A vehicle described as the true successor to Alec Issigonis’ Mini was on display in London today as part of the launch of a major new autonomous transport programme.
Jez Coates, chief engineer – vehicle projects at Coventry-based RDM Group – made the comparison the iconic marque at the launch of the GATEway (Greenwich Automated Transport Environment) project in southeast London today.
GATEway is one of three projects chosen by the government to deliver demonstrations of automated vehicles in urban environments with RDM’s fully electric driverless pod spearheading the LUTZ (Low-carbon Urban Transport Zone) Pathfinder project in Milton Keynes, a project that will see pod vehicles operating along a predetermined footpath route.
The four-wheel steer LUTZ Pathfinder pod seats two people, can travel at a maximum speed of 15mph and has a range of 40 miles. To maintain a safe course of travel it uses sensor and navigation technology provided by Oxford University’s Mobile Robotics Group.
Coates said: ‘Its equipped…with an array of different types of sensors to build up a 3D picture of the environment it’s operating in. It holds that in its memory and every time it does a journey it augments the quality of the 3D model it has of the area it runs in.’
He added that a key challenge with the design was sizing the vehicle.
‘It’s tiny – its only 6’4” long,’ said Coates. ‘So actually sizing the vehicle so that its going to be capable of taking two people without feeling too cramped, but not be threatening on the pavement…[has] been a serious consideration.
‘Then you get in to the packaging of it. You’ve got to have room for people to dump a load of shopping when they get in it, room for [those] two people and it’s a high tech vehicle with four-wheel steer. Its electric, it’s got a six-hour battery pack and it’s a real challenge to get it in. It’s the true successor to Alec Issigonis’ Mini.
Another major concern with driverless systems is the cost of the sensors, which stand at £38,000 on the LUTZ Pathfinder Pod.
‘As the program develops the sensor arrays will change,’ said Coates. ‘We may end up with something on the roof – maybe front mounted and rear mounted – but that make maybe 10 of the other sensors redundant.’
RDM were orignially awarded a contract to construct three Pod vehicles for LUTZ Pathfinder trials that will take place on the pavements of Milton Keynes in the late spring of this year. The company is building a further 40 Pod vehicles for the £20m UK Autodrive project that will take place in Coventry as well as Milton Keynes.
In a statement transport minister Claire Perry said: ‘Driverless cars are the future. I want Britain to be at the forefront of this exciting new development, to embrace a technology that could transform our roads and open up a brand new route for global investment.
‘These are still early days but today is an important step. The trials present a fantastic opportunity for this country to take a lead internationally in the development of this new technology.’
Successor to the Mini – erm, no, can’t see this doing the Monte Carlo rally somehow or even being half as practical as the Mini which can hold twice as many people for a start! Not to mention, it’s just ugly – hardly a design icon.
certainly could not use these on a remake of “The Italian Job”
A “successor to the mini” Do I laugh or cry?
Not a chance as on top of any other differences between this and the Mini I would bet it also has the major difference of not being any fun !!!!
Something the Mini was supremely good at. Even the current Mini – or Biggie – as we call it in my house can’t match the original for that so the pod stands no chance.
Should be named CLUTZ, judging by it’s looks. Small wheels, low ground clearance, no wipers, no rear view. Can only be used on very level pavements, mixing with pedestrians, at 15mph? Recipe for disaster.
Total nonsense…….
Please stop it now……..
Please, just stop, its never going to actually happen.
15 mph? This is nonsense. A streamlined bicycle can now go 80mph plus on the flat.
I can only reiterate the earlier comments, a competitor to the Mini, it isn’t.
Another waste of Government money that could have been put to far better use.
“Successor to the MINI” absolutely no chance! The original – non-BMW – Mini was (and still is) unique. I can think of no other design that packs so much into a small envelope as the original did. These pods may be a solution to short distance city transport, but cannot in anyone’s wildest dreams be considered comparable to a small 4 seater car, let alone the original MINI. Interesting how present day designers still consider the original MINI as a comparison vehicle.
Looking at the poster image, all the previous technical advancements noted were to aid the driver, not replace him or her!! Where is the fun? Were is the joy? Where is the excitement? Jeez, I’ve seen more engaging traffic cones…..
Tim
I find this rush into driverless vehicles more than a little disconcerting. Whilst the automotive industry has dipped its toes into the safety critical software arena in a small way with ABS and stability systems, etc. it is far from being able to demonstrate the required probability of failure rates necessary for this endeavour (10-9 to 10-11 failures per driven hour).
When you hear the list of companies who are wanting to get involved, most are companies specialising in bloated code that does not get close to being 100% testable (all pathways, all states both legal and illegal all exercised).
This is just the software, these days we also need to consider complex electronic hardware as well. With the push towards ever smaller fabs, the risk of single event upsets (SEU) occurring even at sea level cannot be ignored – what happens if an SEU causes the control system to reset or worst enter an unrecoverable state, what are the strategies to avoid this occurring?
In aerospace we work to RTCA-DO178C and RTCA-DO254, these are onerous standards to work to especially at the catastrophic (DAL A) level of the spectrum. This has necessarily lead the aerospace industry to minimise complexity at every turn, I have yet to see any evidence that the automotive industry has a firm grasp on this (witness the ever increasing gimmicky nonsense such as suspension settings, launch control, etc. etc.), the newcomers certainly won’t have any grasp.
Such vehicles would have to have the equivalent of a type certificate TC and changes should only be added by the use of either a Supplemental Type certificate or Technical Standards Order TSO – so you want to replace a tyre with one from a different manufacturer do you? I don’t think so! that would affect the TC and so would have to be submitted to the automotive equivalent of the FAA or EASA for approval, all possible impact on the control system would have to be assessed.
These are just a few of the hoops that actually need to be in place in order to allow driverless vehicle to operate with some level of safety.
A bigger post than I had planned and I only scratched the surface.