Hacker News Reader

Commoditization of self-driving tech, yes; I don’t think car manufacturers will become (more) redundant, but eventually everybody‘s autonomous driving systems will either be hard to distinguish (like gasoline motor tech), or even completely regulated by legislation. Can legislators really allow that cars drive around with a system that is inferior to a competitor‘s? This will put eg every pedestrian‘s live at risk.

I‘m pretty sure self-driving tech will not be a big differentiator, just like airbags - almost every car has them, they are a given.

> Can legislators really allow that cars drive around with a system that is inferior to a competitor‘s? This will put eg every pedestrian‘s live at risk.

They already do this with everything else. Vehicles like Mercedes and Tesla are significantly safer than some competitors. Legislation sets the floor, not the ceiling. Or at least it shouldn't create a ceiling.

And it's also the case that SUVs and other large vehicles pose a greater risk to pedestrians and other motorists than smaller ones, but legislators haven't done anything about that.

Couldn’t the floor be a bit higher?

I’m also not sure why everyone hasn’t adopted the Toyota model of including basic safety tech in all trims...

How long has that been going on? I'm looking at buying a Sienna but needed to buy new because they introduced their Toyota safety sense on all their trims for 2018 only.

It’s a new thing, maybe since 2017? Regardless, I think it’s the right way to do it.

> Couldn’t the floor be a bit higher?

Sure, but that's what actually happens over time. First airbags are introduced, then we get some evidence that they actually work, more manufacturers introduce them and we get even more evidence, then eventually the law requires them.

It's necessary to be deliberative before mandating things because not everything is a good idea, e.g. automatic seatbelts in the 90s.

I’ve been wondering how much of a business decision this was, rather than a moral one. A cost-benefit analysis must have been completed that found the sweet spot for a bulk purchase of the safety cameras and how many more additional customers it would attract to purchase their cars.

> They already do this with everything else. Vehicles like Mercedes and Tesla are significantly safer than some competitors. Legislation sets the floor, not the ceiling. Or at least it shouldn't create a ceiling.

I think the difference is those are, for the most part, internal safety features for the car's driver and passengers, whereas self driving effects mostly people not in that automobile. Sure, there are some features in cars that aren't, but for the most part, a driver knows (should know) their vehicle, and someone driving a 1978 station wagon and someone else driving a 2018 Volvo won't make that much of a difference on the roadways. Driving a car with a bad autonomous mode vs. a car with a good autonomous mode could be a significantly bigger difference for pedestrians and other drivers than older and newer cars.

I'm pretty sure the 78 car is way more likely to kill someone

>Sure, there are some features in cars that aren't, but for the most part, a driver knows (should know) their vehicle, and someone driving a 1978 station wagon and someone else driving a 2018 Volvo won't make that much of a difference on the roadways.

Brakes, handling, visibility - better car - better response - safer for others. Also being lighter lowers potential damage impact. Not to mention stuff like sleep at the wheel detection etc.

Except that cars have mostly been getting heavier since the 80s... And electrics even moreso.

2018 will be much heavier, bigger, with poorer visibility thanks to huge crash and rollover resistant A, B and C pillars. It will also have passed the pedestrian impact tests and have enormously better brakes and handling. So even though heavier it'll stop a lot quicker, and do less serious damage to a pedestrian at town speeds.

That's quite apart from any safety features like air bags or ABS.

The big A pillars make it harder to see pedestrians though. Wonder if net injuries are actually reduced?

Since this touches on the safety of old vs new cars, I'd just like to leave this link to an "old vs new" crash test video here for anyone who might not have seen it before. https://youtu.be/C_r5UJrxcck

Historical vehicular deaths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...

As an aside, strangely the Great Recession apparently improved safety during, even when adjusting for miles traveled.

The 2000s were a big era for improved safety. The NHSTA began studying and testing a wider variety of different crashes events and used ATDs (crash test dummies) designed to simulate women and children. Side-impact airbags became mandatory equipment in the USA in 2007 and electronic stability control in 2008.

It's not something people realize because they think car safety improvements slowed/stopped once airbags became widespread. But really, the mid 2000s are when cars began to get very safe. By 2011, the NHSTA had to make their star rating system much more strict because nearly every car had a achieved a five star rating.

Just from a metrics geek POV: why didn't they add more stars instead of renorming the scale? Progress in car safety would have been more apparent had the scale gone unchanged.

The wanted the current standards to seem normative. This makes it much harder to roll them back.

That's also when Euro tests changed significantly. The difference between cars this century and earlier is night and day.

A Volvo 940 from about 1993 head on at 80mph with a 2004 Renault Modus - the first small car to get 5 stars in the new Euro tests.

I would have bet on the Volvo. No. Dramatically no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

What about safety differences that don't affect pedestrians and other such (nigh-)stationary objects?

For instance, I could easily imagine that some cars might have more powerful kinematic-prediction software+processors and therefore are able to use smaller safety margins, allowing for more aggressive/liberal driving-behaviors than would be possible to safely perform in self-driving systems that aren't so well-endowed.

(Then again, depending on how good the first batch of general-purpose self-driving systems are, it may be possible that traffic safety margins among the self-drivers will be reducible enough that even the base models are "good enough" for anyone who doesn't encounter too many meatbag-drivers on their commute.)

There seems to be a total lack, from our regulators/politicians about even establishing a floor on self-driving car. That certainly will go well.

The only Tesla safety numbers I have seen have come from Tesla. Do you have any independent numbers?

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2018/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/4%252...

Additionally it spreads risk/reward. You’re using the ‘standard’ industry system, not some bespoke thing. So you’re negligent because you’re ‘behind’. You can’t be ‘behind’.

You can’t leap way ahead, but what are the chances of any one automaker doing that at this point? Unless you’ve already had a program going for years under very heavy investment it may be too late to catch up let alone lead.

Look at car safety. You have to pass a benchmark test but after that it’s up to the OEM to go as high as they want.

> Can legislators really allow that cars drive around with a system that is inferior to a competitor‘s? This will put eg every pedestrian‘s live at risk.

As if anyone actually cares about people outside the car.

If you, knock on wood, end up accidentally hitting a pedestrian hen you suddently care A LOT.

I know the prevailing view on HN is that drivers don't give a shit about pedestrians and cyclists, and I'm willing to believe it's true that drivers are not often penalized for injuring them, but are most drivers really that bad?

I'm not a terribly conscientious person, but I'm definitely worried and raise my level of caution any time I see pedestrians standing near the street or when I pass a cyclists. I know that they will be seriously injured if I hit them, and I really don't want that to be my fault. even if it isn't my fault (or if it is, but not in a way that a court will find me responsible), I am quite afraid of having to go through the whole legal process that could ensue.

People really don't care. It's not so much a callous -- "I could see this guy die in front of me without batting an eye." It's more that all the stuff you mentioned: injuries, an incident being your fault, court dates, etc. legitimately never enters their head. They do not picture that someone might be on a bicycle in their blind spot until someone is.

I think it probably changes when people have children, because they can imagine their child being hit, which helps to make that connection. For most drivers without children, yes really, they do not think of that stuff.

i guess it's just my anxiety showing then. probably not a bad thing in this case.

>I'm willing to believe it's true that drivers are not often penalized for injuring them, but are most drivers really that bad?

Most drivers? I'm guessing not. Many drivers, however? I believe so. It doesn't take that large a percentage of the driving population for uncaring/bad drivers to cause havoc, and make it very unsafe for you to be around them. For instance, if you're a bicyclist on a busy highway, many hundreds of cars could pass you on one trip. It only takes one of those who hates cyclists to run you off the road (yes, this actually happens sometimes, in some places).

Not just commoditization of self-driving tech. Many people will switch from buying cars to hailing self-driving taxis. And nobody really cares about the brand, styling or horsepower of the taxi they take to work. To that degree each manufacturer faces erosion of their competitive advantage.

Companies change. Mr Honda died a quarter century ago. Is that still the company philosophy?

I asked my friend last week if his new generator was a Honda, and he told me it was a Subaru -- which was basically just as good since Honda just contracts out to Subaru for building all their small engines, anyway.

I won't claim to know what their current philosophy is, but I do think that going their own way is in large part what made them notable to begin with. They were known as the quirky Japanese automaker that made fun-to-drive (for the $$) cars. They did things like:

- S2000: A powerful and lightweight naturally aspirated car with an insane redline of 9,000 rpm!

- VTEC was Honda's solution to keeping displacement down, without sacrificing power and efficiency, and what made their engines so buzzy.

- They were first to the hybrid game with the Insight (gen 1), beating Toyota's Prius to the market.

- Until the early 2000s they were putting double-wishbone suspensions in their econoboxes. This is no longer the case, to the disdain of car enthusiasts and modders.

You'll notice that they've stopped doing/stopped coming up with quirky innovations, leading them to become just another automaker.

I think the Fit remains a remarkable car from a design perspective.

Modern car companies fundamentally do 3 things: make engines, make transmissions, and assembly parts into cars. Nearly everything else is outsourced. These are all expensive complex things that little companies cannot make. They don't make their own seats, alternators, tires... (Honda is an exception to the above rule in general).

Many car companies outsource transmissions now.

ZF makes an 8-speed that’s used in nearly everything from Jeeps to Astons to Fords.

So was their old six-speed.

The ZF 6HP automatic was a game changer when it was released. It had six forward gears with the ability to lock the torque converter in any gear and it was cheaper to produce than most four speed transmissions. They ended up dominating the RWD automatic transmission market.

I have a 335i with a 6HP21, and the converter lockup behavior was the first thing I noticed when I got the car. It usually locks up in first gear, which I’m sure helps with fuel economy a lot.

That said, the overall shift quality could be a little better, IMO. I’m no transmission expert, but I think it basically shifts “clutch-to-clutch” instead of using sprags like a traditional automatic, so it’s really sensitive to timings. If the second clutch engages too late, it’s in neutral for a bit. If it engages to early, it’s in two gears at the same time.

For example, if you’re accelerating lightly and it’s about to shift, then you suddenly have to hit the accelerator harder, sometimes it feels like it has already committed to shifting under the lighter load and it almost feels like it’s in neutral for a split second before banging into the next gear.

Not sure how much of this is related to the BMW shift maps or the transmission itself.

All that said, the transmission has proven to be very reliable. People in the 335i community are putting well over 500 ft-lbs of torque through them and they seem to be holding up, and my car has 211,000 miles and it shifts the same as it did when I got it with 40,000 miles.

Also, people with newer 5.0 Mustangs don’t seem to have many complaints, and it’s basically the same transmission.

The ZF 8HP is used by probably half of the premium cars coming out of Europe.

It's in the Rolls Royce Phantom.

The Bentley Continental Flying Spur.

The Aston Martin V8 Vantage.

The Maserati Quattroporte.

The Lamborghini Urus.

The Jaguar F-Type.

The Range Rover Sport.

The BMW 1 series, 2 series, 3 series, 4 series, 5 series, 6 series, 7 series, X3, X4, X5, X6, Z4 and the M5... the Audi A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, Q5, Q7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_8HP_transmission

Tesla makes their own seats. They've also had four seat-related recalls in the past 5 years.

Which wasn't such a great idea if you ask me. WHy bother with seats if they can just be bought from suppliers specializing in seats? Same for manufacturing. It puzzles me why Tesla did not outsource Model 3 production to a company like Magna or Valmet. Both of them are producing Mercedes, Ford, Porsche, Peugeot, Opel, BMW at a lot of others on the same assembly lines. And you can be sure that this production is running smoothly without a CEO living on the shop floor or meeting volume targets at the cost of quality. If that would be the case, these sub-contractors would be out of business already.

And there are reasons for that as well, usually the risk share form these outsourcing activities is very favorable for car makers. As a sidenote they also outsource a lot of engineering work, at leat in Germany. And that implies a risk for traditional caqr makers way beyond competitors like Tesla. FOr an EV half the activities performed by tradintional car makers is not needed anymore. That impacts head-count, unions, sites, you name it. At the same time the externally produced value per car is further increasing, giving the electric drive train supplier a lot of power through the automotive supply chain. So the biggest challenge for traditional car makers is to remain the most important automotive players while developing EVs of there own. As long as that position is maintained they will do just fine, production is not their problem, neither is money (at least so for).

What made Toyota's solution brilliant?

Interesting history about Honda, thanks for sharing!

It's genius in it simplicity. The car doesn't actually have a transmission and uses planetary gear sets and two electric motors to fake one.

The gasoline engine is used as the "baseline" power, and the motors then either take power away from it to charge the batteries, or complement it to help in acceleration, or just bypass it completely.

When the car is running in pure electric mode, the gas engine is stopped, and the motors work together to spin the output shaft at the desired speed.

When the car is using mixed power, the gasoline engine is working at a desired power level, one of the motor/generators is adding additional torque, and the second motor is used to make up the rotational difference between the sun and planet gears. This blending of gasoline and electric allows the wheel output speed to be independent of the gasoline engine speed.

When the car is charging the battery, the gasoline engine is run harder than it needs to be to move the car, and one of the motor/generator units is fighting against it, using the excess torque to generate power.

So, there is no transmission, no "shifting", the engine and mgu's are permanently connected to gears and simply spin them at the right speeds for the desired power and speed output.

This is standard since decades in non-electric train engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel–electric_transmission

That is incorrect. Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive is able to power the wheels with either 100% electric, or 100% gas, or a combination of the two using planetary gears. This allows the use of a more efficient engine running the Atkinson cycle, with the electric motors filling in for the reduced low-end torque.

At highway speeds the engine is driving the wheels directly, which is more efficient than converting torque to electric power to drive an electric motor. Honda's two-motor system runs much like the transmission you linked, but again drives the wheels directly at highway speeds.

I must have misunderstood the GP then, sorry :(

Toyota's hybrid system differs from trains in that there's a direct mechanical connection from the engine to the wheels, boosting efficiency by not requiring all of the power to go through the motors.

The Toyota system seems fairly different than a diesel-electric train system to me. As I understand it in a diesel electric system the three components (diesel engine, generator and electric motor) all do one thing the whole time and there's no batteries. In the Toyota system however the electric motors can flexibly act as either motors or generators. The gas engine in Toyota also doesn't need to always be on to provide power.

It's really devilishly clever. You have to see it to appreciate it.

This site has a nice overview: http://prius.ecrostech.com/original/PriusFrames.htm

This kind of mechanical device where there are more than two shafts are always cool. Classic video about differentials from 1937 (!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI

Traditional automatic transmissions use a set of planetary gears. The idea is that you can spin the ring gear and planet gears and different rates, which will alter the speed of the output shaft.

Traditional automatics use a two input shafts capable of spinning these pairs at different speeds. A series of clutches select different pairs of ratios for each "gear". A four speed auto might have two ratios for the ring gear and two more for the planet gears.

The Prius transmission takes this idea, and uses electric motors to vary the speed of these gears to create a continuous change in output speed. It's brilliant because it's so obvious when you know the trick. The end result is something that seems really complex, but is arguably even more simple than a manual transmission.

It also eliminates most of the components of an automatic that are prone to wear and breaking, which is a huge boon for reliability.

The Japanese have a track record of not being able to develop complex software on a short timescale. Their culture and bureaucratic institutions are an impediment to new disruptive technologies. That is a big factor in why the Koreans and Chinese are eating their lunch in consumer electronics.

Just like Japan, Sony as a prominent example, did before with Europe and the US?

I think it's a bit of understanding what your core competency is. Software and AI is substantially different than automotive.

That approach worked back when cars were simple, and mostly mechanical. But now the R&D cost of developing major automotive components has risen so high that smaller manufacturers just don't have the resources to go it alone any more. So they have to outsource or form partnerships in order to achieve sufficient economies of scale.

Much like the 1970s gas crunch, when American car makers couldn't innovate small cars fast enough, and bought Japanese car companies to bridge the gap.

By investing, they co-own the company (at least partly), right? Seems smarter than trying to license the tech in 10 years.

I mean, they'll still have to license the tech from Cruise, they'll just be licensing from a company they have a minority stake in.

You can't just use tech from some other company even if you are part-owner. Heck I don't think you can even do that from a fully-owned subsidiary. They have to have structural/legal independence or it's really just a different branch of the same company.

If it's a fully-owned subsidiary you could draft a contract of licensing in exchange for a token $1 or something like that. (Or is there regulatory oversight?)

That would constitute tax fraud in many legislations.

That's one of the principal points that tax auditors check in a group, although it's oftentimes hard to determine a market price.

I saw on Bloomberg TV 5%...though I think that is 5% of Cruise and not GM. GM bought cruise for $500 million cash. This investment puts Cruise at $15 billion. Nice return...

Is this because Softbank, a japanese group is invested in Cruise?

> automatic transmissions are on their way out

Did you mean to say manual?

Manuals have been out for a very long time, it's just some regions haven't cottoned on to it yet. Autos are also on the way out as newer transmission styles are rapidly replacing them...CVTs for example. But the latest gen hybrids don't even have that and most electrics are basically direct drive.

I think he’s referring to conventional automatic transmissions being replaced by CVTs due to size/weight/efficiency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transm...

And/or direct drive electrics.