Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Self-Driving Car Faces Off Against Pro On Thunderhill Racetrack

Posted by Soulskill on from the see-you-on-the-top-gear-track dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Rachel Swaby reports that a self-driving car and a seasoned race-car driver recently faced off at Northern California's three-mile Thunderhill Raceway loop. The autonomous vehicle is a creation from the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS). 'We tried to model [the self-driving car] after what we've learned from the best race-car drivers,' says Chris Gerdes (who talks more about the development of autonomous cars in this TED talk). So who won? Humans, of course. But only by a few measly seconds. 'What the human drivers do is consistently feel out the limits of the car and push it just a little bit farther,' explained Gerdes. 'When you look at what the car is capable of and what humans achieve, that gap is really actually small.' Because the self-driving car reacts to the track as if it were controlled in real time by a human, a funny thing happens to passengers along for the ride. Initially, when the car accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then brakes just in time to make it around a curve, the person riding shotgun freaks out. But a second lap looks very different. Passengers tend to relax, putting their faith in the automatically spinning wheel. 'We might have a tendency to put too much confidence in it,' cautioned Gerdes. 'Watching people experience it, they'll say, oh, that was flawless.' Gerdes reaction: 'Wait wait! This was developed by a crazy professor and graduate students!'"

40 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seconds aren't "measly" in motorsports. They can decide an entire season championship.

    1. Re:Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Outside the race track, who cares? It is like saying my processor is 1 Mhz better than yours.

    2. Re:Seconds? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      And that would be technically correct. The best kind of correct.

    3. Re:Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Similar to ABS, this has potential for saving John Driver's butt when he gets in over his head.

      Firstly, if all robot cars can successfully drive at the limit of performance, avoidable accidents will cease to occur. Race drivers might be able to dodge a spinning car or deer in the blink of an eye, but John Driver can't.

      Secondly, taking a page right out of ABS's playbook, one of the places human drivers have the most difficulty is variable or unusual conditions, like rain or loose surface (gravel, dirt, etc). Robots, as ABS has proved, are quite valuable in this sort of situation. While they cannot perform at the absolute limit, they can consistently perform close to that limit, while even the most skilled humans can have difficulty performing at the peak in variable or unusual conditions. Rally drivers may do it for a career, but John Driver isn't a rally driver.

    4. Re:Seconds? by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Seconds depends on the length of the track. There are tracks that can be cleared in less than a minute, and a few seconds is a significant difference. It also depends on the type of car being used... track records at Thunderhill vary from 1:37 for a lap to 2:15 depending on the type of car, and TFA doesn't provide any information as to the type of vehicle being driven. ( http://www.sfrscca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4448&Itemid=93&selTrack=Thunderhill+Raceway+Park&selLength=2.866&selSession=Race&cmdSubmit=Submit ) Thunderhill also has a short track route that has been done in under a minute.

      That being said, the better question is how does the computer compare against an average driver? I'd lay odds that it would thoroughly trounce most of us in such a race, which makes it very impressive.

    5. Re:Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But clearly autonomous cars are bad for everyone because of (insert fringe case) where the car can't perform above 98.5%. Also, humans are better at (thing that rarely happens,) so since I think I'm a better than average driver (just like 90% of people think they're above the median,) then this is clearly a failed technology that shouldn't be allowed to be used by anyone.

      Also, I don't use a seatbelt, airbag, or ABS because I'm not fooled into thinking that researchers, engineers, empirical evidence, and years of track record prove that these things make driving more safe. Obviously me, an IT professional, knows better.

    6. Re:Seconds? by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've done rally racing and I'm pretty damn good at it, and I'd still welcome an AI assist for my daily driving. Would I want it in a race? Probably not just yet, but when I'm driving to a job site I am not racing and would love to have the extra protection.

    7. Re:Seconds? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 3, Informative

      AC is correct.

      In motorsports few seconds is a very long time. The lap times are not mentioned.
      The raceway in question is probably this: http://thunderhill.com/staticpages/index.php?page=TrackMap
      But which variation? Long version 2.866miles record times tend to be just over the 2minute mark for somewhat normal cars.
      Short version is 1.769miles for which SCCA website is missing the record times, the medium version is 1.814miles and record times tend to be close to 1:30 mark with somewhat regular cars.
      Also they don't say how good race car driver was the AI against, there is a huge variety of race car driver skill levels.

      Few seconds? They are being vague, i bet it was more than just 2 seconds because they are being vague.
      Some racing series have 3% rule to qualify, ie. within 3% of the best time, for 1:30 lap time that is 2.7seconds, in other words this AI wouldn't even qualify. :)

      All that being said, great work! Got to start from somewhere.
      In theory AI could become better than humans, but then again AI will most likely always lack intuition, so could well be that a human will always surpass AI.
      Nevermind that a very highly skilled human with very high motivation can do some insane reaction and completely remove the guesswork some of the time when surpassing the limits, ie. see Ayrton Senna. For AI we'd need sensor capable of few ms polling rates with data returned, then compute all the data within few milliseconds and then some insane fast and accurate servos to achieve that level.

      Few millisecond polling rate doesn't sound like much until you realize that for example USB has 90ms, PS/2 is in theory capable of 5ms, and serial port even faster, but that doesn't account for data transfer rates.
      There's a reason why we cannot even build a simple ECU/EMS with standard off-the-shelf hardware: Polling rates are too slow.

      --
      Pulsed Media Seedboxes
    8. Re:Seconds? by Mattcelt · · Score: 2

      Screw the assist. I love to drive, and I'll never want to give up the option of manual control completely, but I would MUCH rather spend my commute reading, playing music, writing, watching movies, or fucking while my car automatically gets me to work. Give me the whole enchilada and not just some driver augmentation.

    9. Re:Seconds? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Also, I don't use a seatbelt, airbag, or ABS because I'm not fooled into thinking that researchers, engineers, empirical evidence, and years of track record prove that these things make driving more safe.

      Ok, you're joking, but many people actually believe that seatbelts and air bags are more dangerous than not having them, and I even doubted ABS. I was trained as a driver in the USAF and knew that in a skid the vehicle will travel farther than when the brakes are almost at skid level, and that when in a skid you have no steering whatsoever. It took a while to unlearn my Air Force training and stand on the brake in an emergency, but I have to tell you, the milliseconds a computer can react is far faster than the fastest human. My ABS has kept me from hitting stupid dogs, ignorant children, and idiots driving cars who don't look when they pull out, or slow for stop signs, more than once.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    but where's the video?

    1. Re:cool by Firehed · · Score: 2

      The TED talk has a few clips.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:cool by kbob88 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try this: http://youtu.be/YxHcJTs2Sxk

  3. BRAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    brake brake brake brake brake brake

    the word is brake

    1. Re:BRAKE by bdwebb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm confused...AFAIK it doesn't work because in the context of making a "fast break for it" the term implies a breaking of your current action or state (suddenly bolting/running/attempting escape/etc.) In TFS it is stated that it "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks just in time to make it around a curve" which literally implies that the brakes are being pressed to slow the vehicle's entry into the curve which is 'braking' rather than 'breaking' as either the current state of acceleration or any physical characteristic breaking would need to be specified to give it context and make the this spelling appropriate.

      I see what you're saying in that it could be double entendre but for me to call it a clever poke rather than a grammatical error it would have to say "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks from acceleration just in time to make it around a curve". In a statement like 'take a break" or 'take a brake' I agree that either works as one implies departing from an particular action or state of being and the other implies slowing down or stopping.

      I'm not trying to be a dick, btw...just exploring the possibilities. IANAEP (English Professor) so I don't know what I'm talking about probably...that's just how it happens in my head piece.

    2. Re:BRAKE by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      No.

      If "the car accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks" several fragments of it might make it around the corner as TFA suggest, but typically, the larger portions of the broken car will continue in a straight line until deflected or destroyed by a wall.

      In that event, the idea that "Passengers tend to relax, putting their faith in the automatically spinning wheel" seems unlikely, unless we're talking about permanent relaxation and some kind of Tibetan prayer wheel.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:BRAKE by Legion303 · · Score: 2

      Slow down, there, cowboy, before you brake Slashdot.

    4. Re:BRAKE by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the context of the article, the word used to decelerate when coming into a corner should be "brake" not "break". The traditional use of the word "break" indicates that the car has become "broken" or is damaged in some way.

      While it's true that the saying "make a break for it" indicates taking off in a different direction, there is no connotation of slowing down. In fact, it has the opposite connotation of picking up speed. In the case of cornering, you have to slow the vehicle down or centrifugal force will cause the vehicle to leave the road.

      In this case you would BRAKE going into a corner and you then MAKE A BREAK out of the corner (i.e. quickly picking up speed to try to gain an advantage).

  4. sorry, pedantry by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 5, Funny

    Brakes, not breaks. Maybe it breaks, and that would certainly freak the passenger out, but I sense in this case it brakes. When you're driving at a wall braking lets you do it again, breaking doesn't. Subtle distinction I thought should be pointed out.

    (This post brought to you by the collective might of the Oblivious Flaw In The Headline Committee, newly formed to point out the obvious flaw and thereby negating 50% of the discussion dealing with grammar and spelling.)

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  5. I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Turn left
    Turn left
    Turn left
    Kill all humans
    Turn left

    1. Re:I can see it now by Shag · · Score: 2

      From what I've seen lately, that's pretty much what NASCAR drivers are already trying to do.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  6. Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not that I will ever trust an autonomous vehicle with my life.

    Because you're irrational. I bet you'd trust a human, though!

  7. It will win soon by swamp_ig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A self-driving car doesn't have to pay much attention to the fragility of the human form when it doesn't have any on board.

    Accelerate at 50g? no problem just add extra bracing.

    1. Re:It will win soon by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kinda misses the point of a car. Perhaps not a tractor-trailer, but cars are definitely not all that useful without passengers.

      Yes they are.

      • Self driving car drops me off at the front door of where I want to be, and the drives itself off to an automated parking garage
      • Self driving car starts up and drives to the local mechanic for its regular service in the middle of the day when I am working
      • Tell self driving car to head to the local big box store and wait in the loading bay until it receives the latest toy that I ordered online
      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:It will win soon by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Tell self driving car to head to the local big box store and wait in the loading bay until it receives the latest toy that I ordered online

      I know Americans are stupid about using their cars for every trip whether it makes sense to drive or not, but sending your car to pick up a box instead of letting the FedEx truck do it is absolutely retarded.

      Only if you assume 1) that the FedEx truck is more efficient than your car, and 2) Waiting for the twice daily FedEx delivery cycle is a good use of your time.
       
      But the point is that self driving cars open a whole range of possibilities that can't easily be done if you have to dedicate yourself to driving the car.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:It will win soon by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

      Retinas are breaking?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  8. Betteridge's Law by Andrio · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In a Race Between a Self-Driving Car and a Pro Race-Car Driver, Who Wins?"

    No.

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
  9. Re:Been there, done that..... by Zapotek · · Score: 2

    Not quite, if I recall correctly, it wasn't behaving as a racer, it just did a GPS-navigated lap of the track -- a human took it for a spin, it recorded the lines and then just replayed them. And it was a regular model (maybe even diesel), not a performance (M-something) one.

  10. Why'd the human driver really beat the robot? by CruelKnave · · Score: 2

    Its strength and its speed are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, it will never be as strong, or as fast, as we can be.

  11. Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    I bet you'd trust a human, though!

    Either way, you're trusting humans. The question is, which choice offers fewer points of failure? ;)

  12. I want to see by geekoid · · Score: 2

    a dozen driverless cars designed to race go at this. Would emergent behavior appear? Can we make them so decisions are recorded and then applied to the next situation?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:I want to see by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      See: RARS

  13. Re:The beginning of the end... by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Just like it's illegal to fly a plane manually? oh wait. More alarmist bullshit form the 'League of Alarmist through FUD."
    And if it goes where you want, why does it matter?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. Re:a race track is a poor test for a day to day us by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

    It might not be a good test for how many groceries you can carry but its an excellent place to develop and test new technologies and find out what a car will do in emergency situation. If it's raining I'd feel much more comfortable if the car that's driving me has demonstrated an ability to recognize and correct over-steer or know the balance between braking/steering input when a deer jumps into the road.

  15. Re:Horrible article by jxander · · Score: 2

    In the context of racing, you are correct : seconds are not measly

    In the context of my daily commute, seconds are completely irrelevant. Even a few minutes are pretty measly.

    Also consider the competition. The car is roughly on par with a professional race car driver... or rather a seasoned one, though the fail to mention what seasoning they used. Either way, that's already leaps and bounds ahead of 95% of drivers

    --
    This signature is false.
  16. Re:ONLY a few seconds? by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Software also undergoes thousands of hours of testing before being set loose on the road. Human drivers, not so much.

  17. Re:Been there, done that..... by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a BMW, turn signals are optional extras.

  18. Reasonably Priced Car by skine · · Score: 2

    Personally, I would LOVE if Top Gear (UK) brought in this team to test how quickly they can make the Reasonably Priced Car go around the track.

  19. Re:ONLY a few seconds? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For every one of them that drives off a cliff, it'll save 100 people who would have not noticed a stopped vehicle ahead while checking over their shoulder while merging or running a red light because were momentarily distracted, or looked down to check the stereo for a second and drifted into oncoming traffic.

  20. Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

    I'd be more worried if the computer isn't able to block human input that would lead to an accident. Because that is much more likely.
    Humans are idiots. Distracted humans in a reflex situation doubly so.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.