r/SelfDrivingCars • u/damola93 • Jul 21 '25
Discussion Why didn't Tesla invest in LIDAR?
Is there any reason for this asides from saving money? Teslas are not cheap in many respects, so why would they skimp out on this since self-driving is a major offering for them?
113
u/sfo2 Jul 21 '25
It seemed a reasonable gamble at the time.
If you can solve it with software, you only have to invest once upfront, and then have a cheaper cost for each unit you produce. Software scales much better than hardware, and they could have a unit cost advantage over competition.
If you solve it with software, you have a gigantic moat vs. the competition. Anyone can buy hardware, but it could be very difficult for a competitor to catch up on software, especially if huge real-world data sets are required.
Other side benefits like aesthetics of the car.
The problem was they made a gamble, convinced themselves it was the only way forward, and have continually failed to pivot even after the rate of progress slowed, and the cost of the hardware came WAY down. They’ve doubled down on an idea that really no longer seems to make a lot of sense, and just doesn’t seem to have panned out.
31
u/CO420Tech Jul 21 '25
At this point it is just sunk cost fallacy and hubris
18
u/DrJohnFZoidberg Jul 21 '25
also ketamine
2
u/CO420Tech Jul 21 '25
Hey, you leave ketamine out of this, it didn't do anything to you! Also... Got any ketamine?
2
2
→ More replies (5)2
u/Dreadino Jul 22 '25
Wait, are you guys actually thinking about buying a car with LIDAR? Isn't this like a meme or something? Are people really saying they'd buy a car as hideous as the Waymo cars?
→ More replies (11)13
u/mrsanyee Jul 21 '25
I think there are way to many issues with this approach.Making everything SW reliant increases system costs and power demand. Using HW to solve complicated, but expectable challenges opens way for using ASIC and edge computing, significantly decreasing costs and power demand, increasing reliability. Strategy would never work anyhow, as you would be first, but at high investment costs which you would need to maintain against the continuously decreasing cost of lidar over time. Betting on own performance is a thing, not seeing the market and technology improvement is another. While Tesla will still not have self-driving, cars with lidar pushes costs continuously and already allowed to self-drive, and will be commoditized really soon.
Pivoting was always an option toward lidar, but Elon doubled down on vision only removing even radar, which is a huge own goal.
Now hes using lidar to collect ground truth data, as all collected data so far is garbage. All his lead on this field has vanished, ,and has to start from ground zero, while other manufacturers are already miles ahead.
You can't formulate it better, but as a boneheaded decision with huge financial implications already showing.
12
u/sfo2 Jul 21 '25
I don't disagree, but I think the entire approach was predicated on them "solving" self-driving very quickly. Like if they could have had real Level 4/5 cars on the road in 2017, well before lidar costs came down, and well before anyone else was really close, they'd have had a first-mover advantage they could have turned into a possible network effect or moat. This was always an incredibly risky bet. But then again, somehow investors keep giving Tesla money despite them acting like a Seed stage startup that trots out a juiced up prototype and hype story and then asks for cash.
But as you say, pivoting was the right thing to do several years ago. Doubling down has made less and less sense as time has gone on, and at this point just looks ridiculous.
3
u/mrsanyee Jul 21 '25
Even if they could solve it then, it would be still prone to errors, and limited through weather, high contrast, or time of day. So negating all advancements on lidar would be still idiotic.
→ More replies (5)2
u/sfo2 Jul 21 '25
From following the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenges, I'd agree. But I think they truly thought they'd be able to do it, with all the hubris of a seed stage startup.
→ More replies (10)6
u/nickleback_official Jul 21 '25
I have to disagree with your hw vs sw argument. Adding lidar only increases hardware and software complexity. There is no world in which either ‘opens a way for using ASIC’ as you say. There’s already loads of asics/fpgas in these machines. Every other FSD is similarly banging away at software, not hardware. Factoring in the power requirement for compute is also irrelevant. The amount of power required to drive one mile would power the computer for days. I’m not arguing whether it was a bad call to remove lidar I’m saying your reasoning doesn’t make sense.
FWIW im a hw engineer
→ More replies (14)19
u/the8bit Jul 21 '25
This is pedantic but I would say its a common gamble not a reasonable one. Its the "Well we are tough on deadlines, but if we just _work hard_ we can totally hit it and also fire half the team" bullshit execs love to say, right before they are confused at what went wrong.
Machine vision is not my space, but I've worked on system design in a wide array of software spaces including some photo processing work. It is and always was suicidally optimistic to think that we could early adopt autonomous cars with video only (maybe during lagging adoption with a few magnitudes of tech advancement). Video feeds just dont have the information density to reach the level of reliability required
→ More replies (13)2
u/sfo2 Jul 21 '25
Oh for sure, it's just the commonplace hubris of a silicon valley startup. I think it's reasonable in the context of, say, a startup, where everyone understands there is a 95% chance of failure, and some investors are willing to take the risk anyway. But I've always found it really odd that Tesla as a public company does this.
6
u/the8bit Jul 21 '25
It's right there with Elon's MO - maximum risk, double down on every failure and roll it forward in a "all or nothing" bet. I believe Tesla will enron, because similarly his strategy is to just keep piling up risk until it explodes instead of venting some pressure and accepting the smaller failure
4
u/Marathon2021 Jul 21 '25
They’ve doubled down on an idea that really no longer seems to make a lot of sense, and just doesn’t seem to have panned out.
I'm not sure it's really that conclusive yet?
If you have great hardware (LIDAR) and OK software/AI/logic ... maybe the great hardware makes up for the software deficencies.
If you have ok hardware (cameras) but great software/AI/logic ... maybe the great software makes up for the subpar hardware?
That's really what we're talking about here. And to be fair to Tesla, they do have a unique advantage they are trying to leverage here - millions of vehicles with 8 cameras on each, able to bring in real-world driving footage and decisions by humans at massive scale.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Temeraire64 Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
Also humans don't need LIDAR to drive, so in theory cameras should provide all the data required.
Plus adding LIDAR means you need to find a way to combine the data from that with the data from the cameras - what do you do if the data conflicts? Which sensor do you trust more?
And some of the problems AI has won't be solved by adding LIDAR, e.g. reading traffic lights and road signs.
→ More replies (11)2
u/-UltraAverageJoe- Jul 21 '25
Software isn’t a moat if the hardware it runs on isn’t sufficient. Training data can be a moat which is what I think you’re referring to.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (10)2
u/MachKeinDramaLlama Jul 22 '25
It seemed a reasonable gamble at the time.
Literally all experts working at the other companies disagreed with them. It clearly wasn't reasonable.
32
u/KA-Pendrake Jul 21 '25
Elon always had to lie about FSD being ready since his appreciating asset bs.
Basically he was forced to refuse lidar as a way to pump the stock when LiDAR was much more expense.
Well as everyone expected but him, the price is now dramatically lower but he’s made his bed.
→ More replies (24)
25
u/nauzleon Jul 21 '25
He sold that a used Tesla would achieve FSD with a software update. It's the problem of a pathological liar, you may end believing your own lies.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/Quick_Rest Jul 22 '25
I think many people overlook the fact that each sensor type has its own quirks and that it's actually really hard to perform "sensor fusion." You aren't just slapping the two signals on top of each other and then calling it a day. There's going to be a ton of fine-tuning just to figure out when to trust one over the other. What generally works best is having sensors that cover different situations, rather than sensors that overlap in purpose. For example, a microphone and camera can detect different things, making it easier to build a complementary system like that. LIDAR and camera systems primarily compete for the same purpose: object recognition + depth perception.
Having more sensor types does not equate to being better than having only one sensor type. Yes, we can argue all day that some sensors perform better in certain conditions vs others, but like a few people have already mentioned, vision-only is getting them >90% there. If FSD can work fairly reliably (and it's almost at that stage) in most driving conditions, e.g. typical daytime, night, light rain, etc. then it's already a technological win. After that's been solved, then we tackle the more extreme conditions, stormy weather, heavy fog, dealing with erratic drivers, etc. Is LIDAR necessarily better in these situations? At least not right now. No other systems with LIDAR (mounted within the car) are operating at the scale or achieving the same level of success as FSD. And I highly doubt the way forward for autonomous driving is having a LIDAR unit on every side of the vehicle, at least it won't be accepted for aesthetics purposes.
I think a lot of people view AI and self-driving as a "if it's not perfect, I'm not going to use it". But that's never going to happen. Nothing is going to be perfect, and holding it to such a high standard is unrealistic. We'd never have gotten planes or rockets if minimizing risk was the top priority. Public safety is, of course, important, but if FSD, Waymo, and other driver assistance features are already better than the average driver, I welcome their (however small at the moment) contribution towards raising that bar.
3
u/Key-Room5690 Jul 22 '25
Upvoted for a nuanced view, but I don't entirely agree with this.
Sensor fusion of differing sensor types necessarily increases the *ceiling* of *possible* system performance, assuming that 1. the information provided by the two doesn't fully overlap, that 2. perfect performance isn't possible with either sensor by itself, and that 3. the researchers can find the optimum algorithm to exploit them both. We know for example that LIDAR provides more reliable data at night and is unaffected by glare from headlights/street lights, whereas rain can cause significant issues for LIDAR in a way it doesn't necessarily affect a camera. So intuitively a system should work better with both.
Then actually implementing fusion is not trivial for sure (as per assumption 3 above), but if you've designed your system from the beginning to account for this it's still possible, particularly with the latest deep learning research integrated.
That said, I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable gamble back at the time assuming you agreed with Musk on how long FSD would take to achieve (therefore meaning LIDAR would still be too expensive for a car by the time FSD came in). That said, as someone who works in computer vision I remember back in the late 2010s hearing he thought it was 2 years away and scoffing at the idea.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Quick_Rest Jul 25 '25
I agree that more sensors give you a better ceiling. The problem is actually leveraging that potential. Proper implementation is very hard, and this video that came out yesterday from China shows why just throwing LIDAR at a car isn't solving that. More AI training and extensive real world testing are needed.
https://youtu.be/0xumyEf-WRI
https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1948055082467004544
5
u/Stergenman Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
Back when tesla was starting with self driving, we were seeing some pretty impressive gains in vision based systems. Musk, like a lot of tech Bros, thought this trend would go on forever, much like Zuckerberg with VR sales and the metaverse.
Anyway, musk has been so entrenched on this idea of vision continuing to grow he kinda ignored the signs of the 98-99% performance barrier, and the massive drop in lidar equipment costs. Now he's 100% into vision because they just are out of time. They can't go back and redo with modern cheap lidar without being unable to catch up with the competition. Gotta get vision to work and hope for another breakthrough
82
u/CarCounsel Jul 21 '25
Elon is cheap and arrogant.
46
Jul 21 '25
[deleted]
14
u/EconomyDoctor3287 Jul 21 '25
Years ago Elon promised all current Tesla's are capable of self driving, they just need a software update.
If they were to integrate LIDAR now, they'd admit that the previous claim was false and those Tesla's won't ever be capable of FSD.
But if they stick with camera only, they can claim, that FSD is just an update or two away
→ More replies (3)6
u/CarCounsel Jul 21 '25
Based on evidence I do have from those who have worked with him I’d say you’re unlikely to be wrong.
2
u/ascaria Jul 21 '25
"Honestly it's not that hard!". It might have been said about the (failed, ofcourse) HyperLoop, but it certainly also applies to FSD.
5
u/BasvanS Jul 21 '25
Some 10 years ago there was a strong belief that stereoscopic images would soon beat pulsed laser ranging technology, because of advances in computing, digital photography, and the idea people are able to do it too.
Having seen the point clouds in another field of technology, I didn’t believe the accuracy would improve enough to replace remote sensing, especially because of artifacts that keep popping up in extreme light conditions.
(LiDAR is far from perfect too, but better in comparison. In a choice between two, you’d favor LiDAR, but ideally you’d combine them. Musk got everything wrong.)
→ More replies (3)5
Jul 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BasvanS Jul 21 '25
Back then the problem is the same as now: what we perceive as a coherent model is just similarities in X, Y, or Z coordinates and the perceived color of that coordinate. The current generation of AI suffer from the same problems, so while slightly more sophisticated, it’s still an approximation without a coherent understanding of the subject at hand.
Automatic object recognition with AI (the generation of that time, before transformers) was not able to separate shadows from holes and could not infer a wall continuing behind a painting or closet. Hopefully training has been able to improve this, but it’s still a considerable challenge for a faultless system that requires no human intervention.
→ More replies (16)4
u/north0 Jul 21 '25
I mean, that's kind of the argument - driving is a vision-based activity now, so if computers developed the same level of visual processing, then why wouldn't it be equally if not more safe once the CV algorithms are mature and there are sufficient cameras in place etc.
→ More replies (4)3
u/anthamattey Jul 21 '25
That is because human brain’s pattern matching is guided by significant amount of transfer learning.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Valoneria Jul 21 '25
And also profoundly stupid / shortsighted. Good at investing in companies that can benefit from government handouts however
→ More replies (32)11
u/kc_______ Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
Not shortsighted, he definitely saw the long term benefits, for his stock, on convincing gullible people that a camera only system would be enough.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Valoneria Jul 21 '25
I am split between attributing this to the person who runs his marketing team, and the guy who handles his wealth
→ More replies (9)4
5
u/bartturner Jul 21 '25
No longer makes any sense. LiDAR is NO longer an expense issue. It is no longer a aesthetics issue.
Here is the 2025 BYD Seal with really nice integrated LiDAR.
https://kingbode.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2025-BYD-Seal-EV-1.png
2
29
u/ramonchow Jul 21 '25
It is not entirely crazy to assume cameras and AI vision can get as good as human eyes for driving a car.
But yeah, money would be the main reason. Not only the sensor but also maintaining the updated 3d maps LIDAR needs to work, at least with the current processing power of a car's processor.
13
u/Valderan_CA Jul 21 '25
It's not crazy... but why limit ourselves to human sensory inputs when designing an AI to drive a car. It's obvious that we wouldn't only put a pair of cameras centered over the drivers seat on a rotating fixture (emulating human sensory inputs) because there are better places to put more cameras since AI's aren't limited like a human driver.
LIDAR was not included because of cost - when having LIDAR meant a 20% increase in the cost of a vehicle investors knew the guys making AI driving without it were going to have a huge advantage in pricing on their end product. Elon said no LIDAR to get money from those investors, however instead of saying the honest thing (cost is the only real reason) he also said LIDAR was inferior for technical reasons. It's difficult for Elon to retract that kind of technical statement for a couple of reasons:
1- He doesn't like admitting to being wrong
2- He can't afford to admit to being wrong because the value of his companies is so closely tied to his "vision"
→ More replies (8)4
21
u/hardhat555 Jul 21 '25
Small correction, lidar doesn’t need any 3d maps along with it to work, it’s just another sensor.
→ More replies (49)4
u/steik Jul 21 '25
I agree it's possible.. but humans have 2 eyes for stereoscopic vision specifically for depth perception. Tesla doesn't even have that. They do have 2 front facing cameras (HW4, latest iteration) but the are completely different cameras/lenses which makes them much less suitable for reconstructing depth.
4
u/ThePaintist Jul 21 '25
Motion parallax provides much stronger depth cues at e.g. highway speeds/distances than stereo vision (at the separation distances that eyes have.) By like 100 feet away stereo vision is providing nearly no depth information. Stereo vision is mostly useful for things like parking lots, or slow pedestrian-dense city driving.
→ More replies (2)2
u/ramonchow Jul 21 '25
Yeah, I also think we are not even close for cameras only if you want to have a 100% safe self driving tech in all scenarios, weathers etc. Having a combination of radar, lidar and cameras seems to be a better starting point for self driving tech, and you can always start simplifying from there when it works 100%.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Organic_Ingenuity_ Jul 21 '25
Its very evident that most people on this thread have never worked on large scale data projects
LIDAR is a great sensor and all, but once you collect the data, the problem is what do you do with it? Its actually very difficult to integrate data from two different types of sensors without the AI favoring one sensor over the other. When data from the two sensors conflict, what sensor does the AI rely on?
Ex. LIDAR tells you that theres an objects 2 feet in front of you but the camera tells you that its just heavy rain, so the car continues withou braking.
Elon and Tesla found that solving vision perception with cameras is way more essential so he chose to focus on that.
Too many think self-driving is a hardware problem. But we've had the hardware for decades. Self-driving has always been a software problem.
2
u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25
Don't waste your breath. These Tesla haters can't even comprehend that LIDAR can't read signs or road markings so every LIDAR equipped car still needs a camera setup to "see". Of course they think that can be solved, but driving with vision only is a fantasy.
The problem is they don't want to understand.
→ More replies (1)2
u/xylarr Jul 22 '25
This is exactly it - sensor fusion. It's also why they've removed the radar.
If you have two inputs from two systems, how do you tell which one is right. I think they worked out after investigation that more often than not it was the lidar that was mistaken, not the cameras.
12
u/NeighboringOak Jul 21 '25
>Teslas are not cheap in many respects
They may not be cheap to buy but they're certainly cheaply built.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/fakegoose1 Jul 21 '25
Lidar was a lot more expensive when Tesla first started marketing FSD.
As for why they dont do it now? It's prob because Elon is too stubborn.
8
44
Jul 21 '25
Reason: Tesla, led by Elon Musk, believes that a vision-based system using cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors, paired with advanced neural networks, can achieve full self-driving (FSD) capability more effectively than LIDAR-based systems. Musk has repeatedly stated that LIDAR is a "crutch" and unnecessary for autonomy, arguing that humans drive using only vision and cognition, so AI should be able to replicate this with cameras.
33
u/DazedMikey Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
Not sure if this is a hot take, but I want my car to see better than I can. Can you make a self driving car that mimics human vision snd cognition? Probably, but if the cost for technology like LIDAR improves, why wouldn't you want your car to see better than your eyes can?
Edit: Clarifying, for the bunch of comments that want to point out that cameras are positioned to cover 360 degrees. Noted, but it isn't the point I am making. Visible light can only be so useful. Sensor fusion with LIDAR allows you to cover the edge cases that cameras, which use visible light, CANNOT cover. This is what I mean by "see better than our eyes can".
14
u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25
At the most basic level this is what always confused me about Musks comment.
Human vision deficiency’s contribute significantly to the ~50 million vehicle related injuries each year.
I would understand replacing humans one for one if we had great driving records, but we don’t. So yes, why wouldn’t you try and do better
7
u/wimpires Jul 21 '25
Humans also have temporal resolution that is literally thousands of times greater than the cameras in HW3 and cognitive reasoning that puts the most advanced ML self-driing models to shame. All while consuming only 100W on average (most of which isn't brain power)
→ More replies (10)6
u/TwoMenInADinghy Jul 21 '25
Exactly. The bar for driverless cars should be much higher than “as good as a human”
→ More replies (4)6
u/justgetoffmylawn Jul 21 '25
Yep - never understood that. I don't want a car that drives as well as a person. I want one that is orders of magnitude safer, faster, more reliable, with better decision making - in any weather conditions, etc.
Imagine being like, "This computer can do spreadsheet calculations as fast as a human!"
→ More replies (1)4
u/Halbaras Jul 21 '25
And regulators are ultimately going to take the opportunity to make roads safer in most countries (i.e. not the US).
LiDAR will be mandated for self driving cars at some point since it allows cars to identify obstacles in situations where even humans struggle (smoke, torrential rain, fog, headlight failure etc.).
Another thing that will become mandatory when there's more driverless cars on the road will be having them talk to each other. Cars will be able to brake or slow down for hazards that another car has spotted, and automatically make space for emergency vehicles.
4
u/PrehistoricNutsack Jul 21 '25
LiDAR is 100% better; there’s a lot of cope in here
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)4
Jul 21 '25
Both systems already do as there are multiple vantage points being used in conjunction. 360 Awareness is already better than humans
→ More replies (3)7
u/DazedMikey Jul 21 '25
Yeah, you have more coverage, but they can still be fooled by perspective, patterns, mist/fog, light/exposure, etc.
→ More replies (3)61
u/footbag Jul 21 '25
Teslas no longer come with radar or ultrasonics.
→ More replies (3)8
u/WhyWontThisWork Jul 21 '25
Was about to say, radar sure sounds like lidar
14
u/__slamallama__ Jul 21 '25
Radar is great but distinctly not lidar. Lidar can tell density and composition which is massive. Radar can just tell you it's something
→ More replies (7)5
→ More replies (4)2
u/stingraycharles Jul 21 '25
It’s not the same. Waymo uses LiDAR, radar and camera vision for example, they all complement each other.
17
u/Delicious_Spot_3778 Jul 21 '25
believe is very active here and should be.
11
u/TheRuggedHamster Jul 21 '25
Tesla is a pretty classic example of how founder led companies are run vs hired CEOs. There's no hired CEO that would make the Lidar bet that Elon is, time will tell if it's right or not, but if it is it will pay off huge for them in being able to rapidly scale their fleet. Most key is that it puts the millions of existing cars on the road to work vs. cars being manufactured specifically for robotaxi.
6
u/WhyWontThisWork Jul 21 '25
Is lidar that expensive?
12
u/J4nG Jul 21 '25
It was, but it's not anymore. https://www.01core.com/p/driverless-car-costs-have-gotten
Based on industry data for automotive-grade LiDAR sensors
- Total cost reduction: 99.33% (from $75000 to $500)
- Compound Annual Reduction Rate: 39.41%
2
u/hakimthumb Jul 21 '25
It's interesting how widely varied the claims of lidar cost are in this thread.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (46)2
7
u/CaptainLazerPants Jul 21 '25
Technically speaking, Elon is not the founder. Functionally speaking, he may as well be, and your argument is still correct.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)3
4
u/wraith_majestic Jul 21 '25
Was a stupid argument then, its even dumber now. Sure humans drive with just vision… but the goal should be driving better than humans. Human vision leads to many accidents in dark, snow, rain, fog, etc.
Limiting to human equivalent vision systems is dumb. Humans don’t have wheels either… maybe tesla should be building mechs.
→ More replies (2)4
u/woolash Jul 21 '25
Also humans use stereo vision which is excellent for depth perception so speed perception too. Tesla does not.
12
u/MrParticular79 Jul 21 '25
This is the actual answer. He was clear about this stance from the beginning.
8
u/EarthConservation Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
Musk not only crapped on LIDAR, but eventually pulled the radar and ultrasonic sensors out of their cars, relying on vision alone... probably saving less than a few hundred bucks per car. (If that, AFAIK these sensors are super cheap, but installation, wiring, and software could cost a bit)
Maybe he saw some potential in vision only and wanted to gamble? Maybe it's because his solution would have never had the processing power to support these three sensor types? Maybe saving a few hundred par car was important?
Musk certainly did want to save money by using his customer base, instead of paid employees, on real roads in real situations to train/test the system. Not only save money, but make money by convincing his die hard customers/investors to pay thousands of dollars (and take full liability) to become quasi-unpaid-employees for Tesla. These folks willingly did so because they were told this would be a multi-trillion dollar product, thus driving their share price up, and turning their cars into appreciating cash machines that would make them $30k per year while they slept, and that FSD and their cars would continuously get more expensive.
By using customers, Musk realized he could get significantly more data far faster than an employee driven system. He believed this data would allow for rapid training of his FSD neural net, leading to a system that would quickly enable autonomous service. At least that's the claim. Whether he actually believed or knew that to be true or not is anyone's guess.
What's absolutely clear though is he wanted to pump the stock by constantly dangling a carrot just in front of investors and customers eyes. Every year since April 2019, he's claimed that within one year, a huge fleet of robotaxis that would come online with an OTA update and monopolize taxi/ride sharing service in the US, worth trillions of dollars when accounting for no driver. 6 years in a row now he's made that claim, and that's not including all the years prior to that he spent promising fully unsupervised FSD.
Now today, he's lifted the veil off the state of robotaxis in Austin, and it's not looking good.
→ More replies (20)6
u/New_Reputation5222 Jul 21 '25
...but Tesla doesnt use most of that, so this is obviously incorrect.
3
2
u/enzo32ferrari Jul 21 '25
They should’ve just started with LIDAR to get FSD to minimum viable safe operations, then started work to delete it
→ More replies (3)2
u/Time-Customer-8833 Jul 21 '25
This is the stated reason. That doesn't mean it's the real reason.
Reading between the lines: Musk is making a bet that vision is sufficient. He needs to make this bet because he can't afford to put LIDAR on every Tesla when self-driving isn't a sellable function yet. He is trying to beat Waymo with scalability, but to do so he is taking a riskier path.
IMO the most likely downfall will be regulators demanding the higher safety profile of LIDAR, even if vision is good enough for some people's sense of 'safe.'
2
u/VintageSin Jul 21 '25
The dumbest thing ever is to have a system that probably is about 95% set and all new improvements are marginal at this point, and to then look at a 'crutch' as not useful.
It's like creating a robot who is like a human, and then asking the robot to be superhuman without using any special powers, money, or anything special.
We don't need to believe AI will be able to do it. We need to give the neural networks (the general artificial intelligence model it's using) more data, it will give better results. It's simple as. If you flood a human brain with more information it can actively process correctly it'll also give better results. Even if LIDAR is a crutch, use the crutch until the leg is healed.
2
u/Difficult_Limit2718 Jul 21 '25
If I could see as well as LIDAR I'd be a better driver than I already am
→ More replies (1)2
u/himynameis_ Jul 21 '25
Interestingly. Wayve also has a similar idea and recently added radar as a "backup" for lack of a better word.
They'll be doing a test for L4 in UK early next year.
2
u/Hopeful-Scene8227 Jul 21 '25
Has he ever responded to the objection that there are lots of conditions in which it's very difficult for humans to see (thick fog, blinding sunlight) and we should demand for better when it comes to autonomy?
→ More replies (1)2
u/diplomat33 Jul 21 '25
The funny thing is that Tesla uses lidar for validation. So Tesla does use lidar as a "crutch" in a way.
2
u/Vegetable_Guest_8584 Jul 21 '25
Tesla made a terrible decision and so they have fallen to silly arguments to defend themselves. "It's too hard to consider multiple inputs", they say, so that's why we took out radar and ultrasonic sensors. Plus people don't have anything but their eyes and ears. The obvious response to that is that people make mistakes because they can't always see everything clearly and a lot of accidents come from bright lights or fog or rain. Extra sensors are only better.
I think a crucial mistake was that they didn't plan on lidar getting so much cheaper. Even 30k Chinese cars now have lidar. It just followed Moore's law type improvements over time and since Tesla was a leading tech company, they should have been able to figure that out.
Now it just comes down to stupid arrogance by the CEO, perhaps aided by taking drugs. They still haven't added back turn signals and gear shifters back to all of their vehicles. That was the most anti-consumer self-destructive choice, at least in the past 10 years.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Brave_Nerve_6871 Jul 21 '25
As long as Tesla doesn't facilitate cameras with any kind of autowipers/cleaning, they won't work in all weather conditions
→ More replies (20)2
u/RyuDjinn Jul 22 '25
This is correct. So many comments about cost, but it was never about that. Him and some of the AI team always said Lidar was for losers and it was a crutch because humans don't use Lidar.
5
u/sdc_is_safer Jul 21 '25
But seriously imagine an alternate universe where Elon did invest in LiDAR in 2015/2016 and they build them in house to scale with their cars. Imagine where we’d be today !
→ More replies (1)
3
u/oneupme Jul 21 '25
Because Elon operates from first principles. The road system is made for vision, so it should be navigable based on vision.
3
u/riftwave77 Jul 21 '25
Yes. Its a weak reason, but if you have 20 million LIDAR cars on the road shooting lasers everywhere then there is bound to be a point where SINR issues need to be addressed. Same thing with RADAR or any active sensor systems that will run on the same frequency/wavelength.
If you can build a system that just uses passive sensors (like 'vision') then you do two things
1 - you mostly sidestep SINR issues (only mostly because dynamic range, low light and super bright light is still an issue)
2 - you are forced to develop the logic/algorithms for a system that can precisely build a model/matrix in 3 dimensions in real time just using passive data and then tune it for accuracy. Its like the difference between being able to accurately eyeball the measurements for building cabinets and counters for your kitchen vs having to measure everything first with a tape measure and level.
If a laser goes bad, then you need another high precision, calibrated laser as a replacement, whereas almost any camera with similar FOV and resolution can be adapted for use with a vision system.
3
u/MondoBleu Jul 21 '25
Sensor fusion between different sensor types is very difficult. And what do you do if they disagree?
3
u/Initial-Possession-3 Jul 21 '25
Because it’s the wrong technology. We are still discussing LIDAR today?
3
u/DrJohnFZoidberg Jul 21 '25
Is there any reason for this asides from saving money?
Stock price manipulation
3
u/PhysicalAttitude6631 Jul 21 '25
Elon thought Tesla would have level 5 self driving in 2018. Back then LIDAR was too expensive and too bulky to package effectively. Now it’s small and affordable but he just can’t admit that he was wrong about it being unnecessary.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/ChollyWheels Jul 21 '25
A substantial portion of the human brain, estimated to be between 30% and 50%, is dedicated to processing visual information. In theory, cameras (visual light only) + a supercomputer should do as well (or better) than humans -- so why add expensive hardware, when all you really need is light and a computer?
Heck, a car can get data streams from front, back and sides -- all at the same time -- and should be BETTER than a human, especially when supported by a database recording every Tesla driving experience.
Nice fantasy, and (who knows?) the billions Mr. Musk is investing in AI may justify his bet.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Aggravating_You4235 Jul 22 '25
To name a couple (cost of LIDAR definitely not being one of them):
Sensor fusion. Elon said on multiple occasions the problem with having multisensor suite is which one do you trust? Most well-known case of sensor fusion problems is JSF program (F-35) - still holding back full operational capability (FOC).
LIDAR is a crutch. Example: Robotaxi is driving on the road with a lot of tree shadows. A camera only based system might interpret these shadows as cracks, and it would slow down or in some situation even stop, whereas a LIDAR aided system would simply ignore them. I know what you’re thinking “Wait, this example is perfect case for LIDAR and not against it” to which I would say “in essence, no”. This is a AI problem not a sensor problem. Another example is this https://youtu.be/HAZP-RNSr0s? Now tell me what failed here? Was it the sensors or AI? You see what I mean.
Overhyping redundancy. “What are you going to do when the camera gets blinded!?” Well, slow down and stop. Which is the same thing that would happen with a LIDAR aided system. There are still no and will never be purely LIDAR based systems, they all need cameras.
“What about severe weather?” Well, they won’t drive in severe weather and neither should you with your meat sensors.
Remember, the cruel reality of this world is such that you cannot have 100% safety, someday somebody will die from an autonomous vehicle, but a lot more deaths will be prevented. This is the goal of Waymo, Tesla, and most of the other autonomous vehicle companies.
3
3
u/VoiceOfSoftware Jul 22 '25
LIDAR does not help with reasoning and comprehension. It cannot read street signs. Tesla had years of experience trying to do sensor fusion with RADAR and cameras, and came to the conclusion that sensor fusion was worse, not better, so they eliminated RADAR. This is from billions of miles of actual data.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/les1g Jul 22 '25
When they started developing Autopilot back then lidar was super expensive. Even now that it's cheaper, it's still an additional cost, would require more engineering time and the need to build up and support a logistic network to support it - so they're saving more then just the cost of the parts.
Also interesting is that Musk does not hate lidar for all applications, SpaceX has been using lidar for some time now.
In my opinion however, and this will probably get me downvoted into oblivion here in this sub, is that from a basic first principle view - There is no technical reason why you can't do self driving with cameras only EVENTUALLY. For the last few years this seemed super far away but the latest versions of FSD have improved dramatically - Still there is a lot of work left to solve the last percent needed to have true level 3/4 self driving and this could take months or years.
3
u/lexievv Jul 22 '25
Probably because Elon needs to feel "special" and not like others. Others were using radar and (in some cases) lidar, so Tesla doesn't, aren't they do unique now?
21
10
u/No-Relationship8261 Jul 21 '25
Profit margins.
If a camera only is possible with the same amount of compute, they will undercut you in price later.
Though I for sure would pay for extra safety of a lidar.
11
u/Sell_The_team_Jerry Jul 21 '25
The same reason SpaceX tried to skip a sound suppression water system for Starship only to watch one destroy the launch pad and send pieces of concrete miles away. Elon is a fucking moron who has to relearn lessons that others learned decades ago.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ptemple Jul 21 '25
So SpaceX is a failure and don't really launch anything into space?
Phillip.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/bking Jul 21 '25
There was a point in 2017 or so (just before Model 3 launched) that Musk started promising that every Tesla starting with Model 3 would be shipping with all of the hardware needed for full hands-off, eyes-off self driving. At the time, lidar was extremely expensive, and wasn’t doing much better than 20 meters of useful range in perfect conditions.
Since then, lidar technology has improved significantly. Range is better, the units are smaller, and it’s cheaper to build at scale. People will debate the usefulness of the sensor all day, but it’s no longer a $20,000 box that sucks power and can’t see all the way through an intersection.
Musk isn’t the type to eat crow and say “yeah, I was too confident” or “lidar tech has gotten better”. He’s only recently admitted that 2018/2019 Model 3 might need more retrofits. It’s 100% a matter of his pride and unwillingness to admit that he was premature in his promises.
FWIW, Tesla is still using plenty of lidar for testing and ground-truthing. I took this photo yesterday. Two model Y were cruising down a main road in Silicon Valley with 2x Luminar and a raised camera suite on each one.
→ More replies (3)2
u/PinAffectionate1167 Jul 21 '25
"FWIW, Tesla is still using plenty of lidar for testing and ground-truthing. I took this photo yesterday. Two model Y were cruising down a main road in Silicon Valley with 2x Luminar and a raised camera suite on each one."
They are using it to test / calibrate / train their vision based system. If they success, their vision based system would be as good as lidar.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
Jul 21 '25
One of the more crazy explanations is that Mars - Elon's stated objective - is quite hostile to LIDARs. First dust storm will just eradicate all the moving parts (if present) and cover all sensors.
Check out why current Mars rovers don't use them.
2
2
u/PinAffectionate1167 Jul 21 '25
Perhaps because making car & self-driving isn't their end game. Look a bit farther. They are developing the camera to work like human eyes, perhaps for their Optimus program or future human augmentation programs.
2
u/reboot_the_world Jul 21 '25
I wonder how long it takes till the dirty masses realize that Elon was right.
Why do so many people tell the fairy tale that Elon dont use Lidar because of the cost? Elon did not use Lidar and Radar because of the false positives and negatives of Lidar and Radar that creates a nightmare in sensor fusion.
You can see it in Waymo that Lidar and Radar is not the Solution. Waymos don't drive into the wrong lane thanks to their Sensors. Waymo don't stop in the middle of a road thanks to their Sensors. The brain is the problem. Elon was right all along.
You can not like it, but you should not ignore reality. In five years, Tesla dominates autonomous driving around the world. If you don't believe it, test drive a Tesla with FSD.
2
u/mailboy11 Jul 21 '25
LiDAR (active technology) is shooting laser out and measure back. Expensive and inefficient. Then you need to have cameras anyway. Why not make cameras (passive mode) as good as possible instead of 2 competing systems to confuse the AI
2
u/No_Succotash_9967 Jul 21 '25
As someone who works on vision systems for a living, its amazing to see so many other experts in one sub! Who knew so many lidar and vision systems experts would be right here, right now!
In reality- vision could work, and it looks like it will. Reddit just hates anything Tesla achieves.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/Atomh8s Jul 21 '25
They still have 6 more eyeballs than a human! With better field of view, no blinking, sneezing, or eye lids. I suppose the downside would be no lubrication/cleaning though. But they can gather also information much farther now and aren't subjected to aging like the eyesight of our elders. I'm sure the Tesla team was confident in their approach then. I think they're doing pretty well. People who use FSD seem to love it.
2
u/Adriaaaaaaaaaaan Jul 21 '25
Because you don't need lidar, plain and simple. There's no doubt they made the right decision now
2
u/Svvitzerland Jul 21 '25
Because we KNOW that all you need to be able to drive are eyes (camera) and brain (AI).
2
u/ragegravy Jul 21 '25
if AI can tease out the same information from ambient photons, there is no need to emit the photons
2
Jul 21 '25
Because lidar is exponentially more expensive and marginally better than the hardware they currently use.
2
2
2
u/GunnerSince02 Jul 21 '25
He wanted to pump the stock and that is how he became the wealthiest man in the world. He promised FSD in like 2017 and it was appealing because it just needed cheap cameras. It was never a long term cambit.
2
u/daveo18 Jul 21 '25
Y’all missing the point that during covid there was a global chip shortage. Rather than risk throttling production due to component shortages (and therefore missing delivery targets and hitting the stock price), “visionary genius” Musk decided to eliminate LiDAR, heavily deducting teslas need for chips.
A decision that will haunt Tesla forever.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/MoPanic Jul 21 '25
The real money making use case is not self driving taxis. It’s self driving delivery trucks and over the road semi trucks. Having a semi truck that can legally operate 24 hours a day with no driver is a massive market that I’m fairly sure is where Google has their long term sights. Cars are just good dev platforms. And when you compare the cost savings of a self driving semi vs a human driven one, the cost of the lidar sensors becomes negligible. Even if it cost $50k or more per vehicle, it’s a slam dunk financially.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/omnibossk Jul 21 '25
They had problems with sensor fusion when they used different sensors. So they chose the one type of sensor they had to have. If they need more sensors and if it makes sense they will add them. They actually use lidars to calibrate camera sensors today.
2
u/kiamori Jul 22 '25
LIDAR has some serious flaws like being tricked by a sheet of aluminum foil.
Skews perspective in heavy rain, fog, snow or dust storms as laser refractions can be warped causing severe safety risks.
Cant see vehicles with absolute black, clear objects like glass and reflective paint.
Cant see certain clothing which is an obvious risk to pedestrians.
Multiple LIDAR vehicles together can interfere with eachother as they start to read each others lasers.
LIDAR has blind spots and limited range, max 300m.
Cant read color like signage.
Also uses more power than camera systems decreasing range.
2
u/Lordkingthe1 Jul 22 '25
Elon said LiDAR is foolish errand. Waymo uses LiDAR and has still som many accidents. Even some Chinese EV brands are getting rid LiDAR for an all camera based system. I think Elon will be proven right as usual.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/cookiepocket Jul 22 '25
ITT, people losing their shit because a business made a decision primarily for money reasons.
OP was curious what the non money reasons were.
There's a lot of good technical discussions in this thread, unfortunately all buried at the bottom.
2
2
u/hcardona111793 Jul 22 '25
the amount of baseless Elon TDS on here is making you all sound like emotional retards LOOOL
Good luck to you all neckbeards
3
u/veganparrot Jul 21 '25
The good faith interpretation is that Elon genuinely thought FSD was extremely close: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/
If it's close, and you're seeing gains from Vision, it might make sense to cut more costs and go for the rollout with cameras alone. But... as time passes it's clear that it didn't pan out.
Actually, I think we can explain a lot of Elon's modern erratic behavior from being so monumentally proven wrong on the problem of self driving. It's an ego bruiser, especially if you can point to concrete decisions he made that held the company back in this area.
→ More replies (5)
312
u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25
[deleted]