3 ms·

So in some ways it's hard to argue against new "safety" features; but on the other hand there is a cost to sprawling feature creep in cars (or software): increa

So in some ways it's hard to argue against new "safety" features; but on the other hand there is a cost to sprawling feature creep in cars (or software): increased complexity surface; increased failure modes; increased repair costs. How many sensors/computers are on new cars; 10 years out how many of them will start to fail/go flaky. Right now I apparently have an O2 sensor and a crankshaft position sensor failure on my vehicle; they do not seem to be impacting normal operation, but replacement of them would cost $600

aedocw 3y ago
That o2 sensor is an important part of the engine/emissions management system. Without that info, the car computer is not able to efficiently map the fuel/air mixture and over time is likely to lead to more problems. Depending on the car, the CPS sensor could be really critical (like if you've got variable valve timing in an interference engine I think?). Understandable you want to ignore that check engine light but recognize that $600 cost to repair could balloon into a lot more (even a destroyed engine).
rcktmrtn 3y ago
Yeah, well put. There are a lot of difficult to quantify cost for new features: * monetary for the consumer (new features give manufactures an excuse to keep the price high) * environmental (because increased failure surface area causes consumers to need more repairs/upgrades) * safety (side airbags hurt visibility... Bigger cars are more dangerous ... generally safety features may make more people drive more dangerously [1]) * increased oligopoly (complex safety requirements stifle competition) The problem isn't that there's no benefit, it's just that all of those "unintended" costs are actually boons to the manufacturers, so as long as they're calling the shots new features will just keep on rolling. Meanwhile, we just get more and more dependent on something that fewer and fewer really understand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

aedocw 3y ago

That o2 sensor is an important part of the engine/emissions management system. Without that info, the car computer is not able to efficiently map the fuel/air mixture and over time is likely to lead to more problems. Depending on the car, the CPS sensor could be really critical (like if you've got variable valve timing in an interference engine I think?). Understandable you want to ignore that check engine light but recognize that $600 cost to repair could balloon into a lot more (even a destroyed engine).

rcktmrtn 3y ago

Yeah, well put. There are a lot of difficult to quantify cost for new features: * monetary for the consumer (new features give manufactures an excuse to keep the price high) * environmental (because increased failure surface area causes consumers to need more repairs/upgrades) * safety (side airbags hurt visibility... Bigger cars are more dangerous ... generally safety features may make more people drive more dangerously [1]) * increased oligopoly (complex safety requirements stifle competition) The problem isn't that there's no benefit, it's just that all of those "unintended" costs are actually boons to the manufacturers, so as long as they're calling the shots new features will just keep on rolling. Meanwhile, we just get more and more dependent on something that fewer and fewer really understand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox