[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)