|
Bob NewSCART posted:This makes me literally depressed At least it's not sitting in a garage or puttering three miles down the road ounce a week to charge the battery.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
bull3964 posted:You've never been on a strange road on a dark night and made a mistake? It's the very definition of accident and people don't have to be grossly negligent to be involved in them. Something as simple as understeering on black ice at speeds barely over what you would do in a school zone can replicate exactly what this type of test is doing. Even on an interstate if you're doing 65+ you might only have time (unless you're Tusen Takk) to slow down to 40 or so before impact. It's an interesting test, nonetheless. A deer test would be interesting for sure. I live in an area with a heavy deer population and I've pretty much come to accept that if I hit a deer at interstate speed I'm toast. I'm pretty sure it'd either come through the windshield or demolish the soft top. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:At least it's not sitting in a garage or puttering three miles down the road ounce a week to charge the battery. Yeah, people thrashing them is preferable to not driving them at all. Still, its just a sad sight 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Would you really want the car to "automatically dodge" an accident? Well, it doesn't "dodge" per se, but close enough for rock'n'roll I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
I see they've worked out the teething problems
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
I just don't like the idea that if I'm about to get into an accident, the car wants to swerve suddenly and take control over my inputs. How does it know not to swerve into, say, oncoming traffic, or a family standing on the sidewalk? Unless I'm misunderstanding the technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I just don't like the idea that if I'm about to get into an accident, the car wants to swerve suddenly and take control over my inputs. How does it know not to swerve into, say, oncoming traffic, or a family standing on the sidewalk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
How about this: If you can't avoid the crash you should swerve further toward the car so it becomes a large overlap crash and you can use all your cars safety features.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
I would never trust it personally. I've had a few situations where an accident was avoided by lining up 2 near misses. Any sort of lane correction or slight change in steering output would have caused an accident. Now, for your average driver on the other hand.... Also keep in mind I don't like traction and stability control either so there's that. I feel more in control losing traction once in a while than the sensation of loss of control you get from using a tc/sc system you aren't intimately familiar with (ex rental cars)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
An accident avoidance algorithm isn't going to just wildly veer in a randomly chosen direction, it'll constantly be aware of its surroundings & if it needs to get out of the way it'll choose either a free direction or if one isn't available, the path that results in the most survivable collision. Bonus if it makes other smart cars nearby aware so they can compensate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:An accident avoidance algorithm isn't going to just wildly veer in a randomly chosen direction, it'll constantly be aware of its surroundings & if it needs to get out of the way it'll choose either a free direction or if one isn't available, the path that results in the most survivable collision. Bonus if it makes other smart cars nearby aware so they can compensate. It would make a lot more sense when most of the cars on the road are equipped, but I can imagine scenarios where another driver's user error could cause things to go poorly with it. Just saying I would never be an early adopter if I was buying a new car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:An accident avoidance algorithm isn't going to just wildly veer in a randomly chosen direction, it'll constantly be aware of its surroundings & if it needs to get out of the way it'll choose either a free direction or if one isn't available, the path that results in the most survivable collision. Bonus if it makes other smart cars nearby aware so they can compensate. That's expecting a level of competence that's pretty darn far in the future, though. And people are worried that the "most survivable collision" might end up being a hamper full of babies or a railroad crossing or something. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Mar 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Man, the Dart did really well in this. And yeah, I'd love some more tests of classic cars. Throw an old Mark III, or a Continental, at this test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Man, the Dart did really well in this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16CIDz4pAxo
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
grover posted:building for cars that are safe regardless of the geometry of the crash I want to see this mythical beast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Drunken Lullabies posted:I would never trust it personally. I've had a few situations where an accident was avoided by lining up 2 near misses. Any sort of lane correction or slight change in steering output would have caused an accident. Now, for your average driver on the other hand.... Your post reminds me of all the people, who claim that they would be dead, if wearing a seatbelt in case of an accident. What you're talking about is perception of safety, which often does not correlate with empirical data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
The Acura TL small overlap test is pretty cool. It looks awful from the outside, but it looks like how I would think would be the best way to design for that sort of hit. Moving the car away from the impact so that the energy and dissipated and the impact is moved away from the foot well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDJFwtw8L0g EDUT: Also, HOLY gently caress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj-oPkXpAnA Sadi fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Sadi posted:The Acura TL small overlap test is pretty cool. It looks awful from the outside, but it looks like how I would think would be the best way to design for that sort of hit. Moving the car away from the impact so that the energy and dissipated and the impact is moved away from the foot well. Wow that is really interesting. Would still hurt, but it didn't look bad at all from the inside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
grover posted:I'm confused at the testing process in general- seems as though people are simply building for the test instead of building for cars that are safe regardless of the geometry of the crash. Even so, wouldn't it be more accurate and meaningful to test likely crash modes? This car isn't even traveling backwards when it hits!  So what you're saying is that cars should be tested for every possible crash scenario imaginable?The TL got a "good", the Prius got a "poor".
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:
Volvo set a really impressive goal for themselves with this respect: "Our vision is that no one is killed or injured in a new Volvo by 2020"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
grover posted:No, I'm saying cars should be designed to be survivable no matter what angle the crash occurs at. You can't test every possibility, and the car companies realize that, and design their cars specifically to provide the best crash protection only against the specific crash tests that are done; everything else is secondary. Same problem with SOL tests in US schools: they're prepping for the test alone, and defeating the purpose of the test. I wonder if a "pop quiz" form of car testing might be more beneficial, where random tests are sprung on manufactures who don't know what angles or speeds will be tested in any given year, just that they tests will be based on common real-world accidents. They absolutely do test for survivability. I had a talk from the guys who do a lot of the safety testing for ford in the uk and its incredible how much stuff they look into. They measure the g forces bits of the body will experience and think not just about initial survivability but preventing entrapment so if you are hurt you can be pulled out immediately instead of having the firefighters spend an hour trying to cut through steel that is now so strong in places they are having to buy new cutting equipment. The test you see are a very small part too, the majority of it now is done on computers with test of the car as a final sign off and validation of the models. You're also missing the point that the tests represent real world accidents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
grover posted:No, I'm saying cars should be designed to be survivable no matter what angle the crash occurs at. You can't test every possibility, and the car companies realize that, and design their cars specifically to provide the best crash protection only against the specific crash tests that are done; everything else is secondary. Same problem with SOL tests in US schools: they're prepping for the test alone, and defeating the purpose of the test. I wonder if a "pop quiz" form of car testing might be more beneficial, where random tests are sprung on manufactures who don't know what angles or speeds will be tested in any given year, just that they tests will be based on common real-world accidents. The test data from different years wouldn't be comparable, you would have to hold up a set of common tests to be carried out for each new car, plus add in different tests every one in a while....which is exactly what they are doing. I don't understand what you are pissing and moaning about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
The easiest accident to survive is the one that never happens. I did some half-assed Googling for crash rates; the NHTSA has easily accessible data on fatality-causing crashes, but not total crashes. The good news is that despite licensed driver, registered car and millions of vehicle miles per year numbers all going up, fatal crash rates are going steadily down. But with that data you can't tell if the improvement comes from a reduction in deaths per wreck or a reduction in wrecks overall. It's perhaps not realistic that this data would even exist, since many wrecks don't even get reported. Nevertheless if the NHTSA is going to mandate ABS / TC / other driver aids (which are all good ideas) it'd be nice to see the data behind it. What the NHTSA data does clearly claim is that > 30% of fatal wrecks are DUI-related and that during last-call hours at night this goes over 66%. So a car that can autonomously drive its drunk-rear end owner home or at least correct for his bigger mistakes should have a much greater fatality reduction effect than reinforcing the passenger compartment corners. E: also some of the YouTube vids being posted are of the small overlap test and some are the much easier moderate overlap test, just be aware when comparing
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:What the NHTSA data does clearly claim is that > 30% of fatal wrecks are DUI-related and that during last-call hours at night this goes over 66%. So a car that can autonomously drive its drunk-rear end owner home or at least correct for his bigger mistakes should have a much greater fatality reduction effect than reinforcing the passenger compartment corners. We already have services that will drive you home in your own car, not even to speak of taxis or public transit. I feel like expanding and subsidizing these services is probably going to be more cost-effective and faster than waiting for a driverless car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Just wait until an audi decides to save will smith instead of a little kid because its survival algorithm doesn't account for heart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:An accident avoidance algorithm isn't going to just wildly veer in a randomly chosen direction, it'll constantly be aware of its surroundings & if it needs to get out of the way it'll choose either a free direction or if one isn't available, the path that results in the most survivable collision. Bonus if it makes other smart cars nearby aware so they can compensate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
So when cars have active accident avoidance and the system DOES gently caress up and swerves you into a pack of pedestrians (no system is perfect, it will gently caress up eventually) who gets sued and/or charged with manslaughter?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:So when cars have active accident avoidance and the system DOES gently caress up and swerves you into a pack of pedestrians (no system is perfect, it will gently caress up eventually) who gets sued and/or charged with manslaughter? The car manufacturer, same as any other system-failure attributed accident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Autoblog has done a fairly in-depth shootout between the Buick Verano and the Acura ILX. http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/12/2013-buick-verano-turbo-vs-2013-acura-ilx-2-4-comparison-review/ I'm surprised that they're having so many problems with the manual trans in the Buikc, isn't it the same one used in the Cruze and Regal? I don't remember anyone complaining about the shift in the Cruze. Maybe it's some thing that can be fixed aftermarket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
There might also be higher expectations for the Verano's shift quality than the Cruze based on price point, but that's speculation. At heart, it's the same box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Autoblog has done a fairly in-depth shootout between the Buick Verano and the Acura ILX. I'm jaw dropped they even give anything Cruze based more than a passing faint praise. That chassis is just...... average to say the least. Just.... ugh. gently caress those cars for a joke. Altho, it's a godawful load better than a new Nissan Micra. Christ, it's epic in how awful it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
so what's the word on the new dart? I know they aren't selling as hot as chrysler group expected, but is it because it's a dodge or because it's crap?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
adorai posted:so what's the word on the new dart? I know they aren't selling as hot as chrysler group expected, but is it because it's a dodge or because it's crap? Few incentives on them but lots of incentives on the 200/Avenger, to the point where you can get a V6 Avenger for $19k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Autoblog has done a fairly in-depth shootout between the Buick Verano and the Acura ILX. Manual transmission Cruze owner here. It's not Honda smooth or MX-5 accurate, but I have no complaints (or praises). It does its job, would buy again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
adorai posted:so what's the word on the new dart? I know they aren't selling as hot as chrysler group expected, but is it because it's a dodge or because it's crap? The Dart is a nice little car, with a 1.4 turbo and a manual it's surprisingly fun. Sounds cool, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The Dart is a nice little car, with a 1.4 turbo and a manual it's surprisingly fun. Sounds cool, too. I test drove the turbo Dart and there was just something ...off with the power delivery. I wasn't seriously considering one, but if I were it would have kept me out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
I really hate GM/Buick's naming scheme. It's all pre-bankruptcy thinking - if we keep coming up with new nonsense names every 5 years for the same car then we can trick people into buying garbage! They really need to go back to heritage nameplates: Verano - Skylark Regal - Regal Lacross - LeSabre Enclave - Roadmaster Encore - Ideally this pile of crap should not exist but maybe Skyhawk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I test drove the turbo Dart and there was just something ...off with the power delivery. I wasn't seriously considering one, but if I were it would have kept me out of it.  as its name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I test drove the turbo Dart and there was just something ...off with the power delivery. I wasn't seriously considering one, but if I were it would have kept me out of it. I agree, it wasn't nearly as punchy as they made it out to be. It has 60 crank hp more than my RedLine but my RL felt much quicker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Tekne posted:There's a lot of people still waiting for the tigershark 2.4-liter equipped with multiair 2. Hopefully the engine will be as I'm not, doesn't it only have like 15 extra hp? I'm waiting for the SRT4. It sounds like they really need the new 2.4l to replace the engine in the 4 cyl Avenger/200 and Journey though. Tusen Takk posted:I agree, it wasn't nearly as punchy as they made it out to be. It has 60 crank hp more than my RedLine but my RL felt much quicker. The 1.4l has 160hp, your Ion only had 100hp? Anyway the 1.4l is the fuel economy special too, so they need to keep it economical when driven gently. I think a lot of people were saying the same thing about the Abarth too. It's an SOHC 1.4l, if you want to go then you need to put your foot into it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:04
|
|