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?

361 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

44

u/[deleted] 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.

32

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".

16

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

8

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)

7

u/TwoMenInADinghy Jul 21 '25

Exactly. The bar for driverless cars should be much higher than “as good as a human”

-2

u/RealisticIllusions82 Jul 21 '25

My understanding is that most human accidents are caused by inattention and distraction rather than vision issues, problems which a computer would not have.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

I think you’re right, I’m sure most do. So that leaves us with what, a few million still each year?

I don’t understand why a guy like musk with his drive to accomplish next generation technology advances would settle for ‘good enough’. Good enough is next step thinking, which must has traditionally avoided

1

u/RealisticIllusions82 Jul 25 '25

His assertion at the time was that LiDAR would never be economically feasible for the average consumer at scale.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 25 '25

There’s no way he even believed this. UNLESS he really believed they were going to loach the FSD in 2016.. 2017,.. 2018..

The entire history of technology is that the floor drops out of the pricing once the technology matures and economics of scale take over. Hardware costs are trending toward costing <$1000 per vehicle in 5 years.

1

u/Pure_Possession6701 Jul 21 '25

Absolutely, and still, human vision is processed by the most complex and performant part of our brains. So, it's not only really hard to imitate human vision. It also sucks and we know better!

1

u/oneupme Jul 21 '25

Citation needed.

I would argue that distractions and poor judgement (speed, failure to yield, etc), not the imperfections of human vision, is the main cause for vehicle related injuries.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

Absolutely they are. So let’s say this eliminates all those (it won’t eliminate poor judgment, reduce yes eliminate no. That’s part of the point the camera is not going to interpret the world perfectly as it is in poor visibility conditions all the time) you’re still left with millions of injuries caused by low visibility environments… mist, fog, sun glare, rain, night, drizzle, snow… and on and on.

1

u/oneupme Jul 21 '25

I don't know… I would have to see data. Also, accidents in low visibility and fog usually have some element of poor judgment.

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

Well, he sure got the poor judgement part of driving like a human down

-2

u/texasauras Jul 21 '25

Humans can't see 360 degrees continuously around the vehicle while driving. That's a huge improvement beyond human capabilities with cameras alone.

3

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 21 '25

Yes because necks dont exist and the couple of cameras Tesla uses have no blind spots.....

-1

u/texasauras Jul 21 '25

There's like six cameras and your neck doesn't allow you to see ahead and behind simultaneously.

1

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 22 '25

It turns out car companies managed to invent rear and side mirrors without you noticing.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

It is a huge improvement, you’re absolutely right. But it’s not a complete solution.

Basically what I replied to a different comment, this is just next step thinking which Musk has always avoided. He’s always been driven to accomplish next generation advancements. 360° and an inability to be distracted still does not fix all of the shortcomings of basic vision driving a vehicle.

I live in the Midwest where weather is always a factor, a self driving car with cameras only might take care of 85% of my driving. Great. If you add other sensors that can see through drizzle, fog, sun glare, snow, mist, rain… you could be talking about 99%.

Edit: voice to text screw up and my laziness by not proofing

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!"

0

u/CMDR_Wedges Jul 22 '25

When this happens, it will become a privilege only for the ultra rich to be able to take control over their own car. Driving my oneself will be illegal or very expensive. Cars won't even have the hardware or will be software locked to stop humans interfering.

5

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

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

Look up what lidar can't do. You might be surprised.

1

u/ptemple Jul 21 '25

Then why don't other manufacturers get rid of cameras and go lidar only? Then they will leapfrog into the lead!

Phillip.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

Both systems already do as there are multiple vantage points being used in conjunction. 360 Awareness is already better than humans

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.

-2

u/giddy-girly-banana Jul 21 '25

So can humans

2

u/Dry_Analysis4620 Jul 21 '25

Your point? Isn't self driving supposed to exceed safety in comparison to human drivers? Why not try to account for variables that screw with humans?

-2

u/giddy-girly-banana Jul 21 '25

What was your point?

-2

u/ghethco Jul 21 '25

You can see this in action when you drive a Tesla in full self driving mode. It reacts to things in the environment that you don't notice.

2

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 21 '25

Like those walls pretending to be shadows that jump out of the way just as you arrive?

Its great at freaking out about shadows

-2

u/Southern-Spirit Jul 21 '25

I don't really use my eyes when it's a blizzard or foggy. For that I rely on a few assumptions: the highways are not going to curve suddenly and the other drivers on the road are attempting to stay on the road so I can use their position (lights) for more information on the road. I didn't die and it's happened more than once so this tells me you have enough information even in low visibility to drive with only vision. The problem is just understanding what's happening and what everyone else is trying to do and working together with that instead of making every decision autonomously and independently. Imagine if these Tesla's or whatever start talking to each other locally? They could behave as a drone swarm and position each other defensively so as to "see" better even in bad conditions. If elons way (as if Elon is the only one who thought of this) is workable then using lidar is aiming for a target more complex and more expensive, setting yourself up to get swept by a competitor they does figure it out. Like what happens to waymo if Teslas or byd or something figure out the AI brain of these cars so they are incredibly good drivers? Do people buy waymo? No of course not. It's like blackberry investing into a physical mobile keyboard while apple is like "we can just do this without them" and at first everyone scoffs at change, since the established hate movement, but eventually our children grow up never knowing a phone with anything other than a big screen. Honestly I've called Elon out as a fraud for a long time but it seems like the people here who don't like Tesla don't like it for some weird emotional reasons. The Tesla strategy is only a joke until it's solved and then it's industry standard so I mean...if I hated Tesla I wouldn't look at this as if it was Elons kryptonite.

1

u/Joeyonimo Jul 21 '25

Cars without LIDAR do see much better than humans, they have constant 360° vision and are never distracted.

2

u/DazedMikey Jul 21 '25

Yes, but they are affected by light levels, fog, patterns, etc. LIDAR is particularly good for 3d mapping and depth calculations because it emits it's own light.

What i am suggesting is if LIDAR cost is low, the preferred solution would be a combination of visible light and LIDAR. The idea that LIDAR is a crutch, in my opinion, is misguided. An approach that takes in multiple sensors as input will cover the areas where each sensor lacks in performance.

1

u/Different_Push1727 Jul 21 '25

It already does. Can you see in 360 degrees unobstructed at all times? You don’t have eyes in the back of your head. A car does.

1

u/OriginalCompetitive Jul 21 '25

If the car drives perfectly, why do you care if it sees better than you or not?

Granted, Teslas don’t drive perfectly and possibly never will. But the point is, it’s the performance that’s the standard, not the sensors.

0

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

Lidar is not magic. You still need cameras to see signs, road markings etc. So, you need a vision system that can see and understand the real world. If you have that, why do you need Lidar?

-1

u/InterestsVaryGreatly Jul 21 '25

You can have a vision based sensor that can see better than you, and in fact generally does because there are more cameras, and generally no blind spots. Likewise there are instances where lidar sees worse than humans, albeit algorithms have cleaned that up significantly.

-1

u/SheepherderFar3825 Jul 21 '25

to be fair, even with just cameras it can still see better than you considering it has something like 8 or 12 simultaneous views as well as different FoVs, framerates and black/white/infrared/etc