Generally, I agree with your post. About "keep them out of the fridge": I thought this is mostly due to wash or not-wash the eggs before packing. I think washing removes a thin layer that makes the eggs last longer, but can be visually less appealing. Please correct me if you know better! Japan also vaccinates heavily for Salmonella, and they eat plenty of raw eggs in their cuisine.
If the US pisses enough countries off with this Greenland stuff that they shut down US bases around the world, that substantially curtails the US Navy's ability to be effective globally.
Putting the timing chain at the back of the engine away from the front is generally done to reduce torsional vibrations and tends to help with space claim, especially for pedestrian safety systems where you need a lot of travel space under the bonnet. But yeah, serviceability suffers.
Electric water pumps are a great idea though, instead of having an aux belt with tensioners and pulleys, you have on single part that can be unmounted and swapped out. Can run after the engine shuts off too to help cool it down.
They are a great idea if they are reliable, or cheap and easy to replace. The BMW unit was neither.
The timing chain thing also came with plastic parts. Mount the timing chain at the back if it's needed for other goals, but don't cheap out on a bit of metal. It really seems like planned obsolescence.
Modern cars are far more reliable than old 'analogue' cars - primarily because of the integrated electronics. ECUs can detect when engines are running rich or lean, knocking or 100 other edge cases and adjust accordingly.
Switch to an EV and it's even simpler, you can get away with a motor, battery, BMS and inverter and you can get just about any soapbox to move.
Reliable is only slightly related to be maintenable.
ECU embedding makes the whole system more complexe. That is not necessary absolutely a bad thing, but the trade-off is different. And there is on top of that a different topic which is how electronics are used to enforce obsolescence and make harder to maintain the vehicle without special equipment of the specific firm. This can also be enforced with more analogical stuffs of course, but electronic devices are more likely to be used this way.
I am not so sure that modern cars are more reliable.
My father has used a traditional (European) car (which had no electronics except the rectifier diode bridge for the alternator) for 35 years (1973-2008), during which the car has been used every day for commuting to his job (an almost 2-hour round trip in a city with very crowded traffic) and during vacations it was used mainly on difficult mountain roads. He stopped using the car when he was too old, not because the car became unusable.
The car has been repaired from time to time, but almost all the repairs were done by my father himself, alone and in a short time (he had the service manuals for that car, but he was not any kind of mechanic by profession, he was a physicist). In the very few cases when the car was taken to a repair shop, that was for replacing some rusted parts of the car body, and once for machining the cylinder block, after several hundred thousand miles.
And this was not some unusually good car, many others were like this, if their owners took good care of them.
I doubt that a Tesla would live that long, in similar conditions, though it would have the advantage that the owner would not have to be skilled in using his hands in order to avoid to waste time and money for minor repairs, like with that "analog" car.
Cars have become terribly unreliable in the last 5 years. Electronics that are too tightly integrated, silly displacement on demand setups, quality issues from COVID times, unrelialble small engines with turbochargers, and even Toyota/GM are having massive engine failure issues. And some manufacturers have record amounts of recalls.
> Modern cars are far more reliable than old 'analogue' cars ...
Define "modern". My 1988 Porsche 911 Carrera is now 38 years old (and I own it since 1999, it used to be my daily back in the day). It's considered one of the most reliable car ever built. Mine is sure still running strong and, well, we have to wait until year 2064 (I'll be long gone I guess) to see if any modern car proves as reliable.
Also: there are still Porsche 356 from the 1950s on the road. They do rust a lot (body had no treatment against rust back then) but many are still in working condition. Mechanic and bodyshops know how to keep these on the road. If after 38 years my 911 Carrera is still on the road, I'm sure the knowledge is out there to keep it on the road for another 38 years.
Do we know if all these Chinese cars sold today, say in the EU, shall still be usable in 38 years? What about the batteries? Shall there be compatible ones? Batteries that fail every x years and needs replacement is already quite a stretch from a "reliability" point of view compared to a 38 years cars whose engine has never been opened.
Thing is: my 911 is mostly analog except for the electronic fuel injection. A good old Bosch part.
Funnily enough that part is a typical part that fails. That and all the little sensors (but thankfully there aren't too many). But they're easy fix.
I think there's that sweet spot where cars were still simple enough and yet had already electronic fuel injection: that made for some extremely reliable cars.
Note that I don't use it as a daily car anymore: I now drive maybe only about 1000 miles / 1500 km a year with my old Porsche. But I totally could use it everyday: the reason I don't is not reliability, it's that an old Porsche from the 80s is a real gas guzzler (not as much as an american V8 from the 80s but still a gas guzzler). One of my favorite thing is the relatively short drive to go pick my kid at school then go groceries shopping. Every time I use I'm thinking "it's crazy to think it could be my daily".
And when my regular car has to go to the garage/maintenance, the good old trusty 1988 Porsche 911 Carrera gets to be a daily for a while.
38 years old.
My modern car has sensors for everything. It's very convenient to know what is the problem, but there are still problems. In seven years it's been something like seven times to the garage (in addition to maintenance / tires) for a variety of problems. Under warranty but still.
Regardless of who's right, you are aware that this is anecdata and survival biais right? Your experience with 2 single cars is not representative of how many years cars survive in average.
There is a point there: I can buy sheet metal and a welder at home depot and repair rust in a 1950s car (if I was really doing this I'd get better metals and a better welder, but the home depot stuff will work). If the CPU on my modern car breaks I can't fix it - worse, the computer industry has a long track record of stopping production on older chips and so there is a good chance the part I need won't be available at any price. (there are a few labs that can make a one-off chip - but they start at $60,000 each and that assumes you have all the designs ready)
Regardless of that, what most people are after is TCO.
Something tells me, and not only me, that longevity and ease of repair of these electrical gadgets are nowhere near old ICE car we all know very well. Is it direct experience with same type of cars across several decades? Nope, but experience with electronics in general, powered by similar batteries in general and its not looking good. More electronics = more failure surface.
Lots of cars in 1988 still had 5 digit odometers because most of them weren't expected to ever need a 6th. Nowadays with some companies you can get almost that far and still be under warranty.
> Modern cars are far more reliable than old 'analogue' cars
They're reliable, but when they have a problem, they're too hard to fix.
Last time I got my Toyota Hybrid fixed, the recommended first step for the fault code was to "replace the ECU". Expensive. Fault was elsewhere but I had to suck up that cost. I've just scrapped that car for a different fault, because although the new fault was easily fixable, the parts and labour were very expensive (and wouldn't make the car more reliable).
It's a pity that diesel-gate happened, and that they weren't able to solve the emissions problem.
I came across a post about a diesel tractor with no electrical parts and imagined the value of a post-apocalyptical car that could withstand EMPs and run on virtually any fuel type. Limited market obviously, make it configurable like a diesel Slate truck and baby you've got a stew going!
When your ICE vehicle breaks down on the highway, you can get it towed and repaired at any half-decent car mechanic. If you don't like his cost quote or his service/repairs, you can get your car taken elsewhere (usually the mechanic can get it running in a short while, unless it is a major breakage problem) for a second opinion or service/repairs.
When your EV breaks down, you won't even bother to get it towed, because the only ones who can repair it are the (very expensive) showroom of the car manufacturer you bought it from, or their authorized (and very expensive) service center (and those will be very few of them in a city, and forget about getting such EV Service centers in the suburbs or rural areas). And you have to accept whatever cost quote and dependencies (additional upgrades to "fix" the "issue") he specifies. Good luck trying to figure it out or getting a second opinion, unless you have an EV industry expert as a friend or family member.
The EVs are white elephants. They look good while they last. But once they start breaking down, you will be paying through your nose just to keep it ticking along.
Whereas that 30-years old ICE car of your grandpa? That rustbucket can be repaired (eventually to full functionality and best looks) in your home garage by you and family/friends if you have the knowhow (or want to learn it), and can afford the time and spare parts cost (which are affordable for middle class, except if it is a vintage car or sports/luxury car).
EVs will be the deathknell for the hobbyist market and small-scale auto shops.
And don't even get me started on how easily and dangerously EVs can be hacked/hijacked by hackers.
That has nothing to to with EVs per se, as many modern ICE cars are just as impossible to repair for non-affiliated repair shops. And some EVs, e.g. the Nissan Leaf, are quite easy to work on for independent shops.
Except for the electronic subsystem, almost everything else in an ICE car can be repaired by a competent non-dealer mechanic shop.
I do agree though that modern ICE vehicles are becoming more and more complex, with electronic subsystems replacing manual subsystems, so non-dealer mechanics may struggle with such complex work and may even reject the work saying it's out of their ambit. This situation is getting aggravated as car manufacturers are pushing for hybrids, which have the partial advantages & disadvantages of both ICE & EV worlds.
But for any EV (including the Nissan Leaf), repairs & advanced diagnostics on the electric-drive components
(which is basically the main component of the EV), health checks on the battery (other main component), or repairs involving high-voltage systems, are typically out of the competency and ambit of a non-dealer mechanic, unless the mechanic shop is a dealer-certified EV-trained service center.
However, the routine mechanical work — things like brakes, suspension (e.g., sway bar links, shocks), tires, wheel alignment, cabin filters, etc. — can generally be done safely and correctly by a good independent mechanic, whether it be for an ICE vehicle or an EV.
The difficulty of working on the electric-drive components are massively exaggerated. Independent shops routinely swap worn-out Nissan Leaf batteries with salvaged or rebuilt battery packs nowadays. You can even get a 3rd party replacement pack with a different battery chemistry: https://evsenhanced.com/aftermarket-battery/
And then there's all the people putting Tesla drive-trains in classic cars. They couldn't do that if they weren't able to work on the electric drive.
> When your EV breaks down, you won't even bother to get it towed, because the only ones who can repair are the (very expensive) showroom of the car manufacturer you bought it from, or their authorized (and very expensive) service center
That's true, but it is has more to do with parasitic capitalism than EV technology, and could (and hopefully will）be solved with regulation. My understanding is that there is already significant regulation around ICE car parts which is the main reason why the situation there is better.
Regulation will do nothing because it is not meant to tackle such problems.
EV is basically a battery-powered motor on wheels.
The smartphone in your hands is a battery-powered communication device with a touchscreen.
If your smartphone doesn't work, can you take it to any phone repair shop and get it repaired for anything other than a battery replacement or screen replacement (or if the service center guy is technically competent, then maybe replacing the charging port if it is busted).
EU, India and few countries have enacted the Right to Repair law.
But if your smartphone is broken, your options to get it repaired are minimal, because its manufacturers have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that such devices are not easy to open (let alone repair).
Now extrapolate that Smartphone Repair problem 10x-100x, and you have the EV Repair problem.
EVs are DESIGNED and MANUFACTURED to be extremely difficult to repair even by excellent technicians and software experts.
EVs are the Razor Blade Theory in moving attractive action.
(Razor Blade Theory is basically a selling cheat but perfectly legal one; they sell you a razor blade with special handle/holder cheaply, but you have to keep buying razor blades from same brand (e.g., Gilette) & model that only work with that specific type of handle/holder. Over a period of time, the manufacturer will keep increasing the cost of the razor blades, because they know they have locked in the customers who have become accustomed to that type of handle/holder, blade quality & comfort, design, etc.)
You can buy an EV for an expensive upfront cost (it is sold as a premium (> ICE car) segment; just like smartphone brands have a premium price-tier segment), but running and repair costs is where the customers will be fleeced.. hard.
And please note that running cost (wear & tear) of an EV will not be covered by car insurance, so if your EV breaks down on the road, and you get it towed for repair, then the showroom/service-center (who usually have a tie-up and nexus with car insurance vendors) and insurance vendor will simply say the repairs won't be covered under extended warranty or insurance as it is normal "wear and tear".
And you'll have to swallow all those lies at face value, because you cannot even go elsewhere for a second opinion (because an EV of one brand, cannot be repaired at service center or showroom of another; if you go to another service center of same brand, they will cite you the same lies because that's their revenue model (Razor Blade Theory)).
EVs are a losing proposition for humanity, because unfortunately, even the supposedly green (not affecting climate change) EVs have toxic waste (typically the chemical batteries and plastics) that are never safely disposed off in climate-friendly ways.
ICE vehicles have some of these same problems, but their biggest advantages are their long mileage (per full tank of fuel), easier operation (not driving, I mean it is easy to top/fill up the fuel), easy maintenance (affordable repair options), and all-round viability that can even last a century with the right care.
However, you can bet that EVs are being designed for planned obsolescence, and that's a shame since humanity indeed needs some viable alternative to fossil-fuel-guzzling climate-polluting ICE vehicles.
> EVs are DESIGNED and MANUFACTURED to be extremely difficult to repair even by excellent technicians and software experts.
Correct. So we should pass regulation that makes this illegal (or otherwise prohibitively expensive for manufacturers due to legal responsilities which would be difficult to fulfil with such a design). We know that repairable EVs are entirely possible.
The same applies to smartphones and whole bunch of other hardware from washing machine to tractors, and is the basis of the "right to repair" movement.
If 40+ years of mobile phones have not solved such problems through regulations, I am afraid they won't be solved for EVs either.
Furthermore, once EVs become mainstream across the world, it will be China controlling the world [since batteries and chips & ICs (integrated circuits) need Lithium, Rare Earth Metals, etc., but China has the monopoly on them (especially on Rare Earths processing)].
That's why China is doing its best to dominate EV market (as hinted in the above linked article), because it knows no nation can dethrone it for the basic essentials of any EV.
It would be a bad idea for the world to be beholden to a single country for anything. Oh wait, the world is already beholden to China for most of the manufacturing. LOL.
> If 40+ years of mobile phones have not solved such problems through regulations, I am afraid they won't be solved for EVs either.
I don't think that follows. Nobody has even attempted to solve these problems for mobile phones. And the main reason for that is that it's a pretty new problem. Appliances 40 or 50 years ago were much simpler and typically quite repairable. It's only the recently that a focus on manufacturing efficiency and profitability have led to these kind of problems.
Not really. I’d agree 10 years ago, but post-COVID ICE r&d budgets have been slashed and we’re now in the enshittification phase. My brother in law is a mechanic. He’s doing like 5x more engine a transmission replacements than he did 10 years ago.
Personally, the additional complexity and overheads required for a P2P phone network is not worth while and I'm not sure it would fix that many problems that haven't already been fixed with walkie talkies.
It’s not “too hard”. It’s physically impossible without regulation. There is but one limited RF spectrum that we all share. One bad actor (intentional or misconfigured) can render the entire RF spectrum in their area unusable. The radius of their impact only depends on how much kWHs they have access to and it doesn’t take much to cripple radio communication in a large metropolitan area.
Until some clever cookie can figure out some way to utilize string theory’s extra dimensions for sending signals and then every body can have their own dimension to mess with, collective regulation on broadcasters is the only feasible way.
Nothing is stopping you from getting an HT for communication during power outages, natural disasters, etc. You just have to get a license to make sure you don’t actively harm everyone who is sharing the same spectrum with you especially during said natural disaster.
Theoretically people could cripple RF comms on accident, in reality that almost never happens despite many people possessing devices able to do so. My mikrotik router will let me broadcast all sorts of illegal signals with a few clicks inside their GUI, and yet I never heard about problems with people crippling city blocks with bad router settings. Or from their weird microwave setups. Or trying to run and operate some dilapidated 60 year old radios.
That’s because almost any legal to sell consumer device gets an FCC certification. It can still cause interference, but within limited parameters that significantly limit the blast radius. Most of the interference people experience will be very limited and almost exclusively due to misconfigured or defective devices. Ham operators run into this occasionally and if memory serves correctly, there was a chapter in the ham license exam about how to identify potential bad RF source and how to handle it (the FCC usually recommend politely letting the person with a bad transmitter know that their TV antenna or generator or whatever is causing RF interference before you involve the authorities as most people who encounter this are simply unaware)
The situation would be very different if it were commercially legal to sell devices that are designed to let you broadcast to anyone without FCC certification on the device or enforcement from a governing body. A billion startups would be selling “communicate with your family across town for free” devices that can easily render emergency services radios useless in a city.
Not true. Bluetooth, lora, and zigbee all coexist in the same unlicensed spectrum just fine. There’s no reason phones couldn’t speak these, or that a similar low-power protocol couldn’t be standardized.
> One bad actor can render the entire RF spectrum in their area unusable.
Ok, and? That’s already true for cellular, gps, and wifi today.
> Nothing is stopping you from getting an HT for communication during power outages, natural disasters, etc.
You’re missing the point. People already carry radios everywhere which are more than capable of longer range p2p communications.
The real question is why no such standard exists, despite its obvious utility.
Telling people to just carry an HT is smug and irrelevant. Average people carry phones.
> Not true. Bluetooth, lora, and zigbee all coexist in the same unlicensed spectrum just fine. There’s no reason phones couldn’t speak these, or that a similar low-power protocol couldn’t be standardized.
They already do. Most phones have Bluetooth. All those examples run on the 2.4GHz spectrum and all have the same RF range limitations and challenges. What’s your point?
> Ok, and? That’s already true for cellular, gps, and wifi today.
Hence the enforcement of cellular bands and gps through regulation. Again I’m confused as to what you are trying to say? Anyone can cause an RF jam. It’s illegal. Depending on how much it impact others, you might get a visit from the FCC, a fine or jail.
> You’re missing the point. People already carry radios everywhere which are more than capable of longer range p2p communications.
No they are not. You can’t get more than very short line of sight communication on the UHF band. You need to drop to at least the VHF band for any reasonable non-assisted communication and even still most people communicating in the VHF bands are using repeaters.
> The real question is why no such standard exists, despite its obvious utility.
You just listed 3 standards. Their utility is extremely limited and very unreliable as the distance, foliage, concrete increases between the parties. Telling anyone to rely on UHF transceiver in an emergency is misleading and dangerous. Telling anyone who is worried about communication in an actual emergency situation to have an HT is not smug. It’s the tool you need for the job. Average people carry phones because they are not frequently in such emergency situations. Those who are (emergency services, hardcore hikers, snow skiers, wild adventure types carry radios or satellite phones for this reason.
Plus with the recent low orbit satellite constellations making it possible to fit compatible transceiver in small phones (as opposed to needing a huge antenna for it) it’s even more of a moot point for emergency situations now.
You’re not gonna change antenna theory because you feel it’s smug.
If you’re saying “phones can’t replace VHF radios or repeaters for reliable long-range comms”, agreed. Nobody disputes antenna theory, and nobody is arguing for unregulated or high-power transmitters.
But if you’re saying “because of those limits, phone-native p2p shouldn’t exist at all”, that conclusion does not follow. Limited range and imperfect reliability still permit real, local, best-effort use cases, several of which have already been raised in this thread.
The point is precisely to fill the gaps, so phones aren’t completely useless when you can’t reach a cell tower and don’t have an HT handy. Most people will never carry radio gear, but will have a phone on them when something goes wrong.
The point is exactly that everybody is carrying a phone, but almost nobody is carrying a walkie-talkie. And why should I carry one more thing? My smartphone has already replaced my music player, camera...
As a Brit (an actual one, not because my great great grandfather was one) I'd have to say that pub culture in the UK is not strictly about drinking alcohol at all. It's a social place to meet friends, play games, watch sport and hide from the weather.
Pubs won't question you if you ask for a lime and soda and they may even stop serving you if they think you've drunk enough.
Wait, requiring a passport to cross a border did prevent people from forming relationships? I really don't follow. It is not like we were prisoners in our home countries before the EU was invented. And "love" has always been a huge driver of immigration, way before the EU. I even know people who sold marriage so that the buyer could immigrate. So why exactly was the EU a driver for international love?
It's why you can eat raw eggs and keep them out of the fridge in the EU/UK but not in the US, because the chickens are vaccination for Salmonella.
reply