[HN Gopher] Porsche Design System v3
___________________________________________________________________
Porsche Design System v3
Author : MarlonPro
Score : 76 points
Date : 2024-01-03 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (designsystem.porsche.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (designsystem.porsche.com)
| JamesCoyne wrote:
| kinda discussed here previously
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38244149
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! Macroexpanded:
|
| _Porsche Open Source Platform_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38244149 - Nov 2023 (144
| comments)
| turtlebits wrote:
| Slightly confusing if it's coming from "Porsche" or "Porsche
| Design" (https://www.porsche-design.com/).
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Which is why HN always makes the domain visible ;)
| letwhile wrote:
| The linked documentation page has an objectively bad design. Not
| bad bad, but really confusing.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > Everything is built and tested following the Porsche quality
| standards and corporate design principles.
|
| Hope it's more reliable than their cars.
| OJFord wrote:
| I would expect it to be completely independent, because it's
| not likely IMO that the web app team(s) have anything to do
| with actual cars.
| supportengineer wrote:
| The last time I checked Consumer Reports, Porsche was actually
| on the list of reliable used cars.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Until panels start falling off and various axles break under
| pressure. In Europe they wouldnt even make a recall until
| years after they've been sued in the US.
|
| In the UK ranks as the least reliable brand:
| https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/porsche-named-least-
| reliable-...
|
| A common trend with german carmakers in recent years. Not
| good for Europe as a whole.
| dubcanada wrote:
| Do you have any details on what Warrentywise uses for their
| data? The data seems to suggest all of the "cheap" cars are
| more reliable then all of the "expensive" cars. Which is
| just wrong, if anything it's a spread of cheap/expensive on
| top and cheap/expensive on bottom.
|
| That data seems to imply there is perhaps another reason
| for the rankings then what is to be assumed.
| gumballindie wrote:
| They do include the cost to repair among other things,
| which means that only do they break often, they also cost
| a lot to fix. Cheap brands on the other hand when they do
| break down are either fixed by the manufacturer for free
| or dont break as often. German cars are infamous for the
| high number of defects that their manufacturers wont
| issue recalls for. Therefore the ranking is accurate.
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| It still feels a bit off. I expect an expensive car to
| have expensive repairs. When looking at the cost of a
| repair I would perhaps consider the cost as a proportion
| of the MSRP, or resale value, not the raw cost.
| mikeryan wrote:
| Warrantywise does aftermarket extended warranties in the
| UK.
|
| I can't say _how_ but it seems to me that may have an
| influence on their data.
| eagerpace wrote:
| cant repair modern ones diy anymore with everything requiring
| dealer programming. Not that it's unique, but I understand
| they're on the bleeding edge of what all parts require
| dealers to replace.
| dubcanada wrote:
| They have a better reliability rating then most other car
| companies according to JD Power. Not perfect, but average
| around 85% for the few models I checked. Perhaps the opinion is
| anecdotal but I have not heard nor experienced any issues
| myself.
| vpribish wrote:
| their cars have a very good reputation for reliability
| gumballindie wrote:
| Yeah, among people that never owned one.
| xcv123 wrote:
| Compared to what? A Toyota Corolla? Higher performance
| requires higher maintenance for any brand. In motorsport
| you will be frequently replacing parts as they are pushed
| to the limit.
|
| Compare a Porsche 911 versus Corolla on a track and see
| which one is actually more reliable after 20 hard laps.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Most people dont drive these cars on tracks. They drive
| them in cities and motorways, which in Europe force you
| to drive the same way you'd drive a Corolla. It's not
| just mechanics that lack. Plastics come off and have
| nothing to do with track driving. The spyder or the 981
| equally suffer from roofs and door panels simply
| ungluing. Mechanics are as bad as the Cayenne's engine
| blows up just by looking at it. All in all the myth is
| gone, these cars are not what used to be. Well the
| porschea boxster and cayman were infamous for ims issues,
| oil leaks, and various other non essential mechanics
| failing. Marketing is one thing, real life is another.
| dash2 wrote:
| > They drive them in cities and motorways, which in
| Europe force you to drive the same way you'd drive a
| Corolla.
|
| Expand, I'm interested. I mean, my thought would be,
| Germany is the land of the no-speed-limit autobahn, the
| US was 55 everywhere until recently.
| pi-e-sigma wrote:
| But realistically it doesn't mean that an average Porsche
| owner does nothing but speeding on Autobahns. Similarly
| lots of people in the US drive pickups but only a tiny
| portion of them actually use them the way they were meant
| to be used
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| A performance car doesn't magically get reliable just
| because you drive it slow- usually the opposite actually,
| you get carbon buildup issues, timing chain wear issues,
| etc. if a motor engineered for high RPM reliability is
| driven gently, or worse, lugged frequently at low RPMs.
|
| I mentioned IMS issues elsewhere in this thread, but I
| think you're also being disingenuous with the Cayenne.
|
| The Cayenne is a pretty darn impressive vehicle- a full
| sized SUV that handles well enough to be fun on a race
| track, and yet also does incredible offroad. It has a lot
| of engine options, and while some of the earlier high
| performance V8 engine options had issues, most of them
| are very reliable. It does pay for all of that
| performance and capability by being pretty complex, but
| it's also very well built. As the older Cayennes have
| become cheap, there's a big following now of people doing
| serious offroading in them, and the suspension, body, and
| interiors really hold up well to hard offroad use.
|
| I would say Porsche engines tend to have new design flaws
| when they do a ground up engine redesign cycle, because
| they are really pushing the limits with new ideas and
| tech, and they get reliable again after a few years. Most
| other car companies pretty much avoid doing that, or
| doing it as often, because they aren't trying to extract
| as much performance.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Exactly... you can't compare the reliability of a street
| legal track ready race car with a cheap economy car.
| Compared to other exotic cars with similar performance,
| the longevity and reliability of Porsche is unequaled...
| and with proper maintenance they handle decades of hard
| driving.
| rozap wrote:
| Counterpoint: Porsches are notoriously horrible in 24
| hours of lemons. These are mostly 924, 944 and boxsters.
|
| For 18+ hours of w2w racing I'd take the Corolla.
|
| In any case, apples and oranges. Porsche seems to build
| reliable stuff compared to their actual competitors which
| are Ferrari, Lotus, etc etc. Toyota comparisons are
| meaningless.
| xcv123 wrote:
| > Porsche seems to build reliable stuff compared to their
| actual competitors which are Ferrari, Lotus, etc etc.
| Toyota comparisons are meaningless.
|
| That was my point
| rozap wrote:
| > Compare a Porsche 911 versus Corolla on a track and see
| which one is actually more reliable after 20 hard laps.
|
| This is what I read. I'd still put money on the Toyota if
| the test is not blowing up.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| They are pretty darn reliable cars when you consider how much
| performance they squeeze out of them, and how uncompromising
| the driving experience is. Moreover, that they can handle being
| driven HARD day in and day out for decades and stay reliable-
| something really no other car make can do.
|
| I bought an old Porsche Boxster for cheap on Craigslist and
| commute daily with no breakdowns for the last 3 years... it's
| not a Toyota- it's reliable because I spend A LOT of my free
| time doing preventative maintenance on it. While it requires a
| lot of maintenance, a cheap economy car would be toast in a few
| days if driven as hard as I drive this thing. Yet in stock form
| I could take it to the track and keep up with crazy unreliable
| exotic supercars that cost 30x what I paid for it.
| joshu wrote:
| IMS bearing??
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| IMS issues are way overblown, failures are actually fairly
| rare, and permanently fixed by swapping out the bearing
| when you do the clutch, which is easy to do and doesn't
| cost much. Mine already had an LN Engineering retrofit kit
| when I got it, as do most of the used cars I've seen for
| sale.... but I've sometimes seen them with 200-300k miles
| on the original IMS as well.
|
| My main issue with the early watercooled flat 6 Porsche
| engines is that they are just so complex and costly to
| rebuild. They will easily last several hundred thousand
| miles of hard use, but when they do need a rebuild, doing
| it properly can easily cost $10k just for materials to
| rebuild it yourself properly.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That issue, while valid, has one of the highest ratios of
| "talked about on the forums divided by frequency of
| occurrence". If I had a 1997-2005 affected engine, I don't
| think I'd do the preventative maintenance work proactively
| until it came time to replace a clutch anyway.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| (2023)
| KevinMS wrote:
| auto manufacturer websites are always among the worst designed on
| the internet. menus, tabs, side scrollers, etc. Its a website
| with a limited number of products guys, just use pages and links.
| mschild wrote:
| I generally agree but on mobile, Porsche.com is surprisingly
| nice to use.
| supertron wrote:
| Link to the GitHub repo:
|
| https://github.com/porsche-design-system/porsche-design-syst...
|
| (It's a bit hidden when viewing this page on mobile)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-03 23:02 UTC)