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

Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

singularityhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#31

Post by the_cat_kittles »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #30

The thing I like most about the promise of self-driving vehicles is that, when they actually get to a point of real maturity, the cost to manufacture and put that tech into a production vehicle won't be significantly greater. We're talking about plugging into the ECUs, which already take metrics for vehicle dynamics to aid with ESC and other systems, coupled with what is, in essence, computers and IR sensors. The res…

Seems like it would almost be worth subsidizing purchases too, since they reduce costs coming from driver error.

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#32

Post by kurokonaa »

michaelw wrote: post #26

I agree that computers will soon ( But that's just qualifying. Racing is about so much more. Driving software will have to integrate considerably more inputs in order to avoid crashing into other cars. Let's say cars have to share telemetry. Development could probably happen in parallel with other improvements but I'd still stay 3-5 years. Even if we assume software that can drive in a pack of cars, and algorithms fo…

I'd like to see this as well. It would be like a mechanic's and programmer's version of "Wacky Races".

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#33

Post by vladoh »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #30

The thing I like most about the promise of self-driving vehicles is that, when they actually get to a point of real maturity, the cost to manufacture and put that tech into a production vehicle won't be significantly greater. We're talking about plugging into the ECUs, which already take metrics for vehicle dynamics to aid with ESC and other systems, coupled with what is, in essence, computers and IR sensors. The res…

There is unfortunately still a long way to go in cost reduction. The 360 degree LIDAR (Velodyne) that Google uses (the rotating thing on the top of the car) is the most essential sensor, but costs about $80000. Other autonomous cars also use quite expensive technology like laser scanners and so on. Unfortunately it is not as simple as only IR sensors :)

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#34

Post by vladoh »

michaelw wrote: post #26

I agree that computers will soon ( But that's just qualifying. Racing is about so much more. Driving software will have to integrate considerably more inputs in order to avoid crashing into other cars. Let's say cars have to share telemetry. Development could probably happen in parallel with other improvements but I'd still stay 3-5 years. Even if we assume software that can drive in a pack of cars, and algorithms fo…

The BMW Track Trainer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Track_Trainer) can already beat most of the drivers. I think the difficult part is to beat the best ones. I doubt it will happen in the next 3 years, but I like the idea of Formula 0 very much :)

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#35

Post by joshu »

kposehn wrote: post #28
joshu wrote: post #15

I've gotten just north of 100 on Infineon. I wonder if Thunderhill has more straightaways.

Thunder Hill has two nice long straights - you can generally top 120-140 with a decently powerful car. What you need to knock down a quick lap there is brakes most of all. I had some monster Brembo GT's that allowed my little WRX to haul down from the triple digits and dive into the turns (paired with Tein coilovers). If you go up there you'll see how you have to cut in really fast towards the apex and then do a fair…

Yeah, looking forward to Thunderhill in my BRZ. Infineon is fine in a supercapable car like an R8 but something with less grip is probably scary. (I got all wheels off in the R8 anyway)

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#37

Post by iwwr »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #31
dclowd9901 wrote: post #30

The thing I like most about the promise of self-driving vehicles is that, when they actually get to a point of real maturity, the cost to manufacture and put that tech into a production vehicle won't be significantly greater. We're talking about plugging into the ECUs, which already take metrics for vehicle dynamics to aid with ESC and other systems, coupled with what is, in essence, computers and IR sensors. The res…

Seems like it would almost be worth subsidizing purchases too, since they reduce costs coming from driver error.

Not just driver error, but it reduces the need for everyone to own a car. Self-driving cars can move themselves to where they're needed, rather than sit in a garage waiting for their owners to use them.

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#38

Post by newman314 »

joshu wrote: post #19
newman314 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also depends on your car. If you are looking for a straightaway for outright speed, Big Willow lets some cars get up to about 160 or so.

In this case, an R8. Infineon doesn't have much in terms of straightaways.

Not a fan of Infineon personally. Turn 1 scares the heck out of me =)

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#39

Post by lloeki »

ajays wrote: post #10

They mentioned the race to Pike's Peak in 2010; apparently the Audi did it in 27 minutes (whereas the record is close to 10 minutes): http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/11/audis-robotic-car-climb... The car sure has made a lot of progress in 2 years...

The record is 10 minutes with purpose-built cars with titanic power (in the range of ~1000HP) and huge turbos to compensate for lack of oxygen at altitude. An Audi TTS with its measly 270HP can't beat that:

> According to Audi, race officials said an expert driver in car like the TTS would complete the course in around 17 minutes.

Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH

#40

Post by lloeki »

michaelw wrote: post #26

I agree that computers will soon ( But that's just qualifying. Racing is about so much more. Driving software will have to integrate considerably more inputs in order to avoid crashing into other cars. Let's say cars have to share telemetry. Development could probably happen in parallel with other improvements but I'd still stay 3-5 years. Even if we assume software that can drive in a pack of cars, and algorithms fo…

> But that's just qualifying. Racing is about so much more. Driving software will have to integrate considerably more inputs in order to avoid crashing into other cars.

And that's where you see the difference between Gran Turismo's infamous zombie AI and Forza Motorsport drivatar (where everyone loves to hate M. Rossi). I bet that if the Turn 10 guys got in touch with those Stanford folks, they could learn each other a trick or two.

Post reply on HN