Driving automobiles

Re: Self Driving Cars – the "Pod" concept

"That’s because they’re all part of it.  They’re all pods, all of them!"

Pod-cars indeed…

John B.

"Ashton Crusher" <d…@moore.net> wrote in message

news:ej6rg3pgqirrhtqj7bur8ua3ufg8atcgue@4ax.com…

- — -

> I don’t think the self driving cars are going to be extensions of what
> we have now.  It’s not going to be just a bunch of stuff added to your
> Lexus.  In the same way that many people are already saying that if
> there was a reasonably priced all electric car that could get them
> about 120 reliable miles a day so they could make their commute plus
> run a few errands that they would be interested in such a car even if
> it was more of a small, special purpose vehicle for the commute and
> for short trips near their house.  They would keep the Lexus for their
> longer trips and family outings.

> So what’s needed to automate the picture?

> The highways would need to convert the HOV lanes to pod-car lanes. And
> the electric commuter cars would have to be built as "pod-cars". By
> that I mean there would be some fixed design standards for bumper
> heights, speed and braking capability, control systems for the
> steering and brakes would need to be standardized.  And possibly there
> would need to be couplers on the front and rear.  These could be
> virtual couplers, if you will, rather then mechanical, depends on some
> issues that would not be known till you tried out some concepts.

> In order to pack in as many vehicles as possible you do not want to
> just have them all doing the "leave 4 car lengths following distance"
> drill.  You need them packed together, ideally coupled together like a
> freight train.  Whether that’s feasible or not it’s too soon to say.
> Certainly if there are enough people with common origin and
> destination nodes that are widely enough spaced the concept is
> reasonable.  Coupling them together should provide better aerodynamics
> and eliminates all the wasted following distance room.

> The HOV lane would be limited to just pod cars and they would have to
> enter, couple, uncouple, and exit the HOV lane under computer control.
> Of course, it would not be HOV anymore, it would just be pod-cars.

> The other idea being bounced around, individual cars with loosely
> connected sensors so they don’t crash into each other will do very
> little to improve existing roadway capacity.  If actually implemented
> it might result in some horrendous crashes when some drunk bozo
> decides to crash the party and all the sleeping drivers realize too
> late that there is a big 30 car pileup ahead of them.  In any case,
> it’s going to be difficult to allow them to produce benefits unless
> they either get closer together or go faster or both.  Unless you
> really have them fool proof that’s not going to happen.  And if you
> make it foolproof you have to exclude all the non-computer controlled
> cars.

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

3 Responses to “Re: Self Driving Cars – the "Pod" concept”

  1. admin says:

    In article <ej6rg3pgqirrhtqj7bur8ua3ufg8atc…@4ax.com>,
    Ashton Crusher  <d…@moore.net> wrote:

    >Lexus.  In the same way that many people are already saying that if
    >there was a reasonably priced all electric car that could get them
    >about 120 reliable miles a day so they could make their commute plus
    >run a few errands that they would be interested in such a car even if
    >it was more of a small, special purpose vehicle for the commute and
    >for short trips near their house.

    They may say it, but when the rubber hits the road, they wouldn’t DO
    it.  The extra cost of keeping an additional car would sour the deal.
    And electricity isn’t free, either.

      There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
      result in a fully-depreciated one.

  2. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Scott in SoCal wrote:
    >Ashton Crusher <d…@moore.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

    >>>Actually, you could extend the range of electric cars by making some
    >>>sort of a track or conveyor system for them to hook up to. You drive
    >>>under your own power from your house to the nearest entry point. You
    >>>then hitch up your car to a moving conveyor, much like the way a cable
    >>>car hooks onto a moving cable embedded in a slot in the street. You
    >>>then shut off your motor and the conveyor moves your car most of the
    >>>distance to your destination. When your exit comes up, you start your
    >>>motor, detach from the conveyor, and complete your trip.

    >>>I’m being purposely vague about the nature of the conveyor, as it’s
    >>>the basic idea we’re discussing, not the specific implementation.

    >>It could be done that way but the downside is the high cost to build
    >>and then you are stuck with it where ever you built it.

    >The same is true of the freeway itself, but that is somehow not seen
    >as a negative.

    What I see is as a negative, besides the cost of engineering and
    fabrication of such a conveyor, is the fact that we now have to spend
    energy moving the it’s mass as well as the vehicles that are on them.

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    >>The beauty of
    >>pod-cars that could "fix" on some kind of cheap sensor plus GPS is
    >>that no new infrastructure is needed, you just need to computerize the
    >>system.

    >Perhaps the conveyor would be a step along the path towards that
    >ideal: useful during a period when computers aren’t quite fast enough
    >(or algorithms aren’t quite sophisticated enough) to do it all just
    >yet.

    >>It probably will never happen but I have to believe that pod-cars
    >>would be way more efficient and cheaper then the expense of the light
    >>rail systems cities love to waste money on.

    >Walt Disney certainly believed in the concept. Remember the WEDway
    >PeopleMover?

    "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it’s homosexuallity:
    the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
    : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd

    "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it’s ability to operate a vehicle:
    I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
    : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a618

  3. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Scott in SoCal wrote:
    >"Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
    ><drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> said in rec.autos.driving:

    >>>>>I’m being purposely vague about the nature of the conveyor, as it’s
    >>>>>the basic idea we’re discussing, not the specific implementation.

    >>>>It could be done that way but the downside is the high cost to build
    >>>>and then you are stuck with it where ever you built it.

    >>>The same is true of the freeway itself, but that is somehow not seen
    >>>as a negative.

    >>What I see is as a negative, besides the cost of engineering and
    >>fabrication of such a conveyor, is the fact that we now have to spend
    >>energy moving the it’s mass as well as the vehicles that are on them.

    >Fair enough. What would you estimate this overhead to be
    >(percentagewise)?

    I have no clue, and I would hazard that it would vary on a per-case
    basis.

    I’ve been considering if the installation of such a conveyor would
    make more sense in a planar or a mountainous environment, and the
    benefits of regenerative systems on each. Traffic density and power
    distribution points would be other factors to consider. Sounds like it
    would be a fun project to work on.

    "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it’s homosexuallity:
    the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
    : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd

    "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it’s ability to operate a vehicle:
    I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
    : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a618