Tesla and Autopilot Supplier Mobileye Split Up After Fatal Crash (usatoday.com) 128
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Tesla and Mobileye, one of the top suppliers to its Autopilot partial self-driving system, are parting ways in the wake of the May accident that killed an owner of one of its electric Model S sedans. Mobileye is considered a leader in developing the equipment that will be needed for fully self-driving cars. The Israeli tech company will continue to support and maintain current Tesla products, including upgrades that should help the Autopilot system with crash avoidance and to better allow the car to steer itself, said Chairman Amnon Shashua in releasing the company's second-quarter earnings Tuesday. Shashua said moving cars to higher levels of self-driving capability "is a paradigm shift both in terms of function complexity and the need to ensure an extremely high level of safety." He added there is "much at stake" in terms of Mobileye's reputation, and that it is best to end the relationship with Tesla by the end of the year. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, meeting with reporters at the company's new battery Gigafactory outside Reno, indicated that Tesla can go forward without Mobileye. "Us parting ways was somewhat inevitable. There's nothing unexpected here from our standpoint," Musk said. "We're committed to autonomy. They'll go their way, and we'll go ours."
So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shocked! I say I'm shocked that a boutique car made by a startup company directed by an eccentric tycoon could possibly have had a supplier or design change. Unfathomable!
First world problems mate.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Reminds me of a real estate ad I saw for a mansion in a posh area. It explained that the house can be torn down to make way for something better, or it could possibly be used for servants' quarters.
Re: So... (Score:1)
Don't buy a beta car, maybe? You bought it.
Re: (Score:3)
Its OK. Don't worry about me. I'll just give it to my kid and get the new one when it comes out.
Great, maybe he'll kill himself abusing autopilot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
Gee really nice, asshole. You want my kid to die?
No, I want you to die before making him, but causality prohibits it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"is best to end the relationship with Tesla by the end of the year"
it's extremely rare that a parts supplier stops being a parts supplier by their decision. only reasons could be the customer(tesla) not paying it's bills or using them out of spec in a manner that might bite them later, and it basically says just that on the inv. call. so tesla and the sensor manufacturer were probably at odds over them shipping the autopilot sw. the sensor manufacturer knows that it can't be good enough with the sensors the
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like a one-sided take. I would say there is a nearly equal chance that Tesla is dissatisfied at their capabilities and realizes they need to bring it in-house to better serve themselves. There is also that potential for litigation and being able to point fingers at another party.
As for the term autopilot, in its aviation context it is pretty reasonable. It isn't like they are calling it Chauffer...
Re: (Score:2)
I would say there is a nearly equal chance that Tesla is dissatisfied at their capabilities and realizes they need to bring it in-house to better serve themselves.
In any case, that is what Tesla needs to do if MobileEye is unwilling or can't build autonomous cars.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite initially feeling the same as you about the Autopilot name, I've been cooling rapidly on it for one simple reason: in practice an aviation autopilot can handle pretty much anything that it is likely to encounter well enough for a distracted pilot to take many seconds assessing any crisis situation before having to take control. And that's key, because if the pilot's input is not needed, then human nature dictates that they're likely to be distracted when a situation that *does* need their input arises.
Tesla's Autopilot is not yet anywhere near that competent, not because it's technical competency is lacking in comparison, quite the opposite in fact, but because its expected operating environment is far more crowded and chaotic, and most crises will unfold far more rapidly, having already reached a conclusion before an inevitably distracted driver can hope to assess the situation. As such, Autopilot will need to be FAR more competent than it currently is just to be able to offer the same level of real-world functionality and safety as its relatively crude aviation counterpart.
I'd say it's currently got 70-80% of the needed functionality worked out, which means, as any programmer can attest, that only 90% or so of the work remains to be done.
Re: (Score:1)
That, yes, and also...
A normal 3 axis autopilot will take a plane from climb to descent, without pilot input, in like 99.99% of flights. Therefore "auto".
Even your most basic roll "autopilot" (keeps the wings level) deserves to some extent the "auto" moniker, because keeping the wings level is 50% of what a pilot has to do when flying the plane. It's first pointing out that the _very first_ autopilot did more than that.
By contrast Tesla's lane avoidance++ does not come anywhere close of doing 50% of what th
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, let's talk about the purpose and practical capability of a plane's autopilot:
Autopilot is there to reduce pilot workload, it is not there to auto
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be clear, most of that list is specifically talking about airline rules designed to push potential liability as low as reasonably possible in order to maximize profit margins and minimize PR disasters, NOT to maintain a reasonable level of safety. In private aircraft where a much lower automobile level of safety is acceptable, planes are routinely flown without a copilot, and I suspect books and DVD players do in fact get used during clear sky flying far more often than you expect without issue.
I care
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that is different with Tesla's system is that they do have ambitions of it taking you door to door eventually.
That's not really different. Airlines would love to eliminate pilots... eventually.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, despite all that, in normal clear-sky conditions a distracted pilot that simply sits in the chair and scans the environment every few minutes will be able to utilize it safely. Not because the autopilot is particularly sophisticated, but because the operating environment is extremely forgiving. Away from high-traffic airports airspace, any obstacles will be clearly visible for at many minutes before action is required.
Yes, Tesla's "Autopilot" is leaps and bounds more sophisticated, but it is unab
Aubout AUTOPILOT name (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the name "autopilot" starts to suffer the same fate as the name "hacker": they both have a precise meaning, but in the general use by the public, the meaning has shifted
Hacker used to be someone who is good at McGuyvering [tvtropes.org], at finding creative uses, etc.
But the press ended up using it for Cracker, someone who just breaks into things, not necessarily showing any creativity.
Same happenned with Autopilot: in aviation, it is a very precise thing - an apparatus which can take care automatically of the small minute details of flying the plane. The human need to provide it an order (a destination) and then only watch over it and control that everything is going well, but not actually hold the commands themselves.
Nobody has ever deigned this for the whole crew to take a nap while it is on.
Same in a boat: the autopilot will keep a destination, so you don't need to hold the wheel. That doesn't mean that you should be napping, you still need to whatch out for dangers, obstacles, etc.
But suddenly, the general public has taken a different meaning: as you say, now the think of it as Chauffeur: the Chauffeur (not necessarily electronic, it can be a human) takes care of everything, while you can safely take a nap or whatch some harry potter.
Elon should have called it "Ship's Commander mode" (as the one which gives orders instead of holding the wheel) sound both mor awesome and a little bit less passive role for the driver.
Re: (Score:3)
Same happenned with Autopilot: in aviation, it is a very precise thing
Who told you that? They lied. There are lots of different things in aviation, all called autopilot. We handle the distinction by breaking autopilot devices down into classes, which are defined by capability. In fact, "autopilot" means many different things, from a simple system that can only maintain a heading to complex systems (and when I say "complex", I don't mean supercomputers, only as opposed to a function you can implement with discrete analog components, as the oldest autopilots did.
The autopilot s
Autopilot vs unmanned vehicle (Score:2)
The autopilot systems on the newest commercial jets are capable of handling landings unassisted, at least, if everything is working. This is just not that hard a job any more.
I very well know that.
But still, the thing officially requires a human being to check it, and none of there is currently approved for total autonomous / "unmanned cockpit" for flying people around.
- It *could* fly people around autonomously.
- It *would* propbably fly poeple around in case of an emergency (e.g.: if both pilot an co-pilot are sick and unconscious)
- but normally we still require human attendance just in case, and not nap instead.
it's officially called an autopilot
That's the exact same situatio
Re: (Score:2)
An Arduino with MultiWii (GPL'd) is enough to take a plane off from a field, fly waypoints and take pictures or drop bombs or what have you and then return to home and land again. And that's without any beacon signal from the ground.
And the official precise terminology for that is called an *Unmaned Aerial Vehicle*. (UAV) (Or drone in the common parlance) More precisely an *autonomous* one.
Just like google call their car "autonomous" or "driver-less". Not simply autopilot.
I know all of this. Nothing I said would lead an intelligent person to believe that I don't. So why are you saying it, when it's completely irrelevant to this conversation? FYI, I've built and programmed my own drones (both multicopter and fixed wing) and am a member of the AMA in good standing. I only mentioned drones as an aside to explain how trivial such a thing is today, as such things are measured.
Do you know what you call a simple computer on a boat which maintains your heading, and does nothing else? Yep, you guessed it, that's an autopilot.
Yup. I even mentioned it in my above post.
And that's why I think "Ship's Commander mode" would be adapted. I would convey in layman's term what they though when saying "autopilot".
So, just to be clear: you think "ship's commander mode" would be a better name for something that behaves
Terminology (Score:2)
So why are you saying it, when it's completely irrelevant to this conversation?
I find relevant to the conversation to point out "things that joe 6 pack might accidentally call an 'autopilot' even if other terminology is prefered by people in the field".
It's relevant to a discussion thread where one of the theme is "Telsa's Autopilot is exactly what is also called an autopilot on airplanes and in boats and thus is reasonable name for this technology" vs. "The word 'autopilot' is a dangerous name because people are going to expect way too much from it".
And that's why I think "Ship's Commander mode" would be adapted. I would convey in layman's term what they though when saying "autopilot".
So, just to be clear: you think "ship's commander mode" would be a better name for something that behaves more like a ship's "autopilot", and not even vaguely or remotely like a "ship's commander" (which is a human) at all? I would love it if you could draw me a road map to that conclusion,
I'm VERY bad at marketing.
In this
Re: (Score:2)
As for the term autopilot, in its aviation context it is pretty reasonable. It isn't like they are calling it Chauffer...
I get the idea people think the aircraft autopilots a some magical device that allows pilots to sleep while steering the aeroplane around mountains, weather and other aircraft. Where as the reality is a bit more like this [wikipedia.org]:
He [Lubitz] had set the autopilot to descend to 100 feet (30 m) and accelerated the speed of the descending aircraft several times thereafter.[105][106] The aircraft was travelling at 700 kilometres per hour (430 mph) when it crashed into the mountain [1,800m ASL].
Don't call it an "autopilot". Teslas don't fly. (Score:1)
To call it "Autopilot" is a pernicious deception. Teslas don't fly. The proper aviation context is taxiing, and even it's hands-off from rotation to rollout, taxiing still requires eyeballs out the window and a hand on the tiller (or feet on the rudders.) The aerospace community knows better. There has never been a serious proposal to automate the taxiing task.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
boutique car made by a startup company directed by an eccentric tycoon could possibly have had a supplier or design change. Unfathomable!
It is a bid odd, the timing of the supplier change, however. Did MobilEye deliver something substandard or that failed to meet specs? Did Tesla find a better option to replace MobilEye?
Maybe this is just a cost-cutting measure which happens to coincide with the fatal crash by chance alone.
Or... : Is Tesla dissatisfied with the MobilEye components on any rational
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people buy a Tesla because it's electric and fast, NOT because it has a bot.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "The Israeli tech company will continue to support and maintain current Tesla products" is complicated?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't, so you are incorrect that we all know. How about making a real argument as opposed to relying on obviously-nonsensical generalisations and appeals?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't wish someone death on the Internet.
It's not a nice thing to do.
Also, if they do die, their ghosts might come back to haunt you.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Impressed but not surprised Mobileye would ditch Tesla. If one of my customers was using my shit recklessly on public beta experiments that got people killed I would ditch them too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tesla ditched Mobileye, and not the other way around. Mobileye's stock went down by 10% after this. Tesla's didn't.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla ditched Mobileye, and not the other way around. Mobileye's stock went down by 10% after this. Tesla's didn't.
Welcome to slashdot, where the moderators are dumbfucks and the points don't matter. Guess what? Mobileeye ditched Tesla [bloomberg.com], to spend more time working with other manufacturers [fool.com]. They probably saw the writing on the wall: Tesla wants to control every part of their car internally, and working with Mobileye was just a way to get their foot in the door sooner with a product. Sooner or later, Tesla would have dropped them. While their stock has taken a big hit since the announcement, it's probably best for them in the long run. It's also great for Tesla, since they can deflect some of the blame onto their now-departed partner.
Whose stock dips after an announcement doesn't inherently tell you anything, mostly because the market is not rational.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet the opposite was true. Mobileyes isn't the one who terminated the relationship.
Also just as well you're not in business, or maybe this is why you're not in business. Terminating a lucrative contact because a customer has an issue for which the customer has full liability and is handling the full PR outfall? If you're that interested on giving away money let me know and I'll send you my paypal details.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the opposite was true. Mobileyes isn't the one who terminated the relationship.
Literally everyone is reporting the opposite, so where are you getting your information?
Blame game again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Blame game again? (Score:2)
Yes, some mugs continued to roll their trucks. But the obvious point you are missing is that most of the failed tires came from Firestone's Juliet plant, not the others. So there was an actual product defect.
Wooo AstroTurfing (Score:3)
Two musky stories in a row? Some PR firm must be getting some big dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Two musky stories in a row? Some PR firm must be getting some big dollars.
It's pretty obvious Musk put some sort of major PR campaign into motion over the past couple of weeks. Probably costing his investors a fortune.
Re:Wooo AstroTurfing (Score:4, Insightful)
Two musky stories in a row? Some PR firm must be getting some big dollars.
Not really. Lots of people just really like Musk's products. I mean, he landed a fucking rocket on a boat! He makes the world's fastest production SUV. His autopilot is orders of magnitude better [thedrive.com] than the competition.
Musk is in some ways similar to Steve Jobs. Early on, trolls would shit over Apple products. Too expensive. Too simple. Then Jobs guided Apple to be the most profitable company in the world. Why? Because people liked Apple products. Musk received nearly 400000 pre-orders for their next car. Why? Because people liked the car when they saw it. It wasn't some tricky marketing campaign. People just like how the Model 3 looks, and how it performs.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk is in some ways similar to Steve Jobs. Early on, trolls would shit over Apple products. Too expensive. Too simple. Then Jobs guided Apple to be the most profitable company in the world.
Those people weren't trolls: Jobs worshipper detected. Your turtleneck is a bit too tight this month. Those people were just wrong. They forgot that stupid people will pay to be fucked over if it gets them ooh shiny shiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs worshipper detected. Your turtleneck is a bit too tight this month.
No not necessarily. I personally do not like IOS. I think it is an overly restrictive black box-ish OS that puts too much control over MY computer in the hands of Apple. I also do not like that Apple seems to be pushing for OSX and IOS to merge. I use a OSX and Linux, and if Apple pisses me off to much, I will shift more towards Linux, and perhaps towards a Chrome-book/Android (never Microsoft!).
However you cannot deny the magnitude of what Jobs accomplished as a leader of Apple. He led his company to
Re: (Score:2)
However you cannot deny the magnitude of what Jobs accomplished as a leader of Apple.
I don't, at all. He realized that you could separate suckers from money by candy coating computers. That was a seriously important realization which has changed our world for the better... for corporations.
Meanwhile he led the creation of the brilliant NeXT OS.
You will note that until it got picked up by Apple, which would have been a massive mistake if they didn't get Jobs in the bargain as they could have had BeOS instead, he was leading it straight into the ground. It was priced out of reach for consumers, and it was too fiddly and nonstandard for businesses
Re: (Score:2)
They forgot that stupid people will pay to be fucked over if it gets them ooh shiny shiny.
Well he must have been on to something. Almost all phones now are clones of the iPhone. BTW, I use Android.
hmmm.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're banning the wrong guns (Score:2)
If we were going to ban guns as a public safety measure, we really should start with handguns - they don't look nearly as scary, but are responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths. And that holds true even if you only look at gun deaths caused by mass-shooters who own an "assault rifle". Handguns are after all a weapon specifically designed for killing civilians in urban environments in the most convenient manner possible.
Assault rifles and their kin on the other hand are optimized for killin
Re: (Score:2)
There's really no reason why both of them shouldn't be looked into. Yet one person can only focus on so many things.
Re: (Score:2)
Full on autonomy is a pipe dream.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
It's out there and it's going to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I bought a car recently.
It has 'frontal collision avoidance' and 'speed limit reader' built in. It does that with a bit of lidar and a bit of camera work. Actually pretty cool CS wise.
The car companies have a real issue on their hands. Sun and temperature blindness. Twice already my car has freaked out and went into an error mode. The temp on the dashboard was easily over 120f (~50c) (the camera is behind the driver mirror). The camera freaked out and just stopped working. All of the other cameras th
Re: (Score:2)
Who is using lidar now? I thought everyone is still using only cameras, radar and sonar. Also as I understand it, part of the issue with tesla/mobileye is elon does not think lidar is necessary. I think he is wrong, and believe if the current systems had lidar, there would have been no death in florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shit post. (Score:5, Insightful)
Two humans and one computer failed to avoid the collision. One human was at fault for failing to yield to oncoming traffic. Fatal accidents involving left hand turns are common.
About 100 people die every day on US roads. Beyond regretting that yet another person failed to yield while turning left in front of traffic and it resulted in a death what, exactly are we supposed to care about regarding that particular accident?
I don't know how many lives would be saved with autonomous vehicles, I only know that about 30,000 deaths a year on the roads are caused by human errors. Far more accidents involving serious injuries and billions of dollars in damage also occur each year due to human errors.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
One human was at fault for failing to yield to oncoming traffic.
100% Wrong. The truck was completely in the right. The road was completely clear of traffic when the truck made its turn. The moron in the lemon was speeding [latimes.com].
Re:Shit post. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The autopilot did not break any law. The driver broke a law. If we can't get simple things like that correct, there is no way to have a logical conversation or debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shit post. (Score:5, Informative)
The driver sets the maximum speed when they activate the autopilot, in much the same way as you set the speed when you use cruise control on any other car. Or are you saying speeding isn't the responsibility of any driver if they're using cruise control to break the limit?
Autopilot will slow down if there is traffic ahead, otherwise it travels at the speed set by the driver.
-- Pete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Really, many cars today "know" the speed limit. A friend's nissan versa tells her when the car is exceeding the limit. So shouldn't auto-pilot obey the limit automatically, which even econoboxes can somehow figure out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That speed information comes via road map data. It's usually correct (say 95%+) but it can be wrong. I would certainly use it for a suggested guideline (like auto coloring the speedometer readout or posting a gentle audible alert).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shit post. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
What does lidar give you that radar doesn't? Serious question.
Far better resolution, for one thing. Radar is limited to the resolution obtainable by the radar frequency which, no matter how high it is, is lower than that of lidar. All things being equal, higher frequency means higher resolution. It also usually means less range and greater reflection vs. absorption.
Re: (Score:2)
A LIDAR can give you a higher resolution view due to its much smaller beamwidth. The RADAR pretty much gives you distance and velocity to things in front of it, it can't distinguish an overhead road sign from the broad side of a semi.
LIDAR is affected more by fog, rain and smoke in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is working on making the radar create a sparse point cloud for their next software update. Lidar makes a much more detailed point cloud. However, lidar can be blocked by snow and rain, whereas radar is less affected by these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Google.
It's a short list. AC is clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
It has 'frontal collision avoidance' and 'speed limit reader' built in. It does that with a bit of lidar and a bit of camera work. Actually pretty cool CS wise.
First, you don't really have LIDAR in your car, not really.
The car companies aren't putting in the good stuff just yet, when they are able to at a reasonable price, this will all change...
It is worth noting that a real LIDAR unit costs more than a Tesla does...
Re:Shit post. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all convinced that anything will change. Car companies have to be forced by the government to spend $5 on seat belts, they're always going to be looking for the absolute minimum cost to produce economy/midrange vehicles and full automation will never fit into that.
Today there is hardly such a thing as an "economy" vehicle. The reason the average new car cost has risen to $30,000 is because much like cell phones, they're packed with dozens of "standard" features we never really even asked for.
And the overall cost of a car will become irrelevant once the concept of ownership becomes obsolete. Which it will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ownership won't become obsolete until automated car companies can have a car in your driveway five minutes before you open your front door. If people have to wait for a car they'd rather use their own.
I'd "rather" not have to drive a car at all, and call for a chauffeur every morning to drive me to work. The reason millions of people don't have their own personal chauffeurs is the same exact reason car ownership will become obsolete and fairly quickly. You won't be able to afford it.
When autonomy is proven to be orders of magnitude safer than having a meatsack behind the wheel, insurance rates will adjust accordingly. Sure, you can choose to spend $2,000/month on human-powered car insurance for the p
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I would expect insurance for autonomous cars would drop to around $50 a year since the human is no longer responsible or able to control for anything that happens in a truly autonomous car. Insurance will protect the value of the property and nothing that may happen with it. Passenger not liable.
Re: (Score:2)
That's perfectly fine. But it will probably be more expensive than on-demand or pre-scheduled transportation services once self-driving cars are a reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shit post. (Score:4, Interesting)
LIDAR is likely not the best tool for self-driving cars. It has problems in snow and rain. Radar and video are likely better, especially radar that makes a sparse point cloud, as Tesla's is going to do in the next update.
Re: (Score:2)
LIDAR is fine in the snow/rain, it is all about having the right set of wavelengths...
A cheap unit isn't going to have that flexible of a sensor, but the good ones will.
Consider that a proper LIDAR can pickup speed bumps and potholes from 10,000 feet in the air, or buried IEDs from closer in... but they cost several hundred thousand dollars...
From 200 feet away rain and snow aren't going to cause them any issues.
But you are not going to put a $250,000 LIDAR unit on a $100,000 Tesla, now are you? :)
The $500
Tesla decided to stop using Mobileye (Score:5, Interesting)
To quote Elon Musk:
“This was expected and will not have any material effect on our plans. MobilEye’s ability to evolve its technology is unfortunately negatively affected by having to support hundreds of models from legacy auto companies, resulting in a very high engineering drag coefficient. Tesla is laser-focused on achieving full self-driving capability on one integrated platform with an order of magnitude greater safety than the average manually driven car.”
This sounds quite reasonable to me. Tesla wants to go faster than anyone else in autopilot. Mobileye starts selling its chips to many car-makers. Mobileye is unwilling to make a special chip only for Tesla. Tesla then decides to come up with their own solution, using their in house chip expertise as well as possibly other companies' products (Nvidia perhaps?). This post is a subtle troll on Tesla.
Re: (Score:1)
oh but then you would think mobileye would have just said that tesla is dropping them. not the other way around...
what it looks to me is simply that Tesla was misusing the components they supplied and don't want the liability from the risks that tesla is taking. both sides doublespeak is basically just saying that same thing.
huuundreds of legacy cars, well, they all have the same speeds and components roughly. there's just a few cars that have motors to steer though.
mobileye doesn't want the liabili
Re: (Score:2)
resulting in a very high engineering drag coefficient
Eccentric billionaires... why must they use confounding jargon to say simple things!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. If Musk really had felt that way he'd have never approached a third party to begin with.
Try this idea on: He didn't have the engineering resources to do rapidly what he could get rapidly by buying someone else's solution, so he hired engineers and bought someone else's solution at the same time so that he could come to market in a timely fashion. Now he's done that, and he doesn't need any new tech from Mobileye; all he needs from them is parts and patches, which they've committed to delivering. The next generation of vehicle will have their in-house solution.