Gas Engines, and the People Behind Them, Are Cast Aside for Electric Vehicles | Hacker News Reader

Gas Engines, and the People Behind Them, Are Cast Aside for Electric Vehicles

wsj.com

The people aren't being cast aside, but their skills aren't as valuable as they were 10 or 20 years ago. That's true for many people as economies change. I hope people who make a living drilling for oil also see less demand for their skills in the future.

Is it sensible to retire instead of re-train at 59? Maybe. But if they chose not to, or weren't able to, there should be resources available to learn new skills.

The literal motor part is different, but much of the rest of the car hasn't changed that much. Breaks, alignment, interior components, doors, glass; paint and body too.

Edit: post archive.is link in thread.

The article is focused more on the design specialists involved with ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) motors and related parts. They probably do need retraining, and it would be a better service to all in the economy if such training were part of a government lead plan for all workers in need of a new field, though still paid for by industries that are in sunset.

From the article:

> Engine and transmission plants accounted for about 44% of all automotive factories globally in 2018, according to data from research firm IHS Markit. A Morgan Stanley report in 2019 estimated that a full transition to electric vehicles could lead to three million lost automotive jobs and cost auto makers tens of billions of dollars in restructuring costs.

Those numbers are only extremely weakly correlated to specific jobs and specializations for those jobs. As a non-expert in this field it also does nothing to inform me of how readily those workers might transition to roughly equivalent jobs and how many are in need of a greater skills assessment and adaption of experiential knowledge to a proper field.

Nit: Breaks do change because of regenerative breaking.

Nit: Brakes (you both made this mistake)

Sometimes I also misspell words out of a misguided sense of solidarity.

It's like having a conversation and someone keeps mispronouncing a word. Do you just imitate what they are saying and avoid correcting them or do you tell them they are wrong?

Your right. Sometimes its nice to give people a brake.

That’s your view and you’re very kind.

Nobody in this thread can spell brakes it seems.

The regenerative braking is done in the electric motor, not the calliper/disc. Nothing has changed there.

When you push the 'brakes' on the an electric (or even hybrid) you simply engage the electric motor. There is a limit to how strong this form of braking can be so in certain cases you will need emergency brakes (disks or otherwise). So the brakes on an electric vehicle would be very different. I would guess in the future they wont even exist. It will just be the motors. Motors to wheels so no drive train either.

Sounds to me like the brakes would be exactly the same. The wheel is connected to an axle and has a brake disc. The fact that the axle can slow the car isn't any different than exhaust braking, for example.

In case you're thinking the hydraulics would have to account for regen braking, I'm not so sure that's true. In my Tesla the brake pedal only controls the brakes. Regen braking is done by letting off the accelerator.

You can't always use regen either btw even if it was powerful enough. If the battery is too cold or is fully charged it can't be used much if at all—that energy has to go somewhere.

We're seeing lots of competing ideas about regen braking interfaces and I'm curious which will win.

Tesla is riding hard for brake pedal == friction braking, which is certainly conceptually simple. Lift off accelerator and you get regen braking. Press brake and you get friction braking. Tesla did take away the options about regen strength (at least on my model 3) and now it's only highest. I bought my tesla this winter and it was extremely noticeable how much regen was affected by a cold battery. I had to be very careful not to assume too much regen and after a whole spring/summer/fall cycle of consistency I'm slightly worried about being too one pedal complacent.

Hyundai/Kia has repurposed steering wheel paddles to add or remove regen strength on the fly and now ionic 5 will dynamically adjust the regen using the front facing cameras to slow you down as smoothly as possible.

Most of the euro brands are all embracing D/B modes on the shifter, with D being limited or no regen and B turning it on (and often with strength settings from there).

Porsche has gone full blend, with the ability to freewheel the rear axle and only the brake pedal being used to slow down. The first amount of travel is regen only, then they slowly blend in friction brakes.

I'm sure there are other patterns out there. It's been a long time since something so fundamental to driving has been open for new concepts, so it'll be interesting to see what wins.

Yeah I've had my Tesla for a couple of years in California and even in our mild weather the seasonal differences in one pedal driving are something you have to pay attention to.

I haven't tried the other methods, they sound worse to me but perhaps I'm just used to the Tesla approach.

Hmm. This seems quite dangerous.

In snow, if sliding starts due to braking, the best solution to regain control is to stop braking. Completely.

With manual transmission this is simple, deploy the clutch. With an classic automatic, no gas = mild drag due to engine.

But to add regen braking automatically, hmm. It means that in some circumstances, you have zero control, and the car is essentially actively working to mess up your day.

There are ways to detect slide, I wonder, does regen cease if slide is detected... just as with normal brakes and ABS studder (which doesn't reduce braking distance, but provides for steering when slide + braking)?

Yes, regen does cut if the car detects slip (at least in Teslas)

The notion of lifting up on the accelerator is a different concept in an electric car vs a combustion engine.

The energy can easily go somewhere. You can just put it through larger resistors or UltraCaps.

> The notion of lifting up on the accelerator is a different concept in an electric car vs a combustion engine.

I said the brakes are the same, not the accelerator.

Not really if you've ever driven a manual transmission. Regen usually is stronger but the drive feel is not dissimilar.

>In my Tesla the brake pedal only controls the brakes

Are you sure about that? I have a hybrid that has paddles to adjust the deceleration resulting from letting off the gas, but using that or the brake pedal I'm pretty certain uses the regen the same way. The only difference I think is when exactly the brake lights go on.

I'm surprised if EVs are different, because it kind of applies an arbitrary semantic distinction between gas and brake pedals.

If the brake pedal only applies the friction brakes, then does that mean that moderate to heavy regen braking doesn't make your brake lights go on? That seems like a questionable design.

Yes, the brake pedal only controls the friction brakes in Teslas. The brake lights come on when a certain amount of deceleration is achieved, not merely based on pressing the brake.

Once you stop thinking of the right pedal as 'gas' and start thinking of it as the 'accelerator' it makes perfect sense. You press down to accelerate, hold steady to maintain a speed (zero acceleration), and lift off to decelerate. The amount you press or lift off determines how much positive or negative acceleration you get. Then the brake is just there for a rare time regen isn't enough (and I go weeks without touching the brake).

I don't see friction brakes going away, even if it's just as as emergency backup stopping power (in the same way current friction brakes are on split hydraulic circuits for safety). I could see them being constructed differently to accommodate the fact EVs don't need friction brakes very often. A good example is VW's MEB platform uses rear drum brakes for cost and maintenance reasons. Rear brakes do very little of the actual braking, and drums are perfectly capable of stopping a car, they just suffer more fade after repeated use than discs. Since EVs don't really need to repeatedly stop with friction drums make a lot of sense.

If by 'Motors to wheels' you mean hub motors, I don't see those being a thing. That's a huge amount of unsprung mass (which affects handling and ride comfort more than 10x sprung mass). Broken wheels are also already massively expensive and increasingly common due to poorly maintained roads and automakers obsession with giant wheels and no tire sidewall. Having to replace a motor along with a wheel would be awful.

I do think we'll see plenty of one motor per wheel designs. Rivian has the pattern I think will be common: motors inboard and use small axles and CV joints. Not a very expensive setup and way fewer downsides than hub motors.

Current 4x4 designs with transfer cases, locking differentials and long, heavy driveshafts will certainly be going away. Jeep's 4xe PHEV Wranger has comically awful consumption since it retains the exact same driveline as any other Wrangler. The fact it's as aerodynamic as a brick doesn't help at highway speeds, but all the losses through the mechanical couplings hurts all the time.

Go look at a Tesla. The Brakes are the same as any other car. Regenerative braking kicks in first so you use it less, but it is all still there. It is exactly the same as a gas car: Same hydraulic system, same calipers, same pads, same rotors.

Depends on a bunch of things - how hard are you pressing on the brakes? above a certain threshold you're going to exceed the max current of the electrical subsystems and the traditional brakes will kick in (you don't WANT to hit that truck do you) - also once the battery is full the regen system has nowhere to dump that energy, my Prius behaves slightly differently as it switches over from regen braking once the battery is full.

Prius and other Toyota hybrids actually burn gasoline going downhill. Try it. Put B and go downhill and observe the consumption, the engine is on and burning gas.

Yep, my Tesla is in the shop far more often than my Euro/Japan/US cars have ever been. Last month the entire passenger seat had to be replaced due to an SRS warning.

Perhaps Tesla's poor build quality can keep these folks employed?

That’s like telling kernel developers to go back to tech support jobs. Most of those losing jobs are not assembly workers.

I think it's more akin to telling COBOL programmers that everyone has migrated and that their skills aren't needed anymore

You're right, I hadn't considered that. It takes a lot more skill to build a transmission than a car seat.

The motor and gearbox probably keep dozens of completely different companies busy though. There are lots of different bits and bobs in there that are manufactured by very specialized companies. Many of those jobs will go away in the next ten to twenty years.

Seems like much more than just the motor.

Tesla's have no gas tank, fuel pump, turbo, engine, transmission, catalytic converter, or exhaust. Even differentials are decreasing in number.

Tesla is pushing for other simplifications as well. Things like touch screens instead of a complex dashboard. Air vectoring instead of a bunch of valves/grills for airflow. Even door handles seem to be on the way out.

There's lots of work and innovation to do on those simplifications. It's just a 58 year old person is not able to be as innovative as he was at 30 because of health reasons, and getting tired of hard working. I'm 40, far over my peak because of a chronic illness, but at least I invested my money well enough to live off of it.

Re-training is just a way to console someone to get them out the door of the company and then keep them busy for a year or two. It kicks the can down the road and puts the problem into the hands of someone else. No company will willingly hire people in their 50s (I'm 52 btw) unless it's a government job. They only other way would be to be given preferential treatment via quota/diversity; female, minority.

I'm 45 and not completely unfamiliar with the problem.

This in no way matches my experience. My best employee is in his fifties. He has more experience and knowledge than the next three people put together. We call him in for difficult and subtle problems (he's a data tier expert and damn good at what he does). I'd love to have five more like him. Actually, I just signed a big contract yesterday so make that ten.

I'm not arguing that people in their 50s are bad or stupid I'm saying the opposite. But I find and hear of businesses especially technology-based won't hire older people due to their age. Even back when I was in my early 30s at job fairs the recruiters wouldn't even speak to me.

It could be because the people who hire at some businesses believe older workers are out of touch or get sick or maybe want to (or should) retire. But it's quite obvious there is a definite bias against older people wanting skilled work. Maybe not so bad if you were in the same field and try for a new job of the same but to re-train from assembly line worker to networking...no. I think it would be fine but many hiring for companies do not.

Like I said I'm 52 I went back to school and work in IT. I've been a technician all my life in electronics and computers. I've had many jobs but mainly as a technician so for me it's not too bad.

Replying to myself.

Here is a recent study about people over age 45 trying to land a job and the obstacles they face.

Study quote, "Canada, Singapore, Spain, and the United States, 45+ and 50+ individuals have consistently made up 40 to 70 percent of the long-term unemployed since 2015."

Meeting the World’s MidCareer Moment https://www.generation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Meetin...

Retire at 59? Good luck.

And this is a very good thing!

We want to phase out jobs that create products that are bad for the environment and our heath, and jobs that are bad for the people doing them (long haul truck driving, for example).

In history we've phased out many such jobs, and it's a sign that things are on the improve. Hopefully we'll entirely get rid of coal mining in favour of PV production and installers, and even one day get rid of transport truck drivers.

Obviously it would be ideal if there were resources to help people transition to a new career, but we certainly shouldn't lament the fact "bad" jobs are going away.

https://archive.is/AXoiD

Why are executives granted stock options?

On what basis do they deserve to become owners of companies, in addition to the generous salaries they are paid?

Should not your answers to those questions apply equally as well to designers and assembly workers who serve companies for decades, locking themselves into ultimate technological obsolescence?

The usual answer is that people making strategic decisions should be motivated to make good long-term decisions. Ownership of the company is a convenient way to do that.

Though I could see an argument that a designer is making long term decisions in the design of the products…

It's disingenuous for the article to claim does that ICE engineers are replaced by software engineers.

Now-days if you want to make a fuel efficient engine you have to use software modeling and simulation. Maybe people who are close to retirement age are still hands on but industry have switched to CAD/CAM decades ago and is not going back.

Engineers who are verse in CAD/CAM can switch to designing castings, optimizing cooling and heating, and improve part integration.

As Munro's Mach-E tear-down revealed - there's a lot to be optimized in their latest EV[1]

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1kHsd3Ocxc

The endless stream of EV pr pretending EV's are the inevitable future is getting pretty annoying. Used car sales are at an all time high in the US. power grids in most western countries and certainly in the USA are incapable of supporting a massive wave of EV's even if government sweeteners and ICE poison pills force 'adoption'.

Cars today are far too tech heavy. People want simple, robust and long lived vehicles with far fewer bells and whistles. When you look back even 25 years it's very revealing how simple and longer lived they were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... (Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles: Places with planned fossil-fuel vehicle bans)

Note, you don't have to ban combustion vehicles everywhere, but only in enough markets where there is no point for automakers to make them anymore for the remaining smaller markets. Once supply chains are reconfigured towards EVs, and light vehicle petroleum demand is on the decline, the death spiral for combustion vehicles is locked in. They're even half the cost per mile to operate versus a combustion vehicle (per the US DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center).

Suppliers are already contemplating what the future looks like [1] [2].

[1] https://europe.autonews.com/suppliers/bosch-may-close-german... (Bosch may close German factory amid move to EVs, report says: Demand for the plant's electric fuel pumps and injection valves will decline)

[2] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2021/04/27/... (An advocacy group representing auto suppliers urged Congress on Tuesday not to back a speedy phase-out of gas-powered vehicles, arguing the shift will cost up to 30% of supplier jobs.) (my note: overlaps with this thread's article, but still has some novel information)

What alternative do you propose? Fossil fuels are out because of climate change. Hydrogen is out because of terrible energy efficiency. Synthetic fuels have even worse efficiency. A massive reduction in car ownership probably won't happen in the next twenty years either.

Cities should be built for people, not cars. If people lived in cities that are as dense as pre-automobile cities were, most people could get by without their own personal automobile. Trains are relatively efficient and clean.

I think of asphalt as a waste product of petroleum refining. What are roads supposed to be paved with, when there is not any asphalt to cover them?

"'Non-exhaust particulate matter (PM) emissions by source and car size.' Electric vehicles will solve nothing of these problems." - https://twitter.com/wrathofgnon/status/1386491243413135362

That is of course a good idea that I fully support, but remodeling cities will take way too long to meet climate targets. Also, a rather large fraction of the kilometers driven don't happen in cities. Public transportation in rural areas is quite difficult to set up because of the low density.

@adrianN cheap, efficient vehicles with far less electronics, think VW Beetle, very basic, frugal and easy to maintain. ICE engines have never been more efficient, while EVs are at a very early stage of mass viability. I also feel connected cars should be optional, we are staring into a near future where all travel will be pre permission based and controlled via this apparatus which also tracks your every move regardless of power plant.

The most urgent elements of EVs that need to be looked into are fire risk and control of wrecked vehicles, toxic battery element mining, processing and disposal and cost as previously mentioned. The sheer weight of EVs make tire pollution (a massive problem in urban areas from all vehicles) a big concern.

All cars should revert back to a far more recyclable manufacturing state: the alloys and plastics modern vehicles are made from are not

Sure, smaller, simpler, more recyclable cars are good. But ICEs are a no-go for climate change reasons. It doesn't matter if they're more efficient than ever, there is no viable path to get them carbon neutral.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-World-Will-Ru...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com