6 ms·

> Electric vehicles – including self-driving cars – are clearly the future Partially off-topic, but it feels very weird when people put electric and self-drivi

by mantas 11y ago

> Electric vehicles – including self-driving cars – are clearly the future Partially off-topic, but it feels very weird when people put electric and self-driving cars into the same basket. Those are 2 different problems. There're electric cars which are not self driving. There're cars aiming to be self-driving, that are not electric.

sonnyp 11y ago
One could argue that self-driving cars potentially consume less energy by driving more efficiently than humans.
- vkou 11y ago
  We already have an energy-saving self-driving mechanism - cruise control (and obeying the speed limit.) I drive a hybrid. Except for a few parts of my commute, cruise control and slow acceleration push me from 42 mpg to 50 mpg on my commute.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    > We already have an energy-saving self-driving mechanism - ... (and obeying the speed limit.) Obeying the speed limit is irrelevant; the actual speed is. A given car at a given speed consumes the same amount of fuel per unit distance regardless of what the speed limit is. All the data indicating that "speeding wastes fuel" is basically just proving that fuel economy is a function of engine power output.
    - Retric 11y ago
      You're ignoring breaking. If you go significantly faster than the speed limit your far more likely to break at highway speeds. Further, IC cars often get better fuel efficiency by mixing slow acceleration periods at optimum RPM and coasting. (Car engines get ~10-30 efficiency based on usage.) You can do this manually, but it's hard. However, air resistance is going to be the dominate factor at high speeds.
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        > You're ignoring breaking. If you go significantly faster than the speed limit your far more likely to break at highway speeds. I'm not ignoring braking. Aggressive driving wastes a lot of fuel, but aggressive driving happens regardless of the posted speed limit. In fact, that rapid acceleration-brake cycle is more likely to happen when the flow of traffic is below the speed limit. > Further, IC cars often get better fuel efficiency by mixing slow acceleration periods at optimum RPM and coasting. (Car engines get ~10-30 efficiency based on usage.) You can do this manually, but it's hard. I don't think it's hard. It just requires paying attention to the traffic around you.
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      Actually it's more to do with air resistance. It increases exponentially at higher speeds. You also don't burn less by driving really slow, since the engine burns some amount of fuel just by running at any speed. 40 mph is the sweet spot, supposedly. Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding.
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        > Actually it's more to do with air resistance. It increases exponentially at higher speeds. You also don't burn less by driving really slow, since the engine burns some amount of fuel just by running at any speed. 40 mph is the sweet spot, supposedly. Actually, the sweet spot is dependent on the design and condition of the car. I'm not sure where exactly it is, but I think you are right that it is usually around 40. > Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding. How does a number on a sign affect how much fuel I'm burning? If, as you indicated, the sweet spot for my car is 40 but the speed limit is 30, how am I saving fuel by going 30 instead of 40? What if the speed limit is 65? If they drop it to 60 am I suddenly using more fuel? If they increase it to 70 can I now go faster without using more? The speed limit is totally irrelevant to fuel consumption.
        Houshalter 11y ago
        Of course it depends on the design of the car, but 40 is an average. >How does a number on a sign affect how much fuel I'm burning? I never claimed that it would. I said "Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding.", which is definitely true. If you speed you are going faster and using more fuel.
        vonmoltke 11y ago
        > I never claimed that it would. I said "Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding.", which is definitely true. If you speed you are going faster and using more fuel. That statement has nothing to do with the speed limit, though. It may be trivially true, but adding the speed limit ties an irrelevant variable to it. Speed limit is a semi-arbitrary number that has nothing to do with how much fuel a car uses and how efficiently it uses it.
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      I think you're being deliberately obtuse. For 99% of people, obeying the speed limit will result in slowing down, which is what your parent was alluding to.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Self driving cars will almost certainly use much more energy than regular cars. It will reduce the cost of shipping by a lot, increasing the amount of things which are shipped. It will reduce the price of taxis a lot, so people will drive more. And it will make long commutes and road trips much more convenient.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Maybe, but you're still limited by atoms not occupying the same physical space at the same time ("traffic", "congestion", etc). There's limited road to use, so you'll still hit finite limits; if limits are reached, congestion charges will be used to bring demand inline with roadway supply.
    - Heliosmaster 11y ago
      ideally the throughput of highway would be increasing with self-driving vehicles: no need for start/stopping when they can drive at optimum total velocity.
    - agumonkey 11y ago
      Yes but the swinging hours pattern will melt since cars are now decoupled from humans cycle. Freeing a lot of pseudo-space.
cyphax 11y ago
I noticed that too. It's maybe because both are some pretty big advances that are happening somewhat simultaneously? I seriously doubt this whole thing will actually happen. The plan was made by one of the governing parties but the other party in the coalition thinks the plan is idiotic and I'm not sure there's enough backing for it overall. I for one hope to be able to drive an electric vehicle in a few years (self-driving or not; but the Dutch road network probably really need this kind of solution to the congestion problems it has) but there are all kinds of smaller hurdles. It still takes a bit too long to charge mid-trip but I'm not entirely sure I could charge at home, not having a driveway (and probably be disallowed by regulation to just leaving a cable laying across the street where I park). Or at work, actually we don't really have any kind of parking provided by my employer (which is the government in this case). I dunno if I have to add 20 minutes a day to my commute to charge the batteries. Some also say our electric network cannot really handle the shift from fossil fuels to electricity in terms of bandwidth. Again, I hope to see this happen but we need a whole lot of people on the bandwagon or it's not going to happen in the time period the plan describes (but I do think it'll happen sooner or later).
infogulch 11y ago
Electric vehicles are many many times simpler than their gas-powered cousins. This simplicity is passed onto the self-driving computer as fewer variables. Also, the primary downsides to electric vehicles -- longer refuel times, reduced range -- are mostly irrelevant when a computer is doing it by itself. Nobody cares if their self-driving taxi spends 10 minutes recharging itself between every pickup.
- arijun 11y ago
  > Electric vehicles are many times simpler than their gas-powered cousins What does engine complexity have to do with driving complexity? I imagine that a computer would drive a car using interfaces analogous to those we use; namely gas, brake, steer (and I guess a shifter to put it in drive).
  - rlidwka 11y ago
    Potentially, higher acceleration/deceleration would allow a computer to use simpler collision prevention algorithms. Also, there is no shifter there.
    - djschnei 11y ago
      improved acceleration/deceleration aren't givens for electric vehicles. You shouldn't let the Teslas cloud your perception here - usually they are slower than their internal combustion peers. Also, no reason for a self driving algorithm to worry about shifting. In an automatic car do you worry about shifting?
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    Electric cars can react to changing inputs faster than gas powered cars. They can also have two, three or even four, independent motors driving the wheels. This makes it much easier for a computer to achieve high performance, though the difference may not be noticeable until you hit a gravel patch and attempt to recover at high speed.
- schwap 11y ago
fullshark 11y ago
They are the two advances people are excited by. Putting both in the first sentence is a way to lure people in to read the article.

by mantas 11y ago

sonnyp 11y ago

One could argue that self-driving cars potentially consume less energy by driving more efficiently than humans.

vkou 11y ago
We already have an energy-saving self-driving mechanism - cruise control (and obeying the speed limit.) I drive a hybrid. Except for a few parts of my commute, cruise control and slow acceleration push me from 42 mpg to 50 mpg on my commute.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > We already have an energy-saving self-driving mechanism - ... (and obeying the speed limit.) Obeying the speed limit is irrelevant; the actual speed is. A given car at a given speed consumes the same amount of fuel per unit distance regardless of what the speed limit is. All the data indicating that "speeding wastes fuel" is basically just proving that fuel economy is a function of engine power output.
  - Retric 11y ago
    You're ignoring breaking. If you go significantly faster than the speed limit your far more likely to break at highway speeds. Further, IC cars often get better fuel efficiency by mixing slow acceleration periods at optimum RPM and coasting. (Car engines get ~10-30 efficiency based on usage.) You can do this manually, but it's hard. However, air resistance is going to be the dominate factor at high speeds.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      > You're ignoring breaking. If you go significantly faster than the speed limit your far more likely to break at highway speeds. I'm not ignoring braking. Aggressive driving wastes a lot of fuel, but aggressive driving happens regardless of the posted speed limit. In fact, that rapid acceleration-brake cycle is more likely to happen when the flow of traffic is below the speed limit. > Further, IC cars often get better fuel efficiency by mixing slow acceleration periods at optimum RPM and coasting. (Car engines get ~10-30 efficiency based on usage.) You can do this manually, but it's hard. I don't think it's hard. It just requires paying attention to the traffic around you.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    Actually it's more to do with air resistance. It increases exponentially at higher speeds. You also don't burn less by driving really slow, since the engine burns some amount of fuel just by running at any speed. 40 mph is the sweet spot, supposedly. Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      > Actually it's more to do with air resistance. It increases exponentially at higher speeds. You also don't burn less by driving really slow, since the engine burns some amount of fuel just by running at any speed. 40 mph is the sweet spot, supposedly. Actually, the sweet spot is dependent on the design and condition of the car. I'm not sure where exactly it is, but I think you are right that it is usually around 40. > Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding. How does a number on a sign affect how much fuel I'm burning? If, as you indicated, the sweet spot for my car is 40 but the speed limit is 30, how am I saving fuel by going 30 instead of 40? What if the speed limit is 65? If they drop it to 60 am I suddenly using more fuel? If they increase it to 70 can I now go faster without using more? The speed limit is totally irrelevant to fuel consumption.
      - Houshalter 11y ago
        Of course it depends on the design of the car, but 40 is an average. >How does a number on a sign affect how much fuel I'm burning? I never claimed that it would. I said "Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding.", which is definitely true. If you speed you are going faster and using more fuel.
        vonmoltke 11y ago
        > I never claimed that it would. I said "Driving at the speed limit will definitely save you more fuel than speeding.", which is definitely true. If you speed you are going faster and using more fuel. That statement has nothing to do with the speed limit, though. It may be trivially true, but adding the speed limit ties an irrelevant variable to it. Speed limit is a semi-arbitrary number that has nothing to do with how much fuel a car uses and how efficiently it uses it.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    I think you're being deliberately obtuse. For 99% of people, obeying the speed limit will result in slowing down, which is what your parent was alluding to.
Houshalter 11y ago
Self driving cars will almost certainly use much more energy than regular cars. It will reduce the cost of shipping by a lot, increasing the amount of things which are shipped. It will reduce the price of taxis a lot, so people will drive more. And it will make long commutes and road trips much more convenient.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Maybe, but you're still limited by atoms not occupying the same physical space at the same time ("traffic", "congestion", etc). There's limited road to use, so you'll still hit finite limits; if limits are reached, congestion charges will be used to bring demand inline with roadway supply.
  - Heliosmaster 11y ago
    ideally the throughput of highway would be increasing with self-driving vehicles: no need for start/stopping when they can drive at optimum total velocity.
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    Yes but the swinging hours pattern will melt since cars are now decoupled from humans cycle. Freeing a lot of pseudo-space.

cyphax 11y ago

I noticed that too. It's maybe because both are some pretty big advances that are happening somewhat simultaneously? I seriously doubt this whole thing will actually happen. The plan was made by one of the governing parties but the other party in the coalition thinks the plan is idiotic and I'm not sure there's enough backing for it overall. I for one hope to be able to drive an electric vehicle in a few years (self-driving or not; but the Dutch road network probably really need this kind of solution to the congestion problems it has) but there are all kinds of smaller hurdles. It still takes a bit too long to charge mid-trip but I'm not entirely sure I could charge at home, not having a driveway (and probably be disallowed by regulation to just leaving a cable laying across the street where I park). Or at work, actually we don't really have any kind of parking provided by my employer (which is the government in this case). I dunno if I have to add 20 minutes a day to my commute to charge the batteries. Some also say our electric network cannot really handle the shift from fossil fuels to electricity in terms of bandwidth. Again, I hope to see this happen but we need a whole lot of people on the bandwagon or it's not going to happen in the time period the plan describes (but I do think it'll happen sooner or later).

infogulch 11y ago

Electric vehicles are many many times simpler than their gas-powered cousins. This simplicity is passed onto the self-driving computer as fewer variables. Also, the primary downsides to electric vehicles -- longer refuel times, reduced range -- are mostly irrelevant when a computer is doing it by itself. Nobody cares if their self-driving taxi spends 10 minutes recharging itself between every pickup.

arijun 11y ago
> Electric vehicles are many times simpler than their gas-powered cousins What does engine complexity have to do with driving complexity? I imagine that a computer would drive a car using interfaces analogous to those we use; namely gas, brake, steer (and I guess a shifter to put it in drive).
- rlidwka 11y ago
  Potentially, higher acceleration/deceleration would allow a computer to use simpler collision prevention algorithms. Also, there is no shifter there.
  - djschnei 11y ago
    improved acceleration/deceleration aren't givens for electric vehicles. You shouldn't let the Teslas cloud your perception here - usually they are slower than their internal combustion peers. Also, no reason for a self driving algorithm to worry about shifting. In an automatic car do you worry about shifting?
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Electric cars can react to changing inputs faster than gas powered cars. They can also have two, three or even four, independent motors driving the wheels. This makes it much easier for a computer to achieve high performance, though the difference may not be noticeable until you hit a gravel patch and attempt to recover at high speed.
schwap 11y ago

fullshark 11y ago

They are the two advances people are excited by. Putting both in the first sentence is a way to lure people in to read the article.