I pressed the camera button on the screen which brings up the repeaters and the rear camera - one of the cameras (the right one) was a black screen with a spinning circle.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Radar Speculation
- Thread starter Takaa
- Start date
I agree that they probably won't be able to shun the SAE levels as they move forward.. Though I have some sympathy with their reluctance to describe the system in the SAE terminology, it seems that it's been accepted by CA, US and probably European regulators. All manufacturers will have to describe their features in these terms unless/until something else replaces it.
Replying separately re the SAE level classification, and understanding that any SAE level discussion always seems to go south:
In my view, the Volvo system is more L3 because it's understood that a licensed driver will need be in control for at least portions of the drive. I think it's more accurate and helpful to reserve the L4 designation for Robotaxi or consumer AVs that don't require a licensed driver for useful complete drives (i.e. that specific autonomous drives can be accepted we're scheduled with a very high probability of successful completion).
What's L5 for then? As often observed, it's kind of an asymptotic goal of autonomous operation anywhere and anytime that humans can safely operate. Waymo, Cruise et.al. are clearly L4 and not L5 because they're geofenced.
So, L3 is the category for partial-drive unsupervised autonomy. My contention is that the current MB L3 offering is on the less-valuable end of that category because of short hand off times and the other limitations mentioned. The proposed (unreleased) Volvo example is on the more valuable end of L3 because it's a more complete highway ODD; there's a high probability that it will not need a hand off until the predicted and scheduled arrival at the highway exit.
Regarding Tesla: in basic existing capability, Tesla seems to be quite close to offering a highly useful highway L3 capability if they wanted to - but so far they have not.
I don't really agree with people who say that Tesla will "never accept liability"; it's really just an actuarial calculation of insurance risk and cost, and that's exactly what insurance is about, and that's exactly what Tesla is already doing, in contrast to most any other car company. Coming back to the specific topic of this thread, I do think that the adoption of the more modern HD radar, combined with demonstrated proper handling random debris, proper handling of construction and emergency response scenes - all very doable in the near term - could give them this kind of highly useful L3 on the highway.
There are plenty of people here on TMC who say that the above is all they really want from Tesla FSD. That's not my situation, as I want, and think I will need, off-highway L4 in the foreseeable future. I'm just saying that Tesla is actually very well positioned to move to a highway L3 system if they choose to.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Not really a welcome situation- I've read your posts before and they're always at least L3 certified nonsense on these topics as we saw yet again in this case where you made up imaginary certification criteria then when called out on it, with sources and facts, had no germane reply
Feeling happy that you got me on a technicality?Not really a welcome situation- I've read your posts before and they're always at least L3 certified nonsense on these topics as we saw yet again in this case where you made up imaginary certification criteria then when called out on it, with sources and facts, had no germane reply
Now let’s get back to the perceptions Mercedes has created and how they have opened themselves to be sued.
I will read that they are L3 certified and when I attempt to drive it like an L3, what are they going to show me? The owners manual or the Nevada certification that they are L3 certified, but not?
LOL.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I'd feel happier if you didn't keep making things up then trying to double down on them until hit with so many sources disproving it you reluctantly admit a "technical" error on your part.
Anyway, you were both technically, and broadly factually, wrong-- because you suggested the "traffic density" was somehow required or important to Mercedes system in the same way you seem to believe it is to Teslas and there continues to be literally nothing to support such a claim.
Ok. The perception is they have the first deployed L3 self driving system in the world for cars available for consumers to buy.
It's also the reality.
It's a quite limited one of course.
Sure. In fact I specifically mentioned that as a great thing here- a car maker was finally willing to put themselves on the line liability-wise for a self driving system.
The narrow ODD certainly reduces the odds such lawsuits would be successful against them however.
What kind of dressing would go best with this particular word salad?
They are certified for L3 operation in Nevada. Period full stop. That's the requirement under state law. Most states that permit L3 or higher have quite similar requirements so they're just as easily met by Mercedes.... (pretty much they just file a form saying "Yup, the car is L3 and can obey all traffic laws" and that's it....)
It's also largely irrelevant to an owner or driver of the car though-- no car maker would enable a system they knew was uncertified in a given state anyway so why would you care what the filing with the state looks like as a driver?
If you, as a driver, want to understand what the system actually is, and when and how it can be used- that's what the manual is for.
One of the things you learn from reading it is the car appears to be pretty cognizant of preventing the driver from engaging the system if it's not in an appropriate situation to do so... a stark contrast from Teslas system that lets you turn it on almost anywhere in comparison including tons of places the manual explicitly says it's not intended to be used.
And that fact is likely yet another reflection of Mercedes assuming liability for the system- they want to be as sure as they can it's being used only within the proper ODD.... whereas Tesla gives a lot more leeway to the driver to determine when to turn the system on- with said driver remaining legally liable for anything the car does.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
You have a bright future ahead of you writing inscrutable fortune cookies my dude, best of luck in your career!
So... now that the thread has been thoroughly derailed...
Invester day passed... no mention of Radar
Arbe 4Q 2022 passed... no mention of Tesla partnership.
One person did ask a direct question during Arbe Q&A to the effect of "So, whats all this buzz about Tesla" to which they answered "well... uh... we aren't allowed to directly name OEMs who havent approved us to use their names yet, but industry wide all OEMs have a strong interest in 4D imaging radars" (paraphrased). They claim to be actively working with 12 of the Top 15 OEMs. Tesla is number 15. Toyota is #1, but they already signed on with ZF.
Other fun one, the FCC site shows a 3/7/23 release date for the files they prematurely released on the 17th and subsequently redacted.
Invester day passed... no mention of Radar
Arbe 4Q 2022 passed... no mention of Tesla partnership.
One person did ask a direct question during Arbe Q&A to the effect of "So, whats all this buzz about Tesla" to which they answered "well... uh... we aren't allowed to directly name OEMs who havent approved us to use their names yet, but industry wide all OEMs have a strong interest in 4D imaging radars" (paraphrased). They claim to be actively working with 12 of the Top 15 OEMs. Tesla is number 15. Toyota is #1, but they already signed on with ZF.
Other fun one, the FCC site shows a 3/7/23 release date for the files they prematurely released on the 17th and subsequently redacted.
DanCar
Active Member
And yet... still no announcement for how it will be used... or any TIER-1/2 supplier of chipsets or signal processing algorithms... or even proclaiming they did it all in house.
I think it will be key to all weather object classification for the neural net above and beyond just a more reliable distance keeper with TACC. Once you have an SVC training on radar return signatures, you dont really need the camera to try to focus/detect the world around the car.
Once the neural net w/radar is adequately trained to detect/classify/perceive pedestrians and stationary objects, the sky's the limit. Even better if they install 5x radars for 360 perception (makes USS completely unnecessary other than redundancy, and removes the need for bumper cameras on cars)
LiamPope
Member
SVC is a printed label on the PCB next to various camera connectors, so it's almost certainly referring to physical cameras rather than any support vector machine AI/NN software lingo. Green speculated bumper cams as Tesla parts catalogue has SVC in the description for bumper fascias. Personally I think more likely to mean surround view camera, which is a terminology used by Mobileye and others. Either way seems S/X with HW4 aren't currently getting any new cameras at all.
This is what bugs me... what if the port is capable of receiving other types of data from other types sensors? Cameras in bumpers are going to be an annoyance if driver is nagged whenever they get wet or dirty... radar right behind the bumper facia doesnt suffer that issue. Other thing that bugs me... Model 3 Highland black covers have blocky patches over the bumper areas. What if they are covering an exterior radar sensor array while trying to train the camera system to function with 360 radar and the covers are simply just hiding the radars.
I'll be honest, I haven't delved deep enough to even know what the port interface actually is capable of or if its main function is to supply power and basic control/health monitoring to nodes of a networked system of devices. What I do know is a dirty camera does not make a good USS replacement long term, and USS is cheaper than cameras
Just had an interesting call with a rep ahead of picking up my MYLR. She said only USS has been removed, the Radar stayed on. Not sure if shes being ignorant or truthful. Anybody can confirm radar is back on MY?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
radar was -for sure- removed from the Y back in 2021 (and the S/X in 2022). So it definitely did not "stay" on.
That said- A newer, different, radar has very recently been added to only the S/X along with HW4 (recently as in earlier THIS month)- though it's expected to be added to 3/Y over time as well. It's POSSIBLE you'll be getting the first batch of ones with the new radar added... but it's at least as likely the rep is confused about the details here.
“stayed on” was me paraphrasing. She did say only uss was removed and that radar was not. I guess I will find out more specifically later as I pick up. Definitely a bonus if I get the first batches of return of radar (even if it was hw3).
The Tesla staff don’t seem to have access to any more information than we do, and most of them seem less interested in background research than this forum is.
Not unreasonable.. It’s just a job for most of them.
Not unreasonable.. It’s just a job for most of them.
Similar threads
