this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
291 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
58115 readers
4389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I read that Tesla being Tesla reinvented a ton of very standard components that other car manufacturers have been using for decades. So there are a lot of weird issues with Teslas that you wouldn't see in a car from an established car maker. It's Tesla ego which makes them think that they can design component better than a whole industry over decades and decades could.
When the Model S came out, I thought it was the height of cool, but I wouldn't consider buying one of their vehicles now. I think the only reason they even kinda did well was that the rest of the car makers were slow to start making EVs that looked decent and were priced reasonably. Now that the big boys are in the game, Tesla has been dropping the price of some of their models to try and stay competitive. But their cars have always had quality assurance issues, and their support isn't decent at all, since they try to blame customers for things outside of their control.
Mostly i agree.
However:
Drive by wire is something that they should have implemented decades ago. It is a ridiculously proven and safe technology. Edit: just not in the Cybertruck. Or GM.
The argument for drive-by-wire in personal automobiles is basically that it's safe enough for airplanes, so it should be safe enough for cars.
I mostly buy that. But there's a glaring omission in the reasoning.
In airplanes, there's a full incident investigation for EVERYTHING that goes wrong. Even near misses. It's an industry that (mostly lol boeing) has a history of prioritizing safety. Even at its worst, the safety standards the airline industry and air transportation engineering are orders magnitude more strict than those of the automotive industry and road engineering.
In real terms, automobile incidents should be taken just as seriously. Even near misses should have reporting and analysis. Crashes should absolutely have full investigations. Nearly all automobile deaths are completely avoidable through better engineering of the road systems and cars, but there is mostly no serious culture of safety among automobiles. We chose carnage and have been so immured by it that we don't even think it's weird. We don't think it's weird that essentially everyone, at least in the US, knows someone who died or was seriously injured in a car accident.
So yeah, we should have drive-by-wire. But it should also include other aspects of that safety culture as part of the deal. "Black box" equivalents, for example, and the accompanying post-accident review process that comes with it. A process that focuses not on establishing liability, but preventing future incidents, because establishing liability is mostly a thought-killer when it comes to safety.
...of course, if we actually took road safety that seriously it'd be devastation to the entire car industrial complex. Because much of that industry is focused on design patterns that, in fact, cannot be done safely or sustainably.
Okay, so understanding that Boeing has been shipping airliners that boing instead of fly or have some bolts missing...
My dad was a frustratingly retired aerospace engineer because there was this period of the 90s where we actually did shrink the defense industry until 9/11 and the contractors started figuring out exactly how to "bribe" people. And one of his side complaints is that any aerospace engineer is probably actually good at being a general-purpose mechanical engineer, except that they've generally made the hard stuff actually safe earlier along, but nobody will hire them. His example being fully-automated-digital-engine-controls and fly-by-wire and having three redundant chains.
So, in the aftermath of the whole Toyota throttle-by-wire thing that really didn't go a whole lot of useful ways, I decided to check out his observation and I did some googling to discover a page where some big company was advertising to the auto industry at large their throttle controllers. And they talk about how they were built with "aerospace technologies" to be reliable and safe. And, looking farther along, it seems like that was not actually three redundant chains, just three threads of execution on the same processor.
Oh yeah, and generally any airplane that does have fly-by-wire and FADEC there is going to always be a set of reversion modes and people have to know about them. Obviously some aspects of this are far stricter because a car can just pull over to the side of the road... but also it needs to do that safely. Witness poor Anton Yelchin dying ignominiously because of the digital gear shifter thing on his Jeep.
But, yeah, the underlying problem is that the cultural expectation is to make cars that will go most places containing capabilities that a vehicle might never actually use in its entire service life and require the minimum amount of knowledge and basically zero knowledge above the collective cultural understanding of a car that's only mildly changed since a fully-mechanically-linked control system.