Slashdot Mirror


GM Unveils Networked Electric Mini Cars

suraj.sun writes "GM introduced its Electric Networked Vehicle prototypes, one third the size of a typical car, as a way to reduce big urban auto emissions and traffic congestion. The EN-V relies on dynamic stabilization technology similar to that of the one-person Segway scooter to keep its balance, and can be operated autonomously or under manual control. In autonomous mode the EN-V is designed to use high-speed wireless connectivity and GPS navigation to automatically select the fastest route, based on real-time traffic conditions gleaned from the Web or some other networked source of traffic information."

28 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by adam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...and can be operated autonomously or under manual control. In autonomous mode the EN-V is designed to use high-speed wireless connectivity and GPS navigation to automatically select the fastest route, based on real-time traffic conditions gleaned from the Web or some other networked source of traffic information."

    Seriously? Toyota — the guys who ate your lunch in the marketplace — can't even make a software-gas-pedal work correctly and you're trying to float an EV that navigates autonomously? Good luck with that. You guys need to stick to trying to make what people want now, not what Shatner fanboys are hoping will exist in 20 years. There are so many technical problems here I don't even know where to start. GPS can't detect when little kids run into the road chasing a soccer ball. Trust me, just work on making the Volt not suck, and maybe try to do something like the Aptera, and you'll be just fine.

    On a serious note, I don't get why companies introduce "concept" cars with shit they know can never exist in the near future, and with shit no one wants either. If the idea of a concept car is to "WOW" me with all the stuff you're working on making in the next 10 years, how about you start bragging about high density energy storage and biodiesel powerplants that run on algae-derived fuel. This is the stuff people want that isn't practical yet, but might be someday soon[ish]. No one gives a shit about Segway gyro (remember how well the Segway sold?*) and autonomous driving is best left for SciFi films.

    *Dean Kamen is a complete badass, though, and despite his misunderstanding of the market, DEKA's other work is amazing.

    --
    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    1. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by plopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it's just as ridiculous as building an airplane that can fl itself, as if it had some sort of autopilot.
      And maybe they'll put computers in them *some day* that can do most of the work on landing and take off. After all, the computer would have to be the size of a skyscraper.

      Seriously, in an HOV lane this would be easy and a reason to buy one. You could eat breakfast, talk on your cell phone (or text), do your makeup etc. in comfort.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the best thing - I'll be able to read books while driving!

      Read books?! My passtime will involve curtains, a bottle of vodka and a bleach blond.

      Might want to think about getting out a little more. ;)

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    3. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, in an HOV lane this would be easy and a reason to buy one. You could eat breakfast, talk on your cell phone (or text), do your makeup etc. in comfort.

      And, with your top speed of 40kph, completely piss off everyone else on the highway.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by riffenator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Self driving cars are here!

      They're called trains.

    5. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by Linux_ho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gosh, if only new automotive technologies could be prototyped and existing ones could be improved.

      [citation needed]

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    6. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by Again · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I already read books while driving. Audiobooks, of course.

      I can't stand how slow the people read.

    7. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      indeed. I'm just now learning to drive (I'm kinda old to just be learning it). In any case, I'm surprised some things haven't been automated yet. Like would it kill the car to signal me that stop sign is coming up? It can't be that big of a deal from image processing point of view... heck, it could even assist on breaking (if it notices I'm going too fast to stop at the right distance). Or how about breaking when the car is about to hit something? (like... a driving instructor would do?). These things aren't beyond the realm of reality for the car of next year... can probably be accomplished with a web-cam like thing pointing in all directions... yet I don't see it in the specs :-/

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    8. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously? Toyota — the guys who ate your lunch in the marketplace — can't even make a software-gas-pedal work correctly and you're trying to float an EV that navigates autonomously? Good luck with that.

      Please. How many cases of "unintended acceleration" have there been? 30? 50? Hell, let's be generous and say 500. Out of 4 million vehicles. In comparison, the US has roughly 6 MILLION accidents per year, more than 80% of which are a result of human error. More than a million people are killed world-wide in traffic accidents every year, and another FIFTY million are injured. And you're worried about an electronic failure rate of 0.01%? Talk about ass-backward priorities!

      The sooner we can replace human drivers with computers, the better off we'll be.

    9. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet self-driving cars are the future

      It'll never fly in America, where cars, like corporations, are deemed to have the same rights as individuals.

      A country that's in love with handguns isn't going to give up their god-given Right from when Jesus and Ronald Reagan signed The Constitution to barrel down the federally-funded highways and burn up federally-subsidized oil supplies and listen to anti-government talk radio on the public airwaves. When the most vocal 20 percent of the population literally shat on the floor in fury over regulation of insurance companies, you think they're going to put control of their vehicles into the hands of the communo-fascist Belgian government in Washington?

      Sometimes I wonder why the rest of the world hasn't just wiped us off the map as a sensible preventive measure. Maybe the importation of bad British reality TV shows like American Idol is their way of keeping us occupied until they can figure out how to vote us off the island.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mind you, airplane autopilots only need to pay attention to other airplanes, which not only carry a transponder but also are monitored 24/7 by ground control crews, which make a damned good job at placing the airplane somewhere where it can't screw things up. Moreover, on top of all those security systems in place an airplane also carries two or three blokes who dedicate themselves monitoring all those security systems in real time.

      Back in the surface, kids don't carry transponder units, nor do other cars, and you wish to rely on the car alone to navigate and evade any objects which may be thrown your way. And if all hell breaks loose the bloke who you are relying to save the day is yourself.

      Knowing that, throwing computers at something won't make the problem go away. So as you can see things don't tend to be all that easy.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    11. Re:GM's eyes are bigger than its stomach ... by TheLink · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's clearly not using the literal meaning of literally.

      --
  2. Why? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does it have "dynamic stabilization technology" instead of a possibly passive third wheel? Wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper to manufacture and maintain, and much thriftier in its energy use? How much additional energy is used in maintaining balance?

    1. Re:Why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why does it have "dynamic stabilization technology" instead of a possibly passive third wheel?

      Lower weight, lower rolling friction, probably a lower parts count, probably cheaper to manufacture.
       

      Wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper to manufacture and maintain, and much thriftier in its energy use?

      Maybe, maybe not.

    2. Re:Why? by randy+of+the+redwood · · Score: 3, Interesting
      A motorcycle is half the weight, same basic length, and you can fit more of them on the road.

      Let's put the research into providing the rider all that information on fastest route.

      As batteries get lighter, electric motorcycles get more practical - http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/498/3116/Motorcycle-Article/TTXGP--Electric-Motorcycles-Race-Isle-of-Man.aspx as an example.

      Until then, tow a battery trailer, with room for groceries on top.

      --
      The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
    3. Re:Why? by Dalambertian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point, but what I don't like about motorcycles is the lack of peripherals for protecting my squishy bits.

    4. Re:Why? by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      All those moving parts... Wouldn't it be safer, cheaper and easier to just have a horse pull it?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    5. Re:Why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if the parts are individually cheaper, it still costs to handle and install them. So a lower parts count can really matter.

      And while there are fewer things to go wrong, a dynamic stabilization system is pretty simple as such things go and don't require any sophisticated tools to troubleshoot or repair.

    6. Re:Why? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Motorcycles are not death traps. Morons driving cars are death mobiles. As someone who as AVOIDED numerous crashes (there are no accidents...accidents are unavoidable collisions and most crashes are avoidable), my paranoia also works when I drive a car. It's called 'paying attention'. If more drivers practiced that, there would be fewer crashes for everyone.

      Problem is .. most motorcycle riders don't really learn how to ride a bike. They think they can just get on, squeeze the throttle, and take off. My favorite saying is that any moron can ride a motorcycle at 150mph on a straight road .. it's getting it from 150mph to zero quickly that's the hard part.

      To be fair .. most people that drive a car don't know what they are doing either. I've read studies that show that an expert driver can stop faster and straighter without anti-lock brakes than with them. In fact, novice drivers often over-react to anti-lock brakes and take their foot OFF the brake because of the funny noise it makes. Besides ... anti-lock brakes were not designed to stop a car faster .. they help the moron driver maintain control. As someone who has driven rear-wheel drive cars w/o anti-lock brakes in Maine .. front-wheel drive and anti-lock brakes only make cars safer for someone who hasn't bothered to learn how to drive.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  3. Doesn't solve the problem by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big problem with automobiles is the problem of space. Modern American cities look like a bomb went off in their downtowns; just a few buildings surrounded by flatness for the sake of parking.

    As long as we rely on automobiles for everything, we'll still be consuming too much energy, paying too much to pave too many roads, spending too much money to buy and maintain automobiles, dying in traffic, and wasting time in traffic jams.

    Everything besides decreasing auto dependence is just a bandaid. Of course, I wouldn't expect GM to participate in this since they're the ones who killed our public transit system in the first place.

  4. closer to what i'd like in car electronics by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if you are trying to move into my lane, i want my car to be able to send a signal to your car to not allow that to happen. i fully understand the implications and trust our justice system to prosecute rogue signal transmitters. many cars already implement rev limiters, so the only issue is trusting the signal.

  5. The race for most boring vehicle is on by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To be honest I'd rather ride a freaking bicycle than this boring enclosed driverless segway. Future tech used to be cool, fast and just plain kick ass. But now its just suck ass, partly due to the whole global warming doomsday environmentalist 'green' 'anything you do is a sin' mentality & paranoid obsession with safety that has been going around.

    There should be less of this type of slow driverless segway and more Tesla Roadster, Wrightspeed X1 or even a practical 4 seater without worthless gimmicks like integrated twitter and facebook. There is no reason at all why electric cars should be slow, ugly and boring or even as impractical as this thing is. Basically where is my flying car and get off my lawn.

    1. Re:The race for most boring vehicle is on by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be honest I'd rather ride a freaking bicycle than this boring enclosed driverless segway.

      As would I, but this is perfect for when the weather does not accommodate bike riding.

      Future tech used to be cool, fast and just plain kick ass.

      Popular Mechanics sensationalist predictions that never come true are kick ass and exciting. This is reality, and I think it's pretty exciting.

      But now its just suck ass, partly due to the whole global warming doomsday environmentalist 'green' 'anything you do is a sin' mentality & paranoid obsession with safety that has been going around.

      The fact that this is not a rocket car is due to environmental change? I'm not seeing the logic there.

      There should be less of this type of slow driverless segway and more Tesla Roadster, Wrightspeed X1 or even a practical 4 seater without worthless gimmicks like integrated twitter and facebook.

      Because those things costs more than the gross domestic product of most small towns around the world. This is a possible design for real people to use, not millionaires.

      There is no reason at all why electric cars should be slow, ugly and boring or even as impractical as this thing is.

      It's very practical for people trying to get to work, or to the train station, or the local shops. It's not practical for hyper speed travel across country. It's not meant for that.

      Basically where is my flying car and get off my lawn.

      Your flying car is still not practical. Please go get an engineering degree and help design it if that is what you want. Until then, I'll be happily zipping around waving "ciao." And I don't have a lawn. What a stupid waste of land. Plant some trees already.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  6. This ones problem is image by Kitkoan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think this will sell well as most cars and trucks because it's so small. It's like a Prius, small and 'cutesy'. Thing is most people when they buy a vehicle want big, bold/macho, not small and tiny. This is why so many people own trucks, not because they have a need to use it to load things from point a to point b, it's because they want it to be big and send a type of message.

    People want their 'must-always-have-with-me' electronics small, but something that isn't meant for your pocket is wanted more as bigger is better.

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    1. Re:This ones problem is image by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think this will sell well as most cars and trucks because it's so small. It's like a Prius, small and 'cutesy'.

      A prius isn't that small. It's about 'average' sized when compared against a mini, a smart, or even some of the smaller fords and chevys.

      Thing is most people when they buy a vehicle want big, bold/macho, not small and tiny. This is why so many people own trucks, not because they have a need to use it to load things from point a to point b, it's because they want it to be big and send a type of message.

      People want big vehicles because a whole heck of a lot of Americans live in suburbs or quasi suburbs, where its 5+ miles to the nearest supermarket and the population density is not sufficient to justify a direct bus route from here to there. So even if you are within walking distance to mass transit in these areas, it's a one hour trip vs a 10 minute trip, without having to wait for the bus to come, and without having to crowd on to said bus with enough food to feed a typical family of 2 adults + 2.3 children for a week, and without having to deal with bad weather.

      That's a sufficiently drastic difference in quality of life for many people to object to. To put it politely.

      As for why trucks/SUVs: Well, until the end of the 1980's you could go out and buy a big station wagon that gave you all the cargo space you could ever want to go grocery shopping for the wife and 2.3 kids, haul plywood and sheetrock for your remodeling/renovation project, and pack the wife and ceil(2.3) kids in comfortably for a road trip, all while getting about 20-25 mpg highway.

      Then the first CAFE standards were passed (to stop global warming/reduce dependence on foreign oil, whatever got Al Gore off at the time), and station wagons were no longer profitable to manufacture, what with the huge ass federal tax on them. Trucks, OTOH, weren't covered by CAFE, and people still needed cargo space, so the SUV was invented, and now you get people driving vehicles that are 'bigger' (read: taller), get worse milage than the station wagons did, and don't really have any bigger cargo space. Some are actually shorter and narrower than the station wagons were, and the extra height is taken up by the suspension, so you actually get less cargo space.

      So the answer is, as always, blame your congressman.

    2. Re:This ones problem is image by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That still doesn't require a BIG vehicle.

      When I read about Americans upgrading from minivans because precious little snowflake hasn't got enough legroom for the school run I just want to bash my forehead on the desk. And I've read it. Many times.

      The other head-basher is when I read macho types saying they need a bigger truck for the daily commute because they have to tow something or other once a year.

      And yes, it's a USA thing.

      --
      No sig today...
  7. Re:The first question I ask myself... by WillDraven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One word: Ice.

    Unless these things have spikes that come out of the wheels there is no way they can stay up when the roads freeze.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  8. Snow? by Toshito · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would love to see this car in the snow... or trying to balance itself on ice...

    And getting 40km of autonomy at -30C, with the heater on.

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel