
Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH - protomyth
http://singularityhub.com/2012/08/19/stanfords-self-driving-car-tears-it-up-on-racetrack-tops-120-mph/
======
michaelw
I agree that computers will soon (< 3 years) be able to beat most human
drivers and as someone else said, getting rid of 70kg of driver is a huge
advantage. For closed circuit courses like those used by Formula 1, the teams
already have almost perfect topographic maps and models of the circuit,
including measurements of the grip characteristics of the surface at various
points on the circuit. Formula 1 teams run endless simulations and already
know what the best possible lap should be.

But that's just qualifying. Racing is about so much more. Driving software
will have to integrate considerably more inputs in order to avoid crashing
into other cars. Let's say cars have to share telemetry. Development could
probably happen in parallel with other improvements but I'd still stay 3-5
years.

Even if we assume software that can drive in a pack of cars, and algorithms
for attacking and defending, there's that drive to win that makes some drivers
do things that, if we're honest, aren't fair, safe or even right. The rules
are different when nobody's life is at stake.

I would love to see Formula 0. No worries about driver safety. No artificial
design limits to reduce cornering speed. In fact, the only design rule I would
impose is the maximum height above ground and perhaps something about no laser
cannons.

Does anyone remember Rogue and then Rog-O-Matic? It would be fun to create an
online competition using an existing racing simulator.

~~~
lloeki
> _But that's just qualifying. Racing is about so much more. Driving software
> will have to integrate considerably more inputs in order to avoid crashing
> into other cars._

And that's where you see the difference between Gran Turismo's infamous zombie
AI and Forza Motorsport drivatar (where everyone loves to hate M. Rossi). I
bet that if the Turn 10 guys got in touch with those Stanford folks, they
could learn each other a trick or two.

------
dclowd9901
The thing I like most about the promise of self-driving vehicles is that, when
they actually get to a point of real maturity, the cost to manufacture and put
that tech into a production vehicle won't be significantly greater. We're
talking about plugging into the ECUs, which already take metrics for vehicle
dynamics to aid with ESC and other systems, coupled with what is, in essence,
computers and IR sensors. The rest is just software.

In actuality, the self driving vehicle should cost us no more than $5k-$7k
more on top of the cost of the vehicle.

~~~
the_cat_kittles
Seems like it would almost be worth subsidizing purchases too, since they
reduce costs coming from driver error.

~~~
iwwr
Not just driver error, but it reduces the need for everyone to own a car.
Self-driving cars can move themselves to where they're needed, rather than sit
in a garage waiting for their owners to use them.

------
ajays
They mentioned the race to Pike's Peak in 2010; apparently the Audi did it in
27 minutes (whereas the record is close to 10 minutes):
[http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/11/audis-robotic-car-
climb...](http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/11/audis-robotic-car-climbs-pikes-
peak/) The car sure has made a lot of progress in 2 years...

~~~
lloeki
The record is 10 minutes with purpose-built cars with titanic power (in the
range of ~1000HP) and huge turbos to compensate for lack of oxygen at
altitude. An Audi TTS with its measly 270HP can't beat that:

> _According to Audi, race officials said an expert driver in car like the TTS
> would complete the course in around 17 minutes._

------
WalterBright
Watching robots race cars would sure be boring.

Reminds me of watching a computer program play Monopoly against itself.

~~~
nitrogen
Have you ever watched humans race cars? I would watch robots race simple
courses before I'd watch people, especially if different algorithms are
competing. It'd be more like watching StarCraft bots compete.

~~~
protomyth
Quite a lot of the population enjoys watching people race cars. Some people
like football / soccer and I cannot fathom why, but I respect their choice of
entertainment. I guess everything loved has a subtly that interests fans and
bores everyone else.

------
kposehn
Ahhh, Thunder Hill.

I've had many a great race there back in the day. Seeing the lap times they
knocked down is quite impressive too.

Thunder Hill is probably one of the more technically challenging tracks
around. There are several off-camber turns, a nasty rise where you basically
have to pitch yourself over it without being able to see (pucker factor 9,000)
and two straightaways with flat and very oddly-aligned turns.

The fact that this TT was able to go so quickly around it is quite awesome -
this gives me hope that driverless cars won't be as boring as I fear they'll
be.

------
protomyth
"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven
counterparts."

How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything
like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and
not timed run events.

~~~
adrianpike
Actually, in some aspects, we're already there! :)

Computers can run a car at the limits of its traction circle much better than
humans can, even with nothing more than an accelerometer. I've done some
hacking around this, and it turns out that you can go about it fairly naïvely,
code-wise, and do way better than even good amateur racers. Unfortunately, I
don't have access to any top F1 drivers to datalog them side by side with my
software, but maybe someday.

In terms of the quickest path around a given course, computers are _way_
better than humans at that. There's the official "racing line", which is a
generally accepted fastest line, but as you can create more acceleration, the
line actually flattens out towards the shortest route through a given section.
Take a look at something like Spec Miata vs an AWD time attack car for a great
demonstration of this.

Humans still have the edge on understanding & interpreting the environment.
There's a lot of work being done in this area, though - I suspect we'll get
some fairly robust stuff that's available to us on the open market in a few
years.

Then there's the fatigue factor.

Heck, if nothing else, having to cart around 150-180lbs of meat with fairly
tall packaging and some weird requirements about having to see and what kind
of forces you can exert on it is a bit of a drag to making the quickest
possible wheeled vehicle.

Sorry for the wall of text - this is something I've been hacking around a
bunch for the last while, as it's the intersection of a bunch of my interests.
Drop me a line if you want to chat more about it sometime.

~~~
protomyth
"Heck, if nothing else, having to cart around 150-180lbs of meat with fairly
tall packaging and some weird requirements about having to see and what kind
of forces you can exert on it is a bit of a drag to making the quickest
possible wheeled vehicle."

I think I should have gone into more detail, as I believe that the statement
from the article refers to entering a computer controlled car into a race with
humans.

The interaction is serious important, and knowing the fastest line doesn't
mean your car will get to take the fastest line if someone is already there.
Pitting is going to be interesting.

Some race series, NASCAR, only allow for a limited group of sensors. I would
guess something like F-1 or Indy would be easier since they have more allowed
telemetry. I would imagine a NASCAR driver robot is going to have a tough time
telling the pit what exactly is wrong.

~~~
joshu
ALMS does not allow broadcast telemetry. They can only pick up data once it's
pulled into the pit.

------
joshu
I've gotten just north of 100 on Infineon. I wonder if Thunderhill has more
straightaways.

~~~
kposehn
Thunder Hill has two nice long straights - you can generally top 120-140 with
a decently powerful car.

What you need to knock down a quick lap there is brakes most of all. I had
some monster Brembo GT's that allowed my little WRX to haul down from the
triple digits and dive into the turns (paired with Tein coilovers). If you go
up there you'll see how you have to cut in really fast towards the apex and
then do a fairly ragged kick out the end to gain speed into the next straight.

Infineon is just a nightmare of walls imho :)

~~~
joshu
Yeah, looking forward to Thunderhill in my BRZ. Infineon is fine in a
supercapable car like an R8 but something with less grip is probably scary. (I
got all wheels off in the R8 anyway)

