Lo-Drag: Cd < 0.2

[roblab]

100 mph, where? I didn't know they were planning on building an autobahn in North Carolina!

Agreed. People already can't drive at 50, want to do 75 and 80. Doubling the speed increases impact damage four times.

Most people don't inspect their cars, don't know if their tires are under pressure, can't drive in rain or snow, don't turn on their headlights in fog. They drive and argue, drive and play with the tunes, drive and use the phone. And they think a beer or two, or a glass of wine at dinner is OK when eating out. And then they drive home.

The one thing I don't want is some doob driving disabled or unaware coming at me at a hundred miles an hour.

Why are we in such an everlasting hurry?

 

[ohmman]

The one thing I don't want is some doob driving disabled or unaware coming at me at a hundred miles an hour.

To be fair, a decade will likely see us into the autonomous driving era. 100 mph may be in a dedicated freeway lane for autonomous cars only. Maybe.

 

[1208]

100 mph may be in a dedicated freeway lane for autonomous cars only. Maybe.

No sane person would want to go 100mph in an autonomous car...

I'm all for it.

 

[ohmman]

No sane person would want to go 100mph in an autonomous car...

I'm all for it.

Ever since I was a kid, I've imagined a sci-fi scene where thousands of vehicles are traveling at very high speed through a complex interweaving network of roads. The intersections don't have traffic lights, the vehicles just adjust their speeds by tiny amounts to anticipate and avoid the other vehicles crossing and merging into their paths. If I had CGI skills, I'd work on an animation of it, because I think it's a cool and terrifying concept.

 

[Quant]

Ever since I was a kid, I've imagined a sci-fi scene where thousands of vehicles are traveling at very high speed through a complex interweaving network of roads. The intersections don't have traffic lights, the vehicles just adjust their speeds by tiny amounts to anticipate and avoid the other vehicles crossing and merging into their paths. If I had CGI skills, I'd work on an animation of it, because I think it's a cool and terrifying concept.

This is how airplanes and radar based flight control and navigation work in almost the entire 3D space ( due to military zones). The issue is doing in on a 2 D road or highways, with million times more vehicles, and 2D limiting highways using rubber tires and hydraulic braking that uses friction and encounters other complex forces . This makes the situation way more risky, mathematically speaking.

 

[David_Cary]

First of all - I think the amount of traffic deaths/injuries is a travesty. But autonomous driving is a game changer and the primary reason it should be pursued. If you don't feel that autonomous driving is safer than any rational discussion is over.

In 30 years we have gone from 55 to 80 at the high end with an every year decrease in fatalities per mile driven. Progress continuing and increasing in speed means 100 may be a decade away. And in my mind electrification and autonomy should increase the speed of speed increases.

Most experts think full autonomy is 5 years or so away. So majority of miles driven autonomously could in a decade. Most miles go on newer cars.

I have a son who just turned 6. My sincere hope is that 2010 is the birth year where you can no longer drive a car. So in a decade when autonomy is majority of miles driven, the driving age jumps to 21. Then 5 years later it is gone forever. I love to drive but it isn't worth the cost to society - ie I hate traffic and traffic related injury a lot more than I like to drive. Most parents would agree. Who hasn't known a life ended or changed forever from a car accident. Estimated cost $1 trillion a year in the US. Is driving that worth it? Maybe to car forum people but not society at large.

And hopefully it means I can get to the beach in 1.5 hours instead of 2.25.

4 times the force at double the speed. Sure physics. But no one hits a wall at freeway speeds. They also don't have head on collisions on the freeway.

"Why are we always in such a hurry?" - I have to poke a little here without meaning to be obnoxious. This forum is CA heavy for obvious reasons. In the East, we are in a hurry. We just are. Getting more out of life involves not sitting around. Car time is generally wasted time. It is why people multitask in cars. It is the future which is why autonomous driving is so important. The supercharger road trip discussions amuse me - a lot of West coasters telling us to slow down and smell the roses. Not going to happen.

 

[Electroman]

I am worried in order to achieve a low CD they will make the car so low like a sports car, it just would make the ingress/egress so much more difficult..

 

[tga]

I have a son who just turned 6. My sincere hope is that 2010 is the birth year where you can no longer drive a car. So in a decade when autonomy is majority of miles driven, the driving age jumps to 21. Then 5 years later it is gone forever. I love to drive but it isn't worth the cost to society - ie I hate traffic and traffic related injury a lot more than I like to drive. Most parents would agree. Who hasn't known a life ended or changed forever from a car accident. Estimated cost $1 trillion a year in the US. Is driving that worth it? Maybe to car forum people but not society at large.

So in 15 years, we're going to revoke everyone's driver's license and cancel the registrations on all non-autonomous cars? Since no one will be able to drive all the old non-autonomous cars, the entire US fleet will be worthless? For many people, an auto is the biggest asset they have. We're going to obliterate what little net worth they have and destroy their trade in value, to buy a required autonomous car, that they can't afford anyway?

Not gonna happen, at least not in our lives...

 

[eisbock]

Most experts think full autonomy is 5 years or so away. So majority of miles driven autonomously could in a decade.

Lol.

We won't see fully autonomous driving in our lifetime and I'm only 25. We wouldn't be able to pass the law to enact autonomous driving in 5 years' time even if the technology was perfected. Not even close.

 

[ecarfan]

Lo-Drag: Cd &lt; 0.2

You are pretty pessimistic for a 25 year old.

Google has had fully autonomous cars on the road for a few years now and they have been proven to be safer than conventional cars. They just aren't selling them...yet.

It seems clear to me that in less than 5 years, and maybe less than 3, fully autonomous cars will be available to buy and drive. The law will require that a licensed driver must be in the driver's seat at all times and ready to take over at any time, just like now with Tesla Autopilot. Except that a few years from now Tesla Autopilot will be able to drive the car from A to B without human intervention.

I hope you don't go through the rest of your life with such a negative outlook. Cheer up, the future isn't all bad. ;-)

 

[Kevin Harney]

So in 15 years, we're going to revoke everyone's driver's license and cancel the registrations on all non-autonomous cars? Since no one will be able to drive all the old non-autonomous cars, the entire US fleet will be worthless? For many people, an auto is the biggest asset they have. We're going to obliterate what little net worth they have and destroy their trade in value, to buy a required autonomous car, that they can't afford anyway?

Not gonna happen, at least not in our lives...

A car is not really an asset. Well, ok if it is paid off it is an asset but it is still depreciating and not an investment. I guess technically you are right it's an asset. But if it is your biggest asset you have far more problems than autonomomous driving wrecking (pun intended) your balance sheet. And what teeny tiny percentage of the population has a car that is over 15 years old ?

 

[ohmman]

So in 15 years, we're going to revoke everyone's driver's license and cancel the registrations on all non-autonomous cars? Since no one will be able to drive all the old non-autonomous cars, the entire US fleet will be worthless? For many people, an auto is the biggest asset they have. We're going to obliterate what little net worth they have and destroy their trade in value, to buy a required autonomous car, that they can't afford anyway?.

While I don't agree with registration and license revocations happening anytime soon, I do think the US fleet will rapidly become worthless. This will be a function of the technology and market forces and has nothing to do with us "obliterating" someone's net worth. The key is that buying autonomous cars isn't going to be how it works for most people, based on how most people see the field progressing. Most of the population will stop owning cars - you'll call them when you need them and they'll take you where you're going. The 20-22 hours a day when your car is not being used? That's a model that makes very little sense when vehicle sharing can happen without a driver.

 

[eisbock]

Google has had fully autonomous cars on the road for a few years now and they have been proven to be safer than conventional cars. They just aren't selling them...yet.

It seems clear to me that in less than 5 years, and maybe less than 3, fully autonomous cars will be available to buy and drive. The law will require that a licensed driver must be in the driver's seat at all times and ready to take over at any time, just like now with Tesla Autopilot. Except that a few years from now Tesla Autopilot will be able to drive the car from A to B without human intervention.

If it was unclear (probably was), I was referring to laws that would mandate self-driving, effectively making it illegal to drive manually.

I'll admit, I am a pessimist, but I think that mostly stems from trying to be realistic! I'd sure love to be proven wrong though. After all, you're never disappointed when you're a pessimist!

Cheer up, the future isn't all bad. ;-)

I'll believe you if the Model 3 reveal goes well!

 

[tga]

A car is not really an asset. Well, ok if it is paid off it is an asset but it is still depreciating and not an investment. I guess technically you are right it's an asset. But if it is your biggest asset you have far more problems than autonomomous driving wrecking (pun intended) your balance sheet. And what teeny tiny percentage of the population has a car that is over 15 years old ?

Yeah, I'm rethinking that a bit. I suspect the number of people who pay cash for, or make large (like, >50%) down payments on cars, but don't own homes is probably pretty small. The real bottom of the economic ladder buys a clunker at usurious rates from the "buy here, pay here; $30/week" used car lots and have little or no equity in their vehicles. If they ever get close to paying it off, the car probably isn't worth anything by then anyway.

Over time, the non-autonomous fleet will age out, and be gradually replaced with autonomous vehicles. It'll be handled by natural market forces, not legislative action. You won't see government banning non-autonomous cars; it would be political suicide for any legislator. Most people won't get a driver's license because they won't need one, if 90% of the used fleet and 100% of the new fleet is autonomous.

The key is that buying autonomous cars isn't going to be how it works for most people, based on how most people see the field progressing. Most of the population will stop owning cars - you'll call them when you need them and they'll take you where you're going. The 20-22 hours a day when your car is not being used? That's a model that makes very little sense when vehicle sharing can happen without a driver.

For it to work, the shared cars have to be close enough to the users that they can summon a car with near 100% success with just a few minutes of waiting. Someone out in the sticks would have to schedule a trip to the grocery store 2 hours ahead of time to reserve a slot. Impromptu trips would be impossible. That model only works in cities and dense suburbs. I just don't see it making sense keeping stocks of shared cars in low density areas.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was unclear (probably was), I was referring to laws that would mandate self-driving, effectively making it illegal to drive manually.

Completely unnecessary. Once 99.9% of the cars on the road are autonomous, no one will care about the occasional person driving a non-autonomous classic from the 2010's. The few hundred accidents a year involving non-autonomous classics won't register on anyone's radar.

 

[ohmman]

For it to work, the shared cars have to be close enough to the users that they can summon a car with near 100% success with just a few minutes of waiting. Someone out in the sticks would have to schedule a trip to the grocery store 2 hours ahead of time to reserve a slot. Impromptu trips would be impossible. That model only works in cities and dense suburbs. I just don't see it making sense keeping stocks of shared cars in low density areas.

Correct, this is the limitation, which is why I indicated "most people". Occupants of very rural areas will be unlikely to get rid of their traditional manual automobiles for a long time anyway.

 

[gregincal]

For it to work, the shared cars have to be close enough to the users that they can summon a car with near 100% success with just a few minutes of waiting. Someone out in the sticks would have to schedule a trip to the grocery store 2 hours ahead of time to reserve a slot. Impromptu trips would be impossible. That model only works in cities and dense suburbs. I just don't see it making sense keeping stocks of shared cars in low density areas.

I don't think you are thinking in the proper scale. Sure people living in rural areas might still need to have their own car, but a tiny town of 2000 people could easily have a couple hundred autonomous cars waiting around (just like today they have several hundred cars). The model does not work just in cities and dense suburbs. As a matter of fact, I'd say anybody living anywhere where there are more than about 50-100 people within a 20 minute drive could use the model, which probably accounts for the vast majority of people. It's not like the cars need to return to some central dispatch when they are not being used, they just sit around near where the last driver left them, or use predictive algorithms to drive to near where people are likely to need them. This is when everybody has fully converted. Obviously it will start in cities and dense suburbs.

 

[Max*]

You are pretty pessimistic for a 25 year old.

Google has had fully autonomous cars on the road for a few years now and they have been proven to be safer than conventional cars. They just aren't selling them...yet.

It seems clear to me that in less than 5 years, and maybe less than 3, fully autonomous cars will be available to buy and drive. The law will require that a licensed driver must be in the driver's seat at all times and ready to take over at any time, just like now with Tesla Autopilot. Except that a few years from now Tesla Autopilot will be able to drive the car from A to B without human intervention.

I hope you don't go through the rest of your life with such a negative outlook. Cheer up, the future isn't all bad. ;-)

Google's fully autonomous cars still need intervention occasionally. So it's not really fully autonomous yet, which is why Google isn't selling them yet. Will they get there soon? I'm sure they will. Will it be in my lifetime? I'm sure it will.

Also, Level 4 autonomous cars will not be out in the wild ready to buy (with software) in 5 years. Level 3 (highway only), sure. And if the law requires that, then it's not a Level 3 car. A Level 3 autonomous car can have the driver take a nap, and the car is required to give enough notice of a situation that it can't handle to the driver (unlike Level 2, AP that we have now, which can yell "TAKE OVER IMMEDIATELY")

- - - Updated - - -

While I don't agree with registration and license revocations happening anytime soon, I do think the US fleet will rapidly become worthless. This will be a function of the technology and market forces and has nothing to do with us "obliterating" someone's net worth. The key is that buying autonomous cars isn't going to be how it works for most people, based on how most people see the field progressing. Most of the population will stop owning cars - you'll call them when you need them and they'll take you where you're going. The 20-22 hours a day when your car is not being used? That's a model that makes very little sense when vehicle sharing can happen without a driver.

Except that the other 2-4 hours are when the majority of people will need cars (for those with typical 9-5 schedules).

So while I agree, there is a future of shared cars in large cities, it's a very distant future to have shared cars in the boonies.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct, this is the limitation, which is why I indicated "most people". Occupants of very rural areas will be unlikely to get rid of their traditional manual automobiles for a long time anyway.

Nevermind

- - - Updated - - -

It's not like the cars need to return to some central dispatch when they are not being used, they just sit around near where the last driver left them

Except they need to charge. And 200 miles may seem like a lot in/near a city, out in the sticks, it might not be all that much if 3-4 people need to use the car back-to-back.

 

[gregincal]

Except they need to charge. And 200 miles may seem like a lot in/near a city, out in the sticks, it might not be all that much if 3-4 people need to use the car back-to-back.

That's a pretty easy infrastructure problem. Most roads have electricity, even out in the boonies.

 

[dgpcolorado]

That's a pretty easy infrastructure problem. Most roads have electricity, even out in the boonies.

Really? I drive a lot of roads that aren't near the grid. That's what it means to be out in the boondocks.

When it comes to driverless cars being able to handle difficult mountain roads and driving conditions I am skeptical. I suppose that GPS with one cm accuracy could manage to keep a car safely on a road and the onboard tech can see and avoid rocks and animals on the road. And snow, ice, potholes, washboard and the like. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Sure sounds like an urban sort of tech to me.

 

[AudubonB]

Indeed....