Some time next year, GM will have a fleet of self-driving Chevy Volts whizzing around its tech center campus north of Detroit.
Move over Google! The tech giant that uses its California campus as a testing ground for its autonomous vehicle now has company in those types of efforts as General Motors plans to do the same at its Tech Center campus in Michigan.
The automaker plans to roll out a fleet of autonomous 2017 Chevy Volt plug-in hybrids on the site starting next year. Employees will use the vehicles to get around the 326-acre campus in Warren, Michigan, just north of Detroit.
“It really demonstrates a different mindset than what you might expect from the auto industry, really a Silicon Valley mindset,” she told investors and analysts Thursday at GM’s Global Business Conference. “We’re going to step things up. We’re going to experiment, we’re going to get customer input, we’re going to do it in a cost-effective way. If it works, we’re going to scale it.”
Most manufacturers have been playing catch up with the aforementioned tech giant when it comes to autonomous vehicle technology. Google’s test vehicles, which look like a cross between a football helmet and a marshmallow, have more than 1 million test miles logged.
(General Motors poised for profitability. For more, Click Here.)
For GM, the move is an attempt to mirror real-world testing, albeit in a closed environment. The company’s technical center is a closed campus so who can gain entry to the site is restricted. The Volts will be limited to just 25 mph, according to GM executives.
Employees will be limited on where they can go in the vehicles. They’ll use a smart phone app to book a ride in one of the vehicles. Once they get in the car, they can select their destination on the vehicles infotainment center touchscreen, officials said.
(Click Here for details about the white-hot September auto sales.)
While none of the current models are equipped with all of the sensors and cameras needed to be “self-driving,” GM has developed plenty of strategic partnerships that will allow them to quickly develop those vehicles and get them on the roads of the tech center. GM is upping its involvement with a company named Mobileye, which develops vision-based systems that help avoid collisions.
“It is a tremendous opportunity for us to accelerate everything around autonomous and safety, and to do it very, very quickly,” said Mark Reuss, head of global product development, purchasing and supply chain. GM officials did not say how many vehicles would be in the autonomous fleet.
(To see more about GM wanting profitability to redefine personal mobility, Click Here.)
GM’s made a very public commitment autonomous driving technology, touting that it will have its first semi-autonomous car, the Cadillac CT6, on the road by 2017. The technology will allow a driver to take hands off the steering wheel and foot off the pedals while driving on a highway.
Why not “slow it down and get it right the first time” instead of rushing to market and getting it so wrong as has been done many times before? Everyone wants to cash in on AVs without doing their homework and properly developing these “mission critical” transportation devices with the proper safety designs, redundant systems and limp mode response when the systems crash or are hacked, which they most definitely will experience. If AVs are viewed like commercial aircraft that can’t be allowed to fall out of the sky no matter what, then designers and engineers will be on the right path to safety.
This a great technology disruption that is now becoming a economic disruption that will greatly benefit the public. First by safety and then allowing non drivers to be mobile.The proproganda by the dissenters are is of fear. Fear of not making money. Fear of individuals having choice from supposed established choice. Revenue streams diverted from long established sources. Meaning buying a vehicle for neighborhood and nobody having a drivers license or needing one. Fueling a vehicle from a everybodies solar array. A greatly reduced revenue stream out of local communities. And eventually reduced wealth being transferred out of the country to the middle east. And energy self reliance for the US.
DWH you continue to demonstrate your lacking technical and business knowledge. AVs are not likely to greatly benefit the public because the public has said no to EVs and surveys show the vast majority of U.S. consumers will not give up driving their personal vehicles for AVs. AVs will be a specific choice in personal transportation. They can certainly benefit individuals. They are not likely to replace all self-driven vehicles for a long, long time, if ever. Some surveys show that woman as a group do not even trust the tech used for AVs. The populace should not be paying for the desires of individuals. Those who want AVs should be willing to pay the premium price that will be charged. They should also pay for any public battery recharging systems or hydrogen refilling stations as EV/AV batteries and vehicles are eliminated.
AVs will be useful for those who have mobility issues or those who chose not to drive for personal reasons. The idea of buying one vehicle for a neighborhood is exactly the opposite of what most people in the U.S. have stated they want. Maybe that idea might float in some countries but not in the U.S. where people want the freedom to travel when and where they desire.
It would be quite difficult to have multiple people or households using one AV when they are all likely to need it at the same time such as to go to work to earn enough money to pay for these premium priced vehicles. Why would people buy an expensive AV they can only use once in awhile when they have public transportation and don’t need to schedule their life around when the other members of the group are not using an AV? It simply does not make much sense for most of the world.
You have quite a distorted view of business and reality. When people fuel their vehicles locally the profit from the sale is used to pay local workers who spend the money locally at the grocery stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. That same money is turned over many times in the local community regardless if it’s the money derived from selling gasoline or electricity to recharge the batteries on EVs and AVs.
Solar is a nice idea if you live somewhere where that is lots of sunshine year round but it does not work well in colder climates nor do EVs nor will AVs. The cost for solar systems also requires a long lifespan just to recover the initial costs. A suitable solar panel to power an EV or AV would be far larger than viable. (See some of the solar powered research engineering vehicles for reference.) If you’ve actually researched the solar panel and power requirements for an EV or AV then you’d already understand it’s completely impractical at this point in time in spite of technological gains.
As far as I can tell most people do not fear technology. They fear the rush to market mentality that gets people injured or killed. They fear paying for someone else’s personal choices that do not benefit those being asked to pay for these personal vehicles. If I were to require that you and other people pay for my car or my vehicle’s fuel, you’d say it is unfair and inappropriate because it is. The same holds true for EVs and AVs. These are personal transportation choices and those who desire them and the supporting infrastructure are the only ones who should be charged for these vehicles and the infrastructure.
Some of us demand responsible behavior from government and industry when it comes to public safety. Rushing improperly designed and insufficiently tested products to market for financial profits is unethical and dangerous. There is no need to rush AVs to market. They need to be 100% fail safe just as you would expect from commercial airplanes and even more so because there is no pilot/driver to take control if the vehicle computers get hacked or have a malfunction from a sensor failure, corrupted software, etc. We’re dealing with people’s lives and no shortcuts should be allowed just so some entities can financially profit from an improperly designed and built AV. AVs need to have the very highest safety standards and frequent operational inspections to insure they remain safe. Anything less is irresponsible and unacceptable.
GT101. Your remarks and attacks toward me are indicative of similiar by Jorge M. Your attacks & attempts to bully for a person show a lack of intelligence show a degree of ego mania. Get help. Stay on subject meaning about technology and cars. No constant repeating political mumbo jumbo. Are you being paid or are you a investor or do you simply hate?
DWH,
Your comments are insulting because you are attacking anyone here who shows that your claims are untrue. If anyone is a bully it would be you who calls people names because you don’t like their comments. If there is anyone who needs help it would be you for your bullying and name calling. I am not bullying anyone. I just show that your comments are untrue. You fail to understand that you are the one who has the problem and whom would benefit from professional help.
Your past comments show that you have bought stock in Tesla so it’s easy to see why you have a distorted view of reality and oppose any comments that show the illogical promotion of EVs for the masses. You are also the one who keeps referring to voodoo economics because you do not understand basic commerce. You are the one who reverts to insulting me and other people here with flat earth mumbo jumbo when your claims are refuted.
What part of public safety do you have a problem with? Why would you desire to endanger the public by allowing AVs to be rushed out on the streets without proper design and certification?
Unlike you, I am not an investor in ICE or EVs. Unlike you I don’t call people names. I address the technical issues and correct your false statements. There is no hate on my part. I prefer to deal with the technical subject but it is often deeply engrained with the politics. We see this with the Obama/EPA regulations intended to deter U.S. clean diesel sales and promote impractical (for most people), EVs. The fact that you can’t deal with the truth is why you make personal attacks on me and other people here. Those attacks do not change anything. They just confirm your inability to address the issues in a mature adult manner.
It’s time for you to change your demeanor here as it’s inappropriate to abuse people here because you lack technical expertise on the subjects of discussion.
“AVs are not likely to greatly benefit the public because the public has said no to EVs…” Are you sure that book’s been written? EV sales have been steadily rising for the past 18 months and the total number on the road have double in the last three years. While I’m not suggesting that they’re going to be on par with gas/diesel powered vehicles anytime soon, I don’t think you can say the “public has said no.” I think what you can say is that the public is curious and would likely say “yes” to an EV with characteristics mirroring gas/diesel vehicles.
“and surveys show the vast majority of U.S. consumers will not give up driving their personal vehicles for AVs.” Actually, survey information about this concept is all over the map. If you want to say you personally don’t think that American’s will give up control, that’s one thing, but let’s make sure you’re on the right track when citing surveys…there’s a fair bit of discrepancy on it right now. Largely, I believe, because folks don’t know a lot about these vehicles.
Yes Michael, I am sure that book has been written when only a million EVs have been sold world wide despite the irrational incentives, tax breaks, hype and shilling.
As I stated numerous surveys, some referenced in this blog, show that:
1. Woman do not trust the tech in EV/AVs
2. Over 60% of woman said they would never consider an AV
3. ~50% of men said they would not consider an EV/AV
4. Over 80% of people said they would not give up driving their own auto for an AV
These are not my statistics, these are from various industry sources. Naturally the sales of EVs will increase over time as auto makers have a gun to their head and are unable to meet the absurd 54.5 mpg CAFE decree so they are ready to pay consumers to buy EVs. That doesn’t mean the masses will accept these impractical vehicles.
The best chance for electric powered vehicles is with hydrogen fuel cells that eliminate the major issues with EVs such as range, recharging, recharging stations, etc. It is easy for gas stations to add hydrogen refilling pumps.
Me and my wife both drive Teslas.within 3 years you will see that every automaker will be marketing EVs The charging network will be as ubiquitous as gas stations. I am in California and totally off the grid thanks to the solar panels and Aquion battery pack in my garage storing 27000 Kwhr Charges the cars, everything in the house is electric. Total cost of power gasoline natural gas each month is ZERO. Cost before changes each month of all was $1200. within 4 years full recovery of cost of investment. Go figure. The future folks is here now . The only gasoline in the house is the one our plastic trash to diesel maker machine makes. my neighbors bring the plastic trash to my place as they get a kick out of making diesel out of it.The diesel may be needed to run the back up generator for power for days when the solar/storage runs out.HAVE NOT SWITCHED THE GENERATOR ON EVEN ONCE since i got it 6 months ago.Please test drive a Leaf or MEV or Tesla and you will never want to go back to gas engines again. And if the car has AV as well . What more can i ask