Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Mark, Oct 10th, 2005 @ 10:00am

   
   

   worst to best?

   "However, just a year and a half after the 'best' one of these vehicles could do was a little over 7 miles, 5 vehicles successfully completed the 132-mile course (four of them within the 10-hour limit). That's a pretty impressive improvement rate."
   
   There's an interview on the Grand Challenge website (grandchallenge.org) this morning that might explain some of the rapid progress. Apparently in last year's course, the most difficult portion was seven miles in. This year, the most difficult portion was 125 miles in. So, if a few competitors last year had been just a bit better and been able to negotiate that difficult initial pass, they might have gone on to finish the course. Of course, this year's competitors were certainly better, having had another year to debug their software and practice, but the degree of improvement might have been exaggerated by the layout of the two courses.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Mike (profile), Oct 10th, 2005 @ 10:44am

   
   

   Re: worst to best?

   Aha. That's a really good point. Interesting to see how they designed the course, then.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous of Course, Oct 11th, 2005 @ 10:46am

   
   

   VW Electrical Systems

   Bah! My 96 VW Passat had the least reliable electrical system I've ever seen in an automobile. I'm surprised the Taureg finished the course without a connector failing or a fuse block burning up. Even the dynamic duo, British Leyland and Lucas, couldn't produce an automobile which I would feel forced to sell because of the electrical system. But in that VW did succeed.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment