Comment by kagamine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kagamine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're not as alone as the media might lead you to think. There is a lot of hype and marketing going on with EVs to get people to adopt this change in technology that is consumer funded.

I agree with you, there are too many nice-to-have features in cars that add to the [unnecessary] complexity of these vehicles. Late 90 cars started with this, adding air-bag suspension and corner-leveling systems and it has since grown into automatic windscreen wipers when it rains, automatic lights when it gets dark (like you aren't sitting there looking out the big window), touch screens and gadgets. Some things are useful, for example electric mirrors, others not so much for example 5 different memory positions for the driver's seat where before you just pulled the lever under the seat to move it forward or back. IN case you think this is not a problem it can cause problems with other critical electronic components: I had a dealership's workshop turn off my electric seats in the BCU (BCU = body control unit, the PC of the car) and this meant that because the ABS is linked through the seat, something to do with collisions and the seat moving, the ABS warning light came on leading to a MOT/EU-control fail. I had to buy a code-reader machine to turn it back on myself. On models of this car without electric seats this is not a problem. So many other things I could mention like this example. Simplicity, as I a m sure HN coders and the like will agree, is best.

I also don't want tons of screens and so on in my car. But automatic headlights? Where I live, I see (or, well, don't) cars driving at night without their lights all the time. Automatically turning them on when it gets dark seems like a no-brainer. The worst thing that happens is the sensor breaks and then they become manual headlights...

> The worst thing that happens is the sensor breaks and then they become manual headlights...

Don't be too quick to disregard automation dependency. I agree that a headlight switch is probably quite low-risk, but every action you automate carries the risk of overloading the operator if it fails at the wrong time.

Even two decades later, I find the 'Children of Magenta' talk highly illuminating. Maybe you'll find it interesting as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

I see the opposite problem where I live. Driving lights as they are referred to in Norway must be on during the day as well as at night. These are on the front of the car. On the back newer vehicles have the lights off by default and come on when they sense darkness. This means I have followed many cars in hard rain on dark/dusky days and you can't see them up ahead. The law is that rear lights have to be on in conditions where they are necessary, but ignorant drivers see light coming from the front of the car and don't think that people behind them travelling at 110km/h need t see them up ahead. Automation didn't solve any problem, cars used to have lights on front and back at all times, day and night (lots of tunnels in Norway), automation created a problem.

I've had several cars with electric windows. Most of them would fail, usually when it was raining and you needed to raise them.

None of my cars with hand cranked windows has never failed at getting the windows up :-)

I've had a car that had sensors for everything. Half of the failures requiring expensive repairs were sensor failures. Sigh.

I just remembered a perfect example of over-engineering stupidity. A family member has an Audi A6 AWD and his routine service light came on. So being a man in his early 70s he went to check the oil and filters etc himself. He couldn't find the dipstick, so he googled it and found it to ... not exist. Instead of a dipstick there is an electronic sensor in the engine sump and a handy read-out on the built in display on the dash. Good luck fixing that when either the display fails, the sensor fails, the wiring fails... I mean, the dipstick worked for over a hundred years, but wasn't tech enough for an oil check in a 2015 model.

This is one of the reasons why my vehicles are 20 years old. Unfortunately they do have computers and are fuel injected (otherwise no way to pass emissions testing) but for the most part the mechanics are relatively simple.

I really do not need a subscription to my car.

I watched a pilot do a preflight on his airplane, and he used a dipstick to check the fuel level. Gauges lie, the dipstick tells the truth.

Same goes for the fuel tanks. It's considered good airmanship to do a quick visual check of the fuel level and compare it to what the gauges tell you. And to drain some fuel from the lowest part of the tank to check it for water or other impurities.

I've never had electric windows fail (and I've been driving for 30 years) but I have had a rental car where one of the hand cranked windows failed - it didn't fail to close, that worked fine but it did fail to stay closed. A gentle push downwards on the glass would make the window lower into the door with the handle spinning round.

Buy a Land Rover or Range Rover, your premium product will have you ripping out the door skins the day after the warranty ends. It's a 3-6 hour job at least and impossible to put the door back as factory because the waterproofing seals aren't available (use gaffer tape). The winding mechanism costs a bundle too.

I was going to say that if I did need a proper 4x4 (which I don't) I'd probably get something Japanese. Then I remembered that my wife had a Toyota SUV that had all manner of electrical problems eventually traced to a faulty sunroof...

> as the media might lead you to think

I really do not like sentences like this one (irrespective of the context). They give the false impression that...

...(1) there is a monolithic thing as "the media"

...(2) "the media" has one - among them - agreed upon agenda

...(3) their agenda is the opposite of what you want or hold true

Reply on news.ycombinator.com