Published on July 13, 2019 |
by Chanan Bos
1[ads1]3. July 2019 by Chanan Bos
Elon Musk has said that buying a car today cannot be upgraded to enable full autonomy such as buying a horse. It is understood that this means that you should buy a Tesla since we are not aware of any other cars on the market that will be upgraded to full self-purchase capacity. But a topic that is not widely discussed is electric against gasoline self-propelled cars. Will people be able to buy gasoline self-propelled cars? Well, I guess Elon would call a self-propelled gas car a horse with carrot on a stick in front of it. Let's explore why.
This article is a non-technical spinoff article from the Tesla self-propelled computer analysis I recently published. Elon Musk has said that Full Self-Driving could only work in an electric car. Even today, this phrase really confuses some people because it has not been explained in great depth. The general point is that developing self-propelled technology for a gas car would be a huge waste of resources because it is an economical and practical death, and there are a few major reasons that are the case other than the obvious "electric car is the future" one.
Gas cars are like heavy-duty electric cars (Gamer Term for latency problems)
A computer can respond much faster than a person can. There are only two things that a gas car can do quickly – sludge the brakes and turn the wheel. People must adapt to this by adjusting the latency plans of the car's accelerator pedal. They must wait for the idea that their action will not result in an immediate reaction. With a mechanical automated transmission, many things must happen: Mechanical torque vector with differential gearbox; Change of rpm in the engine each time another transmission is selected; regulates rpm. by pumping more or less fuel into the engine. None of it is instant. As I said, it's like playing with teams.
It does not matter how awesome a self-propelled computer can potentially be if there is a large link between the command, action, observation and evaluation of the result, decision-making for the next action, and the execution of the subsequent action. The gas car is the weakest link in the chain – or, more accurately, it is the bottleneck in response. With the electrically controlled torque vector, an electric drive can respond faster than a human driver could, leading me to the next point.
Safety on smooth and soft roads
This is another topic Elon has touched on before, but is a rather complicated topic to explain, and there are no simple, direct, absolute numerical calculations (at least not published for public) to help compare the safety difference between a gas car and an electric car on slippery and icy roads.
First of all, it is important to understand that while the rotation of the car's wheels can be regarded as an output, a reaction, there is also a sensor that can tell how fast each wheel spins and how much traction you have on the road . Now, what can you do with this data? When it comes to a petrol car, the only thing that can be done is by adjusting general traction settings for slippery road conditions, notifying the change of circumstances, and hoping for the best, because when the gas knows something, it's too late to respond well because the time It takes for the car to respond, would be too long to be of great benefit. On the other hand, in addition to alerting the driver and adjusting the general settings, when a wheel is about to lose traction, an electric car can immediately change the speed at which the wheel spins or adjust the other 3 to compensate. The time between observation and reaction is short enough to actually make a difference. (This should not be confused with a system such as "Active Braking System" (ABS) that tries to stop a car when it has already lost control for more than a second.)
We know that, despite For lack of data, having an electric car makes a difference. The only question is the size of the difference? Does it mean that an electric rear-wheel drive is as good as a non-electric front wheel drive in smooth conditions? Or a non-electric all-wheel drive car? Apart from explaining the theoretical reasons why electric cars are much better in this area, all we can say is that people have felt the difference and feel safer about driving a Tesla in the winter, another Tesla rear wheel drive
Elon's comments on horses and why the security advantage is simple chess
As mentioned at the beginning of this piece, Elon has said that if you buy a car that is not & # 39; t electric and are not upgradeable for self-driving, so you buy virtually a horse. It has a limited set of mobility in its arsenal to evade accidents. In chess it is closer to the movement set of a horse, while a Tesla movement set is closer to a queen.
An electric car has instantaneous torque, which means that if a car has to take drastic evasive action to avoid a crash, it may also consider alternatives that require it to be accelerated immediately, which a gas car cannot do. This may also apply to swinging out of the way when parallel lane traffic requires immediate acceleration to succeed in another lane, which may be the only option to avoid crashing and may only be an option if The car can do it very fast. In such a case, you cannot prevent yourself from being rump-ended.
Aerodynamic Drag, Engine Efficiency, and Efficient Efficiency
Compared to gasoline vehicles, range is a bit of an Achilles heel for electric cars (for now). The gap closes very quickly, but in any case, efficiency is a big key to a longer area. This means efficient engines, good aerodynamics, and not wasting too much power on other features, like very powerful hungry self-propelled computer technology.
In March 2018, it was announced that Jaguar I-PACE would join the Waymo fleet with autonomous vehicles. But more than a year later, a single Waymo I-PACE vehicle hasn't started commercial operation, and it's probably a very good reason for that.
Jaguar I-PACE's real world class seems to be just under 200 miles (320 km), even though it has a battery larger than a regular model X vehicle, which has 255 miles. Now add the aerodynamic thread that Waymo's equipment adds to the equation and processing power needed to do the system's work. For a Tesla with hardware version 3 (HW3), the power requirement is about 100 watts, but Waymo's equipment can use much more. During Tesla's Autonomy Day presentation, it was said that the Autopilot computer can account for 20% of non-highway usage power. If this is also the case for I-PACE, its range will be 160 kilometers (260 km) – but it will actually get worse since 20% does not include the extra aerodynamic thread of Waymo's intervention. This leads us to the next point.
How much are others who prioritize energy efficiency?
It seems that Tesla is the only company that designs self-propelled systems very directly for specific models. Other companies and teams seem to be more coherent – mostly because the primary work has been done or is being done by non-automotive startup, rather than by car design companies and development teams working very closely with the self-propelled technology team. How much the self-propelled technology teams have prioritized the efficiency of their systems or understood how it would differ in different vehicle models is an open question.
As it was extensively covered in our HW3 chip depth, a processor must be very powerful, but also very energy efficient. In terms of HW3, it means you draw 100 watts or up to a whole lot of the power consumption of a vehicle. As for Waymo, we don't know how much power the computer or computers use, so it can actually beat Tesla, but since Waymo hasn't shared any hardware details, there's no way to know.
One thing is for sure – the products that NVIDIA makes are extremely hungry. The latest hardware consumes 500 watts for 320 TOPS (which, if properly understood by NVIDIA from the blog post, can be scaled down to 250 watts for 160 TOPS). Tesla can achieve 144 TOPS with 100 watts. Initially, where NVIDIA delivers 0.64 TOPS per watt, Tesla delivers 1.66 TOPS per watt. Just for fun, let's remember that in some situations 100 watts can account for 20% of the power used in the vehicle. If it was 500 watts, the FSD would almost double the power consumption of a vehicle (as opposed to no FSD technology at all). Now I need to give NVIDIA some credit – its current product line is a generic multifunctional product designed to develop and test the product, and NVIDIA promises that a much better chip is just around the corner.  Nevertheless, the key point is that when it comes to self-propelled technology, energy efficiency can be the second most important metric for safety, and we have no insight into the amount of consideration given by other car manufacturers or chip makers.
Electric vehicles can respond much faster than petrol cars in different ways, making them better suited for full self-propelled technology. They can take advantage of the fast response time on computers. The exact optimum combination of steering, braking, power to each wheel and suspension coordinated by the computer are worlds except for what is possible with a mechanical combustion engine powertrain.
Precision control of electric motors also allows all single wheels to adapt to smooth road conditions, making a rear-wheel drive vehicle almost as safe (or perhaps even safer) on icy road conditions than a front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive gas car.  The combination of an AI driver with an electric car is so much more versatile and can respond so much faster in traffic situations that it just doesn't make sense to continue producing (or buying) gas cars.
However, it is critical to design efficient self-propelled technology and efficient cars, as well as to design the two to integrate as efficiently as possible.
It was fun. I hope you agree. Let's not even open the Pandora's box of possibilities The Roadster 2 opens by possibly being able to boost a few feet in the air to avoid an accident.