Because we’re primarily a sports car-centric media outlet, we don’t frequently get invited to press launches for more general-interest consumer vehicles. So we were intrigued when Chevy called us and asked us to come check out a feature on its newest Silverado 1500, and we were even mor…
This would be awesome in a motor home when its good enough to get up and get a soda, make a sandwich, or use the restroom. Even if you're mostly just standing up to switch who is monitoring the system.
This has the same core problem as every other "self driving" setup on the market. It's Level 2 autonomy, which means it can steer and control speed but the driver needs to be willing and able to take over at any time with little or no notice - and that will be when something has gone wrong so it may require immediate action. That's not how human attention works.
The ones that are really good at it are arguably even more dangerous, because they lull the driver into a false sense of security and the driver treats it like Level 4. I have real concerns about Level 2 and Level 3 autonomy being fundamentally flawed. Level 1 (speed OR steering control, but not both) is better as it forces the driver to be at least partially engaged all the time.
They're okay for a momentary use like adjusting the nav system - the equivalent of having your buddy reach over and grab the wheel. But I'd strongly recommend having a hand on the wheel and two eyeballs on the road whenever possible. It's not like lane keeping is difficult if you're looking ahead.
"Super Cruise does require some engagement on your part. You can’t just start making lap fajitas and check out completely."
And there's the rub.
You, GM, and GRM readers understand this, but what about when run-of-the-mill Freddie Facebook and Tammy Texter get behind the wheel? That was a rhetorical question since they are already behind the wheel of something, and first responders, insurance adjusters, and insurance actuaries already know the answer.
In reply to Coniglio Rampante :
Not really rhetorical, we've already seen it with some high profile Tesla crashes. What makes it worse is that those owners are being told that it is effectively a Level 4 system. The better it gets, the easier it is to believe that. Until suddenly it's out of ideas.
Ford's system allows you to use the feature while towing, I just did it pulling a 6x12 Uhaul from the Panhandle of Florida to the Tampa area to bring supplies for hurricane clean up in my Raptor. No you can't sit there and play your Nintendo Switch while it's activated but it helps keep you centered and alert of traffic.
I'd be interested to check out GMs variation of it. Towing with the Raptor sucks in general so it would be nice to try out with a truck that is actually meant to tow things.
First the feature is not a $2400 option; at a minimum a $3300 option as folks now tend to finance for 72 months.
For someone like me who keeps vehicles 10 years or more it's a $4500 option.
As someone who does Software As Service contracts I can tell you these things in automobiles are utterly predatory.
We all know full well that around the 5-6 year mark GM will "sunset" the software (because this is what software companies do) and your truck's feature will no longer work. At that point it will be an upgrade if not a reason to convince people to get a new truck.
It was only a matter of time before automobiles got swept up into product/features being viewed as a revenue stream rather than a product. Words cannot truly convey how much I loathe this business model.
In reply to Tom1200 :
I am waiting for cars to go "annual subscription" like all of the business software I needed to run an engineering department. I guess you could sorta look at it like forced leasing.
I really want to love this tech. So I need to try it.
i find that when I'm towing I'm pretty alert all the time because im nervous.
I wonder how this will do with the 30mph winds we get out west of here.
If I can't pay enough attention to keep the truck in its lane I'm sure as heck not going to be able to start paying attention and take over if Super Cruise gives up.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Extremely well said!
Probably just one of the urban legend, but, a guy knew a guy that bought his first RV in the '70s. Set the "cruse control" (fairly new stuff at the time) and stepped back to make himself a drink!
We've all met folks that WOULD do that!!!
NOHOME said:In reply to Tom1200 :
I am waiting for cars to go "annual subscription" like all of the business software I needed to run an engineering department. I guess you could sorta look at it like forced leasing.
My favorite Tech Writing software went to a subscription model and it's actually a better deal.
Instead of paying $1500 up front, 1000/yr for a service contract for X number of calls and email support, and then you had to pay for every update.
On the subscription model, all updates/new features are included as well as your service inquires. So that $2500 you'd pay for the current release plus 1year of the premium service (which you'll need when setting up a new system, I know I've done it twice) Pays for ~3.5 years of the subscription model which inevitably would include 3-4 new update/feature releases.
NOHOME said:In reply to Tom1200 :
I am waiting for cars to go "annual subscription" like all of the business software I needed to run an engineering department. I guess you could sorta look at it like forced leasing.
A lot of industries have attempted to go down this path. Thankfully most have failed. My wife chose a lesser trim level on her Hyundai because the next trim level had a subscription.
Software has managed this, mostly because the people using it get all excited about the latest tech/features etc. The software folks do an amazing job of marketing.
We typically tell our programmers and other systems people not to discuss contracts with the suppliers. I've worked with some great engineers over the years but most have them have been horrible negotiators. Read the sales guy can see you're excited and knows you are going to cave.
I think the towing feature is amazing but why can't you simply charge me once; GM knows to the penny what it costs they could set an upfront price. Again I find this predatory.
In reply to z31maniac :
In some circumstances the subscription works out really well, nothing is set in stone.
Overall the SaaS model of the industry has become predatory. I work with some really great suppliers who offer us really fair deals but 2/3rds of the companies we deal with or attempt to deal with a very one sided.
Tom1200 said:I think the towing feature is amazing but why can't you simply charge me once; GM knows to the penny what it costs they could set an upfront price. Again I find this predatory.
I'm not much of a fan of subscription based services for key functionalities in cars. Entertainment I get, but not stuff like air conditioning or auto-dimming lights.
In this case, however, I can see GM's argument a bit. The system is still expanding—GM continues to map asphalt daily and add to the database of Super Cruiseable roads. And I feel like the lawyers would have a nightmare on their hands if every Super Cruise car wasn't equipped with the same version of SuperCruise based on the most up to data data at all times. So in this case I see a legitimate ask for the sub, since you're constantly getting new and valuable info, so in essence you;re paying for a real time service.
It's also priced really frustratingly, too. $25/mo is real money. It pays for a streaming service or a couple lunches. I'd feel fine about it on the months i drove 5000 highway miles. Not so much on the months where i never got on the highway. How about a pay-per-trip option? Just put a big box on the dash you can keep feeding quarters into and it'll keep driving.
JG Pasterjak said:Tom1200 said:I think the towing feature is amazing but why can't you simply charge me once; GM knows to the penny what it costs they could set an upfront price. Again I find this predatory.
It's also priced really frustratingly, too. $25/mo is real money. It pays for a streaming service or a couple lunches. I'd feel fine about it on the months i drove 5000 highway miles. Not so much on the months where i never got on the highway. How about a pay-per-trip option? Just put a big box on the dash you can keep feeding quarters into and it'll keep driving.
And this is what I am talking about. If I want the new roads then charge me when those are available but in the meantime I should not have to start paying for the same exact thing I've been getting for the last 36 months.
To put it in prospective if half of GMs trucks were sold the subscription it would represent 3 temths of a percent increase to their bottom line. I get that it is potentially tens of millions of dollars but it's a bridge to far.
I find it egregious: "Dear valued customer we have a feature that will make you safer on the road for towing, and we only want $300 a year for it and because we like you we'll let you have it for free for the first half of your loan"
It's every bit has predatory as charging for ABS.
In reply to JG Pasterjak :
I love the image in my head of someone running out of quarters, and then the truck violently veers off the road or comes to a complete stop or just disconnects the trailer. 
Colin Wood said:In reply to JG Pasterjak :
I love the image in my head of someone running out of quarters, and then the truck violently veers off the road or comes to a complete stop or just disconnects the trailer.
Everything you feed quarters to always quits at the worst possible time...
Colin Wood said:In reply to JG Pasterjak :
I love the image in my head of someone running out of quarters, and then the truck violently veers off the road or comes to a complete stop or just disconnects the trailer.
Now that's funny.
Something to ponder: Would you rather be driving on the highway next to a car being piloted by Super Cruise, or that kid who crashed his McLaren while livestreaming?
In reply to JG Pasterjak :
Can we have a third option of an actual driver paying attention? Because a non-zero number of those Super Cruise cars are going to have drivers who have checked out.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I'm leery of anything that takes over control of the vehicle from the driver, it just seems to me like one more contribution to making the driver fall asleep. Maybe it should be all or nothing - fully automate operation of the vehicle so the driver can safely check out.
In reply to stuart in mn :
That's pretty much my feeling. Take over some basic operation such as speed and following distance, but retain enough driver workload to keep them engaged. OR take over everything with no requirement for driver involvement. It's the middle ground where it takes over everything but requires the driver to stay attentive that's dangerous, because the driver won't stay attentive enough - even with the best intentions.
Tom1200 said:First the feature is not a $2400 option; at a minimum a $3300 option as folks now tend to finance for 72 months.
For someone like me who keeps vehicles 10 years or more it's a $4500 option.
As someone who does Software As Service contracts I can tell you these things in automobiles are utterly predatory.
We all know full well that around the 5-6 year mark GM will "sunset" the software (because this is what software companies do) and your truck's feature will no longer work. At that point it will be an upgrade if not a reason to convince people to get a new truck.
It was only a matter of time before automobiles got swept up into product/features being viewed as a revenue stream rather than a product. Words cannot truly convey how much I loathe this business model.
"You seem to have missed your monthly connection payment for your vehicle, we appreciate you making your monthly bank note payment; however, until you make your connection payment, your vehicle will be rendered inoperable."
Everyday I get more and more frustrated with my 2023 Raptor. I turned off all the data sharing, connection options, etc. Now anytime I get in the car it bricks the infotainment for at least 2-3 minutes asking me a series of prompts such as "We need your permission to install an update." "We need to install an update that will render your vehicle inoperable for 10-15 minutes." "Please turn Over the Air Updates back on in order to successfully install required updates."
How about no.
Once the warranty is out, I'll be physically disconnecting the 4G antenna and GPS antenna on this thing.
It also won't give you any trouble codes with an SES or SVS warnings. Simply prompts to take it to a dealer. Even when plugging in a code reader it's vague at best unless it's something overly simple.
As a (former) airline pilot, I have spent a very long time working with, thinking about, and having my life depend on automation systems. Keith hits the nail on the head describing why GM super cruise, Tesla's "Autopilot" and similar systems are terrible, unsafe, and are likely to kill people: The systems are too good.
Because the system is so good and can work for hours at a time without a glitch, you are simply unable, as a driver, to maintain the requisite level of attention to the situation on the road. It's incredibly hard to monitor an automated system that's always doing the right thing. It trains you to stop paying attention. So you do. I don't care whether your hands are on the wheel or your eyes are staring down the road--the system is unable to monitor where your brain is focusing. So you're going to wander off, and then something is going to happen that the system can't handle and you, as a driver, with no context have to take control and make a decision in milliseconds. This is not a reasonable thing to ask of a human.
In aircraft, this is basically never a problem. Autopilots fail all the time, but it's easy for even an asleep pilot to wake up to the sound of an autopilot disconnect warning, maintain or recover aircraft control, asses the situation, and take appropriate action. It's more difficult in something like an autoland situation near the ground, but such situations are short periods of flight where pilots are absolutely ready to take control in an instant--and all they have to do is initiate a rejected approach and go around.
Aircraft pilots are not immune to accidents resulting automation failures. There's a lot of real bad commentary about Air France 407--that's not the one to focus on. Asiana Flight 214 that crashed short of the runway at SFO is the one to look at. In that incident, the pilot flying crashed an airliner short of the runway because he got slow on approach and didn't notice.
Why? Because he was very used to flying an approach with an auto-throttle system. A really good auto-throttle system. Normally pilots are focused on two things when flying an approach: (1) airspeed, (2) approach path. In visual conditions such as this, you maintain the correct approach path by simply looking at the runway and manipulating the stick or yoke so that the sight picture of the plane flying at the runway looks correct. You maintain airspeed by moving the thrust levers in response to airspeed fluctuations on the airspeed indicator. You're constantly looking outside at the runway, then glancing back inside to look at the airspeed.
When an auto-throttle system is engaged but the pilot is otherwise hand-flying, you set a speed bug to the desired airspeed and the auto-throttle moves the thrust levers to maintain the desired airspeed. Initially, the first few times you fly with an auto-throttle, you'll do a good job of watching your airspeed just like you always do. Look at the runway, glance at the airspeed indicator. Repeat every couple of seconds. But as you do this, you unconsciously learn that the airspeed is always correct. So, naturally, you spend more time focusing on the thing that needs correction when you look at it--your flight path, because you're hand-flying. Eventually, the autothrottle system trains you to stop paying attention to the airspeed because every time you glance over at it, it's bang-on, so unconsciously you just stop looking at it without even realizing it!
On this Asiana flight, the pilot flying was new to the aircraft, thought the autothrottle was engaged, but it wasn't. So he flew the approach and for a stupid period of time, paid no attention to the airspeed indicator. Didn't pay attention at all until he was too slow to correct while too close to the ground and crashed a perfectly good airplane with some terrible piloting. Terrible piloting that a really good automation system trained him to do, unconsciously.
In a car, you're pretty much always seconds away from a potential disaster. If the self driving system successfully navigates down the Interstate system for hours at a time, it's going to train you to stop looking at the road. No matter how much you intellectually and consciously know you need to pay attention--you're not going to be able to. And that's going to be fine almost all the time, because the system is good almost all the time. But almost isn't good enough, and it's eventually going to give up working at the worst possible time and you're not going to be able to save it in time. It's not going to fail when there's no traffic and the road is straight and you can safely take over with no context. Nope, it's going to fail when things get tricky--when the road markings are contradictory because of construction, when another car does something completely unpredictable, when visibility or traction are poor or other situations. And then you've got a few milliseconds to save your own life. Good luck.
You'll need to log in to post.
