Live data from Hacker News

European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

arstechnica.com

371–380 of 660 posts

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#371
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I ever hear about Tesla's keeps getting worse and worse. How are they still in business and why does anyone buy one?

best electric cars in the business, though that gap is shrinking. their automotive infotainment ux is second to none. it's miles better than carplay.

What makes you say that? An EV is more than the drivetrain (where Tesla’s are said to be more efficient). EVs from other manufacturers have batter suspension, noise insulation, steering etc.

Have never seen their infotainment system. My BMW i4 has CarPlay - what else would I want?

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#372
post #360

I have a VW (ID.4) and they took the touch craziness to another level. There are things that don't look like buttons, but are touch-sensitive, and there are also buttons, that apart from being pressure-sensitive, are also touch sensitive. Like volume buttons on the steering wheel, where if you try to feel for them without looking, you end up accidentally "swiping" and turning your volume up to the max. The whole touc…

I ultimately decided against an MEB based model because the (steering wheel) UX felt almost unusable during my test drive. I partcularily struggeled with the cruise control swipe-click and hilariously the window switch.

The car i ultimately settled on has worse overall infotainment software but physical controls which can be operated blindely and reliably.

No wonder VW is already in the process of correcting this disastrous, budget driven, decision.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#373
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla Cybertruck uses steer-by-wire with almost no redundancy. Electric power steering was bad enough to cause crashes, this is just ambulance chaser's dream.

>steer-by-wire This is the norm for most cars with servo steering.

Nope, ColPAS and ParPAS solutions both normally have the mechanical connection of the steering column between the rack and pinion mechanic and the steering wheel, they mainly differ by the way of introducing the mechanical assist force to the system. (on the steering column, or at the rack and pinion mechanism).

They generally have the following root safety requirements:

- the assist system must not cause "blocking" (unturnable wheels/steering wheel)

- the assist system must not cause unintended steering

- the assist system must be able to restart in less than 20 milliseconds

- the assist system must stay passive after a number of unsuccessful startups/unrecoverable errors (typically 3). In this case the mechanical steering column still provides a way for the driver to control the car.

It has been 10+ years since I last worked such a system, but drive by wire was only on the horizon, not the norm, and as far as I know the authorities only allowed drive by wire solution some 2-3 years ago, with product development lifecycle of around 5 years that means they are still not the norm among new cars I believe.

Back then more redundancy in the electric motors (more gradual failure if one phase goes bust, not going into deadlock in certain angles when any of the 3 phases is malfunctioning) and authenticated communications on the system bus (which was considered trusted earlier) were on the roadmap for the next gen steering systems, which are mandatory requirements before you can get to steer by wire.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#374
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the lack of redundancy is the issue. Redundant electrical connections can be very robust otherwise they wouldn't put them in F-35s.

Anywhere in aviation it's redundant transducers (the thingies that transform rotation into some sort of signal), redundant flight law computers implemented by independent teams on dissimilar hardware, a stupidly robust vote/compare module, I think mostly analog, and usually a last resort direct mode. When all of that is implemented in cars and weathers for 10-20 years I might consider it. Otherwise, seeing as Toyota'…

That is more than likely generated code. Model based development and code generation (by certified toolchains) are the norm in automotive and aerospace.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#375
post #360

I have a VW (ID.4) and they took the touch craziness to another level. There are things that don't look like buttons, but are touch-sensitive, and there are also buttons, that apart from being pressure-sensitive, are also touch sensitive. Like volume buttons on the steering wheel, where if you try to feel for them without looking, you end up accidentally "swiping" and turning your volume up to the max. The whole touc…

I ultimately decided against an MEB based model because the (steering wheel) UX felt almost unusable during my test drive. I partcularily struggeled with the cruise control swipe-click and hilariously the window switch. The car i ultimately settled on has worse overall infotainment software but physical controls which can be operated blindely and reliably. No wonder VW is already in the process of correcting this dis…

VW went so far into left field with their controls on the ID-series, it is embarassing. Good to hear that they correct.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#376
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's at best marginally easier to hit a random physical button on the center console than to hit a single button on the bottom bar of a Tesla screen You presumably typed this out on a keyboard of some sort. Which one can you do more confidently and reliably without looking: — hitting the "u" key on a physical keyboard without looking — hitting the "u" key on a touchscreen keyboard on your most used mobile device?

I can touch type and hit 'u' without looking, sure. But only if my hands start on the home row. This has no relevance for the situation under discussion. I cannot hit the 'u' key on a physical keyboard confidently and reliably without looking if it is mounted on the center console of a car and I am driving with my hands starting on the steering wheel . I always look to position my hand to hit those buttons. Meanwhile…

There are knobs on the f and j key so you can find the home row without looking. Similarly, physical buttons in a car can be shaped in such a way that they allow for feeling your position.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#377
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volume control is pretty damn safety critical when the driver takes their eyes off the road to jab at the f&^king miserable touchscreen and accidentally wipes out your family. Sir Issac Newton wrote down the laws about piloting a couple of ton of steel some time ago. Very unlikely to be repealed. Every control that will be used by the driver for any purpose whilst the vehicle is in motion is safety critical.

That is true, but in that mind your kid in the back seat is safety-critical, so maybe we mandate no kids in the back? Or your wife next to you in the passenger seat, she could also make you remove your eyes from the road (happens quite a lot actually) - mandate no wifes in the passenger seat anymore? You need to draw a line, otherwise really anything in your car can be safety-critical, you just need to imagine the ri…

I think you are doing a strawman here. Nobody but you is talking about "mandates", and then you go ridiculing imaginary mandates that nobody is defending.

Case: seat belts. First introduced in 1949, three-point seat belt invented in 1955, Saab made them standard in all their cars in 1958, Volvo in 1959 after being shown studies with fatalities. The first compulsory seat belt law was in 1970 (Victoria, Australia), and only began in the US in the 1980's (with great opposition).

Case: ABS. Patented anti-locks in 1930-ish, the modern ABS in 1971, the system was slowly introduced first in high-end models, soon in every model. The US only mandates ABS in cars since 2012, Europe since 2004 (for new cars). Read: all cars were already being sold with ABS in those dates, except for the cheaper and shittiest ones.

Case: Airbags. I skip the history there, because airbags are still not mandated anywhere. They are subject to some regulations, but you can technically build and sell a car without a single airbag in it.

My conclusion: we should not wait or even hope mandates do anything. In the car market we should do our own research and trust (to a point) car brand safety records and voluntary tests like NCAP, IIHS or NHTSA. If a brand doesn't give a shit about safety unless under a government mandate, don't buy that brand, because they are decades behind safety standards.

Mandates are not the bare minimum in safety, they are well below that. Take for example one of the lowest scores in the current NCAP: Lancia Ypsilon 2015, two stars. Still, they have (not mandated): two front airbags, two side head airbag, belt pretensioner, belt load limiter, belt reminder and ESC. Fear no more, even if we find today that kids in the back raises the death rate in a collision by 20%, we won't see it mandated until 2080 if ever, way after car makers figure out a solution by themselves.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#378

> Now, Euro NCAP is not insisting on everything being its own button or switch. But the organization wants to see physical controls for turn signals, hazard lights, windshield wipers, the horn, and any SOS features This is much more reasonable than I assumed. Unlike seemingly most people here I have no problem whatsoever with fan controls or audio controls or whatever on the touchscreen, as long as it is responsive (…

I'm going one step further and arguing that if a function has no physical control, it's not essential but just a distraction and should be done away with.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the clutch before you need to when braking is bad form. The engine will assist in braking if you let it, especially in the low gears, and this doesn't use any fuel -- dumping the clutch immediately consumes more fuel to keep the engine running. Put the brake pedal in first, and then the clutch pedal as you approach idle RPMs.

> Remember to press both left and center pedals to stop To stop, not to slow down.

It's still not correct. You press the brake to stop. You press the clutch to not stall. They're separate concerns, or maybe more accurately one is only a response to the other - you clutch as you're about to stop because otherwise you'll stall, you don't brake and clutch at the same time because you decide to stop and not stall at the same time.

Re: European crash tester says carmakers must bring back physical controls

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the new EVs have pretty good adaptive wipers. I have not found the bed to actually overwrite this yet.

Cars for 15-20 years have had good automatic wipers, they're just becoming more widely available now (and evs are generally in the price range where it's expected). Well... except for Tesla. They decided that a person can tell when wipers are needed just by using their eyes, so certainly they could save a buck or so and do it using just a camera.

Cars had it, because an ICE drive train is so cheap that in the price range you are talking about it's almost negligible. All the cost is in nice to have things like extra sensors for every tiny niche use case. Fast forward to BEV and suddenly the drive train eats such a large part of your cost budget that you are hard pressed to cut much of the fat of the ICE era.

Carmakers haven't stopped doing electric variants of ICE models because it's oh so difficult to put batteries where an engine, tank and gearbox used to be (it's not), they switched to dedicated BEV designs to have an opportunity to do a "cost reset" about their approach to all those little nice to have things they introduced in the late ICE era to maximise the price buyers were willing to pay for a given vehicle class. The BEV-specific base architecture certainly helps, but it's as much about the expectations reset. This certainly does not mean that they switch their rain sensor to the Tesla approach, they might actually end up cheaper cost-optimizing what they have and know, but BEV does mean looking at costs in a very different way than in the ICE era.

Post reply on HN