Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#311

Post by ec109685 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:22 AM UTC

imglorp wrote: post #139

mensetmanusman wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some experience with LiDAR, they fail easily if a water droplet is on the cover or if signs are too bright. It’s a whole different technology challenge.

Why is LiDAR still expensive enough for the cost to be a problem for anyone? Why have large numbers not driven these down to commodity devices at this point? Or maybe similar tech at another frequency like spread spectrum microwave with phased array semiconductor antennae?

The numbers aren’t that large. Nowhere near the volume of optical components sold, which benefit from continual optimization that the billions consumer electronics sold each year undergo.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#312

Post by ec109685 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:26 AM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #129

petilon wrote: post #33

I didn't find his answers particularly convincing. His answer focused on costs mainly, and how "the best part is no part". We have already seen multiple accidents caused by camera's limitations [1] which would not have happened if Tesla used Lidars. Cameras have poor dynamic range and can be easily blinded by bright surfaces. While it is true that humans do fine with only eyes, our eyes are significantly better than…

> While it is true that humans do fine with only eyes We do not. Humans are terrible at driving. Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the developed world. Billions of dollars of property damage occur every year because humans are not up to the task. A self driving system that is as safe as an average human driver would be an absolute failure.

Humans are amazing at driving. We typically go millions of miles in a lifetime without causing any fatal vehicle crashes and can generally handle unknown situations just fine.

AI is nowhere near that.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#313

Post by oxplot » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:27 AM UTC

lnsru wrote: post #289

oxplot wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, if you want the best EV, it's usually not going to be a Tesla. Would love to hear what you consider "good" and what specific EV ticks the most good features that a Tesla Model 3 doesn't.

360 degree camera on BMW i4. Overall build quality too.

I don't know if you're addressing what makes a good "EV" or just listing some features you personally care about. If the former, then 360 degree camera and build quality has little to do with an EV. Tesla is a young company and build quality has dramatically improved over the years (see Munro) and will continue to do so. Tesla has close to 360 camera coverage, it just hasn't added it in software. All it takes is a software update on existing hardware. If they haven't done it yet, it probably means they have other priorities at the moment.

Some EV specific advantages of Tesla over competition:

- Range: Teslas continue to lead in range, as result of best aerodynamics, best drive train efficiency and vertically integrated design (see Munro - highly integrated component).

- Charging infrastructure: largest available and most reliable (see MKBHD for e.g.).

- Regular software updates improving everything from range, to charge planning (recently added much better estimate based on wind direction, inclination, tyre pressure, weather, etc) to safety, etc.

- and most important of all: Availability and production volume. Best EV in the world isn't worth anything if you can't buy it.

If you look forward and see what Tesla is doing with its manufacturing innovations, it should become clear that things like in-house battery production, single front and rear casting among numerous other things has already secured their top position for sometime to come.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#314

Post by croes » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:29 AM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #246

croes wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We do not. But not because of a lack of visual information. Most of the time it's a la k of concentration or an overestimation of one's own driving abilities.

Here is some shocking news for you. It's not your eyes driving the car... its your brain.

That's exactly my point.

Unless Teslas have something similar to the human brain cameras are not enough.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#315

Post by oxplot » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:34 AM UTC

nielsbot wrote: post #306

All I heard was "cost savings, cost savings, cost savings"

Well watch it again and again and again. He talks about the determental effect of lo-fi sensors in conjunction with vision among other things.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#316

Post by oxplot » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:39 AM UTC

JaggerJo wrote: post #75

This sucks for parking. It is simply (physically) not possible for the existing cameras to see the area directly in front of the car. So how would this work for parking? A: Add more cameras so there are no dead areas in front of the car B: build a model in vector space when driving towards a parking spot and assume blind spots don't change. (still sucks)

> It is simply (physically) not possible for the existing cameras to see the area directly in front of the car.

Think about how a human driver does it, given his/her even worse vantage point. They model what's in front/behind the car from afar and remember what's where as they approach it. There are other signals as well, such as continuation of a kerb, etc.

I think people keep forgetting that Teslas run hundreds of ML prediction tasks all the time. Watch recent AI day and their talks about "occupancy network" to get a sense of the car's ability to:

1. Construct 3D model of its surrounding in real time; 2. Remember occluded sections based on what's it's seen previously.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#317

Post by 60Vhipx7b4JL » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

From an engineering perspective I would ask: Can your sensor package understand the environment to the required (low) failure rate?

Radar/Lidar/Ultrasonic is going to give you information that your camera systems will not give you. It does not matter if the delta of information is little. If this little is required because you can't obtain it otherwise, you still need it.

If you just rely on the fleet, you rely on the things you have seen. What about the objects that you have not yet seen?

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#318

Post by Someone » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

touisteur wrote: post #310

Reason077 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ”The first famous autopilot crash was because a white semi-truck was washed out by the sun and confused for an overhead sign. That's literally trivial for a car with radar to detect.” That crash occurred on a car which was using radar. Automotive radar generally doesn’t help to detect stationary objects. Further, that crash occurred on a vehicle with the original autopilot version (AP1), which was based on Mobileye…

I find very strange the claim that a moving doppler (pulsed doppler?) radar 'generally doesn't help to detect stationary objects'. I mean if the car is moving, it generates a doppler shift on all objects moving at a different speed, right? Maybe it's difficult for reasons of false alarm detection (too many stationary objects that are not of interest) but you can get very good results with tracking (curious about thes…

> I find very strange the claim that a moving doppler (pulsed doppler?) radar 'generally doesn't help to detect stationary objects'. I mean if the car is moving, it generates a doppler shift on all objects moving at a different speed, right?

I’m in the same boat as to not understanding why, but from what I have read the problem indeed isn’t that it doesn’t detect them, it’s that there are too many of them, and nobody has figured out how to filter out the 99+% of signals you have to ignore from the ones that may pose a risk, if it’s doable at all.

I think that at last part of the reason is that spatial resolution of radar isn’t great, making it hard to discriminate between stationary objects in your path and those close to it (parked cars, traffic signs, etc). Also, some small objects in your path that should be ignored such as soda cans with just the ‘right’ orientation can have large radar reflections.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#319

Post by whiddershins » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

petilon wrote: post #33

I didn't find his answers particularly convincing. His answer focused on costs mainly, and how "the best part is no part". We have already seen multiple accidents caused by camera's limitations [1] which would not have happened if Tesla used Lidars. Cameras have poor dynamic range and can be easily blinded by bright surfaces. While it is true that humans do fine with only eyes, our eyes are significantly better than…

He's not talking about costs - money. He's talking about costs - engineering.

It's about more information is not always better. It can instead muddy the waters. It can create confusion.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#320

Post by tim-fan » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 7:43 AM UTC

stillworks wrote: post #291

RC_ITR wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first famous autopilot crash was because a white semi-truck was washed out by the sun and confused for an overhead sign. That's literally trivial for a car with radar to detect. Amazing how people talk about stuff they have no idea about when it comes to Tesla.

That's literally trivial for a car with radar to detect. In principle that is correct… but radars in automotive application are unable (or rather not used) to detect non-moving targets ? Asking this because I know first hand that the adaptive cruise function in my car must have a moving vehicle in front of it for the adaptive aspect to work. It will not detect a vehicle that is already stopped. The resolution of the…

My understanding is that your typical automotive radar will have insufficient angular resolution to reliably distinguish, say, an overpass from a semi blocking the road, or a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road from one on the footpath.

Radar does however have the advantage of measuring object speed directly via the doppler effect, so you can filter out all stationary objects reliably, then assume that all moving objects are on the road in front of you and need to be reacted/responded to.

So I think it's the case that radar can detect stationary objects easily, but cannot determine their position enough to be useful, hence in practice stationary objects are ignored.