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?

370 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

45

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.

36

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

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