GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car

[Jerry Schneider]

clip --

Boules says semi-autonomous driving will initially be applicable on
highways, where the traffic is one-way and entirely vehicular. And
the systems will detect driver alertness, shutting down the car if
the driver can't take over immediately.

Source:
<http://www.just-auto.com/interview/gms-autonomous-car-specialist_id123066.aspx>http://www.just-auto.com/interview/gms-autonomous-car-specialist_id123066.aspx

[Dennis Manning]

Aha! The first signs that robocars need a "guideway" - one way, vehicles
only. That's not your city street description.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:50 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>

[Jerry Schneider]

At 09:19 PM 5/9/2012, you wrote:
>Aha! The first signs that robocars need a "guideway" - one way,
>vehicles only. That's not your city street description.

Insofar as GM is concerned - not so for Google as best I can tell.

[Dennis Manning]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:37 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car

I think that's right. GM says they will look for limited road conditions for
first automated driving. Google's philosophy is they will make the robocar
brainy enough to go just about anywhere. GM has the better strategy.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:57 AM 5/10/2012, you wrote:


>--------------------------------------------------
>From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:37 AM
>To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [t-i] GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car
>
>>At 09:19 PM 5/9/2012, you wrote:
>>>Aha! The first signs that robocars need a "guideway" - one way,
>>>vehicles only. That's not your city street description.
>>
>>Insofar as GM is concerned - not so for Google as best I can tell.
>
>I think that's right. GM says they will look for limited road
>conditions for first automated driving. Google's philosophy is they
>will make the robocar brainy enough to go just about anywhere. GM
>has the better strategy.

Or a bolder one, perhaps based on a richer and more developed technology

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

I have been inside the engineering side of both these companies and there is no comparison between these two for their software abilities for this task.  Search engines are incredibly more complex than V8 engines.  GM could hire this out but Google can use their present talent pool.  Software talent recruiting ability is the biggest difference between these two.  I have to side with Google on the practical approach to getting to the open market.  The world will not change for you much.  You have to conform to the norm then once in, push forward.  Asking for a special lane carved from the present highway system will not happen even for Government Motors now that the populous thinks we and the retirees all got ever penny back from the bankruptcy rip off.  (money for nothing and the chicks for free)  All you need is a judge to absolve you of your committed to debt.  

This does require orders of magnitude more difficult computer talent but that is far easier than getting the government to make any concessions to make the computer task easier.  Google can build this computer now and the next step is to increase production volume to drive down the hardware price.  Production cost on software is the cost of download time on the server bank so the sensor device price is really the only cost barrier today.  That price will not be a problem a few months into production.  

What Google is missing is even with their cars self-driving they are still running GM cars with their inexcusable poor CAFE mpg performance.  Self-driving is not the problem we have.  It is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist.  With a self driving car there is a perfectly good driver sitting there so the value of a duplicate driver with one steering wheel cars is zero.  It is cool and all but no value to 99.9% of situations.  Sure you pick up another thousand drivers in the nation but what is that worth to the whole?  A few less taxi jobs for the uneducated or low skilled.  What guideway brings is energy efficiency.  Extreme energy efficiency brings the electric only revolution and that brings no-pollution cars that will be powered by real time sunshine thus actually sustainable not wannabe sustainable.   

I am surprised Google has not grasped the energy side of the next revolution in ground transportation.  They are seeing the shiny objects but not getting to the core problem of energy disasters coming.  IMHO

Jerry Roane 

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

At 08:57 AM 5/10/2012, you wrote:

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:37 AM

To: <transport-innovators@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [t-i] GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car

At 09:19 PM 5/9/2012, you wrote:

Aha! The first signs that robocars need a "guideway" - one way, vehicles only. That's not your city street description.

Insofar as GM is concerned - not so for Google as best I can tell.

I think that's right. GM says they will look for limited road conditions for first automated driving. Google's philosophy is they will make the robocar brainy enough to go just about anywhere. GM has the better strategy.

Or a bolder one, perhaps based on a richer and more developed technology

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Schneider]

Why would they have to stick with GM cars - or Japanese (don't they
use a Toyota now?)
A main argument is that there are very few "perfect" drivers
available - computers are superior drivers.
Taxi jobs are likely to diminish.
Won't guideways be built once it is realized they are needed in some
applications?
Isn't it possible that their EV cars could be recharged with solar
energy as they might be parked most of the time?
Maybe even real time charging with induction on the roadway?

>
>
>I am surprised Google has not grasped the energy side of the next
>revolution in ground transportation. They are seeing the shiny
>objects but not getting to the core problem of energy disasters coming. IMHO
>
>Jerry Roane
>
>On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jerry Schneider
><<mailto:j...@peak.org>j...@peak.org> wrote:
>At 08:57 AM 5/10/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------

>From: "Jerry Schneider" <<mailto:j...@peak.org>j...@peak.org>

>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:37 AM
>To:

><<mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com>

>Subject: Re: [t-i] GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car
>
>At 09:19 PM 5/9/2012, you wrote:
>Aha! The first signs that robocars need a "guideway" - one way,
>vehicles only. That's not your city street description.
>
>
>Insofar as GM is concerned - not so for Google as best I can tell.
>
>
>I think that's right. GM says they will look for limited road
>conditions for first automated driving. Google's philosophy is they
>will make the robocar brainy enough to go just about anywhere. GM
>has the better strategy.
>
>
>Or a bolder one, perhaps based on a richer and more developed technology
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to

><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.

>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

>For more options, visit this group at

><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.

>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Slade]

Re:  This question only>>>>>Won't guideways be built once it is realized they are needed in some applications?

Isn't it possible that their EV cars could be recharged with solar energy as they might be parked most of the time?<<<

 

I think that most of us came to this conclusion years ago.  Wouldn't it have been easier for them to just take our word for this, instead of waiting to prove it for themselves?  Are they stupid enough that they do not yet know the 2 ways of learning,  namely:  learn from the knowledge of others,  or wait and learn it from your own mistakes. This second way used to be called "the school of hard knocks".

 

When GM proposes guideways,  the whole World is going to say "what a fabulous idea,  why didn't somebody think of this before".

Copycats!!

 

Jack Slade

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[oto oto]

Well Jerry,
You have to make a step forward with the innovation and not judge it
on the present.
You try and imagine autonomous cars, not one but a lot of them
together.
The main motivation for Sebastian Thrun is to increase safety. As you
know there are over a million deaths on the road worldwide every year.
If safety is in computer-cicuits you no longer need extra steel bars.
If you can surf the internet while beeing driven around you do not
need extra power to outrun your neighbour at the traffic light.
It all seems to me to move towards greater efficiency and the
elimination of wasted power and steel.
As to the guideway: The greatest appeal of the motorcar has always
been the illusion of freedom, the power of independence. In a way the
autonomous car increases the freedom as you are beeing driven, and
free to do what you like.
You need a very good reason to impose a guideway and fuel economy is
certainly not enough.

> >  ------------------------------**--------------------

> >> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:37 AM

> >> To: <transport-innovators@**googlegroups.com<transport-innovators@googlegroups. com>

>
> >> Subject: Re: [t-i] GM's approach to the development of an autonomous car
>
> >>  At 09:19 PM 5/9/2012, you wrote:
>
> >>>> Aha! The first signs that robocars need a "guideway" - one way,
> >>>> vehicles only. That's not your city street description.
>
> >>> Insofar as GM is concerned - not so for Google as best I can tell.
>
> >> I think that's right. GM says they will look for limited road conditions
> >> for first automated driving. Google's philosophy is they will make the
> >> robocar brainy enough to go just about anywhere. GM has the better strategy.
>
> > Or a bolder one, perhaps based on a richer and more developed technology
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "transport-innovators" group.

> > To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@**
> > googlegroups.com <transport-...@googlegroups.com>.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+**
> > unsub...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroup s.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
> > group/transport-innovators?hl=**en<http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>
> > .

[van...@comcast.net]

I disagree.

 

As to safety, using a guideway completely avoids certain real risks

and is at least a thousand times safer than moving on streets and highway.  How could

GM avoid the risks imposed by trucks, pedestrians, rain, snow, icy surfaces, deer, etc.?  

 

As to freedom, you will be no more free when being carried in an automobile that is

automatically operated while on streets and highways than you will be when in an automobile

that is automatically carried on a guideway.  What could be the difference? 

When you use a guideway, you can use steel wheels moving on steel rails;

you can avoid starts and stops, acceleration and braking; you can achieve much

higher efficiency. 

 

When you use a guideway, you can move at higher speeds.

 

Building guideways rather than more expressways would result in big savings

in capital costs and thereby in big savings to taxpayers;

just make a comparison between the cost per lane of an expressway that is to

carry trucks weighing 60,000 pounds or more and that needs a lot of expensive

rights-of-way with the cost of a guideway that need carry no more than maybe

12,000 pounds and that can thereby be built at low cost and easily erected on

available rights-of-way along streets or otherwise.

 

GM would obviously like to continue making big profits on sale of cars that

will be operated on streets and highways.  Google seems to be confused; 

its motives are not clear.  

 

Is there any reason why any informed person would go along with GM and

Google and not like to have the choice of using guideways?

 

Van Lund  

---

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[eph]

DM(cars on guideway) and driverless cars are not mutually exclusive. 

Google-style driverless cars don't require guideway, so there is an advantage WRT sales.

GM's version is a stop-gap whereas DM (usually) has other advantages such as power delivery, safety and efficiency.


F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:47 AM 5/11/2012, you wrote:

>I disagree.
>
>
>
>As to safety, using a guideway completely avoids certain real risks
>
>and is at least a thousand times safer than moving on streets and
>highway. How could
>
>GM avoid the risks imposed by trucks, pedestrians, rain, snow, icy
>surfaces, deer, etc.?
>
>
>
>As to freedom, you will be no more free when being carried in an
>automobile that is
>
>automatically operated while on streets and highways than you will
>be when in an automobile
>
>that is automatically carried on a guideway. What could be the difference?

I agree with most of your points. The only difference I can think of
(which may not be a difference) is
an ability to change your mind as to where you are going enroute. You
do have to tell the car where
you want to go. If you are driving, you can deviate and change
destinations easily - or make stops not
initially contemplated. Can the autonomous car do that too?


- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Jack Slade]

>>>>The Illusion of Freedom<<<<<

 

In the past,  you could travel wherever somebody had built a road.

In the future,  you will be able to travel wherever somebody has built a guideway.

 

I could never see any difference except more convenience.   Can anybody?

 

Jack Slade

From: oto oto <apbb...@gmail.com>
To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jack Slade]

Jerry:  I can't agree with you on this one.  Easy to change courses in a car?  That's what most drivers are trying to do when they die.

Punching a number into a computer is easier,  by far, than any left turn that I have ever done in any City,  and somebody lazier than me (if that is possible)  will soon invent voice control for that.  OH?  We already have that, too?

 

Jack Slade

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

oto oto

Fuel mileage will not be reason enough till the world runs low on supply.  Today the tanks are full of refined product because they price was manipulated very high recently.  This feeling of full tanks will disappear in one night when they start to go down and there is no crude supply in the world to fill the refined fuel tanks back up.  The time frame for auto-driving cars is certainly the time from for running out of easily available crude.  

You are right about the car weight going down with less iron wrapped around the passenger compartment but the effective safety improvement is multiple airbags and they weigh nearly zero.  If you do the calculations on vehicle weight verses fuel used you will find that weight impact is minor.  That is why you can drive around with a spare tire and rim at minimal increased fuel cost and pretty much all cars have a spare of some sort or some weight dedicated to when the tires go flat.  Point being that the iron bar in the door for example weighs a couple pounds yet protects you in the event of a side door impact.  Doing the math here since I have learned no one actually does math equations I assign them a 2012 Chevy Impalla

weight 3555

drag coefficient .33

frontal area 22.5 not sure

hp 300

compact spare tire

city EPA mpg 18 

highway EPA mpg 30

Drag without extra 200 pounds of protective steel

28.8 hp versus 29.3 hp.  1.7% more hardly noticeable 

Of course there is weight compounding that makes this 200 pounds more but that secondary effect is a diminishing return.  I am not advocating heavy cars and making them safe by making them avoid crashes is smart for sure but the fuel savings part of this is not a strong argument.  That is my minor point about your statement that lighter cars will result from better computer driving.  

None of this will matter if you pull into the pump and the pump does not squirt out more liquid.  That is my point.  To get to the energy range where real-time sun energy can power the transportation network we will need an 8X improvement and the easiest way to get an 8X improvement is guideways for a lot of reasons including simply having control of the specifications of cars allowed.  Right now the highway has to carry insane loads and any idiot plumber is free to drive his company around with him with every tool and pipe fitting he can afford and still hang off his headache rack and bumpers.  Rolling surface precision is another.  Guideway aerodynamic interaction with the cars is the dominate gain at speeds that I care to consider.  Guideway facilitates high speed and high speed facilitates the ability to accommodate more population.  More population will be upon any nation that is worth moving to or living in.  It is a logical circle to be nice to your neighbor to be nice by accident to yourself.  The time sequence can flip either way self-driving of guideway first does not really make a difference as they both need to come along quickly.  IMHO

Jerry Roane 

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[oto oto]

Jack,
In the past you could travel anywhere your feet would carry you.
Then you'd have horses and even carriages.
Then come roads and rails.
And then come the fences.
Fences everywhere.
Freedom is an illusion now.
Traffic is guided straight into what I call the main sewer, where you
cannot stop where you are beeing pushed along or pushed through like
shit in the sewer.
First they were called parkways because of the beautiful scenery they
initially ploughed through. Then when they passed by less beautiful
landscapes they were called freeways.
People get stuck on the freeways like they get stuck or even trapped
in the suburbs.

Jerry,
When I drive around in a car following the gps navigation system I
love to deviate from its itinerary because it immediately recalculates
the best route without any protest and you cannot get lost, no matter
what you do.
I imagine the autonomous car to be as flexible and forgiving.
You have to realise it is not on a guideway.

On May 11, 6:19 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>>>The Illusion of Freedom<<<<<
>
>
> In the past,  you could travel wherever somebody had built a road.
> In the future,  you will be able to travel wherever somebody has built a guideway.
>
> I could never see any difference except more convenience.   Can anybody?
>
> Jack Slade
>

> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 01:29 PM 5/11/2012, you wrote:

>Jerry,
>When I drive around in a car following the gps navigation system I
>love to deviate from its itinerary because it immediately recalculates
>the best route without any protest and you cannot get lost, no matter
>what you do.

You must have a better GPS that I do. Mine gives me what it
calculates is the shortest route which is
sometimes quite undesirable as I prefer a less traveled route as I'm
not in such
a hurry to save 1.5 minutes or less. It doesn't know about detours,
can't read signs, doesn't know
how heavy the traffic is on the selected routes (I don't know what
time of day speeds it uses, day of
week, season or what the weather is doing or is likely to do).

>I imagine the autonomous car to be as flexible and forgiving.
>You have to realise it is not on a guideway.

I don't think that is a "settled issue" yet.

[Jack Slade]

Can't disagree with you here.  I have always thought that a lot of congestion is planned,  to avoid the streets where NIMBYS live....those people who want the right to drive on everybody elses streets,  but don't want anybody else driving in front of their house.

 

You have mentioned freedom:  Most Canadians forget how to even spell the word.  I have only heard it mentioned on the news once in the last 50 years.  We  have almost nobody left who realizes that every law and bylaw passed takes away a little more of somebody's freedom.  These nincompoops today only mouth off when they find that it takes away some of their freedom also.

 

Jack Slade

> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[oto oto]

The US were late and well behind Europe with the civil use of GPS-
navigation.
This shows. You have different options on your system for calculating
the route.
Quickest
Shortest
Avoid freeway
Avoid tollway
bicycle
walk

[Kirston Henderson]

On May 11, 2012, at 5:23 PM, oto oto wrote:
>
> The US were late and well behind Europe with the civil use of GPS-
> navigation.
> This shows. You have different options on your system for calculating
> the route.
> Quickest
> Shortest
> Avoid freeway
> Avoid tollway
> bicycle
> walk

As for me, I made sure that the new car that I bought recently had
everything else, but GPS because I trust just plain old maps and the
built-in compass and they have served me well for years without all
the added gadget expense and occasional serious errors of GPS. I
don't have to have some computer-generated voice give me step by step
directions. It is bad enough to have the voice prompt me to tell the
car what radio frequency that I want.

Don't get me wrong, GPS is a significant navigational aid in an
airplane, especially when it shows me my position, speed, and
direction on an electronically-generated map. Being the engineer who
invented the Multi Function Display (MFD) for airplanes that made that
and other features possible, I really can't complain about those
uses. At the time, I never dreamed that I would someday buy a car
with a MFD in the center of the instrument panel. I just hope that I
eventually figure out how to use a lot of the MFD functions before I
wear out the car!
Kirston