You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Driverless Cars
- Thread starter 3930dave
- Start date
- Views: 72978
Gale Hawkins
Super Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,268
- Location
- Murray, KY
- Tractor
- 1948 Allis Chambers Model B 1976 265 MF / 1983 JD 310B Backhoe / 1966 Ford 3000 Diesel / 1980 3600 Diesel
I expect the magnetic north pole moving towards Russia that is in the news will impact the driverless car at some point in time as well. The laser story concerns me.
LD48750
Veteran Member
I expect the magnetic north pole moving towards Russia that is in the news will impact the driverless car at some point in time as well. The laser story concerns me.
Would that be part of President Trumps "collusion" with Russia?
prof fate
Platinum Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2018
- Messages
- 684
- Location
- beaver pa
- Tractor
- kioti ck3510 Cub Cadet 149, 2146, Toro Zero Turn
Would that be part of President Trumps "collusion" with Russia?
the magnetic north pole has been drifting for a long long time, but it's accelerating - moving as much in the past 20-30 years as in the 100 before it. They used to adjust for it (gps, etc) every 2-3 years, now it's 18 months.
mapper
Veteran Member
Many off the posts here concern the conflicts between autonomous vehicles and those with human drivers. I think that transitional time is going to be the most challenging. Once the transition to autonomous is made many of the safety issues will go away.
The issue of extreme conditions has always been around and vehicles adapted or built for those conditions will still be necessary. Just because something is not appropriate for 100 percent of the environments found around where humans are does not mean it is not viable if it is suitable for 90 percent, the issue is is it going to be economically viable to accommodate the remaining 10 percent?
I can see a where in the not too far off future non autonomous vehicles could be banned in urban areas. When we rural dwellers want to go to town we drive to the outskirts and park at a facility where we can summon a driverless car to take us to our final destination.
We are planning on attending a concert event in Tacoma in the next few months, my wife is handicapped and limited in how far she can walk. Our chances of finding parking near the Tacoma Dome are not good. So the plan is to park at a friend's home within the urban area and take an uber to the event, it will deliver us to the front gate without the hassle of trying to find a parking space near the event. A few years ago I don't think that I would have ever considered this sort of solution to the problem, we all evolve.
The issue of extreme conditions has always been around and vehicles adapted or built for those conditions will still be necessary. Just because something is not appropriate for 100 percent of the environments found around where humans are does not mean it is not viable if it is suitable for 90 percent, the issue is is it going to be economically viable to accommodate the remaining 10 percent?
I can see a where in the not too far off future non autonomous vehicles could be banned in urban areas. When we rural dwellers want to go to town we drive to the outskirts and park at a facility where we can summon a driverless car to take us to our final destination.
We are planning on attending a concert event in Tacoma in the next few months, my wife is handicapped and limited in how far she can walk. Our chances of finding parking near the Tacoma Dome are not good. So the plan is to park at a friend's home within the urban area and take an uber to the event, it will deliver us to the front gate without the hassle of trying to find a parking space near the event. A few years ago I don't think that I would have ever considered this sort of solution to the problem, we all evolve.
Oaktree
Super Member
The issue of extreme conditions has always been around and vehicles adapted or built for those conditions will still be necessary. Just because something is not appropriate for 100 percent of the environments found around where humans are does not mean it is not viable if it is suitable for 90 percent, the issue is is it going to be economically viable to accommodate the remaining 10 percent?
I can see a where in the not too far off future non autonomous vehicles could be banned in urban areas. When we rural dwellers want to go to town we drive to the outskirts and park at a facility where we can summon a driverless car to take us to our final destination.
I don't see viability even approaching 90%...maybe 60% or so a long way down the road. But this is all a moot point once government mandates get involved, which we all know are more dependent on the political winds than on any remote sense of practicality or public demand.
When the government demands that all passenger vehicles need to be electric, self-driving, whatever by a certain date what becomes of those for whom this will never make sense? Or, for that matter to those of us who prefer to drive a "traditional" vehicle (whatever that may mean in the future)? Another choice being taken away from us?
What about trucks? Many of us use them off-road as well as on.
As I've said before, some day this may be practical and maybe even desirable in large cities or somewhat densely populated suburbs, but I also see the transition time as quite long.
prof fate
Platinum Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2018
- Messages
- 684
- Location
- beaver pa
- Tractor
- kioti ck3510 Cub Cadet 149, 2146, Toro Zero Turn
Look at it like cell phones or internet.
There will be early adopters - people that like/need the latest high tech gadget.
There will fits and starts and failures - look at smart phones today compared to all the ideas that came before - PDA's, push to talk phones that worked like walki talkies.
Does everyone have a smart phone today? no. 230 out of 320 million do, and factoring how many kids or old people there are, that's almost every adult I'd say.
I gave up my landline years ago - long after most of my friends did.
This site Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States says that 95% of americans own a cell phone today. In 2011 35% owned a smartphone, today that's 77%, and a friend last night told me he's been told his flip phone won't work by 3Q this year, so he's gotta get a smart phone. LIke it or not. AFAIK, the gov't isn't forcing him either.
Above site lists phone ownership by age/gender/tyep - ages 18-29? 100% cell phone ownership. So yeah, everyone has one. Unless you're 65+, then it's "only" 85%.
Urban is 96%, rural 91%, with 83% smart in the urban and 65% in rural. Is that an age thing, an economic/social thing, a service availability thing - perhaps a bit of all of that.
When 95% of people have cell phones and 80% have smart phones things change. SOOO much is different now than 20 years ago you don't realize it all.
And so it will be with self driving cars, subscription cars, etc. Fewer teens today WANT to drive. Economically it may make a lot more sense, particularly urban dwellers, to subscribe to uber-like service than spend $500-1000 a month on a car/insurance/parking, etc. We do it for the convenience, the freedom. If there is a cheaper option...well, that may very well be what swings it.
Census wise, 97% of the nation's land is 'rural', but only 19.3% of the population lives there - 60 million people. So 31% % live in 'urban' areas, and 55% live in suburban areas...yeah, that's more than enough for autonomy to work out well. And rural is still losing population to more urban counties.
We being of the tractor-types here we're more rural oriented...so our perspective isn't that of those living in crowded metro areas. I don't like the traffic in cities and avoid rush hour like the plague. It's why I moved outside the city. If I could live ina very dense city where walking was feasible I might consider that - but to have a car in the city? Hells no. Options are beginning to arrive though...and I don't think it will long for them to be adopted.
And NEW USES - when you got a cell phone, or first saw one - if I told you that half of all people would be shopping with their phones...you'd have thought I was nuts. Or use their phoned to get advice while shopping (instore pricing, reviews, phone a friend, etc).
HALF of people under 30 use their phones to find jobs. Indeed, etc.
Dating apps.
Weather, driving directions..
Not to mention camera and all the things you can do with that.
Last car I bought I searched prices while sitting at the saleman's desk waiting for them to 'give me a better deal' - I found one and told them "Match this!" - $700 cheaper than their "$750 under invoice" - car before thought I bought via email, and my tractor was via FB marketplace and email. Stuff you'd never dreamed of 25 years ago.
Watch what 25 year old do with their phones...wow.
So when autonomous vehicles come we'll have a huge revolution, much of it ways we've not yet even thought of.
like your tractor - you get it to do a, b and c. and end up doing 5 more things you never thought of with it.
There will be early adopters - people that like/need the latest high tech gadget.
There will fits and starts and failures - look at smart phones today compared to all the ideas that came before - PDA's, push to talk phones that worked like walki talkies.
Does everyone have a smart phone today? no. 230 out of 320 million do, and factoring how many kids or old people there are, that's almost every adult I'd say.
I gave up my landline years ago - long after most of my friends did.
This site Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States says that 95% of americans own a cell phone today. In 2011 35% owned a smartphone, today that's 77%, and a friend last night told me he's been told his flip phone won't work by 3Q this year, so he's gotta get a smart phone. LIke it or not. AFAIK, the gov't isn't forcing him either.
Above site lists phone ownership by age/gender/tyep - ages 18-29? 100% cell phone ownership. So yeah, everyone has one. Unless you're 65+, then it's "only" 85%.
Urban is 96%, rural 91%, with 83% smart in the urban and 65% in rural. Is that an age thing, an economic/social thing, a service availability thing - perhaps a bit of all of that.
When 95% of people have cell phones and 80% have smart phones things change. SOOO much is different now than 20 years ago you don't realize it all.
And so it will be with self driving cars, subscription cars, etc. Fewer teens today WANT to drive. Economically it may make a lot more sense, particularly urban dwellers, to subscribe to uber-like service than spend $500-1000 a month on a car/insurance/parking, etc. We do it for the convenience, the freedom. If there is a cheaper option...well, that may very well be what swings it.
Census wise, 97% of the nation's land is 'rural', but only 19.3% of the population lives there - 60 million people. So 31% % live in 'urban' areas, and 55% live in suburban areas...yeah, that's more than enough for autonomy to work out well. And rural is still losing population to more urban counties.
We being of the tractor-types here we're more rural oriented...so our perspective isn't that of those living in crowded metro areas. I don't like the traffic in cities and avoid rush hour like the plague. It's why I moved outside the city. If I could live ina very dense city where walking was feasible I might consider that - but to have a car in the city? Hells no. Options are beginning to arrive though...and I don't think it will long for them to be adopted.
And NEW USES - when you got a cell phone, or first saw one - if I told you that half of all people would be shopping with their phones...you'd have thought I was nuts. Or use their phoned to get advice while shopping (instore pricing, reviews, phone a friend, etc).
HALF of people under 30 use their phones to find jobs. Indeed, etc.
Dating apps.
Weather, driving directions..
Not to mention camera and all the things you can do with that.
Last car I bought I searched prices while sitting at the saleman's desk waiting for them to 'give me a better deal' - I found one and told them "Match this!" - $700 cheaper than their "$750 under invoice" - car before thought I bought via email, and my tractor was via FB marketplace and email. Stuff you'd never dreamed of 25 years ago.
Watch what 25 year old do with their phones...wow.
So when autonomous vehicles come we'll have a huge revolution, much of it ways we've not yet even thought of.
like your tractor - you get it to do a, b and c. and end up doing 5 more things you never thought of with it.
I don't see viability even approaching 90%...maybe 60% or so a long way down the road. But this is all a moot point once government mandates get involved, which we all know are more dependent on the political winds than on any remote sense of practicality or public demand.
When the government demands that all passenger vehicles need to be electric, self-driving, whatever by a certain date what becomes of those for whom this will never make sense? Or, for that matter to those of us who prefer to drive a "traditional" vehicle (whatever that may mean in the future)? Another choice being taken away from us?
What about trucks? Many of us use them off-road as well as on.
As I've said before, some day this may be practical and maybe even desirable in large cities or somewhat densely populated suburbs, but I also see the transition time as quite long.
The issue of heat is "interesting".
Basically the infernal combustion engine makes too much, WAY TOO MUCH, heat.
It is a heat engine, by definition.
It wastes so much heat that it has to have a large waste heat dumping system consisting of a water jacket, pump, hoses and a fluid/air heat exchanger, or "radiator".
OK, so there are air cooled engines that dump excess heat a little more directly, but water cooling is the common design.
As a side effect we can have heat in the vehicle, but it is from surplus heat that shouldn't be generated anyway.
Not difficult to imagine and then design a more efficient system than this.
Basically the infernal combustion engine makes too much, WAY TOO MUCH, heat.
It is a heat engine, by definition.
It wastes so much heat that it has to have a large waste heat dumping system consisting of a water jacket, pump, hoses and a fluid/air heat exchanger, or "radiator".
OK, so there are air cooled engines that dump excess heat a little more directly, but water cooling is the common design.
As a side effect we can have heat in the vehicle, but it is from surplus heat that shouldn't be generated anyway.
Not difficult to imagine and then design a more efficient system than this.
prof fate
Platinum Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2018
- Messages
- 684
- Location
- beaver pa
- Tractor
- kioti ck3510 Cub Cadet 149, 2146, Toro Zero Turn
Yers ago I replaced an old gas boiler with an elec boiler. Everyone said I was nuts.
Well, 60% of the gas went up the chimney as waste heat, and elec is 100% efficient - I saw my heating bills drop by more than half. And elec they say is more costly than natural gas.
Back in auto school I was told a 6 cyl car engine's heat could heat a typical house.
Well, 60% of the gas went up the chimney as waste heat, and elec is 100% efficient - I saw my heating bills drop by more than half. And elec they say is more costly than natural gas.
Back in auto school I was told a 6 cyl car engine's heat could heat a typical house.
The issue of heat is "interesting".
Basically the infernal combustion engine makes too much, WAY TOO MUCH, heat.
It is a heat engine, by definition.
It wastes so much heat that it has to have a large waste heat dumping system consisting of a water jacket, pump, hoses and a fluid/air heat exchanger, or "radiator".
OK, so there are air cooled engines that dump excess heat a little more directly, but water cooling is the common design.
As a side effect we can have heat in the vehicle, but it is from surplus heat that shouldn't be generated anyway.
Not difficult to imagine and then design a more efficient system than this.
Big picture...... lots to consider.....
COLD WEATHER RANGE LOSS. | Tesla
Tesla obviously knows how much batteries de-rate in the cold. It's a triple whammy..... their performance is lower, they have to protect themselves, AND provide occupancy heat.
Big picture - I'd like to see cold weather performance more accurately detailed by Tesla. Embodied energy - see the references to Pre-Heating in the above link. The amount of electricity required to pre-heat a car to 72F in my climate is non-trivial.
Yes.... you could pre-heat an IC car too, but few modern FI cars require that kind of treatment.
I like efficiency just fine (recently spent about $100 on high-end 120Vac LED bulbs. $100 is not a lot of money to some people; it is to me.), but only when there are no significant collateral trade-offs.
I understand a bit about thermodynamics. While IC engines have improved a bit in the last 20 years, they do still waste energy in the form of heat..... it just happens that heat is useful and critical for the climate I live in.
Electricity production has inefficiencies too..... plenty of losses in pushing electrons hundreds or thousands of miles.
EV evangelicals like to demonize IC engines. Big Picture...... if you are burning coal to drive an EV.... explain to me how that is the moral high-ground ?
At the same time..... I understand how a locomotive is designed.... I like electric motors just fine ......
Rgds, D.
COLD WEATHER RANGE LOSS. | Tesla
Tesla obviously knows how much batteries de-rate in the cold. It's a triple whammy..... their performance is lower, they have to protect themselves, AND provide occupancy heat.
Big picture - I'd like to see cold weather performance more accurately detailed by Tesla. Embodied energy - see the references to Pre-Heating in the above link. The amount of electricity required to pre-heat a car to 72F in my climate is non-trivial.
Yes.... you could pre-heat an IC car too, but few modern FI cars require that kind of treatment.
I like efficiency just fine (recently spent about $100 on high-end 120Vac LED bulbs. $100 is not a lot of money to some people; it is to me.), but only when there are no significant collateral trade-offs.
I understand a bit about thermodynamics. While IC engines have improved a bit in the last 20 years, they do still waste energy in the form of heat..... it just happens that heat is useful and critical for the climate I live in.
Electricity production has inefficiencies too..... plenty of losses in pushing electrons hundreds or thousands of miles.
EV evangelicals like to demonize IC engines. Big Picture...... if you are burning coal to drive an EV.... explain to me how that is the moral high-ground ?
At the same time..... I understand how a locomotive is designed.... I like electric motors just fine ......
Rgds, D.
