Fog isn't realistic? Pouring rain isn't realistic?
It wasn't pouring rain, it was zero visibility at 60mph. It handled the fog. The second fall was a wall painted with ground and sky to be indistinguishable from area around it visually. Unless road runner becomes sentient I don't think that'll be an issue.
Tesla should not call their ADAS "full self driving" because it's isn't that, and there should be better controls on people playing attention when engaged. Having said that, we don't have to find exaggerations to point out the flaws
It wasn't pouring rain, it was zero visibility at 60mph. It handled the fog. The second fall was a wall painted with ground and sky to be indistinguishable from area around it visually. Unless road runner becomes sentient I don't think that'll be an issue.
Tesla should not call their ADAS "full self driving" because it's isn't that, and there should be better controls on people playing attention when engaged. Having said that, we don't have to find exaggerations to point out the flaws
I dunno, I think the fog test serves to show LiDAR makes the vehicle safer than vision only. If a human driver and a Tesla run over a kid, but the LiDAR doesn't, it shows Tesla's system is lacking safety features that help make vehicles safer. So at best, Tesla is only ever going to be as good as the eyes it has.
The second failure shows what we already know, when their is an ambiguous object to the FSD system, it often fails to detect it, and has led to collisions and deaths. LiDAR removes that hazard, which makes it able to be safer. Yet Musk and team refuse to even acknowledge this reality, which is why people keep dying in preventable collisions. Hubris.
I dunno, I think the fog test serves to show LiDAR makes the vehicle safer than vision only. If a human driver and a Tesla run over a kid, but the LiDAR doesn't, it shows Tesla's system is lacking safety features that help make vehicles safer. So at best, Tesla is only ever going to be as good as the eyes it has.
The second failure shows what we already know, when their is an ambiguous object to the FSD system, it often fails to detect it, and has led to collisions and deaths. LiDAR removes that hazard, which makes it able to be safer. Yet Musk and team refuse to even acknowledge this reality, which is why people keep dying in preventable collisions. Hubris.
I don't disagree with any of this. But to suggest a painted horizon is a real world scenario that a car fails seems like a bit of a reach
It wasn't pouring rain, it was zero visibility at 60mph. It handled the fog. The second fall was a wall painted with ground and sky to be indistinguishable from area around it visually. Unless road runner becomes sentient I don't think that'll be an issue.
What do you mean by this?
12:03 in the video it dismembers the child without slowing in the fog. And it was 40mph.
Last edited by SutterBrother; 03-16-2025 at 11:55 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to SutterBrother For This Useful Post:
Wrong there is no acceptable position to support a nazi.
Also your numbers I am confident are highly flawed and likely straight up wrong. Show me the detailed analysis of carbon footprint including mining of minerals shipping them around the world and blood diamonds catastrophe to get there. I’m willing to bet the environmental impact is negligible or ignoring the mining impact and for example to be specific there’s a difference between exclusively focusing on emissions vs the rape and pillage of earth for mining transport shipping transport convert to useful material manufacturing battery transport etc.
Such a joke.
#### Musk and #### Tesla.
I spent far to much time thinking about this, because I was think I answered a little harshly yesterday, but I was a little annoyed that you expressed confidence that my numbers were not only wrong but cut directly against common wisdom, and demanded that I source my information following common wisdom, which I admit was my appealing to expertise and reciting numbers for environmental scientists on podcasts. So I did a simple google search "EV vs ICEV life time emissions", and the first 4 hits were literally articles focused on debunking the myth you were demanding I provide sourcing to disprove, which means you are not holding yourself to the standard that you are holding me to, and sourcing the information that you confidently espouse. Further your claim is the one that cuts against common wisdom and should carry a higher burden of proof, and in the future if you think it is a fun and interesting fact that common society is wrong about one of the innovations it is excited about, you should check that you are right before publicly pushing the claim.
But I did consider the alternative claim that not emissions, but land use would be worse for an EV, and it seemed slightly more credible to me, so this morning I took the time to look and found relatively little directly addressing the lift time land use question. I will caveat the fact that because I cannot find good articles directly comparing the two, I asked ChatGPT to search the web and come up with an estimate. It warned me that these estimate could vary in extreme ways depending on the source of resource extraction, but came up with this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Average 75 kWh battery
Lithium: 0.3-0.5 m²
Nickel: 0.15-0.3 m²
Cobalt: 0.03-0.05 m²
Graphite: 10-15 m²
Vehicle Type Estimated Land Use Over Lifetime
EV (400,000 miles, 75 kWh battery) 10.5 - 16 m²
ICE (300,000 miles, 32 MPG gasoline car) ~38 m²
🚗 Conclusion:
EVs use ~60-75% less land for mining materials compared to oil extraction for an ICE vehicle over their respective lifetimes.
This does not include land used for charging infrastructure, battery recycling, or secondary battery use.
If the EV battery is replaced once in its lifetime, land use doubles (~21 - 32 m²) but still remains lower than gasoline.
So I had very strong priors in favor of EVs in terms of GHGs, and I was agnostic about EVs vs ICEVs in terms of land uses. This answer from ChatGPT and the fact that ICEVs require recurring life time land use, slightly tip the scales in favor of EVs for land use as well, in terms of my estimation for land use. So in the future when someone is making claims of about the open pit lithium mines, I am probably going to hold them to the standard of proving that those add up to more land use than fuel extraction. I really appreciate the concern for the environmental impacts of EVs, but I get really annoyed when the concern is solely and firmly routed in a desire to ignore the environmental impacts of traditional fuels, I don't know if it is motivation be a subconscious concern for the industry one is supported by, fear of changing technology and a desire to be contrarian and privy to special knowledge that others around you are not. But I am sure that most of the people who smugly say EVs are just as bad are engaged in some form of motivated reasoning, and are at the very least cherry picking their sourcing, if not spreading anecdotes without bothering to source them.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
EV's are better the more you drive. If you don't drive a lot, it can take many years to reach equivalency(for something like a fuel efficient sedan or hatckback). Which is why I always thought we've had it a bit backwards the way we incentiveize these things with tax dollars. We should be electrifying the most miles driven first like cabs, delivery vehicles, etc. Helping some upper middle class person who commutes short distances to work pay for their vehicle never made any sense to me.
I spent far to much time thinking about this, because I was think I answered a little harshly yesterday, but I was a little annoyed that you expressed confidence that my numbers were not only wrong but cut directly against common wisdom, and demanded that I source my information following common wisdom, which I admit was my appealing to expertise and reciting numbers for environmental scientists on podcasts. So I did a simple google search "EV vs ICEV life time emissions", and the first 4 hits were literally articles focused on debunking the myth you were demanding I provide sourcing to disprove, which means you are not holding yourself to the standard that you are holding me to, and sourcing the information that you confidently espouse. Further your claim is the one that cuts against common wisdom and should carry a higher burden of proof, and in the future if you think it is a fun and interesting fact that common society is wrong about one of the innovations it is excited about, you should check that you are right before publicly pushing the claim.
But I did consider the alternative claim that not emissions, but land use would be worse for an EV, and it seemed slightly more credible to me, so this morning I took the time to look and found relatively little directly addressing the lift time land use question. I will caveat the fact that because I cannot find good articles directly comparing the two, I asked ChatGPT to search the web and come up with an estimate. It warned me that these estimate could vary in extreme ways depending on the source of resource extraction, but came up with this;
So I had very strong priors in favor of EVs in terms of GHGs, and I was agnostic about EVs vs ICEVs in terms of land uses. This answer from ChatGPT and the fact that ICEVs require recurring life time land use, slightly tip the scales in favor of EVs for land use as well, in terms of my estimation for land use. So in the future when someone is making claims of about the open pit lithium mines, I am probably going to hold them to the standard of proving that those add up to more land use than fuel extraction. I really appreciate the concern for the environmental impacts of EVs, but I get really annoyed when the concern is solely and firmly routed in a desire to ignore the environmental impacts of traditional fuels, I don't know if it is motivation be a subconscious concern for the industry one is supported by, fear of changing technology and a desire to be contrarian and privy to special knowledge that others around you are not. But I am sure that most of the people who smugly say EVs are just as bad are engaged in some form of motivated reasoning, and are at the very least cherry picking their sourcing, if not spreading anecdotes without bothering to source them.
Thanks for the thoughtful post and reply again. I was pretty drunk when I wrote my original reply lol. Sorry about the aggressiveness.
However to extend this discussion, and to your point expecting you to do all the work is unfair, I went and reviewed a recent report sent my way for work. It is an annual energy research paper written and researched by Michael Cembalest of JP Morgan. He interviewed and consulted with Vaclav Smil amongst other researchers and drawn from actual empirical data.
In the report he writes about CO2 emissions in comparison between ICE and PHEV cars. I’ll leave the quote here below and would post the chart but not too sure how… (sorry I am not good at that type of thing / don’t care enough).
“ CO2 emissions reductions from PHEVs appear to be overstated. As shown in the first chart, empirically measured
PHEV emissions per km in Europe are not that different than internal combustion engine cars and well above initial
EU estimates. The second chart uses real-world data from commercial settings and highlights the issue of driver
behavior: the average PHEV is used more like an ICE car most of the time, rather than being battery-powered.”
The chart then depicts that original EU estimates for PHEV’s had about ~40 grams CO2 per km, when in actuality based on what happened in Europe the data shows about 180 for ICE and 145 for PHEV’s real world.
That’s real data so your point stands in that EVs are superior however the emissions benefits likely vastly overstated. Perhaps Tesler in particular has a way of getting the emissions down or improving on whatever happened in Europe but considering Musk is a Nazi grifting piece of #### I have my doubts he actually gives a rats ass about the planet and making sure Tesler emissions substantially shrink beyond what European EVs are capable of.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Yes that’s the one, thanks. I’m referring to page 24 therein.
To be clear #-3’s original post was that I think EVs was 1/3 emissions vs ICE and I’m still questioning that. Not that he’s wrong, EVs do appear to be better for the environment it’s just the benefit overstated. That, combined with considering Musk, who he is and what he stands for etc., to me we should just move along from Tesler altogether. I think #-3’s original point was kinda “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” kinda logic but to me I look at the big picture aggregate and it’s a bit like…… meh….
Yes that’s the one, thanks. I’m referring to page 24 therein.
To be clear #-3’s original post was that I think EVs was 1/3 emissions vs ICE and I’m still questioning that. Not that he’s wrong, EVs do appear to be better for the environment it’s just the benefit overstated. That, combined with considering Musk, who he is and what he stands for etc., to me we should just move along from Tesler altogether. I think #-3’s original point was kinda “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” kinda logic but to me I look at the big picture aggregate and it’s a bit like…… meh….
I'm just wondering if there is some confusion here, because #-3 is referring to EV's(BEV), and you are looking at PHEV (plug in hybrid electric).
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
It wasn't pouring rain, it was zero visibility at 60mph.
It was 40mph, and the same thing happens all the time if a vehicle beside you is driving through a massive puddle. We don't get giant rain storms like that often here, but it's a reality in much of the world.
It was 40mph, and the same thing happens all the time if a vehicle beside you is driving through a massive puddle. We don't get giant rain storms like that often here, but it's a reality in much of the world.
They're watering the grass...whats the problem? They're doing the council out of a job?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
I'm just wondering if there is some confusion here, because #-3 is referring to EV's(BEV), and you are looking at PHEV (plug in hybrid electric).
Thanks, I haven't adapted to the BEV terminology yet, as a way to distinguish between BEVs and PHEVs, I still largely just consider PHEVs in the bigger category of hybrids.
That said we are in a Musk (Tesla) thread, and they on produce BEVs, so I don't think the distinction is necessary. In the grand scheme of things I'm not a big fan of PHEVs, you are basically overbuilding vehicles by having redundant drive systems, shortening the life span by duplicating some maintenance requirements, and making people feel better without achieving enough scale in the environmental gains,
I don't believe my points stand for PHEVs at all, the life time measurements on emissions for a PHEV are hard to measure, and would vary wildly based on driving habits. I put about 600-700 KM weekly on my EV, and I feel like with a PHEV 500+ KM would be a gasoline needlessly carrying the extra weight of the battery, so I'm not sure where the break even point would be. Where with an EV you can we certain the break even point on emissions is somewhere around 15,000 KM.
Lol
