Slashdot Mirror


The Audi A8: First Production Car To Achieve Level 3 Autonomy (ieee.org)

schwit1 shares a report from IEEE Spectrum: The 2018 Audi A8, just unveiled in Barcelona, counts as the world's first production car to offer Level 3 autonomy. Level 3 means the driver needn't supervise things at all, so long as the car stays within guidelines. Here that involves driving no faster than 60 kilometers per hour (37 mph), which is why Audi calls the feature AI Traffic Jam Pilot. Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along. To be sure, the A8 also monitors the driver, even while the traffic jam persists, and continues to do so as the speed edges up over the limit. If the driver falls asleep, it'll wake him up; if it can't get his attention, it will stop the car. If you want to buy the new A8, you'll have to check whether your jurisdiction will accept it as a Level 3 car. Audi said in a statement that it will follow "a step-by-step approach" to introducing the traffic jam pilot. It plans to sell the base model in Europe this fall for 90,600 euros, or about $103,000, and to enter the United States market shortly afterwards. A model having a longer wheelbase will cost a few percent more.

34 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Of course, the utility is limited when... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the Germans will *still* order it with a manual transmission.

    Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      I would add the qualifier "a YOUNG" real driver". At my age I kind of like my automatic transmission, even though I drove manual for 30+ years.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.

      Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto. Now a well tuned DSG can even outperform the best drivers on gear changes.

    3. Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.

      Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto.

      True for cars, but not for pickup trucks (big trucks with huge numbers of gears are a different story). There are significant advantages to having a torque converter over a clutch when starting a heavy load. As a result, pickups with automatic transmissions have higher rated towing capacities than the same model with a manual transmission. There are also a lot of advantages for off-road vehicles, where drivers may need to apply very precise amounts of power from a standing start and at low speeds.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ... the Germans will *still* order it with a manual transmission.

      The Audi A8 has never been offered with a manual transmission, except under the S8 name, and even then only in the first generation and only in limited european markets (yes, Germany) and in very minimal quantity. Every other A8 has come with a slush box, either the ZF5HP19 if they are FWD, or the ZF5HP24A if they are AWD. Those few manual S8s came with the 6-speed 01E gearbox. You can also fit the 5-speed 01A.

      All new A8s which are not fully electric will be 48V mild hybrids, and feature slush boxes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Next level autonomy! by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

    At level 4 the car decides on it's own where to take you. At level 5 it gets bored waiting for you in the parking lot and decides to leave you to pursue it's own life as a career movie stunt car and part time Uber drone.

    1. Re:Next level autonomy! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      At level 4 the car decides on it's own where to take you. At level 5 it gets bored waiting for you in the parking lot

      Level 6 is when it kills you and fucks your wife.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Re: European cars...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US played its part, after being dragged kicking and screaming into the war.

    The idea the US "won the war" though is patently absurd. It's just Hollywood propaganda, up there with "We kicked out the Limeys" when in actuality it was the French who did all the real fighting and heavy lifting in the war in the colonies.

    You don't even know your own history.

    Still, can't expect too much from a nation of ignoramuses who elect a reality TV star as their leader.

  4. So in what fantasy land can you actually use it? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along. (...) If you want to buy the new A8, you'll have to check whether your jurisdiction will accept it as a Level 3 car.

    Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. Can I ride drunk? by rfengr · · Score: 2

    Does level 3 mean I can have it take me home while drunk, or will I still get a DWI?

    1. Re:Can I ride drunk? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does level 3 mean I can have it take me home while drunk

      You can... but you might regret it the next morning when you wake up and see it laying next to you.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Can I ride drunk? by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Does level 3 mean I can have it take me home while drunk, or will I still get a DWI?

      Nope.

      At level 3 a competent driver is still needed. In conditions the car can handle, the driver can ignore what's going on, relying on the car to tell the driver when to pay attention take over, but the car may decide that at any time and you have to be competent.

      At level 4 you could have it take you home while drunk, as long as the entire route is within the car's capabilities.

      At level 5 the car is as good as a human driver in every possible driving scenario, including dirt roads, etc.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Can I ride drunk? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      My point was that you can't really relax and read the paper in traffic if you have to be constantly ready to throw it aside and grab the wheel, making sense of your situation to avoid an imminent crash.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Can I ride drunk? by swillden · · Score: 2

      If you are reading a newspaper as they suggest, it might take you several seconds to finish the paragraph

      Or if you're asleep, it might take you 30 seconds to figure out where you are and what's going on. I think this is a big deficiency in the definition of level 3, and one of the reasons I'm skeptical of level 3 systems. Tesla's level 2.5 is even worse... though they do have some pretty compelling data showing that their system, deficient though it might be, reduces accidents as compared with human drivers. A system doesn't actually have to be good to be viable, it just has to be better than people, and people suck.

      We really just need to get to level 4. That was Google's conclusion early on, and the focus on achieving complete autonomy for highway and city driving is what has held them back from releasing a product. Time will tell on whether that was a good decision, but it seems clear to me that it's the most safety-conscious decision.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Can I ride drunk? by strikethree · · Score: 2

      At level 4 you could have it take you home while drunk, as long as the entire route is within the car's capabilities.

      I am fairly certain that if it is possible for you to control the vehicle, regardless of the vehicles capabilities, you will still be given a DUI/DWI ticket. I mean, you can get a DUI/DWI ticket for being asleep in your car with the keys not in the ignition if you have been drinking. It is a real witch hunt (not commenting on whether that is good or bad).

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  6. Re: European cars...... by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    You're also forgetting post ww2. You'd be living in a soviet nightmare if the US wasn't backing the idea of Europe as independent nations. A cold war sucks. A hot war followed by tyranny sucks worse.

  7. Re:Good by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would like a car that can drive me around while I drink beer

    I can do that just fine by myself, thank you very much.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re: European cars...... by tysonedwards · · Score: 2

    History is written by those looking to appease the Kansas School Board.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  9. Re: European cars...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

    This makes France the most successful European military ever, period.

    You really should thank your lucky stars the French decided to take on the British on your behalf.

    It's ironic that the people who coined the phrase "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" are the ones who have benefited most from French military prowess.

  10. Re: European cars...... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

    The US was absolutely critical to winning ww2. If the US hadn't supplied England and invaded the mainland, Hitler would have prevailed over Russia and Africa,

    Absolute rubbish. The Battle of Britain was won in 1940, over a year before the US even entered the war. Germany's failure to destroy the RAF and Royal Navy made an invasion of Britain impossible.

    The first official military action of the United States in WW2 was Operation Torch in November 1942 - one month AFTER the second battle of El Alamein which is considered the turning point of the entire North African campaign. Once El Alamein was fought again, the Afrika Korps had no chance - it was under-supplied and out of fuel. All Rommel could do was slow down the Allied advance as much as he could with what he had left. What the US managed to do was trap the Afrika Korps from the other side, ensuring they had no escape route left to them. It was in no way a decisive action since Hitler had already written off the Afrika Korps - both men and equipment. A plan to evacuate the troops of the Afrika Korps by air at night from Tunisia was put forward and even approved by OKH however Hitler never signed off on it - that's how important he thought those experienced troops were.

    The battle of Stalingrad began in August 1942, again before Operation Torch and USA's "official" entry into the war. Stalingrad is considered by all historians to be the major turning point of the war on the Eastern front.

    The "Happy Time" of the battle of the Atlantic was over by 1941, long before the US entered the war. ASDIC (a British invention) as well as cracking the German Enigma codes (also by the British) played a major role in defeating Germany's interdiction efforts. The further invention (by the British) of the Leigh Light as well as airborne radar sealed the fate of German u-boats since they were now vulnerable to bombers while on the surface even at night.

    While America loves to remind the world of its invaluable help in "winning WW2", Americans tend to forget that the course of the war was mostly decided by the time they finally made up their minds to enter the fray. Also it can be noted that lend lease was an exceedingly good deal for AMERICA, where they traded some obsolete equipment for permanent military bases all around the world. In fact it can be said that the gaining of bases in territories of the former British Empire is what helped put America on the map as a global instead of a regional power. Certainly that was worth a few WW1 destroyers and ancient trucks that had a doubtful outcome on the course of the war.

    Oh let's not forget America's performance on D-Day, where they landed most of their troops in the wrong place and would have been driven back in the sea and possibly caused the entire invasion to fail if it weren't for valiant efforts on the part of outnumbered British and Commonwealth troops (as well as Free French and Poles) to mount an immediate attack to prevent the encirclement of the American beaches. That was the first time America nearly lost the Western front for everyone.

    The second time was in the Ardennes during the battle of the bulge, where complacent Americans underestimated the Germans and very nearly got encircled the ONLY time the Wehrmacht decided to push for real. Once again Montgomery and the XXX corps saved America's butts by redeploying and counterattacking "just in time".

    WW2 was a team effort. While America was an important participant it was in no way the only participant and some would say it wasn't even the most important participant - that honor belonging to the Soviet Union which managed to absorb a significant portion of both the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe so that they were never seen again. America was very good at daylight bombing which resulted in permanent fuel shortages for Germany. And America managed to keep Japan away from most of the British colonies and commonwealth members in the Pacific and southern Asia. However this "you would be speaking German if not for us" nonsense is just as valid for America - America would be surrounded by a German/Japanese empire if it weren't for the UK and it's commonwealth members, the Free French, the free Poles, and the Soviet Union.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. Re: I look forward to by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

    True, but for every time I've seen a cyclist take a short cut (and they do) I've seen ten cars do worse. There are the truly bad examples such as accelerating, full bore, while a pedestrian is right in front of the vehicle (usually taking a right turn with bad visibility and so going from looking left to flooring it). Then there are the things drivers probably think are slights like charging around a corner beyond the speed where they can stop, and crossing a pedestrian crossing. But if you're there and you eat a car at 10 or 20 MPH it doesn't end well for you. Then there is the road rage, like yelling at or physically threatening pedestrians while legally crossing in a crosswalk.

    The main difference is the the car weights 20 times as much as a pedestrian or a cyclist. Cars bad behavior is never checked. But an asshole with a car will destroy a bike every now and again when they misbehave.

  12. Re: European cars...... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    McDonald's sells billions of burgers every year. That doesn't qualify them for a Michelin star. You are seriously trying to imply something because a company that sells cheap crap gets away with selling cheap crap to a lot of people? I'm sure if the average Brit could afford a nicer car, they wouldn't buy a Ford Fiesta.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. Not production. Not autonomous. Max speed 37mph by mspohr · · Score: 2

    This is just more hype from Audi. Every few years they have a big press event about a killer next generation car then go back to making the same old shit.
    This car is not in production. It might be in a few years (but they've said that before).
    Autonomy doesn't recognize stop signs, traffic lights, pedestrians, etc.
    Max speed 37mph... going nowhere fast.

    Wake me when I can actually buy one and test it.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  14. Costs 100K? Imagine... by Visarga · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine how many GPUs you can buy with that money. Spending it all on one car seems like such a waste.

  15. Re: European cars...... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    The US was absolutely critical to winning ww2. If the US hadn't supplied England and invaded the mainland, Hitler would have prevailed over Russia and Africa,

    Absolute rubbish. The Battle of Britain was won in 1940, over a year before the US even entered the war.

    Time for you to re-read the comment above, and also read up on the lend-lease program.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re: European cars...... by KeensMustard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right or wrong about the impact of the US on WW2 the Americans who fought in World War II are dead. Maybe you need to recognise that the measure of your countries greatness is your OWN deeds and your OWN contributions, not draw down on the credit of the dead.

  17. Re: European cars...... by bongey · · Score: 2

    *) Winston Churchill disagrees with you.
    *) FDR negotiated the territories such to not be surrounded by German territories if Britain had fallen.
    *) More allies would have fallen or ended in stalemate without supplies from the US.
    *)Very much a team effort, but US supplies put the Allies in the winning category. (luck really in that no enemy was close enough to harm our infrastructure.)
    *)Hitler was also big reason for the defeat, he was idiot for opening up a second front.

  18. Re: European cars...... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    USSR would be a distant second, but they were poor as fuck and really had no chance without the US hitting Germany hard from the west.

    Actually the combat on the western front only started in summer 1944 - this is when the USSR arrived at the border with Poland and the allied were seriously concerned that the Soviets might win the war in Europe all by themselves. The vast majority of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the eastern front.
    Oh, and the last fascist regime, Spain, was happily supported by Americans. And yes, you are lying. USSR was not doing its damndest to expand westwards. Stalin promised not to support Greek communists and he didn't. The Soviet army left Austria in 1955 right after Austria signed the neutrality pact. USSR wanted a buffer zone between their mainland and the West that invaded Russia several times and this is what the Warsaw Pact was all about. So you calling people little shits for telling lies is like the pot calling the kettle a nigga.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  19. Re:So in what fantasy land can you actually use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Finland, driverless cars are completely legal.

    A startup recently asked the ministry of transport whether it could conduct trials of selfdriving busses on public roads. After a month of delay, the ministry replied something along the line of "We have thoroughly studied the law text, and find no passage which would require the presence of a driver. All you need to provide is a statement of which person is responsible for the car's behaviour on the road."

  20. Re: European cars...... by Sique · · Score: 2, Informative
    Europeans have different norms for trucks. Most important, the total length of the whole unit including trailer is limited (in most countries to 62 ft or 18.75 m). The conventional U.S. truck with the driver seated behind the engine is a waste of space for European truck operators. Thus, European trucks have mostly a flatnose cab and a quite limited sleeping compartement. This design in turn doesn't make sense in the U.S. where only the total weight of the truck is limited. Thus you won't find many U.S. trucks in Europe, and European trucks in the U.S..

    Despite that, the big truck companies are operating on both continents. Mack Trucks for instance is owned by European Volvo, while the European DAF is owned by U.S. based Paccar.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  21. Re: European cars...... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    They used to be able to. The Austin Mini was cheap and very popular.

  22. Re: European cars...... by stdarg · · Score: 2

    The first official military action of the United States in WW2 was Operation Torch in November 1942

    I'm sure this was just an oversight because you seem to know what you're talking about, but the US began unrestricted warfare against Japan in the Pacific within hours of Pearl Harbor. That's if you don't count the defense of Pearl Harbor itself as official for whatever reason.

  23. Re: European cars...... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

    The battle of Stalingrad began in August 1942, again before Operation Torch and USA's "official" entry into the war. Stalingrad is considered by all historians to be the major turning point of the war on the Eastern front.

    The major turning point actually happened even earlier, during the battle of Moscow. At that point (December 1941) the whole operation Barbarossa failed and the war on the eastern front became unwinnable. Stalingrad was the point where the German war effort wasn't sustainable anymore.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  24. Re: European cars...... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Lend Lease was enacted in March 1941. Britain had already survived the threat of invasion and the Battle of Britain and was turning the tide against the u-boats in the N. Atlantic. Britain had already passed through the worst of the storm. Lend lease helped the UK switch to and stay on the offensive both in N. Africa and the Med. It did not "save" Britain by any means. Britain was mostly saved by geography and the Royal Navy/Air Force.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.