When Tesla started production of the Model S saloon in 2012, the start-up had fewer than 3,000 employees. Chief executive Elon Musk had the luxury of beginning with a blank page, to hire just the specialists he needed and to even risk complete failure in his quest to launch the first successful electric-only car brand.… Continue reading Electric switch poses existential challenge to carmakers
Category: Automotive
Voluntary recall campaign for its diesel model, the Tata Tigor 1.05RTQ BSIV (MT)
4 September, 2018 Tata Motors Ltd has undertaken a voluntary recall campaign for its diesel model, the Tata Tigor 1.05RTQ BSIV (MT), manufactured between 6th March, 2017 to 1st Dec, 2017. This is a service initiative wherein the company has urged concerned customers with Chassis no’s as mentioned below to contact their nearest dealerships to… Continue reading Voluntary recall campaign for its diesel model, the Tata Tigor 1.05RTQ BSIV (MT)
Auto Consultant Lawrence Burns Dishes the Dirt on Waymo 28 Aug
Photos: Left, HarperCollins; Right: Hite Photo
Advertisement
Editor’s Picks
Waymo's Fight With Uber Might Be the First Shot in a Self-Driving Car IP War
Google Has Spent Over $1.1 Billion on Self-Driving Tech
How Google's Self-Driving Car Works
The genesis of the modern self-driving car across three Darpa challenges in the early 2000s has been well documented, here and elsewhere. Teams of universities, enthusiasts and automakers struggled to get cars to drive themselves through desert and city conditions. In the process, they kick-started the sensor, software and mapping technologies that would power today’s self-driving taxis and trucks.
A fascinating new book, “Autonomy” by Lawrence Burns, explores both the Darpa races and what happened next—in particular, how Google’s self-driving car effort, now spun out as Waymo, came to dominate the field. Burns is a long-time auto executive, having come up through the ranks at GM and spent time championing that company’s own autonomous vehicle effort, the impressive but ill-fated EN-V urban mobility concept.
Burns began working with Google’s Project Chauffeur in 2010, just as New York Times journalist John Markoff was about to reveal the program to the world. (Incidentally, the book tells us that Markoff discovered its existence through a tip from a disgruntled former safety driver). But Burns’s role actually started earlier, when he turned down a request from Urban Challenge victors Red Whittaker and Chris Urmson to fund a joint venture between GM and their Carnegie Mellon team.
Burns writes that at the time (2008), even GM, which had supported Urmson’s team in the DARPA competition, believed autonomous cars were half a century away. What’s more, the company was preoccupied with its mere survival during the Great Recession.
Fast-forward to 2010, when Google’s program, led by Darpa veteran Sebastian Thrun, suddenly realized it needed someone to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and Detroit. “They were looking for the grey-beard auto executive to help on many different fronts,” Burns told me in a telephone interview. “They were looking for an executive that had a vision for the technology but also knew how the OEMs [car makers] and regulators work.”
Burns’s book provides a wealth of detail and anecdotes about Google’s program, both technological and social. There’s a description of how Google co-founder Larry Page recruited Thrun (and what Burns calls his “lieutenant,” maverick engineer Anthony Levandowski) to the company in the face of multi-million dollar offers from venture capitalists to work on maps, and then self-driving cars.
Where the book really shines, though, is in illustrating the complex dynamic between Thrun, Urmson, and Levandowski, the three critical figures in making robot cars a reality. “We see a lot of heroes in this story,” says Burns. “Anthony is just an extraordinarily creative guy… with unbelievable energy. [But] he was disruptive, hard to trust and unpredictable.”
Although Burns’s sympathies clearly lie with Chris Urmson, the solid, dependable Canadian, his anecdotes often depict a smart and effective group solving problems together. On one occasion, Levandowski rented dozens of cars to supercharge Google’s mapping effort. On another, engineer Dmitri Dolgov (now Waymo CTO) faced off with a police officer while testing a prototype in a Mountain View car park.
There’s great reporting around 510 Systems, Levandowski’s stealthy start-up that provided imaging units and the first self-driving car to Google. Page eventually saw the firm as a conflict of interest for Levandowski. Thrun considered making Levandowski CEO of Chauffeur, but backed off when some team members threatened to leave if that happened. Another solution would have been for Levandowski to leave Google, going back to 510 or moving to a new company. Burns said Levandowski had even wooed several key engineers to join him there—an accusation he would later face again, with the formation of Otto. Under that scheme, Urmson would’ve been named CEO of the new company, if he had gone with them.
But Urmson wanted to stay put, reports Burn. “We built this thing here,” Urmson recalls saying. “This is going to take a lot of resources to build, so [Google] seems like the right place to do it.” As it turned out, Google bought 510, placating Levandowski with a hefty bonus plan for staying in Mountain View.
The group’s first tests on a public road involved a nerve-wracking rolling barrier of normal cars driven by Google employees in front of and behind the self-driving car, for safety. There’s also a fun section where the engineers struggle to complete a list of 10 difficult self-driving scenarios presented by Larry Page in order to earn a hefty pay-out. SPOILER ALERT: They succeed, enabling Urmson to make a down payment on a house.
Burns’s reactions to the team’s antics perfectly illuminate the difference between the Detroit auto companies and Google. “I was amazed that they were testing the vehicles on public roads. No automotive company would ever, ever have done that,” he tells me.
He also marvels at what Google accomplished in its $1.1 billion Chauffeur program (first reported in Spectrum). “GM spent about the same amount developing fuel cells during my 11 years as their vice president of R&D,” Burns recalls.
But even long after Markoff’s flattering story hit newsstands, Burns says that the Google team got the cold shoulder from Detroit, with reactions including amusement, disinterest, condescension, and anger that the engineers would take such risks. “I guess we’re not working with those guys,” Burns remembers Urmson saying after a particularly patronizing meeting.
Of course, things would change in the years that followed—especially after respected Detroit auto executive John Krafcik was brought on board. But there the book draws a veil. Burns has some discussion of Waymo rivals Uber and GM-Cruise, among others, and a fair bit on the infamous Waymo vs Uber trade secrets lawsuit. But none of his sources, nor he himself, delves into Waymo’s growing list of partnerships or future plans.
The book finishes with off with financial and economic analyses of the impacts of autonomous automotive mobility services (nothing on bikes or scooters), brief treatments of some high-profile crashes, and sparse details on Chris Urmson’s latest start-up, Aurora.
Burns ends on the optimistic note that we are inevitably heading for a tipping point where cheap, safe, and reliable self-driving vehicles will dominate transportation. “There’s going to be a moment where it’s crystal clear that the value offered by the convergence of autonomous and electric vehicles with transportation services to individual people is really compelling,” he tells me. “That point is when a lot of businesses are going to go into it… and that’s when things will scale, and scale fast.”
Anyone after a less rose-tinted view will be disappointed. There is little discussion in “Autonomy” of the possibility of increased congestion as we transition to an all-autonomous future, nor any reference to concerns about security, hacking, or potential societal risks around access and employment.
“Autonomy” is also partisan, to say the least. Although the book is not an official Waymo publication, Burns continues to be employed by the company. He is also a director at self-driving truck technology company Peloton. Burns also says he gave an early copy of the manuscript to Waymo, and made some very minor corrections or redactions at its request.
But these are minor quibbles. “Autonomy” does not claim to be a scholarly history of self-driving vehicles, nor a scientific paper to help regulators craft policy. In the hands of accomplished ghost writer Christopher Shulgan, it is rip-roaring story of one team’s exploits in reinventing the motor car. Now if only Anthony Levandowski would publish his account of the same events….
“Autonomy” by Lawrence D. Burns and Christopher Shulgan is published today by Ecco Books. $27.99
Editor's note: This story was updated on 28 August 2018.
Meet Martti, the Finnish Robocar That Uses 5G 30 Aug
Photo: VTT
Advertisement
Editor’s Picks
Applications of Device-to-Device Communication in 5G Networks
Experts Disagree on Top Applications for 5G
Mobile World Congress 2018: 5G’s Killer App May Not Be an App at All
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and mobile giant Nokia have joined forces to determine how 5G networks can transmit information to and from vehicles while on the road. To do this, they are testing the capabilities of 5G network technologies when combined with VTT’s robot car, called Martti.
The research is the combined effort of a consortium of Finnish companies and research institutes, including VTT and Nokia. As part of the 5G-SAFE project, researchers are studying what kind of novel road safety services, such as road condition and real-time incident information, 5G will enable for supporting autonomous driving.
These road safety services will rely on sensors and Internet of Things (IoT) devices to collect data from a robocar’s LiDAR, radar, video systems and roadside infrastructure such as weather stations, traffic cameras, and traffic lights. These devices will communicate over 5G networks to cloud-based services and algorithms for processing information and alerts to other vehicles in the area.
Researchers have been working to bring the data processing closer to the vehicles by the means of edge computing for reduced latencies and improved scalability, according to Tiia Ojanperä, Senior Scientist and Project Manager at VTT. Now they are implementing the solutions into real 5G test networks and vehicular platforms for validation.
“We were running the first pilot in June, where VTT’s robot car ‘Martti’ was connected to a 5G test network available in a vehicle test track in Sodankylä, Finland,” said Ojanperä said in an email interview. “The test network in question was still pre-5G, and waiting for real 5G capabilities that will be deployed once the equipment (i.e. network devices and user terminals) is commercially available.”
In the pilot, VTT’s robot car Martti was used to test the ability to detect obstacles and grooves in the road by the means of collaborative sensing. The demo was based on the transmission of 16-layer LiDAR sensor data on a 12.5 Hz frequency from another test vehicle to VTT’s MEC server located in the 5G-test network. The MEC server hosted an algorithm, which optimized Martti’s route.
The second and most recent test VTT and Nokia jointly conducted in August involved a similar communication of Martti’s sensor data to a server via Nokia’s prototype 5G equipment.
For as long as 5G networks have been on the horizon, observers have speculated about the main applications for these new networks, including certain automotive applications. Recently, experts have questioned whether it’s practical to use 5G for autonomous vehicles when mobile coverage of all the remote and rural roads is so limited.
The 5G-SAFE research project has incorporated this coverage limitation into their strategy in building out the technology.
“In the project, we assume that multiple radio technologies (e.g. 5G, 4G, ITS G5 or even satellite) will eventually be used in implementing the services, as not all the 5G capabilities (low latency, high bandwidth, etc.) will be available everywhere the vehicles travel,” said Ojanperä. “The idea is to select the most appropriate means of communication dynamically among the available ones. Also, the services will need to be adapted to the network capabilities, and in some remote or rural areas, only a subset of the features and information may be available.”
While this strategy may address coverage issues, questions remain about what aspects of driving could be safely handled over a 5G network as opposed to within the car's computers. Ojanperä believes that 5G-enabled distributed cloud services, such as the ones developed in the 5G-SAFE project, and direct vehicle-to-vehicle communication can essentially provide more knowledge to connected and automated vehicles of their surroundings to improve safety.
“One of the biggest benefits [of 5G networks] is edge computing and its enabled distributed crowd-sourcing opportunities,” said Ojanperä. “Edge computing is not access technology dependent, but the broad bandwidth of 5G makes it useful by enabling real-time local dynamic map updates and communicating even raw sensor data between vehicles via intelligent infrastructure.”
Ojanperä concedes that vehicles will still need to function without this additional information if the connection to the services is lost. In those situations, Ojanperä says the vehicles will have to rely on their own sensors with a limited range or implement some fail-safe functionality, like stop operation, when connectivity has been lost.
With the test environments and communication solutions in place, the next step will be to develop more advanced intelligence on top of the collected vehicular data, according to Ojanperä.
Ojanperä added: “It is not a big secret that real-time and reliable data is the oil, which enables machine-learning algorithms to make cars and transport systems evermore intelligent. Connectivity is the key enabling technology for pushing forward the transport automation mega-trend.”
< Back to The Race to 5G
Ford Says It Plans to Upgrade Mondeo Family Car, Not Kill It
Terms of Service Violation Your usage has been flagged as a violation of our terms of service. For inquiries related to this message please contact support. For sales inquiries, please visit http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/request-demo If you believe this to be in error, please confirm below that you are not a robot by clicking “I’m not a robot”… Continue reading Ford Says It Plans to Upgrade Mondeo Family Car, Not Kill It
GM is working on next-gen 400 kW charging with Delta for 180 miles of range in less than 10 minutes
One of the biggest complaints with GM’s Chevy Bolt EV is its limited fast-charging capacity. Now GM is working to remedy the situation for future EVs through a partnership with Delta Americas to develop a 400 kW charging system for 180 miles of range in less than 10 minutes. 400 kW is nothing new. Several automakers and… Continue reading GM is working on next-gen 400 kW charging with Delta for 180 miles of range in less than 10 minutes
Tesla’s real problem isn’t its shareholders
Peter Parks | AFP | Getty Images
Elon Musk
Elon Musk made a wise decision when he withdrew his proposal to take Tesla private. While Musk's external advisors showed him a viable path to privatization, the complexities of the process would have been a great distraction from the real issue facing Tesla: its lack of an experienced leadership team to run the company.
Musk may be the most exceptional entrepreneur of this generation, but he has a long way to go from being a creative innovator to building an organization that can run a global automobile company.
In recent months Musk has become increasingly frustrated with his shareholders and the questions they were asking — so much so that he issued a simple tweet on August 7: “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.”
After a flurry of activity with bankers, investors and the Tesla board, Musk announced last Friday that he had changed his mind and Tesla would continue to be a public company.
All this investor focus has been a giant diversion from Tesla's real problems. In fact, Tesla's investors have been its biggest supporters, running its market valuation to $53 billion, higher than either General Motors ($52 billion) or Ford ($40 billion). Meanwhile, Tesla continues to lose billions of dollars with a dwindling cash balance.
In the recent past Musk has lost 40 key executives, including his heads of product development (Doug Field), sales and marketing (Jon McNeill) and finance (Susan Repo), plus Solar City's Peter Rive and Lyndon Rive. As a result, Musk is trying to do it all himself, even sleeping at the factory to try to get the Model 3 up and running.
No one can run a big company like Tesla alone. Leading a global automobile business is an extremely complex task requiring a strong, diverse team of executive leaders at all levels. Building the top team is precisely what Mary Barra has done in restoring General Motors following its 2009 emergence from bankruptcy. That's what Alan Mulally did to lead Ford through the 2008-09 recession.
The playbook that Barra and Mulally each used fostered teamwork, promoted healthy collaboration and created cohesion around one team implementing one plan for the entire company's success.
Musk should stop worrying about beating the short sellers and focus entirely on rebuilding Tesla's depleted leadership ranks. Most importantly, he should recruit a partner with extensive automobile experience to run the business on a day-to-day business.
An ideal candidate would be Mark Fields, who was CEO of Ford from 2014 to 2017 and who has been in the auto business for 29 years. With his vast knowledge of the business and his proven leadership capabilities, Fields in turn can recruit top performers from auto companies all over the world to get Tesla's operations back on track.
In addition, Tesla needs a very strong CFO who can put the company's finances in order. That means stopping the cash drain and getting the company profitable. Doing so will require correcting Tesla's rampant operational problems, getting Model 3 production up and running and bringing down the cost of its vehicles.
Finally, the Tesla board needs to be upgraded to provide wisdom and insights to Musk and his team about the intricacies of the global automobile business. Tesla's current board consists of Musk, his brother, the former CFO of Tesla's Solar City acquisition, three venture capitalists, the COO of Telstra and James Murdoch, CEO of Twenty-First Century Fox. None of these board members has any experience in the automobile business.
Tesla should add two to three experienced executives who understand the business and can advise management as Tesla ramps up and prepares for the next generation of vehicles.
Elon Musk is often compared to Steve Jobs, an equally brilliant entrepreneur with the vision and drive to creative transformative products. Jobs was forced out by the Apple board in 1985 for his erratic behavior. While he was building Pixar, he learned a great deal about leadership from two extraordinary innovation leaders, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter. When he returned to Apple 12 years later, he teamed up with Tim Cook who helped him build the company and turned Jobs' vision into the world's most valuable company.
In the middle of his journey, Musk now finds himself a dark wood. Executive departures continue. The stock price gyrates. The media piles on. In these difficult times, Musk needs to transform himself, much as Steve Jobs did in the 1990s.
There are other examples of entrepreneurs teaming with superb business leaders to create great enterprises; most notably, Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin recruited Eric Schmidt as CEO and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg brought in Sheryl Sandberg as COO. In an earlier era, the teams of David Packard and Bill Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard and Intel's Gordon Moore, Bob Noyce and Andy Grove created the signature companies that pioneered Silicon Valley.
Only if Musk is prepared to recruit a partner to build Tesla's leadership team and strengthen his board will he be able to transform Tesla from a breakthrough entrepreneurial company to a rapidly growing automobile company with an enduring legacy.
Commentary by Bill George, a senior fellow at Harvard Business School, former Chairman & CEO of Medtronic, and the author of “Discover Your True North.” He has taught in Unilever education programs in the past decade. Follow him on Twitter
@Bill_George
.
CarMax is Morgan Stanley’s top pick among US auto dealer stocks
Bloomberg | Getty Images
CarMax shares are poised to break out because of the company's opportunity to capture more of the used car market, according to Morgan Stanley.
The firm bumped CarMax to the number one spot on its rankings of U.S. auto dealers and reiterated its overweight rating for CarMax stock.
“We see [CarMax] as a best in class operator with an opportunity to grow market share,” Armintas Sinkevicius said in a note to clients Wednesday. The analyst also said the company's upcoming results will compare more favorably to prior quarters.
Statement from McLaren Group
Mr Marchionne was a passionate industrialist, a titan of the automotive industry and a formidable business leader. Our great sporting rivalry and mutual respect in Formula 1 was enhanced by his tenure at the helm of Ferrari. His dedication to Ferrari was equalled by his intellect and forthright approach to business. He was a tough… Continue reading Statement from McLaren Group
Car registrations by brand – August 2018
Dati statistici > registrations Period of publication: 03 September 2018 Data reference period: August 2018 Analysis by brand of car registrations in Italy. Download attachment: 02 August 2018_UNRAE_marca_5b8d559823a4b.pdf To view the content it is necessary accept the installation of the Calameo cookies TAG: brand, cars, registrations, 2018, August Go to Source