bumby

13 ms·

211.
by bumby 1y ago
Not my area of expertise, so it should be taken with a boulder of salt, but there are other studies that seem to indicate a much higher correlation. Part of the problem may be that “creative” is a nebulous term. One Swedish study found that
212.
by bumby 1y ago
But what do we do about externalities, like when the value is for other people? I don’t get much value out of my turn signals, but I assume other drivers do… Oh, wait. That’s what regulators are for :-)
213.
by bumby 1y ago
> That don't directly take control away from me. Sure it does. You can tune it to get better performance or fuel economy. (Tbf, you can do the same by fuel mapping your injectors, but it would probably void any warranty). What you
214.
by bumby 1y ago
That’s the circular part. It’s required because it’s a safety issue. I think that’s the intent behind almost all mandatory sensors. That’s why the post put “useless” in quotes. I’m highlighting just that it may be required because it’s need
215.
by bumby 1y ago
> your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). No, that was already baked in. I purposefully linked the R(gas ICE) = R(hybrid batteries). Note they were both dropped out of their respective ca
216.
by bumby 1y ago
> there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car. The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability or cost in each system.* (The original point is about cost of ownership). They don’t. So,
217.
by bumby 1y ago
Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space. Thanks for clarifying. I was using it in the pure reliability domain sense (similar to the use in electrical circuits) > less parts -> more reliability This
218.
by bumby 1y ago
Thanks for taking the time to detail it. I think that’s a reasonable take. A couple caveats: 1) most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability? 2) som
219.
by bumby 1y ago
You seem to be getting wrapped around the axle (ha) to have an argument and not reading my point well. > having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable. This is my entire
220.
by bumby 1y ago
Yes, so the claim is that the complexity electric motors + batteries + planetary gears + all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission. I’m open to that argument but nobody has really elaborated in d
221.
by bumby 1y ago
FWIW, I’m one of those people but geared (ha) towards reliability. I’ll take the ABS and TPMS, but I don’t want “bells and whistles“ of touch screens and air conditioned seats. I’m after safety and reliability more than creature comforts.
222.
by bumby 1y ago
My point is that the features are there because a regulatory body has made it a requirement. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad requirement.
223.
by bumby 1y ago
Yes, that’s why I put deliberately put “series” in my original post. The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part. So if the claim is that hybrids are more reliable than ICE, there needs to be
224.
by bumby 1y ago
Do you drive a fuel injected car or do you prefer the “control” of adjusting your carburetor? Not being snarky, just pointing out we’re often guilty of picking and choosing rather than applying first principles.
225.
by bumby 1y ago
TPMS essentially automates people checking their tires because the reality is most people do not do a walk around on their car before driving. In theory, we could use a dipstick in our fuel tank but most of us prefer an automated gage.
226.
by bumby 1y ago
I think you’re still conflating EVs and hybrids. A hybrid has an ICE that is distinct from the mechanical transmission. Hybrids tend to run off the ICE at high speeds because it’s more efficient and use the ICE to charge the battery.
227.
by bumby 1y ago
Thanks for clarifying! It does seem like the planetary design would be more reliable (but the point able heavy loads may still apply)
228.
by bumby 1y ago
CVTs are generally less reliable than traditional transmissions, especially under heavy loads. You get better mpg in exchange. You don’t have an alternator, but you have a much more expensive electric motor. You don’t have a turbocharger, b
229.
by bumby 1y ago
The point of my post was to understand why those sensors exist ubiquitously to point to why removing them isn’t necessarily easy or smart. You seemed to have interpreted it completely wrong.
230.
by bumby 1y ago
That becomes circular logic because ABS is also required by law
231.
by bumby 1y ago
I’m sure that factors in, but let’s not pretend that safety is also major contributor
232.
by bumby 1y ago
Could you elaborate further? A hybrid, by definition, combines an ICE and electric drivetrain. While I understand it could be designed for a more efficient range of operation* how could it negate the downsides of an ICE-only design if it re
233.
by bumby 1y ago
> Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price. Is this conclusion based just on fuel consumption? From a relatability standpoint, it doesn’t make sense at first blush because you have to have both ICE
234.
by bumby 1y ago
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual locks, manual windows etc.) they’ll be forced to include those.
235.
by bumby 1y ago
It’s natural consequence of risk-blind policy making. The idea that we can move fast and not break things without understanding the systemic risk is naive. I’m fine with moving fast if we understand the risk and the risk is borne by the a
236.
by bumby 1y ago
As the other poster mentioned, the characteristics of sound matter. That’s why the report of a firearm is a bad example. But there are more commonplace examples. Older phone ringtones are often hard for people to locate, but nearly everybod
237.
by bumby 1y ago
Moving fast and breaking things has a place. It’s just an error to think it applies to everything. There’s a reason why it’s usually relegated to relatively low-risk applications. I doubt you’d advocate an avionics engineer to take the same
238.
by bumby 1y ago
> smaller impact than expected Yes, it’s about both effect size and uncertainty. That’s science. But your original post also brought policy into play. Unless you actually know that uncertainty, effect size, and those costs (including op
239.
by bumby 1y ago
> The utility of having a backup beeper or any noise making device on that site is thus zero. This strikes me as an odd take, maybe from someone who has never worked on a construction site. Our auditory sense is more than just a binary
240.
by bumby 1y ago
Nobody claimed we need 100% precision (or, more to the point, 100% certainty). But I would argue the level of our convictions should be proportional to the risk and level of certainty. To the point being made, for most Americans the cost of

More ›