It wouldn't be just regen braking, but powered deceleration using the electric motors.
This will require at least 3 motors and/or adjustable limited slip differential(s) though. Current torque vectoring uses the friction brakes IIUC.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
This will require at least 3 motors and/or adjustable limited slip differential(s) though. Current torque vectoring uses the friction brakes IIUC.
ZsoZso
Supporting Member
Are you telling me the market for these kind of glasses has just received a major boost ?
CorneliusXX
Active Member
Antitrust lawsuitWhat comes after "incredibly filthy rich"?
Asking for a friend.
lascavarian
Member
I appreciate your post. More on my point, agreed radar sees beyond the plainly visible. This is critical for braking as in AEB and I agree with this and have experienced this, AEB is better than me, a human with reaction time requirements and in the EM example better than 2 humans with reaction time requirements. The low bar here is avoiding a rear end collision.
The unknown is the capabilities of FSD. Can FSD avoid a rear end collision if the vehicle in front hits the object without first braking? This gets back to how smart is FSD. Does FSD (like me) increase following distance when following an obscure vehicle like a box truck where I cannot see through the vehicle at all? Is it possible FSD is far better than me and also considers additional parameters - tire grip, vehicle weight, roadway driveable spaces etc. It is possible that the near immediate reaction time of FSD breaking along with a minor increase in following distance comes up equal to the benefits of radar?
It is a little like the case of running faster than the bear (vs faster than your buddy), you only need to brake faster/better than the car in front of you to avoid a collision.
We don't know the answer at this time. If driving under FSD manages following distances within the reaction time and braking distance of the vehicle being followed then the rear end collision risk is solved.... maybe.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
You under-estimate the power of AI. It will quickly learn that pre-meditated inattentiveness is just as risky as inadvertent inattentiveness.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Physics?
It's a visual-only 720p camera in the middle of the front of the car with no self-illumination or IR capabilities.
All the actually-meant-for-this-purpose systems like Caddy or Ford are installing are at the wheel, directly pointed at the driver and use much higher end hardware, with additional hardware to handle low light and polarized lenses and glare (and are iteratively improving, Caddy having already moved to upgrade theirs further as the first gen still had situations it couldn't handle)
Teslas camera was never designed for this purpose, and have no such abilities.
it can not, as someone suggested "see through" sunglasses to confirm your eyes are on the road.
It can guess if someone is WEARING sunglasses and if their head/neck are generally facing forward. or not.
Likewise it has no ability to see in low/no light as the other systems designed for this do.
That's why among the selfie-camera states are:
Dark and Blinded states (since it has no ability to deal with direct glare or low light)
and
SUNGLASSES_EYES_LIKELY_NOMINAL
SUNGLASSES_LIKELY_EYES_DOWN
Because it can't see your actual eyes though some lenses due to lack of HW to do so, thus it can only guess from head/neck position. if it's "likely" you're looking forward or not
Now- I get WHY Teslas system is much less capable- it wasn't designed for this job in the first place.... (if it were it would've been in the S/X with the HW2 refresh in the first place and been more capable- and removed the hated steering wheel nags years ago)
It was designed to monitor for vandalism when the car was acting as a robotaxi. You don't care where a passengers eyes are behind sunglasses in that case.
But it's now potentially being used for a different task it's not great at. Better than nothing certainly, but not great.
How much this matters, if at all, will depend on:
How quickly Tesla gets to L4 or higher (after all the reason the driver monitoring was never a focus was Tesla has believed for a long time it would "soon" be unneeded as the car would be able to operate without a driver, just soon has been a bit longer than originally thought)
and/or
What, if anything, regulators eventually do as far as requiring certain capabilities in driver monitoring systems for ADAS or L3 systems where a human is still needed
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Curious as to which part of that comment @Artful Dodger finds funny? I like a good laugh as much as the next guy so please share.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Good analysis! And it's not just the risk of collision, this is how radar was previously used to smooth out speed control. For example, the immediate and direct measuring of speed of the car in front allowed AutoPilot to have really good speed control when in highway traffic. If Musk is saying they are no longer using it, even for this purpose, then it reflects just how good (sensitive)Tesla's computer vision intelligence has become. I say that because the sensitivity of the system to the react instantly to the car in front changing speed slightly was already better than a skilled driver would typically exhibit and that ability reduced the gap that would form in such situations and also the need to "yo-yo" in many common traffic situations where even a skilled human would tend to yo-yo a bit or allow a larger gap to form. If Tesla has stopped using radar for this purpose, I would assume the cameras can do just as good of a job or it would be an obvious step backward. This assumes Tesla has indeed stopped using radar for this purpose which is not entirely clear.
It would be interesting to measure the current draw of the radar through a driving cycle including the use of AP, FSD Beta, cruise control, etc. I'm sure Tesla would not waste the energy transmitting if it were not actively monitoring the radar data for some purposes. I'm guessing what we would learn is the radar is still used for many safety functions even if it is no longer used for primary FSD Beta behavior. I can see the radar data being migrated to it's own neural net that has some limited interaction with the primary neural net in extreme situations.
I'm confident Tesla would only make this change, whatever the specific change actually is, if the goal was to make the system even better and with less chance for injury/death. A common narrative in the media is that Elon plays fast and loose with safety, which endangers his customers, other motorists and his astronauts, crew members and residents around his launch and landing facilities. But I don't see that the data supports this false narrative and think most people here can see right through it for the disparaging FUD that it is.
willow_hiller
Active Member
In case this is useful, we do know exactly what the current in-cabin-camera neural network outputs are:
BLINDED
DARK
EYES_CLOSED
EYES_DOWN
EYES_NOMINAL
EYES_UP
HEAD_DOWN
HEAD_TRUNC
LOOKING_LEFT
LOOKING_RIGHT
PHONE_USE
SUNGLASSES_EYES_LIKELY_NOMINAL
SUNGLASSES_LIKELY_EYES_DOWN
From What Does The Tesla Selfie Cam Capture?
As you said, dark environments, sunglasses, and tall drivers (hopefully what HEAD_TRUNC measures) are all limitations. But given the system is aware of its own limitations, it could be a hybrid driver-attentiveness monitoring system: where it relies on the camera when possible, and falls back to steering-wheel torque when not.
Buckminster
Active Member
Buckminster
Active Member
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
Good points. The obvious solution is 4 x wheel motors (eliminated 4 half-shafts, 2 differentials). But not like those clunky, heavy wheel motors that Protean/F-150 teased at SEMA in 2008 (and never produced). More like this:
- wheels integral with the motor as a unit:
- steel wheel takes on a dual role as tyre rim and SRPM rotor
- mass of brake rotor removed to compensate for integrated motor mass
- brake disk caliper replaced with stator (could be hubless, airless design)
- tyres are replaceable rubber tread inserts for million-mile service life
- friction-free regen/active braking is safe and practical for Robotaxi:
- robotaxi will NEVER drive with a cold battery pack (depot charging b4 departure)
- even large diesel-electric locomotives rely 100% on regen braking w/o a bty pack
- minimal mass of robotaxi and LFP tolerance to overcharging means no issues
- active breaking can use electrical power for deceleration in emergencies
- S3XY cars which start driving while cold-soaked will retain friction brakes
- this hypothetical Robotaxi is NOT the Model 2 coming in 2022/23, its the Model 1 in 2025/26
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Yeah, still remember their Superbowl commercial. If you look at what the actual message was, beside all the Will Ferrel and Norway stuff, it was basically: we will have good electric cars in the future. That is really telling, I mean you can go to investors for example and try to raise money for something you don't yet have but you are planning, but I think I've never seen a company advertise to consumers for a non-existent product. Oh the desperation.
Apparently, the NTSB is complaining to the NHTSA that they aren't regulating Tesla hard enough.
Wouldn't surprise me to learn that Musk doesn't want to make electric planes because he wants to avoid the NTSB at all costs.
A federal agency warns Tesla tests unfinished driverless tech on its users
In a letter to the NHTSA last month, NTSB chief Robert Sumwalt named Tesla 16 times while urging the sister agency to set stricter standards.www.cnbc.com
Right, not only the media reporting seems biased against Tesla here, there are also problems with the NTSB letter,
Regulations.gov
www.regulations.gov
They single out Tesla and refer to three fatal accidents, tragedies that are probably well known to TMC-members. These three accidents are however two, three and five years old now, so the cars that actually have the FSD hardware and FSDBeta software have nothing to do with these accidents. Further, per the NTSB's own investigation these fatalities have several contributing causes: two under-rides where the truck driver failed to yield and one where a crash-attenuator had been missing for about ten days due to a prior (non-fatal) accident. There is a debate, whether Tesla's FSD increases issues of driver awareness, but regardless of that contributing to all three fatalities was also the (unlawful) missing awareness on the part of the Tesla driver.
Lastly, NTSB's letter does not mention Tesla's published statistics on how Teslas (whether Autopilot is activated or not) are involved in fewer accidents,
Tesla Vehicle Safety Report
PS. Copy-edited.
lascavarian
Member
It occurred to me that the power saving from not using radar might allow for/justify overclocking FSD 3.0 HW.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
It's a fool's errand to try to coordinate share price movements with events such as these. Especially when they occur over a period of time and are not a sudden reaction upon the news. Even that is full of potential to misattribute. The only accurate way to provide reason to share price movements is to only attribute them to the general, ie. investor sentiment (or trading bots). Sometimes the people who run the trading bots don't even know why they do what they do. Because AI. We don't know why investor sentiment changed. There are multiple potential triggers, some of those triggers are even unknowable, and we don't know how they layer and interact. Trust me, it's MUCH more complicated and unknowable than you seem to think because humans are complicated, even in the aggregate. It could be that without the bitcoin investment prices would have been even lower. Then there is the complication of initial reaction vs. the reaction over time as the news has had a chance to sink in.
Assuming you know (as a fact) what drives investor sentiment at any given moment is counterproductive and even dangerous.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt Tesla weighs power-saving that way. If they need to use more power to make it safer, they will. The differences in power consumption would be minor and it's not an "either-or" kind of decision.
Chunky Jr.
Supporting Member
Tesla Giga Shanghai is Fine-Tuning Manufacturing to Meet Demand Growth, According to Company Statement
Tesla plans to make changes to manufacturing processes at its Chinese plant to further expand production capacity at Giga Shanghai to meet an ever-growing demand. The changes relate to improvements in the production of various vehicle components.
www.tesmanian.com
Tesla plans to make changes to manufacturing processes at its Chinese plant to further expand production capacity at Giga Shanghai in an attempt to meet ever-growing demand. The changes relate to improvements in the production of various vehicle components.
...
According to Tesla's statement on the Shanghai government website, the changes to the Chinese factory will relate to the production of spare parts, including plans to improve the power system, chassis, and electric motor. The company also confirmed that these changes are taking place in response to growing demand.
That camera doesn't need to see through sunglasses. It only needs to see if the driver is looking at a phone or laptop or girlfriend or the ceiling because he's asleep. I suspect the camera is great at that. Good engineering is about optimization: don't spend money on more camera than is needed.
You seem eager to do verbal battle against overzealous Tesla fans, but one can get overzealous in that quest.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
The reason you've never seen a company advertise a non-existent product is because companies don't do that. They spend money to make money. What does that tell us? That they were trying to sell something else. Specifically, their gas cars (instead of their competitors electric cars). They are terrified of the mad rush to EV's when they don't have a volume solution.
What that ad was really saying was; Norwegians are different from Americans. You don't drive an EV because you are an American. A lot of Norwegians do that but not many Americans. You want to live like the American you are. It's OK to treat yourself to another gas car, the EV's will be even better in a few years. As an American it's OK to do this. It's normal. Buying an EV would only be normal if you lived in a foreign country.
Someone recently said I would never make it in marketing. That's because I understand it too well (and don't like what I see).
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
