+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Automotive News Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=10527)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
Automotive News Discussion - Senor_Taylor - 11-17-2017
A lot of truckers run two books, honestly. 8 hours in one book, 8 in another. Also, for long rang hauling, the trucks are NEVER off.
This is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's one of those things we'll need to suffer through before it's viable.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
RE: Automotive News Discussion - JPolen01 - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 10:12 AM)Senor_Taylor Wrote: A lot of truckers run two books, honestly. 8 hours in one book, 8 in another. Also, for long rang hauling, the trucks are NEVER off.
This is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's one of those things we'll need to suffer through before it's viable.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
The mandate for electronic logbooks goes into effect next month to cut down on the fraudulent books. I agree that long-haul truckers won't be able to use these EVs until the battery tech is there for a longer range.
Automotive News Discussion - Senor_Taylor - 11-17-2017
The more I think about it, the "around town" trucks are the ones that are least effecient. I think this is fantastic for things like that, or maybe a Ups truck.
The Long haul trucks are vastly more effecient since those things are essentially trains at speed. Massive inertia.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
RE: Automotive News Discussion - WRXtranceformed - 11-17-2017
Long haul makes the most sense for partial/full autonomy too. You could have a "captain" that just hangs out and steps in during emergency or system failure situations or when the tech really evolves, no person in the cab at all and just employ yard jockeys at distribution hubs to jump in and do the fancy / tough or poor weather / conditions maneuvering around the docking areas.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - RawrImAMonster - 11-17-2017
Back to the roadster for a second, 0-60 in 1.9 AND the quarter mile in 8.9 seconds is insane. That's not really legal to run on most drag strips in it's stock form. I don't know what the trap speed is, but that's pretty damn close to requiring parachutes if it isn't already there. Definitely past the point of requiring a roll cage too.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - JPolen01 - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 10:33 AM)Senor_Taylor Wrote: I think this is fantastic for things like that, or maybe a Ups truck.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
They must be reading your mind! Daimler just unveiled smaller electric box trucks and it looks like 7/11 and UPS are already gearing up to test them in their fleet.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16548638/daimler-electric-truck-e-fuso-vision-one-concept
Quote:The German vehicle giant announced Tuesday at the Tokyo Motor Show the E-Fuso Vision One, an electric heavy-duty truck it says is capable of up to 217 miles on a charge after hauling 11 tons. It’s part of a plan by the Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus division of Daimler to electrify all of its large vehicles in the future, a solution for hauling companies in cities that are set to ban internal combustion engines.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - Senor_Taylor - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 10:39 AM)WRXtranceformed Wrote: Long haul makes the most sense for partial/full autonomy too. You could have a "captain" that just hangs out and steps in during emergency or system failure situations or when the tech really evolves, no person in the cab at all and just employ yard jockeys at distribution hubs to jump in and do the fancy / tough or poor weather / conditions maneuvering around the docking areas.
Maybe I'm just a simple backwoods hillbilly, but I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of fully autonomous cars. I understand humans are error prone and less precise, but that really freaks me out.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - davej - 11-17-2017
I couldn't comprehend how fast 0-60 in 2 seconds was. This helped.
https://youtu.be/aXWfL-1ieuE?t=3412
RE: Automotive News Discussion - JPolen01 - 11-17-2017
I like the idea of autonomous cars for ride hailing when I'm drunk. Otherwise I would like to continue piloting the car myself. It will be nice for long road trips to be able to drive for a bit and then turn on the autonomous function when you need a break.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - D_Eclipse9916 - 11-17-2017
All for autonomous cars. I can't wait for the day I can jump in my autonomous trailer and sleep on the way to VIR...
RE: Automotive News Discussion - CaptainHenreh - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 10:56 AM)Senor_Taylor Wrote:(11-17-2017, 10:39 AM)WRXtranceformed Wrote: Long haul makes the most sense for partial/full autonomy too. You could have a "captain" that just hangs out and steps in during emergency or system failure situations or when the tech really evolves, no person in the cab at all and just employ yard jockeys at distribution hubs to jump in and do the fancy / tough or poor weather / conditions maneuvering around the docking areas.
Maybe I'm just a simple backwoods hillbilly, but I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of fully autonomous cars. I understand humans are error prone and less precise, but that really freaks me out.
Isn't this...basically how planes work?
RE: Automotive News Discussion - Senor_Taylor - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 11:57 AM)CaptainHenreh Wrote:Autopilot controls pitch and heading and there aren't other planes in the sky. Once a pilot comes in for approach, the sticks are theirs. Completely different than a car navigating traffic, stopping, going, turning, making decisions.(11-17-2017, 10:56 AM)Senor_Taylor Wrote:(11-17-2017, 10:39 AM)WRXtranceformed Wrote: Long haul makes the most sense for partial/full autonomy too. You could have a "captain" that just hangs out and steps in during emergency or system failure situations or when the tech really evolves, no person in the cab at all and just employ yard jockeys at distribution hubs to jump in and do the fancy / tough or poor weather / conditions maneuvering around the docking areas.
Maybe I'm just a simple backwoods hillbilly, but I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of fully autonomous cars. I understand humans are error prone and less precise, but that really freaks me out.
Isn't this...basically how planes work?
Autopilot makes no decisions except maintain air speed, altitude, and heading. Which is the same as turning on cruise control and tying a string to the steering wheel.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
RE: Automotive News Discussion - CaptainHenreh - 11-17-2017
Well like, "maintain air speed, altitude, and heading" is called, uh, "flying a plane". And there are definitely programs that can land a plane without pilot intervention. Sure navigation on the ground is more complex, but you trust an airplane to fly "mostly autonomously", and you don't really even think about it.
I dunno. I know computers can fail, but so far the tech seems solid. Most of the incidents related to autonomous vehicles have been errors in humans, not in the machines, like this.
Clearly the fault of the delivery driver, which, more clearly, wouldn't have been an issue if computers had been running the show.
I see accidents literally every day on I-64 and I-81 and they're all caused by fucking freight trucks. The sooner those big bastards can be switched to computer driving, the better as far as I'm concerned.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - G.Irish - 11-17-2017
The thing about flying a plane is that you're not gonna have a dipshit on his smartphone fly another plane directly in front of your plane at any point in flight. Air traffic controllers maintain safety margins with distance and altitude so that planes don't end up on collision courses. With a car there are so many things that can spring up and crash into the car with zero notice that it is orders of magnitude harder to build a safe autopilot for a car.
Autonomous cars are close enough to be better than dipshit drivers. But the danger is that they're kind of in an inbetween state where people trust the autopilot more than they should, thereby making them more dangerous instead of less.
Automotive News Discussion - Sully - 11-17-2017
I thought modern commercial airliners had an advanced Autopilot that could land the plane if it needed to?
I agree it's slightly different because of factors like other cars and pedestrians and obiects makes the autopilot car have to adapt to surroundings much more frequently than a plane.
Did they say what load that 500 mile range is based off of? Is that just the cab? Or is that fully loaded to max towing capacity?
Edit: the other posts that say the same thing as mine weren't there when I started lol
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
RE: Automotive News Discussion - JPolen01 - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 12:34 PM)Sully Wrote: Did they say what load that 500 mile range is based off of? Is that just the cab? Or is that fully loaded to max towing capacity?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
80,000 lbs. The max payload allowed on commercial trucks today.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - Senor_Taylor - 11-17-2017
Yeah, that's not really flying. "Flying a plane" only really takes place during take and landing. The rest at speed and altitude are minor adjustments. You set your cruising and speed and set your trim to maintain pitch and you're golden minus winds and such affecting your heading. Autopilot features that can land a plane are are a backup and used in the same manner as you would used the collision detection and auto braking in a car. Basically an assist if the pilot and incapacitated and a passenger is at the helm or something like that. These autopilot features and landing features are not using eyes to see animals and people in the road, changing road conditions, having to make decisions on where to swerve in an accident. Pilots are trained and licensed whereas the normal driver has passed just the minimum amount of testing to drive. Also, if you're cruising at 37,000 feet, that's a lot of space for the system to mess up and the human to catch this and correct. When you're 50 feet from another car going 60MPH, that's not a lot of time to react and take over. Air planes are not fully autonomous. Notice the word "FULLY" That's what I said. Don't get it twisted.
I'm not arguing that I don't think computers will be better than humans at driving at some point, I'm just saying it's creepy.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - CaptainHenreh - 11-17-2017
Also, I guess an Autopilot can't do thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis
![[Image: 7fj60xyokjyz.jpg]](https://i.redd.it/7fj60xyokjyz.jpg)
RE: Automotive News Discussion - ScottyB - 11-17-2017
(11-16-2017, 06:15 PM)WRXtranceformed Wrote: So a totally loaded GT2 3.3T is gonna be over $55K out the door? I honestly can't answer your question. That makes 100% zero sense to me why you would buy that car
all the direct competitors (A5 sportback, BMW 440i whateveritscalled, panamera) are way more expensive and the performance isn't 2x as good compared to the kia. they basically benchmarked the Germans for the entire car's development.
if you can get past the badge, they've come a LONG way, and you know it'll be reliable and/or covered by an insane warranty to boot. i'm one of those guys that still can't get past the name, but i'm trying.
my feeling is kia's banking a lot on this car ushering them into a new era where they're taken as seriously as Honda or Toyota and not like a Daewoo or Daihatsu.
RE: Automotive News Discussion - JPolen01 - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 03:29 PM)ScottyB Wrote:(11-16-2017, 06:15 PM)WRXtranceformed Wrote: So a totally loaded GT2 3.3T is gonna be over $55K out the door? I honestly can't answer your question. That makes 100% zero sense to me why you would buy that car
if you can get past the badge, they've come a LONG way, and you know it'll be reliable and/or covered by an insane warranty to boot. i'm one of those guys that still can't get past the name, but i'm trying.
I get that and see that is pretty much the only logic in the pricing. I just don't think they are there yet. Hyundai tried with the Genesis and even the Equus. The Equus was a huge flop and even the genesis is rarely seen on the road today. I can't imagine anyone is going to be willing to buy a $55k first gen mystery Kia.