[HN Gopher] How do I open the Mercedes EQS's hood?
___________________________________________________________________
How do I open the Mercedes EQS's hood?
Author : danboarder
Score : 51 points
Date : 2022-01-04 17:20 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tiremeetsroad.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tiremeetsroad.com)
| hirundo wrote:
| Louis Rossmann just weighed in on this:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBVqUuzUWEY
|
| He says the "not permitted" is evidence of our receding risk
| tolerance.
|
| I agree. Warn me of the chance of sudden painful death, sure, and
| thanks. But to forbid me, presumably an adult, is a different
| thing. I prefer to own my own property.
| csydas wrote:
| Honestly, as much as I like the tech that Rossmann shows, the
| trappings he wraps his videos in makes it very hard to digest.
|
| I feel his arguments always miss the simple fact that he has no
| idea how much trouble not-including such restrictions actually
| cause, and he over-estimates his audiences'
| skill/underestimates his own skill, muchless over/under-
| estimating his willingness to accept responsibility compared to
| most consumers.
|
| The software I work on has a simple database we use to manage
| the configuration, and it's a CONSTANT battle with "knows
| enough to be dangerous" DBAs/IT persons to argue that we're not
| going to fix the DB after they went through and did their own
| edits to try to fix an issue and the end result was they only
| made the situation worse.
|
| The argument of "well, publish more info on the DB" falls flat
| for me as we constantly published information on which program
| versions and what specific issues the edits applied to, and our
| clients simply didn't care; our clients aren't just average
| users, they're allegedly IT professionals like anyone you might
| imagine reading HackerNews. We had cases that lasted for months
| over who was responsible for the issue when the client clearly
| admitted they just hacked the DB with a chainsaw.
|
| Rossman has some great knowledge and I absolutely do agree with
| his position on Apple making it too hard to repair their stuff.
| (Based on the most recent MacBook Pro, seems Apple also
| agreed...) But I think Rossman fails to appreciate the scale
| that many companies are dealing with and the sheer volume of
| customers who absolutely screwed up such rudimentary repairs
| and then try to blame the company for [the customer's] own
| ineptness, and how a lack of legal language to specifically
| protect the company from such behavior opens up very long and
| difficult legal and PR battles.
|
| Rossman has good knowledge, but I don't feel he's giving a good
| faith interpretation as to where such policies and ideas come
| from, and he'd be far more effective in his communication if he
| simply left his videos at the point where he demonstrated the
| simplicity of the repair without the tirade. I don't know what
| Rossman's liability policy looks like for the repairs he does,
| but I don't get the impression he takes on a lot of liability
| compared to what I've dealt with across many different
| products.
| [deleted]
| csydas wrote:
| Addendum (adding as a separate post), but I want to respond
| to this specifically:
|
| > But to forbid me, presumably an adult, is a different
| thing. I prefer to own my own property.
|
| I appreciate you accept responsibility for yourself, but
| please understand that it's a real legal argument to say
| "well, nothing specifically said I __couldn't__ do $thing, so
| I assumed it was safe to do so. I never imagined $thing could
| be so disastrous! Why didn't you include a warning?"
|
| Such matters always boil down to a fairly protracted
| argument, sometimes of the legal persuasion depending on the
| country of residence for the customer. It really is a case of
| a few bad eggs ruining the bunch.
|
| No one will stop you from hacking the car (e.g., the Mercedes
| police aren't gonna roll-up and arrest you for opening the
| hood), but for sure if they find your attempted repairs
| actually exacerbated an issue, the clause helps back that
| they tried to warn you "don't mess with this stuff it's not
| supported".
| user-the-name wrote:
| That's nonsense, though, and assumes that the dangers posed by
| an electric car are roughly the same as by an ICE car. 400 or
| 800 volts is no joke, and nothing that you find under the hood
| of an ICE car is anywhere even close to being as dangerous as
| that.
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| > an ICE car isn't anywhere close to as dangerous as an EV
|
| I fundamentally disagree with the premise that just because
| something is dangerous that the owner of said property is
| 'disallowed' from operating on it.
|
| I can own a house, and do all the electrical work myself.
| That's 120v AC for you North American households, or in rare
| situations 240v AC for certain appliances. I serviced an
| electric range just two months ago.
|
| If you understand how something works, what the requirements
| are to repair it, then you should understand the caution you
| must take when repairing those objects.
|
| I work on my own vehicle all the time. Yes, it is a gasoline
| powered vehicle. But the brakes on both an electric car and
| gas car must work. Something which is an easy repair and
| maintenance item is an object of which I know numerous
| drivers who would dare not touch, "because I don't want to
| break it". Which, is absolutely okay for those who would not
| want to work on it. But when someone who has the skills,
| knowledge, and abilities to work on a vehicle is told "no,
| you can't touch this brake because it requires a special RFID
| screwdriver to remove"
|
| That's the crux of the argument. If something so dangerous is
| refrained from the owner being enabled to even inspect or
| maintain/repair such an object, then it's likely that said
| consumer item is not for consumers, and shouldn't be sold.
| baybal2 wrote:
| A lot of springs with preload force enough to fatally injure,
| not a problem?
| floatingatoll wrote:
| For the unaware, an ICE car is an "internal combustion
| engine" car -- one that's fueled with gas.
|
| (Cross-boundary terminology issues with gas/electric
| combination engines are solved by calling those "hybrids", as
| a shorthand for "dual-engine ICE & EV hybrid" which no one
| ever says but is technically correct.)
| bserge wrote:
| hangonhn wrote:
| Agreed. I work on my own cars but they're all ICE. Once the
| car is jacked up onto jack stands, I feel pretty safe working
| on my car because there is nothing moving nor live (except
| for the 12v, which I can disconnect). I don't know if that's
| the case for EVs.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Yeah, Rossmann is kind of an idiot.
|
| An EV car has high / deadly energy in its high voltage
| side. If you are going to do hundreds of volts and hundreds
| of amps to get a heavy vehicle to 60mph in 3 seconds, you
| simply must have some pretty high potential energy ready to
| go.
|
| I'm kind of surprised they don't have warnings for folks
| like first responders as well - imagine cutting through a
| tesla - seems if you go through a HV cable you could just
| create a big problem.
| _moof wrote:
| Yeah, the "not permitted" language is bizarre. Not permitted by
| who? Is there a law? No. Did I sign a contract? Presumably also
| no, although I wouldn't be completely surprised to find out
| that dealers are getting people to sign this right away.
|
| I had the same feeling when I read that as I do when I hear
| people say "it's not _legal,_ it 's just not _il_ legal." First
| of all, this is nonsense. Things not being illegal is the
| literal definition of them begin legal. But I just don't
| understand this attitude at all. Like, do you think you need
| explicit permission to do anything? How sad is that?
|
| All that being said, I wouldn't open that hood. :)
| spoonjim wrote:
| If I can't service the vehicle then don't try to sell it to me,
| just lease it to me. I'd happily lease a non-serviceable vehicle
| as long as it had an all inclusive service contract for the lease
| duration.
| decafninja wrote:
| I suspect most luxury cars already get leased (at least in the
| US) more than bought.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| After the first owner is done leasing them <insert middle men
| here> they get sold on used car lots.
| decafninja wrote:
| Yup, at which point it is no longer the manufacturer's
| problem other than reputationally (i.e. if the car is
| extremely prone to problems after the initial 3 year
| lease/warranty period).
|
| I am of the opinion that the majority of modern cars
| produced today - especially as you go higher up the
| price/luxury spectrum - are disposable appliances designed
| for obsolescence. The base mechanical bits might continue
| to function fine, but all the fancy technology won't be so
| fancy after 5 years, and certainly not 10 years.
|
| I think Teslas actually let you upgrade the CPU on the
| infotainment system (correct me if wrong)? Plus wider
| spread and use of CarPlay/Android Auto bakes in a little
| bit of future-proofing.
| kristjansson wrote:
| An undesirable infotainment system doesn't make a car
| disposable though. As long as the intra-car systems
| function for the design life of the components, an
| uncompetitive infotainment just reduces the potential
| resale value.
|
| Component failures are definitely a concern though, and
| incidental or intentional software failures via OTA,
| since either may be unrecoverable.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Ok, so maybe there is dangerous sparky stuff that can be reached
| in there - but it just shows poor design that they weren't able
| to incorporate a frunk and/or isolate/insulate those components
| to not make opening the hood deathly dangerous.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| It doesn't really look like there's any exposed HV. I'm curious
| why they bothered to cover up the hood latch at all. I think
| there's a certain tradition wherein blokes will stand around a
| car with the hood open and poke at it, perhaps they're trying
| to discourage that.
| serf wrote:
| I mean.. I guess?
|
| Every other manufacturer in the world has hot pipes & spinning
| fans & hand-grabbing belts under the hood with little done to
| prevent personal injury and it has worked fine for decades.
|
| The EV market just wants everything to 'trend Tesla', so they
| expect a 'frunk' and for everything to be totally unlike any
| other ICE car on the road.
| ajross wrote:
| That's not right, the frunk is a very natural feature given
| the design constraints.
|
| You need at least some space in front of the console, because
| the wheel wells need to be forward of the cockpit so the
| front seat occupants have a place to put their feet.
| Traditionally you put the engine there, because it was an
| obvious empty spot. Cars that didn't generally made
| significant tradeoffs (like two seats) to accomodate a
| different engine placement.
|
| But if you've got no engine, what can go there? Not the
| battery, that works much (much) better as a flat planar thing
| at the very bottom of the frame. You can put the motor there,
| sure, but an electric motor is tiny. Add in the random
| electronics and wiper fluid and whatnot and you still have a
| ton of space.
|
| So you make it cargo. It works great. EVs that don't have a
| frunk (the ID.4, ahem) end up feeling like they're missing a
| feature.
| kfor wrote:
| And it's not just that the wheel well needs to be in front
| of the passengers, but also the front crumple zone is very
| important to passenger safety in many of the most common
| crash scenarios.
| crad wrote:
| I think of the VW Bug / Beetle when I think of frunks, is it
| mainly a Tesla thing now?
| nucleardog wrote:
| > and/or isolate/insulate those components to not make opening
| the hood deathly dangerous.
|
| But... why?
|
| From the article, there is literally nothing under there that
| is "user servicable"--everything requires the HV system be
| placed in servicing mode first: HVDC inverters/converters and
| the motors. All user-serviceable components (e.g., fluid fill)
| are located elsewhere.
|
| Basically every vehicle design process is about value
| engineering. Who wants to pay extra for a car with extra safety
| features in a compartment that they will never open, have no
| reason to open, and can't do anything with once they open it?
| tshaddox wrote:
| I mean it would be pretty funny if they let you open the hood
| and had another layer of flat steel directly under it
| covering all the non-user-serviceable bits. Just to increase
| the weight and cost slightly and allow people to uncritically
| think "at least I can open the hood."
| potatolicious wrote:
| Not to mention, even if the car was designed with a frunk,
| the high-voltage components would _still_ have to be
| serviceable somewhere - so there would still be a panel /door
| somewhere on the vehicle with a "Don't Touch" sign on it.
|
| Whether that's the hood of the car or somewhere else seems
| immaterial?
| sho_hn wrote:
| The EQS has a much larger and higher-performance HEPA air
| filter than most other cars available on the market, which is a
| standout feature in important target markets for the car (much
| more so than a frunk is standout, or lacking one for that
| matter). It's located under the front cover. It's also a hatch
| with a very sizable trunk (larger than the equivalent S-class).
| I'd say we're talking design trade-offs. :-)
|
| (Disclaimer: I work for Mercedes-Benz.)
| kehrin wrote:
| If there is no reason to open the hood, why would they waste
| time and money to design a system that makes it (more)
| accessible? Calling it a "poor design" makes it sound like it's
| inadequate, which I disagree with. I wouldn't call a car door
| "poorly designed" just because I can't take it apart without
| tools.
| Kapura wrote:
| The customer of a mercedes EQS is not losing a lot of sleep
| over missing a front trunk. their current s-class doesn't have
| one either and they somehow carry on.
| ajross wrote:
| Right, but "carrying on" is pretty much apt, to anyone who's
| driven a car with a frunk. I mean, no, it's not like it's
| going to solve world hunger or create billions in value for a
| new startup ecosystem. But a frunk really is a pretty great
| idea.
| avalys wrote:
| The frunk in my Tesla Model 3 was too shallow to use to
| store anything (because the front motor was underneath) and
| the metal on the hood was so thin it felt like I was going
| to bend it every time I shut it. Pointless.
| ajross wrote:
| Groceries? Jackets? Thanksgiving pot luck dishes you
| don't want to stink up the cabin? Muddy boots after a
| hike? Tire chains? Ice scraper?
|
| I guess everyone's different. To us it was a revelation.
| avalys wrote:
| Literally none of those would fit in the front trunk of
| my Model 3, except the ice scraper.
|
| See this pic: https://twitter.com/model3owners/status/891
| 361384658763777 and note that it is shallower up front -
| that bag is just a few inches tall and it is nearly level
| with the latch.
|
| The fact that the shape is irregular, and the hood metal
| is so thin, also increases the chance you will
| accidentally bend the hood by trying to close it on an
| object that doesn't fit.
| ajross wrote:
| Literally all of them have gone in my Y, which isn't more
| than an inch or two deeper. Honestly you're overstating
| this. If you didn't like it you didn't like it, but don't
| tell me you can't get useful stuff in there.
| avalys wrote:
| My practical experience owning a Model 3 for three years
| was the frunk was too shallow and irregularly-shaped for
| me to ever bother trying to put anything in there. Thus,
| the frunk was, in practice, useless. That is what I'm
| telling you.
|
| Yes, if you decide that you absolutely must put something
| in the frunk, you certainly can. It obviously has a non-
| zero volume. But in all circumstances I found it more
| convenient to put things in the rear trunk, the rear
| footwells, or the (super useful) storage area under the
| rear trunk floor.
|
| I thought the Model 3 was a fantastic car by the way. I
| loved it. I just thought the frunk was a useless novelty.
|
| (The frunk in my Porsche Boxster, on the other hand, is
| deep and rectangular and very useful, in part because the
| engine is in the rear).
| sho_hn wrote:
| Some cars with frunks also have issues with them being an
| additional vector for road noise to impact the cabin,
| which is already an issue in EVs due to nothing being
| masked by ICE noise. That's certainly a solvable
| engineering problem (and Tesla has made changes in
| successive generations to try and improve the situation,
| for example), but the insulation/padding required further
| impacts the usable space. In any case, the EQS likely has
| the quietest interior of any EV to date.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Y'all are on Hacker News, I think you can figure out how to
| remove a plastic cover over the hood latch if you really want to
| stare at some electronics housings. This is a lot more innocuous
| than the new habit carmakers have developed of charging
| subscriptions for basic vehicle functionality.
| Thorncorona wrote:
| It's the precedent that is set.
| sho_hn wrote:
| This isn't actually all that new: Quite a few of luxury
| automobiles have had non-serviceable engine compartments for
| many years. It's not uncommon particularly with high-end
| sports cars, where engine covers may only be removed by
| licensed technicians. Those tend to be held by special screws
| requiring non-standard tools or similar. Ironically it's
| often the engines one might want to marvel at the most.
| malwrar wrote:
| And it's why I won't buy a Ferrari.
|
| Half joking, of course, but seriously I think this sort of
| design choice just reinforces the idea that the
| manufacturer, not the buyer, owns the product. Locking the
| hood closed, the symbolic innards of your car, isnt the
| only way to build a car safely. I fear moves like this will
| just further alienate people from the tech they rely on.
| sho_hn wrote:
| I know exactly what you mean: I'm fond of pointing out
| that I probably wouldn't be a software engineer today if
| the computers I grew up with had been as locked down as
| an iPhone. It only sort-of works in a world that today
| also features a Raspberry Pi, but is not sustainable on
| its own. In my brain I refer to this as "educational
| sustainability" somehow (then again, isn't all education
| motivated by sustainability of civilization and
| culture?), but I'm sure smarter folks have discussed and
| given this a better label.
|
| That said, luxury sports cars are an oddball market with
| non-obvious concerns and economics. A lot of the limited
| production run cars these restrictions apply to are
| essentially too valuable to actually drive. They're
| collectors' items, or acquired as speculative goods that
| will increase in value. It may be that making them more
| "tamper-proof" is in a strange way in the interest of the
| buyers.
| tshaddox wrote:
| A precedent already set by my microwave.
| zepto wrote:
| What do you mean 'precedent set'? Precedent's are a legal
| concept that has no particular meaning here.
| nosianu wrote:
| The article explains how they pretty much have to do it for
| legal reasons. Similar to microwave warnings. It has nothing
| to do with keeping the rightful owner from doing what they
| want with their car. The company does not benefit, judging by
| what the article explains, apart from having the legal
| disclaimer in case somebody who has no business (because of
| lack of knowledge) touching battery or electric parts gets
| hurt.
|
| In a fuel powered vehicle touching fuel related parts at most
| gets you dirty. Even touching fuel does not hurt you.
| Electricity is different. Merely touching the wrong part can
| hurt you. Guess who would get sued if that happened and the
| company did nothing or even just not enough to prevent it.
|
| While fuel powered cars can have sharp, moving (or rotating)
| or even very hot parts, all of those can be seen or sensed.
| Electricity cannot be detected by human senses, so here too
| is more reason to prevent access.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| Which precedent do you view as being set by Mercedes here?
| There are a variety of possible interpretations, but it's
| impossible to guess without more details.
| avalys wrote:
| So, it seems like the answer here is, you open the hood exactly
| the same as you open the hood of any other vehicle, but with a
| plastic cover over the latch and some extra stickers and
| warnings?
| chris_st wrote:
| Point of comparison -- I can open the hood of my Prius, and would
| need for various fluids, but everything else is covered by a
| plastic cover that warns of the high voltage bits underneath.
| awinter-py wrote:
| > "It's an all electric car, nothing under the hood is user
| serviceable without special equipment to place the high voltage
| system into servicing mode."
|
| 'no user serviceable parts within' from rainbows end
| danboarder wrote:
| Warning from the dash Console:
|
| "Only the specialist personnel of a qualified specialist workshop
| should open the hood. Access by the customer is not permitted."
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Since when do I need permission from the manufacturer to do
| with my property as I see fit? Legally, we (in Germany) already
| have the case that opening up a device not necessarily voids
| the warranty, so I wonder why they go with that.
| kube-system wrote:
| That is the law in the US too.
|
| It's likely just a matter of persuasive messaging. They might
| not be able to void your warranty, but they might be able to
| lead you into thinking they can.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > they might be able to lead you into thinking they can.
|
| I can't help wondering if there is or should be some sort
| of law against corporations doing this. If they are trying
| to mislead you into not making use of a right which is
| legally yours, that feels a bit like fraud, or practising
| law without a licence.
|
| I'm reluctant to suggest that the government should limit
| even corporate free speech so much that companies become
| afraid to put warnings on things, and corporate lawyers
| would probably just come up with even more convoluted ways
| of phrasing things to technically comply with the law (or
| maliciously comply with it to make people hate the law),
| but perhaps some well-funded consumer body should be able
| to name and shame companies that do this.
| kube-system wrote:
| The FTC in the US has gone after companies that literally
| tell their customers that something invalidates their
| warranty, when under law, it wouldn't.
|
| But I feel like "you are not permitted" is an entirely
| different thing. It is so vague that it doesn't really
| have a clear meaning, and it leaves the reader to fill in
| the blanks.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Splitting hairs here, but Mercedes would argue that it is
| meant to signal to leasing/rental cars that the user is
| not allowed to open (based on the rental agreement) so in
| those cases at least, it is not complete missleading.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Ever since the "you need to lock out tag out a circuit to
| change a cosmetic cover plate in your own home and you're
| just asking to be killed if you don't wear arc flash gear
| while doing it" crowd grew up and became PMs capable of
| "adding value" to design decisions that didn't really need
| any thought given to them in the first place.
|
| This kind of crap is just a reflection of the affects of
| modern culture that prizes risk aversion after you filter it
| though a massive corporate bureaucracy (like Mercedes)
| voldacar wrote:
| A little off topic but I have to say that the design of this car
| is very disappointing. It looks like a formless bar of soap. If I
| glanced at it on the road I'd think it was a Toyota or something
| kube-system wrote:
| Where is washer fluid filled from?
| devrand wrote:
| There's an exterior door for it on the front fender.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Check here: https://www.motor1.com/news/501268/mercedes-eqs-
| windshield-w...
| imilk wrote:
| Its an innovative process where you deposit money from your
| bank account to a Mercedes dealership, and then a certified
| washer fluid technician ensures that premium washer fluid is
| calibrated to optimal levels.
| tshaddox wrote:
| You'd think they could do it with an over the air update by
| now.
| stcredzero wrote:
| How is that innovative, when Mercedes has been trending this
| way since the 1990's?
| joshu wrote:
| So I got to spend a few days with a not-quite-production EQS over
| the summer. It's pretty obvious from the design language that
| it's not really a hood at all. For example, it extends all the
| way down to the wheels - the front side fender does not connect
| to the body panel in front of the doors, for example.
| weswilson wrote:
| The BMW i8 is just as complicated as the EQS, if not more. It
| requires two people to open the hood without damaging it. Here's
| some technician training on opening it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxe_b2GRwok
|
| It's not only electric cars, the new Porsche 911 GT3 won't let
| you access the engine either. See here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfu07Eq6pSc&t=632s
| tschwimmer wrote:
| Wow, this was quite something. The fact that the emergency door
| latches are on the inside only raises many questions, as does
| the fact that the hood is so unwieldy. It's confusing to me
| that the hood was designed to be opened by 2 people and also
| that during "normal" operation it can easily damage the bumper.
| I realize they don't want people doing it themselves, but even
| for the mechanic this seems extremely annoying. Serviceability
| is clearly not a top value for these cars but it seems like
| it's not even considered at all.
| user982 wrote:
| _The crazy man smiled at her. "My shop project, Louise. I've had
| enough of 'no user-serviceable parts within.' Let's take a look."
| He leaned over the car's front hood and ran his finger down the
| printed words forbidding customer maintenance ... Gu sighted
| along the edge of the tray, then glanced to his right, at the
| Radner brothers. "You really don't want to be standing there."_
| -- Rainbows End
| floatingatoll wrote:
| After reading the complete article, I have no specific objection
| to this. It's the same as posting "no trespassing" on a power
| substation; it stops idle curiosity from getting someone killed,
| provides a sensible safety precaution for high-voltage equipment,
| and is trivial for any motivated person (such as mechanics and HN
| readers) to overcome with basic tools. My car's gas engine does
| not consist exclusively of deadly high-voltage equipment in it
| that can kill me dead when my car is powered off, so I think it's
| fine to apply different safety processes to consumer-targeted
| electric cars than we apply to consumer-targeted gasoline cars.
|
| I can't speak to why they chose not to provide a user-accessible
| storage area, but it certainly does simplify design and safety
| testing to _not_ have a frunk that could pop open after a latch
| failure and obstruct the windshield. (I assume the trunk can
| still store a full set of golf clubs and an overnight duffel bag
| -- it _is_ a Mercedes, after all.)
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| I feel in that case securing the hood with bolts in the grille
| or whatever would do a better job of discouraging random
| motorists from poking around there for a spare tire while still
| allowing the slightly mechanically inclined to open it and
| discover the EQS's "secret" of poor HVAC routing. Having the UI
| actively berate you about safety is both demeaning to the
| customer and toxic to repair culture as a whole.
| gruez wrote:
| like other posters have mentioned, there's a legal/liability
| component too. bolts don't prevent lawsuits, warning
| labels/messages do.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > My car's gas engine does not consist exclusively of deadly
| high-voltage equipment in it that can kill me dead when my car
| is powered off, so I think it's fine to apply different safety
| processes to consumer-targeted electric cars than we apply to
| consumer-targeted gasoline cars.
|
| Your car's gas engine, no. Your car's gas tank, however,
| absolutely can.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| I can't parse this objection. One of my failed attempts reads
| "My gasoline tank should have the same safety processes as
| electric cars", which is obviously not a valid
| interpretation. My gas tank isn't deadly for me to touch, so
| I'm quite lost if that's what you meant instead.
|
| Help me understand what you mean?
| Ansil849 wrote:
| The parallel being drawn was that gas cars do not have
| components which can kill you when they are turned off: "it
| that can kill me dead when my car is powered off,", and so
| do not require stringent safety controls. My counter was
| that gas cars absolutely do have such components.
| akira2501 wrote:
| A 12V battery can kill you or seriously harm you. The
| entire chassis of the vehicle is the return path, and can
| make a short circuit or exposed wire exceptionally
| dangerous. Working around high current paths like the
| wire from the alternator can be a special hazard.
|
| The battery can also release explosive gasses if charged
| or used improperly or if other parts of the electrical
| system are damaged. Combined with a spark and again death
| and serious injury are possible.
|
| Pulleys and belts are under tension. It's probably not as
| lethal, but it's a stored energy hazard and has hurt
| plenty of technicians.
|
| Suspension systems contain many stored energy hazards.
|
| Tires with air pressure are a stored energy hazard, even
| if they're not attached to the vehicle.
| pkulak wrote:
| I bet Mercedes also has the audacity to prohibit me from
| prodding the gas tanks of their combustion cars with a
| screwdriver.
| tragictrash wrote:
| Personally I would have liked to see the reasoning presented in
| that safety message. Something like "high voltage is present
| under the hood" or "only qualified personnel have the tools to
| safely open the hood".
|
| Same applies for your no trespassing example. I would like to
| see "no trespassing, danger high voltage"
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| This.
|
| Plenty of people think they're "smart" - and assume they know
| better than a vague warning sign: When some people see a
| "Danger confined space" sign they're going to think the
| danger is banging your head on the low-ceiling; that's not
| the real danger of confined spaces: a bigger threat is
| unbreathable gasses, like CO2, that tend to pool at the
| bottom of confined spaces: that's often the real danger. But
| yet I've never seen a sign saying "Danger: confined space:
| CO2 pooling risk" or similar.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| There's no warning sign for CO2 risk that will work for a
| non-expert. You have to go for the basics ("risk of
| suffocation and death") at that point, because no one knows
| that you can drown in CO2.
| vilhelm_s wrote:
| Isn't that kindof what the list of warnings below the message
| provides? I think you can click on them to expand them, and
| based on what's in the owner's manual I expect one of the
| warnings is about "components under voltage".
| boznz wrote:
| I dont have any issues with this. Modern petrol and diesel
| engines should be serviced every 100-300 hours depending upon how
| they are driven but Brushless Electric motors have no such
| requirement and can run for many thousands of hours, the failure
| point on most electric motors are the controllers and bearings if
| in inhospitable environments. A well designed EV coolant systems
| can work without servicing for the life of a vehicle
| h2odragon wrote:
| > "there's no gas struts or prop, so something has to be jammed
| in there to prop the hood up."
|
| I bet if you bitch at the dealer hard enough they'll include a
| bit of 2x4 when you buy the car.
|
| They're going for the cellphone model of ownership. Pay large for
| the thing, pay monthly to keep it working, and when it breaks:
| fuck you, buy another.
|
| I know some folks still puttering along with their 80s Mercedes
| diesels pushing for or past the million mile mark. Don't think
| that kind of thing will happen again, not from this company
| anyway.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> They're going for the cellphone model of ownership. Pay
| large for the thing,
|
| Except this isn't the cell phone model. That would be "zero
| down; only $xxx per month on a two year contract, then get a
| new one." Being a car it can probably go 5 years.
|
| >> I bet if you bitch at the dealer hard enough they'll include
| a bit of 2x4 when you buy the car.
|
| Where will you store it though?
| chris_st wrote:
| > _" zero down; only $xxx per month on a two year contract,
| then get a new one."_
|
| Volvo did exactly this for one of their small SUVs (an inch
| or so shorter than my Prius, but a couple inches taller,
| about the same width). It was $600 a month, which included
| insurance (!) and at least maintenance. Don't know what
| happened with that experiment. I believe you had to commit to
| at least one year.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > Being a car it can probably go 5 years.
|
| That's a pathetic lifespan for such a large capital
| investment.
| decafninja wrote:
| That's almost exactly the model it will be for most people
| getting cars like this - AKA leasing.
|
| Pay zero down*. $XXXX (certainly 4 digits for a car like
| this) per month for 36-39 months. Return it and lease another
| one.
|
| I suspect most luxury cars (and many non-luxury ones too)
| these days are leased like this, at least in the US.
|
| *or at most, taxes & fees, if even that.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I imagine they're not propping it up with a piece of wood in a
| service center. Hard to tell from the video, but it's possible
| that it has some kind of a service position like older
| Mercedes-Benzes (it's been around since at least the 80s from
| what I know).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-B-NCYnRJE
|
| https://youtu.be/c8z2_e1OCbI?t=120
| markvdb wrote:
| I see this, and it makes me think of an idea that has spooked my
| mind again and again...
|
| Please allow me to for for one moment ignore all shortcomings of
| the USSR and its products. I do realise that for some of you,
| this must be quite a stretch.
|
| USSR products often breathed a design language much closer to
| modularity, maintainability and repairability.
|
| I would love to see an affordable, simple, modular, maintainable,
| repairable electric car. One can dream...
| coolspot wrote:
| > USSR products often breathed a design language much closer to
| modularity, maintainability and repairability.
|
| I think it's just any old products are less intricate thus more
| repairable.
|
| E.g. Nokia phones are more repairable than iPhones. Older
| laptops are more repairable/upgradable than say latest XPS or a
| MacBook where everything is soldered on. 195x Ford Mustang is
| more repairable than a new one full of electronics.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| The reason they were repairable and maintainable was because
| they shit products and were nightmarishly unreliable. One could
| not simply own a car and drive it, you had to be an amateur
| mechanic to be able to drive one. And let's not forget that
| they were also very very expensive and few could afford.
| robomartin wrote:
| > I would love to see an affordable, simple, modular,
| maintainable, repairable electric car. One can dream...
|
| I applaud the dream, of course. As someone mentioned, pretty
| much all older vehicles were infinitely more repairable than
| current designs, so, no USSR tech required. For the first ten
| or twelve years of my driving history I bought used cars with
| at least 80K miles (128 K km) in the odometer. This means I
| spent my weekends and some evenings under the hood or under the
| car. This is to say, I get it.
|
| The problem with electrics is that they are very far from
| "grease monkey" territory. When one starts dealing with high
| voltages and high current discharge capability, one very
| quickly leaves the domain of what the average person can and
| should be able to touch. In fact, lots of EE's lack the
| experience to safely deal with such devices.
|
| The good news is that they are much simpler (in the sense of
| the modules that make-up a vehicle) than the internal
| combustion version. First order repairs should take the form of
| changing modules. The factory can then deal with component
| level repair (think: motor controller).
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| I don't buy the "it's too dangerous because of high voltage"
| argument. Ice cars have literally a bomb chamber within along
| with an assortment of fans and belts and hot liquids that will
| burn and maim you if you don't know what you're doing. But
| regular users have survived for a century with cars.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| You can feel burning stuff from a distance using your regular
| caveman-era human hardware. Not necessarily high voltage
| electricity.
| rsynnott wrote:
| It would be quite hard to kill yourself with an internal
| combustion engine. I mean... it's probably possible (somehow
| spray yourself with petrol, and then ignite it?) but it
| wouldn't be at all likely. The same can't really be said of
| electric car guts.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Working on an EV with the batteries connected is like working
| on the fuel system of an internal combustion engine with a
| lighter for illumination. You've got the massive pile of
| potential energy _and_ the means to release it at your literal
| fingertips
| mikestew wrote:
| _But regular users have survived for a century with cars._
|
| Most of them have, yes. But if you think the comparison apt,
| Mercedes doesn't want you opening the hood for probably good
| reason.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Still nowhere near as dangerous as high voltage, especially
| given that an ICE has a very clear "engine is now on and angry"
| state, which doesn't exist in the same way for an electric car.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Most service techs turn off the car (ICE) before working on it.
| So it's usually very clear if your hand can be caught by a fan
| belt or not (and not deadly if it is). When turned off and 12v
| battery disconnected, a car is pretty darn safe.
|
| Are you sure you can sense high voltage / high amperage as
| well?
| pengaru wrote:
| This is giving me a distinct feeling of dejavu; didn't VW do
| something in this vein decades ago on the New Beetle when it came
| out?
|
| ISTR people being up in arms about the engine cover being labeled
| with something along the lines of warranty void if removed by
| unauthorized service personnel.
|
| It was especially memorable at the time because us Libre software
| folks used to use the analogy "you wouldn't buy a car with the
| hood welded shut" to try explain the difference between open and
| closed software to non-tech folks in the 90s. Then in 1998 VW
| shipped a car very much in the spirit of welding the hood shut.
|
| Am I going senile?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-04 23:01 UTC)