The Bollinger takes this route of minimalism. Ironically, an EV has less reliance on processing than a modern ICE vehicle.
> the only thing an ev actually needs chips for is charge controllers which can be old fab tech, and motor controllers
I wish I had the time to explain how this could not be more wrong.
Quickly, I’ll mention that the vehicle I’m working on has 8 separate modules for the driver’s seat. Inside these modules are a combined total of 10 processors with as many bootloaders and flash procedures and validation records and crypto and peripheral drivers, 17 CAN-FD modules, 6 system basis chips, 9 switching power supplies with a number of accessory LDO supplies, at least 40 more “chips” of various functions and capacities… for just the driver’s seat alone
The steering wheel buttons for radio left and right side and the cruise control comprise 3 modules and power supplies and etc etc.
>The Bollinger takes this route of minimalism. Ironically, an EV has less reliance on processing than a modern ICE vehicle.
I know what you are trying to say, but it is largely incorrect. The EVs still have “engine” control modules and powertrain systems. Instead of figuring out injector pulse widths, they’re calculating deliverable torque. The ABS/brake controllers are more complex, the battery heating and cooling systems require modules and processing, the HVAC, the transmission, steering systems, everything is more complex compared to ICE with an old ample supply of hydraulics and coolants and a simple fuel that is stable and usable at all storage temps fed into a mechanical device.
I’m not trying to be confrontational, but you couldn’t be more wrong about automotive electronics.
You mentioned the transmission is more complex compared to an ICE, but that does not make much sense to me at all. To my knowledge most EVs are essentially fixed gear ratio gearboxes, so you're either in drive, reverse, or neutral. Meanwhile ICE transmissions are becoming more and more like computer-controlled manual transmissions what with the rise in popularity of dual-clutch automatic transmissions. To me it seems a ton more complicated keeping track of operating that DCT than just "the dial is in D, change transmission to the forward mode."
Tesla is partially going the integration route but they still have many separate processors in the car.
If I'm not mistaken, microprocessors aren't the only semiconductor components that have been in short supply recently. Things like shaft position sensors are also solid-state devices.
There isn’t an EV in the world that is less complex than it’s ICE counterpart. GP is very mistaken. I wrote a longer explanation above.
The EV drivetrain might have more or less computers than an ICE drivetrain, but really managing batteries and a motor isn't inherently all that complicated. On the ICE side of things you have a lot more moving parts and the necessity of keeping everything properly tuned so it can pass emissions checks.
Braking and traction control I could see being fairly complicated, but it's a similar problem whether it's an ICE engine or an electric motor.
Self-driving is hugely complicated, but that's not complexity that's inherent to EVs specifically, it's just a feature that's usually only implemented on EVs for some reason.
All the other stuff: infotainment, tire pressure sensors, back up cameras, and so on are just modern car complexity.
Trust me - it's not simpler. I know you think we just apply power to the motor and go, but that is not the case. There are facets of "soft start" and it ties in to traction control, there are efficiency processes, etc. Instead of map tables for rpm and injection, you have battery heating and cooling targets with current sensed feedbacks and torque targets, and bla bla bla. Stop making me bring work home with me! ;)
EVs are not simpler. It's literally impossible in automotive to ever get simpler. At least since the 1970s. I think we're hitting a point of unsustainability and the people in charge think OTA firmware is going to fix that, I think it'll make it much worse.
EDIT: fwiw, I wish I could go back to a time when backup camera was even mention worthy of "things I consider complex in a vehicle". It's just a couple shielded wires and plugs into the radio/telamatics. I can tell you without a doubt that the starter in most vehicle is now far more complicated, to the point it too has it's own microcontroller and data bus (typically LIN, not sure I've seen a CAN yet).
Where regen gets kind of complicated is that you generally need to turn regen off when someone slams on the brakes. Unless the traction control / antilock braking system knows how regen figures into its calculations and can apply the proper braking force to each wheel taking it into account. I don't know what OEM EVs typically do in that situation, but for conversions you usually just have a brake switch so that regen can be automatically disabled when you're actually braking.
I would imagine that the people working on parts for the conversion market have a somewhat different development process than a regular auto manufacturer, in part because they're making things in low volume and in part because they just have to design generic reusable parts that do one thing properly. If you're building a whole car, you have to make sure everything works together as a cohesive whole. In some ways that would be easier because you know exactly what parts are being used together.
I would hope that most of the safety-critical real-time software that controls a car's basic functions like braking and traction control and so on would be relatively simple and straightforward, but maybe that's too much to expect. My understanding of the way the auto industry works these days is that the major manufacturers are increasing dependent on a complicated network of 3rd-party parts suppliers, and I'd expect that to influence the character of the software stack somewhat.