Quick Look At The Chinese Bet On The Future: The LeEco LeSEE (Images/Videos)

JUL 3 2016 BY MARK KANE 33

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

One of the more interesting plug-in premieres earlier this year at the 2016 Auto China in Beijing was the LeEco LeSEE concept.  

The Chinese company LeEco (formerly known as Letv) intends to combine its Internet and technology business with electric cars (using sister-outfit, Faraday Future in the U.S. to outsource part of the developments).

After compiling new launch videos and picture from Beijing (below), we figured it was a good time to pass them along, and re-visit the offering.

The LeSEE is to be both an autonomous and self-learning car…that oh, by the way, doesn’t look too bad at all.

In theory according to the company, all you would need to do is sit back and enjoy the content, streamed by LeEco (of course) on  all the displays inside while you get to where you are going.

Video below: Live debut and walk-through of the LeSEE by LeECo:

Below:  Full LeSEE launch gallery + bonus vids from event

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

LeEco LeSEE

Categories: General

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

33 Comments on "Quick Look At The Chinese Bet On The Future: The LeEco LeSEE (Images/Videos)"

newest oldest most voted

Meh.

At least it doesn’t look as stupid as Faraday’s batmobile.

this car looks decent

I couldn’t care less about autonomous driving, just get the electric cars in production.

Why don’t you care about autonomous driving? It’s going to save a lot of lives and it might get a lot of people in electric cars. Also it will make long distance road trips and traffic jam commutes more bareable. Maybe you just want a basic car that goes 200 miles for 20k, but there are people who want a bit more from a car. Also the insurance cost on non-autonomous cars might be very expensive. So all together, while it might not look like something you need right now, if a new company wants to develop cool zero emission vehicles they better try to create autonomous cars or they’ll be out of business soon.

That’s not my point of view at all.
Safety systems like abs, automatic braking, sleeping driver alert, even full car airbag, OK, but trying to force feed autonomous driverless cars on people that don’t want it is completely different. Nasty tactics like the insurance trick you suggest would bring us one step closer to Orwellian dictatorship. That’s not what we want from cars, we want electric vehicles but we also want to remain master on board. If you find people willing to go the autonomous car way on a voluntary basis, that’s fine, but not if you try to impose it.

Gun laws aren’t stopping democrat voters from stealing guns. Self driving cars won’t stop Teslas from crashing into trucks.

Yep, definitely ‘conservative logic’.

Sadly the terms themselves are mutually exclusive.

smile, but feeding trolls is counterproductive?

True, but they actually have to understand what you are saying.

Imho autonomous driving will make owning a car obsolete for the majority of people.

Interesting opinion, autonomous driving will result in less sales? Elaborate…

True autonomous driving will result in lower sales. A family wouldn’t need multiple cars because you could have a car leave one location and go to another. Your son/daughter wouldn’t need a car in high school because it could just leave your work and take them to the mall/home and be back to pick you up from work.

There is a reason the large automakers are investing in Lyft and Uber.

Agreed. Sales will drop. As people realize they aren’t needed, they will egotistically shift back to bicycles, horses, etc to have something to do. And that’s exactly what the obama administration wants – decay not growth.

Con, you sound mentally ill. You should get that checked out or it will eat out your soul if it hasn’t already.

You are trolling of course but I’ll bite. With fully autonomous cars you can just order a car from a car pool, just like you would order a taxi but since there is no driver (and in lesser part because it’s run on cheap electricity) it will be much cheaper to use. So cheap that it won’t make financial sense to own your own car

Holy crap! Are you even remotely serious?! Presidents usually want to reside over improving economic circumstances under their watch. That requires some form of cooperation and action from the congress!

The fact that this particular president, according to “conservatives”, is hell bent on “Destroying America”, has led to the sacking of nearly every moderate republican and the hiring of the most reactionary brand of politicians since the Dixiecrats, who by the way, are republican now.

You needn’t worry though, it worked. No further work got or is getting done with this congress while he is in office.

Dependence on the government can only happen if growth is vilified.

Actually, a good argument can be made that “growth” is what has spawned dependence on the government. The attempt at unrestrained private property rights with wild speculative growth brought Gilded Age America a disastrous cycle of financial collapses about once a decade, a migration of farmers to cities, the countless private abuses of safe water and food and workplaces there, the occasional butchery of workers by private armies, and an explosion of immigration to keep labor markets cheap. This undermined the conservative argument that private property represented social stability. It is no coincidence that “the closing of the frontier” was accompanied by exploding tensions among the rural and urban poor; no more Indian land to steal meant that people turned upon each other in a death struggle for profits versus wages. But once constant growth was necessary to keep rich and poor from slaughtering each other in the resulting rat race, it was inevitable that the government was going to get stuck dealing with speculative bubbles. The failure of banking oligarchs to stave off the Panic of 1907 proved that the rich could not regulate themselves. That undermined their claim to be able to fairly price anything else, like labor.… Read more »

This is obvious attempt to get hit with the Ban-Hammer, in record time. Unbeknownst to the OP (CL). If there really is such a thing. Clearly not on display here.

Use your head, if your car drives itself why do you need one?

Maybe. But people used to own autonomous horses.

Lidar on the roof? How is that going to work in snowing conditions?

Autonomous vehicles (cars and pods) will eliminate the need for ownership, public transit as we know it, eliminate 80% of the vehicles on the highway and 80% of the parking. Eliminate 90% of all accidents. Imagine no possession, I wonder if you can. John Lennon.

I will only buy Chinese cars. Why should I sit here unemployed in America in 2016 if I’m willing to assemble cars for $1 an hour? It’s my business if thats the wage I’m wiling to earn. It’s not the governments right to decide I need an impossibly high “minimum” wage. That’s why people are unemployed in the first place! Jobs went where labor was affordable! We need to return to free market economics without subsidies for the deadbeats. Business tax incentives are different, they are not welfare. They are passed on to the consumer not absorbed by shareholders or in the ghetto mama’s weave bill.

Hmmm… The obligatory racial reference. Here I was thinking you’d be a different conservative!(rolls eyes)

Listen, it is absolutely government’s job to affect labor and monetary policy. The welfare(no, not that “welfare”) of its citizenry requires it. A stable, vibrant work force(which we’ve been losing at an alarming rate) earning a decent wage, has long been a strength of America’s economic prowess.

Now, even though our economy has moved toward ‘corporate largesse and catering mostly to those with ‘access’, the (weakened) middle class still trods on.
At least it will as long as we don’t implement any of the ‘let’s be Somalia’ policies conservatives are espousing.

$1 an hour is better than NO $ per hour. Right or wrong? You can’t feed families with ideals and “should be”.

That’s some binary thinking, I must say. The abilility to earn a living wage, so that one can function, at least nominally in a society, was a long hard fought battle.

It was fought by previous generations to secure a better future for themselves and their children. Many of the things we’ve come to take for granted, like decent workplace conditions and at least nominal wage, are the results of those efforts.

They realized that our political system allows sufficient numbers to combat even extremely large sums of money, provided they got together and voted. They were able to affect the narrative through sheer numbers, so didn’t need to SETTLE only for what they could get.

Labor markets are connected. If you cut the wages of manufacturing workers to $1 an hour, or eliminate all government jobs, that gives employers in other industries more leverage to cut the wages of their workers, because they have no survivable options. The Great Depression proved Keynes’ prediction that markets would not magically balance once more and more workers were bankrupted and thus unable to buy goods to restart the economy. This has also been the experience with “austerity” in Latin America and Europe, which is basically your own primitive Spenserian savagery disguised in fancier words.

I’m perfectly willing to assemble cars for $1 right here in America. Because eating is something I must do and sitting around waiting for jobs to come back is something I can’t do.

But minimum wages and environmental laws mean I have no freedom to contribute to society in a market based way. I must now depend on the government for my existence. Just as the left planned.

Hence, I will only buy Chinese made cars. Because that’s all that will be available once all the left’s remaining agenda items are crossed off.

Actually, in your particular case I would think the option of eating would be something to consider.

At $1 an hour, you might eat, but your children would starve, and none of you would have a roof over your head. If a tiny handful of investors make trillions of $ off the labor of people like you, then they will engage in real estate speculation so that your rent will never fall enough that you would be able to pay it. The price of food similarly cannot fall enough no matter how much you reduce the wages of the people who labor to produce it – many of them are already illegally making less than minimum wage, yet the food isn’t significantly cheaper.

I’d like to add my vote to Not offering attention to the desperate..
Hone those scroll skills, they will serve you well, here (scroll past This, for instance, lol)