Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. 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.
Most of the complexity of EVs is just generic modern car complexity, though. EVs don't have to be any more complicated than ICE vehicles, and EV conversions especially are usually really simple (though to be fair a lot of the vehicles being converted are old classic cars that didn't have any computers in them to begin with). The EV drivetrain might have more or less computers than an ICE drivetrain, but really managi…
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).