Safe Speed Forums

A certain Paul Smith used to often accuse me of that!



Yes, I follow that. It has to be attributed well. But it all has to be attributed.

PS: we need to look at all planned obsolescence, not just cars. If we cut back on all of it, we can afford to spend more carbon on having fun, i.e. using our cars, not just renewing them.

Yes - basic electronics will usually do the job for you, but if you want to absolutely guarantee failure, use a central computer!
Sorry to be cynical, but even the programmers themselves don't understand what goes on inside. Computers are useful, but only
use them where you need to. Simple things should remain simple and decoupled, wherever possible. A PC in a car is a mega
single point failure.

PS: I appear to be arguing against myself, because I've crossed swords with you before about SW quality. I know which way the wind's blowing, though. I suppose the bottom line is that software is crappy and expensive, but essential. Here's an abstract thought - if I had to choose whether to rely on a crankshaft or a million lines of code, I'd choose a crankshaft every time. It's a coarse way of expressing things, but crankshafts can be mechanistically tested, unlike code.

with all due respect, the 'computers' you're complaining about in cars are nothing like your windows or linux based hardware, however high spec.

most will be bespoke (solid state) hardware & IO, with an embedded OS and application, which will have been through an extensive testing & validation program, far beyond what your average PC undergoes before hitting the shelves.

and in the case of safety critical systems will have an in depth safety analysis at both hardware & software levels.
(and having seen the costs of such analysis probably explains the cost of most cars !)

bear in mind that there is a good likelihood that a problem with some of these systems will end in court (i know we have had to defend ourselves in a couple of cases recently), so it is in the interest of the manufacturers (& system suppliers) to produce a provably safe, failsafe and reliable system.

Check out this page, with respect to testing. The airbus had 50 in-flight freezes. You can't test quality into code - it has to be there to start with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit

I worked with nuclear, chemistry, energy and space control systems. Some of them use windows, linux, VMS etc. Some of them use bespoke, embedded systems. In any case, the principle is - decouple them. Low coupling and redundancy are the the key issues - the opposite design paradigm to car makers. They want to increase coupling and dependency to achieve planned obsolesce.

PS: I might even be wrong (it has been known to happen). But I think that's where they are going. In any case, we have to put
impediments in their way. These car makers have no reputation for honesty.

and your point is ?

that only simple software can be exhaustively tested. So keep it simple, and we'll be OK.
I actually don't mind de-coupled systems as much. Lot's of simple, redundant, cohesive, de-coupled systems with open interfaces
are OK. Complex, multi-functional components with closed interfaces are to be avoided.

Unfortunately, car makers embrace complex, multi-functional components with closed interfaces because it aids their
goals wrt planned obsolescence. Those guys think we were born yesterday, eh? It's time to close down those
particular avenues of market abuse.

PS: most important are open interfaces. With those, we can create a market to undercut the closed-source
marketeers. That alone would solve the problem. We need the "whole car", when we buy a new car, not
just the hardware and the closed-source binary code (under license). Right now, we only get half the car,
but we pay the full price to the twisters.

sorry not time for a fuller response tonight.
but perhaps you'll like autosar then.

I'd be very surprised (but happy) if those particular turkeys voted for Christmas.

PS: I've done some research on this idea, and there are several stakeholder groups
involved with AUTOSAR. Unfortunatly, none of those groups include the
"car user community", i.e. us.

If they don't include us, then you can bet your bottom dollar that they intend to screw us.

Don't be silly!

They last LONGER now than they did 20-30 years ago! You keep bleating on about "planned obsolescence" and your favourite "conspiarcy theory" appears to be that manufacturers intend to achieve this by building some sort of computer-based time bomb into the vehicle. WHY????? The "simple", "no-frills" cars of 30 years ago that you're so fond of used to self-destruct due to rust, primarily. Why should the manufacturers have spent so much time and money (a) protecting their metalwork better and then (b) developing an alternative "self-destruct" system for cars when they already had a prefectly good one?

Could you elaborate on this theory? I never knew there was conspiracy. The imbalance between the lobbying forces of an international company and a private individual create an implicit conspiracy - is that what you mean?



sales?



Keep the good changes, reject the bad ones. That's what engineers should do.



Because you can SEE rust, silly!

One other thing occurred to me about planned obsolescence - this English nonsense about putting the date in the registration plate. What a coup! England is the only place where people are described by the registration plate of their cars - "you know Bill at the golf club - yeah, he drives the X reg merc"!

Wales and scotland have a similar system in place and the repuplic of ireland have an age identifying mark.

A lot of people in north america do, in my experience quote their year of manufacture when they tell you the type of car they drive too.

And because they had too!.

The watershed was back in the early 80's where some Italian marques suffered so badly from rust that they werent even lasting to the first MOT. The customer outrage at this (from which the relevent companies never really fully recovered from, not in the UK anyway) basicall forced manufacturers to come up with better anti-corrosion designs/treatments. Of coursr this presented them with a BIG problem, although they didnt want cars to fall to bits after 12 years or so anymore they really didnt want them to actually last any longer either. What a godsend all this increaced complexity (backed by legislation) must have been! It all came at just the right time too!

Now, instead of breakers yards being full of 12 year old cars that are falling to bits, we now have them full of 14 year old ones that are (structurally) as good as the day they came out of the factory, they are their because of (say) needing a new head gasket. A job that wuld have been done in a morning for collection at lunchtime for little more than the cost of a routine service 25 years ago but now costs the best part of a months wages and leaves you without a car for the best part of a week!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I know. Their main focus should be engineering led- durability and reliability, usability. Instead, their main focus is marketing led, lobbying politicians to curtail the lifetime of their products! What a shower they have become - soon, they will end up like the US makers.

Thanks 4by4. BTW: you might know the answer to this too - when you say 4x4, does that mean a car with 16 wheels?
Because "x" usually means "times", e.g. if I say my kitchen is 4x4, it's 16 square meters.

If not, why do people call those things 4x4? What's it all about?

Usually, 4 wheels X 4 wheels are connected to the engine.

I think a new/proposed leccy supercar is termed an 8x8x8 (the last number being the number of 'engines') - 1 engine per wheel, all wheels driven:


I wouldn't take that to the Fit (up) of the Quick

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes, there is something weird about that car... I can't put my finger on it. Oh yes - it only has one windscreen wiper!

Abercrombe, I was thinking about you today while I watched Automudial. Renault are making cars for Eastern Europe, Russia, Mexico etc that should suit you down to the ground. Nice an simple, no toys and 50% less components. Most of the components they have jettisoned are electrical. You have to wind you own windows and all that caper. They are based on an old Clio and should suit you down to the ground The one they featured was called Symbol, if you are interested.

With all the scare stories about the nightmare of electrics, can you tell me when my Civic will start spitting its dummy out. It was registered in August 1998 and frankly I'm getting bored of waiting for things to start going wrong . It hasn't even blow a fuse yet, I want electrical problems NOW!

Thanks. Both the crappy electric windows on my Clio are broken. It makes it really hard at the Mersey tunnel turnpike. I have to drive past the window, open the door a few inches and chuck the money backwards through the gap! What a palaver - wind down windows would be a relief.

Its not so much about when it spits its dummy out (which it will, sooner or later)

Its about whether putting it back in again remains a practical proposition when it does!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"