Hyundai News:Hyundai Develops Machine Learning Cruise Control

[Drew Dowdell]

Hyundai Motor Group has announced they have developed the first Machine Learning based Smart Cruise Control (SCC-ML). This new technology can read the driver's behavior and incorporate the driving style into the cruise control's system. It incorporates artificial intelligence with advanced driver assistant system that is essential to self-driving technology. 

Previously, the driver had to manually adjust factors like distance to the next vehicle and acceleration.  Now with machine learning, the SCC can fine-tune these settings by reading a driver's habits.  Even the same driver may accelerate differently depending on the situation. SCC is now able to read those different situations and adjust acceleration to the driver's preferences automatically. 

The system is specifically programmed to avoid learning unsafe driving patterns. 

The system is planned for Hyundai group vehicles in the future with an upcoming Highway Driving Assist system that features land change assist. SCC-ML achieves level 2.5 self driving. 

View full article

[G. David Felt]

Interesting and exciting, but let them test it in Korea first. ? 

[USA-1]

That's scary knowing how scatter brained or slow some people think while driving out there. No thanks.

[Drew Dowdell]

13 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

That's scary knowing how scatter brained or slow some people think while driving out there. No thanks.

This is actually to address that.... it will filter out the unsafe driving bits and smooth out the good driving bits.  It should make those bad drivers more predictable. 

[USA-1]

20 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

This is actually to address that.... it will filter out the unsafe driving bits and smooth out the good driving bits.  It should make those bad drivers more predictable. 

Yeah, I see what they are trying to do, but being able to filter all of that out will be a large task. "Traffic is stopping I should probably start applying the brakes...look a squirrel!!" ?

I think what GM has been working on for a few years might work better with what they call V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle) where vehicles will communicate with others knowing what's going on ahead and behind and can react earlier and faster than the largely distracted human being behind the wheel. It would start with GM vehicles and would probably become an industry standard. GM says this would help with the "rubber band effect" in rush hour making it much more consistent while keeping vehicles moving smoothly when merging as well as being evenly spaced from each vehicle.

Edited October 23, 2019 by USA-1
Added to the end of my previous comment.

[Drew Dowdell]

GM already had V2V in the CTS.  I don't know how well it worked or if they even put it in the CT5.

[USA-1]

41 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

GM already had V2V in the CTS.  I don't know how well it worked or if they even put it in the CT5.

I don't think it was the full V2V with the CTS though, could be wrong. What year of CTS? I know the CT4 and CT5 as well as the C8 Vette have the new GM "digital nervous system" wiring schematic that ties all the vehicles functions into several different sensors, so they may have a next gen. V2V that works in conjunction with that.  

They had a system in place with a CT6 Platinum that I had for a 24hr. test drive that works in conjunction with Super Cruise and they've been continuing to test it and seems like they were on the right track, but who knows with all the GM Corp. general counsel involved.  

[Drew Dowdell]

Well the problem was that it could only talk to other CTSes because they were the only model with it, so unless you were about to rear end another CTS in your CTS, the system didn't do a whole lot. 

[USA-1]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Well the problem was that it could only talk to other CTSes because they were the only model with it, so unless you were about to rear end another CTS in your CTS, the system didn't do a whole lot. 

Well, not exactly because the car ahead of you can be several cars up so it doesn't have to be directly in front of you to communicate with the other to know that traffic is slowing or stopping up ahead. If all GM vehicles eventually had V2V that would be key to a successful implementation of it.

[Drew Dowdell]

27 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

Well, not exactly because the car ahead of you can be several cars up so it doesn't have to be directly in front of you to communicate with the other to know that traffic is slowing or stopping up ahead. If all GM vehicles eventually had V2V that would be key to a successful implementation of it.

Every car would need it for it to be successful

[USA-1]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Every car would need it for it to be successful

As far as I've read and heard it's not meant to always drive the car autonomously, but has adaptive brake control/accident avoidance included to slow and/or stop the car. Just like all cars now don't have active braking or other safety features, but if even just a few in the local traffic have V2V then they can at least be alerted of slowing or stopped traffic several cars or even just 3 or 4 vehicles ahead and not just the one in front of you. There's really no perfect scenario, just like this Hyundai system.

I'd rather be involved and drive the vehicle myself anyway   

[ccap41]

V2V sounds useless unless everybody got together to work on a system for every manufacturer. Even if all GM vehicles had it, it would still be useless as there aren't enough on the roads. 

(That's not some weird sales dig. There are just too many other manufacturers and nobody has even 50% total market share)

[riviera74]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

V2V sounds useless unless everybody got together to work on a system for every manufacturer. Even if all GM vehicles had it, it would still be useless as there aren't enough on the roads. 

(That's not some weird sales dig. There are just too many other manufacturers and nobody has even 50% total market share)

GM has not had 50% market share (in the USA) since 1980.  You are correct in that V2V needs some real technical interoperability standards for it to work consistently.

[ccap41]

21 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

GM has not had 50% market share (in the USA) since 1980.  You are correct in that V2V needs some real technical interoperability standards for it to work consistently.

Oh I just threw out a number of vehicles that still wouldn't make it super successful and unrealistic to obtain(50% market share across the board). 

[USA-1]

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

V2V sounds useless unless everybody got together to work on a system for every manufacturer. Even if all GM vehicles had it, it would still be useless as there aren't enough on the roads.

Like I stated earlier it's not meant to drive every single car out there autonomously at the moment, but it would still be useful now if even a few cars that are several cars ahead had it to alert your car that traffic is slowing or stopped and prepare for it before you would. Especially on a freeway like I live near that has a somewhat sharp bend to the left where traffic usually doesn't back up until around the bend and there's almost always a rear-end accident, so if even one car ahead has V2V it would alert the car you're in to prepare for it. And if it was installed on every GM car it would be pretty good. I could pretty consistently count 2 or 3 GM cars or trucks/SUV's out of 10 in a group on the road and sometimes even more.

The Hyundai system is a "Smart Cruise Control" so you would have to have the cruise control engaged and the driver would have to remember that, it also requires 25 mph or more. GM V2V is automatic and would be tied in with the rest of the safety tech. onboard.

[USA-1]

And right now all the non GM or non V2V vehicles would be alerted by the V2V vehicles brakes lights coming on much earlier. It's better than no warning at all. 

[ccap41]

15 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

And right now all the non GM or non V2V vehicles would be alerted by the V2V vehicles brakes lights coming on much earlier. It's better than no warning at all. 

That sounds like the auto-brake sensing systems already out there. It wouldn't be the lights triggering it but the distance closing quickly. 

[USA-1]

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

That sounds like the auto-brake sensing systems already out there. It wouldn't be the lights triggering it but the distance closing quickly. 

The emergency auto braking out there now only "sees" the car that's 50 -150 ft. (depending on your sensitivity setting) directly in front of your vehicle that relies on radar and ultra sonic sensors. V2V is an extremely early warning communication from cars several hundred feet ahead in traffic that dictate what is happening.

I'm talking about the brake lights triggering the actual person driving behind to apply the brakes earlier that don't have V2V or another type of EAB safety system. 

Like I stated before I'd rather be involved in the vehicle I'm in and actually drive it, but so many people are not involved or distracted these days so unfortunately we need these safety alert systems for them.

[ccap41]

14 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

The emergency auto braking out there now only "sees" the car that's 50 -150 ft. (depending on your sensitivity setting) directly in front of your vehicle that relies on radar and ultra sonic sensors. V2V is an extremely early warning communication from cars several hundred feet ahead in traffic that dictate what is happening.

I'm talking about the brake lights triggering the actual person driving behind to apply the brakes earlier that don't have V2V or another type of EAB safety system. 

Like I stated before I'd rather be involved in the vehicle I'm in and actually drive it, but so many people are not involved or distracted these days so unfortunately we need these safety alert systems for them.

And your V2V system isn't going to know there may be 5 vehicles in between you and the other V2V vehicle braking. 

[USA-1]

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

And your V2V system isn't going to know there may be 5 vehicles in between you and the other V2V vehicle braking. 

Vehicles with V2V have the onboard EAB system integrated so local vehicle braking is covered and there will obviously be more than one GM vehicle in traffic if they implemented it in all GM vehicles. They are constantly studying American driving habits, it's how they came up with 40 mi. of electric range for the first EREV Volt because a study they ran found that 40 mi. is the average American drivers round trip work commute. So I'm pretty sure GM engineers know more about cars and our daily traffic congestion than you do.

It must be exhausting for you to constantly try to prove people or technology wrong on here...

[USA-1]

51 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

And your V2V system isn't going to know there may be 5 vehicles in between you and the other V2V vehicle braking. 

Toyota is now working on a similar system and V2V would become available for aftermarket as well.

The basics of V2V below.

"Not only will GM share the technology with other companies (at a price), as it did with OnStar, but it is working with other companies to set standards, so that other automakers can use the same basic technologies with completely different equipment. Donald Grimm, senior researcher at GM, said that aftermarket kits were likely as well, a possibility because the system will allow for both active and passive transponders. An active transponder uses GPS to figure out where it is, and connects into Stabilitrak (or the vehicle’s other stability control system) to figure out speed and braking, and communicates both to any vehicle within 300 yards.

How the vehicle to vehicle (V2V) system works

Using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, a vehicle can detect the position and movement of other vehicles up to a quarter of a mile away. Vehicles will be equipped with a simple antenna, a computer chip, and GPS (Global Positioning System) technology; they will know where the other vehicles are by communicating directly with them, and other vehicles will know where they are -- in blind spots, stopped on the highway but hidden from view around a blind corner or blocked by other vehicles. The vehicles can anticipate and react to changing driving situations and then instantly warn the drivers with chimes, visual icons and seat vibrations. If the driver doesn’t respond to the alerts, the car can bring itself to a safe stop, avoiding a collision.

The system would replace the long range scanning sensor for adaptive cruise control, forward vision sensors for object detection, mid-range blind spot detection sensors, and long-range lane change assist sensors. GM has the ability to replace all of these sensors with one advisory sensor that will provide all-around, instantaneous traffic intelligence. This promises a better and significantly less costly way of sensing other vehicles around your car while driving.

During a demonstration attended by acarplace in March 2007, GM showed scenarios in which V2V technology can assist drivers. Using V2V communication, the vehicle alerts the driver to vehicles in blind spots with a steady amber light in the side mirror. If the turn signal is activated, a flashing amber light and gentle seat vibration on the side notifies the driver of a potentially dangerous situation. The vibration was enough to get our attention but not a sudden distraction - it was much more subtle than our pager.

Pile-ups on congested roads during rush hour due to a chain reaction rear-end collisions could be lessened. Using V2V, the vehicle monitors messages from other vehicles up to a quarter of a mile ahead. The trailing vehicle warns the driver first with visual icons and seat vibrations on the front and then automatically brakes if there is danger of a read-end collision with the vehicle ahead.

In addition, GM’s V2V technology can warn the driver when vehicles ahead, regardless of lane, are stopped or traveling much slower or any vehicle ahead brakes hard, allowing the driver to brake or change lanes as needed. It also can use rear lights to warn the other driver when the approaching vehicle is moving very quickly and a rear-end collision is imminent.
While other vehicle manufacturers are developing similar technology, GM’s unique advantage is in its ability to leverage or enhance existing systems such as OnStar and StabiliTrak systems to deliver this solution more quickly and cost effectively.
“GM is the world leader in Telematics,” said Patrick Popp, director of GM’s Advanced Technical Work in Safety. “Our V2V technology builds on GM’s earlier Telematics systems to give our customers new meaningful traffic safety and efficiency applications.” "

https://www.acarplace.com/brands/gm/vehicle-to-vehicle.html

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by USA-1

[ccap41]

47 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

Vehicles with V2V have the onboard EAB system integrated so local vehicle braking is covered and there will obviously be more than one GM vehicle in traffic if they implemented it in all GM vehicles. They are constantly studying American driving habits, it's how they came up with 40 mi. of electric range for the first EREV Volt because a study they ran found that 40 mi. is the average American drivers round trip work commute. So I'm pretty sure GM engineers know more about cars and our daily traffic congestion than you do.

So back to my original point.

There simply aren't anywhere near enough vehicles on the road for this system to be truly effective. 

I'm not saying the technology is bad or anything. I simply said;

7 hours ago, ccap41 said:

V2V sounds useless unless everybody got together to work on a system for every manufacturer. Even if all GM vehicles had it, it would still be useless as there aren't enough on the roads. 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by ccap41

[USA-1]

11 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

So back to my original point.

There simply aren't anywhere near enough vehicles on the road for this system to be truly effective. 

I'm not saying the technology is bad or anything. I simply said;

 

Not right now it's not, but it could be pretty useful in the future. I didn't and I don't think anyone else on here said that it's in enough vehicles right now. GM has been testing V2V in the Cad. CTS and now CT6 with Gen. 2 Super Cruise.

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

You're fck'n stupid if you think that's what I'm trying to do here. 

Dude just read up on it before you jump to conclusions and say "it's useless". And try not be childish with immature comments or vulgar language.  

[ccap41]

It's factual that it is useless unless there are enough vehicles using it. 

17% of new vehicles will never cut it.

Like I originally said, AGAIN, unless all of the manufacturers get together and all implement it together, it will be damn near useless. 

[USA-1]

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

It's factual that it is useless unless there are enough vehicles using it. 

17% of new vehicles will never cut it.

Like I originally said, AGAIN, unless all of the manufacturers get together and all implement it together, it will be damn near useless. 

THAT is why GM is working with other manufacturers and why they want to implement it in several other makes and models.

Did you read anything that I posted above about how V2V works and how GM is working with other manufacturers to make it work even better?

[ccap41]

8 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

THAT is why GM is working with other manufacturers and why they want to implement it in several other makes and models.

Did you read anything that I posted above about how V2V works and how GM is working with other manufacturers to make it work even better?

Then WTF are you arguing about if they're doing it?!? 

[USA-1]

Just now, ccap41 said:

Then WTF are you arguing about if they're doing it?!? 

OMG you're the one that's arguing!! You said V2V is useless and I said to read up on it then make an educated comment. Now you say it's "damn near useless" other than "useless" so you're making some progress. 

[ccap41]

16 hours ago, USA-1 said:

OMG you're the one that's arguing!! You said V2V is useless and I said to read up on it then make an educated comment. Now you say it's "damn near useless" other than "useless" so you're making some progress. 

Your reading comprehension level is dogsh!t. Read the whole thing before jumping to a conclusion.

How many times do I have to say that it IS USELESS UNLESS THERE ARE ENOUGH VEHICLES USING IT. 

[USA-1]

37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Your reading comprehension level is dogsh!t. Read the whole thing before jumping to a conclusion.

How many times do I have to say that it IS USELESS UNLESS THERE ARE ENOUGH VEHICLES USING IT. 

You obviously don't get it poor little Millennial keyboard warrior, but that's ok. Do you need a participation trophy to feel better about yourself? I never said they are using V2V now with 2 cars moron obviously that's why they need other manufacturers onboard. You didn't even know what it was until I brought it up so you're welcome you learned something.   

[Drew Dowdell]

Both of you knock it off! Put each other on ignore.

[ccap41]

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Both of you knock it off! Put each other on ignore.

Legitimately, what did I do for him to start firing off towards me? 

[ccap41]

Please mansplain how the system is effective without a large portion of the vehicles on the road using it? 

That's all I stated. 

[surreal1272]

On 10/24/2019 at 1:10 PM, USA-1 said:

Vehicles with V2V have the onboard EAB system integrated so local vehicle braking is covered and there will obviously be more than one GM vehicle in traffic if they implemented it in all GM vehicles. They are constantly studying American driving habits, it's how they came up with 40 mi. of electric range for the first EREV Volt because a study they ran found that 40 mi. is the average American drivers round trip work commute. So I'm pretty sure GM engineers know more about cars and our daily traffic congestion than you do.

It must be exhausting for you to constantly try to prove people or technology wrong on here...

Are these the same GM engineers responsible for all those faulty ignitions (Barely a decade ago) or is that a different set of engineers? 
 

Asking for a friend. 

[ocnblu]

4 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

a friend

?????????

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

?????????

Yes, unlike you, I have friends. Made a lot a of friends during my time as a “lot hockey” (as you pointed out a few months ago before your little “hiatus”). It’s a novel concept you should try out sometime. 
 

 

 

My question was a legitimate one since the GM fanboy is claiming that GM engineers are always on the ball. 
 

Also, maybe I should just display this next time before getting troll responses. Just the same old one brand fanboy nonsense.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by surreal1272

[ocnblu]

48 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

“lot hockey”

?????  Well it's a lot JOCKEY.  What sort of bull hockey is this

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

?????  Well it's a lot JOCKEY.  What sort of bull hockey is this

Be cause autocorrect sucks ass (“lot hockey” iPhone). much like your past condescending comments about my choice of work (or second job in this case). 
 

Stick to the subject at hand. I asked someone, who was not you, about the engineers at GM and there was actually a pretty good reason for it. Your weak personal jibe does not change this fact. Offer something of substance for once in your life or F off. It’s just that simple. 
 

Seriously,

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by surreal1272

[USA-1]

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

Yes, unlike you, I have friends. Made a lot a of friends during my time as a “lot hockey” (as you pointed out a few months ago before your little “hiatus”). It’s a novel concept you should try out sometime. 
 

 

 

My question was a legitimate one since the GM fanboy is claiming that GM engineers are always on the ball. 
 

Also, maybe I should just display this next time before getting troll responses. Just the same old one brand fanboy nonsense.

 

 

Where in this whole string did I say GM engineers are always on the ball?

I do prefer GM vehicles because I have now and in the past had very good vehicles from Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac as well as my whole family to include Pontiac when it was still around, but I've also had a BMW 540i and an Audi Q7 in the past as well so I have owned and driven vehicles outside of GM makes and models.

We've had 15 - 20 vehicles at one time from Ford, Dodge and GM trucks and vans in our electrical contracting business for the past 35 years and the GM trucks have always held up better and have had a more reliable powertrain (all with the same regular maint.) so I have a reason to like a certain brand of vehicles having owned many different ones.

I'm not saying GM is perfect because no brand is, but is there something wrong with being loyal to a brand that's been good to me?