18 ms·

Short answer to the lede: no, the industry cannot cope. Or rather, it will limp along with bloatware, bugs, and malware exactly the same way we see desktop OSes

Short answer to the lede: no, the industry cannot cope. Or rather, it will limp along with bloatware, bugs, and malware exactly the same way we see desktop OSes bloat, or the way we see routers and set-top boxes hacked to become botnets. In my 40+ years in the industry I've yet to see code get SMALLER. With the exception of Linux kernel 1.0 in the 90's which was a step backwards into smaller, more compact code, code has always bloated. Damn. I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary. Literally: make it as simple as possible. Like an golf cart! Is anyone else out there with me? I feel like Walter from The Big Lebowski regarding this: has everyone just gone crazy?

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Cars like Microsoft Word have a broad feature set because needs are broad. For those of us who want reliable, inexpensive, self service-able transportation there are fewer choices. My guess is because the majority are entranced by sexier things: smart features, driver assist, and safety features of dubious quality.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  For what it’s worth, my base model Honda ticks those boxes.
- mulmen 5y ago
  What safety features are of dubious quality? Do you have some examples?
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    I was thinking of Tesla's not full "full self driving" and things like auto park.
  - Pokepokalypse 5y ago
    THREE, Takata airbag recalls on a single vehicle.
vannevar 5y ago
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who wants a dumb car. Unfortunately, the idea of electric cars has become bound up with the notion of software-driven cars. I want an electric car with analog controls, no touch screens or over-the-air updates, and minimal software. A car that I feel like I own, rather than one I'm getting a click-through license to use.
- zippergz 5y ago
  1000% agree. I do not want a car that is a smartphone on wheels and I have no idea why so many people find this attractive.
  - arpyzo 5y ago
    I own a 2014 Subaru Impreza and my brother in-law a 2017. I've driven both extensively. Sometime during those years, Subaru switched from knobs and levers to a touchscreen and the controls are so much worse! 1. The controls on the 2014 are obvious, easy to find, and my choices are readily apparent. In the 2017 I have to search for them and often guess their meanings. If I'm actively driving, I just give up because it's too distracting. 2. The controls are not as responsive. Sometimes there's a lag. Sometimes they don't respond at all. 3. There are bugs with the digital controls that simply don't exist in the analog versions. As an example in the 2017 the radio turns on every time the car gets started regardless of if it was on when the car was turned off.
    - patpending 5y ago
      I have a similar problem with my 2017 Pacifica that replaced my 2005 Voyager. Using the touch screen to control the heat and air-conditioning is extremely slow in the Pacifica, and you can't do it without looking at the screen which can't be used with gloves. There are physical buttons and knobs for a few of the controls, but it seems that they're just talking to the same software as the touch-screen, so they're just as slow to respond. Adjusting the heat without looking at the touch-screen is pretty much impossible. IMO the touch screen should not be used to control any aspect of the car's operation. It should only be for phone, navigation, backup camera, and entertainment.
carlosf 5y ago
I used to have a car before moving closer to a metro area and going full Uber. It was a cheap Renault. Malfunctioned twice in ten years. Repair was trivial both times. Sometimes I think about having a car again, but the sort of stuff you described makes me super nervous.
- nogridbag 5y ago
  I used to live in NYC and bought a disposable car. It was a used rental car that was rear ended, but otherwise brand new with less than 1000 miles on it. I owned it for 5 years with zero issues and I just traded it in for almost the same price I paid for it.
frosted-flakes 5y ago
Check out Bollinger electric trucks. No screens at all; even the battery gauge is analogue.
- mortenjorck 5y ago
  I was quite impressed with how bare-bones the B1 looks, and figured it must be priced competitively. I was less impressed to see it starts at three times the base price of the Cybertruck.
- i80and 5y ago
  Bollinger is extremely cool and I watched them with great interest for a while, but their initial estimates of ~$60k turned into $125,000 along with the short highway range puts it solidly into the "wealthy person's weekend toy" category.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    The range is the death of these vehicles. Otherwise they look great.
BigTuna 5y ago
I don't mind complexity but what I can't stand is having to access that complexity through touchscreens. Without the tactile feedback of a knob or button I have to take my attention off the road to see where I need to press on the screen. That's a major step backwards in auto safety, IMO. And don't get me started on the lazy manufacturer design trend of bolting a tablet to the dashboard and calling it a day.
- MengerSponge 5y ago
  Mazda doesn't get nearly enough respect for their work identifying and correcting this issue. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging-touchscreens-from-its-vehicles https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur... Touchscreens/touch panels are shiny, futuristic, dangerous, dumb, and cheap. Manufacturers use them because they lower BOM costs, at the expense of usability and safety. Vote with your wallet folks.
  - galangalalgol 5y ago
    Mazda would make a great EV, but that is sadly not on their roadmap for the foreseeable future. I have been told this is probably an influence from Toyota's large share ownership, not wanting competition in that space.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      That's not smart by Toyota (unless they own a very small stake), is it? Mazda competing with Toyota is indeed bad for Toyota but it's also bad for all the other auto manufacturers too. The benefit of that competition goes exclusively to Toyota (among other shareholders) but the cost is shared among all automakers roughly in proportion to their EV market share.
      - InitialBP 5y ago
        Mazda has been focused on continuing to improve internal combustion engines over the past couple of decades. Specifically, the "Skyactiv" technology they developed was built to help improve efficiency and emissions of modern ICE engines. It's likely Toyota wanted to have some group/company (like Mazda) continue working on improving ICE engines while also investing in EVs. I think ICE vehicles will continue to have a market, especially in very remote areas of the world where power grids are non-existent or not very reliable.
bobajeff 5y ago
Yeah, I like the tech behind Tesla but am turned off by. 1) The large, distracting screen in the front of the car. 2) The subscription model of the car's firmware. If electric cars ever become widespread I hope I can find a used one engineered without that stuff. Otherwise I may have to stop buying cars.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  > If electric cars ever become widespread I have a strong suspicion that soon enough after that we will be able to build electric cars from kits, cheap and with no frills. We are on a cusp of a new technological revolution.
  - itsoktocry 5y ago
    >soon enough after that we will be able to build electric cars from kits I'm skeptical. An internal combustion engine is a complicated, engineering marvel. But a complete engine, as a unit, isn't difficult to remove/insert. It's big, heavy and awkward, sure (so are electric motors and batteries), but an experienced person can do an engine swap in a couple of hours. And yet there aren't many people building ICE cars from kits. Why not? Because the drivetrain is only one part of what makes a good car good.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - userbinator 5y ago
      And yet there aren't many people building ICE cars from kits. Why not? Quite frankly, speaking as someone who is a bit of an automotive enthusiast, you'll probably find even less EVs, because EVs are sterile and boring. They can definitely be fast, but I suspect the average auto enthusiast is not only interested in speed. The sounds and smells of an ICE are far more appealing to the type of people who tend to build custom cars.
    - kingsuper20 5y ago
      I think it would be a cool idea on a vintage car, but is still too expensive.
LinuxBender 5y ago
I'm with you. I will not buy a vehicle of any kind that is sending telemetry or tracking without my express written consent. This includes ICE cars made after 2018 that may have ODB3 and send GPS, emission, speed and other data to 3rd parties. I accept that I will be paying a premium to keep older vehicles running. I am about to donate my old truck to a charity and will get a less old truck after I leave California.
- e40 5y ago
  > This includes ICE cars made after 2018 that have ODB3 and send GPS, emission, speed and other data to 3rd parties. I googled for this and could find no info. Please give a reference for this claim.
  - LinuxBender 5y ago
    In fact all the links to forums discussing this appear to have been wiped from Google and Bing. Perhaps this topic is off limits for now. I can still find the older articles talking about privacy concerns, but the forums where people were explaining how to disable it have vanished.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    > > This includes ICE cars made after 2018 that have ODB3 and send GPS, emission, speed and other data to 3rd parties. > I googled for this and could find no info. Please give a reference for this claim. I can't even seem to find any reference to odb 3 existing at all in the first place. So yeah any link would be very much appreciated
    - xxpor 5y ago
      I'd assume they meant OBD3 http://straighttalkautomotive.com/articles/have-you-heard-of-%20obd-iii.html http://straighttalkautomotive.com/articles/have-you-heard-of... It's mostly about surfacing the codes via a screen in the car instead of having a generic check engine light and needing an external scanner. As far as I can tell, it was never mandated. Most posts about it are from ~2011.
cylon13 5y ago
I agree with you about wanting a car without pointless stuff bolted on. When it comes to the things required to actually move the car, there's an interesting inverse relationship between visible levers and internal complexity though. Each lever removed is moving complexity from your brain to some physical system. Like an automatic transmission removes the gear shift and adds the more complex automatic transmission. In the limit, one can imagine the "simplest" interface of a virtually empty self-driving pod, which of course is actually an extremely complex system.
politelemon 5y ago
Hey I'm with you. Not just in cars but for gadgets around the home. Coffee makers, microwaves, fridges, thermostats. Please give me as few moving parts as possible, the consequences of decisions made outside my control are a huge unknown with potentially large impacts.
giantrobot 5y ago
I'm definitely in the same boat wrt complexity. My pickup has just enough extra electronics to be a quality of life improvement over a model that lacked those features. It doesn't try to drive for me and second guess my actions in unexpected ways. It doesn't give me unfathomable warning beeps that only serve as a distraction trying to figure out what's causing the beep. At the same time it's important to recognize there's a difference between software bloat and growth. Security fixes often cause code to grow (checks, verifications, etc). That growth isn't bloat. The previous version of the software was exploitable because it lacked the checks that were added. Adding drivers or better handling edge cases in drivers grows code but isn't bloat. Even "bloat" that's only added on-disk size (a secret Tetris game in some code) that doesn't affect normal code flow isn't the same as bloat as adding some advertising telemetry in the middle of a critical code path. Not all code growth is bloat and not all bloat is equal.
andrewia 5y ago
If you want the simplest car possible, you can look at models designed to sell in volume worldwide. I'm talking the Hyundai Venue crossover, Hyundai Accent subcompact sedan, Honda Fit/Jazz hatchback (recently discontinued for the US), Ford EcoSport crossover, etc. They are designed to be serviced in poor conditions. They will tolerate removal of electronics like the infotainment because some countries' base models have simpler configurations. In the case of the Honda Fit, the climate control dials physically move the ducts! And repair documentation and parts will be plentiful because there's a large market for parts suppliers to compete. Also look at body-on-frame fleet vehicles like a base Ford Ranger or F-150, but be ready to forgo stuff like cruise control. There are EV equivalents too, like the Chevy Bolt and Hyundai Kona EV that offer range in the 200s of miles with make driver assists as an optional upgrade. Even with complicated powertrain electronics, EVs are still more reliable than ICE cars because any iffy software is made up for by lack of mechanical parts. The repair procedure is the same as mechnical parts - just swap the faulty part out for a working one, and the "upstream" supplier will probably take the broken module to reflash software or frankenstein together half-working PCBs to make another refurbished module to sell. If you're worried about remote compromise, it's pretty easy to avoid IMO. Open the dashboard and yank the cellular antenna, and never pair the infotainment to Bluetooth or Wi-Fi (or just yank the 2.4 GHz antenna). Those are basically the only avenues for wireless attacks into a vehicle unless you count the TPMS and key fob radios, which seem too simple and low-bandwidth to offer an attack surface. And if an attacker can access your car's physical ports, they could already attack you in other ways like by weakening the brake lines. Other new electronics, like MOSFETS instead of relays in the BCM, have actually made the car more reliable so they should be fine. Other newly standard features like blind spot monitoring are (1) solid state, so they won't fail often and (2) tolerate failure or complete removal.
- numpad0 5y ago
  It’s so wrong that tech inclined wants cheapest models for the reason that those are objectively better. The entire car industry is going to go iPhone all over again.
  - jfengel 5y ago
olivermarks 5y ago
https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=40 https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=40 - convert a sturdy long lasting pre connectivity/phone home car as asap while you still can!
Dumblydorr 5y ago
I wouldn't want anything resembling a golf cart, but in principle yes! Tesla has an OK idea of minimal dashboard, but then a less OK idea of tons of features on the screen. I don't know if automaticity or app based control or minimized function is the answer, but less is more to my eyes.
cosmodisk 5y ago
As in one the Top Gear episodes, where the user manual for S class Mercedes is thicker than a book on English History...
dusted 5y ago
Hear, hear! As a software developer, I'll take a car without a computer, or with as little computing as possible any day! I do understand that fuel injection and abs are great stuff, but those could be ultra low cost asics, and, frankly, computing need not apply anywhere else.
jrwoodruff 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the TJ-era wranglers (1997-2006), and the Cherokee of the same period hit a sweet spot. Dead simple, no frills, durable as hell, utilitarian but not uncomfortable. Everything after that is continual bloat - bigger overall size, more luxury options, more technology in general. But that's what people want - luxury, comfort, safety... I get it, but I love the experience of my TJ.
- cbHXBY1D 5y ago
  I love my '99 Cherokee (XJ) for this reason. Hopefully it never dies. Doug DeMuro explains why people love the XJ for its simplicity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3STMfI_PS4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3STMfI_PS4Q
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I'd like if the entire car "computer" was socketed and could easily be tinkered with, upgraded, or left empty.
temporallobe 5y ago
Car guy here. Yeah, I’m with you. My favorite car was a ‘96 Tercel with mechanical steering and a 4-speed manual. It even had manual roll-up windows. It had less than 100 HP, but it was simple as hell to operate, very fun to drive, cheap to maintain, and extremely reliable up until I sold it with nearly 400k miles on the odo. I put an aftermarket stereo and speakers in it and I was set. Only reason I sold it was because my wife hated it and a friend needed a cheap reliable car for his idiot son who proceeded to neglect and destroy it quickly after taking possession. Modern cars are absolutely terrible in the UX department, but they are a hell of a lot safer, so there’s that.
- jrwoodruff 5y ago
  Those mid 90s Japanese sedans were awesome. Relatively compact overall, zippy little 4 cylinders engines and manual transmissions. I had an Accord from that era, and loved driving my dads nerdy-as-hell Nissan Sentra. That car was shockingly fun to drive.
  - GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
    I still drive my '94 Lexus. California is kind in that way.
  - throaway46546 5y ago
    92 Civic owner here. Love my car.
  - beckingz 5y ago
    Mid 90s Accords were incredibly long lasting.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    Just sold my 1990 Bluebird. Didn't pass warrant of fitness, but otherwise drove amazingly well.
  - tim333 5y ago
    1990 mx5 still going! It's a good car though a little rust. The only thing I miss from more modern cars is the engines are a bit more efficient in modern ones - more power less fuel. Re electronics the sound system and sat nav (iphone) are boxes you tack on and don't have to be part of the car.
_benj 5y ago
I have a more optimist view about the industry being able to cope just because we have two more industries that have gone the same transitions, aeronautical and aerospace. Back in the day airplanes where just knobs and levers, and we didn't have the reliability that safety that we have today. With aerospace, I mean, software engineering as a discipline started with aerospace! If we write "starup code" (i.e. CRUD web app) for cars we'd still be in huge trouble, but if the automotive industry can adopt the redundant systems, enforce VERY high levels of software testing, and other practices for those other industries I think we could see some interesting things coming from the industry
- numpad0 5y ago
  I don’t want to imagine how Program Alarm 1202 looks like on a SpaceX Starship running Chromium instances on Intel Atom, the latter half of which is how they’re planning to do it.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    The stuff running inside Chromium on Intel Atom processors is not mission critical.
- jsight 5y ago
  > I have a more optimist view about the industry being able to cope TBH, I have similarly optimistic views, but for completely different reasons. The truth is, the worldview has changed completely in the past 100 years. In the old days, if you failed at operating a saw, you hurt yourself badly. Now we slowly are starting to expect sawstop and other solutions to reduce injury. The same thing is happening in cars. We no longer expect perfection of the human as we augment them in various ways to both reduce the frequency and severity of collision. Its the early days yet, and its very much the "startup code" mindset with cars having way more bugs than its ever but also producing safer outcomes. Car software is getting worse, but we're better off for it.
- scarier 5y ago
  I'm sure you didn't mean it quite so bluntly, but characterizing the history of aviation safety as a triumph of computer control systems over analog ones misses the mark by a pretty wide margin--even if we're just talking about the advances that only computers have provided. Probably the only way a modern car is technologically less sophisticated than a passenger aircraft is its inability to substantially steer itself (and this problem is orders of magnitude more difficult for cars than planes). A lot of the systems we take for granted in our cars (ECU, ABS/stability control, adaptive cruise control, steer-by-wire, OBD) were pioneered in the aviation industry, and both industries' safety records have been massively improved by the ability to do digital design/analysis (CAD, FEA, CFD, etc). Then once you start talking about advances in computer-aided manufacturing and QC/QA processes, training, failure analysis, human-machine interaction... One of my perennial frustrations with current tech is the idea that putting a computer in the control loop necessarily makes things safer.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
So what are the odds of some car pieces moving towards dark mirror episode where a car had a modular solar panel charger? I know what the tendency is now ( lock everything up and sell any telemetry ), but could that happen?
Pokepokalypse 5y ago
some of us do not trust automatic transmissions.
ghostpepper 5y ago
As an embedded software person who is also into cars, I am definitely going to be looking for something older for my next car. I have the luxury of not needing to drive it every day, but I like the idea of something I have at least a hope of repairing myself when it breaks.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tima101 5y ago
"Has the whole world gone CRAZY?"
- watt 5y ago
  There's some amount of entitlement in that exclamation, though. The world, I feel, does not actually owe you to make any sense, or move in any predictable, safe pattern. The world will shift, and leave you behind. Feeling resentful about that is just unproductive. (To take a slightly trolling tone, can you imagine how a lot of racists (BLM) must feel? Or religious fundamentalists, homophobes feel (gay marriage). The world does not owe them anything.)
gilbetron 5y ago
One of our cars is a 2004 Toyota Tacoma with everything analog except the radio, and I vastly prefer it. If it just had a usb plug so I could play music from my phone, it would be ideal. Oh, and oddly, the radio doesn't have a clock. Bizarre. It I can 100% everything better than our 2016 Subaru Outback with it's annoying touch screen console. Plus my nieces and nephews are amused by the actual manual window openers.
- toyyodas82727 5y ago
  Try popping in an aftermarket radio/stereo - you can get a nice Pioneer with a USB fast-charge port and Bluetooth/etc for ~$100-150.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  FWIW Subaru kinda just has crappy digital components. Corresponding touch screen console from recent year Toyotas are pretty good, especially with CarPlay / Android Auto.
  - drivers99 5y ago
    In my recent Subaru Impreza, CarPlay works just fine, however when I start the engine and put it in reverse, it will mostly ignore the volume control until you finish backing up and then a few second after you shift into drive/forward, it will then process the volume up/down messages it received in the meantime. It's like it dedicates all processing to booting up the screen and then in displaying the rear-view/backup camera. Also, it defaults to playing the radio (even if you had it OFF before, I think), so if you had the volume up for a quiet podcast or something it will blast the radio which is quite annoying, especially if you're in the middle of a phone call or something. I want a physical potentiometer which directly controls the amplifier to the speakers, like in any normal old radio. (This is also one of the exhibits in my mental list of reasons that people should write all the software they run on their devices. Or at least be able to.)
    - saltcured 5y ago
      I don't think it's bogged down processing. It is explicitly muting the audio as part of the reversing protocol to avoid distractions, and possibly to let you hear other sounds such as from a parking assistance system.
sharkweek 5y ago
I would prefer a car that is almost entirely mechanical because mechanics make way more sense to me than software. The old crusty mechanic I take my 20+ year old 4Runner to for service complains about this a lot. Cars don’t make nearly as much sense to him as they used to. Just to be clear, I appreciate improved safety that technology brings to cars, and I know I can’t have it both ways.
- bob1029 5y ago
  The biggest thing for me is user input latency. It doesnt matter if its a computer, a microwave, or a car. I want to feel like the machine is not a lazy piece of shit and actually wants to help me. I know it sounds like a pedantic annoyance, but that little bit of step-wise discrete behavior I get out of my electronic throttle body right at the threshold of activation is one of the most infuriating things about owning an otherwise "sporty" car. It's not defective either. This is the cost of doing business with a totally-unnecessary software control loop. I find that mechanical linkages usually have zero fucking latency, infinite resolution, and are much preferable to my monkey brain. Fly-by-wire is a huge mistake.
  - ggreer 5y ago
    Are you sure that's not something else like inertia in various mechanical parts or engine tuning? Maybe it sacrifices responsiveness at low RPM for better emissions or better performance at high revs. There's certainly no need for the software side of things to be laggy or discrete. Also have you tried an electric car? You might be impressed. EVs may have more software, but they don't have nearly as many physical constraints on responsiveness. They don't have to wait for an engine to suck in more air. They don't have to overcome the inertia of pistons and rods and flywheels and clutch discs and long driveshafts. It's just instant torque. Compared to my Model 3, every internal combustion vehicle feels like it has turbo lag.
- smolder 5y ago
  You can't have high tech safety features without high tech, but you can limit the complexity of electronics, software, and in-car networking to a bare minimum, which is arguably not even being attempted, at least in some markets.
jrsj 5y ago
No you’re not crazy at all; my preference for a vehicle would be analog everything with as few electronic components as possible. Even if it were an EV.
- muxator 5y ago
  Digital components may well be more reliable than corresponding analog ones. They can also be purely hw, with no sw or just a simple firmware. There is a middle ground between analog circuits and a general purpose programmable computer with windows 10 on it. :)
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
"Software is a gas; it expands to fill its container." - Nathan Myhrvold
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
geocrasher 5y ago
This is the very reason I drive a 1988 Suburban. The mileage isn't good, but it's not worse than most modern SUV's.
notjes 5y ago
Having a cheap, dumb car that you can repair yourself would destroy like 100m jobs.
amelius 5y ago
> I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary. With more software you can have a car with just one button. You press it and say the name of the place you want to go to.
Swizec 5y ago
You should get a Catheram, exactly the kind of car you’re talking about.
wyager 5y ago
Cars are legally required to have infotainment systems (for the backup camera) by NHTSA safety regulations. We’re fucked.
- SilverRed 5y ago
  This is GOOD. Drivers run over children so frequently that they need this system. We should not be putting drivers in a machine they can not safely operate.
- jeegsy 5y ago
  My '12 Tundra had the backup screen in the rearview mirror. A huge innovation to me at the time. Everything else was knobs and buttons on the dash like yesteryear. That truck was awesome. A shame I had to give it up!
rm445 5y ago
Well that's two different things. Intrinsic versus extrinsic complexity. The user experience may get simpler again, but the technology inside is likely to get more complex. Electrification might mean simpler mechanisms and fewer moving parts, but the software will get ever more complicated. Now in a way it's usually a good thing, if all the complexity of something is hidden and users can treat it as though it's simple. But we'd probably all agree that extra complexity in software that can kill us if it goes wrong is worrying. The only way we know to write safe software is to make it as simple as possible, and write it slowly and expensively. SIL-rated software has already reached the automotive sector. But it seems like the sheer demand to make cars more complex (especially for self-driving) will outrun our ability to make them safe.
madengr 5y ago
Here here. I was looking just yesterday to see if a John Deere Gator (or equivalent) is street legal. The answer is yes, with a few parts. https://www.sidebysidestuff.com/john-deere-gator-utility-street-legal-dot-approval-stuff.html https://www.sidebysidestuff.com/john-deere-gator-utility-str... I want my 87’ Toyota pickup back with it’s solid state ignition and carburetor. It’s been down hill since then.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
I guess Renault Zoe or Wuling Hong Guang Mini EV mostly ticks your boxes
cmurf 5y ago
It's what every industry does. It thinks it's creating value by having more features, when in reality it's just creating more jobs. More middle people who each want a cut.
holoduke 5y ago
Buy a 15 year old car. Our family car is a 2003 Infiniti fx35. Got everything we need. Bluetooth aftermarket adapter from AliExpress and i feel modern as any other car.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
foobiekr 5y ago
Being as good as the desktop experience would be amazing. Realistically it will be much, much worse than the desktop experience because the auto companies are far, far worse at software than even 1990s Microsoft. You are talking about an industry where OTA updates are considered a major and challenging technology and multiple instances of bricking have occurred.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  True but no one can secure anything. Therefore, the last thing I want is a network enabled car. I have my phone for that.
kingsuper20 5y ago
regarding simple cars. I think it's a damn shame that the opportunity for truly simple cars isn't occurring with the advent of mass market EVs. I suppose that ever-increasing safety concerns will push for cars that are more complex.
betwixthewires 5y ago
I drive an old car partly for this reason. I've never had a car younger than 10 years old. My previous reasoning when I was younger was that I don't want to deal with the inspection requirements that come with OBD2 cars. Now I'm not so much worried about that with all the extra nonsense they're putting into them. My favorite car ever was older than I was, I loved it, an old ramcharger with power windows. My current one has some "modern" archaic crap in it that was all the rage when it was built, it's GM so it has the OnStar buttons in the rear view mirror that are useless, along with complementary antenna on the roof. It's stock stereo controlled the alarm, it has all sorts of compartments that are nowadays mostly useless and IMO just an excuse to cram something in every spot. A lot of the "features" are just dead fads. The seats have lumbar shit in them and warm up. The warmer is useful in the winter I guess. Still with the bloat it is significantly better than the Frankensteins that commercials have convinced people they need nowadays. My next car is either going to be a ~1995 4runner or a ~1994 diesel f-350 that I build myself. I do miss the corner windows.
midhhhthrow 5y ago
I’m so glad you posted this. I thought I was the only one
pgreenwood 5y ago
I'm reminded of the joke "If Microsoft Made Cars" from the 90s. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw/microsoftjoke.htm http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw/microsoftjoke.htm And 25 years later here we are... ' For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics: 1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day. 2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car. 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this. 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine. 5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads. 6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light. 7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying. 8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna. 9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car. 10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off." '
- elihu 5y ago
  ...and the hood would be welded shut at the factory.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Ha, I remember this! Also, I have a strange feeling that this may end up reality instead of parody.
rhizome 5y ago
As someone pointed out the other day on a somewhat unrelated topic, luxury cars don't have touchscreens or Tesla TVs. They are bad for driving. Dangerous, even.
FpUser 5y ago
>"I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary." I also want "dumb" car. Not completely dumb but say the equivalent of ones released before 2010.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
My dad bought one new car in the 90's. It was a Dodge Dakota. He demanded a free Service manual from the salesman. Conversation with my dad in my car after the sale. Son---I demanded a Service manual because that truck has a computer, and I don't like computers. Always ask for a Service manual. (The salesman would probally laugh if you requested a Service manual today.) Son---I'll put in my own stereo. That overpriced factory cd player is a waste of money. Son---power windows are just something that will break at the wrong time. If I ever get to the age I can't physically roll down a window; shot me. Different time?
nanis 5y ago
> Damn. I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary. In 2005, there was a huge publicity campaign to make cameras mandatory in cars on the basis motivated by some parents driving over their toddlers playing in the driveway. Of course, there are many rather more straightforward solutions to that problem. Given the fact that such parents must be in a rather select group, I doubted having cameras would prevent other sources of injury to their children even if they prevented parents from moving them down. Now, auto manufacturers had to put a camera in every car[1]. Yes, the requirement took effect in 2018, but the manufacturers knew it was coming. So, you have a screen in the car. In addition, there is the temptation to monitor and collect information. You can sell that to insurers as "anonymized" data. Etc etc. You can enhance the tracking dimensions a lot if you can also get to track all the other stuff people do. Offer them the honey of pairing their phones with the entertainment system, and, boom. > 221 people were killed by non-traffic (not on public roads) backover crashes in 2007, and 14,000 people were injured.[1] Given that the value of a statistical life is about $10 million, if the backup camera eliminates all such deaths and injuries, its benefit is about $5 billion. Conveniently, we do not know how many fatalities and injuries have been caused by trying to change stations or select tracks on a touch screen. So, on the cost side, we are stuck with the cost of all the equipment, software development, bug tracking, and, above it all, the annoyance of having to live with all this additional equipment one cannot avoid for the foreseeable future. Here are sample stories: * https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/over-in-an-instant/article/How-can-this-happen-4833168.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/over-in-an-instant/art... * https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/nyregion/2yearold-run-over-by-fathers-suv-is-back-from-the-brink-of-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/nyregion/2yearold-run-ove... * https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/backovers/ https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/backovers/ * ... Ah, the Houston Chronicle stories has this nugget: > A cost-benefit analysis, required as part of the rule-making process, put the cost of each life saved at up to $19.7 million. It's all for the children. How there you object? [1]: https://www.thedrive.com/news/20612/rearview-cameras-are-now-required-on-all-new-cars-sold-in-the-u-s https://www.thedrive.com/news/20612/rearview-cameras-are-now...
drbawb 5y ago
I'm with you on this one. I think perhaps my favorite car interface to date is my '01 Camry. Let's look at the HVAC system: Three knobs: temperature, speed, vent selection. Three buttons: a/c, recirc, rear defroster. That's it. The entire system. It's a 20 year old design at this point. I have never once thought that I, a mere mortal, could improve on the design in any meaningful way. The buttons and knobs are big enough that I can work them w/ my huge gloves on, I do not need special gloves that work w/ a touchscreen, the buttons are not context sensitive, and I can hit all the controls in the dark without even looking. Another point, which I've now learned I had taken for granted, is that no software update will ever mess w/ my muscle memory. Those switches cannot be programmed to do anything else in software, as they're physically wired to the functions they control. The beauty of the system above is that the physical controls are the state machine. I can literally feel the state the HVAC system is in. Nowadays that state machine is all in software, and I have to hunt through menus, look at a display, sometimes multiple displays, just to figure out what state I left the system in. That's just unacceptable.
- saltcured 5y ago
  I once drove a Volvo from the late 1970s with almost the same interface except one better: the air conditioning was a knob rather than a button, so I could select how "hard" the compressor functioned independently of the thermostat slider for the heater core and the slider for air routing. It meant I could dial in how much dehumidification I wanted while running heat in the winter and using recirculate to keep out some of the nasty truck exhaust and dust from sanded mountain roads.
markbnj 5y ago
Two months ago I sold a dead-simple Toyota truck I'd driven for 14 years and bought a new, loaded Honda. The difference in the complexity is of course astonishing. The yota didn't even have usb. You could climb into the engine compartment and sit there. The Honda has pretty much everything a modern car can have, and you can't even see empty space in the engine compartment. I _could_ get on your "just give me simple" bandwagon. A part of me was proud of the low-tech, rusty durability of the Toyota, I admit it. Still, I'll also admit I like most of what the Honda can do. I like the phone integration and that I can toss it down on a pad and it will charge while I drive. I like that the wipers, headlights and high beams all activate when needed without input from me. I like that it remembers my seat and mirror settings and restores them when I enter the car. I like keyless entry and remote start. I like the backup camera. I like adaptive cruise control, collision mitigation braking, and lane keeping assist. I like torque vectoring all wheel drive. Heated and ventilated seats are awesome. Of course, if I were to try to keep this car for 14 years I might regret it, I don't know. Honda makes good cars but there's a boatload of stuff to break, lol. I think I might be better advised to trade it in at five years or so, but I do like the tricks it can do.
- toast0 5y ago
  > high beams all activate when needed without input from me. Not a hard trick since high beams are almost never needed. Only to tell people it's their turn to go at the 4-way. They're only marginally more useful than fog lights.
  - tim333 5y ago
    Depends where you live. In the city yeah. On country roads with no street lights though they are good.
  - markbnj 5y ago
    I'm not sure that the difficulty of performing a trick is related to its utility, and it doesn't really make sense to compare the usefulness of high beams and foglamps since they are indicated in completely different situations. Foglamps are mounted low and are usually yellow and meant to illuminate the road surface in heavy fog. High beams are counterproductive in fog.
skocznymroczny 5y ago
Depends on your definition of a simple car. Manual transmission is simple and requires little to no software, but it's not simple for the end-user. Automatic transmission is simple for the end-user but involves a lot of software behind to make it work smoothly.
textman 5y ago
<has everyone just gone crazy? > Absolutely: Ford logged 100k preorders for the F150 Lightning https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-f150-lightning-electric-preorders-100000-2021-6?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-f150-lightning-electric... This truck is so software bloated.
kazinator 5y ago
In a parking spot, I never turn the steering wheel without the car moving forward or backwards. It's bad for the tires. But what drove the lesson home for me (pardon the pun) is when I drove a rental car with no power steering, sometime in 1990 in Europe. If the car is not moving, and you try to turn the wheels with no power steering, you feel massive resistance from the road-rubber interface. When you let the car move this way or that, even just a little bit, that resistance dramatically eases. To hell with power steering; what's it good for? Power steering and brakes are dangerous because they are powered from the engine. In an emergency situation, exactly when you need the controls to respond in the expected way, your engine may die. Suddenly, you have no braking power, and the steering is all weird.
- kazinator 5y ago
  > Suddenly, you have no braking power, and the steering is all weird. One day in in the early 1990's sometime, I was driving a car that started to aquaplane on a patch of wet road. Suddenly the car felt like a boat, and shimmied a bit and spun around. It caught some traction coming out of the wet patch, and at that point I could have stopped it faster, had the power brakes not failed respond in the normal way because the engine cut. So I ended up striking the concrete divider with the rear corner of the car. I was not moving fast at that point; I didn't hit it very hard, but enough to cause damage and that could have been avoided had the brakes worked. The engine might have cut because of lock up due to braking without traction. This was an automatic transmission, so that's another piece of idiocy to blame. In a manual, you wouldn't brake with the intent to stop without also hitting the clutch to disengage the engine; there is a good chance the engine and power brakes would not have cut out if that had happened in a manual. (Electric cars should also fix all this.) It could have been a pile up; this was in fairly busy, fast moving traffic with cars all around. Everyone behind managed to avoid me, luckily, and, equally luckily, the cars in front who were likely oblivious to the situation did not come to an unrelated halt, which would have seen me careen into them.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

Cars like Microsoft Word have a broad feature set because needs are broad. For those of us who want reliable, inexpensive, self service-able transportation there are fewer choices. My guess is because the majority are entranced by sexier things: smart features, driver assist, and safety features of dubious quality.

germinalphrase 5y ago
For what it’s worth, my base model Honda ticks those boxes.
mulmen 5y ago
What safety features are of dubious quality? Do you have some examples?
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  I was thinking of Tesla's not full "full self driving" and things like auto park.
- Pokepokalypse 5y ago
  THREE, Takata airbag recalls on a single vehicle.

vannevar 5y ago

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who wants a dumb car. Unfortunately, the idea of electric cars has become bound up with the notion of software-driven cars. I want an electric car with analog controls, no touch screens or over-the-air updates, and minimal software. A car that I feel like I own, rather than one I'm getting a click-through license to use.

zippergz 5y ago
1000% agree. I do not want a car that is a smartphone on wheels and I have no idea why so many people find this attractive.
- arpyzo 5y ago
  I own a 2014 Subaru Impreza and my brother in-law a 2017. I've driven both extensively. Sometime during those years, Subaru switched from knobs and levers to a touchscreen and the controls are so much worse! 1. The controls on the 2014 are obvious, easy to find, and my choices are readily apparent. In the 2017 I have to search for them and often guess their meanings. If I'm actively driving, I just give up because it's too distracting. 2. The controls are not as responsive. Sometimes there's a lag. Sometimes they don't respond at all. 3. There are bugs with the digital controls that simply don't exist in the analog versions. As an example in the 2017 the radio turns on every time the car gets started regardless of if it was on when the car was turned off.
  - patpending 5y ago
    I have a similar problem with my 2017 Pacifica that replaced my 2005 Voyager. Using the touch screen to control the heat and air-conditioning is extremely slow in the Pacifica, and you can't do it without looking at the screen which can't be used with gloves. There are physical buttons and knobs for a few of the controls, but it seems that they're just talking to the same software as the touch-screen, so they're just as slow to respond. Adjusting the heat without looking at the touch-screen is pretty much impossible. IMO the touch screen should not be used to control any aspect of the car's operation. It should only be for phone, navigation, backup camera, and entertainment.

carlosf 5y ago

I used to have a car before moving closer to a metro area and going full Uber. It was a cheap Renault. Malfunctioned twice in ten years. Repair was trivial both times. Sometimes I think about having a car again, but the sort of stuff you described makes me super nervous.

nogridbag 5y ago
I used to live in NYC and bought a disposable car. It was a used rental car that was rear ended, but otherwise brand new with less than 1000 miles on it. I owned it for 5 years with zero issues and I just traded it in for almost the same price I paid for it.

frosted-flakes 5y ago

Check out Bollinger electric trucks. No screens at all; even the battery gauge is analogue.

mortenjorck 5y ago
I was quite impressed with how bare-bones the B1 looks, and figured it must be priced competitively. I was less impressed to see it starts at three times the base price of the Cybertruck.
i80and 5y ago
Bollinger is extremely cool and I watched them with great interest for a while, but their initial estimates of ~$60k turned into $125,000 along with the short highway range puts it solidly into the "wealthy person's weekend toy" category.
- colordrops 5y ago
  The range is the death of these vehicles. Otherwise they look great.

BigTuna 5y ago

I don't mind complexity but what I can't stand is having to access that complexity through touchscreens. Without the tactile feedback of a knob or button I have to take my attention off the road to see where I need to press on the screen. That's a major step backwards in auto safety, IMO. And don't get me started on the lazy manufacturer design trend of bolting a tablet to the dashboard and calling it a day.

MengerSponge 5y ago
Mazda doesn't get nearly enough respect for their work identifying and correcting this issue. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging-touchscreens-from-its-vehicles https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur... Touchscreens/touch panels are shiny, futuristic, dangerous, dumb, and cheap. Manufacturers use them because they lower BOM costs, at the expense of usability and safety. Vote with your wallet folks.
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  Mazda would make a great EV, but that is sadly not on their roadmap for the foreseeable future. I have been told this is probably an influence from Toyota's large share ownership, not wanting competition in that space.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    That's not smart by Toyota (unless they own a very small stake), is it? Mazda competing with Toyota is indeed bad for Toyota but it's also bad for all the other auto manufacturers too. The benefit of that competition goes exclusively to Toyota (among other shareholders) but the cost is shared among all automakers roughly in proportion to their EV market share.
    - InitialBP 5y ago
      Mazda has been focused on continuing to improve internal combustion engines over the past couple of decades. Specifically, the "Skyactiv" technology they developed was built to help improve efficiency and emissions of modern ICE engines. It's likely Toyota wanted to have some group/company (like Mazda) continue working on improving ICE engines while also investing in EVs. I think ICE vehicles will continue to have a market, especially in very remote areas of the world where power grids are non-existent or not very reliable.

bobajeff 5y ago

Yeah, I like the tech behind Tesla but am turned off by. 1) The large, distracting screen in the front of the car. 2) The subscription model of the car's firmware. If electric cars ever become widespread I hope I can find a used one engineered without that stuff. Otherwise I may have to stop buying cars.

Koshkin 5y ago
> If electric cars ever become widespread I have a strong suspicion that soon enough after that we will be able to build electric cars from kits, cheap and with no frills. We are on a cusp of a new technological revolution.
- itsoktocry 5y ago
  >soon enough after that we will be able to build electric cars from kits I'm skeptical. An internal combustion engine is a complicated, engineering marvel. But a complete engine, as a unit, isn't difficult to remove/insert. It's big, heavy and awkward, sure (so are electric motors and batteries), but an experienced person can do an engine swap in a couple of hours. And yet there aren't many people building ICE cars from kits. Why not? Because the drivetrain is only one part of what makes a good car good.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - userbinator 5y ago
    And yet there aren't many people building ICE cars from kits. Why not? Quite frankly, speaking as someone who is a bit of an automotive enthusiast, you'll probably find even less EVs, because EVs are sterile and boring. They can definitely be fast, but I suspect the average auto enthusiast is not only interested in speed. The sounds and smells of an ICE are far more appealing to the type of people who tend to build custom cars.
  - kingsuper20 5y ago
    I think it would be a cool idea on a vintage car, but is still too expensive.

LinuxBender 5y ago

I'm with you. I will not buy a vehicle of any kind that is sending telemetry or tracking without my express written consent. This includes ICE cars made after 2018 that may have ODB3 and send GPS, emission, speed and other data to 3rd parties. I accept that I will be paying a premium to keep older vehicles running. I am about to donate my old truck to a charity and will get a less old truck after I leave California.

e40 5y ago
> This includes ICE cars made after 2018 that have ODB3 and send GPS, emission, speed and other data to 3rd parties. I googled for this and could find no info. Please give a reference for this claim.
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  In fact all the links to forums discussing this appear to have been wiped from Google and Bing. Perhaps this topic is off limits for now. I can still find the older articles talking about privacy concerns, but the forums where people were explaining how to disable it have vanished.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  > > This includes ICE cars made after 2018 that have ODB3 and send GPS, emission, speed and other data to 3rd parties. > I googled for this and could find no info. Please give a reference for this claim. I can't even seem to find any reference to odb 3 existing at all in the first place. So yeah any link would be very much appreciated
  - xxpor 5y ago
    I'd assume they meant OBD3 http://straighttalkautomotive.com/articles/have-you-heard-of-%20obd-iii.html http://straighttalkautomotive.com/articles/have-you-heard-of... It's mostly about surfacing the codes via a screen in the car instead of having a generic check engine light and needing an external scanner. As far as I can tell, it was never mandated. Most posts about it are from ~2011.

cylon13 5y ago

I agree with you about wanting a car without pointless stuff bolted on. When it comes to the things required to actually move the car, there's an interesting inverse relationship between visible levers and internal complexity though. Each lever removed is moving complexity from your brain to some physical system. Like an automatic transmission removes the gear shift and adds the more complex automatic transmission. In the limit, one can imagine the "simplest" interface of a virtually empty self-driving pod, which of course is actually an extremely complex system.

politelemon 5y ago

Hey I'm with you. Not just in cars but for gadgets around the home. Coffee makers, microwaves, fridges, thermostats. Please give me as few moving parts as possible, the consequences of decisions made outside my control are a huge unknown with potentially large impacts.

giantrobot 5y ago

I'm definitely in the same boat wrt complexity. My pickup has just enough extra electronics to be a quality of life improvement over a model that lacked those features. It doesn't try to drive for me and second guess my actions in unexpected ways. It doesn't give me unfathomable warning beeps that only serve as a distraction trying to figure out what's causing the beep. At the same time it's important to recognize there's a difference between software bloat and growth. Security fixes often cause code to grow (checks, verifications, etc). That growth isn't bloat. The previous version of the software was exploitable because it lacked the checks that were added. Adding drivers or better handling edge cases in drivers grows code but isn't bloat. Even "bloat" that's only added on-disk size (a secret Tetris game in some code) that doesn't affect normal code flow isn't the same as bloat as adding some advertising telemetry in the middle of a critical code path. Not all code growth is bloat and not all bloat is equal.

andrewia 5y ago

If you want the simplest car possible, you can look at models designed to sell in volume worldwide. I'm talking the Hyundai Venue crossover, Hyundai Accent subcompact sedan, Honda Fit/Jazz hatchback (recently discontinued for the US), Ford EcoSport crossover, etc. They are designed to be serviced in poor conditions. They will tolerate removal of electronics like the infotainment because some countries' base models have simpler configurations. In the case of the Honda Fit, the climate control dials physically move the ducts! And repair documentation and parts will be plentiful because there's a large market for parts suppliers to compete. Also look at body-on-frame fleet vehicles like a base Ford Ranger or F-150, but be ready to forgo stuff like cruise control. There are EV equivalents too, like the Chevy Bolt and Hyundai Kona EV that offer range in the 200s of miles with make driver assists as an optional upgrade. Even with complicated powertrain electronics, EVs are still more reliable than ICE cars because any iffy software is made up for by lack of mechanical parts. The repair procedure is the same as mechnical parts - just swap the faulty part out for a working one, and the "upstream" supplier will probably take the broken module to reflash software or frankenstein together half-working PCBs to make another refurbished module to sell. If you're worried about remote compromise, it's pretty easy to avoid IMO. Open the dashboard and yank the cellular antenna, and never pair the infotainment to Bluetooth or Wi-Fi (or just yank the 2.4 GHz antenna). Those are basically the only avenues for wireless attacks into a vehicle unless you count the TPMS and key fob radios, which seem too simple and low-bandwidth to offer an attack surface. And if an attacker can access your car's physical ports, they could already attack you in other ways like by weakening the brake lines. Other new electronics, like MOSFETS instead of relays in the BCM, have actually made the car more reliable so they should be fine. Other newly standard features like blind spot monitoring are (1) solid state, so they won't fail often and (2) tolerate failure or complete removal.

numpad0 5y ago
It’s so wrong that tech inclined wants cheapest models for the reason that those are objectively better. The entire car industry is going to go iPhone all over again.
- jfengel 5y ago

olivermarks 5y ago

https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=40 https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=40 - convert a sturdy long lasting pre connectivity/phone home car as asap while you still can!

Dumblydorr 5y ago

I wouldn't want anything resembling a golf cart, but in principle yes! Tesla has an OK idea of minimal dashboard, but then a less OK idea of tons of features on the screen. I don't know if automaticity or app based control or minimized function is the answer, but less is more to my eyes.

cosmodisk 5y ago

As in one the Top Gear episodes, where the user manual for S class Mercedes is thicker than a book on English History...

dusted 5y ago

Hear, hear! As a software developer, I'll take a car without a computer, or with as little computing as possible any day! I do understand that fuel injection and abs are great stuff, but those could be ultra low cost asics, and, frankly, computing need not apply anywhere else.

jrwoodruff 5y ago

I'm pretty sure the TJ-era wranglers (1997-2006), and the Cherokee of the same period hit a sweet spot. Dead simple, no frills, durable as hell, utilitarian but not uncomfortable. Everything after that is continual bloat - bigger overall size, more luxury options, more technology in general. But that's what people want - luxury, comfort, safety... I get it, but I love the experience of my TJ.

cbHXBY1D 5y ago
I love my '99 Cherokee (XJ) for this reason. Hopefully it never dies. Doug DeMuro explains why people love the XJ for its simplicity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3STMfI_PS4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3STMfI_PS4Q

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I'd like if the entire car "computer" was socketed and could easily be tinkered with, upgraded, or left empty.

temporallobe 5y ago

Car guy here. Yeah, I’m with you. My favorite car was a ‘96 Tercel with mechanical steering and a 4-speed manual. It even had manual roll-up windows. It had less than 100 HP, but it was simple as hell to operate, very fun to drive, cheap to maintain, and extremely reliable up until I sold it with nearly 400k miles on the odo. I put an aftermarket stereo and speakers in it and I was set. Only reason I sold it was because my wife hated it and a friend needed a cheap reliable car for his idiot son who proceeded to neglect and destroy it quickly after taking possession. Modern cars are absolutely terrible in the UX department, but they are a hell of a lot safer, so there’s that.

jrwoodruff 5y ago
Those mid 90s Japanese sedans were awesome. Relatively compact overall, zippy little 4 cylinders engines and manual transmissions. I had an Accord from that era, and loved driving my dads nerdy-as-hell Nissan Sentra. That car was shockingly fun to drive.
- GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
  I still drive my '94 Lexus. California is kind in that way.
- throaway46546 5y ago
  92 Civic owner here. Love my car.
- beckingz 5y ago
  Mid 90s Accords were incredibly long lasting.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Just sold my 1990 Bluebird. Didn't pass warrant of fitness, but otherwise drove amazingly well.
- tim333 5y ago
  1990 mx5 still going! It's a good car though a little rust. The only thing I miss from more modern cars is the engines are a bit more efficient in modern ones - more power less fuel. Re electronics the sound system and sat nav (iphone) are boxes you tack on and don't have to be part of the car.

_benj 5y ago

I have a more optimist view about the industry being able to cope just because we have two more industries that have gone the same transitions, aeronautical and aerospace. Back in the day airplanes where just knobs and levers, and we didn't have the reliability that safety that we have today. With aerospace, I mean, software engineering as a discipline started with aerospace! If we write "starup code" (i.e. CRUD web app) for cars we'd still be in huge trouble, but if the automotive industry can adopt the redundant systems, enforce VERY high levels of software testing, and other practices for those other industries I think we could see some interesting things coming from the industry

numpad0 5y ago
I don’t want to imagine how Program Alarm 1202 looks like on a SpaceX Starship running Chromium instances on Intel Atom, the latter half of which is how they’re planning to do it.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  The stuff running inside Chromium on Intel Atom processors is not mission critical.
jsight 5y ago
> I have a more optimist view about the industry being able to cope TBH, I have similarly optimistic views, but for completely different reasons. The truth is, the worldview has changed completely in the past 100 years. In the old days, if you failed at operating a saw, you hurt yourself badly. Now we slowly are starting to expect sawstop and other solutions to reduce injury. The same thing is happening in cars. We no longer expect perfection of the human as we augment them in various ways to both reduce the frequency and severity of collision. Its the early days yet, and its very much the "startup code" mindset with cars having way more bugs than its ever but also producing safer outcomes. Car software is getting worse, but we're better off for it.
scarier 5y ago
I'm sure you didn't mean it quite so bluntly, but characterizing the history of aviation safety as a triumph of computer control systems over analog ones misses the mark by a pretty wide margin--even if we're just talking about the advances that only computers have provided. Probably the only way a modern car is technologically less sophisticated than a passenger aircraft is its inability to substantially steer itself (and this problem is orders of magnitude more difficult for cars than planes). A lot of the systems we take for granted in our cars (ECU, ABS/stability control, adaptive cruise control, steer-by-wire, OBD) were pioneered in the aviation industry, and both industries' safety records have been massively improved by the ability to do digital design/analysis (CAD, FEA, CFD, etc). Then once you start talking about advances in computer-aided manufacturing and QC/QA processes, training, failure analysis, human-machine interaction... One of my perennial frustrations with current tech is the idea that putting a computer in the control loop necessarily makes things safer.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

So what are the odds of some car pieces moving towards dark mirror episode where a car had a modular solar panel charger? I know what the tendency is now ( lock everything up and sell any telemetry ), but could that happen?

Pokepokalypse 5y ago

some of us do not trust automatic transmissions.

ghostpepper 5y ago

As an embedded software person who is also into cars, I am definitely going to be looking for something older for my next car. I have the luxury of not needing to drive it every day, but I like the idea of something I have at least a hope of repairing myself when it breaks.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tima101 5y ago

"Has the whole world gone CRAZY?"

watt 5y ago
There's some amount of entitlement in that exclamation, though. The world, I feel, does not actually owe you to make any sense, or move in any predictable, safe pattern. The world will shift, and leave you behind. Feeling resentful about that is just unproductive. (To take a slightly trolling tone, can you imagine how a lot of racists (BLM) must feel? Or religious fundamentalists, homophobes feel (gay marriage). The world does not owe them anything.)

gilbetron 5y ago

One of our cars is a 2004 Toyota Tacoma with everything analog except the radio, and I vastly prefer it. If it just had a usb plug so I could play music from my phone, it would be ideal. Oh, and oddly, the radio doesn't have a clock. Bizarre. It I can 100% everything better than our 2016 Subaru Outback with it's annoying touch screen console. Plus my nieces and nephews are amused by the actual manual window openers.

toyyodas82727 5y ago
Try popping in an aftermarket radio/stereo - you can get a nice Pioneer with a USB fast-charge port and Bluetooth/etc for ~$100-150.
kajecounterhack 5y ago
FWIW Subaru kinda just has crappy digital components. Corresponding touch screen console from recent year Toyotas are pretty good, especially with CarPlay / Android Auto.
- drivers99 5y ago
  In my recent Subaru Impreza, CarPlay works just fine, however when I start the engine and put it in reverse, it will mostly ignore the volume control until you finish backing up and then a few second after you shift into drive/forward, it will then process the volume up/down messages it received in the meantime. It's like it dedicates all processing to booting up the screen and then in displaying the rear-view/backup camera. Also, it defaults to playing the radio (even if you had it OFF before, I think), so if you had the volume up for a quiet podcast or something it will blast the radio which is quite annoying, especially if you're in the middle of a phone call or something. I want a physical potentiometer which directly controls the amplifier to the speakers, like in any normal old radio. (This is also one of the exhibits in my mental list of reasons that people should write all the software they run on their devices. Or at least be able to.)
  - saltcured 5y ago
    I don't think it's bogged down processing. It is explicitly muting the audio as part of the reversing protocol to avoid distractions, and possibly to let you hear other sounds such as from a parking assistance system.

sharkweek 5y ago

I would prefer a car that is almost entirely mechanical because mechanics make way more sense to me than software. The old crusty mechanic I take my 20+ year old 4Runner to for service complains about this a lot. Cars don’t make nearly as much sense to him as they used to. Just to be clear, I appreciate improved safety that technology brings to cars, and I know I can’t have it both ways.

bob1029 5y ago
The biggest thing for me is user input latency. It doesnt matter if its a computer, a microwave, or a car. I want to feel like the machine is not a lazy piece of shit and actually wants to help me. I know it sounds like a pedantic annoyance, but that little bit of step-wise discrete behavior I get out of my electronic throttle body right at the threshold of activation is one of the most infuriating things about owning an otherwise "sporty" car. It's not defective either. This is the cost of doing business with a totally-unnecessary software control loop. I find that mechanical linkages usually have zero fucking latency, infinite resolution, and are much preferable to my monkey brain. Fly-by-wire is a huge mistake.
- ggreer 5y ago
  Are you sure that's not something else like inertia in various mechanical parts or engine tuning? Maybe it sacrifices responsiveness at low RPM for better emissions or better performance at high revs. There's certainly no need for the software side of things to be laggy or discrete. Also have you tried an electric car? You might be impressed. EVs may have more software, but they don't have nearly as many physical constraints on responsiveness. They don't have to wait for an engine to suck in more air. They don't have to overcome the inertia of pistons and rods and flywheels and clutch discs and long driveshafts. It's just instant torque. Compared to my Model 3, every internal combustion vehicle feels like it has turbo lag.
smolder 5y ago
You can't have high tech safety features without high tech, but you can limit the complexity of electronics, software, and in-car networking to a bare minimum, which is arguably not even being attempted, at least in some markets.

jrsj 5y ago

No you’re not crazy at all; my preference for a vehicle would be analog everything with as few electronic components as possible. Even if it were an EV.

muxator 5y ago
Digital components may well be more reliable than corresponding analog ones. They can also be purely hw, with no sw or just a simple firmware. There is a middle ground between analog circuits and a general purpose programmable computer with windows 10 on it. :)

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

"Software is a gas; it expands to fill its container." - Nathan Myhrvold

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

geocrasher 5y ago

This is the very reason I drive a 1988 Suburban. The mileage isn't good, but it's not worse than most modern SUV's.

notjes 5y ago

Having a cheap, dumb car that you can repair yourself would destroy like 100m jobs.

amelius 5y ago

> I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary. With more software you can have a car with just one button. You press it and say the name of the place you want to go to.

Swizec 5y ago

You should get a Catheram, exactly the kind of car you’re talking about.

wyager 5y ago

Cars are legally required to have infotainment systems (for the backup camera) by NHTSA safety regulations. We’re fucked.

SilverRed 5y ago
This is GOOD. Drivers run over children so frequently that they need this system. We should not be putting drivers in a machine they can not safely operate.
jeegsy 5y ago
My '12 Tundra had the backup screen in the rearview mirror. A huge innovation to me at the time. Everything else was knobs and buttons on the dash like yesteryear. That truck was awesome. A shame I had to give it up!

rm445 5y ago

Well that's two different things. Intrinsic versus extrinsic complexity. The user experience may get simpler again, but the technology inside is likely to get more complex. Electrification might mean simpler mechanisms and fewer moving parts, but the software will get ever more complicated. Now in a way it's usually a good thing, if all the complexity of something is hidden and users can treat it as though it's simple. But we'd probably all agree that extra complexity in software that can kill us if it goes wrong is worrying. The only way we know to write safe software is to make it as simple as possible, and write it slowly and expensively. SIL-rated software has already reached the automotive sector. But it seems like the sheer demand to make cars more complex (especially for self-driving) will outrun our ability to make them safe.

madengr 5y ago

Here here. I was looking just yesterday to see if a John Deere Gator (or equivalent) is street legal. The answer is yes, with a few parts. https://www.sidebysidestuff.com/john-deere-gator-utility-street-legal-dot-approval-stuff.html https://www.sidebysidestuff.com/john-deere-gator-utility-str... I want my 87’ Toyota pickup back with it’s solid state ignition and carburetor. It’s been down hill since then.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

I guess Renault Zoe or Wuling Hong Guang Mini EV mostly ticks your boxes

cmurf 5y ago

It's what every industry does. It thinks it's creating value by having more features, when in reality it's just creating more jobs. More middle people who each want a cut.

holoduke 5y ago

Buy a 15 year old car. Our family car is a 2003 Infiniti fx35. Got everything we need. Bluetooth aftermarket adapter from AliExpress and i feel modern as any other car.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

foobiekr 5y ago

Being as good as the desktop experience would be amazing. Realistically it will be much, much worse than the desktop experience because the auto companies are far, far worse at software than even 1990s Microsoft. You are talking about an industry where OTA updates are considered a major and challenging technology and multiple instances of bricking have occurred.

bbarnett 5y ago
True but no one can secure anything. Therefore, the last thing I want is a network enabled car. I have my phone for that.

kingsuper20 5y ago

regarding simple cars. I think it's a damn shame that the opportunity for truly simple cars isn't occurring with the advent of mass market EVs. I suppose that ever-increasing safety concerns will push for cars that are more complex.

betwixthewires 5y ago

I drive an old car partly for this reason. I've never had a car younger than 10 years old. My previous reasoning when I was younger was that I don't want to deal with the inspection requirements that come with OBD2 cars. Now I'm not so much worried about that with all the extra nonsense they're putting into them. My favorite car ever was older than I was, I loved it, an old ramcharger with power windows. My current one has some "modern" archaic crap in it that was all the rage when it was built, it's GM so it has the OnStar buttons in the rear view mirror that are useless, along with complementary antenna on the roof. It's stock stereo controlled the alarm, it has all sorts of compartments that are nowadays mostly useless and IMO just an excuse to cram something in every spot. A lot of the "features" are just dead fads. The seats have lumbar shit in them and warm up. The warmer is useful in the winter I guess. Still with the bloat it is significantly better than the Frankensteins that commercials have convinced people they need nowadays. My next car is either going to be a ~1995 4runner or a ~1994 diesel f-350 that I build myself. I do miss the corner windows.

midhhhthrow 5y ago

I’m so glad you posted this. I thought I was the only one

pgreenwood 5y ago

I'm reminded of the joke "If Microsoft Made Cars" from the 90s. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw/microsoftjoke.htm http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw/microsoftjoke.htm And 25 years later here we are... ' For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics: 1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day. 2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car. 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this. 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine. 5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads. 6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light. 7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying. 8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna. 9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car. 10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off." '

elihu 5y ago
...and the hood would be welded shut at the factory.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Ha, I remember this! Also, I have a strange feeling that this may end up reality instead of parody.

rhizome 5y ago

As someone pointed out the other day on a somewhat unrelated topic, luxury cars don't have touchscreens or Tesla TVs. They are bad for driving. Dangerous, even.

FpUser 5y ago

>"I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary." I also want "dumb" car. Not completely dumb but say the equivalent of ones released before 2010.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

My dad bought one new car in the 90's. It was a Dodge Dakota. He demanded a free Service manual from the salesman. Conversation with my dad in my car after the sale. Son---I demanded a Service manual because that truck has a computer, and I don't like computers. Always ask for a Service manual. (The salesman would probally laugh if you requested a Service manual today.) Son---I'll put in my own stereo. That overpriced factory cd player is a waste of money. Son---power windows are just something that will break at the wrong time. If I ever get to the age I can't physically roll down a window; shot me. Different time?

nanis 5y ago

> Damn. I just want a car with as FEW knobs/buttons/levers as necessary. In 2005, there was a huge publicity campaign to make cameras mandatory in cars on the basis motivated by some parents driving over their toddlers playing in the driveway. Of course, there are many rather more straightforward solutions to that problem. Given the fact that such parents must be in a rather select group, I doubted having cameras would prevent other sources of injury to their children even if they prevented parents from moving them down. Now, auto manufacturers had to put a camera in every car[1]. Yes, the requirement took effect in 2018, but the manufacturers knew it was coming. So, you have a screen in the car. In addition, there is the temptation to monitor and collect information. You can sell that to insurers as "anonymized" data. Etc etc. You can enhance the tracking dimensions a lot if you can also get to track all the other stuff people do. Offer them the honey of pairing their phones with the entertainment system, and, boom. > 221 people were killed by non-traffic (not on public roads) backover crashes in 2007, and 14,000 people were injured.[1] Given that the value of a statistical life is about $10 million, if the backup camera eliminates all such deaths and injuries, its benefit is about $5 billion. Conveniently, we do not know how many fatalities and injuries have been caused by trying to change stations or select tracks on a touch screen. So, on the cost side, we are stuck with the cost of all the equipment, software development, bug tracking, and, above it all, the annoyance of having to live with all this additional equipment one cannot avoid for the foreseeable future. Here are sample stories: * https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/over-in-an-instant/article/How-can-this-happen-4833168.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/over-in-an-instant/art... * https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/nyregion/2yearold-run-over-by-fathers-suv-is-back-from-the-brink-of-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/nyregion/2yearold-run-ove... * https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/backovers/ https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/backovers/ * ... Ah, the Houston Chronicle stories has this nugget: > A cost-benefit analysis, required as part of the rule-making process, put the cost of each life saved at up to $19.7 million. It's all for the children. How there you object? [1]: https://www.thedrive.com/news/20612/rearview-cameras-are-now-required-on-all-new-cars-sold-in-the-u-s https://www.thedrive.com/news/20612/rearview-cameras-are-now...

drbawb 5y ago

I'm with you on this one. I think perhaps my favorite car interface to date is my '01 Camry. Let's look at the HVAC system: Three knobs: temperature, speed, vent selection. Three buttons: a/c, recirc, rear defroster. That's it. The entire system. It's a 20 year old design at this point. I have never once thought that I, a mere mortal, could improve on the design in any meaningful way. The buttons and knobs are big enough that I can work them w/ my huge gloves on, I do not need special gloves that work w/ a touchscreen, the buttons are not context sensitive, and I can hit all the controls in the dark without even looking. Another point, which I've now learned I had taken for granted, is that no software update will ever mess w/ my muscle memory. Those switches cannot be programmed to do anything else in software, as they're physically wired to the functions they control. The beauty of the system above is that the physical controls are the state machine. I can literally feel the state the HVAC system is in. Nowadays that state machine is all in software, and I have to hunt through menus, look at a display, sometimes multiple displays, just to figure out what state I left the system in. That's just unacceptable.

saltcured 5y ago
I once drove a Volvo from the late 1970s with almost the same interface except one better: the air conditioning was a knob rather than a button, so I could select how "hard" the compressor functioned independently of the thermostat slider for the heater core and the slider for air routing. It meant I could dial in how much dehumidification I wanted while running heat in the winter and using recirculate to keep out some of the nasty truck exhaust and dust from sanded mountain roads.

markbnj 5y ago

Two months ago I sold a dead-simple Toyota truck I'd driven for 14 years and bought a new, loaded Honda. The difference in the complexity is of course astonishing. The yota didn't even have usb. You could climb into the engine compartment and sit there. The Honda has pretty much everything a modern car can have, and you can't even see empty space in the engine compartment. I _could_ get on your "just give me simple" bandwagon. A part of me was proud of the low-tech, rusty durability of the Toyota, I admit it. Still, I'll also admit I like most of what the Honda can do. I like the phone integration and that I can toss it down on a pad and it will charge while I drive. I like that the wipers, headlights and high beams all activate when needed without input from me. I like that it remembers my seat and mirror settings and restores them when I enter the car. I like keyless entry and remote start. I like the backup camera. I like adaptive cruise control, collision mitigation braking, and lane keeping assist. I like torque vectoring all wheel drive. Heated and ventilated seats are awesome. Of course, if I were to try to keep this car for 14 years I might regret it, I don't know. Honda makes good cars but there's a boatload of stuff to break, lol. I think I might be better advised to trade it in at five years or so, but I do like the tricks it can do.

toast0 5y ago
> high beams all activate when needed without input from me. Not a hard trick since high beams are almost never needed. Only to tell people it's their turn to go at the 4-way. They're only marginally more useful than fog lights.
- tim333 5y ago
  Depends where you live. In the city yeah. On country roads with no street lights though they are good.
- markbnj 5y ago
  I'm not sure that the difficulty of performing a trick is related to its utility, and it doesn't really make sense to compare the usefulness of high beams and foglamps since they are indicated in completely different situations. Foglamps are mounted low and are usually yellow and meant to illuminate the road surface in heavy fog. High beams are counterproductive in fog.

skocznymroczny 5y ago

Depends on your definition of a simple car. Manual transmission is simple and requires little to no software, but it's not simple for the end-user. Automatic transmission is simple for the end-user but involves a lot of software behind to make it work smoothly.

textman 5y ago

<has everyone just gone crazy? > Absolutely: Ford logged 100k preorders for the F150 Lightning https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-f150-lightning-electric-preorders-100000-2021-6?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-f150-lightning-electric... This truck is so software bloated.

kazinator 5y ago

In a parking spot, I never turn the steering wheel without the car moving forward or backwards. It's bad for the tires. But what drove the lesson home for me (pardon the pun) is when I drove a rental car with no power steering, sometime in 1990 in Europe. If the car is not moving, and you try to turn the wheels with no power steering, you feel massive resistance from the road-rubber interface. When you let the car move this way or that, even just a little bit, that resistance dramatically eases. To hell with power steering; what's it good for? Power steering and brakes are dangerous because they are powered from the engine. In an emergency situation, exactly when you need the controls to respond in the expected way, your engine may die. Suddenly, you have no braking power, and the steering is all weird.

kazinator 5y ago
> Suddenly, you have no braking power, and the steering is all weird. One day in in the early 1990's sometime, I was driving a car that started to aquaplane on a patch of wet road. Suddenly the car felt like a boat, and shimmied a bit and spun around. It caught some traction coming out of the wet patch, and at that point I could have stopped it faster, had the power brakes not failed respond in the normal way because the engine cut. So I ended up striking the concrete divider with the rear corner of the car. I was not moving fast at that point; I didn't hit it very hard, but enough to cause damage and that could have been avoided had the brakes worked. The engine might have cut because of lock up due to braking without traction. This was an automatic transmission, so that's another piece of idiocy to blame. In a manual, you wouldn't brake with the intent to stop without also hitting the clutch to disengage the engine; there is a good chance the engine and power brakes would not have cut out if that had happened in a manual. (Electric cars should also fix all this.) It could have been a pile up; this was in fairly busy, fast moving traffic with cars all around. Everyone behind managed to avoid me, luckily, and, equally luckily, the cars in front who were likely oblivious to the situation did not come to an unrelated halt, which would have seen me careen into them.