Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 163 posts

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#11

Post by retSava »

raziel2p wrote: post #3

The most surprising part about this to me is that there seems to be a somewhat standardized computer interface for controlling cars with an external device. I would never have guessed that, I thought for sure every maker would come up with their own unique design and require you to buy adapters or whatnot.

It's mandated by regulation in all cars after..2002? It's a port most often situated close to the steering wheel, the interface is a bog standard CAN bus. Where it differs between cars is what command sets are used and allowed (eg sometimes proprietary ones are used, and controlling things may not be possible).

It's common to extract diagnostics about the car from this port. For example, when buying a used car this is highly recommended. Buy a cheap adapter that you plug in, connect to it over BT from a phone, and read out error codes. Perhaps the owner has temporarily put out an error to mask it during your inspection?

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#12

Post by voqv »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #9

The project contains software that acts as functional safety software in a vehicle, so ISO 26262 should apply. I couldn't find any reference to this in the repository or landing page? Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way? Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for…

Afaik you buy this thing as a dashcam and then flash the self driving software on your own at your own risk. This was done exactly when "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanded that Comma.ai provide proof to regulators that its proposed device for self-driving cars would be safe". [1] I wonder if there's anything new around this development with regards to Comma.ai as this is status of 2016.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/selfdriving-safety/comma-ai-...

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#13

Post by raziel2p »

retSava wrote: post #11
raziel2p wrote: post #3

The most surprising part about this to me is that there seems to be a somewhat standardized computer interface for controlling cars with an external device. I would never have guessed that, I thought for sure every maker would come up with their own unique design and require you to buy adapters or whatnot.

It's mandated by regulation in all cars after..2002? It's a port most often situated close to the steering wheel, the interface is a bog standard CAN bus. Where it differs between cars is what command sets are used and allowed (eg sometimes proprietary ones are used, and controlling things may not be possible). It's common to extract diagnostics about the car from this port. For example, when buying a used car this i…

> Perhaps the owner has temporarily put out an error to mask it during your inspection?

To be clear, I don't have a car or a driver's licence, I was just surprised that this standardization was a thing at all. Seems like a stark contrast to all the walled gardens in every other technology-related industry these days.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#14

Post by voqv »

raziel2p wrote: post #13
retSava wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mandated by regulation in all cars after..2002? It's a port most often situated close to the steering wheel, the interface is a bog standard CAN bus. Where it differs between cars is what command sets are used and allowed (eg sometimes proprietary ones are used, and controlling things may not be possible). It's common to extract diagnostics about the car from this port. For example, when buying a used car this i…

> Perhaps the owner has temporarily put out an error to mask it during your inspection? To be clear, I don't have a car or a driver's licence, I was just surprised that this standardization was a thing at all. Seems like a stark contrast to all the walled gardens in every other technology-related industry these days.

Actually not really all cars have one standard. Most German cars use Flexray which Openpilot does not currently support and is a bit more tricky to hack into as described by Comma.ai: https://medium.com/@comma_ai/hacking-an-audi-performing-a-ma...

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#15

Post by ezconnect »

raziel2p wrote: post #3

The most surprising part about this to me is that there seems to be a somewhat standardized computer interface for controlling cars with an external device. I would never have guessed that, I thought for sure every maker would come up with their own unique design and require you to buy adapters or whatnot.

CAN bus is the standard physical interface. What is not standard is the message being passed, so each car will have it's own message for car information. What surprised me about OpenPilot is how some of the electric steering system can be tricked into turning using false sensor data. It's actually amazing that almost all cars now can be driven by software the only thing missing are more accurate and complicated sensors.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#16

Post by DoingIsLearning »

voqv wrote: post #12
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #9

The project contains software that acts as functional safety software in a vehicle, so ISO 26262 should apply. I couldn't find any reference to this in the repository or landing page? Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way? Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for…

Afaik you buy this thing as a dashcam and then flash the self driving software on your own at your own risk. This was done exactly when "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanded that Comma.ai provide proof to regulators that its proposed device for self-driving cars would be safe". [1] I wonder if there's anything new around this development with regards to Comma.ai as this is status of 201…

> on your own at your own risk

It is not just your own risk but also that of other pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that share the road with you.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#17

Post by jinzo »

raziel2p wrote: post #13
retSava wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mandated by regulation in all cars after..2002? It's a port most often situated close to the steering wheel, the interface is a bog standard CAN bus. Where it differs between cars is what command sets are used and allowed (eg sometimes proprietary ones are used, and controlling things may not be possible). It's common to extract diagnostics about the car from this port. For example, when buying a used car this i…

> Perhaps the owner has temporarily put out an error to mask it during your inspection? To be clear, I don't have a car or a driver's licence, I was just surprised that this standardization was a thing at all. Seems like a stark contrast to all the walled gardens in every other technology-related industry these days.

Only the really basic data (mostly related to emissions) and connector is standarised. Even the pinout of the connector (apart from the power supply and ground) differs quite a bit between manufacturers. The level of integration needed for actually driving the car is far from a standard. Not even that, most of the new cars have specific gateways which firewall the car electronics from the OBD port.

TL;DR: Apart from really basic data and physical connector, everything else is (ever more increasing) walled garden. With new VWs and Fiats requiring online connection for even most basic operations - so even if you know the protocol, you have to unlock it online (See VW SFD and Fiat SGW)

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#18

Post by bipson »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #16
voqv wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik you buy this thing as a dashcam and then flash the self driving software on your own at your own risk. This was done exactly when "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanded that Comma.ai provide proof to regulators that its proposed device for self-driving cars would be safe". [1] I wonder if there's anything new around this development with regards to Comma.ai as this is status of 201…

> on your own at your own risk It is not just your own risk but also that of other pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that share the road with you.

that's not what "at your own risk" means.

"At your own risk" means you bear the risk (legally). If something happens, it is on you, and the manufacturer offloads any liability on you.

That does not imply what the risks are. Life threatening? You are risking other people's lives.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#19

Post by bipson »

ezconnect wrote: post #15
raziel2p wrote: post #3

The most surprising part about this to me is that there seems to be a somewhat standardized computer interface for controlling cars with an external device. I would never have guessed that, I thought for sure every maker would come up with their own unique design and require you to buy adapters or whatnot.

CAN bus is the standard physical interface. What is not standard is the message being passed, so each car will have it's own message for car information. What surprised me about OpenPilot is how some of the electric steering system can be tricked into turning using false sensor data. It's actually amazing that almost all cars now can be driven by software the only thing missing are more accurate and complicated senso…

It is actually concerning that you can inject false sensor data this easily. I mean, sure, the messages on the CAN will not be encrypted or signed in any way, I know, but still...

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#20

Post by bipson »

voqv wrote: post #14
raziel2p wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps the owner has temporarily put out an error to mask it during your inspection? To be clear, I don't have a car or a driver's licence, I was just surprised that this standardization was a thing at all. Seems like a stark contrast to all the walled gardens in every other technology-related industry these days.

Actually not really all cars have one standard. Most German cars use Flexray which Openpilot does not currently support and is a bit more tricky to hack into as described by Comma.ai: https://medium.com/@comma_ai/hacking-an-audi-performing-a-ma...

Only very recent cars use Flexray, and also not true for all manufacturers. CAN is still widely used, and some want to skip Flexray entirely for the next thing...
Post reply on HN