4 ms·

> Edit: lol first hand knowledge of complex systems, physical layout, mounting, diagnostics, wiring, their signals and data patterns… nope, wrong! Classic HN I

> Edit: lol first hand knowledge of complex systems, physical layout, mounting, diagnostics, wiring, their signals and data patterns… nope, wrong! Classic HN I imagine you’re getting down votes because your comment seems to only consider complexity in EV’s and doesn’t talk about the complexity found in ICE vehicles. If you take an existing ICE platform and adapt it for EV’s of course it’s going to end up more complex from a control perspective. You’ve taken the existing complexity of the ICE platform and just strapped all the EV stuff onto the side. Perhaps if you could talk about the mechanical complexity found in the ICE powertrain and compare the to an EV you might get a better response. The number of high load mechanical components found in an ICE powertrain is huge. Components that are forced to operate under an extremely wide range of temperatures and loads, which just don’t exist in EVs. When ICE cars fail it’s almost certainly a mechanical failure. Software based control systems generally don’t fail, they either work or they don’t. You don’t get “wear” in software. Now control systems mistakes can result unnecessary wear in mechanical parts, and premature failure. But having fewer mechanical parts significantly reduces the surface area for control errors.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> doesn’t talk about the complexity found in ICE vehicles What part of “There isn’t a single EV in the world today that is less complex than it’s non-EV relative.” doesn’t cover that it’s a relative difference? I don’t care about complexity of ICE. That’s our baseline. There isn’t a single system in EVs that is less complex. Period. You won’t break a fuel pump in a full EV, but will in a hybrid or plug in hybrid, and you’ll break the battery pump in a full EV… so where are you better off there? If you want to change the topic to reliability, we scrap thousands of tons of electric motors. Sometimes because the connection to the battery is bad (source and drain terminals). Sometimes there is nothing wrong with them, but the dealer fails to diagnose issues like they can with ICE components, most of the time we have no idea what is wrong with them. Having fewer mechanical parts is better, sure, ok, but do you realize how many more parts are added to EV systems? You are thinking in terms of classic vehicle design practices. What you are failing to understand, being an outsider, is that we used to design things the good/hard way because they had to last for 60,000 miles without major replacements… now… since as you write there is a lot more software, we design rough enough to get it on to the storage lot awaiting shipping, we get it refined enough by the time the dealers get them, and we keep refining software updates over the year. I have a 2021 company vehicle, the Linux-based radio completely resets going down the road probably once every 100 miles. It’s a completely known issue and the supplier will probably push a fix in 6 months. No one cares. This would have been inexcusable years ago. Right, software doesn’t wear. But it has a lot more bugs and bullshit. You don’t develop new issues years later - oh wait, yes, we do, all the time. Mechanical parts have a lineage and a hundred years of how to make an x or y, i can replace almost any part and we know approximately when they will fail. Software, relatively the Wild West. This is why they want OTA updates so badly. To finish them in your driveway. If my life depended on a vehicle, I’d take a 2014 Jeep Wrangler (or similar decontented vehicle) over any 2021 vehicle by any mfg, that’s ICE or not. But double true that I wouldn’t trust my life on an EV in 2021. I own an EV (plug in hybrid and a often use a full electric) and like them. But I don’t trust them because I’ve seen the sausage being made.
- saltcured 5y ago
  I think I understand where you're coming from, and the difference between your view and the popular HN take. You are considering complexity in a more complete sense of control theory, interdependence of systems, probabilities of failure, and difficulties in diagnostics. The amount of digital controls and software is a big part of that. The novelty of the systems also means that the ecosystem of support and maintenance is not there (yet?). The typical "EV is simpler" HN take, I think, instead is thinking of mechanical system complexity and mostly ignoring the digital domain. We can see how all those valves, cams, counter-balance shafts, lubrication systems, fuel systems, and emission control systems go away, and they were the root of our most expensive car maintenance nightmares so far. It is hard to compare these apples and oranges, taking away a bunch of mechanical systems, which were exquisitely modular, and replacing them with highly integrated electronic components.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    > We can see how all those valves, cams, counter-balance shafts, lubrication systems, fuel systems, and emission control systems go away, and they were the root of our most expensive car maintenance nightmares so far. That’s a good point. You aren’t going to have an NVLD leak in an EV. But… what people aren’t realizing is how much is added to EVs that replaces all this. How many people realize there is a heating and cooling system for the batteries? Pumps, radiators, heating elements, all sorts of modules for each component, the entire generator system. And it’s all brand new.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      From what I've seen from cars being put apparat by Sandy Munro company the complexity of EV cooling system maps roughly 1 to 1 with ICE. Both need cooling loops basically. There is however a staggering difference between companies. Compare cooling in Ford Mustang Mach-E and Tesla Model Y. Tesla just brutally crashes Ford in how much they are able to reduce number of parts, especially hoses and hose connectors. Tesla has something like 3x less hoses, 3x less parts and half the mass of the coolant in the loop (22kg vs 9 kg). Maybe part of what you are seeing is inexperience and incompetence of ICE car manufacturers. There are also other things that legacy car manufacturers are not willing to risk like megacasting. Something like 50 parts reduction in one cast, and good chunk of the factory floor for Tesla. And apparently the idea was out there long before Tesla but nobody tried it. While Musk loves taking financial risks if they can deliver significant engineering benefits. https://youtu.be/m1kHsd3Ocxc https://youtu.be/m1kHsd3Ocxc Not to mention that while Tesla may be not great at software engineering, ICE car companies and their supply chains are just ridiculously bad at it.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

> doesn’t talk about the complexity found in ICE vehicles What part of “There isn’t a single EV in the world today that is less complex than it’s non-EV relative.” doesn’t cover that it’s a relative difference? I don’t care about complexity of ICE. That’s our baseline. There isn’t a single system in EVs that is less complex. Period. You won’t break a fuel pump in a full EV, but will in a hybrid or plug in hybrid, and you’ll break the battery pump in a full EV… so where are you better off there? If you want to change the topic to reliability, we scrap thousands of tons of electric motors. Sometimes because the connection to the battery is bad (source and drain terminals). Sometimes there is nothing wrong with them, but the dealer fails to diagnose issues like they can with ICE components, most of the time we have no idea what is wrong with them. Having fewer mechanical parts is better, sure, ok, but do you realize how many more parts are added to EV systems? You are thinking in terms of classic vehicle design practices. What you are failing to understand, being an outsider, is that we used to design things the good/hard way because they had to last for 60,000 miles without major replacements… now… since as you write there is a lot more software, we design rough enough to get it on to the storage lot awaiting shipping, we get it refined enough by the time the dealers get them, and we keep refining software updates over the year. I have a 2021 company vehicle, the Linux-based radio completely resets going down the road probably once every 100 miles. It’s a completely known issue and the supplier will probably push a fix in 6 months. No one cares. This would have been inexcusable years ago. Right, software doesn’t wear. But it has a lot more bugs and bullshit. You don’t develop new issues years later - oh wait, yes, we do, all the time. Mechanical parts have a lineage and a hundred years of how to make an x or y, i can replace almost any part and we know approximately when they will fail. Software, relatively the Wild West. This is why they want OTA updates so badly. To finish them in your driveway. If my life depended on a vehicle, I’d take a 2014 Jeep Wrangler (or similar decontented vehicle) over any 2021 vehicle by any mfg, that’s ICE or not. But double true that I wouldn’t trust my life on an EV in 2021. I own an EV (plug in hybrid and a often use a full electric) and like them. But I don’t trust them because I’ve seen the sausage being made.

saltcured 5y ago
I think I understand where you're coming from, and the difference between your view and the popular HN take. You are considering complexity in a more complete sense of control theory, interdependence of systems, probabilities of failure, and difficulties in diagnostics. The amount of digital controls and software is a big part of that. The novelty of the systems also means that the ecosystem of support and maintenance is not there (yet?). The typical "EV is simpler" HN take, I think, instead is thinking of mechanical system complexity and mostly ignoring the digital domain. We can see how all those valves, cams, counter-balance shafts, lubrication systems, fuel systems, and emission control systems go away, and they were the root of our most expensive car maintenance nightmares so far. It is hard to compare these apples and oranges, taking away a bunch of mechanical systems, which were exquisitely modular, and replacing them with highly integrated electronic components.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  > We can see how all those valves, cams, counter-balance shafts, lubrication systems, fuel systems, and emission control systems go away, and they were the root of our most expensive car maintenance nightmares so far. That’s a good point. You aren’t going to have an NVLD leak in an EV. But… what people aren’t realizing is how much is added to EVs that replaces all this. How many people realize there is a heating and cooling system for the batteries? Pumps, radiators, heating elements, all sorts of modules for each component, the entire generator system. And it’s all brand new.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    From what I've seen from cars being put apparat by Sandy Munro company the complexity of EV cooling system maps roughly 1 to 1 with ICE. Both need cooling loops basically. There is however a staggering difference between companies. Compare cooling in Ford Mustang Mach-E and Tesla Model Y. Tesla just brutally crashes Ford in how much they are able to reduce number of parts, especially hoses and hose connectors. Tesla has something like 3x less hoses, 3x less parts and half the mass of the coolant in the loop (22kg vs 9 kg). Maybe part of what you are seeing is inexperience and incompetence of ICE car manufacturers. There are also other things that legacy car manufacturers are not willing to risk like megacasting. Something like 50 parts reduction in one cast, and good chunk of the factory floor for Tesla. And apparently the idea was out there long before Tesla but nobody tried it. While Musk loves taking financial risks if they can deliver significant engineering benefits. https://youtu.be/m1kHsd3Ocxc https://youtu.be/m1kHsd3Ocxc Not to mention that while Tesla may be not great at software engineering, ICE car companies and their supply chains are just ridiculously bad at it.