R2 w/ LiDAR, 19-inch wheels spied

[shandering]

gain, I literally experienced a reduction in capability in my own vehicles.
And yes, aircraft autonomy has been in use for decades before car autonomy and is studied as a safety benchmark. Ever heard of “autopilot?” You’re too funny: extremely insulting, extremely confident, but also extremely wrong. Aircraft are safe because of redundancy and proven repeatable statistical m

if you didn't rely on AI you wouldn't sound like a moron. Tesla switched to camera only autopilot and it got worse because that was the first time they were working on this problem. Phantom braking is not a reduction in capability. It is an increase in safety because the car is braking for more things than it did when it was using radar.

With FSD v14 it's impossible to go a year with no phantom braking, nor would you ever want that. You want the safety to know that your car is recognizing and braking for everything that it would ever need to.

Zoox has phantom braking on every single drive. 5 or more events per drive. As long as they don't hit anything, this is what it takes for them to be safe.

Autopilots in aircraft and boats have nothing to do with car autonomy because they don't actively detect and avoid obstacles.

Sponsored

 

[tatonka2]

if you didn't rely on AI you wouldn't sound like a moron. Tesla switched to camera only autopilot and it got worse because that was the first time they were working on this problem. Phantom braking is not a reduction in capability. It is an increase in safety because the car is braking for more things than it did when it was using radar.

With FSD v14 it's impossible to go a year with no phantom braking, nor would you ever want that. You want the safety to know that your car is recognizing and braking for everything that it would ever need to.

Zoox has phantom braking on every single drive. 5 or more events per drive. As long as they don't hit anything, this is what it takes for them to be safe.

Thanks for this response. It literally made me lol and confirm the intellect of the person I’m speaking to.

 

[shandering]

Thanks for this response. It literally made me lol and confirm the intellect of the person I’m speaking to.

You're the one talking about aircraft autopilot like they have anything to do with safety. Car ADAS systems are a different level

 

[rfkxyz]

Yes, but the big question is:
Will the LE option (and perks) apply to to the Lidar, Gen 3 version?
My thoughts are that the Gen 2 is the "Launch Edition". You can still get the LE perks on Gen 2 in Dec-Feb, but, the Lidar, Gen 3 version will see a jump in price with no perks. It will not be a Launch Edition.

If they start delivering lidar as promised at the end of 2026, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Some people got LE without lidar in November, and others got LE with lidar in December?

if they just silently change hardware during the same Launch Edition run, I think early buyers would have a legitimate reason to be annoyed.

My guess is all interest/orders for LE will be satisfied/delivered as MY27. Then a distinct/pronounced cutover that drops LE and adds other models & Gen 3, call it MY27.5 or early flip to MY28.

 

[tgrick]

We had 2 earlier teslas that included radar before EM got ultra cocky and claimed cameras could do it all. After this switch, Tesla updated software to stop using the already on board radar on our vehicles which was noticeable. Rain, shadows, nighttime low vis were all better with the radar feed…

It's another data point and I suspect EM removed it due to limitations on processing power. So this brings forth the question of RIVAN and the LE vs. LiDAR gen.3. It's plausible that while the Gen. 3 is technically superior in in every way in real world use they will be very similar or the same in functionality. I see the processors in a Gen 2.5 running at a very high percentage and those on the Gen 3 close to idle. Granted, LiDAR will change this as the data storm created by LiDAR will require heavy processing. Which begs the next question...If after a few years and SW upgrades if everything is running great do we even need the LiDAR? Would we be able to switch it on or off at will? I don't always need complete autonomous driving...do any of us? I like it once in a while so are we being penalized by always having LiDAR on?

 

[r2fb]

This is not accurate. The current version of Tesla FSD is already transformative. Most people have just not experienced it yet. Our personal use case is over 80% FSD in the real world and the number 1 reason for my hesitation about the R2.

That must be why the vast majority of Tesla owners don't have it. Honestly based on your previous posts I don't think you'd be happy with the R2.

 

[tgrick]

Another question we ALL need to ask is how long will RIVIAN support the tech in the car? 7 years? 15 years? The simple truth is Apple stops its support for legacy products after X number of years? Will this also be true of Rivian? When this happens will there be an upgrade path towards a new system? Anyone? What does Tesla do? Has this been an issue? I don't own an EV so just curious...

 

[r2fb]

My experience says otherwise. On our many 175 mile trips in our Mach-e, I find the hands free for 150 miles extremely useful. Where that 2.5 hr trip before the handsfree assist used to leave me worn down, needing a quick nap to rest my eyes and relax my body, the Bluecruise leaves me feeling like I only drove half an hour or so; completely ready to go when I reach the destination. I pay attention the entire drive, but am far more relaxed, and spend a bit more time enjoying the scenery, if only for 10 seconds or so at a time, rather than two or three seconds at a time. It really does make a huge difference in reducing stress on otherwise boring drives. I love driving, especially twisty mountain roads and such, but 75MPH freeways were meant for hands free assistance.

Ok but this doesn't refute anything I said. I agree lane keeping with adaptive cruise makes long drives easier but you're still supervising and therefore driving. Most cars have this system and it's precisely why Tesla removed theirs (free basic autopilot) to force fsd subscriptions because that's really good enough for the vast majority of people. Rivian has a good lane keeping system too. The end to end city driving isn't something that really adds much value to that, only true step would be unsupervised.

 

[ndmiller]

Humans drive with vision and no lidar (although that would be cool...Bat tech), so it works. Humans also let younger unexperienced humans drive vehicles without any experience in order to learn how to drive. With humans it's likely with more experience and the absence of ego their driving gets better with less errors. There will always be cases where human are faced with unforeseen driving situations and they cannot be resolved in a positive way (i.e. crash, accident, etc).

Many companies are trying to mimic the ability of humans to learn, gain experience to become competent drivers through the use of sensors, computers and AI. There will always be cases where computers are faced with unforeseen driving situations and they cannot be resolved in a positive way (i.e. crash, accident, etc).....Humans are not 100% predicable and can do crazy shit (i.e. right turn from left lane like.y wasn't part of the initial programming of likely scenarios).

Can computers drive cars today without incidents yes, until a new situation is experienced. Are these computers perfect, no, but perfection isn't and shouldn't be the standard for computers or humans driving. Will computers get better at driving in the future, yes.

The biggest barrier to computers driving us all around is actually humans not computers. Humans have the capacity and capability to choose to do dumb stuff contrary to rules and sound thinking. Computers will likely never be able to comprehend and respond correctly. This is why "self driving" will only evolve when only computers are driving.

 

[Alan in Tempe]

Ok but this doesn't refute anything I said. I agree lane keeping with adaptive cruise makes long drives easier but you're still supervising and therefore driving.

You said supervised hands free was not game changing. It is for me. It may not be anywhere near as game changing as unsupervised will be, but it certainly is very game changing all by itself. The difference between hands-free and hands-on is not as game changing as adaptive cruise with lane keep, but even hands-free itself is almost game changing itself. Not having a great lane keep with adaptive crusie is a deal killer for my next car. While most of your points are very good, on this point you have been refuted!

 

[r2fb]

The difference between hands-free and hands-on is not as game changing as adaptive cruise with lane keep, but even hands-free itself is almost game changing itself.

I am confused by this sentence. We are in agreement that adaptive cruise with lane keeping is great for long distances. I don't think it makes too much difference between hands free and on, since you need a place to rest your hands anyway.

I still maintain that the supervised hands free city driving isn't a game changer at all.

 

[Alan in Tempe]

I am confused by this sentence. We are in agreement that adaptive cruise with lane keeping is great for long distances. I don't think it makes too much difference between hands free and on, since you need a place to rest your hands anyway.

My first two EVs were ACLK hands-on. My current Mach-e started hands-on, but went to hands-free in its second year with a SW update. It was a very BIG difference. Where the Bluecruise is unmapped forcing hand-on, the lane keeping keeps working great (where lane stripping exists), but the driving experience is much different with noticeably higher driver effort just to avoid the keep hands on wheel warnings. With hands-free enabled, I still have my hands-on maybe 10% of the time to avoid ruts, road debris, high congestion nervousness, and other rare concerns. But keeping both arms comfortably on the arm rests is very nice.

 

[Polestar3]

Phantom braking is not a reduction in capability. It is an increase in safety because the car is braking for more things than it did when it was using radar.

Your Elon is showing, put that thing away.

 

[shandering]

Your Elon is showing, put that thing away.

Most cars have no phantom braking because they do not brake for stationary vehicles on the freeway above 45mph. Do you want that? No.

If you talk about the best self driving vehicles in the world like waymo you are going to have phantom braking. It's inevitable because you are always going to misjudge something.

I'd rather my car has the ability to handle every reasonable scenario of driving on its own rather than not, even if it leads to phantom braking at times.

When tesla was using radar they were not braking for stationary vehicles. It was very unsafe. Mobileye left tesla for that exact reason. They were driving around while blindly using low resolution, cruise control radar to do lane changes and other "dangerous" things.

 

[emroch]

The DuckDuckGo AI search assist result for "phantom braking autonomous vehicle" says:

Phantom braking in autonomous vehicles refers to sudden, unexpected braking without a visible obstacle, often caused by sensor misinterpretation of shadows, weather, or environmental factors. Automakers including Tesla, Toyota, Subaru, Ford, Honda and GM have issued recalls to address this issue in vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems.

I think we can say that phantom braking, by definition, is an erroneous braking event and therefore is always undesired. Phantom braking is not safer because it is an error. It may be accompanied by an increase in justified braking events which would be safer, but actual phantom braking is not indicative of higher safety on its own. I could write a shitty AV algorithm that applies the brakes every 5 to 10 seconds randomly. That would be phantom braking and would not improve safety (other than limiting my top speed I guess).

So your argument would hold more weight if you said "more judicial braking algorithms increase safety, at the cost of increased false positives (phantom braking)", but flat out saying phantom braking is safer is wrong.

Sponsored