The car of the future, here today...

[applepansy]

I wonder how long it will take to see this car in Utah.

GM Hy-Wire "Car of the Future"

[Blackmarch]

I wonder how long it will take to see this car in Utah.

GM Hy-Wire "Car of the Future"

Long time.

I saw it at the detroit auto show way back in 2001 or 2002 haven't really seen much about it since.

I really like the modular idea. However I don't know if fly by wire should be in the urban auto world... sure it works with combat planes and airliners, but a few major differences- they are maintained much more thoroughly, have better trained users, and are far fewer in number than than the automobile.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Traveler]

I believe that I once read that there were two operating automobiles in the USA when the first accident took place. They collided on a beach while racing. However, Blackmarch, I believe your assumptions are incorrect in assuming that a drive by wire car would be more unsafe or unreliable than our current mechanical versions.

The problem with the car is going to be keeping the hydrogen fuel safe while the car is parked for multiple days in over 100 degree heat of southern Utah summers.

The Traveler

[applepansy]

I'm curious about how this car would manage during Utah winters. There are times I'm pushing show with my CR-V and my daughters VW can't make it out of the driveway.

[Blackmarch]

I believe that I once read that there were two operating automobiles in the USA when the first accident took place. They collided on a beach while racing. However, Blackmarch, I believe your assumptions are incorrect in assuming that a drive by wire car would be more unsafe or unreliable than our current mechanical versions.

Interesting.

Like i said before I don't know. Didn't say it was more unsafe or more safe. Safety involves many things in each aspect of the car and what/how the car is used for... and involves reducing all the possible risks to acceptable levels. I wasn't referring to how reliable the drive by wire system is itself.

The reasons that (some) jet fighters don't have any direct mechanical backup are mainly because in their operation envelope makes such useless or so near useless that having them is a waste of space and money.

A car is in a different place altogether and can afford such a backup... to remove such a redundancy when you have the luxury of having it strikes me as all sorts of stupid or throwing common sense out the window.

I doubt we'll see such a pure fly by wire system as seen in that prototype for a long time if ever. Quite likely however that elements from it will make it into future cars- such as some modularity, computer assisted driving, More compact drive systems .. things like that.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Blackmarch

[mnn727]

Hopefully never. fly by wire is wrong on so many levels. If you have one you'd better pray you never lose power, or that theres never a computer glitch of any kind or even a strong magnetic field, or you lose: your steering, your brakes, your power; basically you are stuck with no way of doing anything but hang on and pray.

[Traveler]

Interesting.

Like i said before I don't know. Didn't say it was more unsafe or more safe. Safety involves many things in each aspect of the car and what/how the car is used for... and involves reducing all the possible risks to acceptable levels. I wasn't referring to how reliable the drive by wire system is itself.

The reasons that (some) jet fighters don't have any direct mechanical backup are mainly because in their operation envelope makes such useless or so near useless that having them is a waste of space and money.

A car is in a different place altogether and can afford such a backup... to remove such a redundancy when you have the luxury of having it strikes me as all sorts of stupid or throwing common sense out the window.

I doubt we'll see such a pure fly by wire system as seen in that prototype for a long time if ever. Quite likely however that elements from it will make it into future cars- such as some modularity, computer assisted driving, More compact drive systems .. things like that.

You happen to be conversing with a consulting engineer in automation and robotics. Drive by wire has so many advantages over old mechanical systems I am surprised there is concern. If anyone is really concerned with system failure a backup system is simple and easy to install. Because the power is controlled by solid state electronics there is less chance for error or failure than mechanical systems.

Now if there is something with crazy probability for failure that would be a helicopter and when was the last time anyone heard about a helicopter crash because of equipment failure.

The Traveler

[cathyyg]

I'm not concerned about the drive by wire, or the explosiveness of hydrogen. I'm concerned about the use of hydrogen as the energy source. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it releases. From where is this energy going to come? Why not simply use that energy (typically electricity) to run the car in the first place?

[PrinceofLight2000]

You happen to be conversing with a consulting engineer in automation and robotics. Drive by wire has so many advantages over old mechanical systems I am surprised there is concern. If anyone is really concerned with system failure a backup system is simple and easy to install. Because the power is controlled by solid state electronics there is less chance for error or failure than mechanical systems.

Now if there is something with crazy probability for failure that would be a helicopter and when was the last time anyone heard about a helicopter crash because of equipment failure.

The Traveler

Not to mention, wouldn't someone come up with a manual override?

[Blackmarch]

I'm not concerned about the drive by wire, or the explosiveness of hydrogen. I'm concerned about the use of hydrogen as the energy source. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it releases. From where is this energy going to come? Why not simply use that energy (typically electricity) to run the car in the first place?

This is ultimately the case with all stored energy. Currently this energy is mainly going to come from fossil fuel burning plants, so the net effect will be just moving pollution from many points to a few centralised points... However the potential to significantly reduce reduce much of the pollution output is there, if we could get alternative power sources to become the mainstay of US power generation.

A car generally does not have enough space to effficeiently use solar, wind, and or nuclear energy sources, and each form has such drawbacks that you would not want them to be the direct means of powering a car.

Another concern some have is that if the hydrogen is leaked it's pretty much gone for good and won't be making its way back into the system.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Blackmarch

[bcguy]

A few comments.

First of all, I work on cars , trucks and vans since the mid 1990s.

This concept will never make it to market for a few good reasons. The production of hydrogen is hideously expensive. It takes large amount of electrical power to electrolyze hydrogen out of water.

Second, The fuel cell in its self is also very expensive. Why build something that will radically drive up the cost? BMW has already come out with a 7 series that has a duel fuel system with one of them being hydrogen.

Third, Since hydrogen is the smallest molecule in the universe, there is no other compound that is of the same size or smaller to help keep the hydrogen contained within the container. If you do not use the hydrogen in the next three days, for example the bmw, the hydrogen will leak out of the seals. Nothing can be done about it.