Car and Driver's blog reports on cars, electric vehicles, self-driving technology, and auto industry news.
HN links it for auto news such as the BMW i3 recall and self-driving developments, and commenters use it as a news source.
Your argument is pretty thin. I would imagine the best way to alleviate your concerns would be to require aggressive recycling programs for an EV.
Long-term, the sale of these cars is allowing the EV market to mature. Already the price of the batteries has gone way down. The nextgen EVs coming out this year and next with 200+ miles of range were only made possible by this "unsustainable" consumer good. Maybe my 2012 EV with 75 miles of range is already in a land-fill somewhere. But a car like a Tesla S keeps its value surprisingly well and should last for quite a while.
The Chevy Bolt is a compelling car that someone could own for a decade. Your main complaint is that the cars are evolving so fast that there are better options available every time your lease is up. Big deal!
I think the battery is the most hazardous component. It's also the most valuable from a recycling perspective.
Firstgen EVs are not popular in the aftermarket: http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-for-electric-cars-are-still-tanking/
Battery recycling is an emerging market as well: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093810_electric-car-batteries-what-happens-to-them-after-coming-out-of-the-car
May Mobility | Robotics Engineer, Software Engineer, Functional Safety Engineer, DevOps Engineer | Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) | ONSITE
May Mobility builds autonomous shuttles for communities. Our founding team comes from Ford, GM and Toyota. We have an immediate and clear vision for how to bring AV technology to solve transit problems today.
We just announced our $11.5 seed funding round with Toyota and BMW as investors. Our team is small but we are growing rapidly!
Some recent press : https://blog.caranddriver.com/heres-why-big-automakers-are-investing-in-may-mobility-an-autonomous-shuttle-startup/
We are looking for engineers with backgrounds in robotics, behavior, perception, sensors, hardware, general software engineering, AWS, QA and DevOps. If you are bright, we want to hear from you!
This is an excellent opportunity to join a high caliber team, especially if you want to be involved in cutting edge technology but don't want to have to live in the Bay Area :)
http://maymobility.applytojob.com/ OR Email me w/ a resume at michael.xu [at] maymobility.com.
Depends -- If a model has a bunch of body styles and only the most popular is tested, then the manufacturer can skimp on the designs or constructions of the versions that don't get tested.
Ford did this with the 2015 Ford F-150: http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-2015-ford-f-150-crash-tests-reveal-disparate-results-between-crew-cab-and-extended-cab/
"""[…] the SuperCrew’s body cage remained “largely intact” with a “low risk of injuries,” the group said. The smaller F-150 SuperCab pickup (pictured at top) scored “marginal” due to “significant intrusion” of the passenger cabin, as the dashboard and steering wheel came “dangerously close” to the dummy’s chest. Since the A-pillars buckled and other body components “seriously compromised the driver’s survival space,” the IIHS rated this F-150’s structure as “poor,” which is below “marginal” and the group’s worst rating."""
Cost of these autonomous vehicles, the very early ones, will be six figures
GM paid a billion dollars for those Cruise clowns. If they build 10,000 self-driving cars, that alone is $100K per car.
Meanwhile, Volvo is quietly putting 100 customers in self-driving cars.[1] They're still way ahead on marketing, too.[2]
Volvo and Google/Waymo are the only self-driving car makers I'd trust right now.
They're the only ones who take the safety issues seriously. All the other ones testing in California have crappy disconnect statistics. (Uber refuses to test in California because they'd have to report their numbers, but reports of their bad driving indicate their system isn't very good.)
[1] http://blog.caranddriver.com/meet-the-first-real-family-slated-to-get-keys-to-volvos-self-driving-xc90/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDB6fFflTVA
I highly doubt this is still the case considering auto manufacturers far behind the curve on this tech [1] are doing things like recognizing stop signs and reading speed limit signs using on-board cameras. Lane keeping also uses onboard sensors. As far as I know, the most important thing high-resolution maps are needed for is decision-making for things more than a few hundred feet ahead (ex. when to get in the right lane to exit or turn). It also helps with driving in adverse conditions where it's difficult to use normal sensors to see road markings. There are plenty of players working on this, though, so I don't think it's a huge obstacle. For example, [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_sign_recognition
[2] http://blog.caranddriver.com/how-high-definition-maps-are-plotting-the-course-to-autonomous-cars/
What is difficult for lidar are the following:
* not-reflective / dark surfaces, i.e. http://www.thedrive.com/tech/9293/luminar-says-its-lidar-tech-will-help-self-driving-cars-see-farther has 10 percent reflectivity at 50 meters. As stated in the article Luminar is able to do the same at 200 meters, but violating eye safety standards. We might introduce paint restrictions - http://blog.caranddriver.com/why-better-paint-coatings-are-critical-for-autonomous-cars/ - but it's not really acceptable to paint everything I think. :-)
* fog and dust particles (already known since lidar use for aerial imaging).
* interference with other cars not so much (much worse with radar).
I don't know if soft/hard objects are so easy to recognize for lidar though! That's pretty challenging!