Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Is Last In the Driverless Vehicle Race, Report Says (usnews.com)

Navigant Research has compiled a new report on 19 companies working on automated driving systems, and surprisingly, Tesla came in last place. U.S. News & World Report: Navigant ranked the 19 major companies developing AV technology based on 10 criteria, including vision, market strategy, partnerships, production strategy, technology, product quality and staying power. According to the report, General Motors Co. and Waymo, the auto unit of Alphabet, are the top two AV investment opportunities in the market today. Tesla and Apple are the two biggest laggards in the AV race, according to Navigant's rankings.

Investors are acutely aware of Tesla's production and distribution disadvantages compared to legacy automakers like GM, but Navigant is also highly critical of Tesla's technology. "The autopilot system on current products has stagnated and, in many respects, regressed since it was first launched in late 2015," Navigant says in the report, according to Ars Technica. "More than one year after launching V2, Autopilot still lacks some of the functionality of the original, and there are many anecdotal reports from owners of unpredictable behavior."

163 comments

  1. I thought this is about technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is marketing strategies even listed?

    1. Re:I thought this is about technology by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is marketing strategies even listed?

      Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology", Tesla should be proud to be last on the list.

      This is one of those articles where it is clear that the journalist made the list first, putting Tesla last to get more clicks, and then made up BS numbers to justify it.

    2. Re: I thought this is about technology by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Because that's often Waymo important than some of those other factors in determining the adoption of a particular product.

    3. Re:I thought this is about technology by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It says market strategy, not marketing strategy. As in, do they have an actual, realistic plan for bringing the technology to market. And since it is info for investors, it makes sense to include it.

    4. Re:I thought this is about technology by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The technology needs the road painted correctly. Does your state paint the roads correctly? Is your state EV ready with the edges of its roads painted?
      Are your federal and state taxes ensuing the correct painted lines are been used?
      Wont someone think of the algorithm that expected a painted road edge?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:I thought this is about technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YUP!!!

    6. Re:I thought this is about technology by gravewax · · Score: 1

      market strategy and marketing strategy are two entirely different topics, it was MARKET strategy that was listed which is critically important.

    7. Re:I thought this is about technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sustainability

    8. Re:I thought this is about technology by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology", Tesla should be proud to be last on the list.

      This is one of those articles where it is clear that the journalist made the list first, putting Tesla last to get more clicks, and then made up BS numbers to justify it.

      Hell, I didn't even know there was a race! How many laps?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:I thought this is about technology by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair Tesla's "marketing" strategy of selling cars with full self-driving capability since September 2016:

      https://electrek.files.wordpre...

      At the rate they are going a lot of people's leases will expire before they deliver the feature. Even Musk is saying 2020 now.

      Selling technology that doesn't even exist and which you have no realistic prospect of delivering in the next few years is not a great marketing strategy. It's a recipe for lawsuits when people realize the paid $3000 for nothing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:I thought this is about technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, then it needs to be improved. The human drivers it is supposed to replace don't have such requirements.

    11. Re:I thought this is about technology by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology"

      Research reports like this one are usually prepared for marketing purposes -- or with an intended audience of investors.
      Marketing and Staying power are among the information potential investors looking into these companies would ask for.

    12. Re:I thought this is about technology by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      The technology needs the road painted correctly. Does your state paint the roads correctly? Is your state EV ready with the edges of its roads painted? Are your federal and state taxes ensuing the correct painted lines are been used? Wont someone think of the algorithm that expected a painted road edge?

      So much for the future being summarized as "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"

    13. Re:I thought this is about technology by flink · · Score: 1

      Wait, so what happens when it snows? Or when road salt has turned the entire surface into a featureless write plane? I guess that why most of these driverless pilot programs are in Arizona or California.

  2. Conflicting niches by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tesla was biting off more than they could chew with auto-drive. Besides, if you want auto-drive, then you probably don't want a sports car. Sports cars are usually for people who like to drive.

    1. Re:Conflicting niches by lucm · · Score: 2

      Tesla was biting off more than they could chew with auto-drive.

      I agree. They should have spent their energy on their manufacturing capabilities before looking at features that target different markets. Instead now they have buggy self-driving cars with constant production delays.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Conflicting niches by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe, but unlike anyone else, they actually do have self-driving cars on the roads. Not in a research facility, not on paper, not in simulations, not in various stages of development, but on the actual roads.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re: Conflicting niches by macsimcon · · Score: 1

      Is anyoneâ(TM)s autopilot as good as Teslaâ(TM)s? The feature on the Model S/X has a great interface.

      I am a Tesla hater. But I donâ(TM)t think anyone does autopilot better right now.

    4. Re:Conflicting niches by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are already cars out there with auto-cruise control and lane assist.
      They're not much different than a Tesla with Autopilot.
      They both do highway driving, but you'll be dead in both if a truck crosses in front of you and you're not paying attention.

    5. Re:Conflicting niches by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sports cars are usually for people who like to drive.

      Driving a Tesla on Hwy 1 from Carmel to Big Sur is fun. Commuting at 15 mph in stop-and-go traffic on 101 from San Jose to Mountain View is not. It feels great to just click on Autopilot and zone out.

    6. Re:Conflicting niches by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The feature is available in more than just their sports car, you know. It's also in their sedan, their crossover SUV, etc.

      I don't think it has anything to do with conflicting niches so much as having to spend time reinventing the wheel. After they lost MobileEye, they had to spend time redoing what MobileEye provided, plus everything they were planning to do going forward.

      IMO, the big open question is whether the current AutoSteer tech is actually the basis for their self-driving tech, or just a temporary band-aid intended to replace the AP1 MobileEye functionality in the interim until their self-driving tech is ready.

      Right now, I've seen the following problems (consistently) with AutoSteer:

      • If you put on your turn signal, the Tesla either immediately changes lanes without giving enough time to warn other drivers or it does nothing at all, and as far as I can tell, there's no rhyme or reason to which of those two things happens.
      • Sometimes when you put on the turn signal it tries to change lanes into a lane that is occupied by another vehicle. It never waits for a vehicle to get past you.
      • On curves, it steers way too late (a full second after a good driver would do so), then turns the wheel too far, ends up veering towards the other lane edge, then swerves back and forth drunkenly for ten or fifteen seconds.
      • On some curves, this results in the car leaving the lane entirely.
      • When cars are in the adjacent lane, it does not favor the other side of the lane as it should.
      • When there's a concrete barrier right next to the lane, it does not favor the other side of the lane as it should (and in many of those cases where it steered too late, I had to seize control to keep it from wrecking).
      • It makes no attempt at maintaining a constant turning radius (which is the very first lesson that new drivers typically learn in driver's ed class)
      • It usually fails to detect pedestrians and cyclists (even when they're crossing the road right in front of it).
      • It doesn't respect traffic lights or stop signs.
      • IMO, it doesn't brake soon enough when cars cut into the lane in front of you.

      All in all, it isn't a beta so much as a pre-alpha. It is good enough for some freeways (the ones without significant turns), but it has trouble even on some four-lane, divided highways in the greater Bay Area, where presumably Tesla should have copious amounts of training data. I would have no faith in it on arbitrary roads. It isn't the edge cases that are wrong, but rather that the base case behavior is barely even adequate. It feels like they trained their model with drunk drivers and 15-year-old student drivers.

      So I really hope that AutoSteer is a temporary replacement for MobileEye, and that the reason it isn't better is that it is getting only minimal maintenance. If that's not the case... we could be waiting a while.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a car with lane assist and follow? It's like saying Robbie the Robot is on par with Johnny Five. JF has a fucking laser cannon. No one has a Chappie.

    8. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be honest, letting an automated system learn to drive on Californian roads (LA area in particular) is akin to learning to swim by throwing an individual into rough, stormy seas without a flotation device.

    9. Re:Conflicting niches by msauve · · Score: 0

      F that. Everyone has heard of Tesla, and they've undeniably had a significant impact on the electric car market.

      Who the fuck has heard of "Navigant [sic] Research", and why would anyone pay any attention to their clickbait?

      No, I'm not a Tesla "fanboi." But they are advancing the art, and Navigant Research is apparently just a remora.

      (Beyond which, all the self-driving car companies seem to be testing in sunny, dry locations, Michigan based GM included. It's not ready-for-prime-time until they can drive through a white-out condition snow storm on icy, snow covered roadways. Or fog, or pick your poor conditions. And no one appears to be attempting that, even in announced testing.)

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:Conflicting niches by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      t's not ready-for-prime-time until they can drive through a white-out condition snow storm on icy, snow covered roadways.

      Of course, by that criteria, most humans aren't ready to drive a car either. Here in Los Angeles even a modest rainfall seems to discombobulate a lot of the local wetware implementations :)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:Conflicting niches by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      I have a Tesla and I tried many other cars with lane assist. The ARE different. Right now only high-end Audi has anything that resembles Tesla's autopilot.

      Tesla AP can confidently navigate curves and most other lane assists ping-pong between lines all the time.

    12. Re:Conflicting niches by msauve · · Score: 2

      "by that criteria, most humans aren't ready to drive a car either."

      Yeah, but that just means they're stuck in the ditches, which leave the road open for me.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re: Conflicting niches by lucm · · Score: 1

      I am a Tesla hater. But I don't think anyone does autopilot better right now.

      instead of rushing things out, they could have left the auto-pilot for a next phase. Start by mass-producing high quality electric cars and batteries. Just that would be a huge win. Now they have to fight on multiple fronts; complaints and lawsuits about auto-pilot, various regulators to deal with, production line issues, charging stations, freeloaders, etc. They're like Hitler attacking Russia before he had the rest of his campaigns under control. Ambitious, and ultimately a disaster.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    14. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla don't make sports cars (yet). The new roadster might fit that role, but the none of their existing cars are in that category.

    15. Re: Conflicting niches by locketine · · Score: 1

      You sure make Tesla's Auto Steer sound like an immature technology but so many people seem to trust it with their lives so I'm wondering if your car is defective in some way. Maybe take it in to Tesla and ask them why they were willing to give you a feature that would certainly result in damage to your expensive vehicle and possible bodily harm.

      Also, while I'm sure the delay in turning is an issue with processing time, the correct way to navigate a turn is to eclipse it, which is not a constant radius turn. You should start wide and get as close as possible to the inside of the corner halfway through and then ease back out to the outside while accelerating. That's only if you're looking for maximum traction and speed though.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
    16. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programmers from India? Ah..makes sense.

    17. Re:Conflicting niches by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Dude, this story is really dumb. You don't have to be first in the driverless vehicle race, any idiot can just buy and install that technology in their vehicle, figuratively speaking of course. Sure you try to develop your own but you install the one that works best, the sensible decision.

      Just look at things in the right way. So for example, the waffle on about hypersonic aircraft and how they can escape missiles but you look at it from another perspective. Hypersonic aircraft, how manourverable, pretty much not much what so ever, so why shoot it from behind. You can understand how damaging a hypersonic bullet would be to you, ain't no bullet proof vest going to stop that bullet. So you know exactly where they plane will be, well at least within a sufficient small volume of space. Throw up a bunch of bull bearings at let the hypseronic aircraft try to destroy them by flying into them at hypersonic speed, the aircraft a victim of it's own speed and never able to put on sufficient armour to achieve that speed and be safe from the tiniest lump of cruft with sufficient inertial mass to punch right through the aircraft.

      Some times things sound like being of different import than they in reality are. Behind in car AI, so what buy someone else's manufacturing cost the same, you just have a volume based profit margin to add to that cost, so in reality neither here nor there but it sounds like it is. Hypersonic aircraft outfly anything out there, except for what is right in front of it, fly right the fuck into that and no avoiding it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Conflicting niches by Tom · · Score: 2

      I've driven several cars with ACC and lane assist. They are miles away from something that would deserve the name autopilot or self-driving. They would happily drive over a red traffic light, for starters. More importantly, they have no tie-in with the navigation system.

      These are drive-assist systems, a completely different class of thing.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they are hiding them very well.

    20. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Audi and Mercedes both have better systems.

    21. Re:Conflicting niches by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Audi has level 3, which is hands and eyes off. It only works up to 60 kph, designed for traffic jams, but if a truck did cross in front of you it is supposed to be able to handle that by itself and not require immediate driver intervention.

      The current A8 has the system installed but not active as they are waiting for regulatory approval.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the sense that other auto-makers are talking about.
      Tesla doesn't have anything that is even close to pass through safety certification.

      They have slapped on a quick and dirty hack that lets the car drive for you, but without regards to ethics and your safety.
      I doubt it is even legal for them to put it out there, but politicians and law enforcement haven't read the standards that the law requires so they can't make that judgement.

      Teslas version of self-driving is equivalent to what Bill Gates said about user friendly in the 90's. "What we have done is throw away the manual and called it user friendly."

      Tesla doesn't have technology that the others doesn't have. The difference is that they have lower standards.

    23. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why are they releasing doctored videos of cars barely capable of level-2 autonomy running a pre-programmed route in perfect weather? If they have actual self-driving cars on the road somewhere, why not show those instead?

    24. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure make Tesla's Auto Steer sound like an immature technology but so many people seem to trust it with their lives

      The same kind of people who trust Donald Trump with the nuclear launch codes. That proves nothing.

    25. Re: Conflicting niches by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      Not enabled in production cars.
      Tesla does automatic lane changes, can drive 10s of miles without any input on dual carriageway roads / divided highways, works with minimal input in stop-and-go traffic and on undivided highways.

      Audi does one of these things better, but the feature is not enabled yet, and are far behind or are missing features to do the rest. Mercedes is no where near feature parity yet.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    26. Re:Conflicting niches by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Their cars are not self driving. They are Level 2 automation, which means that the driver has to keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road. It's basically unreliably auto-steering and reliable traffic-aware cruise control.

      The early version didn't force the user to pay attention, and then that guy was killed and they made it more strict. If you go back and watch the original videos made about the feature on YouTube there are a lot of people not touching the wheel at all for minutes at a time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Conflicting niches by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It feels great to just click on Autopilot and zone out.

      It's also incredibly dangerous. You could kill someone.

      Autopilot requires you to keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention at all times. It can and does do stupid things sometimes. Wondering over centre lines, "truck lust" where it moves dangerously close to large vehicles, taking the wrong path when the road splits or there is an exit ramp...

      It's not safe to zone out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it can't, and then you'd better be ready to correct it real fast. They haven't done anything ground breaking other than have a much higher risk appetite.

      I'd be shocked if the large manufacturers couldn't deploy Tesla equivalent autopilot tomorrow, if they were willing to accept the risk. But they've learned from previous scandals, and they're shooting straight for level 3 and above. Tesla seems to have lost momentum here, probably because they're trying to get it to work on delivered hardware.

    29. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla was biting off more than they could chew with auto-drive. Besides, if you want auto-drive, then you probably don't want a sports car. Sports cars are usually for people who like to drive.

      It is an interesting development. EV and autonomous driving are two hot fields now and they don't really go hand in hand.

      When it comes to EV, "sports car" is more or less defined by how it looks. Any EV will perform better than an ICE sports car when it comes to accelerating at relatively low speeds.
      Sharp turns, starting from red light and other situations where you want to decelerate and accelerate your cheapest EV will perform better than your most expensive ICE.

      The time you really don't want an EV is for the long boring transporting ranges. When you need to accelerate to pass someone in already high speeds the EV isn't great and the range for those kind of drives is lacking.
      This is the scenario where few people enjoy driving. You just want the car to take you to your destination while you close your eyes for two hours.

      The situations where you want EV or autonomous driving doesn't overlap that much.

    30. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that's the goal. With proper markers and car communication on the road it is an achievable goal. But the cost of road markers, and how to deal with legacy vehicles will require huge subsidies and a strong government leading the way to move standards forward....

    31. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It feels great to just click on Autopilot and zone out.

      It's also incredibly dangerous. You could kill someone.

      You forgot to quote this part:

      Commuting at 15 mph in stop-and-go traffic ...

      You're not killing anyone in stop-and-go traffic.

    32. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also incredibly dangerous. You could kill someone.

      At 15mph? Possible, but highly unlikely. It is when it is actually going at highway speeds it might be dangerous.

    33. Re:Conflicting niches by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Their cars are not self driving. They are Level 2 automation, which means that the driver has to keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road. It's basically unreliably auto-steering and reliable traffic-aware cruise control.

      The early version didn't force the user to pay attention, and then that guy was killed and they made it more strict. If you go back and watch the original videos made about the feature on YouTube there are a lot of people not touching the wheel at all for minutes at a time.

      Tesla is Level 2 approved; but I suspect they're using Level 3/4 tech to do it, and simply using a lower level approval to get the tech out there and tested.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    34. Re:Conflicting niches by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is extensive discussion of this on the Tesla forums, including information from guys who dissect the firmware and extract images from the cameras.

      Currently they are not using all the cameras. They don't use the side ones, there is no blind spot detection. They don't do any sign recognition yet. They seem to have some level of detection of motorbikes, but it's not consistent enough to show on the instrument cluster.

      They only process a single frame of video at a time. They do road marking detection and base steering decisions off that. They also use GPS and maps for assistance, like slowing for corners.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Conflicting niches by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Here in the Greater Toronto Area, you'd expect people to be able to drive in snow... but almost everyone seems to forget for at least the first snowfall of the year. You get two kinds of drivers: the ones who suddenly do half the speed limit even though you can still see bare pavement, and the ones who think their pickup truck or SUV makes them invincible, and exceed the speed limit even in a whiteout with no bare pavement at all (the latter kind you sometimes find in a ditch as you pass them further down the road).

      However, even the idiots seem to be able to figure out where the road is (though individual lanes often become very 'fuzzy'). Self-driving cars are nowhere near able to do that, and until they can do it at least as well as the bad drivers can now, autonomous vehicles are NOT ready for the road.

    36. Re: Conflicting niches by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why do people like you assume if it is enabled in production cars that it is better? Tesla has a very low standard for releasing their autopilot system that the other automakers don't share. Other automakers think that auto-driving shouldn't suddenly drive into a truck if the operator happens to avert their eyes, Tesla does. Doesn't make Tesla better at all.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    37. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're not killing anyone in stop-and-go traffic.

      Not with that attitude.

    38. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >click on Autopilot and zone out.

      Fuck you. I hope you get arrested you piece of shit.

    39. Re:Conflicting niches by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It's also incredibly dangerous. You could kill someone.

      Statistically, it is more dangerous to have a human in control.

      I drive the same route several times per week. If Autopilot got it right yesterday, it will get it right today.

      In stop-and-go traffic, the worst that will happen is a fender scrape, and that is LESS likely to happen with the software in control.

    40. Re:Conflicting niches by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Statistically, it is more dangerous to have a human in control.

      The stats that Tesla have shown are for Autopilot with a human ready to take over at a moment's notice. Do you have stats for Autopilot with a zoned out human behind the wheel?

      If Autopilot got it right yesterday, it will get it right today.

      That is an incorrect assumption. Weather conditions change, the behaviour of other drivers changes, one day there might be roadworks or some debris in the road.

      There was a fatal accident in China where the car drive into the back of a road sweeper that was partially occupying the lane. There have been instances in the US where the car suddenly disengages or crashes into roadworks. Low sun can blind the cameras at certain times of year.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article is perfect for you:
      Driverless cars became a reality in 2017 and hardly anyone noticed

      On November 7, Waymo announced it would begin regularly testing fully driverless cars—without a safety driver—on public roads. It was a momentous announcement. A technology that had seemed like science fiction a decade earlier became a reality. And the announcement was greeted with a yawn by much of the media and the public—if they noticed at all.

      Consider this December 7 article by Eric Adams, a writer for The Drive. Adams wrote that “Level 4 technology”—that is, a car like Waymo’s that can operate with no driver in a geofenced area—”is legal to operate precisely nowhere in the world right now.” In fact, Waymo had been operating its driverless fleet in Arizona with the tacit approval of Arizona regulators for several weeks by that point. The Motley Fool wrote on November 30 that “it’s not yet clear how Waymo will bring its technology to market,” even though Waymo had already announced that its first product would be a Phoenix-area taxi service.

    42. Re: Conflicting niches by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Also, while I'm sure the delay in turning is an issue with processing time, the correct way to navigate a turn is to eclipse it, which is not a constant radius turn. You should start wide and get as close as possible to the inside of the corner halfway through and then ease back out to the outside while accelerating. That's only if you're looking for maximum traction and speed though.

      Yeah, you're right. Technically, it's not constant radius (though I think that's the term they used in our driver's ed class), but it is constant through most of the curve. You start steering before you get to the turn, getting tighter until you reach the target radius, then slowly ease off on your way out of the curve. The radius is, I suppose, more like a stretched sinusoid with a long, flat top.

      Either way, the point I was trying to make is that you don't wait to start turning until after you're in the curve, turn too tightly, realize you're turning too tightly, straighten out the wheel, realize you're about to hit the center line, turn the wheel tightly again, etc. It should be a smooth transition from straight to some amount of turning and then back to straight, and it should begin before the lines start to turn.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    43. Re: Conflicting niches by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And no, it's not just my car. Everyone who has ever driven on a road with moderately tight curves has experienced this behavior, which is why Tesla says in the manual that AutoSteer should be used on roads without tight curves. They weren't kidding when they made that recommendation. They just haven't gotten the math right.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    44. Re:Conflicting niches by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You must have a Model S with the original (MobileEye) autopilot (AP1). AP2.5 ping-pongs between lines all the time, and struggles with any curve tight enough to have a yellow curve sign before it (even if it isn't actually tight enough to make most drivers slow down). When they lost that technology, their capabilities got a lot worse, and they're still not back to where they were before.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    45. Re:Conflicting niches by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Weather conditions change

      Not in San Jose. Well, it does rain once or twice in the winter, but I just stay home on those days, so I don't have to bother to learn how to drive on wet roads.

    46. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're lucky. In Washington state, rain is a constant factor in my daily life especially during the fall/winter.

    47. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like those guys got the Tesla models with the original Mobileye tech. Subsequent models have had to make do without, and it really shows.

    48. Re:Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Model S is not a sports car. It's a big ponderous sedan that goes into limp mode on the first lap of VIR. FFS. And 125mph is not sports car speed. My old Honda Accord from the 80's went that fast FFS.

    49. Re: Conflicting niches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be surprised if they taught the best cornering method in highschool driver's ed since the vast majority of drivers make constant radius turns, but then again they taught it in my motorcycle safety course.

      You're right, if there is any counter-steering, erratic adjustments or boucning off the boundaries of the lane then that's far from ideal and would be scary as a passenger. I guess Tesla is only good at driving in a mostly straight line :(

    50. Re:Conflicting niches by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Which proves the point of the article. Tesla is way behind the 8 ball on this. They're just the only ones to be overly public about promising what their technology can't do yet.

    51. Re:Conflicting niches by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The Tesla Autopilot is a drive-assist system too, currently.
      Have a look at their website
      https://www.tesla.com/en_NZ/au...
      It extols the virtues of their full self-driving capable hardware.

      Then they say

      Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.

      So basically they aren't confident in their own software and it's approved for use no-where. They have no idea when it will be ready.

  3. Ummm no sweetie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean first

  4. Rank this by lucm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Navigant ranked the 19 major companies developing AV technology based on 10 criteria, including vision, market strategy, partnerships, production strategy, technology, product quality and staying power.

    I ranked 27,013 market research firms based on the relevance of their research and the value of their brand. The only reason Navigant didn't finish last is because I included Trump's twitter feed in the list.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Rank this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's play Spot the Butt-Hurt Tesla Owner.

      FOUND HIM!!

  5. Staying Power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How much weight was given to the "staying power" metric? That's naturally going to lean twords GM, which literally can't go out of business...

    1. Re: Staying Power? by locketine · · Score: 1

      Haha, they tried but the U.S. Government said no.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
  6. Tesla has more real data by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Tesla has a pretty huge advantage over other companies, in that there is a TON of data from around the world, in so many different conditions... especially the model 3 has a good number of sensors all around. The performance of that system may be lagging at the moment but Tesla is the one that has the most ingredients for success at hand.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Tesla has more real data by haruchai · · Score: 2

      "Tesla has a pretty huge advantage over other companies, in that there is a TON of data from around the world, in so many different conditions"

      Very true but you have to be able to make sense of all that data. Tests by Tesla owners selectively covering the cameras to see at which point Autopilot would become unavailable found that it's only using the front camera / radar, just like the old system.
      Whether or not they're collecting data from the other sensors is unknown but their progress has been minimal in the past 6 months.
      Also after promising a x-country autonomous drive by end of 2017, not only has it not been accomplished by no revised timeline has yet been offered.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Tesla has more real data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "only really using the front camera", or intelligently performing despite lack of a full set of input? If the latter, that seems pretty smart.

    3. Re:Tesla has more real data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla is basically over, it had its chance and it is not fast enough. The big car companies will crush it with their vastly superior logistics and manufacturing capabilities.

    4. Re:Tesla has more real data by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Tesla is the one that has the most ingredients for success at hand.

      No, Tesla has too few sensors and that is really hampering its efforts to even get back to where it was 2 years ago.

      Originally Tesla was using MobileEye tech. They ended that partnership and developed their own hardware platform, which uses cameras, front radar and ultrasonic sensors. Crucially there is no lidar or stereo vision.

      When AP2 was introduced it was a huge step backwards. A year and a half later they are starting to reach parity with the old AP1 system from MobileEye. But it really isn't clear if they will ever deliver the full self driving that they have already sold to customers with their hardware. The cameras might simply be inadequate for the job. They also seem to have a lack of engineering staff to work on this problem - they only just delivered rain sensing wipers and there are still other basic features missing. Progress is extremely slow, and even Musk has pushed back his estimate for self driving to 2020.

      To understand why the AP2 might be inadequate it helps to understand how it works. They have multiple cameras around the card, with neural networks (NN) to process the images. The NNs are currently quite primitive, they only consider one video frame at a time and don't have any memory of previous ones. That is the cause of the infamous "ping pong" effect where the car bounces around in the lane. It also means that they have no real 3D vision, because when you only have mono vision (not stereo like a human) you need to compare successive frames to determine depth. This results in the system struggling with hills, especially corners with even slight gradients.

      No consider what Tesla has already sold to customers. Full self driving capability, to be delivered by software update. You will be able to summon the car out of your garage to your front door. Summon it from the other side of the country. It will take your kids to school by itself. It will find a parking space by itself. For this to work the car needs a detailed 3D map of the surroundings so that it can navigate in areas without map data or GPS signals like your house or car parks. It needs to be able to manoeuvre with precision and skill, spotting small obstacles like low walls and children. None of the sensors are adequate for that task, let alone the NNs required to process that data.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Tesla has more real data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making sense of incomplete data is

  7. uh... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    Not sure I want to be in the winner's car in this race

  8. uh, what? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tesla and Apple are the two biggest laggards

    That they list a company that doesn't even have a product in the market, neither active nor announced, and which is working on something only according to rumours, tells me a lot about how trustworthy this article is.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:uh, what? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean this rumor?
      https://www.engadget.com/2017/...

      Maybe Apple just decided to publish a paper on car, pedestrian and cyclist detection using LIDAR because they were bored?
      https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.063...

    2. Re:uh, what? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Tesla's autopilot dohickey may only be "semi-autonomous" or whatever you want to call it, but as far as I can tell they are the only company on the list that actually has a product of this class for sale. Waymo's never sold anything except themselves, Uber is losing money hand over fist and has no strategy for profitability, Apple has no car, Honda has admitted that they're way behind, and Subaru don't even seem interested (not on the list), but Tesla is last? Maybe they aren't first, but come on.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    3. Re:uh, what? by swb · · Score: 1

      Apple was rumored to be working on a car for a long time. I don't think they could actually build one, a car is a complicated thing to build and involves a lot of regulatory approvals and a massive investment in manufacturing. I'm not sure the regulatory requirements would also line up with Apple's marketing style, either.

      It's not that Apple doesn't have or can't hire the right talent, and they are good at supply chain management but a car is a different product than Apple knows how to make.

      Tesla has shown that building cars from scratch isn't easy or easily scalable.

      My guess was always Apple was looking for sideways entry to being inside cars or involved with user interfaces and controls. "Building a car" was just a design exercise to see where they could best apply their talents.

    4. Re:uh, what? by mentil · · Score: 1

      Apple wouldn't build an entire car, most likely. What's far more likely is that they'd license an electronics package, like Microsoft and Nvidia do. Apple already makes something called CarPlay, it'd be something like this.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:uh, what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Any idiot can publish a paper, but I have yet to see one of these on the road: https://www.theinquirer.net/w-...

    6. Re:uh, what? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      Tesla and Apple are the two biggest laggards

      That they list a company that doesn't even have a product in the market, neither active nor announced, and which is working on something only according to rumours, tells me a lot about how trustworthy this article is.

      Apple are also laggards in the jam making arena.

    7. Re:uh, what? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Uber is losing money hand over fist and has no strategy for profitability,

      Same as Tesla then.

  9. Which car can I buy now? by DaTrueDave · · Score: 1

    And how many different models? An SUV? A sports car?

    1. Re:Which car can I buy now? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Chevrolet Bolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Its got the GUI that EV drivers crave.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Which car can I buy now? by DaTrueDave · · Score: 1

      That's not automated?

  10. This WOULD be relevant, but... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

    ... IIRC Tesla started, has grown and continues to do quite well as an Electric Vehicle maker, NOT an AV maker. While Tesla, like pretty much every other high-end automaker today, has assisted-driving capability, I defy anyone to prove that Tesla has ever positioned themselves as even mainly a AV maker. Pure 100% organic, dolphin-free Bullshit(TM)!!

    1. Re:This WOULD be relevant, but... by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

      GM hasn't ever positioned themselves as "even mainly a[n] AV maker".

      So obviously they aren't including only companies that have "positioned themselves as even mainly a[n] AV maker".

      They are ranking the companies that are doing anything significant with self-driving vehicles.

      Given Elon Musk promised a cross-country self-driven ride by the end of 2017, I think Telsa qualifies.

    2. Re:This WOULD be relevant, but... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Well, they do sell the feature of full autonomous driving*.

      *when available.

    3. Re:This WOULD be relevant, but... by mentil · · Score: 1

      The Model 3's control panel was replaced with a central touchscreen on the theory that looking away from the road to mess with the touchscreen is ok because the car is driving autonomously anyways. For the same reason, you don't really need to see the speedometer. This is the official explanation for the layout.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:This WOULD be relevant, but... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      That makes a lot of sense. That is: if the car actually drives itself.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:This WOULD be relevant, but... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Trunk Monkey' is currently available, except where 'prohibited by law'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Re:Finally.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we now know far too much about your sexual fantasies. I still have stopped vomiting from what I've learned about Trump's

  12. Arrows in the backs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of pathfinders. Just sayin.

    1. Re:Arrows in the backs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Nissan got to do with this? Did you even read the article? It's about Tesla you noob. Learn to fucking read.

  13. Another "market research" company poopoos on Tesla by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Thus far, lots of market research companies have said Tesla is a complete failure and would be dead by the end of the year and thus far they have all been proven wrong. Tesla is taking the AI heavy approach by only using radar and cameras which is likely why they have been ranked last. However, I would point out that people don't have LIDAR and yet manage to drive. Tesla isn't always on time with their products and thus far have a few kinks but they always manage to produce a product. GM, Ford, Nissan and all the other giants have dipped their big toes into plenty of ponds and ran away screaming but Tesla actually sticks with it until it's done.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  14. Ford in top tier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hilariously Ford are in the top tier, by Fords own admission they're playing catchup.

    Navigant are blind IMHO.

    There are only 3 major contenders, Waymo, Tesla and Volvo. All of them actively have driverless cars out on the road. Baidu are just starting that, Ford, GM etc. are rebranding things like 'lane feedback' as driverless control (it isn't).

    Toyota a top tier??? Seriously? I've got a Toyota. The lights are Auto, Off, On..... no "daytime driving lights mode", Off isn't off, its on, it leaves the accent lights on, even when the car is switched off and flattens the battery. Auto is so sensitive it switches on as you pass under a cloud. Obviously the switch gear and lights don't match up, that light set would need Auto, Off, Daytime, Nighttime, 4 modes, not 3. Connect Bluetooth to a Toyota head unit? Are you crazy? Life it toooo short. Rant aside, Toyota are all talk talk on self driving cars with very little to show.

    1. Re:Ford in top tier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only 3 major contenders, Waymo, Tesla and Volvo.

      As far as I know Volvo won't let you buy anything driverless.
      They have cars on the road but it is with selected persons for long term testing.
      I think their brand is to tied to safety for them to let it out in the wild within the next couple of years.

    2. Re:Ford in top tier by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Volvo is ideal for automated cars. The owners already can't drive.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're not into BBs.

    1. Re:Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Tesla's race have to do with anything?

  16. Yes, for now by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Tests by Tesla owners selectively covering the cameras to see at which point Autopilot would become unavailable found that it's only using the front camera / radar, just like the old system.

    Sure but that does not mean they are not collecting from the other cameras/sensors while people drive, and can learn from that as well for more advanced systems.

    their progress has been minimal in the past 6 months.

    I imagine they are being very careful with updates, but that doesn't mean major upgrades are not around the corner...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. Re:Another "market research" company poopoos on Te by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla is only still alive thanks to the infusion of the US and the blind mice that gave the snake charmer a grand of their cold hard cash.

    I tried to buy a Model-X. I was told I'd have to wait until 2020. I told them to stuff it and I was off to buy a CTS-V. Fuck the Tesla corporation. I'm sure Nicola is rolling so fast in his grave that he's producing enough energy to power a small town.

    Musk has done nothing but stroke his own cock and ego with every one else's money whilst producing sub par big brother government capable equipment.

  18. Tesla has different goals, too ..... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    When you look at the big auto makers like Chevy, they're cutting deals to partner up with ride-sharing services like Uber or Lyft. That should tell you what their long-term goals are. They want to be the ones who own or exclusively sell fleets of driverless vehicles used in a future where people no longer own their own personal cars -- but simply call for one as needed, on a trip by trip basis.

    Tesla, on the other hand, is still more firmly entrenched in the idea of making a desirable electric car with as much cool gadgetry on it as possible, so you'll WANT to proudly own one for yourself as a personal vehicle.

    That means Tesla would be less interested in achieving fully self-driving vehicles. (Right now, that would probably constitute a bigger drain on their finances than it's worth - since their near-term customers are pretty ok with a car they can still drive when they want to, and which just uses automated features as kind of an "auto pilot" mode that expects the driver to cancel and intervene whenever necessary.)

    1. Re:Tesla has different goals, too ..... by mentil · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Their cars are still pretty expensive, compared to say a Corolla or Civic. People who would buy one of these are more likely to just call auto-cabs... which could be a Tesla. Electric cabs are likely to be cheaper than ICE to deploy/maintain, so cab companies will consider Teslas for this purpose, if they're autonomous.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  19. Autopilot is about getting real world data by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that normally would be really tough to get because most cities wouldn't let autonomous cars on their roads yet. Tesla's got an Apple grade reality distortion field that lets them get away with things nobody else seems to be able to.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. Re:Finally.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say cum on my face daddy, but you're not Musk and I'm not a Tesla dick beater looking to guzzle a gallon of Elon jizz and shit out lithium batteries like a golden goose.

  21. Price for hardware? by RobMarine · · Score: 2

    What does the suite of hardware cost that Cruise and Waymo are using on the roof of their cars, $100,000? Because that is a commercial technology if they can't integrate their self-driving sensor suite at a price comparable to other vehicles in the same class. I know there's hope that the cost of lidar will come way down, but when? Because if it takes four years for the cost of lidar to become viable for mass-production, that gives Tesla four years to perfect their vision system. Regardless, I think Tesla's real advantage is that once (if) they get their system to work at Level 4, they'll instantly have a global fleet of autonomous cars ready to provide TaaS in areas where they have extensive familiarity. Everyone else will have to ramp up their fleets, over years.

    1. Re:Price for hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know there's hope that the cost of lidar will come way down, but when?

      For Waymo, prior to January of last year:
          Google’s Waymo invests in LIDAR technology, cuts costs by 90 percent
          https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/01/googles-waymo-invests-in-lidar-technology-cuts-costs-by-90-percent/

    2. Re:Price for hardware? by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

      Lidar cost $70,000 in 2012.

      In 2016, it costs $250. Projections are for it to cost $90 (no date, but guess by 2020?).

    3. Re:Price for hardware? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you go from 64 beams to 1. Decent Lidar still costs $8000.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. Re:Price for hardware? (edit) by RobMarine · · Score: 1

    Meant to say ISN'T a commercial technology at that cost.

  23. GM #1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To think you can see everything you need for a level five autonomous car [full self-driving] with cameras and radar, I don't know how you do that." - GM's director of autonomous vehicle integration
    That's odd because most people manage level five autonomy using just two "cameras" and no radar

    1. Re:GM #1? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Two camera level five autonomy would never be able to work in every real-world situation that a human can work in.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  24. the thing about teslas autopilot... by gl4ss · · Score: 1, Interesting

    tesla is last due to technology though.

    the thing about why they got it so early and why they stagnated now, is that as you might remember if you read slashdot and wasnt a total fanboi, tesla bought the lane warning camera technology from a 3rd party provider(that provides many makers) and then against the wishes of said provider hacked the lane warning system to work as autopilot - which, if you think about it, is basically a grad project - just wire the logic to the values you get out of that system. it works, but it's neither safe, good or provided tesla with something to move forward with(since it was just a hack, basically).

    so them hacking the providers lane detection system to work as autopilot is why they got so far ahead in the game early, but it was not a) their technology b) used in the manner the provider had meant it to be used.

    and look, the investors are getting tired of tesla. that's why musk is shitting bricks. it's already on borrowed time and the big makers will enter the market big time when it is profitable. the only recourse tesla has against that is if they can get their designs and production facilities to operate cheaply enough - you don't make money by losing money. the superfactory is online so this year they either make money or will face difficulties securing new money, and so far it's not looking that bright.

    the problem with teslas technology, again, is that they have no unique technology and they never have had unique technology that was more efficient, better or cheaper than competitors have. you can't make a technology company if you can't make things either cheaper or better and preferably both.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with other companies tech is that they rely on shit like Lidar systems which make the car ugly as shit. Tesla is successful because their car looks like a sexy car.

    2. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      tesla is last due to technology though.

      the thing about why they got it so early and why they stagnated now, is that as you might remember if you read slashdot and wasnt a total fanboi, you can't make a technology company if you can't make things either cheaper or better and preferably both.

      I had no idea that Tesla was going to be the world leader in Driverless vehicles. Well as last in this race, time to shut them down, sell the proceeds forj the bankruptcy sale and open some coal mines.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by TheReaperD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, as things are going now, the "traditional" automakers will build and sell the electric cars but, Tesla will sell them the batteries and rent them the supercharger stations.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    4. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla has cars that will happily run into semis and over motorcyclists because they lack the ability to see what's around them due to a lack of lidar.

      Morons like you that probably have at least one iPhone up the ass are a big part of the problem here. Not everything can be pretty, especially in the early stages.

    5. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with other companies tech is that they rely on shit like Lidar systems which make the car ugly as shit. Tesla is successful because their car looks like a sexy car.

      Yes, look is the main problem when your system is designed by engineers that have actually read the standards related to designing safety critical application for automotive usage. (That the law requires.)

      There is a reason you have both regular brakes and a parking-brake. That is because the law requires redundancy for safety critical systems. If one fails you can use the other. (With regenerative braking you can probably omit one of them, all three are mainly limited by tire traction.)
      There is however only one steering wheel, that is because steering is a convenience and not necessarily safety critical.
      There are many self proclaimed skilled drivers that talk about steering around an obstacle rather than braking, but that is not what the law says. To the left you are to expect oncoming traffic and to the right you are to expect pedestrians. Braking is the only option that is guaranteed to be safe and if you don't have time for that you are going too fast and broke the law.
      If you risk being rear ended it is because the person behind you broke the law not because you did anything wrong. (Practically it doesn't matter, but when it comes to determining who was in the wrong it is pretty clear. Keep your distance and slow down if you can't come to a full stop in time.)

      The same requirement for redundancy exists in autonomous systems. Whatever happens the car needs to be able to brake for obstacles in front of the car and visual object recognition algorithms are far to complex to get certified as a component of that detection system.
      That means that you need both lidar and ultrasound or some other measuring method that you can guarantee will detect obstacles. (False positives are acceptable since they don't cause safety issues unless someone else breaks the law.)
      The system also needs to be able to do self testing so that it can refuse to start or can abort the trip safely if one of the systems fail.

      Image analysis and all that fancy stuff is a nice addition and convenience, but it is illegal to design a system that relies on them, it is too hard to prove to anyone that they will recognize the possible obstacles.
      You need at least two basic functions that you can push through certification and that can stop the vehicle if any obstacle appears in front of it and you need a method for verifying their function.

    6. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not just about appearances. It's about cost, drag, and power consumption. Lidar is a pain on all three of those (in addition to looks). You simply can't sell cars with big $10k domes bulging out of the top upping your drag coefficient by 10-20% and consuming a couple kilowatts of power. That would be a disaster to your range, and make your vehicle totally uncompetitive.

      "More than one year after launching V2, Autopilot still lacks some of the functionality of the original, and there are many anecdotal reports from owners of unpredictable behavior."

      Funny how you don't get anecdotal reports concerning the others, given that most of them don't have owners to make said anecdotal reports. And of most of the competitors' systems, they're comically bad. And they have the gall to actually market the car as currently "self-driving" (unlike Tesla which markets self-driving as an additional package which you can buy but won't be active for years).

      Some of my favorite quotes from the test drive comparison:

      One never really decides to engage Drive Pilot. You press two buttons on the left side of the dash, one for Distronic Cruise Control, the other for Automatic Steering, then press a button on the left side of the steering wheel, then, — when Drive Pilot decides conditions are suitable — it engages.

      Is there an audible sound? None that I heard. Like Autopilot, a green steering wheel icon illuminates on the bottom center of the display, and is duplicated in the Heads-Up Display.

      Engagement is made clear by the car’s instant and unsafe wandering in all but perfect conditions, and often in perfect conditions.

      Unlike with Autopilot, placing your hands on the wheel and steering doesn’t instantly disengage Drive Pilot. I suppose this is intended as a method of allowing the user to guide Drive Pilot by making course corrections, but instead it resulted in an unwanted and stressful upper arm workout, without which I’d have been killed.

      I got the Drive Pilot to “drive” itself for as long as sixty seconds, which is as along as Mercedes-Benz deems it safe. Trust me, you don’t want to take your hands off the wheel that long unless your car’s on fire and you’re reaching for a fire extinguisher, and even then.

      Drive Pilot had a nasty habit of disengaging in good conditions before sixty seconds were up, with no obvious warning except the green steering icon going out, and lane drift. After the third time, I actually felt fear.

      This is actually a dangerous product. The car will steer itself into oncoming traffic. It oscillates between lane markings like a drunk driver. No setting or speed is sufficient to compensate for the utter failure of this functionality.

      Did anyone in Stuttgart drive a Tesla on Autopilot? Even once?

      People need to be fired. Think I’m being harsh? Here’s another direct comparison between Drive Pilot and Autopilot, from Norway’s Autofil. Scroll down to the pictures comparing the two cars' lane keeping. Need more convincing? Here's Wired's take. Still don't believe me? Video is coming soon, via Drive on NBC Sports.

      The only good thing about Drive Pilot is that your Mercedes will protect you from it. Did I trust it? Only at a crawl. Did I understand it? I don’t understand how Mercedes-Benz could release this to the public. I hated literally everything about it. It drove like a drunk ten year old, fighting for the wheel with a drunk fourteen year old.

      --
      Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
    7. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You simply can't sell cars with big $10k domes bulging out of the top upping your drag coefficient by 10-20% and consuming a couple kilowatts of power.

      That's why people who know about this stuff are predicting 2020 or later for self driving, because that's when lidar will become cheap and compact enough to make it practical. The tech is already working in the lab, but it takes time to commercialize and the characterise to understand the differences between the larger units.

      The breakthrough has been to find electrical ways of directing the emitted light, rather than needing to have a spinning mirror.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Sure because why do something that's safer if it makes your car look like shit.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re: the thing about teslas autopilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to make claims than build a product. If the two are equivalent, Tesla is last. If actually having a product is important, Tesla is way out in front.

    10. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question - do you work for Tesla? Every thread that has something remotely negative to say about them, without fail, you're in here spamming away like a madman in their defense.

    11. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Since you wrote "serious question" - not at all. I just have an interest in EVs, and Tesla is the unambiguous leader in this front, so obviously they get most of my interest in this regard. And "spamming" is not a synonym for writing about a topic.

      --
      Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
    12. Re:the thing about teslas autopilot... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You mean Panasonic will sell them the batteries? Or China?

  25. adaptive cruise control first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear automakers, go for the low hanging fruit first: adaptive cruise control

    * it's a much easier problem to solve
    * it automates the part of driving where humans are the most flawed
    * the division of labor between car and driver is easy to understand
    * it would have a huge impact on traffic congestion on highways

    I think people would be shocked how much higher bandwidth the highways are capable of and how fast a traffic jam would clear if every car on the road was using adaptive cruise control to react to the vehicle in front and behind it.

    I look forward to full blown automation some day, but traffic congestion could be significantly alleviated with a much easier system in the meantime

    Side note: I'd be curious if a PSA campaign could accomplish anything for traffic congestion -- tell everyone to drive half way between the car in front and behind them. It would be an attempt to train humans to drive more like an adaptive cruise control would. I kind of feel like humans driving this way could achieve higher road bandwidth than the norm, but I don't have that much confidence in human drivers as a group

  26. Re:Another "market research" company poopoos on Te by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...blah blah blah I hate Elon Musk and Telsa blah blah blah... ...blah blah blah I TRIED TO BUY A MODEL-X blah blah blah... ...blah blah blah I hate Elon Musk and Telsa blah blah blah...

    What the french fried fuck did I just read???

  27. Why surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Tesla produces is vapor, and whenever Musk opens his mouth, a million balloons float into the air, and all the fields are fertilized.

  28. Good! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Because I'll be damned if I trust my safety to a driverless vehicle.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  29. Is this a competition Tesla should even be in? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    According to Musk, the primary reason for existence of Tesla is to get the world to move more quickly to electric cars. It does this by making good enough cars, and making enough money from them, that other companies realize they are missing out and so chose to emulate Tesla. I'm sure that Tesla also want to become a long term profitable major car manufacturer, but if we believe Musk, that is a secondary goal.

    Given all this, and given Tesla motor's significant growing pains and limited resources (compared to GM, Ford, VW etc) it seems to me that self driving is a major distraction which uses resources better used elsewhere. I suspect they'd have been better off just to go for the standard levels of automation in high end cars (e.g. autobraking.)

    And all you mindless Musk haters, pay attention: this article shows how you can intelligently criticize Tesla, rather than pretending there was some vast supply of government subsidy money that any halfwit could have sucked up, yet somehow only Musk thought to do so, or was allowed to do so.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Is this a competition Tesla should even be in? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes because I want to spend $80K on a vehicle that will give me chronic range anxiety.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  30. Vision? by fodder69 · · Score: 1

    When the first thing they are grading on is "Vision", I am not going to RTFA. The summary also says they have reports of ???. As opposed to the reports on my Toyota not driving itself. Because it doesn't...

  31. They are first in one important way by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 2

    They are first or near first in one important way, having had a vehicle with many self-driving car features on the road, testing and improving them for 3+ years. Other companies like the volt now are getting there, but Tesla is not lost in the part about actually have working cars with some features.

    1. Re: They are first in one important way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercedes had that long before Tesla. Others too.

    2. Re: They are first in one important way by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      Tesla's were much better than Mercedes. Teslas don't go from left to right hunting for the lane, like people have reported on older mercedes. I don't know about current era merc.

  32. Just talk by Reisrdok · · Score: 1

    Anyone of us is capable of pointing out problems, but people with solutions are the only ones that matter. Rest is just noise.

    Tesla is also the first in the driverless vehicle race. Because I don't see anyone else in it who could be taken seriously yet. Lots of talk, very little self driving cars.

    But I do reserve the right to change my opinions, because they are often proven wrong.

  33. Re:Another "market research" company poopoos on Te by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I feel like I'm the only sane one here!

    That's actually among the first signs of insanity :D

  34. Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a race between Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Usain Bolt, and the Tooth fairy who would win?

    Usain Bolt would of course win, because the others don't exist and are a figment of imagination.

    The driverless cars from the manufacturers in this article except for Tesla are unavailable and don't exist in production.

    1. Re:Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither do Tesla's. Tesla has enough trouble producing their non-self-driving cars as it is. At least some of the others know how to build cars and unlike Tesla, some of them actually have the capability and the technology to develop a true self-driving car.

    2. Re:Race by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So if you can't buy it, it doesn't exist? You must be American.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Race by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Only Americans are skeptical about vapor?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  35. Re:Another "market research" company poopoos on Te by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus far, lots of market research companies have said Tesla is a complete failure and would be dead by the end of the year and thus far they have all been proven wrong.

    They have indeed underestimated the number of investors willing to pour money into a sinkhole. However, their fundamental analysis is right. Tesla sells their products at a loss, does not have a path towards profitability, it is too arrogant to learn from others and their products are not of sufficient quality to compete in the mass market.

    Tesla is taking the AI heavy approach by only using radar and cameras which is likely why they have been ranked last

    Tesla's approach is to make questionable demonstration videos and to make promises they do not keep.

    GM, Ford, Nissan and all the other giants have dipped their big toes into plenty of ponds and ran away screaming but Tesla actually sticks with it until it's done.

    Sure, in some alternative reality where everything is exactly opposite.

  36. Tesla clueless at marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I think Tesla has been clueless at selling vehicles. This sort of go your own way of selling all electric vehicles has proven a failure. Mostly because not that many people want them or can afford them. If you truly believe EV is the future, how come your first vehicle was something only the few can afford to own? Why not make a Leaf, or Bolt like vehicle, it would be like Henry Ford building a expensive first automobile. Then on top of that terrible marketing decision Tesla also does something completely off base with dealerships and in some cases owners waiting weeks for service or warranty fixes. Tesla may be a brilliant minded company, but it has already failed because of its inability to market itself properly.

    1. Re:Tesla clueless at marketing by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      Personally I think Tesla has been clueless at selling vehicles.

      As long as Tesla has a backlog, it seems to me that their marketing is doing just fine relative to their production capacity.

    2. Re:Tesla clueless at marketing by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Backlog or not, any company can lose money per unit. That's not a difficult bar to achieve.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  37. Musks unsustainable technologies by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    GM etc just have more technical resources to back these things up, so they can use their existing technology and supply chains rather than having to build everything from scratch.

    The big problem with electric cars is that its not sustainable however, and will not scale to large usage, because the batteries consume so many rare earth metals. The idea that electric cars are environmental is such an outrageous idea, its a joke. When you consider the effects of mining and how it is depleting non-renewable resources, its just ridiculous. Many of the batteries will end up in landfills like alkalines and other rechargeables because people just dont give a damn that they are throwing away their childrens future when they dont recycle these materials and there is no requirement that they have to do so. It should be illegal to toss any electronics in the garbage and instead it should be sent for metal recycling. But getting this done is like herding cats.

    Its similar to the idea of Hydrogen cars. Hydrogen was perhaps worse, because to make hydrogen you have to split water with electrolysis. However inevitably a lot of the hydrogen will escape, not being bound to oxygen, it will float up into the atmosphere and drift into space. Theres a reason why hydrogen and helium are so hard to find because they are too light to be held down by gravity. So essentially, your burning up water and releasing it into space. You have to consider the long term effects of this over many millions of years because short term thinking has gotten us into trouble with how we think about other resources. The idea that a Mars civilization burned up its water in such a manner has been a subject of sci-fi but its a plausible scenario. The same problem exists with hydrogen fed fission reactors and hydrogen rockets. When you launch a hydrogen rocket your basically losing some earths water supply to space. This is why we need to rethink the idea of hydrogen rockets and look into something else before we consider any kind of large scale space colonization, and also how these colonies will exist without sapping earths supply of resources such as water and oxygen which may seem abundant but are actually finite. Leakage from space craft would result in cumulative running losses of oxygen hydrogen and so on into space steadily depleting the earth ecosystem of these vital gasses. There needs to be an international convention against removing oxygen or hydrogen from the earth ecosystem.

    Much of Musks ideas are based on technologies that are barely possible at the small scale but disastrously unsustainable at the large scale.

    1. Re:Musks unsustainable technologies by Socguy · · Score: 1

      I really can't tell if you're trolling or simply being sarcastic.

  38. In this thread... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NUH UH!"

  39. No idea why it is a surprise. by Computershack · · Score: 1

    Both Apple and Tesla do nothing special and their status is based on their hype machine rather than reality. Tesla for example has made many promises and claims in the past it hasn't lived up to yet, mostly in order to keep those Federal dollars rolling in, and Apple mostly innovates meaning it takes work others have done and repurposes it. It therefore comes as no surprise that both are falling behind companies that don't make wild claims about what they can do and that actually invent stuff.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  40. We want driverless motorcycles! by clovis · · Score: 1

    And when the company's C-levels are going to work on driverless motorcycles, then I'll believe driverless technology is ready.

    http://media1.break.com/dnet/m...

  41. Trump Curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all.

  42. Apple is a laggard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know who is an even bigger laggard than Apple in this space? Kleenex. That's right, Johnston and Johnston have NOTHING on Google and Waymo on their self driving cars.