| > You seem to be really hung up on the ability of the skates to know where they are. I'm not sure why. Because the claim is that the tunnels are nothing more than concrete and some lighting. I'm pointing out instances that will require more things in these tunnels. > You've never heard of a mesh network? Even if AP are needed, it's still considerably less wiring than a full third rail setup and still poses no fire risk. Yes, I know mesh networks. This is how many trains now communicate with each other. Third rail has some fire risk (incredible odds, however, and likely means maintenance regime is not good), and I agree that if they are removed that removes the fire hazard entirely. However, these skates carry batteries, hundreds of them and operating at significantly high speeds. I'm pointing out that these batteries can and will catch fire too, especially if the self-driving component of the skates fail. It is a more credible risk (but cheaper, sure) and more likely to happen more frequently given that the self-driving component is not perfect and relies on cameras (even LIDAR ones) than third rail catching fire. > You're really overestimating the amount of engineering work needed to be done. I'm really not. I work on those automated subway systems in Asia that has automated platform gates for those subways to stop at, and the amount of engineering and safety assurance work to ensure those trains actually align themselves correctly is a lot. Why do you think those platform gates have emergency egress doors all over? Have you ever noticed those trains stopping, then creeping to ensure they're aligned right? Those issues are not there not because they're easy, but because substantial man-hours of work have been done to ensure they are safe. > The concerns you're raising are already solved. The 'magic' of this system isn't in the self-driving vehicles part at all, as that's already being done with automated transport systems the world over. The 'magic' is in the tunnel construction itself. And I'm pointing out that there's no magic in the tunnel construction. By the time you have added those safety redundancies you end up with something very close to a subway system, just with smaller carriages running on batteries. |
What safety redundancies? You still haven't pointed out any required safety redundancies that would raise the cost of the tunnel any significant amount. Some RFID tags and low voltage wiring and fiber for a couple of wireless access points is still negligible cost compared to a full blown track-and-third-rail system. Your entire argument rests on "what if the cars aren't good at self-driving", but again, we already have vehicles with these technologies on the market that drive thousands of miles a day without issue. Tesla cars drive on autopilot on completely dark, unlit roads all the time without issue. They park themselves in tight parking spots every day without issue. They avoid collisions with other vehicles at high speeds every day without issue.
I'm no fan of Tesla, and I'll be the first person telling you that they fucked up bigtime handling the crash a few months ago, but that still doesn't change the fact that they have existing autopilot systems that are more than capable of handling this 'Dugout Loop' system.
As for your skepticism that the tunnels will be cheaper, go do some research on how expensive it is to build out subway tunnels and the components of those costs. The Dugout Loop system eschews significant amounts of the major cost components.
If you're skeptical because we're talking about Musk and his penchant for cost overruns and missed deadlines, I'd understand. But if you're skeptical because for some reason you don't think a barebones concrete tunnel (even with some additional wiring and networking components) is cheaper than a full blown subway tunnel and station, that's just because you're being stubborn.