Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
singularityhub.com
Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#2"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven counterparts."
How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and not timed run events.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#3"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven counterparts." How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and not timed run events.
Really? I'd expect that robotic cars will dominate closed-course races sooner rather than later simply due to the fact that the course is known, can be mapped down to the millimeter, and can be simulated offline. AI cars don't get bored, distracted, suffer fatigue, or need the physical stamina to drive an optimal line rain or shine hundreds of times in a row.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#4"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven counterparts." How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and not timed run events.
Really? I'd expect that robotic cars will dominate closed-course races sooner rather than later simply due to the fact that the course is known, can be mapped down to the millimeter, and can be simulated offline. AI cars don't get bored, distracted, suffer fatigue, or need the physical stamina to drive an optimal line rain or shine hundreds of times in a row.
There is a lot to racing, particularly interaction with other, drafting, rubber on road, etc. I don't think it is going to be that easy.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#5[deleted]
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#6"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven counterparts." How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and not timed run events.
Actually, in some aspects, we're already there! :)
Computers can run a car at the limits of its traction circle much better than humans can, even with nothing more than an accelerometer. I've done some hacking around this, and it turns out that you can go about it fairly naïvely, code-wise, and do way better than even good amateur racers. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any top F1 drivers to datalog them side by side with my software, but maybe someday.
In terms of the quickest path around a given course, computers are _way_ better than humans at that. There's the official "racing line", which is a generally accepted fastest line, but as you can create more acceleration, the line actually flattens out towards the shortest route through a given section. Take a look at something like Spec Miata vs an AWD time attack car for a great demonstration of this.
Humans still have the edge on understanding & interpreting the environment. There's a lot of work being done in this area, though - I suspect we'll get some fairly robust stuff that's available to us on the open market in a few years.
Then there's the fatigue factor.
Heck, if nothing else, having to cart around 150-180lbs of meat with fairly tall packaging and some weird requirements about having to see and what kind of forces you can exert on it is a bit of a drag to making the quickest possible wheeled vehicle.
Sorry for the wall of text - this is something I've been hacking around a bunch for the last while, as it's the intersection of a bunch of my interests. Drop me a line if you want to chat more about it sometime.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#7"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven counterparts." How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and not timed run events.
Actually, in some aspects, we're already there! :) Computers can run a car at the limits of its traction circle much better than humans can, even with nothing more than an accelerometer. I've done some hacking around this, and it turns out that you can go about it fairly naïvely, code-wise, and do way better than even good amateur racers. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any top F1 drivers to datalog them side b…
"Heck, if nothing else, having to cart around 150-180lbs of meat with fairly tall packaging and some weird requirements about having to see and what kind of forces you can exert on it is a bit of a drag to making the quickest possible wheeled vehicle."
I think I should have gone into more detail, as I believe that the statement from the article refers to entering a computer controlled car into a race with humans.
The interaction is serious important, and knowing the fastest line doesn't mean your car will get to take the fastest line if someone is already there. Pitting is going to be interesting.
Some race series, NASCAR, only allow for a limited group of sensors. I would guess something like F-1 or Indy would be easier since they have more allowed telemetry. I would imagine a NASCAR driver robot is going to have a tough time telling the pit what exactly is wrong.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I'd expect that robotic cars will dominate closed-course races sooner rather than later simply due to the fact that the course is known, can be mapped down to the millimeter, and can be simulated offline. AI cars don't get bored, distracted, suffer fatigue, or need the physical stamina to drive an optimal line rain or shine hundreds of times in a row.
There is a lot to racing, particularly interaction with other, drafting, rubber on road, etc. I don't think it is going to be that easy.
Not a racing fan at all, but from friends I know there are certain strategies involved if each team consist of two or more members. One member can stall other racers, helping his team-mate advance. Again, this is just from talking to them.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot to racing, particularly interaction with other, drafting, rubber on road, etc. I don't think it is going to be that easy.
Not a racing fan at all, but from friends I know there are certain strategies involved if each team consist of two or more members. One member can stall other racers, helping his team-mate advance. Again, this is just from talking to them.
Yep, happens in open wheel and drafting with teammates in stock car (although that isn't even totally true). It seems like it is much more prevalent where one sponsor sponsors multiple cars.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#10They 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...