Auto Switching Radio Stations

Today's idea addresses a problem that only some people will have with some stations in some locations.

Certain smaller stations will have multiple frequencies depending on your exact location relative to your local urban center. The station is served on different frequencies in different areas. The North suburbs might have 102.1 while downtown might have the station on 95.5 for example.

These tend to be, in my experience, smaller less popular stations.

The result is that you can be driving along and have the station die out or become unclear. If you wish to continue listening to the station it requires you to switch over to the other station. This can be problematic if you stumbled across the station while surfing for something to listen to (and thus do not know that they have multiple frequencies), or if the station used more than two frequencies so that you need to figure out which one will end up being most clear.

Digital radio signals can let the radio know the station name and name of the song and artist currently playing. It would also be possible for the signal to have alternative frequency information embedded into it. If the signal detected noise from static (something your radio can already do, this is how it autotunes), it would quickly check the alternative frequencies to see if any of them were clearer.

This could also be used with syndicated radio shows that are being hosted on multiple stations. If the signal of the station you were listening on grew too weak, it could automatically check the signal of other stations hosting the show at that time.

This would increase the cost of the radio (just like digital radios cost more). It would need a bit more hardware to figure out how to flip frequencies, and it would likely need multiple tuners (to allow it to check the other frequencies without interrupting what you are listening to). However, these costs would not be too great. They would also lay some of the hardware groundwork for another one of my ideas, a radio Tivo.

Ultimately, as I said earlier, this would only be useful some of the time for some people. However, when dealing with these types of small stations, retuning into them is very annoying. I feel that the people who DO have to deal with this would greatly appreciate the functionality, and it would almost certainly help the listenership of these small stations.

Remote Entry Key Fob Meets Cell Phone

In reality remote entry key fobs for car do not save all that much time. However, people use cars enough that they seem like a great convinience and luxery. However, they are not perfect.

The first problem is the space they take. In a multi-car household their size can make it difficult to have the 'keys' to every car on your key chain. The other problem that I have observed stems with how people use them. If the driver is slow with taking out his keys and unlocking the door, passangers may need to wait for the door to be unlocked. While this is not a huge inconvinience it can be anoying.

There is a solution to both these problems.

If cars were designed to unlock their doors in the presscence of a coded bluetooth signal, your cellphone could be used to enter your car (bluetooth is the type of wireless signal that cellphones use to communicate with headsets). Infact if the car was equiped with a keyless ignition system (as many luxery cars are) the cellphone could also turn on the car. All of the sudden you don't need any keys for your car.

There would be nothing preventing a single cellphone from having the codes for multiple cars. In a multi-car household with multiple drivers, there would be no need to make multiple copies of multiple keys so that everyoen would have a set. It would be as simple as punching the codes into everyone's cellphone. Right here, money is being saved. There would be no cost to enter the code into multiple cellphones. The process could even be 'automated' just requiring the press of a 'pairing' button, just like with bluetooth headsets.

This also could solve the second issue I mentioned. Since the 'clicker' has been replaced with the cellphone which has a rechargable battery, it's ok if it is running all the time. The cellphone could automatically send a 'lock' signal as you walk away from the car and could automatically unlock the door when you got near. There would be no need to wait for the driver to take out and press the button. As long as the driver was within range (likely 10-15 feet based on bluetooth specifications). This continuous transmision method would cause the cellphone to eat through its battery faster; bluetooth consume power. But this feature could be made optional.

As far as security, there would be no reason why it would be any less safe. The methods used to prevent people from currently 'capturing' your key fobs security code work just as well with a cellphone (click here is you are interested in why your keyfob won't likely open up anyone elses car http://auto.howstuffworks.com/remote-entry2.htm).

This idea is also provides a perfect way to apply an earlier idea of mine. Some time ago I mentioned the posibility of 'Car Logins' (http://dailyinnovention.blogspot.com/2010/06/car-logins.html). Basically the idea was to allow the car to remeber the seat positions, radio presets, and mirror positions of individual drivers. These prefrences could easily be stored in the cellphone.

This would not require people to have cellphones with special hardware. All it would require would be a software download. Also, many cars allready have bluetooth hardware installed to facilitate handsfree phone calls. It should be obvious that this would be easy for car manufactures to impliment.

The only real problem I see with this idea is the eventuality of having a dead cellphone battery. If someone replaced all of their keys with their phone they could be locked out of their car. This could be mitigated by including a small secondary battery (like those used in key fobs currently) with the sole purpose of unlocking car doors when the main battery is dead. Of course if cellphones had preemptive low battery warnings as I discussed yesterday, this wouldn't be a problem.

All in all, I would love to not worry about keys. Being able to opperate multiple cellphones as long as I had my cellphone on my person is something that I would definetly be willing to pay for, and I suspect, is somethign that many others would pay for as well. Combined that with 'car logins' and people are looking at a great increase in convinience. Even at a modest price, being able to avoid copying keys could still save money. And as for the auto industry? It wouldn't cost them much more in the manufacturing process, and they could definaetly market it to cell new cars.

Cruise Control Pacing

This idea is a spin off yesterdays.

Often times as driving I find myself on cruise control and behind another car. I am frequently perfectly happy staying behind the car.

However, there is a problem. I may find myself creeping closer to the car. So I slow down the cruise control by one increment. But now I begin lagging behind. So I increase it a bit, and once again begin creeping up on the car. It is especially frustrating while driving long stretches on fairly open roads.

A nice feature could be a 'pacing' button. A Doppler Radar installed in the front of the car could measure the speed / distance to the car ahead of you and attempt to match speed with it and maintain a steady distance. It could even modify the distance to allow for proper braking time, if need be, based on the current speed.

The system would of course need to have a delay. Otherwise a car speeding by could send your car speeding up. It would have to only react to a signal that has been detected consistently for the last thirty seconds or so.

One issue that this idea could have would be with people who use radar detectors. If the guy in front of you has a detector he may suddenly slow down out of concern that police are nearby, and that could be annoying.

I could also see this idea adding a not-insignificant cost to the cruise control system. This minor improvement may not be worth the cost.

However, if it could be done for a reasonable price, it could remove another annoyance from the road.

Dynamic Cruise Control

Cruise Control is a nice feature.

It makes driving the car less work and more fuel efficient.

However there are certain times when it is annoying to have to adjust it. One of these is when the highway curves. Generally when taking any significant turns you want to reduce your speed to continue driving safely if the road is not banked.

I would like to see a cruise control system that would dynamically reduce the speed while the wheel is turned. When the driver straightens back out the speed would pick back up.

The system would likely have a threshold so that it would not activate while passing another car. The system could also include a sensor to detect if the car is at an angle. This could be used to tell if the car is on a banked road. If the road is banked the system would not have to reduce the car's speed as much.

For people who did not like the cruise control automatically adjusting the speed a switch under the dashboard could turn the feature on and off.

A dynamic cruise control could make using cruise control more convenient and safer.

Parking Radar

I am going to preface this post by saying that it is unlikely to be implemented in existing cities due to expense.

However, I do think it is worthwhile to consider because parking in the city can really suck.

A lot of cities are using or considering WiMax or similar systems (essentially city wide WiFi). However, this could serve as a backbone for the city to serve up lots of information about local conditions (as I write this traffic information comes to mind first).

Sensors built into road curbs, on posts next to parking spaces, or in the road itself could detect if a car is currently parked in a particular spot. The way that these sensors would work depends on where exactly it is installed (in the road vs next to it) but is more of a technical discussion. The information gathered by the sensors could then be made available over a WiMax network.

A GPS system in a person's car could be capable of taping into the WiMax network and finding out where the nearest available parking spot is located. If the system was really

So basically GPS systems could tell you where to find parking spots to let people avoid playing the 'search for a spot' game.

Of course it doesn't have to be a GPS. A small radar that shows direction and distance to the nearest location using the network could be made as well.

There are three major issues with such a system:
1) There would be significant cost associated with installing the system, especially in an already existing infrastructure.

2) The system would need to be installed city wide for it to really catch on in popularity. If it was only installed in particular neighborhoods or along certain streets people could not be certain that it would be giving them the nearest spot and it would become unreliable. If drivers are going to trust a Parking Radar, more of the city (at least the areas where parking is an issue) must be supported than unspotted.

3) Unless a standard was decided on (there are methods of large area wireless networking other than WiMax for example) it could quickly become problematic if every city had a slightly different system. Either it would increase the cost of the GPS or some systems would be Chicago compatible while others may be 'New York' compatible. Now this issue is not necessarily a major road block. Several states have their own types of automated highway toll payment systems and for the most part its fine. People spend most of their time in the state they live and people spend most of their time in the city that they live (or are near).

If there are cities close to one another they could work to make sure their systems interoperate just as neighboring states have done with their toll systems.


Now issue number 1 is the big one. This cost is made even worse if a wide area wireless network does not already exist in the city. Of course it is not necessary to use a wireless network. There may be better technical solutions (such as delivering the information over cell networks). But even still, the cost of just the sensors alone would likely be pricey.

Now this cost could be mitigated in several ways. The city could charge for the use of the Parking Radar Service. Basically they would sell permission to use the data available on the Parking Radar Network. If they wanted to maximize profit they could charge differing fees based on a person's address. For example people in the suburbs could be charged less than people who live downtown because they would not be using it as frequently. Of course pricing is an entirely different issue.

By charging for the use of the service they could reduce or perhaps even eliminate the installation and upkeep cost for the system. In fact, depending on demand, I could actually conceive of a city making a profit on such a system.

Finer Temperature Control

It seems like whenever I am driving I need to play a ridiculous game of balancing the AC blower strength and the AC temperature control in order to get the climate in the car just the way I like. If I don''t fiddle with the knobs I either get too stuffy or too cold. The problem is that there are such large differences between each setting on the AC.

Now I will admit that it may be possible that some luxury cars implement the suggestion that I am about to make. I would not know. I do not drive those types of cars.

The thing is, thermistors (electronics that are sensitive to temperature) are not that expensive. It wouldn't be pricey to allow the driver to punch (or dial) in a specific temperature. If the ambient temperature is colder, the car turns off the AC (and possibly turns on the heat). If the temperature is warmer however the car kicks up the AC to optimal level to hit the target.

"But Richard," you might say, "What if the blower is a step motor that can only operate at specific levels." To that I reply there is an easy solution that is still cheap. A bypass vent connected to a servo. If you want to reduce the air from the blower simply redirect some of it elsewhere.

Ultimately I believe that either
1) This actually exists in luxury cars and I just need to drive a higher class of vehicle.
2) This is a good idea and has little barriers to limitation
3) I am simply too picky

Cooling Slats in Cars

When you park your car outside in the sun, it is going to get hot. It will get hotter than the the ambient temperature in fact. You can reduce this by putting one of those ugly reflectors in your window but most people are too lazy for that. Ultimately the only good way to fight this is by leaving your window open and having your car stolen.

But imagine if your car had a metal grating in the ceiling that could be closed up. While it is closed its like it is not even there. While open, the grating acts like a 'screen' and prevents would be thieves from gaining access to your car. However while criminals and other unwanted things could not pass through, the warm air would be able to rise right out of your car being replaced with 'cool' air from outside.

The system could be designed to automatically operate while your car is off. If the interior temperature is rising and it is cooler outside (and not raining) go ahead and open the grate cover. Determining if rain is coming down could be accomplished through a variety of relatively easy methods.

The entire system could run off, or at least partially run off, some small solar panels installed on the grate cover. The days on which it will be needing to operate will be the particularly sunny days when you are parked in the sun. It could even use the power output of these solar cells to determine if it should be opening or not.

While it will not keep your car cool in the same way an AC would, it would be a cheap, green, way to ensure your car does not feel like a pressure cooker when you get in.

Car Logins

If you share a car with other people, for example family members, then you probably know that it can be annoying to have to readjust the seat, mirrors, and sometimes radio presets every time you drive.

Well many keys have anti-theft chips installed in them. Many luxury cars have the side windows and seats on electric control.

Imagine if each driver had their own key that was color coded (to avoid mixup) and a small identification chip. When they turn on the car, the seats and mirrors could automatically readjust to wherever they were set the last time that same key was used to start up the car. Likewise each key could have its own set of radio presets.

Its almost like logging into a computer with a personalized desktop.

This wouldn't be hard to do. Just put a bit of memory storage in the car, and ensure that the seat and window controls are wired into the a central computer system.

If car companies really wanted to get fancy the information would be stored in the keys and be inter-compatible between cars. Perhaps a hypothetical 5 person family with 3 cars would then have 5 keys, 1 for each family member. Your presets could follow you around from car to car (separate seat adjustment data would likely be stored with each car). A particular car company offering such a feature would create incentive for families to purchase more than one car from that manufacturer.

You wouldn't need to share presets, or fiddle with the seat. Each and every time you drive things could be just the way you would like it.

Redesigning Car Seats

Today's idea might seem a bit silly at first read. But give it a chance and think about it.

Why in the world are car seats built in a manner similar to couches?

Couches are both heavy and bulky.

Now I must admit that I had been impressed with the way that seats in some modern vans can fold into the floors. But they are still taking up a fair bit of space in those compartments.

My proposal is to make car seats more like folding chairs.

If you own a van, go out and remove your seats. Then drop some folding chairs in there. You might make a few observations. The could easily be divided into a pros and cons.

Pros:
1) There is more leg room.
2) They fold up easier and take less space.

Cons:
1) It seems pretty dangerous.
2) It is less comfortable.

First to explain the pros. Folding chairs have a lot less structural material to take up space: less cross beams, less springs, and less foam (ultimately I think it is the foam padding that takes up the most space). This opens up more feet for peoples legs, or to just tuck 'cargo' underneath. In the event you need to put something large in your car, these seats fold up to a very small space compared to the giant car seats that you currently used. The size of these things means they could even be used in sedans.

There is actually one other pro I didn't mention. These seats would be easier to clean. Couches (and seats by extension) have nooks and crannies thats hard to vacuum. And getting underneath them can be equally as hard.I leave it to the reader to imagine how easy it is to clean the floor of your car if all the seats fold up.

But what about the cons? First I will address the comfort issue. I have sat in some pretty comfortable folding chairs. Now I am not talking about folding metal chairs, but some of chairs are these fabric affairs that are actually pretty comfortable. Some of them even have cup holders. Then there is no reason the angle of the back could not be adjustable. The amount of tension in the fabric could even be adjustable to change the stiffness. That's not something you can do with car seats. Ultimately it is just my opinion but I feel that these chairs can be just as comfortable as car seats.

Now there might be an issue with suspension. I imagine the undercarriage of car seats help them dampen vibrations in the car and deal with bumpy roads (if not someone should look into this). Well there are various methods in which the fabric tension in the chairs could be dynamically adjusted to achieve this affect.

So what about safety. Obviously a method would need to be designed to secure these chairs to the floor. This could make it 'safe' during normal driving conditions. But what about accidents. In a bad accident the structural integrity of the cars fame is compromised. I imagine that the seats integrity would provide some additional safety. So obviously we would want to make our seats out of some strong material. Likewise, pretty much anywhere you already have supports on your seat, you could add additional supports parallel without significantly increasing the size. In fact, I could imagine that in certain accidents this system could potentially be safer. Adjusting the tension in the fabric (and thus stiffness of the seat) when an accident is detected could help in certain situations.

Ultimately I will admit that making this and ensuring passenger safety would require a lot of testing and good old fashioned trial and error.

Now there may be one final objection. Say you have duck-taped a bunch of folding chairs to your car. It looks pretty tacky. Few people would want to use this if it looks ugly. Well thats simply a matter of designing the chairs to match the interior. Put some sleek curves into the frames and add some plastic casing to hide ugly parts. People would still be resistant to adopt something so 'new' but that's a problem for the marketing department.

Preparing our Cars to Drive Themselves

Someday cars will drive themselves.

It might be awhile, but it is going to happen. Every year 'prototypes' get a bit better at it. It does not require technology stolen from technology or unproven theories. It is simply a matter of making better sensors and better algorithms.

Now there are two things that we could be doing to make this happen faster.

1) Preparing our Roads for Self Driving Cars
2) Preparing our Cars for Self Driving Cars

Option 1 probably won't happen. It would involve installing magnetic pylons into our roads so that cars could detect them better. The reason this isn't likely is simply the cost. It would involve completely replacing our road infrastructure. Besides, its looking like this won't really be necessary.

Option 2 we could start doing right now. Basically my idea is to make cars more 'visible' to one another. If a car knows the location and speed of all the cars around it, the task of not hitting them becomes a bit easier. In fact, some knowledge of where other cars are in relation to yours would be a requirement if your car would drive itself.

It would not cost too much, or be too hard, to install a line of RF transmitters and receivers along the dorsal line of new cars. For now they would not do anything other than transmit some identification information. However, when self driving cars start to roll out they could use this information to better maneuver the roads. Because there is a whole line of transmitters, and not just one, by analyzing timing differences you could determine the direction, relative speed, and distance of this other car.

If designers of self driving cars knew that 75% of cars had this installed (for example) they could take advantage of this information. Now the cars would still need conventional sensors, but this could potentially provide more reliable information that could allow the cars to travel safely at higher speeds.

This would be an investment in the future. But like all investments it might not pan out. But the cost should not be too high.

There would, however, be some 'immediate' benefits.

Once enough cars had these installed, cruise control could start taking advantage of the sensor information. Cars could relay information about their surroundings to their neighboring cars.

You could imagine a situation in which a bunch of people are driving at 50 MPH down the highway. One guy slows down to 30 MPH for some reason. If the cars are suitably close, this will send a shockwave of people slowing down backwards. This is basically how traffic can slow down even when there are no accidents or lane mergers.

Now imagine your car knew that some guy 20 cars up has just slowed down. Rather than waiting for the shockwave to hit your car, your cruise control could drop its speed maybe 10 MPH right away. This will create a gap between your car and the one in front of you. Assuming the guy who started the traffic jam eventually speeds up, this means that the heavy slowdowns could die out in front of you.

Cruise control could be set to 'keep pace.' Basically cruise control could even be useful in stop and go traffic (of course as mentioned above it could go along way towards 'eliminating' some forms of stop and go traffic).

This type of dynamic cruise control would require some effort to program, but it would be much easier than creating software that could fully drive a car (which would need to be able to identify road hazards and steer around them).

One final benefit I want to mention is accident mitigation. The system could potentially determine if you are about to slam into the guy in front of you. If it was able to this, it could automatically apply the breaks (hopefully in time to avoid the accident). Now some people might not like the idea of taking control away from the drive like this. Ok, there is another way this technology could help save lives.

If your car essentially knows it is going to be in an accident before it happens, it can start preparing the passengers for the accident. Tighten the seat belts up automatically, maybe even 'pre-deploy' the air bags. In fact being able to deploy airbags before the accident starts could allow for a 'revolution' in airbag design.

One slight concern with this general idea is that I would be worried it could mess with the radio reception of cars. On one hand there is a lot of room in the electromagnetic spectrum to use. On the other hand, passing through an I-Pass booth scrambles my radio.

Ultimately for any of this to be useful, I needs to be in more than one car. In fact it needs to be in more than a few. For it to really work I imagine the majority of the cars on the road would need this technology. That's precisely why we need to start installing it today. We might not have self driving cars for another 20 years. But if that's the case we could have a lot of cars with RF dorsal transmitters on the road by then.