Electric cars?

[rcw1]

Good morning

It has been published 7 November 2022, that The European Parliament has stated, European Union negotiators had mapped a proposal for “zero-emission road mobility by 2035.”

European Union May Have Sealed The Fate Of The Internal Combustion Engine

The European Union has officially mandated that all vehicles from 2035 onward must produce zero emissions. What does that mean for engines?

www.musclecarsandtrucks.com

Kind regards
rcw1

 

[sptrawler]

Good morning

It has been published 7 November 2022, that The European Parliament has stated, European Union negotiators had mapped a proposal for “zero-emission road mobility by 2035.”

European Union May Have Sealed The Fate Of The Internal Combustion Engine

The European Union has officially mandated that all vehicles from 2035 onward must produce zero emissions. What does that mean for engines?

www.musclecarsandtrucks.com

Kind regards
rcw1

Australia has legislated a reduction in carbon by 2030, I've promised myself a Porsche Taycan by 2030.
It will be interesting to see if any of us achieve our goals.

 

[Value Collector]

Australia has legislated a reduction in carbon by 2030, I've promised myself a Porsche Taycan by 2030.
It will be interesting to see if any of us achieve our goals.

Buy some FMG shares, and if Twiggy is successful both you and the government will reach your goals ?

 

[rcw1]

Good morning,
Tesla recalls 40,000 U.S. vehicles over potential loss of power steering assist...

Tesla recalls more than 40,000 U.S. cars over possible loss of power steering

Tesla is recalling more than 40,000 2017-2021 Model S and Model X vehicles that could experience a loss of power steering assist.

www.cnbc.com

Have a nice day, today.

Kind regards
rcw1

 

[SirRumpole]

Good morning,
Tesla recalls 40,000 U.S. vehicles over potential loss of power steering assist...

Tesla recalls more than 40,000 U.S. cars over possible loss of power steering

Tesla is recalling more than 40,000 2017-2021 Model S and Model X vehicles that could experience a loss of power steering assist.

www.cnbc.com

Have a nice day, today.

Kind regards
rcw1

Online fixes are certainly more convenient than taking the car back to the dealer, but software can go horribly wrong and has the potential to cause more problems on a mass scale than mechanical issues.

 

[sptrawler]

Buy some FMG shares, and if Twiggy is successful both you and the government will reach your goals ?

I have some, but that doesnt guarantee anything, the road to ruin is littered with good intent.

 

[sptrawler]

Online fixes are certainly more convenient than taking the car back to the dealer, but software can go horribly wrong and has the potential to cause more problems on a mass scale than mechanical issues.

Also an over the air patch, may well conceal an underlying problem.
I'm all for the technology, but if it results in symptoms being sorted at the expense of hands on people fixing the root cause problem, well then it becomes a very dangerous way to reduce hands on staff.
The maintenance model of outsourcing repairs becomes a nightmare if responsibility for a fault has to be laid at someones feet.
The old story of it isnt our fault, we pay someone else to repair that and the repairer saying it is a design fault, then the manufacturer saying it is operator error.

 

[Value Collector]

Online fixes are certainly more convenient than taking the car back to the dealer, but software can go horribly wrong and has the potential to cause more problems on a mass scale than mechanical issues.

I am not sure software is safer just because you had to take it back to the service centre to be plugged in.

In fact, if a problem with the software is detected an over the air fix might be safer than a dealership update just because of the speed it can be fixed.

 

[Value Collector]

The maintenance model of outsourcing repairs becomes a nightmare if responsibility for a fault has to be laid at someones feet.
The old story of it isnt our fault, we pay someone else to repair that and the repairer saying it is a design fault, then the manufacturer saying it is operator error.

Isn’t outsourcing repairs standard in the vehicle industry, all the manufacturers except for Tesla outsource both sales and servicing to privately owned dealerships.

I could be wrong but isn’t Tesla the only one keeping their dealerships in house?

 

[SirRumpole]

I am not sure software is safer just because you had to take it back to the service centre to be plugged in.

In fact, if a problem with the software is detected an over the air fix might be safer than a dealership update just because of the speed it can be fixed.

There is always the problem of hacking that applies to software but not usually to mechanical systems.

How big an issue is this ? Look at Optus or Medibank. Is Tesla immune ? Basically any software can be hacked and the source is a lot harder to track down than a fault in a mechanical system is.

 

[Value Collector]

There is always the problem of hacking that applies to software but not usually to mechanical systems.

How big an issue is this ? Look at Optus or Medibank. Is Tesla immune ? Basically any software can be hacked and the source is a lot harder to track down than a fault in a mechanical system is.

Modern cars have both software and mechanical hardware.

So it’s not a conversation about Teslas over the air updates vs Mechanical problems.

It’s about whether cars that have software (which is all of them), should be able to fix software issues over the air, or just rely on cars being brought into a service centre and physically plugged in.

Sure, an over the air update could have an issue, but so could a manual software update, but the over the update can be fixed quicker, also if there are 100,000 cars out there that need an update to fix a dangerous problem, it can be done over night with over the air updates, but would take months at a service centre.

 

[sptrawler]

Isn’t outsourcing repairs standard in the vehicle industry, all the manufacturers except for Tesla outsource both sales and servicing to privately owned dealerships.

I could be wrong but isn’t Tesla the only one keeping their dealerships in house?

As far as I know, most manufacturers currently have their own dealerships and inhouse workshops, including apprentices, I dont know who carries out repairs for Tesla.
BYD is moving to the outsourcing model and as yet I havent heard how it is going.

 

[mullokintyre]

Vehicles that use Lidar to sense objects in their vicinity, can be messed up by lasers.
From Arxis and Cosmos

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) increasingly use LiDAR-based object detection systems to perceive other vehicles and pedestrians on the road. While existing attacks on LiDAR-based autonomous driving architectures focus on lowering the confidence score of AV object detection models to induce obstacle misdetection, our research discovers how to leverage laser-based spoofing techniques to selectively remove the LiDAR point cloud data of genuine obstacles at the sensor level before being used as input to the AV perception. The ablation of this critical LiDAR information causes autonomous driving obstacle detectors to fail to identify and locate obstacles and, consequently, induces AVs to make dangerous automatic driving decisions. In this paper, we present a method invisible to the human eye that hides objects and deceives autonomous vehicles' obstacle detectors by exploiting inherent automatic transformation and filtering processes of LiDAR sensor data integrated with autonomous driving frameworks. We call such attacks Physical Removal Attacks (PRA), and we demonstrate their effectiveness against three popular AV obstacle detectors (Apollo, Autoware, PointPillars), and we achieve 45° attack capability. We evaluate the attack impact on three fusion models (Frustum-ConvNet, AVOD, and Integrated-Semantic Level Fusion) and the consequences on the driving decision using LGSVL, an industry-grade simulator. In our moving vehicle scenarios, we achieve a 92.7% success rate removing 90\% of a target obstacle's cloud points. Finally, we demonstrate the attack's success against two popular defenses against spoofing and object hiding attacks and discuss two enhanced defense strategies to mitigate our attack.

and

In a study uploaded to arXiv by a team of researchers in the US and Japan, researchers were able to trick the ‘victim vehicle’ (their words not ours) into not seeing a pedestrian or other object in its way.

Most self-driving cars use LIDAR to be able to ‘see’ around them by sending out a laser light and then recording the reflection from objects in the area. The time it takes for the light to reflect back gives the system information about how far away the object is.

This new ‘hack’ or spoof works because a perfectly timed laser shined onto a LIDAR system can create a blind spot large enough to hide an object like a pedestrian.

So how long will it be before some smartae$e loads a laser into his old bomb car and causes a new car to run up its rear and claim damages?
Entrepreneurial spirit lives in.
Mick

 

[Value Collector]

As far as I know, most manufacturers currently have their own dealerships and inhouse workshops, including apprentices, I dont know who carries out repairs for Tesla.
BYD is moving to the outsourcing model and as yet I havent heard how it is going.

As far as I know, most manufacturers currently have their own dealerships and inhouse workshops, including apprentices, I dont know who carries out repairs for Tesla.
BYD is moving to the outsourcing model and as yet I havent heard how it is going.

No, most dealerships are not owned by the manufacturers they are franchised out to out side business people and other companies.

For example asx code - APE is Australia’s largest owner of car dealerships.

Where as Tesla owns and operates every dealership as company owned.

Currently there are laws in some states like Texas that out law manufacturers owning dealerships, so Tesla doesn’t have a dealership in Texas even though it has a factory there.

 

[Value Collector]

Vehicles that use Lidar to sense objects in their vicinity, can be messed up by lasers.
From Arxis and Cosmos

and

So how long will it be before some smartae$e loads a laser into his old bomb car and causes a new car to run up its rear and claim damages?
Entrepreneurial spirit lives in.
Mick

Tesla has avoided LiDAR, they seem to think that cameras are the way to go.

In an interview he got asked why they are avoiding LiDAR and he basically said that camera based self driving systems are harder to train, but the end result will be better.

He then used the example of human driving, saying that humans don’t use LiDAR, and instead drive with just eyes, which is much more like cameras.

 

[sptrawler]

No, most dealerships are not owned by the manufacturers they are franchised out to out side business people and other companies.

For example asx code - APE is Australia’s largest owner of car dealerships.

Where as Tesla owns and operates every dealership as company owned.

Currently there are laws in some states like Texas that out law manufacturers owning dealerships, so Tesla doesn’t have a dealership in Texas even though it has a factory there.

Yes but the franchisees tend to sell specific makes and have an appropriate workshop facility attached, with inhouse mechanics.
Do Tesla dealerships have onsite workshops, or do they farm the mechanical work out to independent workshops?
Not that it bothers me one way or another, it is just a point of interest, as I think most manufacturers/franchisees will eventually move to outsourcing mechanical/electrical repairs and direct sales will be online. As opposed to the current drive in to the dealership model.
Mercedes has been moving in that direction for some time.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes but the franchisees tend to sell specific makes and have an appropriate workshop facility attached, with inhouse mechanics.
Do Tesla dealerships have onsite workshops, or do they farm the mechanical work out to independent workshops?
Not that it bothers me one way or another, it is just a point of interest, as I think most manufacturers/franchisees will eventually move to outsourcing mechanical/electrical repairs and direct sales will be online. As opposed to the current drive in to the dealership model.
Mercedes has been moving in that direction for some time.

Yes, each Tesla dealership has a workshop and also mobile repairers, and are 100% owned by Tesla.

With the other manufacturers franchisees they can many different manufacturers, APE for example operates dealerships for 12 brands.

I don’t know about WA, over this side of the country in QLD and NSW sometimes it seems the dealerships have their signs attached by Velcro with the speed they can change from selling one brand one year to another one the next.

There is a dealership near me that sells 9 different brands under the same “dealer” (and dealer was purchased by APE a few years back, so although people might think they are dealing with the manufacturer, they are actually dealing with another company that sells multiple brands.

 

[JohnDe]

16 months of owning an EV and the savings keep improving.

No service required yet, rotated my own wheels & filled the windscreen washer bottle.

 

[Smurf1976]

I am not sure software is safer just because you had to take it back to the service centre to be plugged in.

Where the difference arises is that taking it back to the service centre costs the company serious $ all up and top management will be sure to know about it. That creates a rather strong incentive to have proper procedures in place to test it and get it right the first time so as to minimise the number of such recalls.

Versus being dead easy and essentially zero cost to fix errors remotely leads to a mentality that testing isn't required since problems can always be fixed and not even middle management will find out that it happened. All good until a problem slips through that brings serious consequences.

In principle from a technical perspective doing it remotely is brilliant yes. It enables it to be done quickly, cheaply and easily. Where it creates problems is with internal management and accountability.

There are other industries which have avoided the approach for that exact reason. When it's all done physically and involves serious time and effort, it's impossible to cover up internally that it's being done. It keeps the "bar" high in terms of technical testing, accountability and so on.

 

[Value Collector]

Where the difference arises is that taking it back to the service centre costs the company serious $ all up and top management will be sure to know about it. That creates a rather strong incentive to have proper procedures in place to test it and get it right the first time so as to minimise the number of such recalls.

Versus being dead easy and essentially zero cost to fix errors remotely leads to a mentality that testing isn't required since problems can always be fixed and not even middle management will find out that it happened. All good until a problem slips through that brings serious consequences.

In principle from a technical perspective doing it remotely is brilliant yes. It enables it to be done quickly, cheaply and easily. Where it creates problems is with internal management and accountability.

There are other industries which have avoided the approach for that exact reason. When it's all done physically and involves serious time and effort, it's impossible to cover up internally that it's being done. It keeps the "bar" high in terms of technical testing, accountability and so on.

Or, because it costs serious dollars they don’t bother fixing issues.