Gravity test drive

Tesla has not been the gold standard for a very long time, unless you are either Elon or someone who loves Elon. I respect people who love their cars, but they are wrong about FSD, by just about every test that was not done by Tesla itself.
Understood.
I think my perception of "gold standard" was based on their marketing/exaggeration as mentioned in a previous post.

In some ways, marketing doing what it's supposed to do or can do; give a perception.
 
I knew I was opening a can of worms but the discussion has been enlightening. I just disagree with how Tesla markets their clearly Beta FSD software to buyers who at one point were willing to pay Tesla a whopping $15,000 for FSD, only to realize they were paying to join the Beta program. If and when most states certify their FSD software, NVIDIA is perhaps the safest route forward for most car manufacturers.
 
The big "wow factor" with Tesla is that they allow the ADAS features to operate on city streets, which none of the established manufacturers would do because of their approach to risk. This does enable use cases like ACC for stop-and-go traffic, which is a meaningful benefit, imho.


Rivian as well. If you're not building your own chips, Nvidia is probably the safest bet for your HW here, but it's at a substantial price premium to other vendors. Note that Nvidia are not providing the "driver" functionality (although their web content is really muddy on this now) -- Nvidia DRIVE is a HW/SW platform, but the software provided is more at the level of infrastructure and support libraries to make building ADAS capabilities easier.

It's really hard to tell from the way they write press releases (see https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/drive-full-stack-av-software-europe/) but some of what comes with the SDK may be as far as fully-functional demos for capabilities like auto-park. I would not assume that means they can be "just deployed" in a vehicle, though, and may require a lot of downstream customer (e.g. Lucid) customization. Regardless, for ADAS capabilities there is either the automaker or another SW component vendor that is going to be providing a lot of code to make it work...
I think that understates what companies can get from Nvidia. I believe that Nvidia DRIVE Hyperion includes both the hardware platform and software, including ML models. But Nvidia is only pitching it as "level 2+" at this point. Even Waymo, the clear leader in autonomous driving, readily acknowledges that they have quite a bit of R&D that still needs to be done. For companies not wanting to invest a few billion trying to build their own autonomous driving, Nvidia offers the most obvious technology to license. But until autonomous driving is a solved problem, it's far from clear who the viable technology partners will end up being. Waymo seems like a clear bet. Nvidia and Tesla both have a willingness (and financial capacity) to dump endless billions into the tech as well, and so will probably someday succeed. But as fundamental research in AI continues to improve the base capability of the technology, the barrier to building an autonomous driving system will slowly drop. Probably the smart thing to do for most companies is to avoid dumping in huge somes of money at this moment when the state of the technology isn't quite ready to offer the capability.
 
Since I took us off track, I will make this one comment. And it’s NOT an intended to defend Elon, but it IS interesting. He said the reason they removed radar was there was no way to process information when radar picked up a false positive and the camera saw no object - or vice versa.

LiDAR is total overkill and radar is “dumb” technology for a 2025 car unless you just want to check blind spots.

when traveling for work I’ve rented a Toyota and Subaru - both under $30,000 - and both had TACC and lane keep. Worked perfectly. Not sure we really need all the rest.

As for DD Pro - I am nervous because Tesla realize on two different occasions they needed better/more powerful hardware. Them had to upgrade. Not sure Lucid’s hardware on DD Pro cars is actually good enough.
 
....LiDAR is total overkill and radar is “dumb” technology for a 2025 car unless you just want to check blind spots....
Lidar and radar are complementary to cameras. Each has unique strengths in a range of conditions. Lidar and radar can see in the dark, radar can see in heavy fog, etc. I'll take all three, as I place a high value on our safety. I'm not interested cheapest solution.
 
Lidar and radar are complementary to cameras. Each has unique strengths in a range of conditions. Lidar and radar can see in the dark, radar can see in heavy fog, etc. I'll take all three, as I place a high value on our safety. I'm not interested cheapest solution.
I am not talking about the cheapest solution. I am looking for the most effective mix. When cameras, radar and lidar don’t all agree - which does the car choose? That’s an issue.

Honestly, I am not the right person to advocate here as I just need tacc and lane stay. I’ve seen Lucid’s DD Pro today, Tesla’s various tools and Rivian and don’t feel any are with an extra $5,000+. YMMV based on needs.
 
I am not talking about the cheapest solution. I am looking for the most effective mix. When cameras, radar and lidar don’t all agree - which does the car choose? That’s an issue...
Yes, it's part of the problem to be solved.
 
I am not talking about the cheapest solution. I am looking for the most effective mix. When cameras, radar and lidar don’t all agree - which does the car choose? That’s an issue.

Honestly, I am not the right person to advocate here as I just need tacc and lane stay. I’ve seen Lucid’s DD Pro today, Tesla’s various tools and Rivian and don’t feel any are with an extra $5,000+. YMMV based on needs.
It's true that combining data from multiple sensors poses a challenge. But that's not unique to radar or lidar. Two optical cameras with overlapping fields of view also need to solve the problem. The human brain has to do it with our eyes as well. It's actually an incredibly challenging problem, and even our highly evolved brains get it wrong on a regular basis. In terms of looking for the most effective mix, I believe that it's better to have multiple kinds of sensors, where one kind can be effective in types of sensing that another kind is weak at. More sensors makes the vehicle more expensive, but I personally am willing to pay more for the safety it can provide. I know that's easy for me to say, a guy who's planning to buy a Gravity for more than double what the average new vehicle costs. But even lidar has already come down enormously in price, and radar is already pretty inexpensive.
 
I am not talking about the cheapest solution. I am looking for the most effective mix. When cameras, radar and lidar don’t all agree - which does the car choose? That’s an issue.

Honestly, I am not the right person to advocate here as I just need tacc and lane stay. I’ve seen Lucid’s DD Pro today, Tesla’s various tools and Rivian and don’t feel any are with an extra $5,000+. YMMV based on needs.
The reason Musk did not use LIDAR and got rid of Radar is exactly this reason- the computer power needed to figure out which is right or wrong means it will take him another 2 decades to get this right- and of course the expense.

It was cheaper and quicker to just get rid of everything and just keep the cameras- when you have one system deciding, where is the conflict?

Safety is not a priority for Tesla….cost and time is what they would rather save. They don’t care if a few of us die in it…..
 
I am not talking about the cheapest solution. I am looking for the most effective mix. When cameras, radar and lidar don’t all agree - which does the car choose? That’s an issue.

Honestly, I am not the right person to advocate here as I just need tacc and lane stay. I’ve seen Lucid’s DD Pro today, Tesla’s various tools and Rivian and don’t feel any are with an extra $5,000+. YMMV based on needs.
Getting rid of one or two types of sensors that may disagree is not the solution. Better sensor fusion is the solution. Getting rid of sensors is a safety risk to save cost.
 
Getting rid of one or two types of sensors that may disagree is not the solution. Better sensor fusion is the solution. Getting rid of sensors is a safety risk to save cost.
This is correct.

It’s true that each of the sensors has different pros and cons. When they don’t agree, it is for a reason, and that’s the problem to solve, not to accept the cons of one sensor at all costs.
 
Probably not a popular opinion on a non-Tesla forum, but I've been using FSD quite a bit since v13. I just finished a trip down to SoCal and back for my kids graduation. I do these trips numerous times on my X and my 3. X has AI3, and 3 has AI4. Drove out of my garage and onto the 1st charging stop (Harris Ranch), without me ever touching the steering wheel. Other than I have to look forward. The only reason I stopped when it approaches the parking lot, is that the system goes over the speed bumps a little harsh, and my M3 Perf is lower than a regular 3, so it scrapes the bottom, so now when ever I see speed bumps. I disable FSD. Granted, my GDE will be my 1st Lucid, so I've never experience any version DD. I'm just saying based on my daily use of FSD in these NorCal/SoCal trips, plus the number of daily Bay Area traffic commutes. I'm pretty happy with it, it's a tremendous change when it got to v13. The ADAS on the Porsche is crap. I can't wait to check out DD on the Lucid, whenever I can get it.

-iThinkEV-
 
Probably not a popular opinion on a non-Tesla forum, but I've been using FSD quite a bit since v13. I just finished a trip down to SoCal and back for my kids graduation. I do these trips numerous times on my X and my 3. X has AI3, and 3 has AI4. Drove out of my garage and onto the 1st charging stop (Harris Ranch), without me ever touching the steering wheel. Other than I have to look forward. The only reason I stopped when it approaches the parking lot, is that the system goes over the speed bumps a little harsh, and my M3 Perf is lower than a regular 3, so it scrapes the bottom, so now when ever I see speed bumps. I disable FSD. Granted, my GDE will be my 1st Lucid, so I've never experience any version DD. I'm just saying based on my daily use of FSD in these NorCal/SoCal trips, plus the number of daily Bay Area traffic commutes. I'm pretty happy with it, it's a tremendous change when it got to v13. The ADAS on the Porsche is crap. I can't wait to check out DD on the Lucid, whenever I can get it.

-iThinkEV-
I think if Tesla didn't have their somewhat ambiguous marketing that tends to oversell FSD as being autonomous driving, then you might not find so many people pushing back against it. As an ADAS system, it's pretty good. There are some concerning incidents of it misbehaving too rapidly and severely for the driver to seize control. But to be fair, those incidents seem to be very rare. As an engineer, I prefer my life-critical systems to have more of a safety-first engineering approach than Tesla has taken. But I know not everyone sees it the way I do.
 
I think if Tesla didn't have their somewhat ambiguous marketing that tends to oversell FSD as being autonomous driving, then you might not find so many people pushing back against it. As an ADAS system, it's pretty good. There are some concerning incidents of it misbehaving too rapidly and severely for the driver to seize control. But to be fair, those incidents seem to be very rare. As an engineer, I prefer my life-critical systems to have more of a safety-first engineering approach than Tesla has taken. But I know not everyone sees it the way I do.

Maybe the measure should be this: is Tesla's FSD safer than the average human driver? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is quite a bit safer. And if the human is paying attention, in the cases when FSD is less safe than the human, the human can take over. Seems like a win-win.

Rivian claims they will have L3 this year. My guess is it will be L2 that is competitive with FSD, but I am skeptical it can get that good that fast when it took Tesla years. Rivian has claimed they can only do it because they have more than just cameras, and use the data from all the other sensors to augment the video. Rivian has a lot of vehicles on the road now, so they are getting lots of good data to train their system. How can Lucid do that with the much smaller fleet? Won't it take a few years for Lucid to catch up to the others?

I like being in control of the vehicle, but I have never experienced anything close to FSD. So maybe I will change my mind once I experience it. Those who have it seem to be blown away with how good Tesla's is. (Well not everyone, as discussed here. But many are.)

Personally I love the idea of letting the car drive me home after having too much to drink at a restaurant. Or keeping my ability to get out of the house when I should not drive, or when I get too old to drive safely. We had to take my dad's driver's license away. It is so sad when that has to happen, and the independence people lose. L3 driving will change that. It is a pretty exciting future, assuming AI doesn't kill us all.
 
Maybe the measure should be this: is Tesla's FSD safer than the average human driver? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is quite a bit safer. And if the human is paying attention, in the cases when FSD is less safe than the human, the human can take over. Seems like a win-win.

Rivian claims they will have L3 this year. My guess is it will be L2 that is competitive with FSD, but I am skeptical it can get that good that fast when it took Tesla years. Rivian has claimed they can only do it because they have more than just cameras, and use the data from all the other sensors to augment the video. Rivian has a lot of vehicles on the road now, so they are getting lots of good data to train their system. How can Lucid do that with the much smaller fleet? Won't it take a few years for Lucid to catch up to the others?

I like being in control of the vehicle, but I have never experienced anything close to FSD. So maybe I will change my mind once I experience it. Those who have it seem to be blown away with how good Tesla's is. (Well not everyone, as discussed here. But many are.)

Personally I love the idea of letting the car drive me home after having too much to drink at a restaurant. Or keeping my ability to get out of the house when I should not drive, or when I get too old to drive safely. We had to take my dad's driver's license away. It is so sad when that has to happen, and the independence people lose. L3 driving will change that. It is a pretty exciting future, assuming AI doesn't kill us all.
Curious how often you think FSD would crash without a human monitoring it.
L3 requires a driver to be in the driver's seat so it doesn't help people who can't drive (technically they are not driving while the system in engaged though). I think the only L3 systems will be highway only like Mercedes Drive Pilot. Hopefully they'll get beyond traffic jam only operation.
 
Maybe the measure should be this: is Tesla's FSD safer than the average human driver?
I am not the average driver, and I don’t want to revert to the mean. Most people suck at driving, and roughly half are worse than average. :)

My guess is it will be L2 that is competitive with FSD, but I am skeptical it can get that good that fast when it took Tesla years. Rivian has claimed they can only do it because they have more than just cameras, and use the data from all the other sensors to augment the video. Rivian has a lot of vehicles on the road now, so they are getting lots of good data to train their system. How can Lucid do that with the much smaller fleet? Won't it take a few years for Lucid to catch up to the others?
It took Rolls Royce many years to fail at building engines that were powerful enough to break the sound barrier at altitudes high enough that there was no sonic boom on the ground. In fact, they never did it.

Boom Supersonic had to come along and build their own engines, by starting from first principles, and solving problems people didn’t know existed yet. They weren’t even aiming to solve that problem; they happened to solve it by building a much more efficient engine. One day they looked at the data and went “oh crap, the math… works”

Many products being built today could not have been built a decade ago. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but sometimes “they’ve been doing it for over a decade” is actually a negative, not a positive.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
In fairness, fully autonomous driving should be acceptable when it reaches a level where it is safer than your average excellent human driver. However that's not the standard people are willing to accept. They want 100% safety, and no system can produce that.
 
In fairness, fully autonomous driving should be acceptable when it reaches a level where it is safer than your average excellent human driver. However that's not the standard people are willing to accept. They want 100% safety, and no system can produce that.
I don’t need 100% safety. I just want it not to make mistakes I wouldn’t have made. I don’t stop randomly in the middle of the road by slamming on my brakes with nothing in front of me.

I just need it to be at least as good as or better than me. I’m not 100% safe.

But I’m definitely safer than FSD today. YMMV.
 
FSD isn’t likely to crash, in my experience. It’s just more likely to get “stuck” in a moment of indecision and not do anything. Wont cause an accident, but it’s annoying.

Regardless, any type of ADAS isn’t close to my top 10 reasons for buying any of these cars. It’s more of a nice to have and, as I said, cheap Toyotas and Subarus do tacc and lane keep pretty darn well.
 
FSD isn’t likely to crash, in my experience. It’s just more likely to get “stuck” in a moment of indecision and not do anything. Wont cause an accident, but it’s annoying.
While I agree, and have the latest version of FSD (Supervised) in my Model X Plaid, my fear is rarely FSD anymore (rarely) -- it's the behavior of other drivers while FSD is engaged that frustrates me. THEY may cause a crash due to THEIR actions.
 
Back
Top