Tesla BEV Competition Developments

[Maknyuzz]

Also an article in the NY Times about Google's new prototype self-driving cars.
Log In - The New York Times

The more I think about it, the more I think this is really big news. Really big. It could take a while before they can roll these out to cities who will accept them, but when they do it seems like it will truly revolutionize urban transportation. A few interesting points:

1. Looks like Google is now manufacturing these prototypes, 100 of them. That's actually a decent amount.

2. I'd bet they are all-electric.

3. They currently have a speed limit of 25 mph. They could probably up the speed over time. The reason for 25mph is because it's exponentially harder to do autonomous driving at higher speeds. Also, there are fewer regulation for low-speed vehicles at the moment (Low-speed vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

4. The initial target is probably urban areas. Think Manhattan. And think about a fleet of taxis that are autonomous with no driver. You step in and just tell the car where you want to go.

5. This could be huge in China's urban cities. All-electric taxi. With no driver. Google could find a manufacturing partner in China and provide the design and software.

6. This isn't in direct competition with Tesla right now since Tesla is going after the current auto market (ie., cars with drivers). But in 15 years, I can see Google and Tesla as major competitors.

I could go on but I'll leave it here for now.

This has been in development imo. Google filed a patent earlier this year: Patent US8630897 - Transportation-aware physical advertising conversions - Google Patents
So, in that patent, if you look at Figure 6, 7, in the future, Google might place an advertising, and there will be a "Take me there" button on your devices screen, that if you choose to press, will pick you up using Google autonomous car, and take you to the destination for free, with the hope that you might buy the item from the vendor. Google still make $ from advertising.

Also, earlier today, Sergey Brin was interviewed at Code Conference about this car. He mentioned that it's still going to be "lonw way away" until this program is broadly available and ready. Google will try to pilot the test in San Francisco area with 100-200 vehicle

 

[Auzie]

I doubt that Google self driving car will compete in the same space as Tesla.

My understanding is that Google works on car control system. I would be surprised if they go into car making business.

The article states "if the technology develops as we hope, we’ll work with partners to bring this technology into the world safely. "

My interpretation of that statement is that Google will seek car making partners that might be interested in their control system.

Limited speed of such vehicles will also push these vehicles into some new transportation category, which is unlikely to tap into traditional car market. Limited speed autonomous driving vehicles might be more likely to displace some cabs but not cars.

 

[RobStark]

It is one thing to have a free search engine based on targeted advertising but free cab rides?

Seems a bit far fetched advertisers would pay that much even with the reduced cost of no cab driver and no gasoline.

 

[uselesslogin]

This isn't in direct competition with Tesla right now since Tesla is going after the current auto market (ie., cars with drivers). But in 15 years, I can see Google and Tesla as major competitors.

Is it even competition at all?

 

[gym7rjm]

Haha, I noticed that too!! Looked suspiciously similar.

Is it even competition at all?
View attachment 50324

 

[Auzie]

Is it even competition at all?
View attachment 50324

Great pick up.

This bubblish and lacking style self driving vehicle can not be little Tesla baby. Not pretty enough. Must be google designers baby.

 

[Auzie]

Google bubble is not a competition (yet)

That google bubble is all over the news. I can see some problems with it. There are no controls inside. Anyone outside can just step in front of it and stop it. That may be safe for pedestrians but what about bubble passengers being attacked and not being able to drive away.

It might take very long time for drivers to adjust to the idea of not having control of the car. I am very curious how the test cars will do.

It baffles me why there was no effort to make it more good looking. Good looks do not add to the cost but add a lot of value.

 

[Robert.Boston]

One news report suggested that Google intends to sell these to fleet operators, e.g. cities, rather than individuals. So, styling would matter less.

The complete lack of controls (aside from the big STOP button) probably was driven as much by Google's legal department as anything. If there are no controls, then liability falls squarely on Google; but if you allow the humans to fiddle, you also blur the lines of liability. Think, too, about coding issues with the potential for human interaction--it all gets much messier.

My daughter's observation (as a lifelong passenger in Boston vehicles) is that any vehicle that always follows the written rules will get into accidents regularly here. There's a lot of "lore" experienced drivers know that keeps everyone safe. E.g. there are three sharp curves on Storrow Drive, where traffic speeds are typically 50mph instead of the posted 35mph, and in those curves most drivers under-turn, meaning that they encroach on other lanes. So, you either need to avoid being next to a car (especially a taxi, which are the worst offenders) in these curves, or be willing to understeer yourself. How will Google's car do that?

And then there's the issue of construction, emergencies, etc. It is a rare day driving in Boston when I can take the road as marked. E.g., last night, in the rain, the power company had used orange cones to close off three lanes of a four-lane road, diverting all traffics in both directions to a single lane, controlled by a police flagger. I'm skeptical that Google's car could have managed that.

The 25mph limit on these vehicles either creates problems for traffic flow or will force the vehicles to use (very) suboptimal routing. Even in places like central Manhattan, traffic on main arteries (e.g. 3rd Ave.) flows faster than 25mph and the lights are timed assuming those faster speeds. A fleet of 25mph buggies is going to cause congestion.

Nonetheless, these are maturity issues, not fundamental ones. This technology will grow and become the real deal. I'm confident that Tesla is better positioned than any other automobile OEM to play incorporate these ideas, given its existing partnership with Google (for the center screen mapping) and close links to Silicon Valley.

Finally, I don't think Google is planning on actually entering the automotive manufacturing business. Google has (or at least, should have) figured out that its forte is not hardware, and it can make lots of money on software. Google can probably make far more by licensing its software to incumbent OEMs than it could trying to start its own car brand.

 

[uselesslogin]

That google bubble is all over the news. I can see some problems with it. There are no controls inside. Anyone outside can just step in front of it and stop it. That may be safe for pedestrians but what about bubble passengers being attacked and not being able to drive away.

It might take very long time for drivers to adjust to the idea of not having control of the car. I am very curious how the test cars will do.

It baffles me why there was no effort to make it more good looking. Good looks do not add to the cost but add a lot of value.

Well at least you are armed with a door and have some defensive shielding. Also lots of surveillance cameras. It seems safer to me than walking down the street when someone can just attack you from any angle. Now I know there are people who don't walk down the street at night but there are plenty who do. It looks like they will be implemented somewhere soon but they will grow slow. For starters I'm not sure if they have figured out rain yet, and they definitely haven't even started on snow.

 

[NigelM]

Good points Robert. I'd also add that Google's software is highly dependent on the base data it has; simple example here is Google's desire to always direct me through a "short-cut" road which has been shown on their maps for at least 3 years but (due to budget cuts and cancelled housing developments) was never finished and actually comes to a dead end after about 2 miles. I'm sure there are 000s of those type of errors in their database.

 

[dsm363]

Well said Robert. Would Google be allowed to program their cars to travel with traffic at 10+mph above the speed limit? If something happens you can be certain the people inside or the people the car hit would use excessive speed against them even though everyone else was traveling that speed or faster.

 

[uselesslogin]

Good points Robert. I'd also add that Google's software is highly dependent on the base data it has; simple example here is Google's desire to always direct me through a "short-cut" road which has been shown on their maps for at least 3 years but (due to budget cuts and cancelled housing developments) was never finished and actually comes to a dead end after about 2 miles. I'm sure there are 000s of those type of errors in their database.

That is one reason they are making it a public transportation project. Their cars can't explore new areas. They gather lots of extra data on the roads they intend the self-drive cars to use.

 

[tslas]

Good points Robert. I'd also add that Google's software is highly dependent on the base data it has; simple example here is Google's desire to always direct me through a "short-cut" road which has been shown on their maps for at least 3 years but (due to budget cuts and cancelled housing developments) was never finished and actually comes to a dead end after about 2 miles. I'm sure there are 000s of those type of errors in their database.

You should report that to Google.
Google is very good at making changes to the maps.
I have reported issues with it and I have always gotten response and later Notification when the issue has been fixed, Usually in couple of months.

 

[CHGolferJim]

A Mercedes S-Class BEV? Can't imagine what that would cost! Also mentioned is a plug-in hybrid with 80kwh battery with only 19 miles or range, huh?

Three Mercedes Plug-In Hybrids On Sale By End Of 2015: S-Class, C-Class, ML-Class

 

[stopcrazypp]

A Mercedes S-Class BEV? Can't imagine what that would cost! Also mentioned is a plug-in hybrid with 80kwh battery with only 19 miles or range, huh?

Three Mercedes Plug-In Hybrids On Sale By End Of 2015: S-Class, C-Class, ML-Class

It's a plug-in hybrid not a BEV. And it's talking about a 80 kW (107hp) battery, which is the power rating. This is different from an 80 kWh battery (notice the additional "h"), which refers to capacity.

 

[CHGolferJim]

Ah thanks re the nomenclature. I believe the initial chatter is re plug-in and later on it mentions a BEV.

 

[Auzie]

Well at least you are armed with a door and have some defensive shielding. Also lots of surveillance cameras. It seems safer to me than walking down the street when someone can just attack you from any angle. Now I know there are people who don't walk down the street at night but there are plenty who do. It looks like they will be implemented somewhere soon but they will grow slow. For starters I'm not sure if they have figured out rain yet, and they definitely haven't even started on snow.

That door is not really a barrier for the determined attacker. Camera is easily fooled with clothing. I am certain that I feel much safer in my car that I can drive away.

I do not like the idea that anyone can stop that vehicle at will. Now people do not jump in front of cars in motion because the risk is high for them to do so. Once they discover that Google car is stoppable at will, I can just imagine the sort of fun people might have with them.

 

[Auzie]

1. One news report suggested that Google intends to sell these to fleet operators, e.g. cities, rather than individuals. So, styling would matter less.

2. The complete lack of controls (aside from the big STOP button) probably was driven as much by Google's legal department as anything. If there are no controls, then liability falls squarely on Google; but if you allow the humans to fiddle, you also blur the lines of liability. Think, too, about coding issues with the potential for human interaction--it all gets much messier.

3. Nonetheless, these are maturity issues, not fundamental ones. This technology will grow and become the real deal. I'm confident that Tesla is better positioned than any other automobile OEM to play incorporate these ideas, given its existing partnership with Google (for the center screen mapping) and close links to Silicon Valley.

4. Finally, I don't think Google is planning on actually entering the automotive manufacturing business. Google has (or at least, should have) figured out that its forte is not hardware, and it can make lots of money on software. Google can probably make far more by licensing its software to incumbent OEMs than it could trying to start its own car brand.

1. Styling is part of design, not very costly relative to the scope of this project. If google goes to so much trouble with this project, why not invest a little bit more into design. They might achieve better outcome by getting it right 100%. Styling matters for all products, even planes are getting interesting paintings on its body.

2. This is a deal breaker for me. It makes it equally unsafe or less safe to use than public transport. That aspect might reduce its market.

3. Agree, this technology will grow huge. I also believe that eventually there must be manual override for the controls.

4. Agree.

 

[uselesslogin]

That door is not really a barrier for the determined attacker. Camera is easily fooled with clothing. I am certain that I feel much safer in my car that I can drive away.

I do not like the idea that anyone can stop that vehicle at will. Now people do not jump in front of cars in motion because the risk is high for them to do so. Once they discover that Google car is stoppable at will, I can just imagine the sort of fun people might have with them.

However as far as crime I would think that the people walking in the street would be easier targets and therefore your private car is safer than the Google car which is safer than walking. It is far easier to mug someone on a quiet street than from one of these cars.

 

[DaveT]

That google bubble is all over the news. I can see some problems with it. There are no controls inside. Anyone outside can just step in front of it and stop it. That may be safe for pedestrians but what about bubble passengers being attacked and not being able to drive away.

The google car could possibly record everything around the car (ie., video recording like a dash cam for past 30 minutes, etc). In that case, no one would want to attack someone in a google car since they’ll be video recorded.

It baffles me why there was no effort to make it more good looking. Good looks do not add to the cost but add a lot of value.

This is an early, early version where the appearances mean very little. Look at the early Android phones, ie., G2. They looked like junk next to an iPhone and Apple didn’t take them seriously. But Google knew what they were doing. Their speciality is they iterate with crazy speed. What we’re seeing with this prototype is just an early prototype. Don’t get tricked by the appearance. This is hardcore engineering inside.

My daughter's observation (as a lifelong passenger in Boston vehicles) is that any vehicle that always follows the written rules will get into accidents regularly here. There's a lot of "lore" experienced drivers know that keeps everyone safe. E.g. there are three sharp curves on Storrow Drive, where traffic speeds are typically 50mph instead of the posted 35mph, and in those curves most drivers under-turn, meaning that they encroach on other lanes. So, you either need to avoid being next to a car (especially a taxi, which are the worst offenders) in these curves, or be willing to understeer yourself. How will Google's car do that?

First, we need to look at the google self-driving car as mainly a urban transport vehicle for the most dense cities of the world where 25mph (and eventually 35mph) would be sufficient for most rides. Also, the car would limit itself to roads with a 35mph speed limit. Remember, this is just for the super dense urban cities like Manhattan, etc.

Google would need to scope out every intersection of their driving area. So for Manhattan, they would take photos of each intersection from a multitude of angles so that their system would be able to determine with precision if there’s a red light, green light, possible blindspots, etc.

For the incidents when a driver encroaches into a lane, the google car will handle it like any other driver/car. They will slightly move away to not be hit and they’ll know what’s on the other side of them. And they can slow down or speed up. In other words, they’ll be able to do it theoretically better than a human because they’ll be seeing more with their 360 degree camera and have instant response.

And then there's the issue of construction, emergencies, etc. It is a rare day driving in Boston when I can take the road as marked. E.g., last night, in the rain, the power company had used orange cones to close off three lanes of a four-lane road, diverting all traffics in both directions to a single lane, controlled by a police flagger. I'm skeptical that Google's car could have managed that.

Again, the google car would handle this just like a driver/car. They will see everything around them and will make the adjustments required to change lanes in a safe manner.

One note on speed. At 25mph, it’s a much easier task than to do self-driving tech at 35mph or 45mph.

I would imagine it’s 10x more difficult to get the self-driving tech right at 35mph compared to 25mph. And 10x more difficult at 45mph than 35mph.

So at 25mph, Google can reasonable come up with very compelling self-driving tech since it’s likely 100x easier than doing it at 45mph.

The 25mph limit on these vehicles either creates problems for traffic flow or will force the vehicles to use (very) suboptimal routing. Even in places like central Manhattan, traffic on main arteries (e.g. 3rd Ave.) flows faster than 25mph and the lights are timed assuming those faster speeds. A fleet of 25mph buggies is going to cause congestion.

It depends, since each google car would be connected to the Internet and could feed into the city’s traffic management system. Also, the city could possibly adjust speed limits for streets (i.e, De Blasio: Lower NYC's Speed Limit To 25 MPH - Business Insider). As of now, the google car at 25mph could drive on all streets with a 35mph limit

Nonetheless, these are maturity issues, not fundamental ones. This technology will grow and become the real deal. I'm confident that Tesla is better positioned than any other automobile OEM to play incorporate these ideas, given its existing partnership with Google (for the center screen mapping) and close links to Silicon Valley.

I don’t think Google and Tesla are at very good terms right now. I’ve heard that Google has hired a lot of Tesla engineers in recent months and Tesla management is not happy about it. IMO, Google’s car is electric and Google has hired quite a few of Tesla’s engineers related to battery tech, powertrain, etc.

Tesla’s greatest asset is their human resources, especially their engineers with the know-how and experience in developing the Model S. And, it looks like Google knows that and is taking advantage by hiring Tesla engineers.

Finally, I don't think Google is planning on actually entering the automotive manufacturing business. Google has (or at least, should have) figured out that its forte is not hardware, and it can make lots of money on software. Google can probably make far more by licensing its software to incumbent OEMs than it could trying to start its own car brand.

Google is not complacent with just software. They’re making big investments into hardware (ie., Nest). And they will likely continue to invest into hardware.

Previously the google self-driving car was pretty much all software and some hardware (i.e., Lidar cameras, etc). But with this new version of the google self-driving car, we see that Google is designing the entire car not just the software. They’ve designed the powertrain, the body, the hardware, the software. It’s the complete package.

They can easily hire a manufacturing partner (ie., like Apple hires Foxconn to make iPhones) to make the vehicle and Google can sell them to cities, companies, etc.

Good points Robert. I'd also add that Google's software is highly dependent on the base data it has; simple example here is Google's desire to always direct me through a "short-cut" road which has been shown on their maps for at least 3 years but (due to budget cuts and cancelled housing developments) was never finished and actually comes to a dead end after about 2 miles. I'm sure there are 000s of those type of errors in their database.

Google will roll this out very slowly and very thoroughly, meaning that if they go for Manhattan then they will do a thorough mapping/scoping of every square foot of drivable pavement in the city before rolling it out in Manhattan.

———————

Some final thoughts:

1. To understand the google self-driving car, one needs to look out 10-20 years. As long as Google iterates at the pace and commitment that they’ve shown, this technology is a major disrupting force for dense urban transport. The initial launch implementation will likely take longer than most people expect (ie., maybe 5 years to get it on the road). But most people are likely underestimating the truly disruptive nature of what Google is showing. In 15 years, it’s possible that the densest urban cities could be filled with “Pods” like this to take people from point to point. That would be truly revolutionary.

2. Google will have trouble breaking into the regular consumer auto market because it’s so much more difficult to do a truly self-driving car at 45mph+. But if urban cities take to the Google “pod” within 15 years, then this could give Google a lot of momentum to branch into the consumer auto market as their self-driving tech improves. In 15-20 years, Google and Tesla could be the biggest names in auto.