AI Controlled Cars, or Your Right to Drive

[IglooDame]

Back in the 80s, front wheel drive cars were not common in the US market, and automakers wanted to talk people into buying them. So they very aggressively advertised the 'poor weather traction advantage' of front drive cars until people actually believed in it. When the reality was that they wanted to sell front drive cars because fwd is smaller and lighter than rwd, which allows a more efficient car with more room in the passenger compartment. In the 90s the automakers built the SUV craze off the fact that Americans like big cars, and pushed it hard hard hard, and people started to actually believe that they "needed" an SUV. I was in the car business, and it was surreal to have men who learned to drive in the winter as I did, suddenly claiming that they could not possibly get around in the winter without first a front drive car, and then later a 4WD SUV. And in the meantime, on snow days I got to work on time in my rear drive car, and my coworkers with front drive and 4WD were late.

I agree with you in general. I can handle a RWD car in winter weather as well. But, I do appreciate what I call the "increased margin of error" in a FWD or 4WD vehicle. Obviously differences in braking is dependent on the wheels since all cars have four-wheel brakes (though antilock brakes have improved things there too), but you can't deny that FWD and 4WD are easier to keep moving under control in nasty conditions - I've personally experienced this with my annual parking-lot slide-testing every late autumn with various cars through the years.

 

[Zelig]

Flooring my Dad's 1.8T Passat in 2nd gear up to 60 was hella fun. I think most people just don't understand gears.

Well most people don't need to understand gears, if you floor an automatic it will downshift and stay in lower gears as you accelerate in order to (roughly) optimize acceleration based on the torque curve.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Am I reading this correctly that drivers don't want to floor their gas pedal during on ramps and instead just buy a car with more power so they don't have to floor?

Nope. Many drivers do not gain the proper entry speed on short on-ramps no matter the size of the engine. You can even occasionally find them at a dead stop at the merge point waiting for a sufficient gap in the traffic. This happens so frequently in the SF Bay area during rush hour that you will find other motorists waiting at the start of the on-ramp when they notice someone else stopped at the end of it, since it is almost impossible to find a sufficient gap to safely enter the interstate if you get immediately behind them.

btw, does anybody have some insight about what exactly are the differences in emission requirements between the US and the EU? I have to admit, I have never heard about that before.

Check out the graph on page 4. The EU has a much higher nitrogen oxide standard for diesel cars, while the US mandates the same standards for all passenger car engines.

Sorry, no good source on throttle info, car manufacturers don't make much information easily accessible about how they configure throttle response curves. Personally, asides from my daily driver I'm most familiar with the Subaru SI-Drive system, it's user-selectable between shallow/linear/steep throttle response. Generally the largest effect of throttle-by-wire will be to compensate for sub-optimal conditions - so on a clear, flat road, 30% pedal will do about what you'd expect, but if you've got the car full of passengers with a roof-box going up a hill, 30% throttle will gear down and give you wide-open throttle - this further conditions people to never floor the gas pedal. You can take any recent Corolla for an awfully boring test drive with the trunk full of sandbags if you want to test it out.

Only it isn't for the reason you suggested.

The benefits of electronic throttle control are largely unnoticed by most drivers because the aim is to make the vehicle power-train characteristics seamlessly consistent irrespective of prevailing conditions, such as engine temperature, altitude, and accessory loads. Electronic throttle control is also working 'behind the scenes' to dramatically improve the ease with which the driver can execute gear changes and deal with the dramatic torque changes associated with rapid accelerations and decelerations.

Electronic throttle control facilitates the integration of features such as cruise control, traction control,stability control, and precrash systems and others that require torque management, since the throttle can be moved irrespective of the position of the driver's accelerator pedal. ETC provides some benefit in areas such as air-fuel ratio control, exhaust emissions and fuel consumption reduction, and also works in concert with other technologies such as gasoline direct injection.

Emergency brake assist should be easy to find any number of sources on if you search the right terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist

As the article points out, only MB and Volvo have a braking system which works in this manner, even though there was talk in 2007 of mandating it in Europe. All others require at least one of the brakes to be locked before the ABS system engages.

It's not a conscious decision like that, people just don't normally use their cars at their limits, so aren't comfortable doing so. When you take people to a track for the first time, they find it hugely counter-intuitive, since you've essentially got either the gas or the brakes pressed to the limit (either pedal limit or traction limit, depending) the entire time, which are situations that occur very rarely while street driving.

I wouldn't characterize it as being counter-intuitive. It is just a different driving technique that many people have no experience with until they sign up for a drivers ed or autocross event.

I think it also has nothing to do with the reluctance of many people to accelerate sufficiently to merge properly. You see the same sort of behavior even when they are already up to the speed of the rest of the traffic when a divided highway goes to one less lane. Many drivers won't even get to the merge point before trying to change lanes. They will even stop dead while trying to merge dozens of cars before the lane ends. They just don't know any better because they can get a license without having to show that they understand how to properly operate a car under these sort of conditions.

 

[Cutlass]

I agree with you in general. I can handle a RWD car in winter weather as well. But, I do appreciate what I call the "increased margin of error" in a FWD or 4WD vehicle. Obviously differences in braking is dependent on the wheels since all cars have four-wheel brakes (though antilock brakes have improved things there too), but you can't deny that FWD and 4WD are easier to keep moving under control in nasty conditions - I've personally experienced this with my annual parking-lot slide-testing every late autumn with various cars through the years.

Get moving? Mayyyyybe. Control? I really don't think so. Rear drive cars have better braking than front drive, because the weight distribution is better, and so the rear brakes take more of the load. And down hill in RWD is absolutely superior to FWD.

 

[Zelig]

Only it isn't for the reason you suggested.

Compensating for conditions to keep throttle pedal action constant by giving greater power at less depression is the reason I suggested.

The actual curve varies between make/model and the region cars models are sold in, based on what they think people will prefer. (Like car horns - different regions get different horns based on how the driving pubic perceives and uses the horn.)

As the article makes quite clear, only MB and Volvo have an ABS system which works in that manner. All others require at least one of the brakes to be locked before the ABS system engages.

I don't see where it says that?

In any case, that's not correct, at least some VW and BMW models have braking systems which will increase braking without the driver locking any of the wheels. I could probably look more up, but it doesn't particularly matter to my point, which is that "this is a technology which is getting introduced".

 

[Farm Boy]

Yea, I'd rather have a rwd on slippery too. FWD seems to lose traction slightly later in most conditions, but once you're slipping you're worse off. Things like pickups with no weight over the rear tires being an exception.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Get moving? Mayyyyybe. Control? I really don't think so. Rear drive cars have better braking than front drive, because the weight distribution is better, and so the rear brakes take more of the load. And down hill in RWD is absolutely superior to FWD.

The weight distribution between a FWD and RWD car isn't all that different unless the RWD car has a transaxle, which is very unusual. Drive shafts and a differential may add a hundred or so pounds of weight to the rear, which is negligible in a vehicle that weighs 2500-3000 lbs.

Compensating for conditions to keep throttle pedal action constant by giving greater power at less depression is the reason I suggested.

But didn't you claim the "condition" was that the driver was reluctant to accelerate, instead of making minor changes due to the information that was being fed by the various sensors? Source please.

I don't see where it says that?

In any case, that's not correct, at least some VW and BMW models have braking systems which will increase braking without the driver locking any of the wheels. I could probably look more up, but it doesn't particularly matter to my point, which is that "this is a technology which is getting introduced".

That technology was "introduced" by Mercedes in 1992. And it is really a collision avoidance system. The Volvo model even uses a radar.

OTOH standard ABS systems, which require at least one wheel to be locked before they operate, have been mandated in Europe since 2007.

Yea, I'd rather have a rwd on slippery too. FWD seems to lose traction slightly later in most conditions, but once you're slipping you're worse off. Things like pickups with no weight over the rear tires being an exception.

FWD cars are far superior than RWD cars in any slippery conditions, such as rain, snow, dirt and gravel, because the weight of the engine is over the driven wheels. This is why so many non-AWD rally cars are FWD and so few are RWD.

 

[Zelig]

But you claimed the "condition" was that the driver was reluctant to accelerate so the car supposedly knew this and helped the driver to do so. Source please.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.

I said "Cars are engineering around this with electronic throttle control that give proportionally greater power at less pedal depression, [...] because drivers aren't competent enough to properly jam down either pedal."

Then you agreed that drivers aren't comfortable flooring the pedal, and quoted wiki supporting that ETC systems will increase throttle given equivalent pedal depression, depending on conditions.

That technology was "introduced" by Mercedes in 1992. And it is really a collision avoidance system. The Volvo model even uses a radar.

Yes? It takes a while for luxury safety features to filter down to cheap cars. The Euro Ford Focus just added emergency brake assist (will activate without needing the driver to lock any of the wheels) to the 2011 model.

Again, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, brakes in general are a "collision avoidance system".

 

[Farm Boy]

FWD cars are far superior than RWD cars in any slippery conditions, such as rain, snow, dirt and gravel, because the weight of the engine is over the driven wheels. This is why so many non-AWD rally cars are FWD and so few are RWD.

I'm not an excellent driver. I certainly don't go to the track, so I'll not contest any points. Merely reiterate that I'd rather have rwd in slippery, so long as it isn't a pickup truck with almost no weight over the rear tires at all. This stems from the fact that my driving record isn't clean because I'm so pro at it, I just drive like an old lady. Rear wheels give you slightly better warning that conditions are getting out of control, and controlling a little drive wheel slip makes better sense to me in that format than in fwd. Then again, I learned to drive without ABS, still don't drive a car with ABS, so I'm still a brakes pumper. I just haven't needed to actually do that in close to 5 years.

 

[timtofly]

Back in the 80s, front wheel drive cars were not common in the US market, and automakers wanted to talk people into buying them. So they very aggressively advertised the 'poor weather traction advantage' of front drive cars until people actually believed in it. When the reality was that they wanted to sell front drive cars because fwd is smaller and lighter than rwd, which allows a more efficient car with more room in the passenger compartment. In the 90s the automakers built the SUV craze off the fact that Americans like big cars, and pushed it hard hard hard, and people started to actually believe that they "needed" an SUV. I was in the car business, and it was surreal to have men who learned to drive in the winter as I did, suddenly claiming that they could not possibly get around in the winter without first a front drive car, and then later a 4WD SUV. And in the meantime, on snow days I got to work on time in my rear drive car, and my coworkers with front drive and 4WD were late.

It would seem that the lateness would be from over confidence in poor driving conditions as opposed to the control ability of the vehicle itself.

Get moving? Mayyyyybe. Control? I really don't think so. Rear drive cars have better braking than front drive, because the weight distribution is better, and so the rear brakes take more of the load. And down hill in RWD is absolutely superior to FWD.

I would like to know how braking can trump control? In slippery conditions, braking seems to take control away, unless one knows how to drive with two feet at the same time. You still need to apply traction some how.

Yea, I'd rather have a rwd on slippery too. FWD seems to lose traction slightly later in most conditions, but once you're slipping you're worse off. Things like pickups with no weight over the rear tires being an exception.

I have been in a RWD car doing doughnuts uphill on a slippery road. I was not the driver. It seemed to enforce the point where FWD would have been handy to have. RWD was just pushing the vehicle around in circles. It seems that FWD would have allowed the car to keep going in the same direction.

 

[Cutlass]

I would like to know how braking can trump control? In slippery conditions, braking seems to take control away, unless one knows how to drive with two feet at the same time. You still need to apply traction some how.

Braking is a large part of control. Many drivers who lose control in slippery conditions do so because they fail to brake correctly. With rear drive, you can slow a car with downshifting and it actually increases control. Which then makes the braking more effective.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not an excellent driver. I certainly don't go to the track, so I'll not contest any points. Merely reiterate that I'd rather have rwd in slippery, so long as it isn't a pickup truck with almost no weight over the rear tires at all. This stems from the fact that my driving record isn't clean because I'm so pro at it, I just drive like an old lady. Rear wheels give you slightly better warning that conditions are getting out of control, and controlling a little drive wheel slip makes better sense to me in that format than in fwd. Then again, I learned to drive without ABS, still don't drive a car with ABS, so I'm still a brakes pumper. I just haven't needed to actually do that in close to 5 years.

You don't have to go to the track to be directly affected by this. Granted, RWD cars have the benefit of weight transfer to the driven wheels to aid in acceleration. But that is largely negated by all the other factors.

Here is a good summary of the benefits and drawbacks of FWD vs RWD:

Advantages to a Front-Wheel-Drive Configuration Include:

More Interior Space
Lower Weight
Less Cost to Manufacture
Improved Drivetrain Efficiency
Forward Center of Gravity Which Improves Traction
Predictable Handling

Disadvantages to a Front-Wheel-Drive Vehicle Are:

Poorer Torque Allowing Front-Wheel-Drive Vehicles to Pull Left or Right when They Are Accelerated with Some Force
Lack of Weight Shifting Which Limits the Acceleration of the Vehicle
Reduced Traction When the Vehicle Is Climbing a Slope in Slippery Conditions
The CV Joints Attached to the Wheel Hub Tend to Wear Out Faster
Increased Turning Circle Because the Transverse Engine Limits the Amount the Front Wheels Can Turn
The Size of the Engine Is Restricted

Advantages to a Rear-Wheel-Drive Vehicle Include:

Even Weight Distribution
Better Weight Transfer During Acceleration
Better Steering Radius
Better handling On Dry Roads
Better Braking
Better Towing Capability
Easier Serviceability
Can Feature More Powerful Engines

Disadvantages Include:

Possibility of Oversteering When the Vehicle Is Accelerated Hard
Poorer Traction In Snow, Ice and Sand
Less Interior Space
Increased Weight
Higher Cost for the Vehicle
Improper Weight Distribution When the Vehicle Is Loaded
A Longer Driveshaft to Reach the Rear Wheels

And there is no way you can pump your brakes fast enough to simulate the benefits of ABS. If you drive in the rain or the snow you want ABS. It can even reduce the stopping distance during panic stops during dry conditions unless you are an expert at brake modulation.

I strongly recommend that everybody try to get a car that has ABS. It could very well save your life someday. The only safety equipment I would recommend more is a seatbelt.

 

[timtofly]

Braking is a large part of control. Many drivers who lose control in slippery conditions do so because they fail to brake correctly. With rear drive, you can slow a car with downshifting and it actually increases control. Which then makes the braking more effective.

That will work if you know how to drive, but then one would not be going that fast in those conditions if they knew how to drive. It would seem to me that taking one's foot off the gas and applying it when needed is still the most efficient and requiring the least amount of thought while keeping control for the average driver under those conditions.

Your point would seem to indicate the dumbing down of drivers across the board, and every one should be a professional on how to use their vehicle more effectively. Do automatic transmissions downshift properly, or would that only work for manual shifting?

 

[KMRblue1027]

With a stick you can force the car to shift down while automatic will shift as you slow down. I guess that's safer? I have no idea how to drive stick.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

You don't have to go to the track to be directly affected by this. Granted, RWD cars have the benefit of weight transfer to the driven wheels to aid in acceleration. But that is largely negated by all the other factors.

Here is a good summary of the benefits and drawbacks of FWD vs RWD:

And there is no way you can pump your brakes fast enough to simulate the benefits of ABS. If you drive in the rain or the snow you want ABS. It can even reduce the stopping distance during panic stops during dry conditions unless you are an expert at brake modulation.

I strongly recommend that everybody try to get a car that has ABS. It could very well save your life someday. The only safety equipment I would recommend more is a seatbelt.

ESP (electronic stability program) is almost as important. You virtually cant lost control of the car or make a spin. I think there are as many accidents due to control loss as because late braking if not more.

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't have to go to the track to be directly affected by this. Granted, RWD cars have the benefit of weight transfer to the driven wheels to aid in acceleration. But that is largely negated by all the other factors.

Here is a good summary of the benefits and drawbacks of FWD vs RWD:

And there is no way you can pump your brakes fast enough to simulate the benefits of ABS. If you drive in the rain or the snow you want ABS. It can even reduce the stopping distance during panic stops during dry conditions unless you are an expert at brake modulation.

I strongly recommend that everybody try to get a car that has ABS. It could very well save your life someday. The only safety equipment I would recommend more is a seatbelt.

I've read that literature. All I'm saying is I prefer a car with rwd. I don't own one, mine is fwd, it works fine. But I like the other option better. As far as the ABS goes, I am well aware of those benefits. I'm also well aware those systems can get funky when you brake hard enough to activate them once every half decade or so. They do get "sticky" and really futzy about actually working. If I have to literally be pulling on the steering wheel to shove harder than my nearly 250lb frame does by standard to get them to come on(it's happened), I'm diverting enough attention and effort away from actually steering to be worse off than pumping. Again, personal experience pertaining to the way I drive rather than somebody who has the benefits of regularly needing to do things like drive on hills(I don't), accelerate hard to merge into traffic(I don't), and brake at emergency speeds(very rarely, did I mention it's really flat here? You can usually see a long ways. Usually a mile no problem. Emergency vehicle lights usually farther. With a little attention to upcoming hazards and the caution to slow down for them, I need to brake hard maybe actually once a year, and that isn't necessarily lock your tires up hard).

 

[Cutlass]

With a stick you can force the car to shift down while automatic will shift as you slow down. I guess that's safer? I have no idea how to drive stick.

With an automatic you have a selection of gears, and you can force the car into 1 or 2 with the shift lever. Which, of you are going down a slippery hill in a rear drive car, is the best way to handle the situation. Doesn't work on a front drive car.

That will work if you know how to drive, but then one would not be going that fast in those conditions if they knew how to drive. It would seem to me that taking one's foot off the gas and applying it when needed is still the most efficient and requiring the least amount of thought while keeping control for the average driver under those conditions.

Your point would seem to indicate the dumbing down of drivers across the board, and every one should be a professional on how to use their vehicle more effectively. Do automatic transmissions downshift properly, or would that only work for manual shifting?

Honestly, I do think very large numbers of the American drivers are dumbed down. Cars, and particularly SUV, even many front drive cars, or rear drive cars with advanced features, are simply so much more capable today that they were a generation ago, that people substitute the capability of the vehicle for the capability of the driver.

Which brings us full circle to the topic this thread used to be on, which is self driving cars. Masada, and maybe someone else, I forget, was making the point early in this thread that human error is the most common cause of vehicle accidents. Today we have very much more capable vehicles, which help an alert and competent driver avoid many accidents. But human error is still the leading cause. And when cars get too capable, yet not self driving, there is some portion of the driving population which will unthinkingly substitute that capability of the vehicle for their own capability as a driver.

Conversation I had with a man one day: "I totaled my Suburban because the anti-lock brakes didn't work". Well jesus fraking christ, dude. If you're going fast enough to total a Suburban, ABS isn't going to do jack poop for you. Another day, on my drive to work after an overnight snow, I saw 4 single vehicle accidents. All 4 were 4WD vehicles. People just going too fast.

 

[uppi]

I don't know what your experience with driving is. Germany has some roads with very high speeds permitted. The US has limits on how fast you can go. But most people on those roads, traffic permitting, are driving a small amount faster than the posted limit. What that means in practice is that the car has to comfortably drive at 70 miles per hour. If it doesn't, few Americans would choose to buy that car. So the market for that car may be too limited for the automakers to believe that that model is worthwhile to even offer. Further, those cars must be able to reach road speeds from a stop in a short enough period of time to comfortably merge with traffic which is moving at those high speeds. So acceleration matters, and few American drivers are comfortable with cars that lack that acceleration. Then there are a lot of hills, and the car needs the power to maintain speed on those hills.

I've driven my share of underpowered cars (those where flooring the pedal will do nothing if on an incline and in the wrong gear) on the German Autobahn and they all comfortably reached 110kph (=70mph, a car going this slow on the Autobahn anywhere but in the right lane is a traffic obstacle). Reaching that speed on the acceleration lane is also never a problem if you take the 3rd gear and floor the pedal.

I see why hills might be a problem if you have a low speed limit and the traffic constantly moves at (or slightly over) that limit: Then you cannot take some speed from going down one hill to go up the next.

 

[Formaldehyde]

ESP (electronic stability program) is almost as important. You virtually cant lost control of the car or make a spin. I think there are as many accidents due to control loss as because late braking if not more.

Controlling a spin is quite simple given the proper rudimentary training. I guess for those who don't want to learn, it is a reasonably decent band-aid under many conditions. But you can still easily lose control Don't think that some pseudo-AI car gadget is going to save you from really bad driving or even a bad front tire blowout.

Interestingly, these sort of systems are not conducive to racing one bit. A car that doesn't allow the driver to disable it is really lousy at the track or while autocrossing.

I've read that literature. All I'm saying is I prefer a car with rwd. I don't own one, mine is fwd, it works fine. But I like the other option better. As far as the ABS goes, I am well aware of those benefits. I'm also well aware those systems can get funky when you brake hard enough to activate them once every half decade or so. They do get "sticky" and really futzy about actually working. If I have to literally be pulling on the steering wheel to shove harder than my nearly 250lb frame does by standard to get them to come on(it's happened), I'm diverting enough attention and effort away from actually steering to be worse off than pumping. Again, personal experience pertaining to the way I drive rather than somebody who has the benefits of regularly needing to do things like drive on hills(I don't), accelerate hard to merge into traffic(I don't), and brake at emergency speeds(very rarely, did I mention it's really flat here? You can usually see a long ways. Usually a mile no problem. Emergency vehicle lights usually farther. With a little attention to upcoming hazards and the caution to slow down for them, I need to brake hard maybe actually once a year, and that isn't necessarily lock your tires up hard).

I also vastly prefer RWD cars. But FWD cars do have some advantages, as well as distinct disadvantages.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Controlling a spin is quite simple given the proper rudimentary training. I guess for those who don't want to learn, it is a reasonably decent band-aid under many conditions. But you can still easily lose control Don't think that some pseudo-AI car gadget is going to save you from really bad driving or even a bad front tire blowout.

My car has it and you cant lose control unless you try really really hard. A fraction of second after the car begins to skid the four wheels will brake independently and skid will disappear before you even noticed it was happening. OTOH for a human, even for the trained ones, contolling a spin can be simple or simply impossible if it is too late as usually happens when you dont expect it. From wiki: "According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one-third of fatal accidents could be prevented by the use of the technology".

Interestingly, these sort of systems are not conducive to racing one bit. A car that doesn't allow the driver to disable it is really lousy at the track or while autocrossing.

Interestingly, F1s had ESP until 2008 when it was banned along with traction control since it was too easy to drive the car, just like ABS was banned in the 90s.