FenwickHockey65's Great Thread of GM Knowledge

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Come on Fen!!! Not even a chuckle?

As a deputy told his arrest one day, "Troopers are notorious for their lack of a sense of humor."

[xc_SS/RS]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

I will never trust any of these systems. Hell my forward collision warning sometimes goes off and turns off my cruise control with not another car in sight... then other times the car in front slams on his brakes and I have to also and it never makes a peep.
Things like this will cause accidents I am afraid.

I don't have much faith in them either, but humans aren't the most responsive in these events as well. So anything to help is appreciated, even if it doesn't work all of the time

[FenwickHockey65]

Possible leak out of Canada: https://www.tfltruck.com/2018/10/3-0...igures-leaked/


GM 3.0L Duramax I-6 rated at 282 HP, 450 lb ft torque, 28 MPG highway.

[DGthe3]

If that came from a Canadian source then the mileage is either wrong, or terrible. We use imperial gallons instead of US gallons. Thats 4.54L in a gallon, vs 3.78L (US); about a 20% difference. So any documentation up here that says 28 mpg should come out to 23 mpg in the states.


I'm doubting that that page is Canadian though. Our fuel economy is listed in L/100km instead of miles per gallon. Sometimes mpg gets included in brackets, but I don't think I've ever seen it on its own up here.

[FenwickHockey65]

Other sources are saying the FE number is probably wrong.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by xc_SS/RS

I don't have much faith in them either, but humans aren't the most responsive in these events as well. So anything to help is appreciated, even if it doesn't work all of the time

The problem is they are moving from helping to total control of the vehicle in all situations and removing driver input fully. Well I trust my own driving and ability to take control if something fails to work correctly over a computer with sensors that probably won’t work in all conditions and cannot react to ever changing traffic situations.
I just wonder how they would react to something Like what happened down the road from me last week. We had a water main break where they temporally closed the road and put up a barrier. How will these things know the difference between a temporary barrier and a stopped vehicle? Will it just pull up to it and stop waiting for it to move??? If they have a flagman with a stop sign how will it know to stop and wait until he says it is clear to go?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

The problem is they are moving from helping to total control of the vehicle in all situations and removing driver input fully. Well I trust my own driving and ability to take control if something fails to work correctly over a computer with sensors that probably won’t work in all conditions and cannot react to ever changing traffic situations.
I just wonder how they would react to something Like what happened down the road from me last week. We had a water main break where they temporally closed the road and put up a barrier. How will these things know the difference between a temporary barrier and a stopped vehicle? Will it just pull up to it and stop waiting for it to move??? If they have a flagman with a stop sign how will it know to stop and wait until he says it is clear to go?

You trust your ability to drive. Do you automatically trust everyone elses in any and every situation? Should everyone else automatically trust you? You already implicitly trust that the engineers who designed the car in the first place have made it safe and reliable for you to operate. If you didn't, you wouldn't get behind the wheel. So why assume that they are incapable of designing a car that can safely & reliably drive itself? If you simply like driving yourself, thats fine. I enjoy driving too and I don't like the idea of being driven around in a car for that specific reason.



Most people are perfectly capable drivers most of the time. But have a tough day at work, unwind at the bar with a couple beers (only a couple, so you're not drunk) before heading home, and then get into an accident because your mind was preoccupied with how your wife is going to be bitching (again) that you're late for dinner. For any individual person, that particular scenario is pretty unlikely. Across hundreds of millions of drivers, with similar situations, accidents like that play out multiple times per day. It goes away with a self driving car because the car doesn't think about work or home life. It doesn't get influenced by alcohol or a lack of sleep. None of that. It drives the same way no matter what you did or what you're thinking that day.


And yes, you can program a car to react to drive around an obstacle. You can program it to react to a flag man too. You can program a car to react to a traffic cop blowing a whistle and waving his hands if you want. You can program a car to react to the differing styles of traffic cops in different countries. Its a question of what combination of sensors do you use & how complicated your code is. For a human, our driving sensors consist primarily of 2 eyes (of varying acuity) located a couple inches away from each other, plus 2 ears (of varying sensitivity) that can occasionally warn you about something you can't see. Thats it. And the algorithms used to convert those inputs into the operation of a vehicle are unique to every single driver & vary from day to day.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You trust your ability to drive. Do you automatically trust everyone elses in any and every situation? Should everyone else automatically trust you? You already implicitly trust that the engineers who designed the car in the first place have made it safe and reliable for you to operate. If you didn't, you wouldn't get behind the wheel. So why assume that they are incapable of designing a car that can safely & reliably drive itself? If you simply like driving yourself, thats fine. I enjoy driving too and I don't like the idea of being driven around in a car for that specific reason.



Most people are perfectly capable drivers most of the time. But have a tough day at work, unwind at the bar with a couple beers (only a couple, so you're not drunk) before heading home, and then get into an accident because your mind was preoccupied with how your wife is going to be bitching (again) that you're late for dinner. For any individual person, that particular scenario is pretty unlikely. Across hundreds of millions of drivers, with similar situations, accidents like that play out multiple times per day. It goes away with a self driving car because the car doesn't think about work or home life. It doesn't get influenced by alcohol or a lack of sleep. None of that. It drives the same way no matter what you did or what you're thinking that day.


And yes, you can program a car to react to drive around an obstacle. You can program it to react to a flag man too. You can program a car to react to a traffic cop blowing a whistle and waving his hands if you want. You can program a car to react to the differing styles of traffic cops in different countries. Its a question of what combination of sensors do you use & how complicated your code is. For a human, our driving sensors consist primarily of 2 eyes (of varying acuity) located a couple inches away from each other, plus 2 ears (of varying sensitivity) that can occasionally warn you about something you can't see. Thats it. And the algorithms used to convert those inputs into the operation of a vehicle are unique to every single driver & vary from day to day.

After working in control systems for 32 years and knowing the possibility of failure of electronics automated computer controls my main concern is not having any way to take manual control in case of a systems malfunction wether due to programming or equipment malfunction. We were never allowed to design any control system without a manual backup. In fact I can’t imagine the government allowing it either.

[sherob]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

After working in control systems for 32 years and knowing the possibility of failure of electronics automated computer controls my main concern is not having any way to take manual control in case of a systems malfunction wether due to programming or equipment malfunction. We were never allowed to design any control system without a manual backup. In fact I can’t imagine the government allowing it either.

This! I work w/ large mainframe computers, disk arrays, switches, anything IT basically. Your high end hardware, pretty much everything has a redundant component, down to the power supply. What's not redundant, software. Sure, you can have HA systems, but that's at the OS level, applications fail! Even OS' fail, rarely at the level I work at, but they can fail none the less.

When a manufacturer pushes out a fix, like Tesla does, it opens up Pandora's Box to other bugs/issues that need to be addressed... same as Apple with their IOS updates, same as Android w/ their OS upgrades... so on and so forth.

[Snoman]

Originally Posted by sherob

This! I work w/ large mainframe computers, disk arrays, switches, anything IT basically. Your high end hardware, pretty much everything has a redundant component, down to the power supply. What's not redundant, software. Sure, you can have HA systems, but that's at the OS level, applications fail! Even OS' fail, rarely at the level I work at, but they can fail none the less.

When a manufacturer pushes out a fix, like Tesla does, it opens up Pandora's Box to other bugs/issues that need to be addressed... same as Apple with their IOS updates, same as Android w/ their OS upgrades... so on and so forth.

I can code for known variables, I can't code for humans or worse yet, stupid. I swear, end users intentionally try to break shit then blame someone else. I almost fired one recently for pulling the Ethernet cable out of the server, then claiming the software broke. He no longer works in my department at least.

[FenwickHockey65]

Evidently Cadillac has patented the Escala Concept's design.


https://redirect.viglink.com/?format...fice%20-%20PDF

[90503]

Some good news for Cadillac from Consumer Reports...."automated driving system" tests.


https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/t...tag=MSFf70f0e2

[Royal Tiger]

Originally Posted by 90503

Some good news for Cadillac from Consumer Reports...."automated driving system" tests.


https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/t...tag=MSFf70f0e2

Did they test it in the rain? All my driver aids shutoff in a heavy rain. I’ve posted a picture of the warnings that pop up. Dealing with snow and sleet will be a huge challenge for the self driving lovers, unless their plan is for all of us to just move to Nevada.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Did they test it in the rain? All my driver aids shutoff in a heavy rain. I’ve posted a picture of the warnings that pop up. Dealing with snow and sleet will be a huge challenge for the self driving lovers, unless their plan is for all of us to just move to Nevada.

By the time Level 4 / Level 5 Autonomous become commonplace, cars will communicate with roads / lanes through satellite GPS instead of camera and will communicate to other cars via transponders in addition to radar and LIDAR. So, a commonplace scenario could be that at Mile Marker 21, a human driven car hits a deer...Assuming the driver slammed the brakes, the transponder in that car would send out a signal telling all the cars around it “I just slammed my brakes”. Even if that car doesn’t have a transponder, if any of the cars approaching that scene slams their brakes, their transponder(s) will send a signal to other cars in the area “Hey!! I just slammed my brakes and slowed from 72 mph to 4 mph. Be aware”. So the autonomous car approaching from Mile Marker 20 has more than ample notification that “something is going on at Mile Marker 21 that will have you brake to a stop”.