The Problem With Hype(r) Cars

Vlad Pop
by Vlad Pop

After much anticipation, Faraday Future finally revealed its production car, the FF 91. The presentation introduced the FF 91 as “the smartest car you’ll ever drive” and described capabilities of advanced sensors, machine learning, and autonomous driving — all great buzzwords. We saw a live demonstration of the FF 91’s ability to drive itself with the “driverless valet” feature. The car successfully parked itself in a parking lot outside the reveal and we were told to “never worry about parking again.”

Except, I watched the rest of the reveal and I’m pretty worried.

Before you chalk this up to the dogpile, let me explain.

I’m not worried about the “driverless valet” feature that failed on stage — because it didn’t. The car presented on stage was running specific code for the demo, which was different from the fully functioning car we watched park itself earlier. I don’t know why, but that’s not relevant. The point is the demo code failed, not FF’s self-driving system.

The reason I’m worried is because my Ph.D. is in Human Factors and I have a history in working with automation in aviation. Specifically, I’ve worked on how humans interact with automation in commercial airline cockpits for the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System. This article is my first transition from peer-reviewed scientific publications to editorials. Why?

Because I watched an “autonomous car” reveal that contained more jargon than meaningful automation concepts.

Because I watched a senior VP of Research & Development use the farce of dimming the lights as a cover to sneak a technician into a supposedly self-driving car.

Because I was told a car’s self-driving feature didn’t work because of steel structure in a building’s roof.

Because a PR person had to clarify that a car was using real production technology that just needed to be recalibrated.

And most of all, because Faraday Future cut all of this out of the reveal video before they uploaded the event stream.

So what’s the problem?

Well it’s been over 100 years since the first autopilot was developed in aviation and 35 years since airplanes have been capable of full automation we’d call SAE Level 5. Over these last 35 years, we’ve learned the decision to use advanced automation is guided by trust and self-confidence. In other words, my decision to use automation depends more heavily on whether I feel like it will work, rather than how reliably it actually works. I’m pretty self confident that I can park my car. I do it every day. I know that the FF 91 can probably do it, too. But do I trust that it could park itself in a seven-story concrete and steel parking garage at my work? Do other people who watched the reveal or read the articles about it trust it will? If they don’t, they’ll never buy the car to find out.

And that’s the problem.

Vlad Pop is a research scientist with a Ph.D. in Human Factors. He is a lifelong racing enthusiast and former Formula E developer using years of cockpit automation experience to ensure the future of automated driving is in good hands.

Vlad Pop
Vlad Pop

Vlad Pop is a research scientist with a Ph.D. in Human Factors. He is a lifelong racing enthusiast and former Formula E developer using years of cockpit automation experience to ensure the future of automated driving is in good hands.

More by Vlad Pop

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • Sam Hall Sam Hall on Jan 18, 2017

    If I'm reading correctly, the concern is basically that FF will, with all its hype and BS, destroy the reputation of self-driving technology before it reaches the mainstream buying public. That's a valid concern (see: GM diesel cars) but I'm not too worried about it. Electric cars have sofar survived the EV-1, BYD, Elio and a few other bad products and vaporware. Tesla has self-driving tech on the road already, and several other major manufacturers will soon follow suit. I think most people will correctly identify the problem as Faraday Future, not self-driving tech in general.

  • BigOldChryslers BigOldChryslers on Jan 18, 2017

    Some technology innovations follow a pattern where they're introduced but rejected by the market, usually because they aren't user friendly or are too expensive. Then follows a period of behind-the-scenes development where the technology is only used in niche applications and improved, then it is reintroduced commercially and finally takes-off. I wonder if autonomous vehicles will follow this pattern? Other examples: - 3D movies (remember the glasses with red/blue lenses?) - videodisc/DVD - fuel injection - cylinder deactivation (Caddy 4-6-8 engine) - electric cars

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next