The rapid pace of technological change in the automotive sector in recent years has surprised everyone: consumers, industry commentators, and – perhaps most of all – carmakers themselves.
Take autonomous vehicles. A decade ago the prospect of self-driving cars was at best a fringe concept: an area of research with one foot in reality but the other firmly in the realms of science fiction.
Today, along with electric powertrain technology, autonomy is a cornerstone of the sector’s plans for the future, with almost every major carmaker placing it at the heart of their plans for the future.
In our latest special report we take a look at one of the key drivers behind this revolution: the irresistible influence of relatively new entrants to the automotive world. The likes of Tesla, Google and, more recently, ride-sharing pioneer Uber.
Unconstrained by traditional car industry methods of technology development and testing, and less risk averse than the incumbents, these organisations have invested heavily in the autonomous dream. And traditional carmakers, perhaps afraid of being left behind, have been swept along by their more aggressive approach. Interestingly, one factor that almost certainly isn’t driving this change is consumer demand.
Whenever we cover the topic in this publication many readers admit that the prospect of ceding control to a robot leaves them cold. And there seems to be little evidence elsewhere that drivers are crying-out for the technology. However, the industry is clearly banking on this changing, and in an effort to win consumer confidence is focusing its efforts on stressing the safety benefits of handing over control to a computer.
As we report, Tesla has been particularly bullish in this regard: arguing that it would be morally wrong to let negative media reports or concerns over a slow to adapt legal system stand in the way of technology that it believes will save lives.
Whatever your view, there’s no doubt that it’s an exciting time to be joining the sector, with the rise of new concepts creating fresh new opportunities for engineers (as illustrated in our recent careers feature) and exciting commercial avenues for the more nimble members of the industry’s supply chain. Our article on Coventry pod car manufacturer RDM group is an interesting case in point.
While this is a very good concept for urban and main road driving, lets not forget the rural and remote locations, and even non-tarmac routes, getting in or out of garages and drives too! The level of complexity has to rival that of making the software for the F35.
Nick, while I agree with you completely, don’t underestimate the ability of this disruptive technology- why would you own a vehicle… just pay a fee for it to turn up when you need it!
Oh and today configure it with the soft top, 4×4, load carrying, dog mover options….
Could be very disruptive. Why pay for parking when it might be cheaper to just let the car drive round in circles all day? Or just send it home. Or park it miles away… I can see a future with lots of empty cars clogging up all the roads.
As an Engineer and also a professional driver a thought has just occurred to me. How does a driverless car respond to being given way to or give way to someone else, as is often done as a courtesy across junctions, crossings and so on? How does such a concept work on single track roads when either or both vehicles have to reverse and manouevre together? Can it recognise when the vehicle it confronts is less able to manouevre or reverse (perhaps it has a trailer or is larger)?
Let’s be clear and frank about Autonomous vehicles……. How many people ACTUALLY want them? Not me, not any of my family or friends etc. The seriously dangerous fact is that certain ‘organisations’ such as Tesla have been pushing such capabilities because they view it as an extremely profitable niche market in the short term. The really big concern for me and many others is that the recent fatal crash and other major incidents involving so-called tested and verified Tesla Autopilot etc only goes to prove that there is no way that such autonomous vehicles can cater for all the various Use Case scenarios encountered on modern roads. I only wish OEMs/Manufacturers etc would realise that I and others are NOT prepared to PAY for any vehicle containing such capabilities – we don’t want it!
Finally, at what point are Manufacturers going to accept liability for failures in their product and face legal action, lawsuits etc???
” The level of complexity has to rival that of making the software for the F35.”
Remind me, isn’t this the aircraft which is to ‘fit’ (or not!) on to the two white elephants being constructed to ‘project UK power and influence’ around the world. I hesitate to point out ( when assessing P&I) I have yet to see any German or Japanese ‘flagged’ foot-ball-field sized platforms cruising slowly around our shores. Did I miss something, or did our so-called leaders and betters?
The German navy doesn’t have carriers, but the Japanese navy has anti-submarine helicopter carriers. They’re a bit smaller than the QE carriers, but you could still have a pretty good game of five-a-side on the deck. In short, Mike, you missed something.
Having just (after recent very wet weather resulting in ‘standing-water’ ) and along (according to the tow-truck who removed my quite new car to the scrap-yard) with hundreds of others suffered complete ‘electrical’ failure because water and such do not mix well, if at all: I hope that those contemplating even more of Mr Faraday’s and Mr Babbage’s invention(s) in cars have done their ‘homework’.
Hi Mike, Are you sure it was scrapped because of that? My sons push bike had to go in the scrap when his then girlfriend fathers garage was flooded along with washing machine & dryer. This was not because of any electronics but the water contained bacteria from sewers. Perhaps the tow truck guy dis not realise that.
I would suggest that car makers get the basic product right before they launch into further (unnecessary) complications like ‘driver-less’ cars. Things like making the doors fit and seal to keep the rain out, ditto the windows. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect this on (even) the cheaper end of the car market; but it seems many makers still can’t get this right! If they master that, perhaps they can stop water ingress from below the car too; then Mike Blamey won’t get wet feet again.
Or as with the British Classics, just waterproof the electrics and use the holes in the floor to let the water out again….
Hi Graham, Cars are made with vents built into them to let air out as you shut the door or you would find car doors hard to shut. Usually vented into the boot. Water would get in anyway.
“In short, Mike, you missed something.” Point taken. I do NOT keep a close watch on Jane’s Fighting Ships but I do look out for obvious products and areas where my point is I believe sound. I did not miss seeing German and Japanese maker’s names on amongst other things the cash registers in supermarkets, the air-conditioning and heating units in my bank? [interestingly a bank that I(along with most of my fellow citizens) own 83% of.].. the oven in Mrs B’s kitchen (along with the fridge, freezer, washing machine, boiler) the camera, binoculars, watch, lap-top, TV in our house…I could go on. Items which are bought in millions by ordinary citizens (and with their own money) as opposed to ones and twos by HM government. Hammond (like many before him of all stripes) is simply adding more fuel in the form of ‘hand-outs’ . Deal with the unadulterated greed of the retail trade (outrageous mark-ups and bullying of the few suppliers still available) -a tax (punative) on profit-added and (tiny) on VALUE-added and all this would become self-correcting. Of course encouraging manufacture will result in increased numbers of ‘ordinary’ workers: who actually make wealth as opposed to manipulate money. And these are much,more, most likely to support the Left rather than the Right: and that would never do.
I like your style Mike. There are other problems with encouraging local manufacture which you may have missed.
Many well known manufacturers have had their designs manufactured cheaply in the Far East. Returned, rebadged and put them into stock under their own Quality System (e.g. ISO 9000). It is usually unclear if these items are subjected to any relevant Quality Audit.
Perhaps those persons commenting here should listen as I do to the radio traffic reports. If they did, they would realize just how much disruption is caused daily on major roads and motorways by “accidents” caused by human drivers.
While I agree that it is presently unreasonable to expect an automobile AI system to deal with off-road and single track country lanes, it is obvious to me that autonomous vehicles on major routes will soon be a necessity, in order to prevent total gridlock.
The obvious uses, to me, for such vehicles are as taxis in urban areas, and as self delivering hire cars. Both would be OK, taxis would need no driver changes or stops for food and drink, hire cars would avoid having to get and return to a depot, or returning a delivery driver. Question arises would vehicles empty in transit be programmed to act in a sacrificial manner in the event of imminent accident or wayward pedestrians or cyclists?
Driverless cars ! Fine , restrict them to electric power , max 30mph and change the regulations / legislation to fit double the air bags , bigger crumple zones , side impact bars etc etc
just been thinking – what happens when a driverless runs out of fuel , can it find and drive to a petrol station and refill itself ? who pays ?