Chevy Spark EV 90 miles range @100 kph

Max Power1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One of the CAR magazine guys was complaining recently that his Volvo has some sort of emergency brake accident-avoiding gadget which got confused and did an emergency stop in traffic when the driver in front pulled a (perfectly safe) U turn. But yes, he was able to turn the system off.

But you used to be able to turn off ABS and ESP/traction control when they were introduced, now not true on many cars.

You can turn off those aids

Both of which are driver aids alone, they are not even in the same league as being a passenger in a driverless car. To say otherwise is lunacy

Zubeneschamali

Matt Simis wrote: »

Driver aids, as in they help the act of actively driving, are not comparable to autonomous self navigating vehicles. Such systems can only work in an all or nothing mode, not in a world which also features real drivers and cars, cyclists, pedestrians, tractors, dogs and sheep etc.

I disagree: the shift from a car you drive to a car that drives you will be gradual, and it has already started.

Before we have a fully self-driving car, we'll have a car which can self-drive in limited situations, like on the Motorway, but not on a back-road (new S-Class). Likely these cars will also have a self-parking system, and a version of cruise control for stop-start town traffic.

The new S-Class also has infra-red cameras which can tell the difference between a human running out in front of you and a dog, and will emergency-brake for the human.

Mercedes invented emergency brake-assist 20 years ago because people seldom brake hard enough in emergencies. Volvo now has systems which brake without driver input.

There really is no hard line between driver assistance and self-drive systems - one will grow out of the other.

djimi

Matt Simis wrote: »

Driver aids, as in they help the act of actively driving, are not comparable to autonomous self navigating vehicles. Such systems can only work in an all or nothing mode, not in a world which also features real drivers and cars, cyclists, pedestrians, tractors, dogs and sheep etc.

This is exactly what I question about the idea of a self driving system in cars. No matter how good the system is, will it ever be able to replicate the awareness of a driver and the reaction time to deal with something like a child running out in front of the car, a cyclist swerving into the middle of the road, the idiot who pulls out of a junction without looking etc?

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

No matter how good the system is, will it ever be able to replicate the awareness of a driver and the reaction time to deal with something like a child running out in front of the car, a cyclist swerving into the middle of the road, the idiot who pulls out of a junction without looking etc?

Human reaction times are complete rubbish even when they are alert. Real humans are often tired, distracted or angry.

As these systems become safer than human drivers, there will be unstoppable pressure to fit and use them to save the lives of children and cuddly animals.

Will they fail and cause accidents sometimes? Yes, but things breaking have always caused accidents.

keithclancy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disagree: the shift from a car you drive to a car that drives you will be gradual, and it has already started.

Before we have a fully self-driving car, we'll have a car which can self-drive in limited situations, like on the Motorway, but not on a back-road (new S-Class). Likely these cars will also have a self-parking system, and a version of cruise control for stop-start town traffic.

The new S-Class also has infra-red cameras which can tell the difference between a human running out in front of you and a dog, and will emergency-brake for the human.

Mercedes invented emergency brake-assist 20 years ago because people seldom brake hard enough in emergencies. Volvo now has systems which brake without driver input.

There really is no hard line between driver assistance and self-drive systems - one will grow out of the other.

What about the feature of:

I will slow down because that dude standing at the road up ahead looks fuppin crazy and may dive on the bonnet.

Or for example knowing that its not a good idea to overtake a truck up ahead because when he swings in to turn a corner he'll pinch you between himself and the kerb/lamp post.

Or even knowing that if someone stops suddenly up ahead it might be a better idea to go around rather than jam on the emergency brake since the artic lorry behind you might have more of a problem stopping.

Motorway for sure may be possible, but i think you would need a dedicated lane for 'self drive' with a pass or chip or something that allows access to the lane.

And then what if it stops working, calling the AA because your self drive stopped working ? You'd probably forget how to drive you were like this all the time

unkel

Airplanes can safely take off, fly and land without a pilot touching any controls. They do have a lot of space and enormous margins for error. And they are tightly controlled by ATC. And when it threatens to go wrong there are automated safety procedures in place to avoid any collisions

I can see autonomous cars happening in the near future alright, but it will be slow and limited as it will be far more complicated to avoid collisions among millions of ants on busy roads compared to a few big birds in the sky

djimi

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Human reaction times are complete rubbish even when they are alert. Real humans are often tired, distracted or angry.

As these systems become safer than human drivers, there will be unstoppable pressure to fit and use them to save the lives of children and cuddly animals.

Will they fail and cause accidents sometimes? Yes, but things breaking have always caused accidents.

Humans can see a car approaching from a side road, a cyclist in the distance, a child that looks like it might run out from a garden etc in advance of the incident occuring. Can an automated system show that level of pro-activeness? This is my fear. We see these things because we know what to look for. By the time a system, on a busy road, figures out the danger it may already be too late.

Max Power1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There really is no hard line between driver assistance and self-drive systems - one will grow out of the other.

There is quite a hard line to be fair

One involves a driver and one doesn't

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

Humans can see a car approaching from a side road, a cyclist in the distance, a child that looks like it might run out from a garden etc in advance of the incident occuring. Can an automated system show that level of pro-activeness?

Yes. Not only that, but the systems will be able to look everywhere, 360 degrees, all the time, night or day, rain or shine. And they'll react faster than humanly possible.

Zubeneschamali

Max Power1 wrote: »

One involves a driver and one doesn't

OK, if by "self driving" you mean literally no driver, that's not going to happen soon.

But a car with "driver aids" which can drive me 90% of the way to work and back, handling the accelerator, brake, gears and steering, lights and wipers - that's on sale now if I had the cash for a fully loaded S-Class.

I'd have to drive like a knob, sticking it in the overtaking lane and staying there, since it can't indicate and overtake by changing lanes...

Wait, this could explain a lot! :D:D

Max Power1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

OK, if by "self driving" you mean literally no driver, that's not going to happen soon.

But a car with "driver aids" which can drive me 90% of the way to work and back, handling the accelerator, brake, gears and steering, lights and wipers - that's on sale now if I had the cash for a fully loaded S-Class.

I'd have to drive like a knob, sticking it in the overtaking lane and staying there, since it can't indicate and overtake by changing lanes...

Wait, this could explain a lot! :D:D

No i mean an effective passenger.
IE driver sits in front seat, plugs destination into nav system, selects route and then the car goes.

If this kind of system becomes mandatory for new cars, I'll be sticking to classics!

unkel

unkel wrote: »

Airplanes can safely take off, fly and land without a pilot touching any controls. They do have a lot of space and enormous margins for error. And they are tightly controlled by ATC. And when it threatens to go wrong there are automated safety procedures in place to avoid any collisions

I can see autonomous cars happening in the near future alright, but it will be slow and limited as it will be far more complicated to avoid collisions among millions of ants on busy roads compared to a few big birds in the sky

I thought planes are still in control of pilots during take off, approach and landing ?

keithclancy

unkel wrote: »

Airplanes can safely take off, fly and land without a pilot touching any controls. They do have a lot of space and enormous margins for error. And they are tightly controlled by ATC. And when it threatens to go wrong there are automated safety procedures in place to avoid any collisions

I can see autonomous cars happening in the near future alright, but it will be slow and limited as it will be far more complicated to avoid collisions among millions of ants on busy roads compared to a few big birds in the sky

You mean like that Turkish Airlines flight that ended up crashing into the motorway at Amsterdam ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

On February 25, 2009, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 (Turkish Airlines Flight 1951) crashed about a mile (1500m) short of the runway at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The Dutch Safety Board published preliminary findings only one week after the crash, suggesting the autoland played a key role in downing the plane. According to the Flight Data Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a height of 1950 ft / 595 m, the left Radio Altimeter had been misreporting a height of −8 ft. The autoland system responded accordingly and configured the plane for touchdown, idling the engines. This made the plane lose speed and stall. When the flight crew received stall-warnings, they were already too low and too slow to recover. As a secondary factor, the Safety Board suggested the crew did not have a visual ground reference because of foggy conditions.

The final investigation report was released on 6 May 2010.[6]

Matt Simis

keithclancy wrote: »

You mean like that Turkish Airlines flight that ended up crashing into the motorway at Amsterdam ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Or Air France's attempts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE

But Im sure a fully automated EUR40k car in a crowded, uncontrolled street can do a better job than a IT team backed $70m+ airliner in the open skies.


Auto controlled cars have a future in enhanced Adaptive Cruise control situations, in "road trains" on motorways. Not in City streets or Backroads.

Zubeneschamali

The question is not whether there will be crashes, there are crashes now. The question is will there be more or less crashes than with humans at the controls.

Technology is progressing fast, Nobody can say what will or won't happen, once AI gets to a certain point I'm sure anything is possible.

One things for sure is that anti collision that works at proper motorway speeds would save a lot of heartache on the roads and prevent rear end collisions, that itself has to be something to look forward to.

I'm pretty sure AI will advance to the stage that will make it possible.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The question is not whether there will be crashes, there are crashes now. The question is will there be more or less crashes than with humans at the controls.

Well the google self driving prisus have racked over 300,000 accident free miles, I'm pretty sure that's remarkable for a computer.

Matt Simis

BMW i8 proper launch:
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/bmw-i8-94-mpg-135-000-supercar-arrives-121435451.html

The I8 looks good, but that's about all it's got going for it.

It's not very practical, way too expensive and anyone who can afford it couldn't care less about fuel consumption, so what's the point ?

It's useless as an electric car and pointless as a series hybrid or whatever it is. I bet the fuel consumption will be ****, especially when the battery runs out just like the volt/ampera.

I bet the Model S will sell much, much more.

They could have designed a car to compete with the Model S, or maybe they couldn't ? Tesla have mastered battery pack design, I'm guessing BMW couldn't.

BMW are relying on people buying the Badge, so they will invest less in fully battery vehicles until such time as/if Tesla become a threat.

At the very least the I3 can be purchased with the petrol Generator. At least it's more practical but it will probably cost 35K Euro's with range extender and it's still too expensive.

Take the Spark, at least more practical then the I8 a lot more electric range, 20-22K Euro's (estimated based on U.S price) .

Fast charge for the range you want, I certainly wouldn't pay 12-15K Euro's more for a I3 with range extender when I could live with the fast charge network.

But there is no SAE fast charge network yet.

Max Power1

Matt Simis wrote: »

BMW i8 proper launch:
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/bmw-i8-94-mpg-135-000-supercar-arrives-121435451.html

With 22 miles range of electric only power?

Yes 22 miles, but I bet it will be more like 12. 7 kwh is not a lot.

The engine works with the motor though and acts as a generator. But I seriously doubt it will get anywhere near the claimed NEDC ecomomy once it runs down on battery power from the mains.

It will probably cost close to what 180K Euro's in Ireland ? VRT will be charged, even at the lowest that is still a lot of money on a hugely expensive car. And it won't qualify for the 5k grant thank god !

Idbatterim

http://vrt.ie/vrtDetail.php?page=14

vrt will be 14% I believe. Will be interesting to see what sales are like...

Max Power1

Idbatterim wrote: »

http://vrt.ie/vrtDetail.php?page=14

vrt will be 14% I believe. Will be interesting to see what sales are like...

I would give you two guesses

0 and 0, at that price none will sell here. Not one.

To Be honest I'd rather have Max's 535D !

Another new half breed ev with an ice engine doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

Perhaps the I3 with range extender but it's got an engine defeating the purpose, meaning servicing etc. If it ran on lpg I'd say something.

keithclancy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The question is not whether there will be crashes, there are crashes now. The question is will there be more or less crashes than with humans at the controls.

For sure but then there's the question of Liability.

Why would you even need to be Insured if your not driving ?

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

They could have designed a car to compete with the Model S, or maybe they couldn't ? Tesla have mastered battery pack design, I'm guessing BMW couldn't.

Im not a huge fan of the I8 (or any very expensive but low cost to run product) but Tesla's "win" on Batteries was almost the opposite of the innovation you describe, it was using off the shelf parts and technologies. Obviously BMW R&D could do that, by just copying them, or better it if desired.

You get very hung up on these tiny snapshots of a huge market, lets not forget the actual Car companies, the successful ones (ie Europeans) are commercially vastly more successful than Tesla, with cash reservces, larger R&D, more design resources, heritage and an established Global dealer and support Network. You seem act like cars were invented last week and Tesla are miles ahead.
Investors in Tesla are being reminded its uphill from here.

Idbatterim

I would give you two guesses

0 and 0, at that price none will sell here. Not one.

yeah quite likely, i meant world wide though! Cant wait to hopefully see one here, even if it is in a showroom! I think its the first really futuristic looking car out there in mass production by a mainstream manufacturer, kind of like what people in the 60 or 70's thought we would be driving in the 90's etc, thats my opinion anyway

Idbatterim

with regards to the I8, how come there is no diesel equivalent?

galwaytt

Idbatterim wrote: »

with regards to the I8, how come there is no diesel equivalent?

...'cos the D8 moniker is in use already........

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

Im not a huge fan of the I8 (or any very expensive but low cost to run product) but Tesla's "win" on Batteries was almost the opposite of the innovation you describe, it was using off the shelf parts and technologies. Obviously BMW R&D could do that, by just copying them, or better it if desired.

You get very hung up on these tiny snapshots of a huge market, lets not forget the actual Car companies, the successful ones (ie Europeans) are commercially vastly more successful than Tesla, with cash reservces, larger R&D, more design resources, heritage and an established Global dealer and support Network. You seem act like cars were invented last week and Tesla are miles ahead.
Investors in Tesla are being reminded its uphill from here.

The Germans still couldn't build an EV like the Model S because as you say Tesla chose cell (sizes) i.e 18650 cells that are already in production, but it's not just that it's the design of the battery as in the whole pack, and bms systems and the cooling systems.

rather than build a pointless ultra expensive toy, BMW could have built a 40 kwh ev half affordable 3 series size car, even 5 series with a real 150 mile range it would have been far more worth while than the useless pile of crap they built. And it would still have cost far less. And then they can sell ice cars if that's what they want.

Why did they not build a proper decent range ev ? simple, they don't have to and/or they can't, the I3 is there to keep the German Government off their back, problem solved.