Navigant studies are dumb

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, Jan 16, 2018.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    There are only two companies that have put out credible self driving efforts so far.
    Those are Waymo and Tesla. Telsa with Mobileye essentially started the category and then when it separated from Mobileye got the guy behind the apparent current leader Waymo's effort plus Tesla has apparently greatest real world data collection even if some of that may have been stolen. Also Tesla has the only vehicle on the road hardware and to some degree software and infrastructure ready for full mass self driving autonomy- i.e., network, sensor array (in a non clunky format) local and network compute power and hardware like internal camera (you can put a sticker over it) self closing doors and trunks, doors that activate by phone lock self rental...

    But Navigant surprise has GM at the top. GM has essentially demonstrated nothing. Journalists talk about opting out of the Cruise demos. Cruise is supposed to have credo because it tests in San Francisco. Notice how the upstart GM acquired to make it seem credible also seems to have the same name as one of Chevy's cancelled cars? Plus have you a Bolt with that stack of trash on top- its embarrassing. Also how much progress has GM made on getting lidar down in cost. Curious thing about Tesla is the moment lidar is competitive price wise there is likely no resistance to picking it up, Tesla even has done some test mules- but its clear it can be done without Lidar in the mean time. Even Waymo has a stack of junk on top of its vans- which are only phev at the moment- but you know that will change.

    Notice also how in the Navigant GM nemesis Tesla is about dead last and GM is first? Also Apple is close to dead last but its not mentioned in the shil piece headlines GM runs on Navigant's apparently phony studies. Not surprising if Navigant turns out to be a literal GM front or if Cruise is just another front. Another company Aptiv supposedly got credibility because surprise it announced something at CES that had to do with GM company Lyft. This is just like GM making noise because it showed a box with no steering wheel or brakes and that is supposed to make it cutting edge when its more likely trying to poison the electric autonomy well.

    Well, more lies from GM. All they got is lies. They only sold the compliance number of bolts as predicted by Musk. And they kept insisting Bolt econo box was competitive with Model 3 when they do deliberate things to defeat Bolt's styling and and got no preorders. BMW's mini is the one based on heritage that has sold something that looks like an econo box into that price point, but GM petrol shill that it is chooses a design less appealing than its Volt for its supposed real efforts- and this despite all the hatch back rhetoric or their possibly copying the i3- also a fail convincingly effort.
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Noted follow up rant by Ars Technica, hated that magazine over the years, if there was a Art of the Shill it would belong to them some others give them a run for the money but they are the definition of bought and paid for trash, but you have layers of shill network and when they do a shill story that gets into trouble they start to refer to each other. Even then name of the rag is stupid, reminds of something moronic like German Uberalis Lars from Metalica: Ars Technica. But the game with that follow up again is to try to associate GM with Waymo that has demonstrated success to try to say the game with GM isn't to fail convincingly. What is the price per dollar again that that GM is planning on offering its ride share service at even in 2030? Oh yes a price that wouldn't be competitive with Musk said Tesla would have 13 years prior.

Share This Page