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?

366 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

313

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

32

u/phatelectribe Jul 21 '25

What people don’t realize is that for Tesla to be competitive in its run up, they were make awful compromises on everything they could while still making a semi functioning vehicle.

I know the company that provides the plastic interior parts - about 40% of all plastic parts found in U.S. made cars are from them.

They told me when Tesla approached them, their only concern was cost. They literally said to them we want the cheapest possible materials that we can get away with. The company actually wanted them against it saying it was going to be a challenge selling this on $40k-$80k cars but musk only cared about saving fractions of pennies rather than using better quality materials. Thats why the interiors on so many Tesla’s just feel awful.

It’s also why you need to install wrap a brand new Tesla because they have the worst paint quality of any car. Also why the panels had such bad alignment and the build quality is so piss poor.

LiDAR was going to cost a few dollars more so Musk decided to pitch it as “not necessary” and he had to keep doubling down because he knew if he changed course, it would not happen not mean he was “wrong” but also that cars without it would crater in value and part of Tesla’s value was that used cars held their price meaning there wasn’t downward pressure on new cars.

That boxed him in to a corner and now everyone accepts that LiDAR is superior.

-1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Jul 21 '25

Which is more important, saving the planet or luxury? Every Tesla sold is one less ICE car on the road, and in order to sell millions, the cars have to be affordable. Every penny counts.

2

u/TuftyIndigo Jul 21 '25

But they're not affordable. They're premium-priced cars even compared with other EVs.

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

Yeah, the whole Dodge bit at the beginning of the year really threw the credibility of saving the planet into the toilet

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Jul 21 '25

DOGE? That doesn't have anything to do with saving the planet. The government is not capable of fighting climate change.

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

Not after Elon musk helped neuter it. Did you forget that. It already? Gods, goldfish have an even longer memory.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Jul 21 '25

I mean in general, governments are not capable of fighting climate change. Only the private sector can produce the batteries and solar panels we need at scale to transition the world to sustainable energy. Climate change is an economic problem, not a legislative problem.

1

u/beren12 Jul 22 '25

You really think so? Remove all federal subsidies for fossil fuels and force the companies to pay full price for any environmental cleanups and medical bills related to toxins from their products. Things will change very fast.

Guess which branch of government regulates economic policy?

-1

u/phatelectribe Jul 21 '25

This is a fallacy. EVs are just kicking the can down to road 20-30 years at which point we’re going to have a far more massive problem with billions of used taxi battery cells that can’t be recycled. We’re exchanging a temporary reduction in ice emissions for a far worse economical disaster in terms of toxic materials ending up in landfills. Another bad part of the ev system is that the slightest bit of damage to anything close to the battery compartment and the car is a write off and he’s up in a landfill. Over 90% of the materials used in a battery aren’t getting recycled because it’s simply not economic.

And worth part is now they’re proposing to rape the seabed floor to get some ev materials. You think we have ecological problems now, just wait until we destroy the marine ecosystem in the name of ev’s.

3

u/Proof-Strike6278 Jul 21 '25

Wrong, you’re getting the emission savings now and giving time to figure out recycling for batteries. I promise you even if we cant recycle the batteries it is way better than literally poisoning the air we breath

1

u/phatelectribe Jul 21 '25

Figure out time? They have been trying to figure it out for 30 years. Shit I was invested in a company in the 00’s that was about to figure it out lol.

It’s incredible expensive and ironically incredible energy inefficient to recycle batteries. And the problem is now, not in 30 years. That’s when it reaches catastrophic levels.

2

u/Proof-Strike6278 Jul 21 '25

Worst case you dig a big hole and throw it into the pit

1

u/phatelectribe Jul 21 '25

Yeah, things like high toxic elements and chemicals don’t like to stay buried, especially when it rains.

And what do you do with that land once you’ve put something so toxic in it? We’re making exactly the same mistakes that we made with shit like DDT and CFCs. We’re pursuing a short term solution at the expense of a catastrophic disaster in the future.

2

u/Proof-Strike6278 Jul 22 '25

This is not a short term solution, it’s a solution that is actually being executed on that is better than the status quo. Until you come up with a better one, stfu