Level 5 autonomy corner cases with GM Cruise Automation

Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining that, InterestedinEV.

My bad! I thought the purpose of this factory was to retrofit cars for sale. (With a voided warranty!) But if the purpose is to refit cars for their own robo-taxi service, then that may be a viable business plan.

I thought the purposes of the pilot project robo-taxi service that Waymo is running in a suburb of Phoenix were to (A) get some data and experience in real-world driving on public roads, and (B) to demonstrate and advertise their achievements in driving autonomy.

More broadly, I thought Waymo's business plan was to develop self-driving tech to the point that it was functional, and then license that tech to existing automobile makers. It never occurred to me that robo-taxi service was actually the goal Waymo has been working toward.

Anyway, it's a relief to know that Waymo probably is not being run by people who let their idealism trample the economic realities of running a business, like (Project) Better Place was.

​

 

Pseudo-LiDAR?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07179.pdf

 

I can guarantee it that bean counters have scrutinized Waymo's plans with a magnifying glass. There is some financial engineering here. Let us say Waymo buys 5000 cars in year 1 from Jaguar and retrofits it and the total cost (original cost+ retrofit cost) is $60,000, compared to a retail cost without retrofitting of say $70,000. Depreciation at 40% of $60,000 is $24,000 or over $120 million over 5,000 cars. So Alphabet is able to write off $120 million, in that year, saving a bundle on taxes. The depreciated value of the car is now $36,000. For one year, let us say the taxi generates $6,000 in net revenue. Let us assume at the end of one year, Waymo is able to sell this car at even as low as $55,000 (a one year old car with souped up navigation which might cost $75,000 in the retail market), they now have a profit of $19,000 plus taxi income of $6,000 i.e. $25,000, but they have claimed depreciation of $24,000. So may be finally Waymo makes $1000 per car. $1000 per car may not sound much, but (there is always a but ) in addition, Google has so much data they can profit from. For example that they know Joe Doe goes to see a cancer specialist every Thursday or Jane Doe likes that particular night club and this information could be worth a lot. So even if Joe Doe's close friends do not know he has cancer, Google does. (Please note that I am not an accountant, and these are hypothetical numbers and that I have no inside information. Hence my calculations may be way off, but it seems to me there is a method to the madness and it is nothing but $ signs for Google, even when I am being conservative.)

Second, if they retrofit these cars, it will be done in a certified facility and they will have most of original manufacturers warranty. I am sure their purchase agreements with FCA and Jaguar cover that.

The robo taxi service seems to have a lot of attention from big players, including from Uber, Lyft, and even Tesla. Tesla is not offering a buy back option on their new lease offering as they want to convert all the lease return to a robo taxi service. Even GM is talking about a taxi service. I think it is for the reasons that I discussed above. Google is not a charitable organization and I am sure they have a better business plan when compared to Via.

 

Interesting, but that will work only under certain conditions. Lidar doesn't need the landscape to be lit; it provides its own photons. Cameras are dependent on light sources they cannot control, and are just as blind in full darkness as our eyes are.

A big issue with relying on cameras is safety at night on unlit roads; with "seeing" obstacles (both moving and stationary) that the car's headlights don't illuminate. This sort of "pseudo-lidar" isn't going to help any with that.

​

 

We have absolutely no idea which companies will, or won't, eventually emerge as the "winners" in the race toward reliable autonomous driving. There may well be only one winner in this race; regulators may force everyone else to adopt the winner's system. If that doesn't happen, then compatibility is probably going to be a serious issue with V2V (Vehicle-to-Vehicle) communications.

​

 

I'm going to be very, very surprised if either FCA or Jaguar allow Waymo to make significant changes to their cars without voiding the warranty. And no offense, this isn't just you by a very long way, InterestedinEV -- but I find it an amusing bit of human psychology that when people say they're "sure" about something, it's nearly always an indication that they're actually quite unsure about it. (I sometimes find myself doing the same!)

Now, I do think that a high-profile company like Waymo is more likely to be operated on a sound financial basis than a small obscure company like Via. But even large companies are capable of making disastrous business decisions. Ford's Edsel and "New Coke" are two examples which immediately come to mind; no doubt readers can think of others.

People who run large companies are capable of self-delusion, ignoring facts and sound advice, and making incredibly stupid decisions, just like anyone else. I can give examples from personal experience, if you like.

​

 

May be you are right or maybe your wrong. If Wyamo is going to buy 20,000 Jaguars and retrofit them in a new factory , I would assume that someone in Wyamo would have put clauses into the order to protect Wyamo from the loss of warranty. I know of big companies that have made major mistakes (Edsel and New Coke are old examples), but I have no reason to believe that Wyamo ignored this issue when they placed a purchase order on Jaguar. I am not privy to the contract, but by the same token you seem to be sure that warranty on the Jaguar or the Paciica would have been voided. Do you have any evidence to believe that to be so other than your feelings.

Wyamo has been retrofitting and running cars for 10 years now and if they had a problem, it would happened. So I will not use the words "I am sure" but instead borrow your phrase. I would be very very surprised if Waymo and Jaguar/FCA have not discussed in detail what retrofitting will be done and how it will affect warranty. You have to remember that Jaguar and FCA need Waymo more than the other way around. The I-Pace is not selling that well and having 20,000 of their cars on the street proving taxi services could motivate some sales. If Waymo's technology is indeed superior, and Jaguar were to license it, the production path would be much easier as Waymo has done most of the job. So I am not sure how you can make the assertion that the warranty will be void.

 

Narrow angle LIDAR like shown on the Bryton vehicles is just $250 per sensor. Note this doesn't take into account any additional processing costs.

 

From Tesla's presentation, I feel their confidence in their rapid pace of improvement comes from the fact they have nailed their machine learning process.

Time will tell, but the next phase in the autonomous vehicle arms race has well and truly begun.

 

No doubt Tesla has great vision and engineers. However, Google has been doing Machine Learning for decades and have over 10 years on autonomous driving. By all accounts, they seem to be closet to level 4 or at level 4. That does not mean that Tesla is not there or not close enough. On the other hand, Elon has been know to exaggerate a fact or two or make assumptions that are not substantiated. So as you say time will tell, how much is real and how much is posturing.

 

I've seen claims for as low as $200 per unit for solid-state lidar scanners. But those have a fixed arc of scanning, and the diagrams I've seen show 4 scanners being used, aimed at the four cardinal compass points, plus a 5th scanner aimed ahead, with a more narrow scanning angle and longer range. So that would be $200 x 5 = $1000.

However, it doesn't surprise me if the actual price per unit is $250. Those claims for $200 per unit were made before any company started selling them, and I always assumed that was a rather optimistic price estimate.

 

That's like arguing that the racing yacht owner has invented the spinnaker sail, and so obviously will win in a race against a motorboat.

It just doesn't work that way. And no amount of "machine learning" is going to let a car depending on cameras to "see" anywhere except where the headlights are pointed, on an unlit road on a dark night.

Fully autonomous cars need to be able to drive safely in all conditions, not just some of them. In fact, they need to be programmed to pull over and stop at the side of the road, rather than proceed if driving conditions become unsafe. That way they'll avoid getting involved in catastrophes like this:

 

I'm entirely uninterested in "feelings" regarding this subject. Feelings are irrelevant to engineering and basic economics. We are both arguing in absence of evidence; I'm applying common sense and what I know about automobile warranties, which is that any substantial modification to the car's structure or powertrain will void the warranty. Any warranty, any auto maker, anywhere.

Well of course it has. We can be sure that Waymo has had to have some of its robo-taxis fixed. You are assuming -- with no evidence at all to back it up -- that Waymo is getting service under warranty from the auto maker. I'm assuming they're not, for pretty obviously reasons. I'm assuming that Waymo pays whatever shop or shops service their cars.

Experimental passenger vehicles are often, perhaps usually, made by modifying stock cars. That doesn't mean that the car is still protected under warranty after the modification! InterestedinEV, what do you think the phrase "void the warranty" means? Do you think that never actually happens in real life? Does the photo below look like Waymo isn't doing extensive hardware modifications to the car?



What do you think would happen if Rivian brought one of its Ford F-150 test mules into a Ford shop for service, and demanded it be fixed for free under warranty? Do you think they wouldn't be laughed out of the shop? Well of course they would.

No matter what company Waymo picks to buy its fleet from, once it's done with its extensive aftermarket modifications, the normal warranty that comes with the car is going to be voided. That's inescapable, and arguing about it won't change that reality.

And no matter how much Jaguar "needs" the fleet purchase from Waymo, it's not going to agree to fix parts and assemblies which have been modified by Waymo, or have been subjected to use, wear, or stress beyond the car's originally engineered characteristics due to Waymo's modifications.

* * * * *

As I see it, there are two possible scenarios, and neither of us has any evidence to show which is correct:

(A) Waymo simply accepts the fact that no matter what car it uses, the warranty will be voided as part of the modification process. Waymo accepts that as part of the cost of doing business.

(B) Since Waymo will be buying 20,000 I-Pace cars from Jaguar, it has used that as leverage to negotiate a special arrangement for warranty work; the cars will be given a special, non-standard, limited, partial warranty that covers certain parts of the car, parts which aren't affected by Waymo's modifications. Other parts of the car won't be covered by the special limited warranty.

 

Now I think we are coming to near agreement. You have two scenarios. The first scenario is that all warranty is voided due to the modifications done by Wyamo. The second is Jaguar or FAC warranties all components not modified by Waymo. Both are reasonable scenarios. The first is the general case, if I were to do the modifications in my friend's shop, (A) could certainly apply. However my point is that Alphabet/Google/Waymo has the leverage to negotiate an arrangement as stated in (B) and it is inconceivable to me that Waymo did not do it. I agree with you that is no manufacturer will agree to warranty any after sale modifications, except if the modifications were done at the behest of the manufacturer. There are for example some manufacturer add-ons installed by dealers.

My argument is simple, if Waymo is investing in a factory to do such modifications, they are unlikely to process cars unless they have what you call "partial warranty". If my surmise is right, that Waymo will sell these cars to the public in a few years time, and they would need to have some residual warranties to make the sale more attractive. I would not want the warranty on the seat belts to be void just because Waymo added self driving capabilities. The interesting question then would be on the warranty process would work, for some components you go the dealer and to the others you go to someone else.

The case point is Via, they have an agreement with Chevy to service the vehicles. This is from their website (https://www.viamotors.com/faq.html )

Where do we get service for these vehicles?

VIA Motors partners with Chevy dealerships throughout the United States. We will continue to grow our VIA Certified Service Network as we expand our sales and available markets. See our Service Dealer Network to learn more.



My recollection is that when I visited their website many months back, they had a list of dealers across the country. Today, when i said that for warranty you could go to a select sect of GM dealers, who provide warranty on behalf of Via. When I checked it today, I do not see that any more.

On the other hand Via Motors has an exclusive arrangement with Geely from China, signed late last year. Again, my guess is that once Via signed an agreement with Geely, GM withdrew the servicing arrangement that existed. Via is now providing all its Intellectual Capital to Geely. From the looks of it, Via did not get the best deal, possibly due to their financial situation.

 

Well, certainly a lot closer to agreeing, yes.

Warranty coverage is more restrictive than that. For example, let's say you install a 3rd party trailer hitch on your car, which isn't tow-rated by the auto maker. Now, let's say that you have an accident while towing, and the frame of your car is bent because of pressure from the tow hitch. However, the installation of the hitch didn't modify the frame; it was attached to parts bolted to the frame. Will the authorized service shop fix the frame under warranty? No, because the modification you did to your car resulted in damage that's not covered under warranty.

Similarly, if the mods that Waymo does to its cars cause some of the parts on the car -- even unmodified parts -- to be subjected to stress or wear beyond what was intended in the way the I-Pace was originally designed and built by Jaguar, then it would be entirely appropriate for Jaguar to refuse to cover that under warranty repair.

Here is a "thought experiment" example: Let's say that the servo which Waymo (presumably) installs to let the self-driving computer control the steering, creates excess wear-and-tear on the steering control arms or rods. As a consequence, the steering arms fail and have to be replaced. But the steering arms and rods are still original equipment, so will Jaguar cover replacement? Nope! Certainly not, because those control rods and arms were not designed or built to be subjected to stress from the (hypothetical) servo attached to the rod.

There are probably similar examples to be made regarding the robo-taxi's electrical system.

I'm sure that Waymo would not want to, but that's not the question here. Waymo's choices are to buy stock cars off the market and modify them, or pay some specialty auto maker like Magna Steyr to make cars specifically for their needs. Waymo almost certainly isn't buying 20,000 I-Paces because they're getting a great deal from Jaguar on a special warranty arrangement; they're buying 20,000 I-Paces because that's cheaper than paying Magna Steyr to make 20,000 cars to their specifications.

I'm sure that Waymo would like to get Jaguar to agree to a special limited warranty. But just because they would want to, doesn't mean they have the leverage to do so. That's where we disagree: You apparently think that Waymo having a reasonable motive and desire to do so is evidence that they have managed to do so... and I don't.

Okay, but that doesn't say that vehicles sold by Via Motors are (or were) covered under a Chevy warranty. That just means Via Motors contracted with Chevy to get their modified vehicles serviced at authorized Chevy shops. It may well be that Via has (or previously had) to pay Chevy for some or all service there.

 

Neither you nor I have actual contractual information. We both agree that an manufacturer could (operative word is could)completely void the warranty. based on after sale modifications done to make a stock car an Autonomous Vehicle. You believe it is unlikely that any manufacturer will agree to continue to provide partial warranty after Waymo does its changes. I believe it is likely that Waymo has something in the contract with Jaguar and FCA that will preserve some warranty rights.

There is no way I can prove you wrong or vice versa. I am going by my experiences with Google in another context and my experiences with large corporations and complex negotiations. You similarly have a frame of reference, which is different from mine. Till we have definitive information one way or the other, we can just agree to disagree and move on to other topics.

 

@Pushmi-Pullyu I googled the Waymo-JLR partnership and I found the following. It is clearly a collaboration rather that Waymo just buying the cars and retrofitting them. So it is a deeper relationship, which I believe would mean that JLR will have access to what is done and some say in the changes and hence cannot wahs their hands off on the warranty. May be the eventual goal is for JLR to license the technology, and they would need to install the hardware and provide some warranties.

https://www.finder.com/jaguar-teams-up-with-waymo-to-develop-worlds-first-premium-self-driving-car



The companies will work together on the Jaguar I-PACE to refine technology and deliver safety and reliability.
Jaguar Land Rover and Waymo have joined forces to develop the world’s first premium self-driving car.

Both JLR and Waymo hope this collaboration will further their shared goals to make cars safer, free up valuable time and improve mobility for drivers.


The deal is worth $1.8 billion and not only boosts Waymo’s ambition to develop a driverless ride-hailing service but will likely prove to be a major deal for JLR, Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, as it takes it first steps into electric vehicles.
,,,,,

Waymo Jaguar I‑PACE models will start testing later this year which will allow Waymo and Jaguar Land Rover engineers to refine technology and deliver optimum safety and reliability.

“Our passion for further advancing smart mobility needs expert long-term partners,” Jaguar Land Rover chief executive Ralf Speth said. “In joining forces with Waymo we are pioneering to push the boundaries of technology. Together we will deliver the self-driving Waymo Jaguar I‑PACE with the grace, space and eco-pace that customers expect.”

“While we’ve been focused at Waymo on building the world’s most experienced driver, the team at Jaguar Land Rover has developed an all-new battery-electric platform that looks to set a new standard in safety, design and capability,” Waymo chief executive John Krafcik said.

 

Congratulations on finding some actual evidence to support your scenario. While I think we would both agree that this isn't definitive proof, I think -- and I believe you would agree -- that this makes your scenario more likely.

​

 

I agree with you that is not proof positive, but as you say, it however makes it likely that they have discussed warranty and other aspects in detail. Clearly, the agreement to buy 20,000 I-Paces is not an arms length transaction but more like a deep partnership. To me it makes total sense as both of them bring things to the table which would beneficial to other. And Jaguar being a smaller manufacturer (not withstanding their Indian parent), they will not be able to compete on autonomous vehicles with the bigger companies without some sort of help.

One sentence in the article is very illuminating

“Our passion for further advancing smart mobility needs expert long-term partners,” Jaguar Land Rover chief executive Ralf Speth said. “In joining forces with Waymo we are pioneering to push the boundaries of technology. Together we will deliver the self-driving Waymo Jaguar I‑PACE with the grace, space and eco-pace that customers expect.”

He says "self-driving Waymo Jaguar I‑PACE". This almost sounds like branding to me.