Slate CEO talks accessories, third party parts, Slate Marketplace (TechCrunch interview)

[Lynx]

On the other hand, I cannot fathom giving away responsibility for control of an automobile and leaving it to the software and cameras. I would find that fatiguing. And I used to drive 80 miles one way (about 1 hr. 45 min. to my office every day with 35 miles of it in N. Virginia traffic).

That totally makes sense! I think the only reason I'm so comfortable with it in my case is that I have experience in the field of software development, and specific experience with training autonomous driving models. I will be the first to tell you that you should not just blindly trust the technology, but since I know its limits fairly well and since I have an in-depth knowledge of how it works, I'm definitely much more comfortable with it than I otherwise would be.

Sidenote: I've lived in Northern VA in the past, and you're right, the traffic is no joke! Sorry you had to commute through that, I would not wish that upon my worst enemy.

 

[cadblu]

It is important to Slate to avoid any patent infringement issues. The CEO would be aware of any concerns. What this says is that Slate designed this vehicle to avoid them.

For example, a famous Tesla patent that I am aware of is around the Octovalve. This may be part of the reason Slate does not use a heat pump. I am sure there are other examples.

Remember, the mantra at Slate, per Barman, is "fast, frugal and scrappy." Slate is not exactly overflowing in cash and must avoid any legal hassles, at least until they get up and running. They even removed desks from trash bins to setup a makeshift office in the early startup days. They need to remain conservative, frugal, minimize capital expenditures, and stay focused on the brass ring, full scale production.

 

[E90400K]

That totally makes sense! I think the only reason I'm so comfortable with it in my case is that I have experience in the field of software development, and specific experience with training autonomous driving models. I will be the first to tell you that you should not just blindly trust the technology, but since I know its limits fairly well and since I have an in-depth knowledge of how it works, I'm definitely much more comfortable with it than I otherwise would be.

Sidenote: I've lived in Northern VA in the past, and you're right, the traffic is no joke! Sorry you had to commute through that, I would not wish that upon my worst enemy.

I'm no stranger to automation software development and systems that work with such software. I worked for nearly 30 years in systems integration engineering in a business management roll. Safety of life systems and in the transportation sector for the last 15 years of my career. With no disrespect intended, I just don't think the maturity is there. At least not for my comfort level.

 

[KevinRS]

You just can't do like some have done to their regret in teslas and leave it all up to the car.
Adaptive cruise control, which seems like it would just require software if the truck is going to have cameras for the soon to be mandated pedestrian detection and braking, means less accidents happening when traffic abruptly slows the second you are glancing in the mirror, even for responsible drivers.
Lane keeping assist usually starts with warning you when you get too close to the lines without your turn signal on, then may actively move the wheel, but it doesn't replace your hands on the wheel.
These systems are usually combined with sensors to make sure you do have your hands on the wheel, and that you are looking forward, and not down at a phone or something.

 

[E90400K]

I'll cite two examples of system/software immaturity. I had a 2021 BMW 128i as a loaner. Turning into the left turn lane at a traffic light controlled intersection around mid-March of 2021 the BMW abruptly directed me back into the lane I was turning out of. The system mistook the sand/gravel and trash (left over from winter road treatments) in the left turn lane as the shoulder of the road and decided to return the car back into the lane I had previously been traveling in. I was using the turn signal correctly. The road was a dual 2-lane roadway in a city setting with a grass median bordered by square concrete curbing. The car was wrong.

The second incident was in my 2022 Bronco that has crash detection; it does not have lane keeping. I live on a rural road, in a forest, that follows along a river in the mountains. Fishermen park at various spots on the side of the road to fish. On occasion the Bronco will mistake parked cars as objects in my path and will fire up the warning chimes and begin to apply the brakes. The first time it happened I was "WTFF is happening" as I was trying to process what information the Bronco saw that I didn't, which it took as an object I was about to collide with. The car was wrong.

Unlike most people, I pay strict attention when I'm driving. Sorry, but I can drive my vehicles better than a computer and camera.

 

[Bayfire2441]

I'll cite two examples of system/software immaturity. I had a 2021 BMW 128i as a loaner. Turning into the left turn lane at a traffic light controlled intersection around mid-March of 2021 the BMW abruptly directed me back into the lane I was turning out of. The system mistakened the sand/ gravel and trash (left over from winter road treatments) in the left turn lane as the shoulder of the road and decided to return the car back into the lane I had previously been traveling in. I was using the turn signal correctly. The road was a dual 2-lane roadway in a city setting with a grass median bordered by square concrete curbing. The car was wrong.

The second incident was in my 2022 Bronco that has crash detection; it does not have lane keeping. I live on a rural road, tree lined, that follows along a river. Fishermen park at various spots on the side of the road to fish. On occasion the Bronco will mistake parked cars as objects in my path and will fire up the warning chimes and begin to apply the brakes. The first time it happened I was WTFF is happening as I was trying to process what information the Bronco saw that I didn't, which it took as an object I was about to collide with. The car was wrong.

Unlike most people, I pay strict attention when I'm driving. Sorry, but I can drive my vehicles better than a computer and camera.

I would like to say that, while I don't actively use my cars lane keep and adaptive cruise as much anymore, I have never had an issue with it acting incorrectly. It all depends on the software. However, I don't think its worth Slate's time to even consider anything in this department that isn't federally regulated. Let the aftermarket handle it if at all, that is one of the things the Slate is made for after all.

 

[E90400K]

I would like to say that, while I don't actively use my cars lane keep and adaptive cruise as much anymore, I have never had an issue with it acting incorrectly. It all depends on the software. However, I don't think its worth Slate's time to even consider anything in this department that isn't federally regulated. Let the aftermarket handle it if at all, that is one of the things the Slate is made for after all.

If for anything, Slate needs to minimize its exposure to liability. None of this tech is necessary.

 

[RetiredOnPaper]

I'm sorry, but people want manual rollup windows and autonomous driving capability?

Really?

Yes, and I like the cab as plain as possible. All I want it easy access to 12 VDC (and not just using (lighter plugs). If I wanted a show piece pick up, I would get that. I need a work truck to haul a couple of bails of straw, bags of dirt, rocks, shovels, paint, cement, trash...stuff you wouldn't want around a $80K pick up. I will wire up my own "entertainment system". I need music to keep me focused on driving. If I want a concert hall sound...I will go to a concert hall.

 

[E90400K]

Yes, and I like the cab as plain as possible. All I want it easy access to 12 VDC (and not just using (lighter plugs). If I wanted a show piece pick up, I would get that. I need a work truck to haul a couple of bails of straw, bags of dirt, rocks, shovels, paint, cement, trash...stuff you wouldn't want around a $80K pick up. I will wire up my own "entertainment system". I need music to keep me focused on driving. If I want a concert hall sound...I will go to a concert hall.

But autonomous driving brings a whole up-level in technology the Slate with its BYOD platform just doesn't support. Autonomous driving brings a larger more in-depth sensor suite, a big increase in computer processing, and vast R&D to integrate it, which Slate has emphatically said it will not do because it drives the cost way up.

The manual windows meme is the statement-piece of Slate's anti-tech, low-cost market position. The two just seem quite oxymoronic in my view.

Yeah, I hope Slate has several 12VDC taps that use some standard/common 12VDC connector from AMP or other OEM suppliers that it provides as pigtail leads or at least a pin kit.

 

[Lynx]

I'll cite two examples of system/software immaturity. I had a 2021 BMW 128i as a loaner. Turning into the left turn lane at a traffic light controlled intersection around mid-March of 2021 the BMW abruptly directed me back into the lane I was turning out of. The system mistook the sand/gravel and trash (left over from winter road treatments) in the left turn lane as the shoulder of the road and decided to return the car back into the lane I had previously been traveling in. I was using the turn signal correctly. The road was a dual 2-lane roadway in a city setting with a grass median bordered by square concrete curbing. The car was wrong.

The second incident was in my 2022 Bronco that has crash detection; it does not have lane keeping. I live on a rural road, in a forest, that follows along a river in the mountains. Fishermen park at various spots on the side of the road to fish. On occasion the Bronco will mistake parked cars as objects in my path and will fire up the warning chimes and begin to apply the brakes. The first time it happened I was "WTFF is happening" as I was trying to process what information the Bronco saw that I didn't, which it took as an object I was about to collide with. The car was wrong.

I mean no disrespect, but both examples actually highlight known limitations of current driver-assist systems rather than proving that lane keeping technology is unsafe. Lane Keeping Assist systems are designed primarily for structured, multi-lane highways with clear markings and gentle curves. In your BMW example, you were at an intersection with debris and complex lane geometry — exactly the kind of environment where LKA is known to struggle. The system wasn’t “wrong” so much as operating outside its intended use case. Knowing its limitations, and where it performs best, I only engage LKA in my car when driving on multi-lane highways without traffic lights and in good weather conditions, where I am simply trying to stay in my lane and maintain a constant speed, not doing any kind of traffic maneuvers. When using it in these situations, I've experienced zero issues.

As for your Bronco example, that involves forward collision detection, which is a completely different system from lane keeping. Its purpose is to warn or brake for potential obstacles ahead, not to maintain lane position. Mixing the two together makes it hard to evaluate either system fairly. In short, these incidents don’t show system immaturity—they show the importance of using each driver-assist feature in the conditions it was designed for.

Unlike most people, I pay strict attention when I'm driving. Sorry, but I can drive my vehicles better than a computer and camera.

To be clear, when I activate LKA I don't just let the car drive itself. I always keep my hands on the wheel and my attention on the road. In fact, my car will not allow LKA to be active unless my hands are on the wheel. The current state of the technology in most cars is not meant to operate fully autonomously, but rather it is supposed to be heavily supervised, and in most cases drivers are advised to be paying full attention and be ready to take over at a moments notice.

I find it most helpful for me, not in that it drives the car by itself, but rather it makes all the micro steering wheel adjustments to keep the car centered in the lane much easier. Even when driving straight on the highway, the car will naturally slowly drift out of the lane unless I am constantly making very tiny steering adjustments to keep it centered. I find that the LKA in my car can handle these adjustments incredibly well, and it allows me to simply keep my hands on the wheel and my attention on the road and get less fatigued while driving long distances.

 

[Lynx]

But autonomous driving brings a whole up-level in technology the Slate with its BYOD platform just doesn't support. Autonomous driving brings a larger more in-depth sensor suite, a big increase in computer processing, and vast R&D to integrate it, which Slate has emphatically said it will not do because it drives the cost way up.

The manual windows meme is the statement-piece of Slate's anti-tech, low-cost market position. The two just seem quite oxymoronic in my view.

For me I would not want full autonomous driving, but rather just Lane Keeping Assist. My sixth gen honda cr-v is able to provide well-performing LKA via a single front facing camera. The Slate already has the front-facing camera hardware equipped behind the rear-view mirror in order to meet its safety requirements, so I just think it would be cool to allow us to utilize that camera for after-market upgrades if we wanted to. They sell kits such OpenPilot that allow people to add this functionality to their car themselves, and I think it would be cool if this was possible with the Slate.

However, I completely agree that if Slate wanted to offer their own LKA/ACC system it would definitely not fit in with their budget oriented approach. And as a buyer I would definitely prefer lower cost over more driving features on the stock car. I simply think it would be cool to offer the ability for after market integrations maybe once they have established themselves as a company and are preparing future models.

 

[E90400K]

I mean no disrespect, but both examples actually highlight known limitations of current driver-assist systems rather than proving that lane keeping technology is unsafe. Lane Keeping Assist systems are designed primarily for structured, multi-lane highways with clear markings and gentle curves. In your BMW example, you were at an intersection with debris and complex lane geometry — exactly the kind of environment where LKA is known to struggle. The system wasn’t “wrong” so much as operating outside its intended use case. Knowing its limitations, and where it performs best, I only engage LKA in my car when driving on multi-lane highways without traffic lights and in good weather conditions, where I am simply trying to stay in my lane and maintain a constant speed, not doing any kind of traffic maneuvers. When using it in these situations, I've experienced zero issues.

As for your Bronco example, that involves forward collision detection, which is a completely different system from lane keeping. Its purpose is to warn or brake for potential obstacles ahead, not to maintain lane position. Mixing the two together makes it hard to evaluate either system fairly. In short, these incidents don’t show system immaturity—they show the importance of using each driver-assist feature in the conditions it was designed for.



To be clear, when I activate LKA I don't just let the car drive itself. I always keep my hands on the wheel and my attention on the road. In fact, my car will not allow LKA to be active unless my hands are on the wheel. The current state of the technology in most cars is not meant to operate fully autonomously, but rather it is supposed to be heavily supervised, and in most cases drivers are advised to be paying full attention and be ready to take over at a moments notice.

I find it most helpful for me, not in that it drives the car by itself, but rather it makes all the micro steering wheel adjustments to keep the car centered in the lane much easier. Even when driving straight on the highway, the car will naturally slowly drift out of the lane unless I am constantly making very tiny steering adjustments to keep it centered. I find that the LKA in my car can handle these adjustments incredibly well, and it allows me to simply keep my hands on the wheel and my attention on the road and get less fatigued while driving long distances.

I see it as system immaturity regardless if it is lane keeping or collision avoidance.

In the case of the BMW I was intentionally changing lanes into a left turn only lane at a traffic intersection controlled by a traffic light and I had the left turn signal on. The condition of the left only turn lane was marred by the left-over road treatment detritus accumulated in the not-often-used left turn lane. As the human driver, I did not make an error as I knew my intentions for using that particular section of roadway. Thank God no one was directly behind me in the through lane I moved out of or an accident would have occurred. You infer I was not using the technology correctly, " Lane Keeping Assist systems are designed primarily for structured, multi-lane highways with clear markings and gentle curves. In your BMW example, you were at an intersection with debris and complex lane geometry — exactly the kind of environment where LKA is known to struggle." Well, my response is the car was a loaner and my first time in such a vehicle equipped with the lane-keeping technology (I didn't even know it had the technology) - I've been driving BMWs for 30 years prior to that point in 2021. Am I supposed to read the entire operators manual before I drive the car when I have deadlines to get to my office as soon as I can? If the technology is going to be used in the car as a driver assist aid it needs to be infallible; it did not assist me, it fucked up.

Regarding the Bronco, I have the crash avoidance system turned to its lowest sensitivity setting. I can turn it off, but then it leaves an icon illuminated in the gauge cluster, which is annoying. I live in a rural area on a river, which the single-lane road I live on traces the topographical contours of the river. Last I checked, the Bronco is an off-road vehicle intended to be driven in such rural areas. If the crash avoidance technology can't differentiate between a parked car (on the right-hand side of the road) in a wooded setting and falsely warns the driver of an impending collision, then the technology is immature. Again, as a driver's aid, it fucked up.

In both cases, if I have to override the technology because "it has known limitations", then it's immature technology. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

[ScooterAsheville]

I saw a statistic from GM last week that blew my mind. SuperCruise has driven 700 million miles without an accident. As a Boomer with fading vision and reaction time, that works for me.

https://insideevs.com/news/776467/gm-super-cruise-users-zero-crashes/

Yea, I get it. This is on mapped highways, not back roads. But in 2028 I can get in my car, get it to the nearest highway, watch a movie, and get notified to take control 4 hours and 4 states later? Yea baby!

 

[Lynx]

I see it as system immaturity regardless if it is lane keeping or collision avoidance.
In the case of the BMW I was intentionally changing lanes into a left turn only lane at a traffic intersection controlled by a traffic light and I had the left turn signal on. The condition of the left only turn lane was marred by the left-over road treatment detritus accumulated in the not-often-used left turn lane. As the human driver, I did not make an error as I knew my intentions for using that particular section of roadway. Thank God no one was directly behind me in the through lane I moved out of or an accident would have occurred. You infer I was not using the technology correctly, " Lane Keeping Assist systems are designed primarily for structured, multi-lane highways with clear markings and gentle curves. In your BMW example, you were at an intersection with debris and complex lane geometry — exactly the kind of environment where LKA is known to struggle." Well, my response is the car was a loaner and my first time in such a vehicle equipped with the lane-keeping technology (I didn't even know it had the technology) - I've been driving BMWs for 30 years prior to that point in 2021. Am I supposed to read the entire operators manual before I drive the car when I have deadlines to get to my office as soon as I can? If the technology is going to be used in the car as a driver assist aid it needs to be infallible; it did not assist me, it fucked up.
In both cases, if I have to override the technology because "it has known limitations", then it's immature technology. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

That's an interesting perspective, I suppose I just see it differently.

The only reason I inferred that you would know the limits of the technology and its intended use environments was because you said "I'm no stranger to automation software development and systems that work with such software. I worked for nearly 30 years in systems integration engineering in a business management roll. Safety of life systems and in the transportation sector for the last 15 years of my career." I assumed from this that you would have a robust understanding of the limits of the technology and its intended use environments.

"Am I supposed to read the entire operator's manual before I drive the car when I have deadlines to get to my office as soon as I can?" When driving a motor vehicle on public roads, you are responsible for being able to safely operate that vehicle and avoid putting others in danger, regardless of if you are in a rush to get somewhere. If you need to read the entire operator's manual before driving the vehicle in order to safely operate it, then so be it.

As far as the technology being "immature" because it has known limitations, that would mean that every single part of a car is “immature”. Anti-lock brakes (ABS) have known limitations and cannot instantaneously stop a moving vehicle. The technology is “immature”. The traction control system (TCS) has known limitations and does not guarantee you to gain traction every time you use it. The technology is “immature”. The Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) has known limitations and does not guarantee the car will follow your intended path of steering. The technology is “immature”. I think you get my point that this line of thinking could apply to everything.

If the choice is to not include any of these systems because they are not “infallible”, or to include them with instructions on how to use them and the ability to disable them if desired, then I would choose the latter. I think we fundamentally disagree on this choice, and I see no benefit to arguing further on what is ultimately a matter of individual preference, so I will simply rest my case here.

At the end of the day, it’s nice that we both appreciate what the Slate truck brings to the table, and I’m sure it’ll serve us both well.

 

[E90400K]

That's an interesting perspective, I suppose I just see it differently.

The only reason I inferred that you would know the limits of the technology and its intended use environments was because you said "I'm no stranger to automation software development and systems that work with such software. I worked for nearly 30 years in systems integration engineering in a business management roll. Safety of life systems and in the transportation sector for the last 15 years of my career." I assumed from this that you would have a robust understanding of the limits of the technology and its intended use environments.

"Am I supposed to read the entire operator's manual before I drive the car when I have deadlines to get to my office as soon as I can?" When driving a motor vehicle on public roads, you are responsible for being able to safely operate that vehicle and avoid putting others in danger, regardless of if you are in a rush to get somewhere. If you need to read the entire operator's manual before driving the vehicle in order to safely operate it, then so be it.

As far as the technology being "immature" because it has known limitations, that would mean that every single part of a car is “immature”. Anti-lock brakes (ABS) have known limitations and cannot instantaneously stop a moving vehicle. The technology is “immature”. The traction control system (TCS) has known limitations and does not guarantee you to gain traction every time you use it. The technology is “immature”. The Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) has known limitations and does not guarantee the car will follow your intended path of steering. The technology is “immature”. I think you get my point that this line of thinking could apply to everything.

If the choice is to not include any of these systems because they are not “infallible”, or to include them with instructions on how to use them and the ability to disable them if desired, then I would choose the latter. I think we fundamentally disagree on this choice, and I see no benefit to arguing further on what is ultimately a matter of individual preference, so I will simply rest my case here.

At the end of the day, it’s nice that we both appreciate what the Slate truck brings to the table, and I’m sure it’ll serve us both well.

"'Am I supposed to read the entire operator's manual before I drive the car when I have deadlines to get to my office as soon as I can?' When driving a motor vehicle on public roads, you are responsible for being able to safely operate that vehicle and avoid putting others in danger, regardless of if you are in a rush to get somewhere. If you need to read the entire operator's manual before driving the vehicle in order to safely operate it, then so be it."

Seriously NO ONE does that. LOL. If the technology has limitations, then the default setting should be inactive and let the operator decide when to activate it. But "crash avoidance" being deactivated as it's home setting it pretty much pointless.