[HN Gopher] You don't ever own an electric vehicle
___________________________________________________________________
You don't ever own an electric vehicle
Author : serverlessmom
Score : 209 points
Date : 2022-03-11 08:44 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reviewgeek.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reviewgeek.com)
| fuzzieozzie wrote:
| I have driven (dare I say owned) a Chevy Bolt for over 4 years. I
| have changed the tires and added windshield fluid. (they replaced
| the battery on recall - I had no problems).
|
| Updates were not necessary.
|
| If you want to understand and be able to modify everything about
| your transportation then ride a bicycle (not electric of course!)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Modern bikes are surprisingly hard to work on. More and more
| complex systems such as hydraulic disc brakes, electronically
| actuated gear changers and so on. Bike mechanics - especially
| for e-bikes - routinely use computers for diagnostic purposes.
| A typical e-bike has 5 to 10 CPUs in it.
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| True, but one important caveat: modern _road and e_ bikes are
| hard to work on. Some hybrids, too, though hydraulics aren't
| crazy to maintain yourself.
|
| There are manufacturers out there, like Surly and Rivendell,
| who still make bikes that are easy to maintain yourself.
| Touring bikes are usually a good bet. Mountain bikes and
| gravel bikes from 5 years ago, too, but top-of-the line
| models used for competitions in both sports are increasingly
| moving toward tomfoolery like electronic shifters.
| jacquesm wrote:
| As far as I'm concerned they're totally useless, finicky,
| easy to break, vulnerable cabling, need to be charged. An
| indexed cable switcher is ultra reliable and just as
| precise (assuming you adjust the cable once every year or
| so if used heavily).
| nosianu wrote:
| This is less about the user but about 3rd party "out of
| network" repair shops. The manufacturer's control over
| everything increases. It used to be that you could take your
| _device_ to anywhere, now it 's all about "in-network". It's a
| general trend.
|
| Personally, I think the system was much more "capitalistic" and
| a lot less limiting when you just needed general tools and
| knowledge to repair stuff in an entire category (cars,
| electrical household machines, etc.). I'd really like to see
| where this is going to end up a hundred years from now. I don't
| think all the long-term implications of this trend are really
| clear at this point yet. A more complex society may have to
| live with less freedom for individuals and compensate
| elsewhere. Even if at least some of current complexity is
| purposefully made for the purpose to create artificial
| restrictions, there may also be benefits that I'm unable to see
| from my low vantage point. Maybe in the future it offers
| manufacturers options to create really useful value on top of
| such restrictions, I don't know yet.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I had a Bolt (Have since sold it) but you could literally pull
| the OnStar fuse and turn it into a dumb car in about 2 minutes.
| Solved that problem.
| grey_earthling wrote:
| A car isn't the only type of vehicle. You can own an electric
| bike, which is an electric vehicle.
|
| If you see "vehicle" and automatically think "car", consider why
| that might be.
| danuker wrote:
| Relevant: YouTube channels "Not Just Bikes" and "City
| Beautiful"
| bambax wrote:
| Yes! Also, you can make your own ebike from a regular bike, a
| motor and a battery, and that gives you maximum freedom. It's
| also cheaper.
| [deleted]
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| That's worth pointing out, but sometimes you really do need a
| car. There's no way I'd be commuting to my office every day on
| a bike or by bus - the former thanks to the weather conditions,
| and the latter because of how much time is wasted in the
| traffic.
| grey_earthling wrote:
| Yeah, I agree that bikes and public transport can't meet
| everyone's needs right now.
|
| I'd also point out that the traffic holding up your bus is
| mostly cars :) so if enough people can be persuaded to shift
| to the denser form of transport (buses), those buses would
| waste less time in traffic -- and so would the fewer people
| using cars out of necessity, and emergency services and so
| on.
| righttoolforjob wrote:
| It's because when someone means bike, they say bike.
| hadlock wrote:
| Electric repower of classic cars is a thing. VW Beetles and
| Mustangs are popular targets. I've also seen everything from a
| 2CV to a Jaguar MK IV.
|
| It's just a charger, an inverter, battery, and drive unit
| (motor). Apparently the electric brake assist off the prius is
| plug and play due to how failover mode works when disconnected
| from a main computer. I suspect a lot of older cars will end up
| repowered by an electric motor simply because people love the
| car, not the engine, nor the endless tinkering to keep it running
| acceptably, and all the oil and grease involved.
| rvz wrote:
| exabrial wrote:
| Which is why I won't be buying one either until this changes.
| Manufacturers are choosing post-sale control instead of
| prioritizing clean air.
| amelius wrote:
| Judging from how this evolved for SmartTVs, you won't be able
| to buy a car anytime starting in the near future.
| zardo wrote:
| Judging from SmartTVs, if you buy a car with a Samsung radio
| you won't be able to change the volume without reinstalling
| the audio drivers five times a week.
| mikestew wrote:
| Man, what a crap article. I'd even go as far as to use the word
| "clickbait" because of the unnecessary use of the word
| "electric", because little of the article is specific to electric
| vehicles. But let's dig into a few highlights...
|
| _Cars now use an ETC (electronic throttle control) managed by a
| computer, as is just about everything else on engines these days.
| Naturally, this makes vehicles more difficult to repair..._
|
| Citation needed. Might be more expensive, but swapping out the
| broken module the OBD reader told you to swap is probably not
| going to be _that_ hard. The actual module is probably under the
| dash near the pedal, but that 's probably the extent of the
| difficulty. And that's assuming that you ever need to replace it.
| You'll probably sell the car first. Throttle cables, OTOH...
|
| _As technology in our cars continues to advance, repairability
| and maintenance are becoming a real issue. Just ask any old-
| school mechanic_
|
| No, _you_ go ask any old-school mechanic, because _this_ old-
| school mechanic who quit professionally turning wrenches in the
| '90s sez "hurray!" to our electronically-controlled low-
| maintenance overlords. Because I'd rather not spend another
| evening replacing a set of ignition points so that I can get to
| work in the morning. We drive our vehicles until the wheels fall
| off, but for those that lease a vehicle for three years, my guess
| is you're not doing jack maintenance-wise before the lease is up
| (you will have to change oil on an ICE).
|
| _What happens when your fancy electric vehicle stops getting
| software updates._
|
| Ooooooh, scary question! It'll be just like TFA's phone example:
| hackers will hack my car!!11! No, wait...I know the answer to
| this one because our Nissan Leaf quit getting updates when the 3G
| was shut off, and I've not taken it back to the dealer in several
| years. And the answer is...nothing happens. I mean, what's the
| assumed answer to what the author must think to be a rhetorical
| question?
| jjav wrote:
| > Might be more expensive, but swapping out the broken module
| the OBD reader told you to swap is probably not going to be
| that hard.
|
| Where are you going to get that replacement module (which is
| entirely proprietary) after the dealer is no longer selling
| them?
|
| When the throttle cable on my 1950s car snaps I can simply get
| a new cable from a thousand places. A cable is a cable.
|
| A hundred years from now, I confidently bet that there will be
| a lot more still-running cars from the 1950s-1990s than any
| newer ones because the newer ones become quickly impossible to
| fix as soon as the factory and dealer stop carrying those
| model-specific propietary parts.
| julianlam wrote:
| > No, wait...I know the answer to this one because our Nissan
| Leaf quit getting updates when the 3G was shut off, and I've
| not taken it back to the dealer in several years. And the
| answer is...nothing happens.
|
| With your specific example, nothing happened, which is the best
| case scenario, yes?
|
| The problem is the potential for inconvenience and disaster is
| there. I do not look forward to the day when my auto
| manufacturer forgets to renew a domain name and all of a sudden
| every single car by that maker cannot start its engine because
| it can't connect to HQ.
|
| It's a contrived example, sure, but it's not out of the realm
| of possibility.
| hoosieree wrote:
| I'm more worried about pressing the accelerator and getting an
| error message pop-up like "it looks like you're using an ad
| blocker..."
| fhood wrote:
| That can theoretically already happen, has nothing to do with
| whether a car is electric, and we already deal with something
| kind of similar known as "limp home mode"
| julianlam wrote:
| Please drink verification can...
| tinco wrote:
| "Tesla limits driving range through software then sell the
| vehicle at a lower price"
|
| The battery is the most expensive part in the car, no way
| manufacturers would put them in and not expose them through
| software just to sell at a lower price point. That's just not how
| the world works.
|
| Tesla, as well as every other long term lithium battery producer
| limits the amount you can use to protect the longetivity of the
| battery. Their company wouldn't do so well if after 3 years
| reports of severely degraded batteries started coming out.
|
| It still supports the article's point, but it's a lot less
| malicious. You don't get to decide how much to drain your battery
| because Tesla has a reputation to maintain.
| objclxt wrote:
| > The battery is the most expensive part in the car, no way
| manufacturers would put them in and not expose them through
| software just to sell at a lower price point. That's just not
| how the world works.
|
| That is literally what Tesla did in Canada:
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/40153/heres-why-tesla-still-se...
| rpmisms wrote:
| That's essentially a show model, made to fulfill a stupid
| government funding mandate. It ends up being better for the
| customer in the end.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| This isn't about discharging the battery "under 0%" or charging
| it "over 100%", as car batteries _already_ only go between 25%
| and 85% effective charge, this is about _forcibly_ keeping them
| what should be between 35% and 75% (for the "60" => "40" kWh
| models)
|
| https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-808-how-to-prolong-...
|
| And while this _does_ have _some_ extra benefit in terms of
| battery lifetime, it 's fucked up that you wouldn't be able to
| choose the % charge on batteries that you supposedly own.
| bipson wrote:
| This is not limited to EVs - several "old school" manufacturers
| have not only put uplinks in their cars ( _obviously_ just so
| that the user can do fancy things remotely /s), but also
| introduced rental options, pay-as-you-go extras (BMW had a "pay
| 5k, get a few extra kW for a weekend"-thing once, don't know if
| it still exists).
|
| Skoda at least (I expect all of the newer VWs, Audis, Seats, ...)
| use the built in mobile uplink to gather _massive_ amounts of
| data about usage, e.g. how often the car is "pushed hard", or
| driven dangerously. Nobody knows exactly how they will use that,
| maybe to limit guarantees? - but if the cars is yours and yours
| only, this shouldn't matter, right? It shouldn't happen in the
| first place. Well, not anymore I guess.
|
| The manufacturers will not limit these possibilities to a certain
| drive-train technology - why should they? It is also not limited
| to "newer companies", all of them will do it. Further, if the
| customer likes these models, the manufacturers (and increasingly
| more of them) will expand their offering.
|
| Heck, the majority of cars on the street where I live are not
| legally owned anyway, they are all leased and people like that _a
| lot_.
| [deleted]
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> use the built in mobile uplink to gather massive amounts of
| data about usage, e.g. how often the car is "pushed hard", or
| driven dangerously. Nobody knows exactly how they will use
| that, maybe to limit guarantees? - but if the cars is yours and
| yours only, this shouldn't matter, right?_
|
| Why wouldn't it matter? About 10 years ago, a friend bought a
| brand new VW Polo and after 2000km ended up with warped brake
| discs. When he went to the VW dealer to have them replaced
| under warranty, the dealer refused, claiming that the warrant
| only covers stuff like engine and bodywork and not consumable
| parts like brake discs, and also that brake discs should not
| warp under normal usage, which is one of the conditions of the
| warranty to be valid, and since they are warped, the dealer
| claimed that the owner mush have been driving his car outside
| of the normal usage specs the car is rated for and under which
| the warranty applies. I guess that telemetry will help
| manufacturers validate or invalidate warranty claims.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > warrant only covers stuff like engine and bodywork and not
| consumable parts like brake discs
|
| You could have stopped there. After this point, there's
| really no more to be said.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> After this point, there's really no more to be said._
|
| Really? Because if I buy a brand new car and end up with
| warped brake discs after just 2000km, and the dealer
| refuses to fix it under warranty, I will raise hell
| regardless of what technicality the dealer/manufacturer
| will uses to justify not fixing it.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| You're certainly free to do so, but at that point you're
| really arguing about what should and should not be
| covered. Wear items like brake discs and windshield
| wipers generally aren't.
| Rumudiez wrote:
| Brake rotors often outlive the car they're in. There's no
| reason not to assume this was due to faulty
| manufacturing. It's not normal wear and tear, nor
| something that "just happens" even under high performance
| track driving.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| > Brake rotors often outlive the car they're in....[not]
| something that "just happens" even under high performance
| track driving.
|
| That's laughable. I have to replace rotors on a semi-
| regular basis. It's absolutely normal if you drive your
| car hard even on the street.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| He might have a point though. I remember the Nissan
| service writer telling me that if I went somewhere other
| than the dealership to get my brakes done, not to let
| them talk me into getting new rotors without seeing the
| measurement. Apparently Nissan OEM rotors are fairly
| thick and have plenty of "margin" before they get down to
| the wear limit.
|
| He turned out to be right: I only recently replaced the
| rotors at 150,000 miles whereas at 100,000 miles, my
| Saturn and Ford had already had at least one rotor
| replacement. Since a lot of people will get a new car
| before the old one hits 100k, they may think of rotors as
| something that never needs replacing.
|
| OTOH: those Nissan rotors were an absolute bitch to get
| off by that point. I was wearing hearing protection while
| wailing away at them with a 5lb hammer for at least 10
| minutes each before they came loose.
| jjav wrote:
| I've never seen and would never expect a brake rotor to
| outlive the car! A brake rotor is a regular wear item,
| you'll replace it many times over the life of a car.
|
| That said, ruined in 2000km is ridiculous, certainly a
| manufacturing defect.
| sideshowb wrote:
| It's a matter of proportion. One does not expect brake
| disks to wear after 2,000km, that's plain defective. If
| it were 50,000km I'd agree that's more reasonable for a
| wear item.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The issue wasn't that the discs were worn down after
| 2000km it was that they were "warped".
|
| Warping is generally caused not by the rotor
| warping/bending so much as uneven wear or brake material
| deposits. This most frequently happens because the system
| is driven beyond design limits and overheated to the
| point that the pad material bonds with the rotor. It is
| also possible that this is a factory related issue and
| not overheating, but presumably this would have been
| noted on the test drive, and not after 2,000 km of gas.
|
| If I'm the dealer, I ask myself which is more likely: 1.
| that my delivery inspection mechanic and the customer
| failed to notice a braking system issue at the time of
| sale, or 2. that a customer with a new car took it out
| and pushed it to the limits?
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I completely get that under normal operation brake disks
| should not be unusable after 2,000km. My point is simply
| that it's not expected to be a warranty item, so don't be
| surprised if the dealer hides behind that.
| cyberge99 wrote:
| Who gets to see the telemetry?
| oliwarner wrote:
| Data about how _I_ drive _my_ car?
|
| _Laughs in GDPR_
| Nextgrid wrote:
| GDPR might have some teeth if it was actually seriously
| enforced. That's yet to be the case.
| oliwarner wrote:
| https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
|
| Sorry, is several million Euros in fines _this year_ , a
| billion over its lifetime not toothy enough for you?
| They're going after big players, tiny companies, even
| individuals.
|
| From personal experience, getting access to data about me
| is usually fast, demanding they delete it appears to
| work, and my own complaints to the national regulatory
| body have resulted in me getting my own way.
|
| GDPR is great.
| stavros wrote:
| I love that I might just be able to withdraw consent on
| my new car, instead of fishing around in the engine block
| to cut the antenna. Then again, I'm probably going to
| anyway, for good measure.
| tapoxi wrote:
| In Massachusetts, access to this telemetry by local repair
| shops is required by our new right-to-repair law. Some
| manufactures have made a fuss, but hopefully other states
| follow.
| Arrath wrote:
| > I guess that telemetry will help manufacturers validate or
| invalidate warranty claims.
|
| I have a feeling this will be one of those one-sided
| advantages, the manufacturer will review the telemetry and
| only use the data if it assists them in denying a warranty
| claim.
| philistine wrote:
| > Heck, the majority of cars on the street where I live are not
| legally owned anyway, they are all leased and people like that
| a lot.
|
| It's not the cars that are becoming less car-person centric
| that's the root of the so-called problem. It's the people
| themselves that are becoming less car-centric. As we continue
| to have more and more people in cities (growth outside large
| cities is basically nil) we need cars less and less. That means
| ultimately that we care very little about cars. We lease them
| to get rid of them as soon as possible, we want the least
| amount of trouble versus the easiest trouble to fix, etc.
|
| It's not the cars, it's the people.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| In the 2006 sci-fi novel Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge, a back-
| from-the-almost-dead engineer character has a temper tantrum when
| they discover all the electronics, up to and including the cars
| outside, have a "No User Serviceable Parts Inside" cover over
| everything.
|
| The book was prescient in many ways.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| This isn't limited to EV's.
|
| I drive a 20 year old car, my local government is pushing for me
| to buy a newer one "cos emissions". Which is ridiculous - I drive
| it infrequently enough that the cost of just making the body of a
| new car and nothing else would outweigh the savings.
|
| The endgame seems to basically be that I move out of the city,
| which would be a massive own goal emissions/energy wise because
| it's far more costly for me to bop around on my own land miles
| away from services than it is for me to use my car once or twice
| a week whilst taking public transport most of the time. Perfect
| is the enemy of the good.
| snarf21 wrote:
| This isn't about you specifically. They want old cars to get
| scrapped so the average emissions goes down even further even
| quicker. They won't want your car to end up in the hands of
| someone who will drive it _A LOT_. Each EV sold is one less ICE
| sold. The goal is a market of lower emission used cars.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Except my car only has about another 5-10T of CO2 in it
| before everything fails anyway. This makes no sense, the
| current set of EV's aren't built to last much longer than ICE
| cars do.
| outworlder wrote:
| They will definitely outlast ICE vehicles - except for the
| battery. We need a better story on that.
| aliher1911 wrote:
| When people say electric car will outlast ICE what do
| they mean exactly? I'm driving 10 y.o. Honda and with my
| usage I think rubber and plastic trims will fall apart
| and the body would rust much sooner than its engine or
| gearbox will fail. All the parts like upholstery,
| suspension wear as much on electric as on ICE I would
| think. No one replaces those parts, does it mean you'll
| be driving your electric car till your sit falls through
| the rusted floor but the engine still runs smooth?
| AngryData wrote:
| In the rust belt I find that doubtful, bodies and
| suspension will rot out before a properly maintained ICE
| fails. That might be different in dry areas though.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| This isn't limited to cars either, but rather many "green"
| purchases in general. I remember one of my professors in an
| environmental studies course talking about people replacing all
| the CFL bulbs in their home with LED ones when they came out,
| citing energy efficiency reasons. However, if you look at the
| manufacturing process of the LED bulbs and the disposal of the
| CFLs, the resulting environmental cost is greater than the
| power savings attributed to the LEDs (embodied
| energy/emissions). Obviously Marketing will downplay this
| impact as they want people to buy the new bulbs and feel good
| about helping the planet.
|
| The same goes for buying items made of recycled materials, a
| more power-efficient computer, and so forth. That's great - if
| you actually need the new item. If you are getting the
| replacement solely for environmental reasons you have to
| consider the impact of producing the new item and disposing of
| the old one before making that call.
| robocat wrote:
| > LED bulbs and the disposal of the CFLs, the resulting
| environmental cost is greater than the power savings
|
| The CFD manufacture and disposal cost are sunken costs - you
| shouldn't include those in most calculations.
|
| Counter-intuitively for high use situations, the longer the
| CFD has left to live the more obvious it is to change it
| sooner to save $ and the environment.
|
| Assuming 1 cost in dollars is proportional to environmental
| cost (edit: for both electricity and LED bulb), 2 electricity
| costs $0.10 per kWh, 3 LED bulbs live as long as CFD bulbs, 4
| LED bulb uses 7W whereas CFD uses 14W for the same lumen
| output, then if CFD has 5000 hours left, you can save $3.50
| of electricity. If cost of LED is reasonably less than $3.50,
| it is obvious it makes sense to replace CFD with LED.
|
| If the bulb would never need to be replaced (examples: very
| low usage; you are moving out soon; or house is going to be
| demolished before bulb is replaced) then it may make sense to
| leave a CFD in place.
|
| The price of the LED is an investment with a payback period,
| so if you can't afford it or you have better returns for that
| investment elsewhere then you shouldn't replace the CFD.
|
| If your electricity comes from your own renewables, then the
| calculation is different again. Although note that in most
| countries nearly 100% of your reduced electricity usage will
| result in a nearly 100% reduction in non-renewables like gas
| or coal (even if your country is say 80% renewables).
| _Marginal_ generation and usage matters.
|
| If you can find a better source than your professor, I would
| be interested.
| Spivak wrote:
| > The CFD manufacture and disposal cost are sunken costs
|
| Yes but the manufacture and disposal of the LED aren't yet.
| The calculation you want is whether running the inefficient
| CFL ends up being better than the energy used in the whole
| supply chain of manufacturing and shipping the LED bulb.
|
| Switching means spending led_rate + 2 supply_chain costs
| while keeping your old bulbs means cfl_rate + 1
| supply_chain. I'd put money that the latter being better
| for the environment.
|
| Edit: To the person who downvoted me but didn't reply do
| tell how _literally throwing away_ a 10W CFL and replacing
| it with a 6W LED is better for the environment than just
| using the CFL until it breaks and then buying an LED.
| robocat wrote:
| When environmental savings due to using less electricity
| exceed the environmental cost of a new bulb, it is better
| to use a new bulb (with caveats). I carefully explained
| that literally.
|
| I didn't downvote you (can't downvote replies). I
| generally downvote people who comment about downvotes
| (even edits), since it is against HN guidelines. If you
| get downvotes, the value is in wondering to yourself:
| why. Not that the person who originally downvoted you is
| unlikely to reread your comment.
|
| I deserve downvotes for this comment for mentioning
| downvoting, and perhaps because I went off-topic.
|
| Edit: also IMHO worrying excessively about karma makes
| for unhealthy conversations.
| yardie wrote:
| Most CFL bulbs for the home were total garbage. The colors
| were limited and the light was harsh. CFLs in the E26 bulb
| format ran too hot and the bulb electronic ballasts either
| smoked out or occasionally caught on fire. My country,
| France, banned incandescent bulbs early on. The CFL
| replacements were poor. The LED replacements that followed
| were significantly better.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I drive it infrequently enough that the cost of just making
| the body of a new car and nothing else would outweigh the
| savings.
|
| Even trashing your working ICE car to buy an EV is a net
| negative if your car is still running fine. Unless you drive a
| _lot_, the least polluting car you can get is the one you
| already have. And that's not even talking about the energy
| sources used to produce the energy to charge the EV....
|
| What we're witnessing is the last creation of capitalism, aka
| "green capitalism", but it's still about mindlessly consuming,
| you just get to feel good about it regardless of the reality.
|
| > For example, a typical medium sized family car will create
| around 24 tonnes of CO2 during its life cycle, while an
| electric vehicle (EV) will produce around 18 tonnes over its
| life. For a battery EV, 46% of its total carbon footprint is
| generated at the factory, before it has travelled a single
| mile.
|
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
|
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Right.
|
| My car has 100g/km CO2 emissions. I'd need to drive 10000km
| or 6500mi to emit a ton of carbon.
|
| But that's like, loads. I use the car for occasional 10-20
| mile drives to DIY stores or whatever. I'd need to do that
| every day for a year to even get close to 1t.
|
| For a new car we're talking 10x that, at minimum.
| fomine3 wrote:
| That's why tax should be done for fuel.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| In the UK it is, we pay something like $8-9 per US
| gallon.
| tom_ wrote:
| $7.60/US gallon, assuming PS1.539/L (price this afternoon
| for ordinary petrol at the petrol station I usually go
| to).
| ok_dad wrote:
| You are correct, but to go further, tax and import tariff
| should be added for any carbon energy source or the
| products made with those sources. If you tax the source,
| then that raises carbon energy generation prices, which
| raise the usage of carbon energy, which raises the price
| of the things that use that energy. Then you can truly
| see the costs of things that are made with that energy.
| Maybe then we'll have more competitive nuclear power or
| whatever else we can come up with that doesn't use carbon
| fuel sources. The hard part is ensuring the tax or tariff
| is bulletproof without loopholes and stuff. Good luck
| with that.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| > Even trashing your working ICE car to buy an EV is a net
| negative
|
| For CO2 absolutely, but for local air quality it makes sense
| for us all to run out and buy EVs as quickly as possible.
|
| At least in London, air pollution has been a major concern
| for some time now.
| djrogers wrote:
| > Even trashing your working ICE car to buy an EV is a net
| negative
|
| Is anyone really advocating for 'trashing' working vehicles?
| I thought we proved how dumb that was back in '08...
| cduzz wrote:
| It's been my experience that the a car's last small
| fraction life, much like a person's, are much worse than
| the preceding by a huge margin.
|
| Seals fail, emissions management devices wear out, fluids
| start to leak, it's terrible. Constant repairs with
| uncertain outcome. It's worse for cars.
|
| There's always a scenario where an old car is a perfectly
| fine alternative, but there are lots of situations where
| the older car is less safe and emits substantially more
| than a newer alternative.
|
| "Cash 4 Clunkers" was a disgrace, but mobility and ease of
| access to transportation are a public good and a utility
| that should be easily available to all, not just those
| people who can afford a newer car or people who've got a
| low mileage volvo 240 in the garage for when they want to
| go camping.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That last point is a large part of what made C4C such a
| disgrace. Working cars being destroyed as part of that
| program rather than being sold into the used market (as
| would have otherwise happened) served to harm the lower
| purchase price end of the overall car market (combined
| new and used).
| aaron_m04 wrote:
| I know I am playing Devil's Advocate here, but what about the guy
| who was mining crypto on his Tesla? That was definitely not a
| Tesla-approved change.
| epgui wrote:
| The article tries to make this about EVs, but really this seems
| to be more about modern cars in general.
| avel wrote:
| Just because most of the EVs are software heavy, it doesn't
| mean that all of them are.
|
| The upcoming Dacia Spring EV is a perfect counter-example.
| chme wrote:
| Even more general, consumer electronic products.
|
| Companies feel the need to not just earn money when they sell
| their product, but earn to even more over its whole lifetime.
| This refocuses their goal into providing products that
| regularly need some attention, which only they can provide,
| instead of creating the best product they can before it is
| sold, and let the customer and third-parties maintain it if
| necessary.
| elihu wrote:
| It's especially problematic for cars to be consumer
| electronics products, because the lifetime of a car can
| easily be twenty or thirty years. That's not the expectation
| for most consumer electronics devices.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Which itself is kind of a problem, especially now that
| Moore's law has slowed down...
| chme wrote:
| Well... they would love to sell you an new one every couple
| of years!
| rob74 wrote:
| Exactly! The problem of "not being able to repair your car by
| yourself anymore" is already years old and worsened gradually
| over time. Ok, with "older" (non-Tesla) cars you don't have OTA
| updates, but you still have lots of electronics for which you
| need a specialized repair shop. In fact, I would be glad to
| receive free updates for my 5-year-old Ford Focus. Instead, I
| have to live with 5 year old maps on the built-in GPS, or go to
| a dealer and pay $$$ to have them updated.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| You can update yourself, go to eBay, search Ford Sync 3
| update, should cost about $40.
| xscott wrote:
| They won't update your maps. They'll just put advertisements
| that you're forced to watch at loud volume before the car
| will permit you to start it.
| dmix wrote:
| There was a snippy saying from a book I read that stuck in my
| head:
|
| If it flies, fucks, or floats: rent it.
|
| This was in a story about never buying a boat because it's a
| giant money pit for maintenance. I'd imagine it would include
| cars if that was possible, which is finally becoming a reality.
|
| I believe renting should be the default and ownership is the
| alternative for people who need it (like pickup trucks for work
| and maybe commuters).
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| My wife is an asset, not a liability or an expense.
|
| For the rest, it depends on how much you're going to use it. A
| boat or a plane (or an RV), you're likely to use less than you
| project you will at the time you're thinking of buying one, so
| it's easy to get suckered into buying something that you won't
| use enough to justify owning. But you probably know fairly
| accurately how much you use a car, unless you just made a
| significant lifestyle change.
|
| And I suspect that most people who own cars use them much more
| heavily than you suspect when you say that renting should be
| the default.
| AngeloAnolin wrote:
| One overlooked aspect of vehicle ownership is that these
| manufacturers / dealerships have adopted a mindset similar to
| subscription based models where the predictability of finances is
| well established.
|
| At some point, I think there will be a greater demand for right-
| to-repair form of ownership where you can fix (by yourself) or
| bring your vehicle to another company which will have some
| knowledge in how to resolve your vehicle's issue.
|
| Author makes a nice point though about future of EVs where
| convenience of renting or on demand lease of vehicles become the
| norm.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| From an environmental problem there is an interesting perspective
| on lending appliances.
|
| Let's look at washing machines: (or any other appliance) If you
| buy a washing machine there is limited incentive for the
| manufacturer to make it repairable or easy to dismantle and
| recycle the parts. Also for the owners there are incentives to
| run it as long as they can, while new, resource (energy, water,
| ...) efficient replacements will come out.
|
| If you turn this around and make it a rental system where you buy
| 1000 runs or so the producer for one is incentived to make sure
| they have as little service cases as possible, so the machine has
| to be robust enough for that. And then when taking it back they
| have an interest to recycle the parts as good as they can since
| it's suddenly their problem and people get new or refurbished
| machines regularly which reduces resource usage.
|
| Switching to such a model ain't easy, but interesting to me
| nonetheless.
| bipson wrote:
| Hm, I think this reasoning is not always true.
|
| The manufacturer could make a cost/benefit-analysis, concluding
| that building a machine that lasts approx. these 1000 runs but
| no longer, and paying for recycling afterwards is cheaper than
| building something that lasts and is recyclable.
|
| Also, replacing it every ~200 cycles with just another cheaply
| built throwaway-machine could also become a viable business
| model. Why should the manufacturer care, if it becomes cheaper?
|
| You could also make the manufacturer pay for recycling anyway -
| which is the case in the EU for several device classes IIRC, no
| need for a rental model to establish that. For some devices
| this means that the manufacturer has to take it back when you
| are done with it. The problem of course is that this is
| directly paid for by the customer - and by itself does not
| change anything.
|
| But my argument is that it wouldn't for the rental model
| either.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| The machine could send back diagnostic information, and then
| maintenance or replacement could be scheduled with the
| "owner".
|
| For example the lint filter could have a sensor and owner
| could be punished if they didn't clean that :)
|
| Machines wear unevenly and maintenance could prolong the
| lifespan considerably.
| soco wrote:
| Why going full orwell punishing, when it could simply beep
| some sense into the owner??? Really folks, sometimes the
| software industry wants to offer the most weird
| solutions... (and sometimes they even get implemented)
| Gravityloss wrote:
| If you own the machine and have rented it to someone,
| with a promise that it's working and being maintained,
| yet the renter doesn't clean the lint filter even when
| the machine beeps, you have to send a maintenance guy to
| clean that, costing money.
| userabchn wrote:
| beaconstudios wrote:
| we could just pass regulations to make products repairable.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Making it repairable.means that the old inefficient machine
| works longer, while mire efficient technology exists. (And
| yes, right to repair is important as well, no doubt!)
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Good! If people want to replace their older machine, they
| can do so with the latest tech, which by law is also
| repairable.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| This is the answer, IMO. Trying to rely on the "invisible
| hand of the market" (aka people's greed) to do anything
| specific is an exercise in pain, in every possible way.
| goodpoint wrote:
| True, but it could very well be the opposite: financial
| incentives can encourage churning through equipment even
| faster.
|
| Another problem: the Global South is a huge user of second hard
| stuff (car, phones, everything).
|
| "smart" devices kill the second hand market on purpose, to
| prevent reuse, leading to way more consumption and pollution.
|
| Never trust market forces to solve environmental problems.
| Sankozi wrote:
| I recently thought about the same thing.
|
| The problem with rental system is user now has less incentive
| to treat rented item well. But overall I think it still leads
| to less production and less resource usage.
| tapas73 wrote:
| but if production and rental businesses get separated, we are
| back to square one.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| A rental company buying tons of machines and which has to
| calculate disposal costs has a different negotiating power
| over a number of individuals buying.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Also a big rental company can put pressure on the OEM.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Until the late 1980s, a cable on the engine throttle connected
| directly to the accelerator pedal, giving drivers total control
| of their engine speed and power. Throttle problems were quick,
| easy to diagnose, and, more importantly, fixed at home without
| paying exorbitant mechanic prices.
|
| > Cars now use an ETC (electronic throttle control) managed by a
| computer, as is just about everything else on engines these days.
| Naturally, this makes vehicles more difficult to repair, not to
| mention the glaring "right to repair" issue growing by the day
| when everything runs on a chip.
|
| It isn't more difficult because anyone is conspiring against you.
| Maybe it's more difficult because electricity is invisible, the
| techniques require new knowledge, or you're not familiar with it.
| Go get some CAN bus debugging equipment, plug it into your high-
| speed CAN bus, move the accelerator pedal, and you'll see the CAN
| messages.
|
| Although, there's usually no debugging necessary for your
| accelerator pedal, because you no longer need to lubricate your
| accelerator cable; bits don't require lubrication.
|
| From an engineering perspective, it is very convenient (and
| reliable) to have everything in the car just sit on a
| communication bus and write software to do the logic, rather than
| have dedicated wires or mechanical connections.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| The electronic-based acceleration pedal started malfunctioning
| in my car merely 4 years after purchase, and required a fairly
| costly repair... Maybe I was unlucky.
| stavros wrote:
| Can I also send CAN messages to manipulate the throttle
| programmatically?
| wffurr wrote:
| You sure can. In fact, at least for my car (2018 Chevy Bolt),
| it's possible to find detailed instructions on how to wire up
| a throttle interceptor and hook it up to a Comma2 unit to add
| adaptive cruise control when it wasn't even available as a
| factory option.
|
| I even briefly considered doing so after reading a favorable
| review of the Comma2's driving algorithm by Consumer Reports,
| but decided too much could go wrong with messing with my
| car's throttle wiring.
| stavros wrote:
| Hmm, that's interesting... Why is the throttle interceptor
| necessary? Is the CAN bus jack read-only somehow?
| kube-system wrote:
| There are other devices on the bus looking for messages
| specifically from the throttle address. The idea is that
| you want to change those messages, but only sometimes
| (i.e. when cruise is on), so MITM'ing the messages is the
| easiest way to implement this.
| stavros wrote:
| Ah okay, I assume you can't just spoof the address then,
| thanks.
| kube-system wrote:
| You could, but you'd have two devices reporting different
| values for the same address and the devices reading that
| value wouldn't know what to do.
| mdaniel wrote:
| It may interest you to know that's Comma.ai's whole "business
| model:" https://github.com/commaai/openpilot#what-is-
| openpilot
| babypuncher wrote:
| I always chuckle when people make these arguments about cars
| being better when they were easier to repair.
|
| Sure, diagnosing and repairing a problems like the throttle
| control example is more difficult and expensive today than it
| was in the '70s. But cars are also so much more reliable today
| that the frequency of these repairs is considerably lower.
|
| I have a 2009 Toyota Matrix that I have owned for 12 years now.
| It has nearly 140,000 miles on it. Last month, the vehicle
| finally had to get a repair of a non wear item (failing O2
| sensor), which cost me $300. In 1975, how many cars could be
| expected to last 13 years and 140,000 miles before needing a
| single repair?
| daveslash wrote:
| Absolutely. One of my buddies who's 25+ years older than me
| mused _" man, it blows my mind that you kids can buy cars
| that will go over 100,000 miles without any serious
| maintenance"_
|
| The Ford Model-T was obviously much simpler than modern cars,
| but it also didn't have airbags that needed to be replaced
| after a fender bender. That doesn't make the new cars
| inferior to the Model T. Just different.
|
| The more complex engineering brings benefits; some of the
| benefits are worth the added complexity, but _others are
| not_. (Not to mention it, "worth it" to whom... the
| customer, manufacturer, or society as a whole...)
| Tade0 wrote:
| The older generation in my region of the world has this
| notion that a car isn't worth anything after 200 000km, so
| sellers tamper with the odometer so that it shows the magic 1
| in front.
|
| That was indeed the case in the 80s and 90s, when the fleet
| consisted mostly of eastern block made shitboxes, in which
| you never knew what would happen first: the engine fail
| completely or rust eat a hole in the floor.
| smolder wrote:
| A car can be both easy to repair and reliable. They aren't
| mutually exclusive. When people complain about unrepairable
| vehicles, it's more to do with the arbitrary lock-in,
| manufacturers _intentionally_ making things difficult. In the
| past, they 'd require strange one-off mechanical tools for
| certain repair procedures so they could only be done in
| house. Now, it's electronics that have been designed to
| "manage your rights" by refusing to install without dealer
| intervention, etc. The inner workings of things are
| intentionally closed off and obfuscated. The obfuscation
| happens completely independent of any _inherent_ increase in
| complexity that comes with fancy new tech, and sometimes adds
| complexity and even _harms reliability_.
|
| Vehicles being hostile to their owners is not unique to
| electric propulsion, just like goods and services being
| hostile to consumers is not unique to transportation. It's a
| society-wide thing and it's about locking people in and
| reducing uncondoned behavior. It's about subjugating people.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I agree that these things are bad. End-users and third
| party repair shops should be given access to any tools and
| parts they need to maintain and repair a vehicle.
|
| Some designs are inherently harder to diagnose and repair
| though, even with access to OEM tools and parts. I reject
| the notion that being harder to repair is automatically
| bad, only when it is an intentional business decision to
| create vendor lock-in and not an engineering decision made
| to improve the quality of the product.
| cupofpython wrote:
| i blame lawyers in general. the more subjugated a customer
| is, the cleaner their interaction is with contracts, and
| the less money is spent on lawyers working through the
| specific situation. Especially relevant in the event of
| tragedy.
|
| "your car exploded? well you didnt use a triple certified
| dealership for your last oil change so you cant hold us
| accountable for that. says so in the contract."
|
| now obviously if a car had that level of danger.. you
| wouldnt even be able to get the oil change done anywhere
| but the dealership. and in modern times where we try to
| hold companies responsible for everything we possibly can,
| it makes sense that anytime there is a remote possibility
| of liability, they attempt to gate the customer out of it
| completely.
|
| i feel like the general population has either grown to be,
| or always has been, so indifferent towards subtle legal
| differences that we continue broadening the strokes of
| liability which is causing us to lose the power to do many
| basic things ourselves as a trade off for avoiding any
| personal responsibility tied to the consequences of doing
| those things improperly.
| tiahura wrote:
| As a lawyer that sues car companies, and the spouse of a
| lawyer that does work for car companies, I can assure you
| that lawyers aren't the ones who convinced them to make
| things more proprietary and difficult to repair.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Diagnostic computers are cheap enougj if your car is old
| enough. Thise for new models are expensive. Self repairabiliy
| stopped being a thing in the, IMHO, mid 80s. For a lot of
| stuff. Adding diff locks and the like, especially those _not_
| controlled by the onbord computers is actually pretty
| trivial, regardless of model year.
|
| What's said about EVs can be as much true about ICE powered
| cars, the computer controlled nature is the same for both.
|
| I appreciate my 1982 Range Rover more every day so. Besides a
| treadful fuel consumption. After all it is running on 3
| fuses, perfect for an electricity and electeonics idiot like
| me.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Keep in mind that third-party diagnostic equipment is
| almost always based on reverse-engineering and may lack
| some features, and original equipment from the manufacturer
| is rarely available.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I haf this discussion with mechnic friend a while ago,
| obviously not not a 40 year old car so. Our true second
| car is now, I have to guess, 15 years old. Diagnostics
| are no problem, computers with the correct software are
| around 400 bucks. Cheap enough for either an enyhisiast
| or free mechanic. The main car is 4 now, diagnostics
| equipment is only OEM, and goes for 5 figures. Go figure,
| but it explains why diagnostic jours can be so expensive.
| bluGill wrote:
| Only partially. I used to work for a third party
| diagnosis tool company, and we had direct access to
| information from all companies, which they had to legally
| give us. I still reverse engineered a lot of things
| because when I.didn't understand the spec seeing what
| their tool did made it make sense.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| "Self repairabiliy stopped being a thing in the, IMHO, mid
| 80s."
|
| This really isn't true. Cars all the way up to the mid
| 2000's are very easy to work on and repair. I have always
| done all of my own repairs. Domestic cars even today are
| still easy to work on. Yes you need a diagnostic tool to do
| some more advanced diagnosing. A $300 Autel will do most
| things, an $800 Autel will do nearly everything. Yes it is
| an expense but it can pay for itself in one repair when you
| factor in labor costs at a mechanic. And that Autel will
| continue to work for all of your repairs the next 5+ years.
|
| You need to buy $300+ worth of mechanical tools to work on
| your 1982 Range Rover.
|
| You need to buy $300+ electronic tool to work on a modern
| car.
|
| I would say German cars from the ~2010's up are out of
| reach for the average person to repair, they are using
| fiber optic networks and complicated engine management
| systems. But everything else is really isn't that difficult
| if you have a basic (High School Level) understanding of
| how electricity and computer networks work.
| antiterra wrote:
| > Until the late 1980s, a cable on the engine throttle
| connected directly to the accelerator pedal,
|
| Was this really just until the late 80s? I'm pretty sure I had
| cars with a traditional throttle cable with model years in the
| 90s or later.
| greyskull wrote:
| The Honda S2000 had a throttle cable until... the 2006 model
| year I believe. I don't know how prevalent this was in the
| early 2000s.
| narimiran wrote:
| > _The Honda S2000 had a throttle cable until... the 2006
| model year I believe._
|
| Mazda Miata (MX-5) had it in the NB model (until 2005) too.
| warble wrote:
| My 2002 Tacoma has a throttle cable.
| jesterpm wrote:
| But it's not really that straight forward. You push the pedal,
| the computer runs an algorithm, and then throttle body moves.
| The algorithm is the part that you can't troubleshoot,
| mitigate, or fix.
|
| I recently started driving a drive-by-wire vehicle. A while ago
| I had an issue where the engine dropped to a near-idle (on the
| freeway) and the pedal was effectively non-operative. The
| diagnostics said the computer wasn't getting the expected
| results from moving the throttle body, so it went into some
| kind of safe mode.
|
| Now, there are plenty of ways that drive-by-cable could fail,
| but in this case I was slightly resentful because I could have
| mitigated the computer's loss of senses with my own.
| thereisnospork wrote:
| > But it's not really that straight forward. You push the
| pedal, the computer runs an algorithm, and then throttle body
| moves. The algorithm is the part that you can't troubleshoot,
| mitigate, or fix.
|
| You can, actually, and its fairly commonly done[0]. Mapping
| pedal to throttle position is trivial, as is intercepting and
| modifying the pedal output signal. Its also not that hard to
| rip out the throttle body and replace it with a programmable
| unit. Imo new cars aren't so much harder to fix and modify as
| they are _different_ to fix and modify.[1]
|
| As Socrates rise from his grave and say: "The cars now love
| luxury; they have bad throttle control, contempt for
| steering; they show disrespect for elders and love economy in
| place of horsepower. Cars are now tyrants, not the servants
| of their drivers. They no longer rise when the key turns.
| They contradict their owners, turn off at stoplights, gobble
| up electricity at the plug, beep incessantly, and tyrannize
| their seatbelts."
|
| [0]Pedal boosters or pedal tuners. [1]Not excusing the myriad
| of insipid design choices, of course.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| You feel slightly resentful, but if there was an incipient
| failure of the actuator and the next step might've been a
| stuck-open throttle then you should probably be a bit
| grateful too, right?
| spicybright wrote:
| Would it have even failed if it wasn't drive by wire
| though?
| kube-system wrote:
| Throttles linkages are a regular maintenance item on
| vehicles with mechanical throttle linkages. And all (non-
| antique) engines with mechanical throttle linkages have
| return springs as a safety backup for when/if they do
| fail. Some of them _also_ have redundant linkages on top
| of this. It is not uncommon for throttle cables to have
| their maintenance neglected, and eventually, they will
| wear out and break.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Obviously not in the same way. Overall _system_ failure
| rates comparing cable vs digital throttle control - I
| have no idea.
|
| I do know that I can't remember the last time I drove a
| car with a bad idle, which is much more than anyone who
| lived in 80s can say.
|
| Also: throttle by wire permits simpler cruise control
| integrations, better fuel economy and also facilitates
| the operation of safety systems like traction/stability
| control - so it's not exactly a like-for-like comparison.
| smolder wrote:
| This is a nit, but idle control was automated well before
| drive-by-wire took over. Idle could be on closed loop
| control, but if the idle solenoid failed, it was less
| catastrophic than losing throttle control.
| kube-system wrote:
| Heh, I think 50% of my experience working on 90s cars was
| cleaning IACVs
| [deleted]
| djmips wrote:
| Throttle's did fail before drive by wire but I have no
| data to compare.
| kube-system wrote:
| The problem there is that the software is proprietary, not
| that it has an electronic throttle pedal.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| A million times this, I'm currently installing a hidden
| pass-through can-bus logger before I take my car to the
| dealership because of this insanity. So much of my life is
| wasted reverse engineering stuff when I could be doing shit
| that actually contributes to humanity. This is the cost of
| a broken IP system.
| kube-system wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think IP law is
| to blame. I think it's consumer protection law that is
| the problem here. Magnuson-Moss should be amended to
| require warrantors to provide repair information. (edit:
| and tools)
| Nextgrid wrote:
| IP law is the problem. The anti-circumvention clauses
| (that _kinda_ make sense for media DRM) are used to
| criminalize tools that make unofficial repair (or just
| "repair", because official repair is just swapping entire
| modules) possible.
| kube-system wrote:
| Nobody would even need to make circumvention tools if the
| manufacturers are required to provide you a mechanism for
| doing what you want to do.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I think there are likely ways to weaken IP law that solve
| this problem and since I generally tend toward reducing
| complexity and already want to weaken IP law for a host
| of other reasons I prefer that approach.
| kube-system wrote:
| Weakening IP law is the complicated way to do it, because
| you're touching so many other things that are not just
| "embedded software in hardware products".
|
| The simple way to protect consumers ability to fix
| products is to simply require manufacturers to provide
| the information to do it.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| We shouldn't focus on patching stuff when the core of the
| system is rotten, we need to dig deep, possibly do a
| rewrite. This is a peripheral thing that may just be
| fixed for free if we deal with the core.
| kube-system wrote:
| Regardless of the validity of that statement -- it will
| never be politically feasible to rewrite a large chunk of
| IP law on such a niche issue. If we want this to actually
| happen, we need to propose a solution where there are
| more people who support it than there are who are
| concerned about it. Rewriting all of IP law means you're
| just going to make enemies with all of the major media
| companies who don't have anything to do with selling
| hardware devices.
|
| But, I still don't think this is an IP law issue. IP law
| should not be a weapon used to prevent you from repairing
| your devices -- but _neither should anything else_. If
| you only change IP law, companies are just going to find
| a different way to prevent you from mucking with their
| stuff.
|
| There's a reason we call this "right to repair" and not
| "right to make an attempt to do hacky DRM workarounds"
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| I don't think this is a niche issue though.
|
| The current discussion is about fixing cars. But the
| right to repair is a problem for everything with a
| computer in it.
|
| You could take the title of this article and replace "an
| electric vehicle" just about any electronic device most
| people would own.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's not a niche issue to anyone on this forum --
| politically, it's a niche issue.
|
| https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/
| Pro...
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes and no. We absolutely should be amending Magnuson-
| Moss, but the reason for why we need to legally mandate
| access to repair manuals is very much downstream of
| current copyright law. Companies realized that once you
| put software into a device, they owned the thing that
| makes the device useful at all, and they could then
| charge access to that software in the same way one
| charges access to a scummy mobile game.
|
| Furthermore, because the law surrounding creative works
| is extremely strict, any repair that might touch
| something that could be construed to be DRM protecting
| the manufacturer's software becomes legally dicey. You
| also can't tell anyone _how_ to break that DRM, no matter
| how justifiable repair is. So if you somehow figure out
| how to reserialize new parts onto a locked-down vehicle,
| you 're probably allowed to do that; but you can't
| legally sell that knowledge onto other repair shops.
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| > You also can't tell anyone how to break that DRM, no
| matter how justifiable repair is. So if you somehow
| figure out how to reserialize new parts onto a locked-
| down vehicle, you're probably allowed to do that; but you
| can't legally sell that knowledge onto other repair
| shops.
|
| Nobody would have to do any of that BS if it was illegal
| for that DRM to exist under Magnuson-Moss to begin with.
| bluGill wrote:
| What can't you do? Everytime I dig into this I discover
| someone wants to violate emissions laws. Sure you can
| change your throttle response without that, but the only
| people who want to are trying to break emissions.
|
| I'm still waiting for an example of where DRM stops a
| normal repair
| kube-system wrote:
| The classic example is anything that's signed by crypto.
| So, often, pieces of the security systems or infotainment
| systems on a vehicle. But I was thinking more broadly,
| about other types of consumer products, once I started
| talking about Magnuson-Moss above.
| mzvkxlcvd wrote:
| cant you just pay the mechanic to take care if it for you
| while you are doing your important humanity saving work?
| Thrymr wrote:
| Do you want to debug your own throttle software? Download
| 3rd-party firmware for your car?
| nomel wrote:
| > Download 3rd-party firmware for your car?
|
| I imagine insurance companies will eventually have
| clauses that prevent this.
| kube-system wrote:
| They don't prevent me from modifying my car now. In fact,
| they'll explicitly give me coverage for aftermarket
| equipment upon request.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| That you can't troubleshoot/mitigate/fix that is not an
| inherent property of such a throttle, but a choice by the
| manufacturer to not let you.
| willis936 wrote:
| Not so fast. It is emissions regulations that dictate it. I
| like driving cars fast, but locking down emissions to the
| chagrin of every car guy scratching their head online
| saying "why did it used to be better?" makes me happy.
|
| It's a small victory for the future of the species.
| kube-system wrote:
| I am also a fan of emission regs. But, emissions
| regulations require that you leave emissions equipment
| intact, it does not require automakers to prevent you
| from touching those systems.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| I grew up as a car enthusiast during the transition to things
| being computer controlled, and for car modifying purposes it
| was fantastic. Relatively simple to plug my laptop in, monitor
| air fuel ratios, make adjustments as I see fit. Didn't have to
| rely on any third party or anything.
|
| However more rececnt trends see OEMs trying to prevent you from
| doing this kind of thing, in the same way that Apple, John
| Deere, and others try to prevent you from repairing or
| modifying or repairing your own hardware. This makes me very
| sad, because the future should be a utopia for people who whish
| to repair or modify their own hardware and instead we head
| towards dystopia, for no good reason!
| outworlder wrote:
| > From an engineering perspective, it is very convenient (and
| reliable) to have everything in the car just sit on a
| communication bus and write software to do the logic, rather
| than have dedicated wires or mechanical connections.
|
| I would say that some repairs are _easier_ now. The computer
| can tell you about many issues it knows about. You can see if a
| cylinder is misfiring. Or if the O2 sensor is bad. Etc. Just
| have to plug in a reader. It would be great to have some
| standardization and open documentation on this. But it beats
| dismantling stuff and trying to figure out by trial or error
| (or by listening to sounds)
| jjav wrote:
| A throttle cable has one trivially diagnosable and fixable
| failure mode, it might snap. Although in practice they rarely
| do.
|
| A highly complex interconnected message bus has hundreds of
| bugs (guaranteed) and many unpredictable failure modes. Also
| diagnostics is potentially impossible if the manufacturer hides
| the details.
|
| Simpler is always better.
| nomel wrote:
| There are two failure modes. It can also stick. I've only
| experience a stuck throttle cable, not a snapped one.
| Rayhem wrote:
| Trivially, simpler is not always better. A bike is simpler
| than a car, but it is not at all what I want if I have to go
| to the hospital.
| petre wrote:
| The problem is that your average Joe now needs an engineering
| degree or at least understanding of how a CAN bus works, how to
| properly terminate it and basically use a CAN to serial
| convertor to read tge messages which aren't always
| standardized. I agree that it's more flexible but you need a
| highly qualified professional and the right tools to work on
| the vehicle. I'm working with CAN networks myself but I still
| need an experienced electronics engineer when I get in trouble.
| In addition, most manufacturers add proprietary extensions and
| most of the work involves a fair amount of reverse engineering
| or NDAs.
| kube-system wrote:
| I have a long lost relative who quit their job when their
| employer upgraded from horses to automobiles. They knew how
| horses and wagons worked, but working on what is now very
| simple mechanical engines, was way beyond what they were
| willing to learn.
|
| Technology changes and you can either learn it or not.
|
| Specialization of labor does make everything more
| complicated, but I'm glad I'm not having to grow my own
| vegetables or pump my own well water, despite the fact that I
| have no clue how modern farming or water treatment work. I
| suspect transportation will continue to become more
| specialized just like everything else.
| jjav wrote:
| > Technology changes and you can either learn it or not.
|
| That's not the main problem with newer cars. The problem is
| that much of the required knowledge is intentionally kept
| proprietary so there is no way for regular people to fix it
| regardless of how much they want to learn it.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Sometimes folks like that actually aren't Luddite's, but
| deeply understand a process.
|
| Case in point, I have a former high school friend who runs
| a farm that's about 50 acres as his primary business -
| without major machinery. They have quads and pickup trucks,
| but most applications where one would use a tractor are now
| done with animal power.
|
| The result? It's actually cheaper to operate as grass is
| cheaper than diesel. He's not getting rich, but makes as
| decent living.
| floren wrote:
| I'm really interested in learning more about this. Does
| he have a website? I've sat down and run some numbers
| before and it definitely seems feasible, but that's just
| back-of-the-napkin estimation. I grew up on a farm, but
| of course we were fully mechanized.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| If you're ever curious what getting into modern farming
| might be like, give Clarkson's Farm a watch. Very enjoyable
| series.
| floren wrote:
| My main complaint with Clarkson's Farm is that his
| approach to every problem was "which piece of equipment
| can we purchase to solve this?" Not very surprising if
| you know Jeremy Clarkson, I know.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I think technology changes but it doesn't need to be
| hostile.
|
| An electric car, for all intents and purposes should be
| substantially easier to repair, diagnose, and work on, but
| manufacturers are doing things like using proprietary
| signaling protocols, locking out third party parts, and
| putting complex software in the place of simple and
| reliable hardware. Electric cars aren't new, they've been
| around since the 90s and it was perfectly possible to
| create one without the "smart" nonsense we are seeing
| today. My car doesn't need to report my location to a
| database or have a manufacturer kill-switch and it doesn't
| make one a Luddite for feeling that way.
| sokoloff wrote:
| There's an awful lot of people on enthusiast forums who quite
| clearly have no idea what they're doing, let alone have an
| engineering degree, and are able to connect to their CAN bus,
| add "magic boxes" (from their perspective) that change the
| behavior of the car/truck, add displays of onboard telemetry,
| or some other feature.
|
| Only a tiny sliver of people need to understand how CAN
| actually works. Most Average-Joes just need to know how to
| connect (which is often done just via plugging into the OBD2
| port, giving a keyed connector with power, ground, and at
| least one CAN bus).
|
| As a hobby, I sell a low-volume device for a niche vehicle
| that works exactly this way. I assure that almost none of my
| users have any idea how a computer works, let alone anything
| physical on the CAN bus or what an MCP2515 or 120 ohm
| resistor is.
| petre wrote:
| You only get a very limited set of diagnostics info through
| the OBD2 port. I'll probably get one of the Macchina
| devices to play with as well.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That depends on the car. Many have the main CAN bus fully
| exposed on pins 6/14 and some of those have bridges to
| other CAN buses in the car connected.
| Reubachi wrote:
| You're intentionally leaving out the fact that a greater and
| greater number of manufacturer/OEMs are making necessary tools
| to properly debug proprietary and locked behind contracts. Or,
| you have a newer car and haven't had to diagnose yet a myriad
| of growing issues that you can't check in any way shape or
| form.
|
| Want to link into any car in the last 5 years can-bus for
| anything beyond simple air-fuel mixture issues? You can't. You
| can't even reliably go to a mechanic down the road, as they
| don't carry the 500k a year license from GM for the proprietary
| OBD2 scanner.
|
| This problem is 10 fold with electric cars, and 100 fold with
| Tesla or boutique EV manus.
| tiahura wrote:
| Just an FYI, on Amazon you can buy Chinese scanners that
| decode proprietary OBD2 and do other handy things like the
| reprogramming for replacement key fobs.
|
| Mine was $150 and came with Honda support. Other
| manufacturers can be downloaded for $50.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > Want to link into any car in the last 5 years can-bus for
| anything beyond simple air-fuel mixture issues? You can't.
|
| Huh, I guess I was just imagining it when I plugged into the
| OBD-II port on my 2020 Ford and reprogrammed a bunch of
| engine and transmission parameters to improve performance. I
| certainly didn't have any proprietary Ford software or
| hardware.
| markandrewj wrote:
| It is possible for a lot of vehicles, but at the same time
| there are companies have been trying to make self
| maintenance and repair difficult.
|
| I am particularly thinking about John Deere. Although not
| specific to Electric vehicles.
|
| https://youtu.be/EPYy_g8NzmI
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| Don't see it in your post history, or any related profiles;
| care to mention or link to what you did, here or offthread?
| (I'm @shortstuffsushi everywhere) I also own a 2020 Ford
| and would be potentially interested in this.
| speeder wrote:
| Be happy with your Ford. I had a Peugeot that required
| proprietary cable and software, and that software works
| only on Windows XP...
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Also, the info that is exposed to end-users is awful and
| seems to be getting worse. We have a 2021 Volvo and it has
| TPMS, but the TPMS info screen on the large infotainment
| display shows /4 orange dots, one on each tire/ when the
| pressure in ANY is too low. It doesn't tell you the actual
| pressures, or what they should be, just that it needs
| maintenance. My other 2017 Chevy tells me the ~real-time
| (takes a few seconds to change) pressures of all 4 tires. I
| know that the Volvo has this info, and a screen more than
| capable of displaying that info, yet someone chose instead to
| treat the user like an absolutely helpless idiot and
| basically suggest that they should stop using the vehicle
| immediately and have it flatbed trailered to the nearest
| dealership /because a single tire is a few PSI low/.
|
| I understand having idiot lights for idiots, and sure, do
| that on the dash, but please give end users any way to get
| some actual info. It's the "door ajar" when the vehicle knows
| which door but doesn't disambiguate to the user. It's bad
| design, or malicious design to boost dealer profits.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| The Volvo is using an iTPMS system, which does not have
| absolute PSI measurements.
| kube-system wrote:
| To elaborate a bit on what someone else said -- some cars
| with TPMS systems do not have pressure sensors at all. It
| is possible to add TMPS to a vehicle entirely via software
| by analyzing _other_ data from existing sensors. For
| example, it might be looking at sensor data that looks
| like:
|
| Steering angle: 0 degrees
|
| LF wheel speed: 305 rpm
|
| RF wheel speed: 293 rpm
|
| LR wheel speed: 302 rpm
|
| RR wheel speed: 285 rpm
|
| In this case, it may be possible for the car to determine
| that you probably have some incorrect pressures, but it may
| not know exactly which tire(s) is/are wrong. Nor does it
| know what the pressures are.
| flutas wrote:
| > and 100 fold with Tesla
|
| Uhhh, except I have an OBD-II adapter in mine[0] and combined
| with an Android app[1] can see in detail basically everything
| about the car, including individual battery voltages inside
| the cell pack?
|
| [0]: https://www.scanmytesla.com/adapters
|
| [1]: https://www.scanmytesla.com/
| pengaru wrote:
| >> Until the late 1980s, a cable on the engine throttle
| connected directly to the accelerator pedal, giving drivers
| total control of their engine speed and power.
|
| Late 80s? No, that's at least a decade off. OBD2 wasn't even
| made mandatory in the US until 1996. That's when things started
| to go off the rails.
| jjav wrote:
| Yes, that date range is way off. My mid-2000s cars still has
| a proper physical throttle cable.
| parentheses wrote:
| Would you pay X% more to be able to repair Y?
|
| Most consumers will buy the cheaper Y if it provides the same
| day-to-day value as the more expensive but repairable Y.
|
| Right to repair is a much greater proportion of pining for the
| "good ol' days" than anything. When the complexity and
| manufacturing maturity were not that high, increasing complexity
| usually meant reducing reliability.
|
| The idea that products can deliver greater sophistication,
| comfort and efficiency without adding complexity is preposterous.
| At some point the complexity becomes so high that it's not safe
| for a non-expert to work on it.
|
| Imagine a customer bricking a $30,000 car because they wanted to
| repair it. Who would they blame? Themselves? "Well they shouldn't
| have made it this way!"
| Animats wrote:
| Has nothing to do with the propulsion system being electric. Has
| everything to do with auto manufacturers wanting too much
| control. The CEO of Stellantis, which owns what's left of
| Chrysler and Fiat, has said that they intend to get their margins
| up to tech-company levels ("double digit margins") by adding
| software features with ongoing charges.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.stellantis.com/en/investors/events/strategic-
| pla...
| DonnyV wrote:
| Ugh...as usual a combination of Capitalism and lack of proper
| regulation is turning car ownership into permanent car renting.
| mohanmcgeek wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the car being an EV. Isn't it?
|
| It's perfectly possible for ICE car manufacturers also to start
| adopting this "expansion pack for cars" model
| hans_castorp wrote:
| They are already doing that. For some Audi models you can order
| a tuning pack that increases your engine's power and is
| delivered through an internet connection (e.g. WiFi or built-in
| phone network). I think this is probably true for other brands
| as well.
| rob74 wrote:
| A simple example which I have seen on many cars:
| "directional" headlights that are actually achieved by
| turning on the fog light on the side you are steering to.
| This is 100% implemented in software and uses the fog lights
| which are already installed (in all but the cheapest
| variants).
| captainmuon wrote:
| So, can anybody recommend an EV that is not a smartphone on
| wheels, but an actual car that just happens to be electric?
|
| I really would like to get a Tesla, but besides the manufacturing
| issues (like large gaps between the panels) the IP and data
| issues are really putting me off.
|
| - Car is always online, gets OTA updates, GPS is always running
|
| - Cameras inside of the car
|
| - Tesla can remotely downgrade or deactivate the car
|
| - Independent mechanics can't repair many things
| nharada wrote:
| I love my Chevy Bolt as a (relatively) cheap city car. You'll
| probably be able to get one cheap once the battery recall
| issues are resolved. I got it for ~22k out the door new.
|
| It's not fully disconnected, but I basically feel like it's my
| car. I don't pay for any subscriptions (OnStar and XM are both
| available), and software updates are possible OTA but not
| required. No cameras (as far as I know) anywhere besides the
| backup cam.
|
| I'm not sure how repairable the electronics are as luckily I've
| never needed any non-warranty work done. There was an issue
| with the hands-free mics and I took it in to a local dealer and
| they just replaced a module under warranty.
|
| On the downside, it's a city car. Gets 260 miles of range, but
| fast charge rates are outdated (55kw max) and make road
| tripping harder than a more modern EV.
| tmountain wrote:
| Bollinger was making headway on a "no nonsense electric truck";
| meaning, a dumb truck, but it looks like they've shifted focus
| to delivering a commercial fleet instead.
|
| https://bollingermotors.com/bollinger-b1/
| audunw wrote:
| What exactly do you mean by smartphone on wheels?
|
| Modern EVs have quite a lot of "smart" software functionality
| just like modern ICE cars. Both modern ICE and EVs have complex
| ECUs that may need proprietary equipment to service. Most are a
| lot less smartphone-like than Tesla though.
|
| Our old Kia Soul EV is just like Kia Soul... but EV.
|
| We're now upgrading to Hyundai Ioniq 5, which is a small
| iteration towards "smartness" compared to the Kia. You can
| remotely check charging status and start the heater/cooler from
| your phone, so it is connected and always online I guess. There
| are OTA updates, but only for infotainment, not for drivetrain
| like with Tesla. No camera inside the car. I seriously doubt
| Hyundai will do remote downgrades or deactivations. I don't
| know of any issues for independent mechanics.
| captainmuon wrote:
| > What exactly do you mean by smartphone on wheels?
|
| A car that requires a subscription or an account to use all
| of its features. Or a car that requires me to use a big
| touchscreen while driving.
|
| I do like all kinds of modern conveniences, like lane assist
| or semi-autonomous driving on the autobahn/freeway. I like it
| when the media center is smart and can play Spotify and show
| me a list of radio channels with pictures and so on.
|
| I don't like it when the media center or the GPS is too
| deeply integrated into the car, I've had too many cars where
| the radio became outdated quickly. Ideally, you should be
| able to buy the car and the media center separately like in
| the olden days, but I think that ship has sailed.
|
| What I don't like is car makers using DRM and other tech to
| extract more money from me. Cars are ridiculously overpriced
| anyway (First, cars loose a lot of value the moment you leave
| the dealership. Second, the dealerships are able to give
| crazy discounts on the list price.)
| outworlder wrote:
| > Or a car that requires me to use a big touchscreen while
| driving.
|
| That's Tesla and Tesla copycats. Most EVs are not like
| that.
|
| > A car that requires a subscription or an account to use
| all of its features
|
| Bunch of ICE vehicles have this sort of thing now.
| groos wrote:
| If you want a "real", no-compromise EV, there really isn't any
| alternative to Tesla. For me, the killer feature was a
| supercharging network. Without it, you have an expensive toy
| unless you are just going to potter around town on short trips.
| Even though most day I just charge my car at home, there's no
| way I would have bought a Tesla without the supercharging
| network.
|
| Re. panel gaps and build quality, yes, the outside build/paint
| quality is about average (the seats are _very_ nice) but this
| is not why I bought a Tesla. I wanted the next generation
| vehicle tech and a car that can really go without making a
| fuss. Had I wanted absolutely even panel gaps, I would have
| bought a German or Japanese gas car.
|
| Re. OTA updates, my 3+ year old car feels it was bought this
| year because of OTA updates. I have no desire to acquire a new
| model because the newer model will practically be identical to
| mine, apart from the mileage.
|
| [edit:typos]
| rurp wrote:
| I don't understand how this answers GPs question at all. They
| already said that they don't want OTA update type "features".
|
| I'm interested because I've had similar questions myself. I'd
| like to buy an electric car but hate touch screen controls,
| telemetry, and being forced to rely on the manufacturer for
| repairs. So far I don't know of any EVs that come without
| those design issues.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Without it, you have an expensive toy unless you are just
| going to potter around town on short trips.
|
| While it's a massive advantage for Tesla, that's a bit too
| harsh and highly dependent on where you live.
|
| Note that over 90% of all trips even in the US are well
| within the range of modern EVs.
| kehrin wrote:
| The VW eGolf (discontinued) was a Golf that ,,just happened to
| be electric". It has limited range though.
| captainmuon wrote:
| Yes, and it seems the ID.3, which is the spiritual successor,
| has some of the classic EV problems. Like a buggy central
| computer that will need updates after launch.
|
| I understand they needed to completely redo the platform to
| take advantage of the EV characteristics (e.g. you need space
| below to put the battery, you can design the car around the
| lower center of mass, you don't need an engine bay, ...). But
| I think they should have kept the Golf name and the interior
| concept (mechanical switches etc.) when switching to the new
| platform. After all, you buy a VW (here in Europe at least)
| if you want a no-nonsense, slightly boring, solid car and are
| willing to pay a little bit more. It's like an understated
| status symbol.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I'd bet the ID.3 is more of a testing platform for the EV
| related driving experience than a vehicle intended to
| appeal to a mass audience. If VW fully commits to EV across
| the range, the EV in that family will be styled more like
| the GTI than the ID.3 (which would probably be pretty
| sweet).
| reacharavindh wrote:
| This. I drive and love my GOLF in Netherlands. It's simply
| a no nonsense reliable car. I wish VW sees the value of
| what they are liked for and retain that usefulness in their
| EVs for when I get in the market for one after my GOLF
| gives out.
| w3news wrote:
| Indeed, i had also a Golf (TDI) from 2005, very reliable
| car that works always, it is simple and everybody can
| repair it. Why cannot they make EV's that are simple, we
| dont need all the gadgets that will break.
| krazerlasers wrote:
| Not sure where you live, but there were a lot of 'compliance
| cars' in California which were factory EV conversions of their
| traditional offerings. As an example, the Fiat 500e (2013-2019,
| it has since been replaced by a ground-up electric version with
| the same faults as described in the article) is a normal 500
| fitted with a Bosch SMG 180/120 motor and associated support
| components.
|
| The 500e is virtually identical to the ICE version of the car,
| with a very hacked up looking shifter filler panel with buttons
| to control the motor and charger jack inside the gas filler
| door. The main downside with the compliance car life is they
| are all very short range, generally 50-100 miles. Also now that
| the program is shut down you don't get the rebate anymore so
| they are all discontinued (but readily available used).
|
| There is no DRM on the Bosch SMG system, I have an android app
| and bluetooth adapter that lets you view all of the CAN
| messages, and many people online have successfully rebuilt
| their batteries with more modern cells to increase the range.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Do you have any links to people rebuilding their batteries?
| That is pretty amazing if done economically.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| I highly recommend Nissan Leaf. I can't speak so much about new
| ones (though I doubt Nissan's philosophy has changed much), but
| my 2013 Leaf works just fine. As another commenter pointed out,
| there are independent garages that can work on them and you can
| do after market changes. Electric cars in general are not all
| that complicated; I think the shortage of independent mechanics
| has more to do with the historical rarity of electric cars. The
| mechanics will come as the cars come. Unlike most other makes,
| Nissan also now has more than a decade of experience
| manufacturing electric cars. In my opinion, it shows.
| kiwidrew wrote:
| 2nd this. In addition, it's easy to obtain the service
| manuals for the older Leaf models (up to around 2018). The
| design of the Leaf is very similar to other Nissan vehicles,
| so working on the car's non-drivetrain components is easy.
| The electric drivetrain itself has proven to be very reliable
| so far.
| outworlder wrote:
| I'll vouch for the Leaf too.
|
| Drawbacks are: really hot climates will mess up the battery
| due to lack of active cooling. Really cold climates require
| the cold weather package for the battery warmer. Nissan
| doesn't really have a good story when the battery needs
| replacement - but maybe third party shops will by then.
|
| If you do have QuickCharging, it uses ChaDeMo, which is
| dying. But it's still commonplace and will be for a while.
|
| Other than that, I don't think about maintenance (maybe tire
| rotation and cabin filter?). No need to think when the next
| oil change is due. Registration renewal doesn't require a
| smog check. No OTA updates (both a blessing and a curse). It
| works as a normal vehicle for all intents and purposes, minus
| gas stations.
| secabeen wrote:
| Just be very careful when buying a used leaf that has any
| chance of having spent time in the southwest. The OG leafs
| have no battery temperature management, and many of had their
| batteries baked in the Arizona sun.
| Faaak wrote:
| Old (discontinued) hyundai ioniq (2016-2020), Renault Zoe,
| Peugeot e 208, etc...
| edent wrote:
| Kia Soul EV. No internet connectivity whatsoever. Great ride,
| decent battery pack, outdated entertainment system and no
| "smarts".
| StreamBright wrote:
| I am wondering when we are moving over to hydrogen powered
| vehicles already.
| outworlder wrote:
| Won't change a thing. Hydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles.
| pdonis wrote:
| Hydrogen has some serious disadvantages for vehicles: it's very
| difficult to store and it is much more flammable, meaning
| refueling is much more hazardous. The only potential advantage
| to it would be if we could mine it, but since we don't live on
| Jupiter, we can't; we have to make it, and it costs more energy
| to make it than you get back out of it when you burn it.
| outworlder wrote:
| > it costs more energy to make it than you get back out of it
| when you burn it.
|
| This is fine. Gasoline has horrendous losses too.
|
| The problem is that the most economical way of making
| hydrogen is by using fossil fuels(natural gas). Just burn the
| natural gas instead.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Gasoline has horrendous losses too._
|
| I'm not sure what "horrendous" losses you're referring to,
| but I assume you mean losses due to inefficiency in
| combustion. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring
| to the fact that hydrogen does not occur in its combustible
| form on Earth. You can't just refine it by purifying
| something that comes out of the ground, the way gasoline is
| refined from crude oil. You have to produce it by some
| process that basically reverses the chemical reaction that
| will take place when you burn it. And since the chemical
| reaction of burning produces a large amount of energy
| (otherwise you wouldn't use it to do things like power
| cars), reversing that reaction _requires_ a large amount of
| energy (which is why steam reforming, as the article you
| reference says, is strongly endothermic). All that is in
| _addition_ to the thermodynamic losses that will occur
| during combustion when you burn the fuel.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Hydrogen won't happen in passenger vehicles and it's too
| expensive to produce for it to be used for much else.
|
| Electricity is one of the fundamental forces. Using an element
| like hydrogen will never be as efficient.
|
| To beat electricity, you may be able to do it by controlling
| one of the other fundamental forces such as gravity.
| fit2rule wrote:
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| > In 2020, someone bought a used Tesla advertised with autopilot
| and full self-driving features, which at the time cost $8,000 for
| the previous owner to unlock and enjoy. Unfortunately, the new
| owner didn't get those features, as Tesla disabled them once it
| changed hands.
|
| Note that this is not exclusive to cars. Presonus did this to me
| when I purchased a StudioLive rack mixer. The previous owner had
| access to the "free" DSP programs it has built-in to do various
| effects like compression in the device itself. When he switched
| the registration to me, those were disabled and I'd have to pay
| to unlock them, because as Presonus said, they were only free as
| a promo offer to the initial purchaser and non-transferable,
| despite other parts of the licensed software being transferable.
| To add insult, that pack of DSP plugins that run in this thing
| are the ONLY available plugins, so it's not like I can get some
| open-source or third-party ones.
|
| I dislike them so much after this whole interaction that I won't
| ever buy their stuff again and will repeat this story to anyone
| who will listen. I didn't pay for the plug-in pack a second time,
| because I refuse to give them more money. I just got an external
| compressor instead.
|
| Anyway, total BS IMO for manufacturers to disable functionality
| that the hardware had when new when it changes hands.
| outworlder wrote:
| > What happens when your fancy electric vehicle stops getting
| software updates
|
| Who cares?
|
| Cars don't normally get updates after they leave the factory,
| unless you take them to a dealership - usually because there's a
| recall. Tesla is changing this, and expect other companies to
| follow suit.
|
| But there's really zero reason why this is going to be confined
| to electric vehicles. The engine literally makes no difference.
| It was historically easier on EVs because, given that the engine
| is not always rotating, belts were not feasible. So they had
| electric steering (and other things like electric climate
| control). Regenerative breaking meant that you had to delegate
| braking action to the computer too.
|
| However, ICE vehicles already use an ECU, so engine is already
| software based. Then, we have ABS and lane assist (and adaptive
| cruise control, etc) which means that some computer can control
| the throttle, brakes and steering too.
|
| Other features like infotainment are completely orthogonal to the
| drive train.
|
| > For now, we'll continue to buy cars that are increasingly more
| difficult and costly to repair
|
| Seems like the author hasn't bought an ICE vehicle recently. They
| are all more difficult to repair. Even things like replacing the
| infotainment system are no longer feasible since it's all
| integrated.
|
| This article sounds like FUD against EVs.
| randyrand wrote:
| > Who cares?
|
| Anyone that realizes these cars are a security nightmare? Wifi
| and cellular on a car! Brilliant!
|
| The fact that ransomware hasn't yet hit cars is as shocking as
| it is inevitable. Russia literally disabled all ViaSat phones
| before invading. Telsas literally download firmware at will
| when a centralized server tells them to!
|
| Edit: actually, looks like the attacks are already underway!
| https://fortune.com/2021/03/19/russian-pleads-guilty-ransomw...
| gjs278 wrote:
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| A few counter points:
|
| - Loads of aftermarket conversions of existing cars to EVs are
| done by third parties using a wide range of components from OEMs,
| custom built stuff, or scrapped EVs. E.g. Tesla batteries have a
| high value for this. Not that hard apparently.
|
| - There are companies providing aftermarket upgrades to Teslas
| and other EVs to e.g. install custom batteries. For example, Our
| Next Energy (One) has installed their batteries in Teslas and
| other vehicles: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/05/our-next-
| energy-tests-i.... So, it's not true you are dependent on the OEM
| for this. Same with many older EVs that are still servicable.
| E.g. the original Nissan Leaf from twelve years ago can be
| equipped with after market battery replacements.
|
| - Tesla recently urged owners of older models to come in to
| replace their 3G modules with 4G replacements to keep the over
| the air updates and other online stuff going. The cars work fine
| without that but obviously lose some functionality as 3G networks
| are being shut down.
|
| - ICE vehicles are similarly software intensive. It's just that
| most vendors are a bit behind on update procedures and the update
| procedure generally sucks. They're busy switching to EVs instead
| of developing new ICE vehicles, so there's a lot of effectively
| unsupported software in the field that will never get serviced
| even if it is full of bugs. Which is of course common because
| most car manufacturers aren't very good at creating software.
| It's not a problem if the car keeps on running.
|
| - Lots of things are software intensive these days. This is not
| unique to EVs. Why single those out?
| guyzero wrote:
| "- Lots of things are software intensive these days. This is
| not unique to EVs. Why single those out?"
|
| Very much this. The description in the article sounds like
| owning a laptop vs a desktop pc. People don't care that they
| can't upgrade their car if they're just going to get a new one
| every three years anyway that has better features and twice the
| range. It's not how I buy cars, but the majority of car buyers
| don't buy cars like I buy cars.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Yeah, I think IF (and that's not a huge if) L-Sulfer, Solid
| State, etc pan out, then the conversion kits may get super
| cheap, or a flood of cheaper cars without the blings and bloops
| will hit the market.
|
| Right now the price point of EVs is in the Luxury segment, and
| these people have never cared about the long term aspects of
| car ownership. Old cars are low status cars, so they unload
| them.
|
| The drivetrain cost of EVs is probably under ICE in Tesla (they
| aren't pricing them like that, they are milking the market
| right now), and probably will in main auto in a few years, and
| it will plummet from there as economies of scale hit the OEM
| component makers. EVs are just batteries, 1-4 motors, and a
| control. system. Brakes for extra stopping power over
| regenerative braking if you want.
|
| So the lower end will start to blossom in the next few years.
|
| A lot of right to repair is to keep it under warranty. That's a
| legit antitrust concern between everyman mechanic and the auto
| makers. After warranty, if there's enough cars, there will be
| people that can fix them. And again, it's less components.
| sschueller wrote:
| Won't these Teslas also possibly loose the ability to super
| charge eventually as all the verification (certificates) stuff
| is on the car?
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I don't think that's necessarily an issue. Tesla allows other
| vendors at their charging infrastructure. You might lose your
| warranty though.
| kube-system wrote:
| This is not the case everywhere yet, and Tesla does ban
| some modified (Tesla branded) cars from their chargers.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > most car manufacturers aren't very good at creating software
|
| They're been doing it for decades at this point. Which part of
| it aren't they good at?
|
| I'm not in the automotive industry, but the code I write has to
| conform to MISRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Industry_
| Software_Reliab...) guidelines. I think they've learned a few
| things by now.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Based on my experiences with a variety of OEM infotainment
| systems over the last decade, I would say car manufacturers
| still have an awful lot to learn about building software that
| does not suck.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| Have you seen the report on the Toyota source code?
|
| http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/BarrSlides_FINAL_SCRUB.
| ..
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9449559
|
| "In a nutshell, the team led by Barr Group found: "a
| systematic software malfunction in the Main CPU that opens
| the throttle without operator action and continues to
| properly control fuel injection and ignition" that is not
| reliably detected by any fail-safe."
|
| And the black box could fail to record any braking input in
| such cases.
|
| That's not good! People died! And you would have a hard time
| convincing a jury that the driver was not at fault, if not
| for the thorough independent code review.
|
| And that's the safety critical stuff, now imagine all the
| code for the infotainment systems.
| soco wrote:
| I don't own such a complicated car contract so I don't
| understand: if you don't own the car, how can there be an
| aftermarket at all? Don't I have to give it back when I'm done
| with it, so I have no car for the aftermarket? I think I
| severely misunderstand one of the sides, because it doesn't
| make sense.
| bmn__ wrote:
| You own the car de jure (you have the right to sell it to
| someone else), but not de facto (the car manufacturer
| exercises direct and indirect control over how you use the
| car, undermines your basic human rights by spying on you, can
| destroy/permanently disable the product).
| w3news wrote:
| This is indeed not limited to EV's and cars. Search e.g. on "John
| Deere right to repair", and you will see that farmers cannot
| repair their own tractor anymore, and need the factory dealer to
| repair it, and the owner have to wait and cannot do anything.
| Prices of old school tractors are rising, because a lot of
| farmers like to repair a lot of things, so they can keep going,
| and dont have to wait for a mechanic that can repair it.
|
| On your car, i also like old cars, because you can bring it to
| every mechanic, or do it yourself. I like the basic car, and hope
| EV's will come that are also simple and build like Lego, so you
| can easy switch some (electronic) parts.
|
| Who need large displays, self driven cars, and other gadgets. A
| vehicle is just a useful thing to bring you from A to B on a save
| way, we dont need distraction from all the expensive gadgets,
| just safety and comfort.
|
| Just keep cars simple please.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I've heard that electric cars are generally much more reliable
| than combustion engines: Much fewer parts that gain wear and
| tear. Have I been misled?
| brainwipe wrote:
| Do you ever own anything highly technical? My phone requires
| regular updates to keep it secure; as does my computer, my TV,
| etc. If I get my home heating repaired then it has to be with
| someone registered or my home insurance is void.
|
| My first 2 cars, I could work on. They were old, easy to fix and
| didn't require special tools. My 2006 Yaris has a pressurized
| diesel system I can't mess with. So that needs specialist
| knowledge.
| mullen wrote:
| My phone and TV continue to work doing their primary job if I
| don't have them attached to the Internet. My Google Pixel 5 Pro
| will continue to operate as a phone only if it is removed from
| Internet and unable to install updates or check into the Google
| Mothership. Same with my Sony TV. Yes, they lose some
| functionality because they are not on the Internet but I would
| expect that because those functionalities require the Internet.
| However, my car should always work as a car, even without
| Internet access or ever checking with the Car Manufacturer
| Mothership. Yes, I can expect mapping feature to not work, but
| when I start my car, it should always start.
| kkfx wrote:
| My phone so far can't kill me, at least it's extremely
| unlikely, "my" car if does not obey a command might kill me or
| kill someone else leaving me as responsible for that. That's an
| important difference.
|
| Also my phone need a certain level of complexity "my" car have
| NO REASON to from my own personal perspective: I do not need a
| connected car. I do not need a car where the OEM have the
| control and I have not. Such choice for cars are made for the
| sake of OEM, of surveillance capitalism, not for end users.
|
| Also I do my best NOT using "my phone" exactly because of the
| crappy crap it is, I'll do my best to be desktop-bound, FLOSS
| desktop, I can't do much for UEFI and other fw crap, but _at
| least_ they are less invasive and untrustable that Android
| /iOS.
|
| For me, for cars and social evolution in general there is only
| one option: a big push from the people that mandate open
| hardware and free software making surveillance so heavily
| punished that no one have interest to steer in that direction.
| nix0n wrote:
| "Feature phones" exist, Linux PCs exist, non-smart TVs exist
| (all of these come with tradeoffs).
|
| The difference is, in some places, it is not possible to own a
| new car.
|
| One of those places is the USA, where you miss out on a lot if
| you don't have access to a car.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| I definitely own my Linux desktop. I still have to accept auto-
| updates to stay secure, but I trust these random software
| authors not to screw me over infinitely more than I'd trust
| Microsoft or Google.
| IYasha wrote:
| But how about building one yourself? A good old "dumb" electric-
| motor-powered car?
|
| There was a similar but more general thread on it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144101
| soared wrote:
| Related, a guy tried to build a toaster from scratch:
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/one-mans-nearly-imp...
|
| Ended up writing a book about it and probably made a whole lot
| of money.
| jwilk wrote:
| Non-AMP link: https://gizmodo.com/one-mans-nearly-impossible-
| quest-to-make...
| [deleted]
| bitwize wrote:
| Suck it up.
|
| We are entering the own-nothing-be-happy era of human history,
| and there's not a God-damn thing you can do about it because
| market forces are prevailing against you.
|
| An example is computing. General purpose computing for the masses
| is moribund. The fundamental reason has little to do with the
| greed of OEMs (though that is very much a thing). It has a lot to
| do with the fact that end users don't want to be sysadmins. So
| they delegate the maintenance of their machine to the vendor. To
| keep costs down and the experience smooth, those vendors have an
| interest in restricting what can be run on their machines, and
| monitoring the machines' use to find problems (and run a side
| business selling that info to advertisers... the machines
| themselves are so low-margin, if not negative-margin that
| residual income for their use is a MUST to satisfy shareholders).
|
| And so it's becoming the same for cars. People these days don't
| want to be responsible for a cars' maintenance, they just want to
| pay a sum for a few years' use of the car. Accepting that the
| vendor will take care of maintenance, as well as whatever
| restrictions the vendor chooses to implement, is still a win for
| the consumer. Therefore this model will dominate in the
| marketplace, and the option of owning your car outright will be
| like the option of owning a non-smart TV: not worth the money for
| manufacturers.
| cafed00d wrote:
| Sounds like what we're really saying is "You don't ever own a
| software-as-a-service controlled vehicle". If all cars ran on
| software updates then these complaints apply to combustion engine
| vehicles too.
| cagr wrote:
| Sounds like it was written by Putin
| foreigner wrote:
| Sounds great. I hate having to own a car.
| [deleted]
| natch wrote:
| Not to miss the point here, but as an aside, it seems fairly
| likely that the option of completely ending sales to consumers in
| some current markets is on the table at Tesla once actual working
| (non-beta) full self driving exists.
| pards wrote:
| I misplaced the key/fob to 2018 Toyota Rav4 hybrid and it can
| only be replaced at the dealership .. for $850 CAD.
|
| It's an especially cruel form of vendor lock-in and has caused me
| to reevaluate the selection criteria for the next vehicle I
| purchase.
|
| I want the simplest EV possible.
| monkaiju wrote:
| I feel like I own my 2014 Nissan Leaf, and im gonna try to keep
| it running forever
| eimrine wrote:
| I think you don't really own even a petroleum vehicle. For
| example, an engine is controlled by non-FOSS computer device for
| fuel injecting. Another example, you can not turn off your seat-
| belt alert. Please note, I am not a big fun of carburetor engines
| or driving without seat-belts. But if I can not turn on an engine
| without running some malware and have to obey to some guy who has
| written what I ought to do while sitting in my car then I am not
| an owner of the engine and the rest of "my" car.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| It's not available in any recent cars, but one of my cars has a
| mechanical fuel injection system that was commonly used on VWs,
| Porsches, Mercedes, and SAABs in the 80s. Working on this car I
| really get the sense that I do own it (for better or for
| worse)!
| speedgoose wrote:
| I own an eight years old electric vehicle. It's not connected to
| the internet anymore, and it is fine. The maintenance is done by
| professionals. Sometimes they do software updates.
|
| I also own a new electric vehicle connected to the internet that
| updates itself once in a while. I know various non-official
| garages in my area that can fix it when it's out of warranty. I
| guess if I remove the modem, it will simply stop updating
| automatically, and I will lose a few features like the smartphone
| app, like my other car.
| 0ldskool wrote:
| Can you say which vehicle you drive? electric vehicles
| platforms are very different from each other
| cosmiccatnap wrote:
| hughrr wrote:
| I don't mind not owning cheaper things but when it comes to very
| high value purchases i.e. houses, cars etc, I'm not going to put
| capital in up front or leverage debt unless I actually own all
| rights to them. I don't mind renting them but the value
| proposition has to be decent and it's not for any EVs at the
| moment for my personal circumstances. It would be silly for
| almost everyone I know to invest in one as well and they only end
| up realistically as status purchases.
|
| When my current, modest petrol vehicle becomes to cost
| inefficient to look after, I'm not going to bother getting
| another one. I live in a major city with good public transport so
| will leverage that, ride my bike and hire a car if I need one.
| coding123 wrote:
| Where I live people buy cars that were made in the 70s and 80s
| and then change out the engine, cut things up and change them.
|
| Lots of welders here too. I can definitely see in my future doing
| this and putting 40-50Kwh and some high torque motors on the
| wheels. There are apparently some books on amazon for this shit
| too.
| zodzedzi wrote:
| What are some example such books?
| felurx wrote:
| This article annoys me quite a bit. I don't even disagree with
| the author about how locking features behind paywalls, making
| repairs harder etc is bad. But that is in no way an EV problem,
| it is a shitty companies / missing legislation problem.
|
| (I suppose EVs can, in some limited ways, be harder to repair
| than combustion cars, but that's like 10% of the point of the
| article maximum.)
| Bud wrote:
| This guy's argument does not really seem to have any legitimate
| link to electric vehicles in particular, and as such, he should
| really back off of trying to blame EVs for this. It makes his
| overall point about repairability much weaker.
|
| As he himself acknowledges in the article, this is really a
| problem that's emerging more and more in all modern vehicles.
| trabant00 wrote:
| While the trend for vendor lock-in applies to ICE vehicles as
| well it feels disingenuous not to acknowledge the differences.
| The difference is comparable to PC vs smartphone. Sure, you get a
| lot of proprietary code on PCs as well but come on...
| detaro wrote:
| Are you sure you aren't just comparing Tesla vs other brands?
| Tesla is pushing the "smartphone"-style further/first and only
| does EVs. Whereas with other brands it does seem like they
| follow the same trend line towards that with both EVs and non-
| EVs in their ranges (and many would do it more if they could
| manage doing it, but traditional car companies and software is
| ... challenging)
| webmobdev wrote:
| In the future we won't own anything, corporates will. And with
| the data they will collect, share and collate, and use against
| us, they will effectively enslave us. But we'll all still be
| under the illusion that we have autonomy and freedom. .
| aww_dang wrote:
| You can still go the DIY kit car option or have a professional
| do it for you.
| 2000UltraDeluxe wrote:
| Illegal or prohibitly expensive in quite a few parts of the
| world. Even simple things like converting a car to run on
| biofuel can be difficult.
| bambax wrote:
| A DIY car is a difficult thing to do, but a DIY ebike is easy
| and relatively cheap.
| aww_dang wrote:
| Good point. It could also become a stepping stone to
| starting a larger project.
| w3news wrote:
| It shouldnt, the concept of an EV is simple, but car
| companies add to much gadgets. Just look to electric remote
| toy cars how simple the basics are for an EV. Lets make EV
| cars just as simple as electric toy cars. Keep it simple,
| dont make driving gadgets.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| When my 23 year old vehicle finally gives in and it gets too
| expensive to repair I will be getting a side-by-side. [1]
| Possibly even one that is EV but no internet connections. No
| fondle-screen. It will cover 99% of my driving needs as I
| don't even leave this county any more. I see people drive
| their side-by-sides into town all the time, even the ones
| that aren't street legal and the troopers don't bat an eye. I
| will get the street legal version regardless.
|
| Maybe in 10+ years if large EV trucks have options for no
| internet/cellular network connection and no touch screens I
| _might_ get one. They have a lot of bugs to work out and
| competition to create.
|
| [1] - https://ranger.polaris.com/en-us/ranger-ev/
| aww_dang wrote:
| Kei trucks are another option. People really like the
| Suzuki Carry with aftermarket parts. A bit cheaper than the
| Polaris stuff too.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Thankyou! I am currently reading up on these. I've seen a
| couple old ones in town. I didn't know that heating was
| an option in some of these that would be a big plus here.
| em500 wrote:
| But most of the largest corporations are owned by us, the
| public
| XXXYYYZZZ123 wrote:
| > And with the data they will collect, share and collate, and
| use against us, they will effectively enslave us.
|
| This is the point where we in Europe smugly point to the GDPR.
| mellavora wrote:
| someone pointed out the percentage of US house sales due to
| private equity. A nation of renters.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| I appreciate your cynicism, but history has shown that slavery
| is unsustainable and that humans resist and succeed against it
| time and time again. In this same future you've described, we
| will value and own the corporations instead of things directly.
| The reason we will remain under the illusion that we have
| autonomy and freedom will be, despite having lost the ability
| to hack everything we own, we will have the ability to choose
| from many competitors who operate much differently and cater to
| specific types of users. No longer will we need to be lone
| islands of hackers to get our use-case working great, we will
| collectively organize around our use-cases to develop the most
| compatible products. The wealth of open-source software and
| specifications will be a foundation for these new businesses to
| operate from. It's inevitable because the pressure from
| consumers must be relieved in one way or another. The founding
| of companies like Framework seem to exhibit this principle at
| work.
|
| Squeezing on one side inflates the other side.
| gurkendoktor wrote:
| > history has shown that slavery is unsustainable and that
| humans resist and succeed against it time and time again
|
| The problem is that technology as a force amplifier is
| getting better and better. At some point it gives the 1%
| enough power and artificial smarts to enslave the 99%
| indefinitely. When people in history have overthrown slavery,
| the masters couldn't stop all transportation in the country
| (minus bicycles) with the push of a button. That's where we
| are headed here. Same with the cash-less society and so on.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| The force amplification of technology empowers individuals,
| not necessarily just the incumbent leaders. This allows
| other countries to catch up and offer alternative,
| competing visions for the future of governance. Just like
| YouTubers have used new prosumer software and hardware to
| produce content rivaling or surpassing their much larger,
| legacy predecessors, so to will the upstart governments and
| economies of the world. Just like there will be more
| competing businesses for non-serviceable hardware (e.g.
| ASICs or SoCs), there will be more governments capable of
| servicing their infrastructure needs. Cash-less societies
| can mean many things, there will be credit-based barter
| networks which are hyper-local, regional, national, etc.
| There are privacy coins. Users can mine new, anonymous
| coins on other networks to obfuscate their purchases and
| funds transfers. Technology gives users these many avenues
| to avoid government monitoring when fighting tyranny. We
| don't need cash, and we have options if it looks like the
| enslavement is upon us.
| imhoguy wrote:
| "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy.", and some likely
| say: we will own everything and we'll be happier /s.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| F*ck that. I want no part in that future.
| markb139 wrote:
| Recently had water ingress on an Audi hybrid (thankfully covered
| by warranty). It turned out, after many calls, there is one
| service centre that could do the work in Scotland. It's 250 miles
| away. It would seem even the official channels are struggling to
| fix the vehicles. Any young people looking for a career you won't
| go far wrong training up to fix EV's
| stutsmansoft wrote:
| Kinda clickbaity.
|
| I sure own my Porsche EV.
|
| I don't have the daily thrills/hassles of the constant OTA
| updates, because they don't do them except for the radio.
|
| Not concerned about repairability when the designs are so simple
| there's almost nothing to break...plus it has a good warranty.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-11 23:00 UTC)