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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
A dashcam will never provide sufficient information from all directions. Even for just lane changing on highways you need to see whats coming up in the next lanes. You need much more for city surface street driving with intersection turns. Tesla data is not just big in terms of number of cars, but they also have 8 cameras + radar + 12 ultrasonic sensors providing the full 3D surround information. You cannot replicate that by adding a dashcam to any random car on the street.
Version 2 of the Google/Waze dashcam-camera system can add side and rear cameras.

Again, I'm not saying this will take them all the way to FSD, but rather it will give them a lot of data to improve their neural-net system (if they haven't already started development on it) and ditch Lidar.

Eventually, they will install cameras in cars by partnering with manufacturers.

Btw, if you look at what Cruise is doing they are owned by auto manufacturer(s) and camera systems are already being integrated.
 
FSD robotaxis don't require EVs. Fuel/charging costs are cheaper for EVs but ICE cars can FSD as well (again research comma.ai).

Here's the thing, if a FSD EV costs $35,000 and a used ICE that's retrofitted for FSD costs $10,000, then you're going to have a lot of ICE FSD robotaxis alongside the FSD EV ones. Regarding how you fuel them, they'll bring back full-service at gas stations.

Los Angeles is already talking about banning autonomous ICEv.

The last thing cities need is more pollution from empty ICEv riding around.

And Progressive Cities is where the vast majority of the market is for TaaS.

Not Rural Texas.
 
FSD robotaxis don't require EVs. Fuel/charging costs are cheaper for EVs but ICE cars can FSD as well (again research comma.ai).

Here's the thing, if a FSD EV costs $35,000 and a used ICE that's retrofitted for FSD costs $10,000, then you're going to have a lot of ICE FSD robotaxis alongside the FSD EV ones. Regarding how you fuel them, they'll bring back full-service at gas stations.
Bold above is a joke, right? All 100,000 of them? or just 2,000 to match Fast Charging Stations.
Why couldn't you also retrofit a used EV then too. The non-Tesla's depreciate even more than an ICEV.
 
Really good points, but given Robo Taxis aren't realistic for another 2 years (if you'r on Elon time) or 10 years (if you're in the AI business and know wtf you're talking about) it might have made sense to build the potentially better-seller first, and roll out the Model 3 in 2020, just in time for FSD (apparently).

Now I love the Model 3, it's exactly the electric car I wanted, minus the panel gaps, and I might not have been so enthusiastic about the Y. But it seems most 'Muricans love their small SUVs and the Y potentially could have had bigger initial demand and a much wider tail in the US than the '3 has had.

Yeah, Model Y probably should have come first, but I think many people forget how long ago that decision was baked in. It's in the *original master plan* from when the *Roadster* was released. They were working on "Bluestar" all along. For most of that period, sedans were dominant and station wagons ("SUVs") were a smaller, niche market. I think Model 3 was much too far along in development and they were not ready to change the form factor by the time the shift from sedans back to station wagons (under the new nickname "SUVs") happened.
 
I think you're assuming that FSD needs electric cars. But I'm not assuming that. Most of the cars that comma.ai puts their camera system on are ICE cars (albeit cars that already have factory-installed mobileye camera/system that comma.ai basically hacks into).

Tesla is definitely in the lead, but others will find a way to catch up and solve FSD.

FSD is basically requires three things:
1. Hardware on cars
2. Software
3. Data

Currently Tesla has a lead in all three areas.

But Tesla is far from a monopoly on those three areas.

I disagree here - the reaction time of an ICE vs EV could be the difference between a minor accident and a fatal one.
 
Version 2 of the Google/Waze dashcam-camera system can add side and rear cameras.

Again, I'm not saying this will take them all the way to FSD, but rather it will give them a lot of data to improve their neural-net system (if they haven't already started development on it) and ditch Lidar.

Eventually, they will install cameras in cars by partnering with manufacturers.

Btw, if you look at what Cruise is doing they are owned by auto manufacturer(s) and camera systems are already being integrated.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Tesla's advantages. It's not only data. It's how to make sense of those data and combining different signals to reduce human labour for labeling!!!

A big problem Waymo is facing is how to process the data they collected. More data does NOT help when you don't have the bandwidth to label them!

Because unsupervised learning does not scale!!!!
 
Wouldn't it be cheaper for Google just to buy Tesla?

The point here is not that Tesla has an insurmountable lead, but simply it has a thing of substantial value. Either the market will recognize that value or it remains a cheap acquisition for Google or whoever want the lead that it's got. So the most pressing question is when the market will recognize the value that Tesla has, not whether some competitor could catch up years down the road. The question of other catching up would only really matter if the market was already giving Tesla a high valuation for its robotaxi opportunity. It would need to be high enough that the entrance of a competitors would rationally diminish this valuation. So far it appears that the market gives Tesla $0 value for the robotaxi business, and it just doesn't mean much if this gets cut in half.

Actually, I think there is an opinion, perhaps led by Elon, that Tesla does have an insurmountable lead. Thus, that because the main reason why he thinks the Model 3 will become an appreciating asset.

But if Tesla doesn't have an insurmountable lead, and others solve FSD as well within a reasonable amount of time, then the Model 3 has little to no chance at become an appreciating asset.

Regarding your argument that the market is giving $0 value for Tesla's robotaxi business, I would actually disagree. If Tesla had no AP/FSD at all and let's say they used another company's technology, then I think TSLA stock price would be at least 20% lower than it is now.

My personal opinion on Tesla FSD is that they are in the lead and they have an amazing chance to win in a huge market but they it won't be easy because they'll be going against the best software companies in the world who are executing at a higher level than Tesla.
 
Not discriminating isn't the same as setting them up to make self charging feasible. Sure, your robo cars can charge here, but we aren't allowing attendants or your auto-charging robots and we aren't going build them out in places where you want them.

Robo taxis aren't likely to just charge in any old place. They will really need dedicated locations that have the capacity and other services.

If VW builds charging stations for autonomous vehicles under Electrify America anyone can use them.

VW is not forced to build charging stations for autonomous vehicles and if they did they don't have to build them under EA umbrella.

IF VW builds a seperate network for autonomous EVs then those monies spent don't count toward fulfilling their Dieselgate settlement obligations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alloverx
I disagree here - the reaction time of an ICE vs EV could be the difference between a minor accident and a fatal one.
Well, if you look at people driving the comma.ai system, it appears the reaction time of an ICE appears to be quite fine. However, the ICE cars that comma.ai hooks up to are the ones that have Mobileye integrated (ie., cameras, controls, etc).

I understand EVs have advantages in many areas, but I also see ICE performing fine as FSD vehicles.
 
Drove about 100 km with NoA yesterday. Since the last update this has been brilliant. I think I could have driven that stretch blindfolded without any problem!

At one point another car tried to merge into the freeway. My car held in a bit so the other car could merge. The lady in the car raised her hand as a "thank you". I thought to myself: "Don't thank me, thank the computer!"

The only negative is that it is slow merging onto HOV. There is only a certain spaice in which the line is not continues. The car is too slow to use that space. I blame the computer for that. I think with the new HW3 computer the car will be much more assertive.

The freeway is a highly controlled and designed environment most of the time, except in bad weather. I really do expect autonomous no-snow no-fog freeway-only driving to happen pretty soon. It'll be quite the selling point.

After considering weather (they haven't started working on snow, Karpathy admitted that, and snow is hard and complicated), and other weird stuff like bison wandering across the highway (I dealt with that once!), Tesla may well achieve its original "onramp to offramp" freeway-only self-driving plan around late 2021 (that's the benchmark which Musk claimed he'd get to for 2017, so only 4 years late).

I may be too optimistic, however. ;-)
 
I, in fact, have comma in my 2017 volt. It's a very good lane keeping system. But to compare that to what Tesla has is silly.

I am impressed with what they did using a cell phone CPU/GPU to drive a car. No Nvidia board and no trillion ops per second custom CPU's. So kudos to them, but they are nowhere near FSD and won't be ever IMO.

I wish George would have joined tesla, but his personality just would not work there for sure. He has to be a rebel and master of his own domain. That's fine. Karpathy is better anyways at what he does, but the comma team has done some amazingly good stuff for what it is.

Great to hear you have personal experience with the comma.ai system.

I definitely agree it's not fair to compare them to Tesla's system, which is better. However, I bring them up because there's a prevailing opinion here that Tesla's data advantage is insurmountable.

Comma.ai shows us you can get data through very simple means (ie., a cell phone mounted to the dash of your car) and it can provide quite a lot of data.

I'm not claiming that data from a dashcam system will be sufficient to surpass Tesla, but I think if you had a dashcam/camera/cellphone system on several million cars, it will provide quite a lot of data and companies like Google can use that data to speed up their FSD efforts.
 
1) Because China's 28 million new vehicle market has a ZEV mandate, which will require sales of at least 560,000 or more PEVs every year.
1) Because US ZEV states have something like a 6.8 million new vehicle market, which will require sales of 161,500 plug-ins next year.
2) Because China's 28 million market and US ZEV states' 6.8M markets are going to have ZEV mandates ramp up every year until 2025. I'm not sure how China's rules work on PHEV share, but US ZEV rules are increasingly making PHEV unattractive.
3) Because the EU market is going to have tougher fuel economy standards from next year and those will get even tougher over the next few years.
4) Because diesel sales have reduced significantly in the EU+EFTA market and that has forced manufacturers' hands.

The "commitments" from manufacturers came after China announced its ZEV mandate. The combined impact is large enough that half-hearted efforts will quickly become very expensive (credit purchases, rebates), and also risks medium to long-term impact as falling costs of electrification grow demand.

Whatever manufacturers think about electrification, the regulatory environment is forcing their hand. FCA has found out the hard way.

1) Yes, but what's missing for this analysis is that not every car will earn the max Zev credits. Most EVs sold today in China are tiny city cars and do not qualify for any Zev credits. I am not 100% on the exact numbers but the range must be over 100km to earn any and to earn max, you need to be closer to 250mi range. 10% Zev is the requirement so 24Mil cars sold, will require 2.4M Zevs or 600k long range EVs. But if half are short range, you need even more. Also, imports do not quality, cars must be made in China and probably batteries sourced there as well, though im not sure about the latter, just a guess.
2) Yes PHEV are worth very little or nothing. Must have 100KM range or greater to get any credit. This program mimics Californias almost identically, with the major difference being a higher precent of total vehilces sold and of course it covers all of China and not just Carb States like in the US.

This is why every auto has plans to make EVs in China and almost none are making them in the US. Look at VW, they are targeting 500k EVs sold by 2023 or something but only 5% of those will be sold in the US. This is because the Autos already have all the Zev credits they need in the US with very few exceptions.

I think Tesla strategy here is simple. They will keep undercutting the competition so that they cannot sell their compliance cars for enough money to offset the ZEV requirements. Who is going to compete with S3XY in China and Europe with 250mi range on the low end and maybe as much as 400 on the high end with 2170 pack in a few years. They are struggling to hit 200 with 80KWh+ packs.

Just in time for the eturd, eqc, the model X gets a bump to 250/325mi range at reduced prices compared to 200mi range from the smaller 5 seaters.

Also, just before Taycant is available, model S gets 370 mi range and quicker 0-60. They also get 200KW charging which given how efficient they are, they will add miles at the same rate as the 350KW Taycant and for longer due to the size of the battery.
 
I don't agree with your panel gaps comment. They existed in 2017 and you got yours from the Q3/Q4 2018 wave, right? My car is from Q3 2018 and it has zero gap issues. When I look at cars of other brands I do see those severe gap issues that don't exist on my 3.

I don't have any issues with panel gaps either, I just like collecting down-votes. :D The issue isn't completely eliminated, but it's far far better.
 
That's the one thing I don't like about AP, and have stated as much here long ago. I'd like to be able to have AP drive off center in the lane, just so I can see around traffic. I'm not a fan of last second reactions, by AP or me.

I can see much further down the road and react faster than my Tesla can. It's far too easy to be distracted, and we all do, but I don't get why most drivers seem to fixate on the vehicle directly in front of them, and are far too close at highway speeds to react in time.

Defensive driving is a lost art I guess.

This is part of my point. I think until Tesla starts actually training its cars to act like defensive drivers, they aren't really working on the full robotaxi problem. And it became clear at the autonomy presentation that they aren't doing that yet: they haven't hired defensive driving instructors, they are still working on vision problems for goodness sake. They are so far from 100% that Musk sounds like a gibbering idiot when he yammers about robotaxis in 2020.
 
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Tesla's advantages. It's not only data. It's how to make sense of those data and combining different signals to reduce human labour for labeling!!!

A big problem Waymo is facing is how to process the data they collected. More data does NOT help when you don't have the bandwidth to label them!

Because unsupervised learning does not scale!!!!

Google is pretty good at AI and labeling. I think they can figure it out as well. :)
 
I'll take the opposite side on this. I don't think regulators will require robotaxis to be EVs. I think they'll look at it as purely an autonomous driving/safety issue and not as an environmental one combined.

California will certainly require the retrofitted cars to be EV, as they are a super environmentally friendly state. Same with many other states. The EV sentiment has grown substantially, there is no turning back/retrofitting ICE. The market may say otherwise, but the lawmakers and informed public will choose EV.
 
I'll take the opposite side on this. I don't think regulators will require robotaxis to be EVs. I think they'll look at it as purely an autonomous driving/safety issue and not as an environmental one combined.

I think economics will require it before regulators do. There will certainly be room for ICE vehicles in autonomous fleets for 2-5 years— autonomy is a massive price advantage over fleets with drivers— but the $/mile advantage of EVs will push fleets to adopt a higher & higher % of EVs until they hit 100%.

If Google is confident in their software, they should be buying the largest stake they can in either Tesla or GM (or maybe Nissan?)— they’ll want to pump out as many EVs as possible as quickly as possible, even if ICE vehicles are initially part of their fleet. The aesthetic deficiencies of the Bolt and Leaf will be much less of a problem for commercial adoption. I think Tesla would be the best choice, but I could see them opting for GM or Nissan if Musk won’t give Google as much control as they would want (presumably because of his confidence in Tesla’s progress in autonomy).

If Google isn’t confident in their software, they should be buying Tesla AND GM. They have the market cap & cash to do it, and it would guarantee they achieve robotaxis first (whether from Waymo or Tesla or Cruise), and the manufacturing capacity to crank out EVs quickly. Tesla’s access to batteries would be particularly vital.
 
I'll take the opposite side on this. I don't think regulators will require robotaxis to be EVs. I think they'll look at it as purely an autonomous driving/safety issue and not as an environmental one combined.
But politicians will look at it as a good place to start with EVs. Very little opposition (since there are no robotaxis) and they can say they did something for AGW. As I said, LA mayor is already proposing it.

L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s ‘Green New Deal’ would phase out gas-fueled cars

The plan also mentions self-driving cars, saying the city should “ensure all autonomous vehicles (AVs) used for sharing services will be electric by 2021.”