F1technical.net

hollus wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 23:24

I for one ask for this. Driving is mega-stressful for me.

It's more boring than stressfull to me...

strad wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 21:11

It's like the sensors to stop the car...I've never known anyone to say.. "I'm such a poor driver and don't pay attention I need the car to stop it's self".

I have had adaptive cruise control (matched speed and maintained distance to vehicle in front) and found it very useful at times.

hollus wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 23:24

I for one ask for this. Driving is mega-stressful for me.

Take the bus, ride the train.

strad wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 21:11

"It's like the sensors to stop the car...I've never known anyone to say.. "I'm such a poor driver and don't pay attention I need the car to stop it's self".

The self driving Uber that hit the cyclist saw the issue however the car never braked as the system was not allowed to perform emergency braking, only slowed the car by 4 mph. The "driver" who should have braked was watching a screen on the consule instead of the road.

Strad, estimated glide slope of the Gimli Glider was 12:1, a lot more than your 3:1

strad wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 21:11

It's like the sensors to stop the car...I've never known anyone to say.. "I'm such a poor driver and don't pay attention I need the car to stop it's self".

Of course - the average person is not that self aware. They think they are awesome and above average driver.

But I have been in many cars with other people driving and I've thought "he/she is such a poor driver and doesn't pay attention, I need the car to stop itself!"

henry wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 20:36

There are many “freedoms” in play. Pedestrians and cyclists may want the freedom to share the travel network with other transport users. Those who can’t drive, through infirmity or age or whatever, might want the freedom that those who can enjoy. None of these groups are easy to monetise, not at the rate that would make them attractive to investors in AVs any way.

Maybe cyclists and pedestrians might need to carry a beacon if they want to share space with cars. Mobile phones are sometimes used for this now. Not carrying a beacon might carry the same penalties as jaywalking today. In addition to injury or death that is. A restriction on their freedom.

There's nothing in your post I disagree with - I just don't see AV as the answer. An AV is nothing more than a taxi, a cab or an Uber. If this is all about giving more freedom to people to get comfortably from A to B, door to door at a click of a button and enjoy the same 'freedom' others have by using their car - it's called using a taxi. Where's the benefit of an AV over an Uber?

Cost wise there isn't. Car ownership is expensive. Very expensive. I see no reason why owning an AV should be any cheaper than owning a normal car. Actually the opposite; Once you factor in how well an AV will have to be maintained to conform to all sorts of safety standards, I see it easily being more expensive. Too expensive for irregular use. So we're back to car sharing models - which by the way already exist and are not that cheap, though they are still substantially cheaper than car ownership for the people who use them. Or we are back to using cabs, taxis and Ubers.

For long commutes, people traveling between cities or states that lack appropriate public transportation networks - sure, I can see a possible demand there. I can even imagine a future where on designated highways AV could work where the road is built in a way to minimize the risk of unpredictable dangers. Call it an "AV zone". But that would mean, that cars will remain cars but will include some sort of auto-pilot function for those zones, because people would need to drive to these zones themselves to get there. But then we are back to square one where people who lack any driving ability are able to use these type of cars without restrictions.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

08 May 2019, 05:44

Strad, estimated glide slope of the Gimli Glider was 12:1, a lot more than your 3:1

Similar figure for the Airbus that glided in to the Azores after a fuel leak left them without engines. 120km of glide from an altitude of 10km (33,000ft). Had to S-turn to lose height at the end so the glide figure was better than 12:1 in the end. It probably helped that the captain was a glider pilot in his spare time...

This thread will still be going back and forth when millions of AVs are traversing the road network. Someone will post while being chauffeured. Someone else will reply saying they're yet to be convinced. Outside their window, someone zooms by riding an automated motorcycle like a surfboard.

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

08 May 2019, 12:59

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

08 May 2019, 05:44

Strad, estimated glide slope of the Gimli Glider was 12:1, a lot more than your 3:1

Similar figure for the Airbus that glided in to the Azores after a fuel leak left them without engines. 120km of glide from an altitude of 10km (33,000ft). Had to S-turn to lose height at the end so the glide figure was better than 12:1 in the end. It probably helped that the captain was a glider pilot in his spare time...

That is amazing.

the best available or typical glide angle on the Azores event (Air Transat flight 236) was about 1 in 20

even private pilots have to demonstrate proficiency at forced landings due to (simulated) engine failure
gliders are limited like F1 - iirc before this they were evolving from 100 ft/mile sink towards 50 ft/mile (1 in 100 glide angle)

I don't remember gliding for range in helicopters though

RETRO NOTE TO SELF
glide range improves by increasing speed and lowering rotor rpm
rotor rpm must be raised to allow checking of descent for touchdown - low rpm descent requires more room for rpm raising

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

08 May 2019, 16:30

I don't remember gliding for range in helicopters though

Gliding in helicopters can best be summarised by the word: DOWN!

That 3:1 was from `10,000 foot without riding updrafts. Your 120 miles from 33,000ft) with a pilot riding the currents is a false comparison. The number I got was from the airlines.

I can even imagine a future where on designated highways AV could work where the road is built in a way to minimize the risk of unpredictable

They designed such on I5 from L.A. to San Diego years ago. It worked with magnets imbedded in the road and cars could cruise safely almost bumper to bumper at 80 mph ,but it was deemed too expensive to build and to incorporate into cars.

strad wrote: ↑

07 May 2019, 21:11

It's like the sensors to stop the car...I've never known anyone to say.. "I'm such a poor driver and don't pay attention I need the car to stop it's self".

True, but otoh the most common accident by far is exactly that, when people don´t pay attention and crash with the car in front

Technology evolve, then people try to find how to use it to do something wich was not possible before, or simply to make something easier/cheaper/faster. When there are IR sensors, radars, smart cameras, extremelly fast processors.... an AV is a matter of time. Not because we need it, but because we can do it. Wasn´t that the motto for the first flight to the moon?

Then when that new gadget is available some people will want it because it´s the latest and coolest thing they´ve seen. Then it´s when real usefulness comes into play, only if it´s useful and safe it will succed, if not it will be another invention going out of fashion quickly

Stop sensors have proved they´re really useful reducing crashes even if owners never asked for them, we´ll see with full AVs. I think once the thousands bugs those complex sistems will suffer, they´ll save thousands lives every year. My only concern is if manufacturers try to make profit too soon, as Markc pointed out big companies are not too hesitant to put people at risk if they increase profit numbers, but in this case if they go too fast and launch a sistem wich is not safe it can easily mean their bankrupt, so I think they will be as cautious as possible

True enough Andres