Hacker News Reader

Comment by mherrmann | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, but this is just wrong. The original source [0] quoted in the article says:

> jetzt ist erstmal Pause

> Das Daimler in Zukunft wieder die Entwicklungsarbeit an Verbrennern aufnimmt, sei aber nicht ausgeschlossen.

So it's a "pause", not a stop, and Daimler explicitly say that they may resume developing ICEs in the future, not just of "specific parts" like the article claims.

The fact that the article is by "electrek", whose name clearly implies a bias towards electric motors, should make anyone suspicious.

PS: I have nothing against electric cars. But this article is simply overreaching in its conclusions, and seems to me to be more in service of its own agenda than the truth.

[0]: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/tech-zukunft/daimler-sto...

View on HN

> Nach VW hat Daimler jetzt angekündigt, vorerst aus der Entwicklung von Verbrennungsmotoren auszusteigen.

"Daimler has now announced that for now they're pulling out of the development of ICEs."

> dass der Hauptfokus inzwischen auf der Elektrifizierung, elektrischen Antrieben und der Batterieentwicklung liegt

"the main focus is now on electrification, electrical power and battery development"

> Dabei geht es auch um die Verschiebung von Kapazitäten von der Verbrennungsmotoren- und Getriebe-Entwicklung in die neuen Entwicklungsbereiche

"It's also about moving capacity of ICE/transmission development into new research/development areas"

> Schäfer macht darauf aufmerksam, dass es momentan keine Pläne für eine Neuentwicklung gäbe.

"Schaefer calls to attention that there are currently no plans for new development [of ICEs]"

Seems to me like you're misrepresenting the situation. They're shifting most of their R&D, and the amount of total funding they have into R&D is not insignificant, into electrics. Maybe they'll need to work on ICE's in the future, but I just don't see that happening once this shift is completed.

In this context does development just mean innovation? The are happy with their current product, and will roll with it for a while, without putting resources to changing the design.

I dont read it as "we are stopping production and manufacturing." It's them saying they are moving their engineering resources to improve a different product.

They recently developed brand-new 4-cylinder and inline 6-cylinder diesel and gasoline engines which will certainly be in use for quite some time. While these new engines are put on the majority of their new cars, they will probably concentrate on EV development, but that doesn't rule out any successive ICE developments in the future.

I believe this is only to calm some people down. If you think about it’s like Sony would say in 2000 „We pause development on VHS, however it cannot be ruled out that we will resume development work on VHS in the future.“

Still. The article has no right to put that extra, unqualified spin on this. If it had written what you just said, then fine. But it presented the "stop" as a fact.

This is true on the other hand. They should separate their interpretation of that quote as another article or at least paragraph if they want to be journalists.

You're missing the larger context. ICE's are on their way out due to climate change and the rapidly dropping prices of li-ion batteries. In the last year big auto companies have woken up to this fact and are rushing as fast as they to get into EV's. This announcement by Daimler is just one of many recent developments all moving in the same direction.

Pausing is a type of stopping, and there is nothing permanent in saying they've stopped something. The article makes this clear by using uncertain terminology like it "might be its last (ICE)".

Several other carmakers have announced that they've stopped (or "paused" which would be the more wishy washy way of saying it) ICE engineering. The headline itself says entwicklungsstopp.

"Stop" has a different meaning than "Pause". The original source says "Pause". By choosing to use "Stop" instead, the article manipulates the meaning. It should use "Pause" to stay true to the original source.

Let me illustrate this: "I ran a marathon yesterday. I stopped at mile 15." has a very different meaning from "I paused at mile 15."

Only because pause has an implied continuing while stopped requires an explicit continuing. Which might not even be the case depending on context because if you stopped at a red light I would assume that you did not give up your car and walked away but you are waiting for the condition to change before you start again

I stand by my point. If I say "I ran a marathon and stopped at mile 15." then I hold that most people will interpret this as "I stopped and did not continue". If you see it differently, then I guess we simply disagree on this point.

But language isnt that rigid. Stopping at a red light and stopping during a marathon imply different types of stopping. Im not sure how you can claim Daimler means the marathon type and not the red light type.

Did you stop to go the washroom? Did you stop to let a cramp pass?

I stopped reading at 11pm last night, yet I may indeed read again tonight. Stopping something has never demanded permanence. Indeed, in the exact same header that you're arguing about they also use the word Entwicklungsstopp (which effectively means engineering freeze or stop -- most interpretations favor the latter -- which yet again may or may not be forever).

This is an absolutely silly argument, however the article by Electrek is perfectly fine.

> bias

Yes this site posts some wild stuff. It gets a lot of circulation in the Tesla communities

Reply on news.ycombinator.com