tonyquan writes "DARPA has just announced that Stanford's "Stanley" autonomous ground vehicle has won the Grand Challenge, a $2 million contest for driverless vehicles over a 132 mile course in California's Mohave Desert. Stanley's winning time over the course was 6 hours, 53 minutes and 58 seconds, for an average speed of 19.1 mph. Second was Carnegie Mellon's Sandstorm (7:04:50), third went to another CMU vehicle "H1ghlander" (7:14:00) and fourth to the Gray Team's KAT-5 (7:30:16) More info from DARPA." Stanford's Stanley wins DARPA Grand Challenge Log in/Create an Account | Top | 227 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 227 comments 0: 220 comments 1: 174 comments 2: 116 comments 3: 44 comments 4: 30 comments 5: 24 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Can you say... (Score:1) by It doesn't come easy (695416) * <acc...slashdot@@@canine-crew...com> on Monday October 10, @09:11AM (#13755940) (Last Journal: Monday October 10, @01:15PM) Farfignugen! [ Reply to This Re:Can you say... (Score:4, Informative) by antek9 (305362) on Monday October 10, @09:19AM (#13755988) No, but I can say Fahrvergnügen, especially since Stanford's team leader Sebastian Thrun is actually from Germany, you hit the nail on the head. Great run, saw it on TV yesterday, and a major step in development of fully autonomous bots. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Can you say... by It doesn't come easy (Score:1)Monday October 10, @09:24AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. so wait.. (Score:5, Interesting) by molo (94384) on Monday October 10, @09:16AM (#13755962) (Last Journal: Friday May 07, @12:35PM) Last year they had NO vehicles even make it out of the obstacle course.. and this year they had several vehicles actually complete the desert course?? What gives?-molo [ Reply to ThisRe:so wait.. by dohzer (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:28AM Re:so wait.. (Score:5, Informative) by EEJD (901217) on Monday October 10, @09:44AM (#13756133) It's not so much an improvement in the AI as it is an improvement in the sensors. These vehicles look ahead about 30 feet and plot their course based on very simple logic. If there is a negative obstacle (a hole), it is more difficult for sensors to detect than if there is a rock sticking up in the path. Last race, the only thing that stopped red team was a hairpin turn. Their sensors looked straight ahead and only a little to the sides, but when faced with the hairpin turn, the vehicle almost fell off the side of the mountain!But the rules of the AI haven't changed much- just the sensors. If you're driving through jungle, for example, you have to have sensors that don't see leaves as obstacles. Otherwise the path will look totally impassable. [ Reply to This | ParentLuckily... by benhocking (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:40AM Re:Luckily... (Score:5, Informative) by CreatureComfort (741652) * on Monday October 10, @11:16AM (#13756754) Actually, planetary rovers are just a tiny, tiny portion of the reason for this challenge, otherwise NASA would be sponsoring this, not DARPA. The primary reason for this challenge is for troop supply and support vehicles that can accompany troops into a battlefield, or be sent in autonomously. Which means the jungle scenario is non-trivial. One of the reasons the challenge is being held where it is, is due to the development lifetime projected force deployments being in mainly desert regions. Another major projected use for these kinds of vehicles is for deployment in a bio-hazardous area for testing and sampling in an autonomous measure. But once again, the is a DARPA challenge, not a CDC one. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Luckily... by usrusr (Score:1)Monday October 10, @12:26PMRe:Luckily... by plover (Score:2)Monday October 10, @05:13PMSensors by maximthemagnificent (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:50AMRe:so wait.. by lowrydr310 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:30AMRe:so wait.. by AxsDeny (Score:1)Monday October 10, @09:39AMRe:so wait.. by Ansonmont (Score:3)Monday October 10, @09:40AMRe:so wait.. by ViX44 (Score:3)Monday October 10, @10:24AMRe:so wait.. by Nutria (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:44AMRe:so wait.. by operagost (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:05AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:so wait.. by usrusr (Score:1)Monday October 10, @12:51PMRe:so wait.. by Profound (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @12:35AM Re:so wait.. (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, @10:29AM (#13756381) The universities competing in this competition know perfectly well they're helping the armed forces kill people.You're making the common mistake of assuming that the purpose of the military is to kill people. It's not. The purpose of the military is primarily to defend your country, and secondarily to defend other people where this is deemed beneficial to your country's interests. Killing people is one of the ways this is done, but the primary goal in a war is to persuade the enemy to surrender, not to kill as many of them as possible. If you can use smart weapons and special forces to take out their infrastructure or their commanders, you can get the majority of the opposing forces to give up. Similarly, the average soldier, faced with an enemy that knows no fear, feels no pain, and has nothing to lose but money - in other words, an unmanned assault vehicle - is not going to go out and fight it if he can help it.Oh, and I'll just add at this point that the most recent thing I heard in the media about the US army was this: that they just sent eight military helicopters to help survivors of the earthquake in central Asia. That's not "killing people". That's your army spending a heckuvalot of money to help people who are not only foreigners, but, by and large, actually hate America. This is called "doing good", and I speak for much of the world when I say that we admire America when it does good. And it doesn't take much imagination to think of other ways America could do good, if it had better AI and robotics technology at its command: think of small autonomous reconnaisance robots, being used to locate survivors in the rubble. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:so wait.. by j-turkey (Score:1)Monday October 10, @01:18PMRe:so wait.. by ashooner (Score:1)Monday October 10, @08:25PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:so wait.. by Darth23 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @08:49PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:so wait.. by Cerberus7 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:47AMRe:so wait.. by Surt (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:54AMRe:so wait.. by MindStalker (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:47AM Re:so wait.. (Score:5, Insightful) by Dun Malg (230075) on Monday October 10, @11:00AM (#13756620) (https://addons.mozil...&application=firefox) I'm sorry, but there's no pretense about this: the competition is designed to help the defense department deliver on its promise to congress to get most of its ground assault vehicles unmanned in the 2010 to 2015 time frame. They state it explicitly, and all over the place. The universities competing in this competition know perfectly well they're helping the armed forces kill people. By all means, don't allow facts to get in the way of your hysterical editorializing. The DoD is not developing an unmanned ground assault vehicle, and they do not state that explicitly at all. They are looking to procure an unmanned cargo carrying vehicle by 2015. You will, of course, probably point to how everything in the military is designed to support operations and is therefore contributing to killing people, but that'd just be weaseling. You clearly thought they were developing killer robots. Let's hear it for reading comprehension! Moron. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:so wait.. by Surt (Score:3)Monday October 10, @11:13AM Re:so wait.. (Score:5, Informative) by Dun Malg (230075) on Monday October 10, @12:05PM (#13757189) (https://addons.mozil...&application=firefox) So yeah, it seems utterly clear that the DOD has no plans to incorporate technologies for ground navigation into assault vehicles. Nice attempt to braoden and generalize, weasel. You said:"the competition is designed to help the defense department deliver on its promise to congress to get most of its ground assault vehicles unmanned in the 2010 to 2015 time frame."Clearly you're talking specifically about the Grand Challenge project, for which the time frame of "2010 to 2015" is relevant, and this is what I addressed. Stands to reason, as that's what this /. topic is about. You added in to word assault between "ground" and "vehicle" based on some internal editorial bias. I never claimed the DoD isn't interested in autonomous armed combat vehicles. I am simply stating the fact that the DARPA Grand Challenge is the preliminary step in developing an unmanned, unarmed, cargo carrier to be fielded in 2010-2015. This is what the linked DARPA site says. This is what all the articles say. You flasely claimed otherwise. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:so wait.. by QuantumG (Score:2)Monday October 10, @06:37PMRe:so wait.. by Dun Malg (Score:2)Monday October 10, @07:20PMRe:so wait.. by QuantumG (Score:2)Monday October 10, @07:26PMRe:so wait.. by iceanfire (Score:1)Monday October 10, @04:37PMRe:so wait.. by Dun Malg (Score:2)Monday October 10, @06:56PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:so wait.. by Surt (Score:2)Monday October 10, @01:06PMLack of reading comprehension, indeed by CGameProgrammer (Score:1)Monday October 10, @02:13PMRe:so wait.. by ccp (Score:2)Monday October 10, @04:02PM Re:so wait.. (Score:5, Insightful) by cloudmaster (10662) on Monday October 10, @11:44AM (#13756998) (http://www.cloudmaster.com/cloudmaster | Last Journal: Saturday April 30, @09:28AM) It'd probably be better if our armed forces stopped inovating, and just waited for the rest of the world to advance beyond our own capabiilty to respond, eh? Because, if we stop concerning ourselves with war, the whole world will instantly fall into a state of peace and be covered with pretty flowers.Obviously, any students who learn more about effectively automate vehicles will *never* find a way to apply that technology in a non-lethal environment...http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleI d=107011 [edmunds.com]http://www.jaguarusa.com/us/en/vehicles/s-type/pri ces_and_specs/opt_equipment.htm [jaguarusa.com] (look at the first available option)Yes, anything that can potentially be used to kill someone [256.com] should be off-limits for research, regardless of its usefulness in other arenas. Especially if, heaven forbid, the *military* encourages development! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:so wait.. by Surt (Score:2)Monday October 10, @12:07PMRe:so wait.. by cloudmaster (Score:3)Monday October 10, @01:11PMRe:so wait.. by SebNukem (Score:1)Monday October 10, @06:41PMRe:so wait.. by syncomm (Score:1)Monday October 10, @01:43PMRe:so wait.. by Locke2005 (Score:3)Monday October 10, @05:23PMRe:so wait.. by iamlucky13 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:so wait.. by kilodelta (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:41AMRe:so wait.. by Zathrus (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:03AMRe:so wait.. by zogger (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:11AMRe:so wait.. by Zathrus (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:47AMRe:so wait.. by the_xaqster (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:57AMRe:so wait.. by halltk1983 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @12:17PM Re:so wait.. (Score:5, Interesting) by Zathrus (232140) on Monday October 10, @09:46AM (#13756142) (http://slashdot.org/) There are several factors here. First and formost, the vehicles are more capable. The software is vastly better and the hardware is somewhat improved. Did you think that they've been sitting around doing nothing for the past 17 months? They've been working on improvements since the last challenge, and they've spent a lot more time actually testing their vehicles in desert terrain.There are some people who say that this year's course is far easier than last year's. I don't know myself -- I'm not involved with any of the teams and I don't have detailed knowledge of the courses. But there has been some commentary by those involved to this effect, as well as from bystanders. One huge difference is that the most difficult part of the course (Beer Bottle Pass, a narrow road with a steep drop off on one side) was at the end of the course this year, while the equivalent part was near the start last year. Stanford's leader is quoted as saying something to the effect that if they'd inverted last year's course then a lot of cars would've gone much further, even if none of them finished. The complete lack of media attention last year may have been one reason why DARPA swapped the course around -- it's rather anti-climactic to write about a race where the best racer hardly even got off the finish line and leads to the kind of stories DARPA really doesn't want to see (waste of taxpayer money, will never work, etc.).In any case, given that less than 25% of the vehicles finished, I'd hardly say that it was a trivial thing to do. It's still amazing. Congrats to those who did, and to all of those who participated for that matter -- it's quite an accomplishment, even if there's a long way to go still before this is really usable in a real world environment. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:so wait.. by axlrosen (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:00AMRe:so wait.. by John Harrison (Score:3)Monday October 10, @01:51PMRe:so wait.. by vertinox (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:48AMRe:so wait.. by floormasn56 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @10:29AMRe:so wait.. by gers0667 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:35AMRe:so wait.. by halltk1983 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @12:20PMRe:so wait.. by greg_barton (Score:3)Monday October 10, @10:35AMRe:so wait.. by legirons (Score:1)Monday October 10, @05:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Twice the prize. by redNuht (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:31AMImagine: apply this enthusiasm to alt energy! by sterlingda (Score:1)Monday October 10, @05:59PM Good news (Score:4, Interesting) by Data Link Layer (743774) on Monday October 10, @09:16AM (#13755964) I honestly didn't think this contest would ever be won. Maybe in 20 years we can have auto driving cars that can make it so there is next to 0 car accidents. [ Reply to ThisRe:Good news by freg (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:32AMRe:Good news by OverlordQ (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:47AM Re:Good news (Score:4, Informative) by silas_moeckel (234313) <silas&dsminc-corp,com> on Monday October 10, @10:07AM (#13756261) Funny building a car isn't that hard the power plant is rather complicated but the rest can be made of some nice tube stock and sheet metal for the most part. Granted it wont ride as nice as most commercial cars but it will stand up in an accident better than any of them. Granted I'm talking about good old fashion dune buggy with sheet metal attached. Never had any federal guide line issues just one state inspector made sure nothing would fall off and the wheels were covered. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful) by rjstanford (69735) on Monday October 10, @11:20AM (#13756786) (http://richardstanford.com/ | Last Journal: Monday April 05, @07:03PM) Granted it wont ride as nice as most commercial cars but it will stand up in an accident better than any of them. Personally, I'd rather have a car designed to absorb that impact at the cost of itself rather than just passing it along to me... heck, maybe I'm just weird that way. Forces have to go somewhere, don't'cha know. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Good news by usrusr (Score:1)Monday October 10, @01:08PM Re:Good news (Score:5, Interesting) by lowrydr310 (830514) on Monday October 10, @12:21PM (#13757341) Is your dune buggy street legal? It's funny how our laws are written. I know a guy who built a Lamborghini Countach kit car out of some steel tubing, a pre-made fiberglass body, and an engine that isn't even close to passing federal emission laws. He had no problems getting it inspected, registered, and getting a license plate for it. Custom choppers are the same: It's easy to weld some tubing together and slap on wheels, an engine, and a transmission and you're out on the streets in no time!I want to import a new Toyota Hilux diesel pickup because a compact diesel pickup truck isn't available in the USA. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to do this because it hasn't been tested against US crash standards and the engine isn't EPA certified (despite being less polluting than just about any diesel engine currently offered in the USA). [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Good news by October_30th (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:51AMRe:Good news by prefect42 (Score:3)Monday October 10, @09:55AMRe:Good news by October_30th (Score:1)Monday October 10, @10:02AMRe:Good news by prefect42 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:44AMthey had no problems... by zogger (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:54AMAvoiding Birds... by OwnedByTwoCats (Score:2)Monday October 10, @12:53PMRe:Avoiding Birds... by prefect42 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @01:26PMRe:Good news by ahem (Score:2)Monday October 10, @04:08PMdrivin' drunk by buback (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:51AMRe:Good news by OwnedByTwoCats (Score:2)Monday October 10, @12:50PMRe:Good news by Council (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:49AM Re:Good news (Score:5, Funny) by cerberusss (660701) <slashdot AT vankuik DOT nl> on Monday October 10, @10:06AM (#13756242) (http://www.vankuik.nl/ | Last Journal: Friday February 11, @08:06AM) Maybe in 20 years we can have auto driving carsI can already imagine the following scene:You: *steps in car* "Drive me to uncle George?"Car: "Why do you want me to drive to uncle George"You: "Because it's his birthday, dammit. Now start driving!"Car: "You seem to be a bit angry. Where does this anger come from?"You: "Start DRIVING you gas-guzzling piece of shit!"Car: *accelerates to 100mph* *dumps core* [ Reply to This | ParentOblig Soviet... by fbg111 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @04:56PM20 years? ah! by XXIstCenturyBoy (Score:1)Monday October 10, @10:13AMRe:Good news by should_be_linear (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:28AMRe:Good news by stienman (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:26AMRe:Good news by jacksonj04 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @11:47AMRe:Good news by jacksonj04 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @03:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Good news by mustangsal66 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @01:31PMRe:Good news by ta ma de (Score:1)Monday October 10, @10:31AMRe:Good news by Jedi Alec (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:08AMRe:Good news by ta ma de (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:32AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Good news by Enrico Pulatzo (Score:3)Monday October 10, @01:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. "MOVE OVER BUDDY" (Score:5, Funny) by MosesJones (55544) on Monday October 10, @09:17AM (#13755969) (http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/) Less than 20mph in an SUV through the desert. These Robot control cars are worse than my Grandmother on an interstate.Quite clearly these Robot controlled cars are part of a sophisticated plot to increase the amount of road rage in the US to enable the Robots to take over the country... and then the world.It is not too late to stop them, we must insist that the next competition involves only Ford Broncos and takes place on the Freeways of Los Angeles during rush hour. [ Reply to ThisRe:"MOVE OVER BUDDY" by Libor Vanek (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:23AM Re:"MOVE OVER BUDDY" (Score:5, Funny) by earthforce_1 (454968) <[earthforce_1] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Monday October 10, @11:27AM (#13756852) (Last Journal: Friday May 30, @09:04PM) Yeah but according to Moore's law, the robot cars should be able to break Mach 1 sometime around 2010. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:"MOVE OVER BUDDY" by Chosen Reject (Score:1)Monday October 10, @01:01PMRe:"MOVE OVER BUDDY" by EvilMagnus (Score:2)Monday October 10, @01:06PM Patriotism... sigh (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, @09:17AM (#13755972) DARPA Grand Challange - Harnessing American Ingenuity [grandchallenge.org] ... as it turns out, the leader of the winning Stanford car team is a German [stanford.edu]. [ Reply to This Re:Patriotism... sigh (Score:5, Insightful) by reed (19777) on Monday October 10, @09:32AM (#13756049) (http://www.zerohour.net/~reed) Well, so were Einstein, Werner von Braun... etc. :) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Patriotism... sigh by SimilarityEngine (Score:1)Monday October 10, @09:39AMevil german scientists by mbaudis (Score:1)Monday October 10, @09:35AMRe:Patriotism... sigh by Flying Purple Wombat (Score:2)Monday October 10, @10:33AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Patriotism... sigh by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:25AMRe:Patriotism... sigh by Locke2005 (Score:3)Monday October 10, @05:10PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. How few remain (Score:5, Informative) by necro81 (917438) <necro81@@@alum...dartmouth...org> on Monday October 10, @09:18AM (#13755975) Looking at the final stats on the Grand Challenge website [grandchallenge.org], it would seem that only five teams, out of the 23 that made the finals, were able to finish the course. The team that got the farthest before calling it quits managed about 80 miles, which means that the cut between those who made it and those who didn't was still pretty big. Another interesting thing about the final results is that, if you look at the pretty red and blue graph lines, they describe what looks like a sort of decaying function... Or perhaps I'm just a dork. [ Reply to ThisRe:How few remain by knix (Score:3)Monday October 10, @09:51AMRe:How few remain by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:40AMRe:How few remain by Gryphn (Score:1)Monday October 10, @01:39PMRe:How few remain by eh2o (Score:2)Monday October 10, @01:22PM Re:How few remain (Score:5, Informative) by zurmikopa (460568) on Monday October 10, @01:44PM (#13757991) (http://www.kalling.net/) They blew a tire and were somewhere around 60 feet off course when they were eliminated, if I remember correctly.I know that a good number of the teams were actually still moving when they were eliminated; they had generally just wandered far enough off course that it was determined that they would be unable to finish.There were a number of reasons why people did so much better this year than last year.The biggest reason I think is that people knew a little better what to expect this year, and focused development on more important items for the race. For instance, for the first race I had done work on using a terrain database for path planning, but it turned out that the waypoints are so close together that it ends up just being a waste of CPU cycles for the most part.Another important reason is there was a rather large jump in the quality of the software running on the bots, and a moderate jump in the quality of the hardware. The integration was much more refined.Finally, the course was easier overall this year and the difficult part was put near the end. There was nothing in the course really comparable to Daggett ridge from the first race. Also, pretty much the entire course was graded along with the edges of the road often had banks. We had cliff detection that pretty much went unused this year due to this.Overall, it was a pretty good race this year. Stanford did an awesome job and really deserved the win. Not that you guys have that much interest, but we (Axion) ended up in 7th place (right after Ensco) with about 66 miles. We ended up getting stuck in some sand. The current candidate for the cause is a broken sway arm bracket that caused us to pull to the right a bit. Further analysis will be required to determine if that's actually the case. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:How few remain by cheesy9999 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:54PM The downside to this (Score:5, Funny) by Elrac (314784) on Monday October 10, @09:19AM (#13755989) (http://www.smotricz.com) While I'm happy that these hard-working academics were successful, I can't help but note the downside to this development.Forget military applications. What I foresee is that, for computer scientists who've lost their jobs to outsourcing, this will deprive them of one more alternative, namely a career as a taxi/truck/bus/etc driver. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. 19.1? (Score:1, Interesting) by Donniedarkness (895066) on Monday October 10, @09:22AM (#13756004) (http://gmail.com/) 19.1 mph? I mean, congradulations to the winners, and I'm sure there's a reason for the speed to be so low...but can anyone explain what that is to me?I mean, I can understand the fastest solar-powered vehicle going just over 100..... but what is the reason for these driverless vehicles? I understand that they navigate these things by themselves, but is there any other reason? Is the track pretty much nothing but ridiculous curves or something? [ Reply to This Re:19.1? (Score:5, Insightful) by Schweg (730121) on Monday October 10, @09:30AM (#13756035) Almost 20 miles per hour on unpaved roads with an autonomous vehicle? That's not the same as driving on paved roads in the city or on the highway. I think that's pretty good, actually. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:19.1? by jrboatright (Score:3)Monday October 10, @09:30AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:19.1? (Score:5, Informative) by necro81 (917438) <necro81@@@alum...dartmouth...org> on Monday October 10, @09:31AM (#13756041) The course did have a fair number of twists and turns in it. There were some places, like dried lake beds, where the cars could open up a bit, but for the most part it was bumpy dirt tracks one which even you or I couldn't do more than, say, 40 mph. There were also, intentionally, a fair number of obstacles designed to throw the computer systems off. You and I wouldn't have much difficulty in recognizing a cattle gate on a road, but imagine trying to teach a computer vision system to distinguish that. In other cases, the robots had to drive through tunnels that would not only be dark (making vision systems less accurate) but also lack any GPS signal. So, yes, it did average out to a pretty slow "race." But, on the other hand, it is a marked improvement over last time, when no one even came close to finishing. I think that, in the interests of trying to ensure that they safely finished the course, let alone win, the various teams were playing it a little conservatively, and not trying to go for pedal-to-the-metal performance. Maybe next year, now that they have some confidence. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:19.1? by necro81 (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:35AMRudimentary logic by hal9000(jr) (Score:1)Monday October 10, @09:39AMRe:19.1? by Yvanhoe (Score:2)Monday October 10, @09:42AMRe:19.1? by jbburks (Score:1)Monday October 10, @09:58AMRe:19.1? by Donniedarkness (Score:1)Monday October 10, @10:01AMRe:19.1? by pstapley (Score:1)Monday October 10, @10:08AMRe:19.1? by kc01 (Score:1)Monday October 10, @11:06AMRe:19.1? by yincrash (Score:1)Monday October 10, @01:53PMRe:19.1? by SamSim (Score:2)Monday October 10, @03:58PM6 replies beneath your current threshold. News? (Score:2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, @09:24AM (#13756016) Darpa has just announced? I read this in my morning paper (in the UK) several hours ago. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Stanford + Volkswagen (Score:5, Funny)