[pdq]

Per the new lease:

"Please note, customers who choose leasing over owning will not have the option to purchase their car at the end of the lease, because with full autonomy coming in the future via an over-the-air software update, we plan to use those vehicles in the Tesla ride-hailing network."

Elon once again promising fully autonomous vehicles in 3 years.

Also, isn't this a rental? A lease normally has a residual, so you can choose whether to buy the car.

[_red]

I have yet speak to any experienced embedded developer who actually thinks "full autonomy" is remotely possible in the near/mid term. The suggestions that it is possible, seems to come mainly from junior developers and snake-oil salesman.

We don't even have "full autonomous" trains, planes, or trucks yet.

[njarboe]

Would an auto-car that crashed at a rate 1/10th of humans be a successful "full autonomous" vehicle? You could save 30000 lives a year in the US by deploying such vehicles and probably more due to knock-on effects. But that would be about 10 auto-car deaths/per day. No way that works with the current media.

Unfortunately, it seems many people are not going to accept auto-cars with less than airplane like safety levels. Of course that will never happen. So yes, "full autonomous" vehicles are a long way off (probably forever), unless someone (Waymo?, Tesla?) can show they are much safer and some kind of national or state level laws are passed to restrict the legal liability of the makers and owners of such vechiles. Sort of like how ski resorts would not exist without special laws restricting liablity.

[fucking_tragedy]

> an auto-car that crashed at a rate 1/10th of humans

This is incredibly generous assumption, especially given the fact that cars with advertised Autopilot features, like Tesla's offerings, actually make accidents more likely[1][2]. Compared to the driver fatality rate in other luxury vehicles, Tesla's offerings nearly triple driver fatality[3].

This is like theorizing about a car that survives 99.9% of all impacts at any speed. It doesn't exist, nor is there any indication that it will exist, and it doesn't serve a purpose other than to prop up a contrived argument.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-t...

[2] https://driving.ca/tesla/model-s/auto-news/news/iihs-study-s...

[3] https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...

[njarboe]

No assumption, just a serious question. I agree no one is near that good yet. But it was a question that people should be thinking about. How good will be good enough to let the auto-vehicles operate on the roads?

[trickstra]

> This is like theorizing about a car that survives 99.9% of all impacts at any speed. It doesn't exist, nor is there any indication that it will exist

now THIS is a strawman

[trickstra]

quoting from your [1]

> So does that mean that Autosteer actually makes crashes 59 percent more likely? Probably not.

[hnhg]

This is a strawman. We're talking about replicating all of the abilities of a driver in all of the conditions they're supposed to operate in with approximately the same kind of performance. When we get to that point, then we can consider your question.

[Quick edit: a good question here though is what kind of drivers test is sufficient for us to even begin considering autonomous vehicles? Is that even answered?]

[trickstra]

why would that be a strawman? And why would we be talking about replicating the abilities of human driver? The ultimate point is to have safer transport, not copying a human driver with all of their quirks and flaws. Autonomous driving might look very different from human driving and still be safer. The way human drivers drive today is not necessarily optimal.

We don't want approximately the same kind of performance, we want much better performance, so it essentially must be different from the human driver

[Someone]

Level 5 isn’t only about safety, but also about universality.

At level 5, one expects a self-driving car to ride gravel roads, park in highly temporary parking spots, spot police officers and follow their orders, drive short distances on non-roads (e.g. to drive around a car pile-up), etc.

A car that recognizes those cases, stops, and tells it’s passenger “please help me out for a few meters” would be a fantastic accomplishment and very, very successful, but wouldn’t qualify as level 5 autonomous.

[sagarm]

I'm skeptical of autonomy in three years myself, but embedded engineers are hardly a convincing authority on the subject.

[trickstra]

Were you also skeptical about landing orbital rockets 5 years ago?

[kbenson]

I actually think landing an orbital rocket is probably easier by an order of magnitude, possibly even two.

Rocket science is a matter of applied physics, with materials science thrown in, and a bit of very well understood and straightforward software engineering.

Autonomous driving is a matter of getting AI models functioning to a well enough degree. My understanding of how this is done is you try to find more and better data to throw at it and tweak the models to hopefully make it learn better until the point it seems to pass your tests, which are whatever you've been able to come up with that you can think to test.

It's like trying to throw a pitch over home plate, but in one case you have a pitching machine you can aim and dial in the speed, and in the other you have a living pitcher. Only that living pitcher is an Orangutan you're trying to train.

One of those is a lot more art than science, and as such, getting well understood and reproducible outcomes that don't fall apart at a fundamental level when you add one more variable is harder.

[Someone]

Also, SpaceX’s landings are amazing, but looking at the numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...): ”The rocket's first-stage boosters have been recovered in 35 of 42 landing attempts (83%).”

If Tesla’s cars were as good in parking as that, one in six attempts to park a car would lead to a fender-bender or worse.

Yes, that isn’t a valid comparison, but it does show that we accept way higher failure rates for rockets than we do for cars (aside: that also is the reason I don’t see space tourism become popular soon. If, say, the 20th or 30th millionaire who books a flight dies, the market will dry up rapidly)

[trickstra]

Seriously? Well then you just don't understand machine learning, robotics and the tyranny of the rocket equation. If you did, it would be easy to see that landing an orbital rocket is much harder than autonomous driving. The only problem is that nobody will pay 300M to get one fully self driving car after 13 years of research. And selfdriving needs tons of data which first need to be collected, which is what Tesla is doing at the highest rate than anyone in the industry by far.

Edit: one way to realize this is true is if you consider that the rocket already IS fully self driving. Everything after 1 minute mark before the liftoff is fully controlled by onboard computers, people are only there to push the big red autodestruct button if anything goes wrong.

Anyway, my point was something else. That something might seem impossible, and then after just 5 years it can be considered mundane. And I think that's what we will see with self driving too. Unless oil industry manages to manipulate public opinion in a way that stops Tesla before that.

[mhermher]

Wasnt that done in the 90s? Why be skeptical it could be done?

[derekp7]

You're thinking of the DC-X demonstration vehicle, which was a scaled down non-orbital vehicle. Similar to the early SpaceX grasshopper vehicle.

[trickstra]

I don't know, you tell me... "The SpaceX ORBCOMM-2 Mission successfully landed the first stage of a rocket during an orbital launch, a feat never before accomplished."

[gibybo]

"full autonomy" means lots of different things to different people.

Some people think of it as being able to drive anywhere at any time in any condition. This is unlikely to ever happen before AGI. What matters in Tesla's case is more likely being able to drive in some small number of places in specific circumstances without a physical driver in the vehicle (but possibly a remote one to handle unusual circumstances).

Now I don't think Tesla is going to even get to that in 3 years, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Waymo there.

[mhermher]

What part of "full" is ambiguous. Maybe your point stands if just "autonomy" was used generically. But "full" has a specific implication.

[gibybo]

I think we're in agreement, but Tesla has a lot of customers buying into the "Full Self Driving" promise. If you look at the "Full Self Driving" package currently available for $5k on their website, you'll notice that it doesn't even claim to be able to drive without a driver. It talks about doing what EAP can do today + doing it on city streets. What EAP can do today is basically adaptive cruise control with lane keeping and automatic lane change (which also requires you to hold the steering wheel).

[slg]

The primary cause of the ambiguity is that "Full Self Driving" is a marketing term that Tesla uses and not a unconditional promise. It is just like how cell phone companies promise "Unlimited Data" with a variety of caveats. So there is a question of whether people are talking about the primary definition of "full" or Tesla's marketing definition of "full".

[mandeepj]

> not a unconditional promise

Please try to avoid using double or more negates. It’s a bit hard to read.

[username223]

> a remote one to handle unusual circumstances

How could that ever work? The "unusual circumstances" that matter will usually require either action in less than a second, like an improvised detour sign, or situational awareness, like a human directing traffic around some random obstacle. At best, Google will be making cars that pull over to the shoulder and call for help in a few years.

[gibybo]

>At best, Google will be making cars that pull over to the shoulder and call for help in a few years.

Ya, that's pretty much what I was getting at.

[JustSomeNobody]

> ...some small number of places in specific circumstances..

Airport parking/shuttle service. They could even augment the AI by using markers in the roadways. That's about as autonomous as we're going to get in the next decade.

[r_smart]

Driving through airport terminals is possibly one of the most chaotic possible environments, with people almost suicidally throwing themselves in front of you, not to even speak of the cabs, double lane parking, security guards telling you to move and other things. It's probably one of the harder environments to automate for outside of inclement weather.

[kbenson]

Some airports have shuttles on private circuits to take you from one wing of an airport to another wing of the airport. The ones I've seen that have this either have a rail system, or a human driver. It would be much cheaper to just throw a bus with some software to track digital route markers and some visual matching for unexpected situations than to build a dedicated point to point system rail/track system (and maybe marginally cheaper than hiring someone, depending on other costs).

[paulcole]

> "full autonomy" means lots of different things to different people.

And don't doubt that Elon/Tesla use this to their fullest advantage.

[latch]

I generally agree that the lack of automation for seemingly simpler problems is good argument. However, there are a number of automated subway systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...

[trickstra]

how do you call those subway lines without driver cabin? They are in service for a number of years in a couple of cities around the world

[twoodfin]

Anyone want to lay odds on these cars ending up in a “certified pre-owned” program instead?

This seems like a scheme to both boost future new car sales and effectively “sell” the same car twice.

[gibybo]

If I could bet $100 to win $1 that they don't end up in a self-driving fleet at the end of the lease, I would.

[leesec]

You can. I'll happily take this up to 1k.

[SEJeff]

https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesTeslaMotors/

[toomuchtodo]

https://www.longbets.org might be a better place.

[ergothus]

I recall a LOT of EV-1 owners (relatively speaking) that wanted to buy their vehicles when the program ended, and they were denied.

Doesn't mean anything here, other than it is really hard to predict what "dumb" choices companies will make.

[coredog64]

You can’t compare EV-1 to Tesla. GM would have had a liability tail for the EV-1 (injuries and Magnussen-Moss parts/repairs). Tesla doesn’t have that problem since they already sell cars outright.

[maxerickson]

Did they make credible offers in terms of the costs GM would incur by selling them?

(Imagine the fun news articles about GM selling them cars and then not having repair parts)

[Someone1234]

Unless they completely replaced the cells in the battery packs, I'd pass on a pre-owned EV. Even modern battery packs degrade year on year.

[Shivetya]

Tesla sells a good number of S and X models that are used. People still buy used Leafs and some of those were notorious for battery issues. Unlike Nissan Tesla packs are liquid cooled and managed. So for the most part what many have to move on from is the stereotype incurred by one brand having battery longevity issues affecting the perception of the industry.

However I think it is a good idea to state they have a use for the off lease cars which gives them an out with having to expense new vehicles for such a risk venture; I am not a believer in anyone's autonomy programs.

(disclaimer, I own a TM3)

[hn_throwaway_99]

I completely disagree (and FWIW I own a used Chevy Volt): https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/16/tesla-batteries-have-90...

Also, lots of cars come off lease with under 50k miles on it, so no reason to think the car would just be discounted by the relatively small amount of lowered battery capacity at this mileage.

[village-idiot]

Battery degradation is largely a matter of use + thermal management. Since cars have thermal control systems installed (unlike your phone), you should expect a car battery to last a lot longer than a cell phone does.

[jaxbot]

The idea that Tesla could get fully auto vehicles out of the existing Model 3s their building today is laughable. Even top-tier AV companies, with larger teams and far more advanced sensors, can't. There's a huge difference between working 95% of the time, and working well enough for a full auto fleet, and Tesla won't get there with pure cameras and a single front-facing radar. It's possible they could retrofit the old cars with new hardware, but other AV companies have suggested that retrofits aren't automotive-grade enough to last over time (sensor mounts drift too much, etc).

[danso]

He’s promised FSD in 2019, just a couple months ago, even though Tesla logged no testing miles in the last 2 years in California: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-tesla-full-self-drivin...

[Twirrim]

So more of the mostly deluded, same old, same old, Elon hype.

There's so many indicators that FSD is ages away from being safe, and so many stories of Tesla's just randomly steering in towards barriers and needing quick action from their drivers, even as recent as last month.

[fucking_tragedy]

> even as recent as last month.

Here's a video from a few days ago of Tesla's Autopilot seemingly getting confused by a line made out of dirt, veering off-road and crashing[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTMnnECBSo&t=51

[ricardobeat]

That's not very indictive of Tesla. The driver ignored multiple signs posted with a 25mph limit, yellow 'tight curve ahead' signs and all, with plenty of time to spare.

Also was there a mention of the car following the dirt line? It seems to me it loses traction way before that, and most likely disengages.

[fucking_tragedy]

Who was driving? Autopilot or "the person in the driver’s seat [who] is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."[1]?

[1] https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/05/23/49...

[ricardobeat]

That's a red herring, full self driving is not enabled in any car and drivers are fully aware. I failed to find any more information on this video. The dashboard is not visible, there is no sound, no way to tell if Autopilot was engaged or not, or if the car is even a Tesla.

Also, I believe off-ramp functionality was only added recently with 'navigate on autopilot', if someone tried this without taking over as instructed, well...

[tntn]

I guess they are just counting on testing via the irresponsible tesla drivers who tape water bottles to the steering wheel and such.

[philwelch]

Tesla’s self-driving promises are reaching Theranos levels of sheer implausibility. The frustrating part is that they don’t need to make these absurd claims about self-driving; they already have a successful electric car business.

[mhermher]

You're not digging deep enough. The reason they need to hype it is because they don't have one.

[pyify]

Except that they actually have a limited form of self-driving, which has proven successful over millions of miles of driving?

Comparing something to Theranos only works if that something doesn't have a working product. You can see that Tesla's autopilot works. It isn't perfect yet but it is a real thing.

[oldjokes]

It's becoming hard to believe anything that Tesla puts out or Elon says. It is a real shame the $35K 3 turned out to be a lie, the amount of PR that phrase has generated over the years is on par with all of SpaceX.

[linuxftw]

Some of us knew it was a lie from the jump. It's called 'not believing the hype.' I knew it was a bait and switch as soon as it was announced.

Weirdly, this hasn't seemed to tarnish the reputation of tesla in the eyes of it's fans.

[Spooky23]

Leases are rentals. A true lease always has a residual, but nothing forces the lessor to sell it to you.

It's yet another red flag for buying a Tesla, as if you have something happen that is an uninsured liability to the car, or won't be resolved in the timeframe at the lease, you're stuck.

[Gpetrium]

This quote serves three purposes: (1) It emphasizes the value in software, not the car's 'carcass'; (2) It hypes a future marketplace and business model for Tesla's stock purchasers; (3) It tells the customer that they are better off buying the good instead of renting.

I agree that it seems to be a rental. If the business expects to continue to make updates to the car's software assuming that it will be determining factors for its value, it will be difficult to determine the residual value at the end.

Does that mean that leases will cease to exist? That we will find a way to price the software updates? or that older cars will stop being updated the same way cellphones & OS systems are?

[kristianc]

> This quote serves three purposes: (1) It emphasizes the value in software, not the car's 'carcass';

If only it were like software. Producing another marginal unit of software is trivial.

[Cookingboy]

This has nothing to do with FSD. Tesla can now set the lease rate with a very artificially low residual value so they can charge more monthly (but is offset somewhat by the capitalized cost deduction of the tax rebate), and then actually sell the car at market value after 3 years.

It's one way to double dip on the same vehicle and get more than 100% in revenue in respect to the original MSRP.

But sure throw that line in to cash in on the hype of ride sharing IPOs and FSD so they can raise a nice equity round in the near future.

[jmpman]

When would they be able to book the monthly lease, and the subsequent sale to their bottom line? It seems like a lease wouldn’t be the best method to help the short term finances.

[Cookingboy]

It's not, but it's better than no demand, that's why it's the last lever they wanted to pull.

Tesla is getting a bit desperate. Model 3 demand is obviously not shaping up to what they hoped.

[mannykannot]

Tesla seems to be coy about the terms - for example, how much does it cost to exceed the annual mileage cap? At the end of a lease, would you get a discount on a subsequent lease or purchase?

This is all probably moot, as I imagine Tesla's lease has a clause allowing it to unilaterally change the rules at any time, and it has displayed no reticence in doing so over other issues.

[kbos87]

It’s also interesting that they would even give the context that they plan on using these cars as part of a self driving network. Any other company could and would only say that there is no option for buyout and leave it at that.

[henryfjordan]

He didn't promise autonomous cars in 3 years, he promised they won't be ready for at least 3 years. Hence the leasing scheme

[FireBeyond]

Other than the "The car will be able to self-drive, coast to coast, this year" back in Jan/Feb, you mean?

[gibybo]

>back in Jan/Feb

May 2017

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866482406160609280

[toomuchtodo]

It’s not unreasonable to heavily critique the fact that Tesla deadlines are blown repeatedly, and yet who among us has gone from 0 to 300k+ vehicles manufacturer and sold per year in 12 years and delivered an EV into an elliptical orbit with a privately developed heavy lift vehicle?

Don’t say something is impossible while someone else is delivering, slowly and missed deadlines or not.

@sbov (deleted reply while I was replying)

> So are you saying Elon's statement was right? Or are you just saying "its hard, give him some slack for making statements he knows are complete bullshit"?

A pessimist’s “bullshit” is an optimist’s missed deadline and inaccurate forecasting.

[gamblor956]

It’s not unreasonable to heavily critique the fact that Tesla deadlines are blown repeatedly, and yet who among us has gone from 0 to 300k+ vehicles manufacturer and sold per year in 12 years?

Well, for starters the Korean automakers managed to go from 0 to several hundred thousand vehicles in under 5 years. Kia went from 26 cars to 95,000 in a year...

A pessimist’s “bullshit” is an optimist’s missed deadline and inaccurate forecasting

An occasional missed deadline is one thing. But missing every self-proclaimed deadline? That's not just inaccurate forecasting--at some point that crosses the line into fraud.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Aren't those solved problems though? Like, you're talking manufacturing and scaling up production, and there are other examples of heavy lift vehicles. While they are absolutely great accomplishments, it's tweaks on previous formulas.

There are no fully autonomous cars, he'd have to break entirely new ground for that.

[toomuchtodo]

> Aren't those solved problems though? Like, you're talking manufacturing and scaling up production, and there are other examples of heavy lift vehicles. While they are absolutely great accomplishments, it's tweaks on previous formulas.

Not at all. I'm unaware of any other heavy lift vehicles developed by a non-government entity that fly for $90 million (versus Delta Heavy's $350 million cost) and are completely reusable besides the second stage and the fairings. I'm unaware of any auto company created in the last century in the US, besides Tesla (and the ghost of GM shepherded through bankruptcy by the Obama administration), that is still in business [1].

So to answer your question, these are "solved" in the same way if you proposed to yourself, "Hey, I can build an iPhone because Apple can build and iPhone". Could you? Absolutely. Are you discounting the enormous amount of work and capital necessary to pull it off? Absolutely.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_man... (List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States)

[danso]

Your defense against Tesla’s missed deadlines is that its CEO is busy doing things with his other companies? The Obama administration also “shepherded” the massive EV subsidies that Tesla baked into its pricing.

[SketchySeaBeast]

There seems to be more than a few auto companies made in the last century[1]. I'm not saying he's not making these things better, but they existed previous to his invention - which bits of the lifter are completely novel? Complete automation would be entirely novel - it's not just a matter of finding a cheaper/better way to do it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacture...

[trickstra]

fairings will be reused from this FH launch, so the only part not being reused is the second stage.

Who cares that the "promised" deadline for Falcon Heavy and rapid reusability was also blown several times. This result is something completely unimaginable couple of years ago and nobody is currently able to match it. It will be similar with Tesla, only much more people feel entitled to talk about cars than rockets, so they forget the bigger picture.

[trickstra]

I think it's part of the strategy. These deadlines are eventually blown, but even then what we get in the end is pretty remarkable. I guess the hyper ambitious attitude actually attracts people who then make it work. Plus the obvious media buzz.

[philwelch]

Musk doesn’t run SpaceX. Gwynne Shotwell does.

[toomuchtodo]

Musk funded its startup, and was the driving force in building their own engines after getting laughed out of Russia [1]. Shotwell does great managing the day to day, and deserves credit for Falcon Heavy, as she was the one who told Musk they should still test fly the first one and offer it as a service (instead of going straight to BFR).

[1] https://www.inverse.com/article/34976-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-t... (When SpaceX Tried to Buy Missiles From Russia: Vodka and a Run-Around)

> The third and final meeting happened back in Russia. Musk flew there with Cantrell, prepared to purchase three ICBMs for $21 million. But to Musk’s disappointment, the Russians now claimed that they wanted $21 million for each rocket, and then taunted the future SpaceX founder. As Cantrell recounted to Esquire:

> “They said, ‘Oh, little boy, you don’t have the money?”

> This insulting event, however, played a part in inspiring Musk to found SpaceX, which in 2017 alone has successfully launched nine rockets into space and has twelve more launches on the docket this year. On the flight back, Musk turned to Cantrell and said:

> “I think we can build a rocket ourselves.”

[baq]

Yeah and when Musk tweets, Gwynne needs to emergency hop on an intercontinental flight to calm down the customer.

Disclaimer: fan of spacex

[mhermher]

If you get enough other-people's-money, is it really that hard to do? How much have the cumulatively burned now?

[metalliqaz]

that's not the same thing as "fully autonomous"

[aiCeivi9]

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13341100/tesla-self-driv...

> Musk also promised a demonstration of a fully autonomous drive from Los Angeles to New York by the end of 2017

As in "without the need for a single touch from the driver". Doesn't really matter, AFAIK they are nowhere close.

[simias]

What's the nuance then?

[AnthonyMouse]

You can get from one coast to the other entirely on a single interstate highway (e.g. I-80), and do it in dry weather and clear conditions. It's the easiest possible thing for an autonomous car to do and is basically just adaptive cruise control.

The hard part is making it work with crazy cyclists on city streets and blizzard conditions and defending against malicious adversaries who purposely try to confuse the car into crashing into something.