
Tesla Motors hiring talent for developing self-driving cars - bhauer
http://www.efinancehub.com/tesla-motors-inc-nasdaqtsla-seeking-to-hire-an-adas-controls-engineer-to-develop-autonomous-driving-technologies/122963.html
======
nonchalance
This is an attempt to pump the stock price (interesting to note that it was
efinancehub.com and not a tech site that reported this).

ADAS isn't just about the self-driving cars that Google is testing. ADAS
includes systems like:

\- Warnings if you drift out of your lane (Mercedes has been advertising this
for four years)

\- Warnings and stops if the car predicts an accident may occur soon (Infiniti
has been advertising this for years)

\- Automatic parking (Ford has been advertising this for years)

\- Blind spot detection (many car companies have it)

\- Cruise control that maintains minimum distance to the car in front of you
(BMW and Audi mid and high-end cars had it since 2010)

It really looks like Tesla is trying to develop those features for the Model S
and future cars.

~~~
samstave
I was thinking about Tesla Driving Data today:

I was wondering what data they were gathering, and what they would do with it,
and how it could be useful to other drivers:

What if you have a Tesla driver profile and you could see your driving habits
ranked amongst all other tesla drivers (anonymously) to determine your rank as
the most safe, efficient, slow, fast, whatever driver.

To see where you stack among others would have an effect on your driving. To
see how your particular car performs against all others - its mileage vs age
against others etc...

I think that there is a whole other layer that could be added onto the Tesla
experience that other car manufacturers are far too old and less nimble to do
appropriately.

~~~
apapli
Your driving habits could also significantly impact your insurance premium
too...

------
jareds
As a blind person I get excited about this until I think of just how much the
first models will cost. I guess I should save what would now be a car payment
if I could drive in hopes that it will be enough of a down payment that I can
afford one of these when they come out and pass all the regulatory hurdles.

~~~
auctiontheory
It is conceivable (even probable?) that self-driving cars would be subsidized
for the visually handicapped.

~~~
jareds
They may be subsidized but I could see myself making enough money where I
wouldn’t qualify for the subsidy if it was income based but not making enough
money to be able to easily afford one if they were six figures.

------
_mulder_
The incumbent car manufacturers are struggling to keep up with Tesla's first
offerings, they're going be beside themselves if Tesla can pull this off.

~~~
Shivetya
The incumbent car manufactures, by which I assume you mean GM, Ford, Chrysler,
Honda, Toyota, and the like, are operating a far different market segment.
They face a much more difficult market, where profit margins are tighter,
because they by default aim to the mass market.

Tesla is operating in the upper luxury end of the market, where margins are
fatter, where vehicles sold can be lower but the margins maintained. They are
making very large cars, even their follow up model to the S is the same wheel
base. Why is that? Most likely because Musk knows they cannot deliver the
range needed at cost and more importantly, a size, that a smaller car will be.

There are many self driving efforts going on in the market, both Mercedes and
Infiniti have vehicles on the market that offer some limited form of self
driving. Mostly lane departure and the like but they are pushing distances.

Tesla should be the one who worries most, because they have a unique product
only for a short time and they won't get into the smaller sized car market
because the technology path they have followed is not progressing fast enough.

If they made a car the size of standard midsized car, lets pick Fusion or
Accord, the wheelbase shrinks by ten inches on average, width comes down too.
All that shrinkage will take away from battery capacity, hence range. That is
one reason many of the offerings by the incumbents have less range. Many use a
battery solution not all that different, just restrained by size and
technology.

There was a reason Musk went for the price point he did, it allowed larger
vehicles which current technology requires. Never bet on the incumbents
sitting still, Musk certainly is not. It just comes down to, can Tesla execute
well in the mid size market, should they ever get there. Who knows, he made
cede that space by licensing tech to let other people work the small margin
sales

~~~
_mulder_
It depends what market segment you're looking at. If it's the 'Electric Car'
market, Telsa are pretty much the leaders in this segment apart from a handful
of super-micro city cars. If you mean the 'Performance Car' market, apart from
one or two niche offerings and prototypes, the usual manufacturers should be
spooked by Tesla's potential to realise and implement new technology.

Musk makes no secret of his positioning in the market and going for the price
point that they have. But there are hundreds of different cars at the same
price point of the Model S, none of which are even in the same ball park.

The necessity for the incumbents to appeal to the mass-market is exactly why
they should be worried, they're business relies on so many manufacturing
synergies to reduce price, adapting all of those chassis and systems to cope
with electric drive and self driving is going to be a challenge if they're to
sell to their exist mass-market customers, at a price they expect. Tesla
doesn't have that problem.

~~~
codex
Tesla leads the electric car market in technology, but not in volume; there
are many more LEAFs on the road today than there are Teslas. Total sales for
the LEAF are about 65,000.

~~~
erikpukinskis
For those interested in the numbers:

Tesla is delivering 550 cars per week[1], which is about 2357 per month. In
August Nissan sold 2420 Leafs[2]. So seems like sales are just about
equivalent. Except that Tesla is supply constrained and sells direct to
consumers, so that 2357 underestimates actual sales. And many of those Leafs
are sitting in dealerships, while none of the Teslas are.

Now Telsa only sold 5k cars in 2012, so it's doubtful they have on the road
more than half of the 75,000 Leafs that have been sold[3]. But the Leaf
started shipping in December 2010[4] whereas the Model S started shipping in
June 2012[5] so it's not exactly a fair comparison.

The Chevy Volt actually did better than either in August, with 3351 sales[2].
Although their year-to-date sales were the same as the Leaf (14k) which
suggests they had some late resurgence.

[1] [http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-talks-all-things-europe-
and-u...](http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-talks-all-things-europe-and-us-and-
mars-in-quirky-dutch-interview-video/)

[2] [http://green.autoblog.com/2013/09/04/chevy-volt-nissan-
leaf-...](http://green.autoblog.com/2013/09/04/chevy-volt-nissan-leaf-both-
set-new-montly-sales-records/)

[3] [http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/21/nissan-leaf-
production-...](http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/21/nissan-leaf-production-
increase-slowed-by-electrodes-ev-china/)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S)

~~~
codex
You're comparing US LEAF sales with worldwide Tesla sales. Worldwide LEAF
sales are around 4,500 a month. In the US, at least, LEAFs are in high demand.
In Atlanta dealers have only 120 hours of supply. Before the Model S, Tesla
sold the Roadster, but the numbers were so low they don't affect the
comparison.

At this point one can only talk about installed base as both Nissan and Tesla
cannot meet demand. Nissan makes its own batteries but cannot make them fast
enough. And of course the markets are fairly different. The LEAF is much, much
cheaper, and is in no way a luxury or performance car.

------
FD3SA
Tesla should find this team:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-
intel...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-
intelligence/cmu-autonomous-car-doesnt-looks-like-a-robot)

Videos here:

[http://rtml.ece.cmu.edu/Shuster/video.html](http://rtml.ece.cmu.edu/Shuster/video.html)

------
themodelplumber
Will we get to the point where people will be giving the finger to anyone
_not_ in a self-driving car, because it messes with e.g. optimum traffic flow?

~~~
dm2
No, why would you pay attention to the road?

There might not even be windows in the self-driving car of the future.

~~~
themodelplumber
Well, opening the door to view the awesome forest fire in the distance is
probably inconvenient. Plus you know...the billboard lobby ;-)

------
drzaiusapelord
Honest question: is there harm in competing self-driving schemes? I really
don't want to shop "safety." By that I mean, paying more for stopping in the
rain well or having one competitor hold the patent for driving in the snow
properly. I imagine it will be properly regulated, but I'd love it to be an
industry-wide initiative where everyone shares and maybe even uses the same
codebase.

~~~
jlgreco
What you are looking for is basically what happened with 3-point safety belts:

 _" The three point belt was developed by Nils Bohlin who had earlier also
worked on ejection seats at Saab.[15] Volvo then made the new seat belt design
patent open in the interest of safety and made it available to other car
manufacturers for free.[16][17]"_

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Three-
point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Three-point)

------
prawn
Talking about self-driving cars, a friend said:

"They will have to be proven as perfectly safe. One accident and people will
go crazy."

And though that's true, it of course made me think about the countless
accidents involving human-driven cars through distraction, drink/drugs,
weather, medical issues, confusion and whatever else.

We haven't proven our driving abilities as perfectly safe, not by a long shot!

~~~
xal
I highly doubt that. What's way more likely is that even if they are just
slightly more safe, you will be able to get cheaper insurance for them.
Eventually, over time, this will push all self directed cars off the road.

There is even a disruption potential: Put together a new insurance company
that only insures self driving cars and make it meaningfully cheaper. The ones
that still insure self directed cars and self driving cars both will have a
tough time to compete because their blended economics don't allow for the
super cheap rates.

~~~
prawn
I don't think many people will necessarily own their own self-driven cars. Why
have something there idle when it could be doing other work? More likely it
will operate more like a taxi or by subscription. Or even own your own, but
have it used in a pool to recoup costs, a bit like swap-n-go gas bottle
refills.

------
msoad
I live near tesla hq. I saw some Audi cars with radars on top of it around.
They are tesla people I guess. Because google cars are Lexus.

~~~
mikeyouse
Stanford has a group called "VAIL" which is an acronym for the Volkswagen
Automotive Innovation Lab. [1] As you probably know, Audi is a subsidiary of
the Volkswagen Auto Group. AFAIK, this group was borne out of the DARPA
Autonomous Car challenge, where the Stanford team partnered with VW to win the
challenge. [2]

They've produced several different VAG-based models including several Audis
that mainly focus on self-driving and similar AI. One of their more high
profile recent examples was an Audi TT that climbed Pikes Peak without any
human input. [3]

Some pretty cool stuff, and likely the cars you saw.

[1] [http://www.stanford.edu/group/vail/](http://www.stanford.edu/group/vail/)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge)
[3]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y88...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y88zRmOpA7Y#t=40)

------
Zikes
I really hope they partner with Google on this, at least I can't think of any
reason not to.

~~~
MartinCron
I was thinking the opposite. Competition is good and there isn't any obvious
competition to Google in the self-driving car space.

~~~
Permit
There is actually a reasonable amount of competition within the autonomous car
space. A lot of people online only ever hear about Google's initiatives, but
Audi, BMW et al. are building driving systems, some of which approach 100+
km/h.[1]

I definitely agree that more competition in the area is good. Hopefully as
more players build these systems, they'll continue to improve and be
commercialized quicker.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#2010s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#2010s)

~~~
MartinCron
That's why I added "obvious", because even though there are a lot of
autonomous efforts (large and small) from other companies, Google seems to be
getting all of the attention.

~~~
w_t_payne
Well, Google did hire the people who won the DARPA Grand Challenge(s):
[http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Team-Behind-Google-s-
Auto...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Team-Behind-Google-s-Autonomous-
Cars-Project-and-Details-About-the-Experiments-160321.shtml)

------
danielharan
They may be looking to buy Google's technology, and this is just a negotiation
tactic: a threat to do it themselves to keep prices down.

------
omribaumer
Driverless cars are the future. anyone thats missing that will stay behind at
some point

------
sidcool
Why don't they tie up with Google?

------
mkramlich
The article reads like it was translated into English. So many bizarre word
choices. Anybody else notice? Self-ruled cars. Features owned by other cars.
Sovereign driving. Systems (that) have congregate functional safety. I stopped
reading after enough little phrase bombs like those.

