Tech FAIL of the Day?

necrosis said:
I am the same.

Want to know what would render these things obsolete?

-- Throw out our joke of a driver test system. Remake it much stricter.
-- Increase penalties for driving like a d-bag.
-- Almost a full road test every 5-10 years for younger drivers. After 60-70 every 3 years. 70+ every year. FFS most places don't even make you take an eye test to renew your lic! Let alone hand eye coordination and reaction times.

These are things that can be done NOW. They are not some mythical thing that will not have 100% coverage for another 50+ years.
Click to expand...

Car lobbies would never allow most of what's on your list.
 
Ashbringer said:
A. When I'm driving down a hill, I like to put the car in neutral so the engine idles lower, and I save on gas.
.
Click to expand...

at first glance this sounds correct, but it really isnt. when you are coasting in gear (manual trans, fuel injection), your car shuts off the injectors entirely so you use zero gas.

if you let the car idle, not only are you wearing your synchros because you have to put the car back in gear, but its using gas to keep the engine idling.

leaving it in gear, foot off the gas, while coasting, saves more fuel.
 
can we just get on with transportation and get rid of these silly concepts? I'm ready to be broken down to the molecular level!
 
gunbust3r said:
how do you merge onto the highway when there is a Semi + 6 car length behemoth chugging along in the right lane?
Click to expand...

They will not worry about this. Just sell the system to stupid policy makers and tell them that is there problem. Same with dynamic driving scenarios. Accident? Wanna bet a car train will cause 10x the gridlock as it moves to another lane with 12 cars in tow and cause more accidents?
 
Look, if this were a system like in the Minority Report...I am ALL for it.


As the system is now? It is stupid.

YES, the fuel efficiency of 10 cars may be better when they are drafting a truck (people do that now, not very safe) but 10 cars and 1 truck is in NO WAY more fuel efficient than a bus.

There are also questions like:

What about Wi-Fi dead spots / interference? MASS PILE UP.

What about LulzSec? "Hey, this will be funny...WATCH THIS. *hack*"

What about gunbust3r's question...you can't merge onto the freeway with the uber-train in your way.

What about plain old nature? The lead car / truck guy has a Macho Man Savage moment and DIES AT THE WHEEL...all those coffee drinking / newspaper reading idiots in cars 1 - 9 are DEAD.

I could go on for days poking holes in this retarded idea.


...that said... bring on the fully automated Minority Report system. :D
 
schizrade said:
Come to America and see why it would not work. Europe is NOT America. What works in Germany will not necessarily work well in Nevada and vice versa. In many places it would be a huge waste of resources due to the distances needed to travel between places, hence we do not have large national rail networks. Distances are so great and often sparsely populated that it costs more to make a rail run than build an airport or freeway and maintain them for 100 years. In dense cities, we have decent transit that should be expanded before we create moving pile ups.

If this works in Europe great.
Click to expand...

Sparse population truly is the biggest hold up for other forms of public transit in the US. Take all 5 residents of Wyoming for example... ;) But it's for that reason that I'm not entirely against this idea. Especially in my area where other forms of public transit are not available. I can just tag into the daily car train for my commute.

With that being said, it only takes watching the first minute of the video to realize that this vehicle train will be completely optional. If you don't want to tag into it, you won't have to. So those who can't stand people driving so close to you that you can no longer even see their tail lights, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT! So those mornings where I'm running late, I can still speed and get to work :)
 
ghost6303 said:
at first glance this sounds correct, but it really isnt. when you are coasting in gear (manual trans, fuel injection), your car shuts off the injectors entirely so you use zero gas.

if you let the car idle, not only are you wearing your synchros because you have to put the car back in gear, but its using gas to keep the engine idling.

leaving it in gear, foot off the gas, while coasting, saves more fuel.
Click to expand...

Not only is it bad for the car, it is stupid and unsafe for others around you.
 
ghost6303 said:
at first glance this sounds correct, but it really isnt. when you are coasting in gear (manual trans, fuel injection), your car shuts off the injectors entirely so you use zero gas.

if you let the car idle, not only are you wearing your synchros because you have to put the car back in gear, but its using gas to keep the engine idling.

leaving it in gear, foot off the gas, while coasting, saves more fuel.
Click to expand...

ccmfreak2 said:
Sparse population truly is the biggest hold up for other forms of public transit in the US. Take all 5 residents of Wyoming for example... ;) But it's for that reason that I'm not entirely against this idea. Especially in my area where other forms of public transit are not available. I can just tag into the daily car train for my commute.

With that being said, it only takes watching the first minute of the video to realize that this vehicle train will be completely optional. If you don't want to tag into it, you won't have to. So those who can't stand people driving so close to you that you can no longer even see their tail lights, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT! So those mornings where I'm running late, I can still speed and get to work :)
Click to expand...

And how likely will a car train be implemented in Wyoming where there are no traffic problems?
 
You know what the problem is with mass transit here? It's insanely-f'ing-expensive to do anything. We are already so built up in the population dense areas that would benefit from mass transit that it becomes incredibly expensive to procure right-of-way rights and property.

Add to that insanely long legal trials, endless environmental reviews, etc, that adding approximately 10-20 miles of track (BART) along an existing highway median is estimated to cost more than $1 billion dollars. No matter how much sense it make make environmentally with that kind of up front cost it will never make sense from a pure economic standpoint.
 
This puts a lot of trust in people to keep their vehicles maintained. Wonder what happens if someone has a bad wheel bearing and their entire wheel falls off or if someone fails to keep their brakes maintained well enough to handle the type of quick stopping you need to be following on someones ass like that. I ono the idea of packing together a bunch of cars on the highway that aren't regularly maintained doesn't sound like my idea of safety.
 
cjhatesu said:
This puts a lot of trust in people to keep their vehicles maintained. Wonder what happens if someone has a bad wheel bearing and their entire wheel falls off or if someone fails to keep their brakes maintained well enough to handle the type of quick stopping you need to be following on someones ass like that. I ono the idea of packing together a bunch of cars on the highway that aren't regularly maintained doesn't sound like my idea of safety.
Click to expand...

THIS.


Or a plain old flat tire / blow out that (even on a well maintained vehicle) causes the lead car to flip / or the driver overreacts / slams the skids / etc. etc.
 
Getting stuck behind some big ass truck, that is exactly how I want to ride to work:rolleyes:

Do you know what happens when you start with a bad idea? You get a bad product. Instead of thinking in these baby steps they need to focus on a whole new system, one that can drive itself. We've been hearing about cars that do just that since the '80. We've also heard about cars that get 100 miles to the gallon since the '80.

I propose all 18 wheelers must stay in the right lane at all times (in the US) and motorcycles are allowed to double the cars speed limit;)
 
ChrisRam said:
Getting stuck behind some big ass truck, that is exactly how I want to ride to work:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

People get "stuck" when they don't have a choice. There is no forcing going on in this video. What makes you believe you're going to be "stuck" behind the truck? How many Interstates in the US have one lane?
 
I don't like this. You should either have cars that drive themselves entirely, or nothing at all. In this case you're relying on the lead driver. What if the lead driver has a heart attack? Passes out? Either the system handles it, or it doesn't. If it's capable enough to handle that situation, I don't see why you need the lead vehicle at all.

This seems like a compromise in the name of green enviro-whackos. And in all honesty I don't see automated cars being the transportation of the future. You'll probably have the equivalent of automated taxis that shuttle you around and can dock themselves on larger trains. So if you want to go across the country, you call up one of these automated vehicles that picks you up, drives you to a super train station, docks on the train across the country, and then it detaches in the destination city and delivers you to your destination. That, or teleporters.
 
Anaerin said:
I remember seeing on "Tomorrow's World" back in the late 80's/early 90's a system that did something like this being tested by Mercedes Benz.

It used rangefinding-enhanced cruise control to find the vehicle in front and "Lock on" to it, ensuring a safe distance from it at all times, combined with lane departure warning systems to keep the car in it's lane. They also had the system so that if the car in front supported the system, the two could communicate and bunch up tighter (as there was no need for a safety gap - virtually no reaction time needed to tell when the vehicle in front was going to do, as the two (or more) vehicles were in constant communication). The system was demonstrated with a train of 3 vehicles running round a track, and any car could at any time slow and drop out (With the cars behind automatically slowing to allow them out, then speeding back up to regain the pack), and join into a group automatically. The only requirement was that the lead vehicle, no matter what it was, was paying attention to the road. It didn't have the requirement that it had to have a professional driver leading the pack, and groups could be formed and broken up on an entirely ad-hoc basis.
Click to expand...

It was also displayed on Top Gear a couple of years back, Jaguar have the same system with three settings:- Old person leaving enough room for a bus, average driver leaving a 3 second gap, and MASSIVE COCK in an Audi/BMW.
 
schizrade said:
MOAR GOVERNMENT!

They always solve more problems than they create, right?
Click to expand...

How does this technology have anything to do with government? I suppose you think the computer and TV are government extensions as well? Perhaps you need to turn off your computer.
 
.. I don't see how this is a fail. Cars will eventually drive themselves completely. They already park, avoid collisions, etc. Google even has a car that can and has driven by itself (with a person behind the wheel for safety)
 
undertheradar said:
How does this technology have anything to do with government? I suppose you think the computer and TV are government extensions as well? Perhaps you need to turn off your computer.
Click to expand...
Who else do you think wants to be able to control the entire system? In the US any massive car-to-car network would have to be managed by NHTSA/FEMA, you know, just in case of some 'national emergency'. If you think any government would let the whole thing run without their intervention, you have far more faith in them than I do.

Anyways, this is nice and all, for those people who view their car as some kind of appliance, but for me, HELL NO! The only time I would want a vehicle to automatically drive for me is if I'm dead or dying. I can only see this working if everyone in the country was given a new car, or it was far cheaper for someone to buy it, versus keeping their old car.
 
Some good points about our modern transportation system are made here. It makes me think of this:

Perhaps its time to invent a new method of infrastructure for personal transport besides the automobile that needs large paved surfaces. The "road" as we know it is how old? Paving it for cars costs alot of money... enough to bankrupt many smaller cities in the last economic downturn. In the US, we are guilty of "overbuilding" our roads too, and its all nice and good to pave an acre of road for every acre of property it services, but when the money dries up, the neighborhood goes to crap, etc... we end up with some expensive roadwork to pay for. In the EU, where population densities are higher in smaller areas, the cost of large roads is split up easier, and in more rural areas, the roads aren't dressed up like a boardwalk. The overdone roads we have in the US throughought much of the burbs are big money holes.

Roads also require tires, tires kill efficiency with rolling resistance. We need to steer and navigate through complex systems of traffic and lights every day... start, stop, accident, bumb, etc... there has to be a better way. Then, because of the diversity of vehicles on the road, we have to make sure every vehicle is weighted down with sufficient protections MOSTLY FROM OTHER VEHICLES THAT COULD BE MUCH BIGGER.

How about replacing roads with rails? Just one idea. No, not mass transit, but monorails, with maglev or wheeled personal cars? Turning, changing lanes... all easily within the level of automation we have today. No more steering... you are on a track. Accidents? Not likely since you are on a track! (and automating the rest to prevent accidents would be dirt simple). Rather than needing to pave millions of acres of land, we have rails that can even be suspended above the ground... no more cross walks needed. No more intersections. No more tires with rolling resistance. What is needed to maintain a metal rail? Alot less than a road. And, it can eliminate the need for oil/gas. You can embed electrical lines in the rails so that cars can be charging off the grid while they are running. Instead of a huge battery to store energy for your travels, the energy is wherever you go. South Korea is testing a system like this with the roads... embedded power lines under the road (microwave for wireless charging) so that cars can simply run "on the grid" most everywhere they go. They still have batteries, but only 10% or so... to go 10 miles or so if needed when the car isnt using roads/streets that are connected. The cars are alot cheaper and lighter without batteries or other energy storage needed, so its a win from the energy consumption standpoint. But I see that and wonder why not just go 100% rail then? Eliminate roads all together and develop a system of personal rail and rail cars. You could then have seperate lanes for shipping with large freight vehicles on them, or even public rails that parallel the system. It would take up alot less space, less money, etc. The transportation system would be safer, faster, more energy efficient, easier to maintain, etc. Personal cars would consist of nothing more than an electric motors, passenger/cargo cabins, climate controls. and computer/control systems for picking the routes and changing tracks (a guide/slide mechanism in the car can jump gaps in the rails for turning and lane changes rather than the rails having to move). No gas, no batteries, no tires, no suspension, no steering really...

Just an idea...
 
i see some issues -
1) hacking the system - think of the movie Speed
2) power outages that could kill it - no power, system does not work
3) the lawsuits that would happen if an accident occurs based on this technology - would you want to be the auto manufacturer who gets blamed for this?
4) intangibles outside the system - what happens when animals, children, bicyclists, or vehicles in this system suddenly appear in the road? how fast can it really react? the cars in the video are much closer than what we are told to follow at - what if a deer jumps out in the road?
 
I see the problem being that any problems with the technology will result in very expensive lawsuits/recalls.
 
Why not just bolt 10 god dam seats in that truck and drive their asses to work. This is beyond stupid
 
undertheradar said:
But I see that and wonder why not just go 100% rail then? Eliminate roads all together and develop a system of personal rail and rail cars. You could then have seperate lanes for shipping with large freight vehicles on them, or even public rails that parallel the system. It would take up alot less space, less money, etc. The transportation system would be safer, faster, more energy efficient, easier to maintain, etc. Personal cars would consist of nothing more than an electric motors, passenger/cargo cabins, climate controls. and computer/control systems for picking the routes and changing tracks (a guide/slide mechanism in the car can jump gaps in the rails for turning and lane changes rather than the rails having to move). No gas, no batteries, no tires, no suspension, no steering really...

Just an idea...
Click to expand...


This is the same line of thinking I've always had. The big problem is it would be a huge shift in individualism, as evidenced earlier in the thread about those not giving up their car.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Except this is something that has already proven to work in practice. So your example is really meaningless.
Click to expand...

but it was Disney who thought up most of the tech we have in our cars today,
short of the autopilot they are pretty close.
 
I have one thing to say about this.

Car-bombs that drive themselves.
 
The system doesn't even have to be hacked to be attacked. Just get in near the front of a row, then push something big and heavy out the back of your vehicle. Oops, everyone behind you is dead. You could also do it from outside the system by putting something in the road in front of the truck causing it to slam-and-swerve, or just crash. You could also just swerve into a vehicle in the pack at random. Or you could pull up beside the truck and shoot the driver, or beside any random car and shoot out the tires.

Then there is most of the above, but on accident. Like someone that is driving a truck with a tarp on it down the highway. Tarp works loose, flies up and covers the lead trucks windshield, driver drives panics and everyone dies.

Or from a real life incident I witnessed.... Someone else on the road has a medical emergency like a heart-attack, loses control, and swings over from the left hand lane all the way to the right and slams perpendicularly into the lead truck or one of the other cars. In that case I was a little ways behind the vehicle that started driving erratically for about 10 seconds before swerving into a panel truck. I was able to take evasive action, as did everyone but the panel truck. If you were in 100 feet behind this vehicle in the convoy and reading a book, or sleeping, you wouldn't know you needed to take evasive action and their would be a massive pile-up.
 
ghost6303 said:
at first glance this sounds correct, but it really isnt. when you are coasting in gear (manual trans, fuel injection), your car shuts off the injectors entirely so you use zero gas.

if you let the car idle, not only are you wearing your synchros because you have to put the car back in gear, but its using gas to keep the engine idling.

leaving it in gear, foot off the gas, while coasting, saves more fuel.
Click to expand...

He was talking about coasting WHILE going downhill. If you leave a manual car in gear while coasting the engine is going to act as a brake. Putting it in neutral and coasting is going to be a lot more efficient then having the engine braking the car.

Not only will the engine act as a brake, but it also causes very high vacuum in the cylinders which tends to suck oil through the valve stem seals and through the oil rings unless you have a car with a very low mileage engine or an engine that has never been run on anything but full synthetic oil. One of my old cars sucked 2 quarts coming out of a mountain area because I was coasting with the car in gear.

I've got somewhere in the range of 200k+ highway miles under my belt with around 1/3 of those being in manual transmission vehicles.
 
maybe its just where i am but i think i drive this close to vehicles (maybe even closer) when in idiot is doing like only 60 in the fast lane. I have been very tempted to push other cars out of the way since i got a truck. usually flashing lights or honking just confuses them because they were stupid enough to get in the fast lane driving as slow as they do. Maybe they should just get people who can drive faster competently a drivers license which permits them in the fast lane in the 1st place. Just give all the numbskulls this system so they are slaves to it and stop slowing down traffic. Personally i think this is a bad idea but as long as it gets rid of idiots....maybe there is some potential.

I mean on the freeway it always gets me mad when i see 1 car slowing down a train of others. whats worse is that some people think its their right to do this.

My worry is that this thing will take over all cars.....if that happens then its really over.

In the USA we NEED to make it much much harder to get a license...maybe like finland. @ least then people will know how to drive. Top Gear did something about finland and how they have a nation of good drivers.

I mean Apple makes Macs or people who dont know how to use computers....they should make a car for people who dont know how to drive.........o yeah i forgot...the prius.
 
by the way i love that aniime ex-driver........maybe we can get jobs doing that that would be uber awesome.
 
TwistedAegis said:
This is the same line of thinking I've always had. The big problem is it would be a huge shift in individualism, as evidenced earlier in the thread about those not giving up their car.
Click to expand...

Sort of: Im thinking each person would buy their own car still, only we would travel on rails rather than roads. So you could still have people with their individual "cars", just a different kind of car.

Some countries are experimenting with things like this already. I would most likely be easier to start up in smaller countries with higher density areas, for reasons just like why upgrading cell phone service and internet in the US is sooo much more costly than say, Japan or the EU. And yes, you would have your typical stubborn American'ts protesting for the sake of protesting something new... but when the rest of the world rejects autos and roads as we know it, we will follow, kicking and screaming like little children getting a vaccination.
 
cyclone3d said:
He was talking about coasting WHILE going downhill. If you leave a manual car in gear while coasting the engine is going to act as a brake. Putting it in neutral and coasting is going to be a lot more efficient then having the engine braking the car.

Not only will the engine act as a brake, but it also causes very high vacuum in the cylinders which tends to suck oil through the valve stem seals and through the oil rings unless you have a car with a very low mileage engine or an engine that has never been run on anything but full synthetic oil. One of my old cars sucked 2 quarts coming out of a mountain area because I was coasting with the car in gear.

I've got somewhere in the range of 200k+ highway miles under my belt with around 1/3 of those being in manual transmission vehicles.
Click to expand...

You guys do realize that you are having an argument about technologies that are likely to die before any such system goes into place, right? I too prefer manual, but double-clutch and CVT systems will likely push out the systems we see now, if they are even needed (and after using both of them, I would drop manual in a heartbeat for either one). I would bet that most vehicles in 10-20 years will be running some sort of electric motor direct drive system with no gearing at all. Gearing and transmissions cost power and efficiency. With the obvious benefits of running a series hybrid and generator combo (like the Chevy Volt) over what we have now, or the advantages of an electric drive system to consider (either full electric or some hybrid), the "coasting" energy will likely be harvested through an electric motor and recycled (regenerative braking).
 
Putz said:
1. 90kph? no.... cars are safer now than the ever have been, limits need to go way up as it is like 130kph on express ways is more like it.
Click to expand...

The roads aren't made for that speed however (Yes, I realize 130kph is only 80mph) The autobahn's roads are almost 3x as thick as any road in the US and the maximum surface grade is a lot lower. The idea that interstates and highways will be upgraded to support a higher speed are pie in the sky, like when GM had a system similar to this in the 80s and early 90s that needed to have trackers placed into the pavement a couple of yards away from each other to work. Will never happen. Hell, I bet there's a decent amount of highways and interstates where the standard 70mph is kind of questionable due to the worn out road.
 
iTYPE said:
Why not just bolt 10 god dam seats in that truck and drive their asses to work. This is beyond stupid
Click to expand...

People said the same thing when they removed the horse from the carriage.
 
The trick is that all cars in the train needs to instantly and simultaneously apply the brakes. I would love an automated vehicle ... but count me in the "I don't think it'll really work out for a really long time" group. Existing roads are way too whack and varied, requiring human experience and judgment.
 
iTYPE said:
Why not just bolt 10 god dam seats in that truck and drive their asses to work. This is beyond stupid
Click to expand...

That's called a bus.

The train hooks up and convoys vehicles on big highways to increase traffic efficiency. When cars need to leave for their individual destinations, they leave the convoy and drivers can be on their way on smaller streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top