[statueim]

Please note, I am not asking whether you should rely on this system from an ethical standpoint when it's raining/snowing, but I am asking whether anyone has any experience with the system's performance in the rain (and eventually snow when winter hits) and how much its safety features are diminished by adverse weather conditions. Subaru indicates that EyeSight will not work in certain weather conditions, but I am curious to know if you are potentially putting yourself in danger by leaving it on and how robust the system truly is. For instance, if the system were poorly designed, could two well-timed big snowflakes (each one coming toward the dual camera's at the same rate) cause your car to slam on its brakes and start you into skidding off an icy road into a ditch?

Since the system is vision-based near the top of the windshield (based on the pictures I have seen it looks like they are positioned where the windshield wipers might not do the best job of clearing slush built-up on the windshield), I am wondering how the system works when the camera's vision is impaired. If any of this is in an owner's manual or somewhere online, if you could point me to that information, I would be appreciative as I do not have access to an owner's manual and all I can find online at this point are articles singing the praises of EyeSight and very little of situations where it does not work effectively.

If anyone can comment on true-life experiences in the rain or snow, please share.

That said, I am also looking for some data in a more scientific fashion in the absence of severe weather. I hope Subaru performed a similar set of tests (and hopefully more thorough/advanced) so they know how their system works even if they will not publish the results. I have an initial set of tests I am curious about that would answer some of my questions and I would hope that in all the situations where EyeSight cannot function properly that it would annoyingly beep at the driver indicating the system cannot function properly until the driver turns it off. That said, what would happen if you were to...
1. Fully obscure both EyeSight cameras with masking tape. This test is to simulate snow/slush fully blocking the camera's field of view (i.e. after a heavy snow, you just got in your car and turned on the windshield wipers without clearing off your windshield).
2. Fully obscure one EyeSight camera only with masking tape. This test is the same as test 1, but I wonder if EyeSight tries to do anything still without the two camera's required for depth perception.
3. Partially obscure one or both EyeSight cameras with masking tape. This test is basically the same as tests 1 and 2, but it should still be able to work to some extent.
4. Partially obscure both EyeSight cameras with saran wrap (making sure there are wrinkles in the camera's field of view) and secure the saran wrap around the edges using masking tape or some other material (but do not let any non-transparent material cover the camera's field of view). This test is to simulate a thin layer of ice build-up on the windshield.

If anyone can think of other tests that they would be interested in performing and would be kind enough to share the results here as well, that would great too.

I would perform the above tests myself, but I have a 2010 (no EyeSight) so would any of you owners of cars with EyeSight be kind enough to perform the above tests if you are also curious to see how your car works before those severe weather conditions arrive?

 

[scoobydoo2]

...In crappy weather like slippery roads, snow, and ice....I would want control of the car. I don't think that the eyesight system takes all those factors into consideration when it is operating. There is no substitute for human input in these conditions.

 

[plain OM]

No experience with it, but fascinated with the idea, and your questions.

Based on this video (Principle Of Operation) I have the impression Eyesight does not function when vision is obscured and it can't properly process the information.

It has to "triangulate" on an object (or objects) within it's field of vision based on the data from both cameras. If vision is obscured in either, it can't, and therefore won't activate.

Also, as is noted in the video, Eyesight can't recognize near objects, such as a car cutting in just ahead, cars moving rapidly in a cross street, or a pedestrian stepping otu into the road just in front of the car.

I guess it's important for drivers to be aware of the limitations; this should be in the Owners Manual, or a supplementary document.

 

[mpnret]

No experience with it, but fascinated with the idea, and your questions.

Based on this video (Principle Of Operation) I have the impression Eyesight does not function when vision is obscured and it can't properly process the information.

It has to "triangulate" on an object (or objects) within it's field of vision based on the data from both cameras. If vision is obscured in either, it can't, and therefore won't activate.

Also, as is noted in the video, Eyesight can't recognize near objects, such as a car cutting in just ahead, cars moving rapidly in a cross street, or a pedestrian stepping otu into the road just in front of the car.

I guess it's important for drivers to be aware of the limitations; this should be in the Owners Manual, or a supplementary document.

It comes with its own owners manual and most of what you mentioned is covered. It does work with fairly close objects. For example it will activate if I cut it close while pulling into my garage as the door is going up.

 

[statueim]

...In crappy weather like slippery roads, snow, and ice....I would want control of the car. I don't think that the eyesight system takes all those factors into consideration when it is operating. There is no substitute for human input in these conditions.

I agree 100%, but does the EyeSight system default to "on" operation (and you have to turn it off manually) or is it a default "off" and you have to manually turn it on each time you start the car? I was assuming the former and that most people would just hop into their car assuming no harm no foul when they go driving in the snow with it turned on by default.

[Edit]

Based on this video (Principle Of Operation) I have the impression Eyesight does not function when vision is obscured and it can't properly process the information.

I just watched the video plain OM listed and it does appear to be a default on behavior (quoting the video "[EyeSight] automatically comes into operation 10 seconds after the engine is started").

 

[statueim]

It comes with its own owners manual and most of what you mentioned is covered.

Did you mean plain OM's questions, my questions, or both with this statement?

 

[lynnvin]

I have eyesight and was driving on the highway during a very foggy morning in a heavy rain storm. Visibility was minimal with the fog, rain and spray from all the cars tires. Eyesight disabled automatically when visibility got real bad then engaged when things got clearer.

 

[mpnret]

I noticed it also does this in bright sunlight. It seems to know whenever it can't function and shuts down. The manual also mentions it.

 

[scoobert]

In six weeks of driving, the system holds up remarkably well under real-world conditions. I may be able to clear up a few misconceptions. First, it's important to remember that there are multiple responses when the system detects an obstacle. The first option is to disregard, say it spots two large snowflakes coming right at the windshield or a chipmunk darts across the road. In either case, the algorithms say "meh" and shrug it off (more on that later).

Assume instead it's a small dog and not a chipmunk. Depending on the threat to the vehicle/occupant/dog the system may alert the driver and do nothing else. Factoring in size, speed, distance, etc. the system may want to cut the gas. So, there are multiple responses that do not include applying the brakes. It's not like you're driving along...driving...driving...driving...driving...snowflake/SLAM BRAKES.

So, how do I know that snowflakes don't trigger the brakes? First, I've driven through rain and had the system operate just fine and I've driven through rainstorms that caused Eyesight to disable itself. But rain isn't the only thing you're going to encounter on the road. What happens if my brother-in-law takes a tub of leaves up to the roof and drops them as I idle past? Answer: alert, no braking. What if same bro-in-law holds limb while I drive by at 20 mph and lowers limb to windshield height? Answer: depends on size of limb. Small limb causes alert, no braking. Larger limb causes alert plus slow to stop (no slamming of brakes).

If I were bored (and so inclined) I would set up a more methodical testing regime. Someone else will have to take it further.

 

[foxrider68]

The only time I've felt the need to disable anything is in a construction zone as they move you along with the cones over solid lines. I turn off the lane departure warning as it can get annoying then.

The only glitch I've discovered in 1600 miles is I was driving home and there was a shiny patch of road and the collission warning sound went off and then off but it never hit the brakes. The cars has a 3 zones in regards to collissions. One, audible alarm, two braking, three emergency breaking. Two and three can happen pretty quickly though. I'm not worried though the system has worked great for me thus far. In fact on my way home in traffic I just set cruise to 64 and the car hardly ever gets there. Which means the adaptive cruise control is working the whole way home, its sooooo nice.

 

[subyroo651]

I may start a new thread on this but does anyone know how EyeSight might react to Having HID's instead of the normal Halogen bulbs?
Nothing ridiculous just 4300K but I wonder if it would confuse the cameras on some far out light spectrum .. :crazyeye:

 

[scoobert]

Drive past HIDs all the time in the opposite direction and no problem, even on those curves where the opposite lane causes the lights to shine right at you. I've been flanked by HIDs on either side of a 3-lane HWY and no problems. I think that's enough empirical evidence to say "go for it!"

 

[statueim]

It's not like you're driving along...driving...driving...driving...driving...snowflake/SLAM BRAKES.

I was basically referring to "the perfect storm" conditions (not sure if I intend the pun there or not) and realize the scenario is far-fetched, but you could theoretically have two very similar snowflakes (or any other object) approaching the cameras at a very similar rate such that the car would apply it's brakes.

It's good to know that the system disables itself when there is too much "noise" in the image (i.e. something that does not remain constant for more than a frame), so the snowflake scenario is kind of a moot point since two snowflakes will often be accompanied by a flurry of others. That said, I am very curious about the limitations of the system and I'm sure Subaru is too since no degree of in-house testing, beta testing, or other testing can account for all the bugs you will find in something as complex as EyeSight when you give it to tons of customers in a wide range of different environments who use the system daily. Personally, I think I'm an EyeSight 2.0 kind of guy.

Here's another example of a situation where I could see EyeSight potentially doing harm by having control of your brakes:
Say there is an odd intersection between a fast road (like an older two lane highway around here) and a more residential road. You are on the residential road and on the other side of the two lane highway you wish to cross, the road sharply turns left. The two lane highway is busy, but you finally find a gap where if you really gas it, you can get safely across the highway and take the sharp left on the following road. If you don't gas it, you'll probably be sitting there for the next half an hour, so you go for it. As you are almost across, another car pulls up on the residential road on the side to which you are crossing where the sharp left "bend" is. Since the intersection is a little non-standard and you have to make a fairly sharp left turn, it appears (to EyeSight) that you are about to have a head-on collision with the car on the opposite side of the road and EyeSight immediately applies the brakes. This leaves you stuck on the highway as the next car you would have narrowly missed T-bones your passenger door. Ouch.

It's these types of issues that make me think twice about giving first-gen software control of my car's brakes.

 

[scoobert]

It's not terribly difficult to confuse Eyesight such that it alerts the driver. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're more interested in a scenario that causes the system to override the driver input, especially those scenarios wherein the driver's situational awareness is superior to Eyesight's readings. Eyesight will indeed let you aim at a wall (or a car) and gun it. It allows for the possibility that you may turn at the last moment. In other words, it's cool so long as you aim the car in a different direction under safe conditions. It doesn't apply brakes unless a collision is eminent. If the object is avoidable, it just nags you.

For instance, I can cause the system to alert if I'm sitting at a 4-way stop and I punch the gas as another car makes its way through the intersection. Eyesight will let me barrel towards the car so long as I can avoid it.

I live in town but the place is thick with deer. I've been able to avoid striking deer by punching the accelerator and pointing the car just a few feet around the deer, accounting for angle of intercept.

Like you, I was cautious at first. I don't want the car to disable me when I need to do something extreme.

Edit: for what it's worth, the software is road-tested in Japan. Call it what you will, but I don't think of it as first-gen software

 

[foxrider68]

I don't mean to be rude but if you don't think all of these scenarios and more have been thought out in board rooms and tested you're not thinking it through correctly. Look how much money Toyota spent on issues caused by driver errors, do you really think Subaru is going to put a car out there that drives itself right into a problem?

Go to cars101 and read the comments he put in from consumer reports concerning eyesight. I have copied in a relevant piece for now. Essentially the safety elements kick in when the driver is not paying attention. If they're reacting to the road it will let you smash stuff.

In the demonstration, Subaru set up 12 large foam blocks with the image of a stopped Outback near the end of our track. As we approached (in Subaru's EyeSight-equipped Legacy), our driver was told to hold the speed at 20 mph and not let up on the gas. The car automatically applied the brakes in time to stop in front of the target. However, when our driver instinctively adjusted the gas, the car assumed he was paying attention and released the brakes, so we smashed into the foam Outback ahead of us.
That's the way the system is designed, so if there is an escape route to the side, for example, you can accelerate into it. The next time, our driver held the throttle steady, and the car stopped short of the target.

 

[statueim]

I don't mean to be rude but if you don't think all of these scenarios and more have been thought out in board rooms and tested you're not thinking it through correctly. Look how much money Toyota spent on issues caused by driver errors, do you really think Subaru is going to put a car out there that drives itself right into a problem?

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

 

[subiesailor]

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

It would suggest that you are completely out of touch with reality to assume a driver or Eyesight system either or is capable of handling " every scenario that the car will ever encounter" in an appropriate manner. Which is why you have a greater chance of punching your ticket driving across town vs pretty much any other normal and sensible activity people do on a daily basis.

 

[mpnret]

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

It's not new. It was on MY2012 in Australia. I did read some positive reviews by owners there before deciding to get it.

 

[foxrider68]

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

I think you're either failing to do the proper research or chosing not to read what you're being told. I sense that you feel the sky is falling and perhaps have a bomb shelter in your back yard. I'd rather die in the sunshine than live for 40 years in a hole.

 

[plain OM]

. . . .
Here's another example of a situation where I could see EyeSight potentially doing harm by having control of your brakes:
Say there is an odd intersection between a fast road (like an older two lane highway around here) and a more residential road. You are on the residential road and on the other side of the two lane highway you wish to cross, the road sharply turns left. The two lane highway is busy, but you finally find a gap where if you really gas it, you can get safely across the highway and take the sharp left on the following road. If you don't gas it, you'll probably be sitting there for the next half an hour, so you go for it. As you are almost across, another car pulls up on the residential road on the side to which you are crossing where the sharp left "bend" is. Since the intersection is a little non-standard and you have to make a fairly sharp left turn, it appears (to EyeSight) that you are about to have a head-on collision with the car on the opposite side of the road and EyeSight immediately applies the brakes. This leaves you stuck on the highway as the next car you would have narrowly missed T-bones your passenger door. Ouch.. . . .

This is a good example, and very similar to situations often experienced when driving quickly on two lane highways in mountain areas. It's not unusual to be coming around a tight curve that's almost "blind"; because of trees, or hills, you can't see what's coming in the opposite direction until you're at the curve.

The first thing I would note is that the Eyesight field of view is relatively narrow, conical, and straight out in front. This means that objects that are to the side of your car (e.g. in the other lane) will be seen when further out but not as they come nearer.

In your scenario, Eyesight will be looking forward when you accelerate across the highway, not off to the left. So it probably won't see the car as you accelerate. Then when the other car does come around the corner and into the far field of view, it will be following a curved trajectory. Eyesight will recognize that the other car is following an arc, not a straight line across your path. It will determine that the arc will bring the other car to your left, concluding no immediate danger.

So based on my understanding, Eyesight would not hit the brakes, putting you in danger of being t-boned on the highway.