technically on the honors system too, but NHTSA does test the most common models. But many they don't. For example, the Cybertruck.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#157

Post by deepnotderp »

hwillis wrote: post #143
deepnotderp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SNR for flash Lidar is really low because you spread the beam out over such a large area. Most automotive Lidar already operate in a “photon starved regime”, ~200-300 photons per return[0]. If you spread that over the entire scene, your snr drops quickly. This forces you into 1550nm, and a large detector array and high power laser at 1550nm is extremely expensive. As for MEMS, it’s been a while but I think FOV/st…

> Most automotive Lidar already operate in a “photon starved regime”, ~200-300 photons per return[0]. If you spread that over the entire scene, your snr drops quickly. Translating: Normally you have a large single sensor per laser, which makes measurements at a very high rate. With flash lidar, you split the sensor up like an image sensor. In a normal image sensor, each pixel can collect light for a long time, but if…

You can actually make curved dies already- there’s a company doing that for image sensors, if you thin silicon down it becomes flexible

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#158

Post by Symmetry »

quonn wrote: post #4
MaxPock wrote: post #3

Fantastic tech that Musk hates

It‘s not just Musk. Most automobile manufacturers have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap and pretty sensors.

If you want conventional car utilization where the car sits in a parking spot most of the time then the extra cost from the lidars is much more of an issue than if you're operating a fleet that is acting as taxis most of the day.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#159

Post by kube-system »

bastloing wrote: post #150

Why is lidar so expensive? And still needs to be miniaturized. But time should solve those problems, there's enough engineering effort.

When you're measuring something as precise as the time it takes light to bounce off something in front of you, you need really precise optics and electronics. Also, automotive lidar is still in the realm of low-volume specialty equipment, so there are little to no economies of scale in manufacturing this stuff.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#160

Post by coolspot »

jaimex2 wrote: post #108
bobsomers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bold claim. Care to justify it?

Yeah, it only works in extremely controlled environments driving really slowly. The design is also flawed as it has to work with cameras anyway. The last thing you want is two systems arguing over what they see.

Waymos don’t drive slowly, I don’t know where you’re getting this from. If anything, they drive too fast for a thing without a driver.
Post reply on HN