Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

First L3 Self Driving Car - Audi A8 world premieres in Barcelona

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
You're right there is no Audi you can purchase today that matches Tesla. That is because Audi has a different philosophy, that full-speed highway pilots should not be released as Level 2 features as they will be abused, like we have seen abundantly with Tesla AP.
They DO sell cars with Audi Lane Assist. Do not pretend is it a philosophy issue. And they DO sell the new Audi A8 with Lane Assist activated in L2 for the time being.
It is just that it is TODAY not as capable as Tesla system.

In early 2019 Nissan will have a full-speed L3 highway pilot.
And in 2020 Audi will have a L4 highway pilot.
(Hold me to it!)

Great. Honestly, great. Except that... in the meantime, all the people purchasing Audi A4 and A6 TODAY have a system greatly inferior to what Tesla user are using (since 4 years on top of that).
And until they change of car in 2 years, they will be stuck with that for the whole life of their car whereas Tesla users may see substantial improvements just thanks to OTA and hardware being already there.

So I find just funny all those discussion on Audi or Nissan or ... being better than Tesla when:
  • none of their car you can purchase TODAY can even do what a 2014 Tesla can do, since years.
  • none of their car will have a system improvement in the lifetime of those, requiring people simply to purchase a brand new car
So that is quite a special way to spin it as a positive.

In 2020, while I expect Tesla to make great progress and have a great really cool system. I do not expect them to have any kind of real L3 or above. Model S and X do not have actuator redundancies, no Tesla has compute redundancies or back up power sources.
The good thing is that:
  1. it is easy to swap the GPU in a Tesla. In an Audi, well...
  2. if I can choose between having by OTA a system which is already safer or at level of human body versus nothing if I do not purchase a 100k$ brand new car, I know what I prefer
So maybe it will also be necessary to purchase a brand new Tesla in 2 years (with Lidar or additionnal hardware) to reach parity with brand new [insert legacy brand name] new cars.
But at least, CURRENT sold Tesla has the potential to be immensely more secure and more autonomous in the future, simply by OTA or maybe simple GPU swap than ANY other cars sold today. Period.
 
They DO sell cars with Audi Lane Assist. Do not pretend is it a philosophy issue. And they DO sell the new Audi A8 with Lane Assist activated in L2 for the time being.
It is just that it is TODAY not as capable as Tesla system.

But it IS a philosophy issue. It is what makes the whole approach so controversial too. Here's the part philosophy plays: Audi have decided that piloted driving will always be Level 3+, because they feel the car being responsible is the right approach. They also have decided no Level 2 feature will ever work beyond piloted driving to avoid mode confusion. Either the car is fully responsible or the driver is doing the driving (and definitely no Level 2 steering at 100 kph, if Level 3 stops at 60 kph).

Both of these limit the step-by-step nature of bringing out autonomous features in different manners. It will mean Audis will likely be offering car-responsible driving sooner than others, they really are the leader on this amongst the traditional auto-makers, but slower to offer advanced driver's aids (or lacking some advanced aids completely), because car-responsible systems by nature are slower to validate and release. While Audi likely gets to Level 3 first, others will likely get beyond that in Level 2 - and Audi can't follow them if they stick to their philosophy that no Level 2 system of theirs goes beyond their Level 3...

Let me explain in more detail.

Audi has decided on a meticulous Level 2 to Level 3 to Level 4 to Level 5 roadmap, where the previous level is never more capable than the next. Audi is, until they get to "piloted driving", quote, "following a strict policy that the driver does the driving and the system just helps out."

The first step was the Audi adaptive cruise control back in the noughties. This was Level 1, given it was not doing two things at once. Then came the Audi lane assist, which at first was a mere steering wheel shake warning. Later Audi lane assistant evolved into Audi active lane assit, meaning it would steer you back towards your own lane if you were crossing into the other lane. So the steering wheel shake warning was replaced with a yank back towards the right direction. This was still considered a warning only when it first came.

The first Level 2 system, meaning two assistants continuously complementing each other, was the Audi Traffic-jam assit. This is basically a tuned up combination of Audi adaptive cruise and active lane assit, and operates up ton 60 kph (make note of this number) "gently correcting steering to ensure you stay in your lane". You still have to drive, "the system just helps out."

Here is Audi's autonomous history/plan, roughly (they also have a similar history for auto-parking, but I'm mostly ignoring it here):

2002+: Level 1: Adaptive cruise, lane warning
2010+: Level 2 assisted driving: Active lane assit, traffic-jam assit (up to 60 kph)
~2018: Level 3 piloted driving: Traffic-jam pilot (up to 60 kph)
~2020: Level 3/4 piloted driving: Level 3 highway speeds (up to 130 kph), Level 4 parking

This brings us to today. Why is Audi not releasing a Level 2 system similar to Tesla Autopilot or Volvo Pilot Assist? Because they are following a strict policy that until they get to piloted driving, the driver drives and the system just helps out. And for Audi, piloted driving means the car takes responsibility for the driving (Level 3+) and Level 2 does not allow that.

So, piloted driving for them is Level 3, Level 4, Level 5. This is widely documented in tons of Audi materials over the past decade. This means a significantly greater responsibility and legal framework is required, compared to Level 2, where the driver is responsible. But given Audi's insistence that no Level 2 assist system of theirs can be more capable than their piloted systems (Level 3+), this philosophy limits them.

Audi already has a fully functional car, Elaine, doing Level 3 piloted driving at motorway speeds. Indeed their previous prototype Jack did this already for press in 2015 and before. They could easily release this as a Level 2 system like Tesla and say the driver is responsible. But that is not their philosophy. They want to do all piloted driving in a way that the car is responsible for - and the system is not validated yet to be responsible for itself in all scenarios at those speeds in a production environment (indeed Audi feels they may need two lidars to make sure at those speeds, which Elaine has, but Jack or Audi A8 does not).

The first piloted experience is the Traffic-jam pilot, which is basically a Level 3 version of the Traffic-jam assit, same speed limit, so a natural progression. The car will never go from driving piloted to assisted, either the car can drive only Level 2 assisted (as is now), or only Level 3+ piloted (as in the future). No confusion. When you go from an old Audi to new, the new is always more capable than the old, never so that an old Level 2 system would be more capable than a new Level 3 system... And the Level 3+ speed-limit is limited by what Audi is comfortable releasing as a car-responsible system. And Level 2 is speed-limited by the Level 3 speed-limit... and the fact that Audi won't allow it to pilot at speeds.

They will start at 60 kph piloted driving this year and around two years later they will go to 130 kph piloted driving, and piloted parking (which will be Level 4 and can be done without the driver in the car or even nearby) and so forth. They already have a Level 5 prototype too, Aicon. These are not insiginficant things, given that at Level 3 you are allowed to read a book etc., but the slower validation pace of these Level 3 systems is limiting the pace and design of Audi's Level 2 systems, because Level 2 systems are easier to make (not responsible), but Audi has decided their Level 2 can't surpass their Level 3 to avoid confusion...

Hence the philosophy.

There is a logic to this, but indeed this also puts them in a bit of a predicament. Due to Tesla, the rest of the industry has been pivoting towards massively capable Level 2 driver's aids, but to follow Audi would have to change their philosophy: decide that piloted driving can be Level 2 and/or that Level 2 piloted driving can co-exist with Level 3 systems (e.g. Level 3 driving at 0-60 and Level 2 driving at 61 kph to 130 kph for example). So far they have been unwilling to do that.

Some other manufactures have decided to stick to Level 2 only, until they can get to Level 4 fully. It avoids Audi's predicament.
 
Last edited:
Excellent post @AnxietyRanger, I had a feeling Audis approach was something like this, but I havent seen it explained so thoroughly before. I used to own an Audi with L1, ACC only. I considered and test drove the new A4 with L2 assist (ACC/lane/jam assist), but it was nowhere close to the Tesla L2 experience (and there was no EV option available..).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnxietyRanger
They DO sell cars with Audi Lane Assist. Do not pretend is it a philosophy issue. And they DO sell the new Audi A8 with Lane Assist activated in L2 for the time being.
It is just that it is TODAY not as capable as Tesla system.



Great. Honestly, great. Except that... in the meantime, all the people purchasing Audi A4 and A6 TODAY have a system greatly inferior to what Tesla user are using (since 4 years on top of that).
And until they change of car in 2 years, they will be stuck with that for the whole life of their car whereas Tesla users may see substantial improvements just thanks to OTA and hardware being already there.

So I find just funny all those discussion on Audi or Nissan or ... being better than Tesla when:
  • none of their car you can purchase TODAY can even do what a 2014 Tesla can do, since years.
  • none of their car will have a system improvement in the lifetime of those, requiring people simply to purchase a brand new car
So that is quite a special way to spin it as a positive.


The good thing is that:
  1. it is easy to swap the GPU in a Tesla. In an Audi, well...
  2. if I can choose between having by OTA a system which is already safer or at level of human body versus nothing if I do not purchase a 100k$ brand new car, I know what I prefer
So maybe it will also be necessary to purchase a brand new Tesla in 2 years (with Lidar or additionnal hardware) to reach parity with brand new [insert legacy brand name] new cars.
But at least, CURRENT sold Tesla has the potential to be immensely more secure and more autonomous in the future, simply by OTA or maybe simple GPU swap than ANY other cars sold today. Period.


I agree with almost everything you say here dude.

Sorry I thought Audi's L2 system was still only at traffic jam speeds. My mistake.

But the my point is the same Audi does not have something that matches Tesla.



"It is just that it is TODAY not as capable as Tesla system."

Agreed.

"in the meantime, all the people purchasing Audi A4 and A6 TODAY have a system greatly inferior to what Tesla user are using"

Agreed

"none of their car will have a system improvement in the lifetime of those, requiring people simply to purchase a brand new car"


Not true, all major OEMS are switching to a OTA updates


"if I can choose between having by OTA a system which is already safer or at level of human body versus nothing if I do not purchase a 100k$ brand new car, I know what I prefer"

I agree completely here! I'd buy the Tesla in a hearbeat


"But at least, CURRENT sold Tesla has the potential to be immensely more secure and more autonomous in the future, simply by OTA or maybe simple GPU swap than ANY other cars sold today. Period."

Agree.



However, for those people who have plenty of money and what they care about most is luxury travel on highways where they can tune out at the wheel or sleep or watch movies, etc. Then these people would be better off buying a more expensive Audi / Nissan, pretty confident in a handful of others over Tesla too.
However, this is of course a niche group of people who can afford and are willing to pay for this.


Tesla will be hitting a more lower-end more mass market audience. (yes I know it sounds crazy to call Tesla lower end)
 
Last edited:
You can just look at the sensors. The A8 has lidar which the A4 does not have. In the front the A8 also has more radar coverage at the side.
This might not be a crazy difference, but it's pretty significant in my opinion.

View attachment 271064View attachment 271065

Not to mention, the zFas controller. Power backups, actuator redundancy, redundant SOCs/ compute systems, and other high-end safety hardware necessary for something where you take human out of loop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnxietyRanger
Legal liability is irrelevant to SAE designations nor what L3 is. US has a robust state based tort system that will easily account for automated driving and apportionment of fault.

That's technically true. In practice, manufactures will be assuming responsibility for L3 systems. Like Audi has said they will do several times, and Nissan is planning on doing, and volvo has said the same about their L3/L4...

sure, none of these are actually out yet. But thats the point, L3 is so challenging because liability/reliability switches away from the human driver.

If liability is still on the human driver... well then there is really no advantage over an L2 system.
 
That's technically true. In practice, manufactures will be assuming responsibility for L3 systems. Like Audi has said they will do several times, and Nissan is planning on doing, and volvo has said the same about their L3/L4...

sure, none of these are actually out yet. But thats the point, L3 is so challenging because liability/reliability switches away from the human driver.

If liability is still on the human driver... well then there is really no advantage over an L2 system.

Technically true is still true and its technically the best kind of true.

Anyways, the difference between L2 and L3 is still large. L3 puts the car in charge and the human is the backup. So this means the system needs to be robust enough to handle driving without human supervision (unlike AP in its current form which requires constant nannying).

L3 also provides for longer disengagement times, thereby allowing the driver to read or text without fear the car will kill them as currently exists with AP.

I see a ton of benefit to L3. If L3 system is defective, regular product liability and tort law should fully address any perceived design flaws, failure to warn, or negligence.

I fully agree with your overall point though. We'll only know as this starts becoming a reality.
 
Technically true is still true and its technically the best kind of true.

Anyways, the difference between L2 and L3 is still large. L3 puts the car in charge and the human is the backup. So this means the system needs to be robust enough to handle driving without human supervision (unlike AP in its current form which requires constant nannying).

L3 also provides for longer disengagement times, thereby allowing the driver to read or text without fear the car will kill them as currently exists with AP.

I see a ton of benefit to L3. If L3 system is defective, regular product liability and tort law should fully address any perceived design flaws, failure to warn, or negligence.

I fully agree with your overall point though. We'll only know as this starts becoming a reality.

Agree.

I am saying if you are selling a car to a consumer.... we have this L2 car for $30,000 it does lane keeping and acc. but you are still responsible... or we have this L3 car for $70,000 it does lane keeping and acc, you can look away and take your attention away from driving... but you are still responsible/liable for accidents.

The consumer will think, well If am still responsible, then I am not going to look away... or if I am still responsible means an accident could still happen, I better keep my eyes not the road just to be safe.... but then... its the exact same thing as the L2 car for the half the price...

(I understand how different the L3 system is and why I can take my attention away safely... but to most people it will be very confusing)

This is my point.

I feel most, if not all, L3 cars when they become available, the manufacture will take liability for L3 mode accidents.

and I do believe L3 is real and many OEMs will be selling them. However, they are economically not that sensible and therefore will be a small minority to much cheaper L2+ cars. (sort of Like Tesla AP).. and a small minority compared to L4 roboTaxis.
 
regular product liability and tort law should fully address any perceived design flaws, failure to warn, or negligence.
Right,
say if the system is say in L3 mode, and hits a vehicle or pedestrian.. product liability would apply and the autonomous system manufacturer would be liable.

This is to the case for Tesla AP, because that is sold as a driver assist, and makes it very clear that you must have eyes on road, hands on wheel, and be ready to take over at anytime...

which of course is not the case for L3 systems, therefore manufacture liable.

Also, say L3 mode initiates a takeover request, and the ROI interval for this system is 15 seconds... but a collision happens in 14 seconds. Then same here the manufacturer would be liable.
 
I believe the Level 3+ autonomous regulation is also, regionally at least, expected to include some kind of black box that can be independently analyzed to determine liability. I haven't looked into this, but I remember reading about such plans. This black box would be such that the manufacturer can't tamper with it.

Contrast this to logs Tesla controls currently, which is not an independent indicator of anything.

If there were to be such a requirement, this would of course put a spanner in the works for making current AP2 cars capable of Level 3+.
 
Not to mention, the zFas controller. Power backups, actuator redundancy, redundant SOCs/ compute systems, and other high-end safety hardware necessary for something where you take human out of loop.

Good point.

This is what people miss, the new Audi A8 is the first car with zFAS.

Audi has been showing the progress of their piloted zFAS board over this decade at e.g. CES. So we've seen their piloted driving evolve over a much longer time than Autopilot, yet it is only coming on sale this year in 2018.

This is what the early zFAS looked like. It is somewhat more miniatyrized now. ;)

12729_18187.jpg
 
Good point.

This is what people miss, the new Audi A8 is the first car with zFAS.

Audi has been showing the progress of their piloted zFAS board over this decade at e.g. CES. So we've seen their piloted driving evolve over a much longer time than Autopilot, yet it is only coming on sale this year in 2018.

This is what the early zFAS looked like. It is somewhat more miniatyrized now. ;)

12729_18187.jpg


The 2nd generation zFas is going to be revealed very soon.

Unsure, if at this years CES or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnxietyRanger
As I understand the Audi philosophy, it is mostly based on marketing. Sell small, incremental features, without upgradability. Have them all ready, but deploy just one at a time to boost sales.

And reputation, no bad press caused by an accident with an active level 2 system. Steady, slow, low risk and good profits, never-ending innovations.
 
Yes, but I do consider Tesla to be more of a "finally finished, lets get it to our customers asap". That said, I have got one feature not sold to me, "easy entry". Quite a lot of features was delayed and not yet delivered.
But my point was that it was not so much a philosphy, more a well considered marketing strategy.
 
But my point was that it was not so much a philosphy, more a well considered marketing strategy.

Sure. A marketing philosophy.

As is Tesla's. They use their constant changes as a quarterly sales vehicle and a PR loop that keeps them in the news. They too wait - until a suitable quarterly sales point in time.

Same with software upgrades. Future promises allow selling of hardware upgrades as demand levers earlier.
 
Sure. A marketing philosophy.

As is Tesla's. They use their constant changes as a quarterly sales vehicle and a PR loop that keeps them in the news. They too wait - until a suitable quarterly sales point in time.

Same with software upgrades. Future promises allow selling of hardware upgrades as demand levers earlier.
My point exactly. The business is most important, getting the higher profits.
 
My point exactly. The business is most important, getting the higher profits.

In case there was any doubt, I never meant to suggest Audi's philosophy was some moral philosophy. It was and is a business approach to autonomous driving that combines many things, marketing and legal responsibility as you correctly point out, amongst them - things like technical ability and R&D considerations and partnershuos (when they estimate they are able and able to get required parts) of course too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daktari