5 hours Ago By David Booth
Article content Elon Musk has seen the future of the automobile and, unfortunately, you’re not behind the wheel. Actually, no one is, at least not anyone poor or lower-middle class. In a stunning revelation, Reuters recently reported that Musk has said it’s “pointless to build a $25,000 Tesla for human drivers.
” Though there’s been no subsequent clarification as to why he thought a USD$25,000 electric car might be “pointless,” there can only two possible outcomes Musk sees going forward. The first is that Tesla, the one Western automaker that many had thought could build a fully functional and inexpensive electric car — i.e.
not some cheap, European crap-can with limited space and range — has abandoned the quest. And, if Tesla can’t do it, it’s looking ever more likely that the ones who will manufacture such a car will be either a Chinese automaker or nobody. The problem, of course, is that, barring some truly unforeseen shift in American politics, it won’t be Chinese.
So what Musk is really saying with the “pointless” comment is that he thinks there will be no North-American-manufactured USD$25,000 electric vehicles in the future. Certainly no $25,000 Tesla, which, considering the recent setbacks for legacy automakers, amounts to the same thing. If Musk is right about the quest being “pointless,” future entry-level shoppers will find no battery-powered equivalent to Toyota’s Corolla Hybrid in showrooms.
No EV Volkswagen Jetta for lower-income, first-time shoppers. Not even an electric Ford Maverick for truckers on a budget. Hell, Automotive News recently proclaimed “ used EVs could address the problem of affordability” – italicized emphasis mine – with the article implying both that battery-powered vehicles don’t hold their value worth a damn and that there really aren’t any cheap new electric vehicles on the horizon.
New cars, at least new Teslas, according to Musk, will be the sole purview of the well-to-do. Musk’s solution to this conundrum — why, in fact, he specified “human drivers” in that “pointless” comment — is, and has always been, the robotaxi . On the other hand, if you follow self-driving news at all, you know that Tesla’s foray into autonomous vehicles has been, at best, problematic.
There’s been multiple investigations into their safety ; horror stories of drivers being killed because their Tesla couldn’t “see” the 18-wheeler ahead ; and complaints that what Musk insists on calling Full Self Driving does not, in fact, fully self-drive . The reason for this underperformance is simple: technology. While pretty much everyone else in the autonomous arena relies on LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) as the backbone for their autonomous vehicles, Musk has remained resolute in his belief that safe self-driving is possible with just cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors, a conviction that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would seem to be challenging with its recent investigation into some 2.
4 million semi-autonomous Autopiloted Teslas . This last is a problem — a huge problem — because Musk is also seeking federal approval for self-driving, a move meant to allow the sale of autonomous cars throughout the United States. That leaves Mr.
Musk with but two possible solutions. He could improve his cars’ ability to see the road ahead. That would almost assuredly mean adding LIDAR to his cars’ sensor arrays, a prospect he would surely find too costly and humiliating.
The alternative is that he could simply write the regulation himself. Or, as now seems at least plausible — given that he may be the person who decides who keeps their job in the new Trump administration and who doesn’t — he could decide who writes the regulation. It cannot be overstated how crucial this last could be to the future success of the CyberCab .
On one hand, Musk is already on record as saying that some national standard — currently, approval for driverless cars is given state-by-state — must be set for self-driving. On the other, he, like his new partner in crime, has railed against the “over-regulation” that has stifled innovation. In other words, there’s a fine needle that needs threading, here, and you can bet your bottom dollar controlling how those rules read played a huge part in the USD$130 million Musk spent in getting Donald Trump elected.
If Musk really is the man tasked with eliminating tens of thousands — perhaps hundreds of thousands — of civil servants, what’s to stop him making sure that pro-Tesla mandarins get to keep their jobs? With all that in mind, here’s my prediction for what a U.S. national autonomous automobile regulation will look like.
He could actually try to make specific technological recommendations. For instance, the new regs could specify that camera-based systems — which, as I said, are the basis of Tesla’s self-driving efforts — are the minimum standard for fully autonomous vehicles. He could even ask that any approval specifically says that LIDAR is not necessary for Level IV or V autonomy.
That last, I suspect, is unlikely. For one, that might be an interference too far even for the Trump administration, as Tesla is probably the only automaker that would benefit from such specificity. Besides, it’s a lot easier to regulate what you must have than what you don’t need.
More likely still is some form of performance standard. Look for this to include some wording to the effect that manufacturers seeking approval for their fully autonomous technology must prove that their self-driving cars are safer than human drivers. This would be hugely beneficial for Tesla.
For one thing, safer-than-humans has been Musk’s mantra for years. Decidedly silent on whether his self-driving system is all it could be — or even the equal of competitors like Waymo — his retort to any questioning of the limitations of his camera-based technology has always been that there would be fewer fatalities with FSD than without. For another, such a regulation would probably pass the political smell test.
Who amongst us doesn’t want safer roads? More importantly, who, other than technology nerds like Yours Truly, is going to argue with a regulation that promises safer-than-human driving? And, best of all, if you’re a Tesla shareholder — especially one who holds, at last reckoning, some USD$260 billion worth of TSLA — it’d be a ridiculously easy standard to meet, given the carnage that are North American roads these days. In other words, once Musk does what Tim Higgins of The Wall Street Journal calls his “shock-and-awe” gutting of federal agencies, look for a national regulation for autonomous automobiles favourable to Tesla’s technology and abilities. And, for all those who were constantly questioning why Mr.
Musk was backing Trump so assiduously, you’ve got your answer now, don’t you? Sign up for our newsletter Blind-Spot Monitor and follow our social channels on X , Tiktok and LinkedIn to stay up to date on the latest automotive news, reviews, car culture, and vehicle shopping advice..
