As the "Three Musketeers" of Chinese brand fuel SUVs, Geely Boyue L ushered in a new model. The new car continues this classic IP, the power positioning of pure fuel. However, AEB, the highlight of the product, seems to have heard more about new energy, especially the debate of new power car companies. For example, the previous dialogue between Huawei and Xpeng ignited the heat of the topic. So far, AEB is more than 200,000 yuan, and the users are mainly positioned as middle-class consumers of new energy vehicles, focusing on the technical points introduced. However, the top price does not exceed 150,000 yuan Geely Xinboyue L, and it is also a pure fuel car, which also comes to promote its AEB. Is this a hot trend, or is it unintentionally ripping off the bottoms of many new forces?
If the speed exceeds 60 km/h, there is no AEB?
First of all, we need to figure out what exactly AEB is. Autonomous Emergency Braking literally means three key words: automatic, emergency, and brake. Even if the definition is so simple, for some new car companies, they still "ignore" the "urgent" part.
How do you determine an emergency while your vehicle is in motion? This may not have to do with the vehicle itself, but with the road conditions it is driving on. To put it simply, on closed roads, traffic participants are extremely single, and they are basically vehicles, or even passenger cars. The so-called emergency situations that can be encountered are actually mostly subjective, that is, the driver does not observe the position. To be more scenario-based, such as failing to maintain a reasonable distance between vehicles, failing to observe fixed and temporary road signs, signs, etc. Eventually, the braking distance is not enough, which leads to vehicle collisions and other consequences.
Obviously, the scenarios described above cannot be included in the working scenarios of AEB. Starting from the root cause of the hidden danger of the accident, the subjective error is much higher than the objective factor. Starting from the working logic of AEB, autonomous braking cannot replace human intervention. For example, the AEB of some car companies will stop the system intervention after the driver takes over the brakes. Finally, starting from the actual experience, under closed road conditions, the vehicle in high-speed driving suddenly and completely brakes is also a very safe safety hazard. Not to mention, with the support of this working logic, there is also an unavoidable misjudgment problem behind the excessive control of AEB.
So to sum up, in fact, the car encountered an emergency, which is the so-called "force majeure" factor. In other words, road accidents that surpass most people and cannot be avoided under subjective conditions such as normal observation and energy. For example, ghost probes in blind spots, irregular driving and parking of motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles, and other moving or fixed medium and large obstacles, etc. This is still too complicated to summarize, and the most direct is still to calibrate with speed. Because in terms of domestic road conditions, if you want to encounter the above "emergency" under normal road conditions, that is, non-closed roads, that is, the speed limit is basically within 60km/h. With the tightening of road speed limits, the demand for AEB is objectively increasing.
From the other braking curve, no matter how accurate you perceive the hardware and how fast you judge the execution, you will eventually need the braking system to complete the execution. At 100km/h, if you want to brake once, you generally need a braking distance of about 40m. Taking Geely's new Boyue L as an example, its official braking distance of 100 kilometers has entered within 36m. And as a fuel vehicle, it means that the weight of the whole vehicle will be much smaller than that of new energy vehicles of the same level. In other words, the decay pressure between the tires and the brakes will be smaller. Even the latter, when in factory condition, are generally equipped with quite extravagant brakes and tyres.
So to sum up, the need to brake at high speed is not a serious "emergency" need. The need for emergency braking, and the secondary safety hazards are small, under the influence of subjective and objective aspects, its speed performance must not be too fast. Judging from the critical point of comprehensive judgment, the upper limit of this speed is up to 60 km/h. Still referring to the test of Geely's new Boyue L, in the ghost probe project, the locked speed is 50km/h (when the front is recognized, the speed is 60km/h).
Do a good AEB, don't need to pile up?
It can be found that some new energy vehicle companies have led the comparison of AEB to the braking ability of more extreme speed. At best, this can only be called the ability of the vehicle to actively intervene in the brakes, and it cannot be regarded as AEB. The latter is not about the speed of the vehicle, but how to stop the car faster, more accurately and more ruthlessly under the real demand conditions.
In fact, in terms of being faster and more accurate, new energy vehicles have inherent advantages. Due to the long development history of traditional fuel vehicles, although many upgrades have been ushered in in the electrification equipment in the later stage, the execution logic still relies on separate ECU control. Coupled with the bus series, the transmission of information inside the vehicle naturally scores first. Even if the security system is a higher priority, the efficiency and security of the signal transmission are still limited without the addition of an additional hard-wired communication.
The fundamental solution to the problem of information transmission is to break away from the idea of stacking ECUs in traditional fuel vehicles and switch to a more electrified domain control, that is, the integrated route. Taking Geely's new Boyue L as an example, although it is based on the CMA architecture, it is not a pure electric platform. However, the control domain still lays the foundation for electrification. It adopts the more mainstream integrated scheme of intelligent driving, cockpit and power system respectively.
Hearing intelligent driving, users seem to have been reflexive, reminiscent of those lofty propaganda words. Actually, from an AEB point of view, it's useful, but it's not really expensive. In terms of cost, implementing AEB does not require expensive sensing hardware. For example, lidar, a "high-end product", does not have much bonus effect on the application of actual AEB. This echoes our previous point of excluding the high-speed cruise scenario. In AEB work, the front-facing camera alone is sufficient. To put it simply, it is more important to identify an obstacle than to clearly identify it. Therefore, even if the monocular camera cannot accurately judge the distance, and the resolution is not comparable to that of LiDAR, it does not affect its perception of AEB function in the slightest. In addition, the layout point of traditional radar is relatively low, although the theoretical effect of superposition is definitely more potential. However, its detection effect and coverage of the scene, apparently no camera has a greater impact on AEB.
In conclusion, the standard AEB feature does not "eat" the hardware. Relatively speaking, after years of large-scale data accumulation, the transmission speed of data in the car, as well as the adjustment and attenuation control of the brake system, and even the matching and maintenance of tires. is the core element that makes up whether AEB can do a good job. And after removing all the glossy packaging, we will also be pleasantly surprised to find that AEB is not the so-called tall function. In normal car use scenarios, hundreds of thousands of fuel vehicles can also have excellent AEB functions.