NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
Rendered at 22:25:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
People can easily adapt to different vehicles in a similar manner.
I'm oversimplifying it here, but the macro process is taking some known attributes and mapping them to what you are observing. For example, if you can detect people, and you know the average height of a person, you can compute where your horizon is, and where you should (or shouldn't) expect to see people in the FOV. You can do this with cameras, lidar, etc. When you have multiple sensors you can do a lot more to have them all sample an object in their own ways and converge on agreement of where they are relative to each other and the object.
I see no reason that LiDAR couldn’t participate in a similar algorithm.
A bigger issue would be knowing the shape of the car to avoid clipping an obstacle.
At some point, with enough sensor suites, we might be able to generalize better and have effective lower(?)-shot training for self-calibration of sensor suites.
I think the real reason why Tesla is known to require 10-minute calibration drive is, they shipped APHW2 long before the software matured, so they needed means to do it after the cars were shipped "blank". Other manufacturers only ship finalized hardware and software, and so they don't need a scalable tool-free calibration method.
Anyways, my point is that, Tesla cars need calibrations like anything else. This is same for any multi sensor SLAM systems, whether it uses sets of color cameras or laser spinny thingy or laser flash cameras or laser flash color camera thingy or combinations thereof.
[1] https://www.hyundai-n.com/en/models/rolling-lab/n-vision-74
It’s a trade off most manufacturers are not making because the US market is _so_ range conscious but I think it is fairly small margins we’re talking.
(yes, I will admit that a lot of that is for crash safety, but not all of it)
With maybe 3-4 base boards, you could do many dozens of different frames and shells. It could be an interesting opportunity for one company to mfg and sell a lot of boards, where smaller coach builders can do the bodies... akin to luxury cars a bit over a century ago.
Their recent videos showcase what they're doing in that area https://www.youtube.com/@ElectricClassicCars/videos
so if you thought the waymo car rollout was fast and sudden, wait until companies no longer need their own training data, it'll be like a switch got flipped
However, Tesla hasn't achieved anywhere near the autonomy of Waymo, so that may be the main sticking point.
The Model 3 approach takes their unified rear axle (motor,axle,wheels) and mounts it into an existing frame. Then you just need to find a place to stuff the batteries, retrofit some high-voltage electronics, and you're off to the races. One of the drawbacks of that approach is that it changes the stance of the vehicle, but for this Mustang that doesn't seem to matter much - it still looks classic.
Other converters either go for the high end with a model S and fit the motor into a traditional drivetrain for a sleeper build, or they go for the low end and take an old forklift motor and batteries and build what is effectively a street-legal golf cart. Prices range from $5-100k depending on your level of DIY and how dangerous of a classic car you want on the other side of the process.
[1] https://coloradosun.com/2023/06/25/classic-cars-electric-veh...
This claim is implausible, right? The Mustang is unambiguously less aerodynamic than the Model 3; there's no way it is achieving similar efficiency, especially at highway speeds.
A stock '66 Mustang hardtop had a curb weight below 3000lb, in the lightest configuration close to 2500lb.
Less mass to move will do a lot for efficiency just like aerodynamics will.
Of course, you will also die or be horrifically maimed in an accident in a 1966 Mustang that you might walk away without any serious injuries from in a modern vehicle.
I guess there's probably still one in the stock Tesla steering wheel/unit.
You also have none of the heavy structure that makes it so you don't die in a rollover or side-impact in a modern car. Look at how skinny that A-pillar is.
Hell, half of this interior is just the raw exposed sheet metal with no insulation/noise-dampening/softer materials either.
Some factors to consider: 1. Winter gets 20-25% less range 2. Poorly inflated tires get 3% less range 3. Driving at 60 mph requires 80% more energy per mile than driving at 20 mph
So if you take it together, test drives around town with proper tires in a Tesla 3 in summer, can get 130% better range than a tesla in winter on a highway with poorly inflated tires.
Most Tesla's average range is something between those two, say 260 wh/mi. But they can get below 200 in good conditions (summer driving at 30km/h). So if you take those good conditions and put a non-aerodynamic mustang body on it, it can do the same as a Tesla in average conditions.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTU9_iCGa6i_C38pwQyg0pBG...
His channel comes highly recommended for anyone even remotely interested in cars by the way.
EDIT: at one point whoever owned the name also owned a warehouse of spare parts and was going to produce an electric retrofit kit for the old vehicle, and hinting at manufacturing new ones a la retromod. Whoever owns the name now just has concept rendering on their site and a Solana token, so, little more than a meme coin now :(
A project like this is to have a fun experience in a vehicle that was never designed to drive with electric qualities. I don't need the most efficient vehicle for my use so I could afford to trade some of that for fun. I'd probably try a Subaru Impreza STi because it would just be a blast to have a car of that size and stature with an electric powerplant under the hood (or trunk, or wherever it fits)
That's a good one. I'm partial to David Frieberger's "mobility blobs".
> it achieves 258 Wh/mi — roughly matching the efficiency of an actual Model 3.
Watching my brother-in-law buy a 1971 Chevelle for his 16-year old daughter because she thought it looked cool only to have him sell it at a fat loss 3 months later because she couldn't choke down the gasoline fumes driving out of the school parking lot every day was instructive.
My daily driver is roughly as old, has a 400 V8 with a 4-barrel, idles so quietly I've had passengers surprised that the engine was running, and gets around 20-25mpg if I resist the urge to open it up all the way.
old cars are bastards to drive. I have a softspot for a mark 2 VW golf. But its not fast, the steering is heavy and the brakes are utterly shite.
However, if I had the time and money, I would totally electrify a golf. it would be zippy quiet and hilarious to drive, especially without any kind of traction control.
However it would be fun.
Basically its like vinyl. It is a demonstrably worse format than anything digital(and other analogue formats), however it looks great. Sure you get lots of audiophiles waffle on about "warmth" and shit, but its all lies. they either like it because its how they think things should sound, or it looks cool. It is not a purer warmer sound.
same with backyard steam engines. useless but fucking cool
oh very much so, it would be much easier to do that way, cheaper too.
But I don't think you do this for the ease of it, you do it either for the challenge, or to overcome some blocker (like parts shortage, or the engine is knackered.
> means you have to avoid steering at a standstill
ha! yeah, I still do the creepy and turn, even with the modern cars that I drive. I also still have a strong clutch reflex when driving automatic/electric
It could be that it’s physically impossible to master vinyl for extreme loudness, but whatever the reason is you can absolutely pick up a vinyl copy of an album and find it sounds much better than the streamed or CD version.
If you play your media on a decent NS-10 like speaker with a fairly good amp, you'll have pretty much what the mastering engineered mastered on.
Even tape has a better dynamic range than vinyl. Its like lomo photography, it does one thing very well, but is terrible for anything else. Yes it might sound pleasing, but it sucks for classical, anything with dynamic range, or anything that needs "room presence" as in recorded in a good sounding venue. close harmonies? yeah nah. drums with lots of cymbals? good luck.
Look there is nothing wrong with vinyl, its like shooting on expired film, it evokes a certain feeling. But its not better quality.
Read this thorough rundown of one of the more famously over compressed albums where the vinyl release has better sound than even the 24 bit release: https://buttondown.com/rhcpsessions/archive/me-and-my-friend...
And at these prices, you would reduce far more carbon by investing that money in solar panels. 50k buys at least a 20kw system that would more than make up for your summer weekend drives in a classic mustang.
Unless I missed something, this is a completely unsupported claim by the article. Passion projects and retrofits are nothing at all like manufacturing.
I would be surprised however if this project only cost $40,000, when you factor in the cost of labor and maintaining a facility to do this work.
While there is nothing wrong with converting your classic car to electric, if the powertrain is shot (they are harder to maintain as they age), but IMO, it looses the charm of the point of having a classical car.
Few years ago, there was a trend to do these conversions, but that stopped as people realised the car loses its charm and the feel of having old classic car, and most of them are not being used as dailies anyways.
Personally I think it's pretty damn cool. But I have always been a Mustang fan, and I know that this era of Mustang is not especially collectable. They made quite a large number of them and plenty are still running.
There's no question the first generation of Mustangs are the most collectible.
I suspect that this might be more of a "Mustang body kit" on a Tesla chassis and not retrofitting the Tesla tech into a Mustang chassis + body. Still cool, but maybe misleading.
[1] https://electrek.co/2026/05/03/tesla-fsd-10-billion-miles-no...
What car can I buy in the US today that's as good as the latest fsd?
On a Tesla, it's not even an FSD-specific feature. Autopilot does it.
I'd love to see good competition in this space, but it seems Tesla has a healthy moat.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a70420085/tesla-drops-auto...
From videos I see on YouTube, I’m struggling to think what is not Full compared to—at a bare minimum—the bottom 10 percent of drivers on the road.
Try sitting in the back seat or even just acting like a passenger and you'll see the difference very quickly.
How about if he's allowed to drive anywhere except Rhode Island? Is that any different?
Honestly I have no idea how I would objectively rate my driving. I know a few things that I do better than everyone else - but I have no idea what bad things I'm doing that I'm unaware of. I don't know if the bad things I avoid are the really bad things that make me much better, or if they are just minor things and the things I'm unaware of are much more important. About the only thing everyone knows about is that driving drunk is really really bad, but most people don't do that.
Tesla set their own benchmark, their own goal posts, and their own timelines.
In 2016 Tesla said, "as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.":
https://electrek.co/2024/08/24/tesla-deletes-its-blog-post-s...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240730071548/https://tesla.com...
That was, of course, a lie. Tesla has spent the last 10 years lying about the state of FSD. Tesla keeps claiming FSD will be achieved "next year".
What about 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020: https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...
More lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
But you knew all that already. Defending a decade's worth of lies is intellectually dishonest.
You can change the subject to the hyperbole and spin by Elon Musk, that's fine. Just be aware that's what you're doing. You're changing the subject. I do understand this cult of anti-personality, but I'm only interested in the technology (made by thousands of people whose name is not Elon) in customer hands right now and not about past promises. Right now, their FSD technology stack looks fairly impressive.
It wasn't 10 years ago and it still isn't now.
If you are unable to admit to the practical reality of that then you are not interested in technology.
As for the actual subject, your opinion on the semantic question is noted. I did ask, I suppose.
I recognize you're desperate to "win", but there's no winning once you embrace dishonesty.
Now. How was I being dishonest? Be specific.
Don’t you have to?