Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Car, Reinvented

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#61

Post by ajuc »

barney54 wrote: post #45
egypturnash wrote: post #24

Ownership of the car won’t be necessary. As a passenger car sits idle 95 percent of the time, there are plenty of alternative options. Every time I see someone say "all cars will be rentals in the future" I think if all the people I know who have stuff kicking around in the trunk that they use occasionally but rarely. The automotive version of "every-day carry". Some of it's basic car maintenance stuff. Some of it's…

The sitting idle 95% of the time isn’t super meaningful. What percentage of cars are used at rush hour? Not 100%, but a lot more than 5%. What matters is meeting peak demand, not average demand.

Remote working and elastic hours will hopefully decrease that peak considerably. Especially now with coronavirus proving that it's not that scary.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#62

Post by rootusrootus »

chris_va wrote: post #26

> First, the skateboard and the upper body could be built separately. Maybe not at the same place (a handful of skateboards will fit perfectly in a shipping container for completion thousands of miles away). I hate to be critical, but this really reminds me of a 1950s "visions of the future" piece more than a practical design choice. For example, the skateboard is not a new concept [1], and there are reasons you don'…

In addition, the idea that manufacturers can just plop any old body on top of the skateboard is a bit of a pipe dream. Crash safety is hugely important, and it isn't the skateboard that hits other cars/people/objects. So the integration will need to be very tight and engineered as a whole. Just like it is today, even if we call it a chassis.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#63

Post by pi-err »

This is missing something on the larger dynamics at play to reinvent the car. It’s one of the biggest addictions inherited from the 20th century (with disposable plastics and cigarettes).

This is not only about engineering and sales. Current car culture is rooted in post-WW2 values: masculinity, personal freedom, power and control. Even Tesla plays that book with the SpaceX halo and the insistance on performance.

I wonder how Apple will approach this change of “soul” in car culture. It’s a shift not unlike what they brought to computing in the 80s, though they transformed the design then. Can Apple build a personal, shareable, fully automated electric pod? I can’t imagine them selling a vehicle with a wheel for instance.

All in all, doubtful we ever see the outcome of the Titan project.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#64

Post by mhh__ »

bttrfl wrote: post #25

If we could start from scratch, shouldn't cars be made of plastic to reduce weight?

It's a tradeoff between weight and strength etc.

High end cars (and most/all race cars) use carbon fibre for both bodywork and structural components.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#65

Post by ajuc »

fortran77 wrote: post #52
egypturnash wrote: post #24

Ownership of the car won’t be necessary. As a passenger car sits idle 95 percent of the time, there are plenty of alternative options. Every time I see someone say "all cars will be rentals in the future" I think if all the people I know who have stuff kicking around in the trunk that they use occasionally but rarely. The automotive version of "every-day carry". Some of it's basic car maintenance stuff. Some of it's…

My toothbrush sits idle 95% of the time. I don't want to rent it.

It costs 3 orders of magnitude less and you put it in your mouth. Not a great analogy.

My car sits idle for 99.9% of the time (I make less than 2000 km per year, and vast majority of that in a few long trips each year). It would probably be cheaper for me to rent a car for vacation trip and go by taxi the other 10 times a year I need it for city driving. But we already have a car and it's been in the family since 1997 and it doesn't break so we keep it.

I would love to have a way to pay a reasonable yearly fee and have a good car available when I need it without paying for the parking space, insurance, maintanance, etc. But as it is renting a car is too much hassle.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#66

Post by throw0101a »

derefr wrote: post #33
kumarvvr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I don't get why people love to berate older tech. I mean, HTTP is quite old. and CAN is a solid piece of tech. Ultra reliable, fast and low wire count. It's controllers are cheap and reliable.

HTTP1.0 is old. But we're nearing HTTP3.0 now. Not that HTTP1.0 has gone away, nor would it need to; but for the devices that need the features it offers, the newer versions are better. I think the author is pointing at that concept, with the idea that CAN hasn't evolved over time in the same way as HTTP. Ideally there'd be a CAN2.0 for the cars that want it, that's backwards-compatible with CAN1.0 readers/etc.

> I think the author is pointing at that concept, with the idea that CAN hasn't evolved over time in the same way as HTTP.

If he works in this space, I would think he'd know that there are new things being worked on:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_FD

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRay

Not that these seem to work differently at the OSI Layer 1/2 layer, so while older messages can be sent over the newer transport, it is not wire compatible.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#67

Post by mhh__ »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #22
kazen44 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the reason for this is obvious. Having a modular car with a high degree of customization would be a huge hassle in keeping cars safe.

car safety come mostly from the chassis, an engine swap shouldn't really impact safety, unless it goes to fill crumple zones, but then it's not swapping engines per se that impact safety, the issue comes from putting too big of an engine. the real issue would be making the thing actually reliable. matings and fittings off the production line aren't the same you can get post assembly on a workshop, and that will affec…

Crash testing isn't the be all and end all. If you put a new engine in and it cuts out on the motorway, for example. The verification process takes a lot of time, even for a racing car let alone a road car that has to pass crash tests as well.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#68

Post by miahi »

mbreese wrote: post #31
chris_va wrote: post #26

> First, the skateboard and the upper body could be built separately. Maybe not at the same place (a handful of skateboards will fit perfectly in a shipping container for completion thousands of miles away). I hate to be critical, but this really reminds me of a 1950s "visions of the future" piece more than a practical design choice. For example, the skateboard is not a new concept [1], and there are reasons you don'…

Not knowing anything about how a car is actually built... how does the "skateboard" concept differ from what VW has in their modular platforms? For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MEB_platform It is a difference of just how independent the "skateboard" is from the top?

A car platform is a set of shared components and design concepts, but not an actual physical thing (a "skateboard"). Same platform cars can have different engines, wheelbases, suspension types and setup, transmission types and so on.

Most modern cars use the monocoque/unibody type of body, where the body and frame ("skateboard") are combined into one, because of weight and safety (it can be made to bend in a more controlled manner, usually with different type of materials bonded/welded together). The frame+body is better because it's easier to repair (many unibody crashes are not economical to repair because a proper repair to the same strength as the initial car would need dismantling half the car).

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#69

Post by annoyingnoob »

fortytw2 wrote: post #3

The third point is extremely close to how trucks have always been built. Body-on-frame construction has been prevalent in the automotive industry for a very long time. Ever see a crazy classic car body dropped on top of a truck frame, i.e. a 4x4 60s mustang on a bronco frame?

60s Mustang's are unibody construction - there is no frame. I've restored 3 of them.

Re: The Car, Reinvented

#70

Post by supportlocal4h »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #16

> We will be talking exclusively about electric cars. he compared cost, performance, regulations, but I didn't see him tackle the issue of range and recharge times not even in passing. > It is the only way forward. with claims like these, skipping the two major drawbacks seems quite intellectually dishonest.

This was the point I started to lose interest.

"Let's completely reimagine from scratch. But we all know there's really only one option so let's ignore any other ideas."

Post reply on HN