Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

[wyx087]

10 times more charging spots in London than current 2020 target, by 2025.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...on-announces-plan-for-more-ev-charging-points

Jaguar I-Pace having to go back to dealers for software update. Wasting everyone's time, can't do it over the air like other modern cars.
https://insideevs.com/news/353679/jaguar-i-pace-recalled-needs-software-update/

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Let's look at the source: https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/toyota-engineers-flowers-to-offset-production-pollution/

But comparing to "gas-engine" cars, Prius were producing consistently less grams/km of CO2 when compared to petrol or diesel. So which type of car is cleaner over its lifetime?

The source is primarily about how the Prius plant is reducing its pollution footprint



Let's consider the maths:
Tailpipe emission = X
Other vehicular particulate pollution = Y

ICE vehicles = X + Y
EV = Y
EV brakes less, so less brake particulate pollution. EV weights more, but weight is more evenly distributed, so only more particulate emission on half of the wheels (rear). So roughly equal Y for both. (very rough guestimates)

No matter how much X is reduced, X+Y will always be more than Y.

Care to link the report and examine it further? I do want to know is all the concern on this topic came from that single questionable report regarding brake and tyre dust, or is there more coherent voice from multiple scientific sources.

And what about Z, the environmental impact of building an EV v ICE, and the environmental impact of disposal/recycling at end of life

 

[srichards]

The Jaguar IPace recall relates to the braking system. I wouldn't want that done over the air.

 

[nilagin]

Is the "battery get hotter and require more cooling" argument on the same level as "ICE get more efficient after first 5k miles"? What sort of percentage are we talking about? Sounds like it's going to be negligible.

The truth with battery temperature is that it only gets excessively heated up if you charge or discharge it at a very fast rate, for example when driving very long distances beyond the battery daily range. Normal charging will not require any additional cooling what so ever.


What sort of performance did early EV's have? Can they be driven long distances by regaining large percentage of its range very quickly?

That's just on the cars themselves. We, in 2000. also have much much cleaner electricity sources than early 1900's. The electric infrastructure is also much better suited to adopt EV. We are in a different era with vastly improved EV technology. It'd be like comparing surgery today to surgery in the 50's "they are both cutting people open". :banghead:

The amount of difference on an engine after 5k miles can be as much as 5%. It is not only an improvement in performance and economy but emissions as well.
If the batteries only get excessively hot when charging or discharging rapidly, why are we still are awaiting Tesla's findings on the car that was neither charging or discharging, yet burst into flames for no apparent reason and caused Tesla to update the software on the battery cooling as a precaution?
At least my comparisons are actually relevant and like for like instead of trying to compare an EV battery replacement with an ICE replacement just because they are the most costly items. Even the cost of just replacing part of a Tesla battery is in the same ballpark as the cost of a new engine.

 

[nilagin]

Jaguar I-Pace having to go back to dealers for software update. Wasting everyone's time, can't do it over the air like other modern cars.
https://insideevs.com/news/353679/jaguar-i-pace-recalled-needs-software-update/

What like Tesla have with their battery cooling software update? As I said before, that isn't enough. Tesla should be recalling the cars to ensure no other cars have a battery that has already shown signs of overheating and if they do, those batteries or parts of the batteries should be replaced.

Not every fix can or should be done over the air.

 

[nilagin]

Let's consider the maths:
Tailpipe emission = X
Other vehicular particulate pollution = Y

ICE vehicles = X + Y
EV = Y
EV brakes less, so less brake particulate pollution. EV weights more, but weight is more evenly distributed, so only more particulate emission on half of the wheels (rear). So roughly equal Y for both. (very rough guestimates)

No matter how much X is reduced, X+Y will always be more than Y.

Care to link the report and examine it further? I do want to know is all the concern on this topic came from that single questionable report regarding brake and tyre dust, or is there more coherent voice from multiple scientific sources.

Why would an EV brake less than an ICE and why would there be more emissions from the rear brakes than the front.?

 

[wyx087]

And what about Z, the environmental impact of building an EV v ICE, and the environmental impact of disposal/recycling at end of life

I thought we were talking about local particulate pollution?

For global level carbon emission, see the point you quoted regarding overall lifetime emission of electrified vehicle (Prius). EV works on the same principle, where after a few years, exact time depend on grid energy mix, its lifetime emission will be lower than comparative ICE vehicles.

If the batteries only get excessively hot when charging or discharging rapidly, why are we still are awaiting Tesla's findings on the car that was neither charging or discharging, yet burst into flames for no apparent reason and caused Tesla to update the software on the battery cooling as a precaution?

There are too many variables to pin this down to battery cooling. Battery require zero cooling at rest, but battery has a large thermo-mass, so cooling may be needed for longer time than thought necessary. Do you know the exact change Tesla did in their "fix"?
The fires in question may have been driven hours before? or been charging? or a fault may have developed somewhere? We don't know enough to link battery fires to thermal management.

But despite the lack of any insight or new information, you are keen to keep pointing this out at every opportunity.........

Why would an EV brake less than an ICE and why would there be more emissions from the rear brakes than the front.?

Please re-read my statement.

EV brake less because it can "engine" brake, called regenerative braking. It's like changing down 2 gears in my Leaf which can regen 40kW. Audi E-Tron can regen up to 150kW, that produce the same rate of change of speed as a 150kW powered car (200bhp?)

For tyre particulate:
EV weigh heavier than ICE cars, but its weight is more evenly distributed. So for example, a 1500kg EV could have 750kg on each axel.
Whereas ICE are usually front heavy, so a 1300kg ICE car with 60:40 weight distribution would mean front axel weigh 780kg. Front would generate similar or more tyre particulate than the heavier EV.

So: brake a lot less, front wheels produce similar tyre particulate, rear wheels produce more tyre particulate => stands to reason similar overall local particulate?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

EV brake less because it can "engine" brake,

This is entirely down to the standard of driving, looking ahead and reading the road, means that even in an ICE car you only need to brake modestly. I know as my brake pads are at least 80,000 miles old and still have plenty of meat left on them. By doing this, you are also putting less strain on the tryes, etc.

ICE cars also engine brake when you lift off the throttle.

 

[nilagin]

I thought we were talking about local particulate pollution?

For global level carbon emission, see the point you quoted regarding overall lifetime emission of electrified vehicle (Prius). EV works on the same principle, where after a few years, exact time depend on grid energy mix, its lifetime emission will be lower than comparative ICE vehicles.


There are too many variables to pin this down to battery cooling. Battery require zero cooling at rest, but battery has a large thermo-mass, so cooling may be needed for longer time than thought necessary. Do you know the exact change Tesla did in their "fix"?
The fires in question may have been driven hours before? or been charging? or a fault may have developed somewhere? We don't know enough to link battery fires to thermal management.

But despite the lack of any insight or new information, you are keen to keep pointing this out at every opportunity.........


Please re-read my statement.

EV brake less because it can "engine" brake, called regenerative braking. It's like changing down 2 gears in my Leaf which can regen 40kW. Audi E-Tron can regen up to 150kW, that produce the same rate of change of speed as a 150kW powered car (200bhp?)

For tyre particulate:
EV weigh heavier than ICE cars, but its weight is more evenly distributed. So for example, a 1500kg EV could have 750kg on each axel.
Whereas ICE are usually front heavy, so a 1300kg ICE car with 60:40 weight distribution would mean front axel weigh 780kg. Front would generate similar or more tyre particulate than the heavier EV.

So: brake a lot less, front wheels produce similar tyre particulate, rear wheels produce more tyre particulate => stands to reason similar overall local particulate?

You have seen the video of the Tesla catching fire in China that I posted before. It was in a car park and not being charged. I have no idea what software upgrade Tesla sent out other than altering the battery cooling management software.
The fact that Tesla rolled out the update isn't enough, cars need to be inspected to determine that it wasn't a common fault, altering the software on batteries already starting to suffer from the same problem doesn't mean the fault won't develop any further and end with similar result.

As far as tyres are concerned, the driven wheels are always going to wear quicker. So front tyres will wear on fwd and rear tyres on rwd.
As mentioned above ice also engine brake, the injectors shutdown and the engine is just motoring producing zero emissions and slowing the vehicle down. If you want it to slow more, change down a gear or two. As pointed out poor driving can wear out brake pads regardless of whether it is an EV or ICE vehicle.

 

[srichards]

Like petrol and diesel cars never burst into flames in car parks

 

[MatBin]

Let's consider the maths:
Tailpipe emission = X
Other vehicular particulate pollution = Y

ICE vehicles = X + Y
EV = Y
EV brakes less, so less brake particulate pollution. EV weights more, but weight is more evenly distributed, so only more particulate emission on half of the wheels (rear). So roughly equal Y for both. (very rough guestimates)

No matter how much X is reduced, X+Y will always be more than Y.

Care to link the report and examine it further? I do want to know is all the concern on this topic came from that single questionable report regarding brake and tyre dust, or is there more coherent voice from multiple scientific sources.

Agreed that X+Y will always be more than Y alone, however as X tends to zero the advantage of EV diminishes as X+Y almost equal Y, so the roadside benefit nears to zero. Add in the environmental cost of actually producing EV and the overall effect to the Planet becomes less clear.
We of course in the "wealthy" advanced nations will benefit as we have "exported" our pollution, much like the near zero emissions the Govt have signed us up for, no need to actually have zero just pay someone to plant a few tress elsewhere (and hope with the money we give them that they do, as opposed to line some corrupt politicians pockets, I am sure that would never ever happen).

 

[nilagin]

Like petrol and diesel cars never burst into flames in car parks

No one has said they don't, It's the actions taken after. Rolling out a software upgrade without inspecting other vehicles is pointless if they have no way of knowing if a battery already damaged by heat won't still go the same way. You, yourself said you wouldn't be happy with driving the Jaguar with an over the air software upgradeon the brake regeneration system, well this is exactly the same.

 

[wyx087]

This is entirely down to the standard of driving, looking ahead and reading the road, means that even in an ICE car you only need to brake modestly. I know as my brake pads are at least 80,000 miles old and still have plenty of meat left on them. By doing this, you are also putting less strain on the tryes, etc.

ICE cars also engine brake when you lift off the throttle.

You will never get equivalent to 200bph of braking force with IC engine braking. When you hit the brake paddle in ICE-only vehicle, at best you charge the 12v battery a tiny bit and rest of the stopping power all come down to rubbing the brake pads against the disk.
But with EV, or hybrids with large enough battery, when you hit the brake paddle, you get EV regen braking first. Only when you exceed the battery's ability to capture energy, or at almost stand still, the physical brake pads start to rub and generate brake dusts.

Hence, less brake dust than ICE cars when driven in the same style. Even when driven like a lunatic, EV regen braking will ensure brake pads do less work (thus less rubbing => less brake dust) than ICE cars.

As far as tyres are concerned, the driven wheels are always going to wear quicker. So front tyres will wear on fwd and rear tyres on rwd.

That is true. But IIRC the origin of the "EV produce more tyre particulate" argument was regarding weight, hence my calculation above.

Agreed that X+Y will always be more than Y alone, however as X tends to zero the advantage of EV diminishes as X+Y almost equal Y, so the roadside benefit nears to zero. Add in the environmental cost of actually producing EV and the overall effect to the Planet becomes less clear.

Will X ever be zero though? Relative speaking over the last 100 years, yes, it does tend towards zero. But it's still not zero. When you burn stuff, there will always be toxic gas.

CO2 is bad from petrol, therefore we switch to diesels, because that produces less CO2. But after a while, we learn diesels actually produce more harmful local toxic emissions. So what do we switch to next? Something that is highly efficient and actually produces zero emissions at point of use sounds good.

Rolling out a software upgrade without inspecting other vehicles is pointless if they have no way of knowing if a battery already damaged by heat won't still go the same way.

You are 100% sure that is the cause? How do you know their investigation hasn't concluded differently? How do you know they haven't checked every car that went in for service for this possible defect? Sounds like a lot of assumptions to dream up FUD.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

You will never get equivalent to 200bph of braking force with IC engine braking. When you hit the brake paddle in ICE-only vehicle, at best you charge the 12v battery a tiny bit and rest of the stopping power all come down to rubbing the brake pads against the disk.
But with EV, or hybrids with large enough battery, when you hit the brake paddle, you get EV regen braking first. Only when you exceed the battery's ability to capture energy, or at almost stand still, the physical brake pads start to rub and generate brake dusts.

Hence, less brake dust than ICE cars when driven in the same style. Even when driven like a lunatic, EV regen braking will ensure brake pads do less work (thus less rubbing => less brake dust) than ICE cars.

Did I even mention 12v charging? I was merely stating that by driving sensibly and being very aware of your surroundings and other vehicles, you actually have to use the brake pedal very little, and therefore will generate very little brake dust.

Never mentioned driving like a lunatic either, and yes I can understand there may be some EV benefits in this scenario

Also if I want to stop quickly, I want to be able to wipe my internal organs off the steering wheel afterwards having mashed the pedal to the floor, as I would actually prefer to stop, than drift on towards the horizon (inevitable accident) while waiting for a 'software switch' between engine brake/regen and applying the brakes.

 

[nilagin]

CO2 is bad from petrol, therefore we switch to diesels, because that produces less CO2. But after a while, we learn diesels actually produce more harmful local toxic emissions. So what do we switch to next? Something that is highly efficient and actually produces zero emissions at point of use sounds good.


You are 100% sure that is the cause? How do you know their investigation hasn't concluded differently? How do you know they haven't checked every car that went in for service for this possible defect? Sounds like a lot of assumptions to dream up FUD.

There are now petrol engines very close to diesel economy and CO2 emissions and the particulate emissions are easier to filter out.

Have Tesla issued a recall to check battery condition? I haven't heard of any such action. It would be foolhardy just waiting for cars to come in for a service to check on something so serious. Other than Tesla sending a team out to China to inspect the car and issuing the software upgrade a few days after the event, no more has been said by Tesla.
At least Jaguar have had the balls to recall cars themselves.
If you want to remain ignorant about it and happily drive a Tesla, that is up to you and others, but stop the pathetic FUD accusations, you're only demeaning any arguments you may try to make.

 

[wyx087]

Did I even mention 12v charging? I was merely stating that by driving sensibly and being very aware of your surroundings and other vehicles, you actually have to use the brake pedal very little, and therefore will generate very little brake dust.

Never mentioned driving like a lunatic either, and yes I can understand there may be some EV benefits in this scenario

Calm down . I was covering all cases with my reply. If you read the road and drive sensibly the EV will generate almost zero brake dust in comparison to ICE car's very little brake dust.

Have Tesla issued a recall to check battery condition? I haven't heard of any such action. It would be foolhardy just waiting for cars to come in for a service to check on something so serious. Other than Tesla sending a team out to China to inspect the car and issuing the software upgrade a few days after the event, no more has been said by Tesla.
At least Jaguar have had the balls to recall cars themselves.
If you want to remain ignorant about it and happily drive a Tesla, that is up to you and others, but stop the pathetic FUD accusations, you're only demeaning any arguments you may try to make.

Do you know the exact fault to be so sure that Tesla need to issue a recall to check battery condition? The entirety of your argument is based on being so sure a recall is required.

The FUD accusation only happens when you make giant leap of faith to arrive at your convenient conclusion that the industry disrupter is not doing well.

 

[nilagin]

Calm down . I was covering all cases with my reply. If you read the road and drive sensibly the EV will generate almost zero brake dust in comparison to ICE car's very little brake dust.


Do you know the exact fault to be so sure that Tesla need to issue a recall to check battery condition? The entirety of your argument is based on being so sure a recall is required.

The FUD accusation only happens when you make giant leap of faith to arrive at your convenient conclusion that the industry disrupter is not doing well.

When a car errupts into flames like that, something is seriously wrong. To determine if it is a one off fault, a batch of batteries at fault, or an underlying problem with just the Model S or all Tesla cars, they need to be doing more than just a software update.

You roll out the FUD accusations every time your have no valid argument.
Your knowledge on cars is obviously limited and you throw out the FUD as a smokescreen to cover it up.

As I have said before, none of the Tesla ideas are anything new, their build quality is horrendous, their vehicles are way too expensive, they fill their cars with crap no one really needs and they failed on their promise to build an affordable car for the masses. You are obviously impressed with them, but I see a car company that are a joke. They are the "Emporers New Clothes" of the industry not the disrupters. They obviously have you fooled.

 

[wyx087]

Porsche CEO of North American also must have also gotten fooled by Tesla:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opini...sumers-adopt-electric-cars-column/1287505001/

Tesla has made inroads, but now I believe we are approaching a turning point. In coming years we will see more widespread adoption as volume producers including General Motors, Nissan, and VW join with premium brands like Audi, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche to launch numerous battery-only models. As more Americans experience the instant power and sporty handling that electric cars provide, more will want this new generation of electric vehicles.

First, Tesla has proven there is significant demand for cars that combine sustainability with performance and design. Last year, the Model 3 outsold any other premium sedan in the U.S. We know that American consumers embrace new technology, especially if it delivers a new experience. And once a technology catches on, consumers respond well to expanded choice as competitors enter the field. Just look at how many models of SUV you can buy today, or the proliferation of smartphones since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.

When a car errupts into flames like that, something is seriously wrong. To determine if it is a one off fault, a batch of batteries at fault, or an underlying problem with just the Model S or all Tesla cars, they need to be doing more than just a software update.

You roll out the FUD accusations every time your have no valid argument.
Your knowledge on cars is obviously limited and you throw out the FUD as a smokescreen to cover it up.

So, you know, for fact, that Tesla internal investigation result says it is not a one-off fault, that you are sure it is a very serious underlying problem with Model S or all Tesla cars. No source was given other than CCTV video of car busting into flames. Then, using those assumptions, you jumped to your conclusion of needing to do more than software updates.

Call me create FUD smokescreen and lack in knowledge, when you have zero insider knowledge and work all your assumptions on traditional car manufacturer way of doing things, hoping things won't change.

Assume makes an ass out of you and anyone who doesn't questions your assumption.

 

[MatBin]

So, you know, for fact, that Tesla internal investigation result says it is not a one-off fault, that you are sure it is a very serious underlying problem with Model S or all Tesla cars. No source was given other than CCTV video of car busting into flames. Then, using those assumptions, you jumped to your conclusion of needing to do more than software updates.

When a vehicle displays a fault I think it only reasonable of the manufacturer to take a safety first approach and assume a mass problem and not a one-off, Boeing tried that with their latest plane and look how well that turned out, there have been many incidents of manufacturers in the past trying to cover up serious design flaws hoping the problem would go away or the cost of repair/rectification would be considerably more than a lawsuit and finding punitive damages in the USA massively outweighed their actions in trying to save a few quid, I hope Tesla haven't walked down that alley and I would have preferred to have seen at least a partial recall to establish the extent of the problem, adopting a safety first attitude, maybe they have and they don't think there's a big problem, let's hope so.

 

[wyx087]

When a vehicle displays a fault I think it only reasonable of the manufacturer to take a safety first approach and assume a mass problem and not a one-off, Boeing tried that with their latest plane and look how well that turned out, there have been many incidents of manufacturers in the past trying to cover up serious design flaws hoping the problem would go away or the cost of repair/rectification would be considerably more than a lawsuit and finding punitive damages in the USA massively outweighed their actions in trying to save a few quid, I hope Tesla haven't walked down that alley and I would have preferred to have seen at least a partial recall to establish the extent of the problem, adopting a safety first attitude, maybe they have and they don't think there's a big problem, let's hope so.

Exactly. May be they have gone down that route, may be they haven't. People outside their organisation cannot know with this level of certainty that it isn't a one-off:

The fact that Tesla rolled out the update isn't enough, cars need to be inspected to determine that it wasn't a common fault

When a car errupts into flames like that, something is seriously wrong.

A few months ago, VW brought in all their early Golf GTE to inspect battery health, it wasn't in the news. May be Tesla have inspected a similar batches of vehicle behind the scenes? Or does Neil know for certain that hasn't happened?
https://www.speakev.com/threads/vw-engineer-visit-from-germany-to-check-battery.135752/

 

[nilagin]

So, you know, for fact, that Tesla internal investigation result says it is not a one-off fault, that you are sure it is a very serious underlying problem with Model S or all Tesla cars. No source was given other than CCTV video of car busting into flames. Then, using those assumptions, you jumped to your conclusion of needing to do more than software updates.

Call me create FUD smokescreen and lack in knowledge, when you have zero insider knowledge and work all your assumptions on traditional car manufacturer way of doing things, hoping things won't change.

Assume makes an ass out of you and anyone who doesn't questions your assumption.

So you are saying, because the car is electric and not a traditional car it doesn't have to conform to the same required measures to determine if a problem is widespread and if it is by how much. You are seriously deluded or totally clueless, I just can't make my mind up which, or perhaps it's both.
Working in automotive research and development part of which is actively testing faults that occur, I have a lot more knowledge on the matter than yourself but you are just happy to bury your head in the sand and ignore it thinking all is ok.

 

[nilagin]

VW's I'D 3 to be fastest charging hatchback and impressive 342 mile range and guarantee of 70% battery life after 8yrs.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...ric-car-range-warranty-battery-Volkswagen/amp

VW's tips on how to extend battery life,
Don't use rapid chargers and only charge the battery to a maximum of 80% each time.
Kind of negates the fastest charging hatchback and impressive mileage on a single charge.

 

[wyx087]

So you are saying, because the car is electric and not a traditional car it doesn't have to conform to the same required measures to determine if a problem is widespread and if it is by how much. You are seriously deluded or totally clueless, I just can't make my mind up which, or perhaps it's both.
Working in automotive research and development part of which is actively testing faults that occur, I have a lot more knowledge on the matter than yourself but you are just happy to bury your head in the sand and ignore it thinking all is ok.

No, I'm simply asking whether you know facts from within Tesla:

So, you know, for fact, that Tesla internal investigation result says it is not a one-off fault, that you are sure it is a very serious underlying problem with Model S or all Tesla cars. No source was given other than CCTV video of car busting into flames. Then, using those assumptions, you jumped to your conclusion of needing to do more than software updates.

You may have more knowledge in the general topic, but unless you have insider knowledge of how Tesla operates, your accusations using very deterministic wording are just Project Fear.
You've seen the reasonable and balanced wording used by Mat, why do you choose to ignore it? Is it because of your mighty automotive industry knowledge that no one can question your assumptions?

VW's tips on how to extend battery life,
Don't use rapid chargers and only charge the battery to a maximum of 80% each time.
Kind of negates the fastest charging hatchback and impressive mileage on a single charge.

I don't think you understand how EV's work.

342 miles of range, will you need that EVERY SINGLE DAY?
When you are about to go for long trip, charge to 100% and drive, "fastest charging" just means when you do need a recharge after 5 hours of no-traffic motorway speed driving, it'll be done charging before you finish your lunch.
During days I don't need my 80 miles Leaf for my 60 miles commute, I set it to charge to 80%. It sometimes lasts the whole weekend without plugging in.

Besides, they cannot guarantee how the car will get used. So the 8 years battery degradation guarantee should be honoured if you only rapid charge it. So if you only need 250 miles of range EVERY SINGLE DAY, and charge to 80% like their advice, you'll likely to have a lot more than 70% battery capacity after 8 years.

My Leaf will be 5 years old come October, when its battery warranty ends (early 24kWh only get 5 years, 30kWh and newer Leaf get 8 years). I was wrong earlier, Nissan guarantees kicks in when loosing 4th bar during its battery warranty period. That means 66% after 5 years for my car. Currently it has 87% battery health 4 months away from end of its battery warranty.
https://insideevs.com/news/326563/battery-capacity-loss-warranty-chart-for-2016-30-kwh-nissan-leaf/

 

[stryvya]

OMG, I`m fast losing the will to live.

Long Live Deisel

 

[nilagin]

No, I'm simply asking whether you know facts from within Tesla:

You may have more knowledge in the general topic, but unless you have insider knowledge of how Tesla operates, your accusations using very deterministic wording are just Project Fear.
You've seen the reasonable and balanced wording used by Mat, why do you choose to ignore it? Is it because of your mighty automotive industry knowledge that no one can question your assumptions?


I don't think you understand how EV's work.

342 miles of range, will you need that EVERY SINGLE DAY?
When you are about to go for long trip, charge to 100% and drive, "fastest charging" just means when you do need a recharge after 5 hours of no-traffic motorway speed driving, it'll be done charging before you finish your lunch.
During days I don't need my 80 miles Leaf for my 60 miles commute, I set it to charge to 80%. It sometimes lasts the whole weekend without plugging in.

Besides, they cannot guarantee how the car will get used.

No you definitely wrote that as Tesla aren't a conventional car manufacturer, they don't have to conform to traditional car manufacturers way of doing things. Regardless of whether I have Tesla inside information or not, let me ask you this, has Tesla issued a statement to say that they have decided that their cars are indeed safe after extensive testing and investigation after saying they had sent a team out to investigate the car in China? To my knowledge they haven't, perhaps you have evidence that they have.

I hadn't seen Mat's post, but having just read It, he has confirmed exactly what I have said, but in his own words. There is no project fear, it is just what Tesla should be doing to determine whether this is a widespread fault and whether their software upgrade is sufficient to protect a battery which is showing signs of overheating failure. The fact that you thought JLR could just issue a software update for their brake issue rather than recall vehicles goes to confirm your complete lack of understanding on this.

No I don't require 342 miles range every day, I don't even require it each week, I just fill the tank up as and when I get close to 50 miles range left or if I have a trip which is longer than the remaining range.
If a batteries life depletes if you fully charge it, surely the sensible thing for manufacturers to do is make 80% the maximum charge and just call it 100% on the display. Or is it just a case of the much lower available range makes the car less attractive to someone considering buying an EV instead of an ICE vehicle.

 

[wyx087]

No you definitely wrote that as Tesla aren't a conventional car manufacturer, they don't have to conform to traditional car manufacturers way of doing things. Regardless of whether I have Tesla inside information or not, let me ask you this, has Tesla issued a statement to say that they have decided that their cars are indeed safe after extensive testing and investigation after saying they had sent a team out to investigate the car in China? To my knowledge they haven't, perhaps you have evidence that they have.

I hadn't seen Mat's post, but having just read It, he has confirmed exactly what I have said, but in his own words. There is no project fear, it is just what Tesla should be doing to determine whether this is a widespread fault and whether their software upgrade is sufficient to protect a battery which is showing signs of overheating failure. The fact that you thought JLR could just issue a software update for their brake issue rather than recall vehicles goes to confirm your complete lack of understanding on this.

What do you think JLR is doing to the cars when you bring it in? It's a software bug where a new version of software need to be loaded. With almost all of car's functionality done with software in the loop, almost all of the car's bugs can be fixed by software update, if the car has been setup to receive such updates. Thus, compared to traditional manufacturer such as JLR, Tesla does things different and doesn't waste people's time with recalls for software issues.

Do you take your phone back to the place who sold it to you for software updates?

Why does Tesla require issuing a statement to say their cars are safe if their cars rarely catches fire? ICE cars go up in flame all the time and manufacturers doesn't issue statements every month to say their cars are safe. Mat's wording shows assumptions and uncertainties required when all of us doesn't have insider facts from Tesla on this issue. Whereas you have used wording that show you either have insider knowledge or made giant assumptions.

If a batteries life depletes if you fully charge it, surely the sensible thing for manufacturers to do is make 80% the maximum charge and just call it 100% on the display. Or is it just a case of the much lower available range makes the car less attractive to someone considering buying an EV instead of an ICE vehicle.

The problem is not battery degrades if you fully charge it. The problem is battery degradation accelerates if you leave it fully charged or empty for a long period of time.

If you charge to 100% overnight for your long trip next day, it is perfectly fine. But if you charge to 100% before going on a month long holiday, the battery will undergo irreversible chemical changes that degrades its capacity. Hence despite I charge my Leaf to 100% most weekdays, it hasn't accelerates its degradation in comparison to other Leaf's.

Audi probably thinks similarly to you, their E-Tron has 90kWh but actual usable capacity is below 80kWh (IIRC, I'll have to search for it to confirm). It has two benefits: You can quick charge beyond 90% whereas most other cars slow down a lot after 80%. You can also keep the car at 100% without worry about accelerated battery degradation. But downside is carrying around huge amount of excess weight and not able to access the extra capacity for long trips.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Do you take your phone back to the place who sold it to you for software updates?

But I don't drive my phone down the road at 70mph and expect it stop in 79ft to then find it takes 120ft. There are some technologies that really shouldn't be mere over the air software updates, this is why aircraft get grounded, and responsible vehicle manufacturers have recalls.

We have all witnessed in the past when a manufacturer is tardy about this, it ends up taking several deaths or very serious accidents before action is taken.

EVs should and must not be exempt from this

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

OMG, I`m fast losing the will to live.

Always a danger when listening to religious arguments. Just you wait until this gets on to how many angels can dance on the tip of a car's aerial at 70 MPH...

 

[wyx087]

But I don't drive my phone down the road at 70mph and expect it stop in 79ft to then find it takes 120ft. There are some technologies that really shouldn't be mere over the air software updates, this is why aircraft get grounded, and responsible vehicle manufacturers have recalls.

We have all witnessed in the past when a manufacturer is tardy about this, it ends up taking several deaths or very serious accidents before action is taken.

EVs should and must not be exempt from this

The 737 Max 8 and 9 grounding issue is still on-going, and last time I checked, because there isn't an agreed software fix.

The JLR issue is entirely software, their PR have said so. "will update the software to reduce the delay" That is the only thing they'll do.
If they had over the air capability enabled for whole of the vehicle software, it could entirely be fixed without visiting dealerships.

My guess on why that is the case is simple, normal car manufacturer are essentially component assemblers. So they buy in online capable infotainment system, buy in separate brake system software, separate wiper software, etc. It would be almost impossible for them to ask infotainment system to talk to brake system to do update. But Tesla is different in the same way SpaceX is different to ULA, Tesla systems are all designed in-house, they are able to update critical components over the air as required.

Of course there are cases where OTA updates could be hacked. But that is a software server security issue, and not a problem for end user. Despite Microsoft and Apple being huge targets for their auto-updating computers, no one have managed to distribute malicious updates.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

The 737 Max 8 and 9 grounding issue is still on-going, and last time I checked, because there isn't an agreed software fix.

The JLR issue is entirely software, their PR have said so. "will update the software to reduce the delay" That is the only thing they'll do.
If they had over the air capability enabled for whole of the vehicle software, it could entirely be fixed without visiting dealerships.

My guess on why that is the case is simple, normal car manufacturer are essentially component assemblers. So they buy in online capable infotainment system, buy in separate brake system software, separate wiper software, etc. It would be almost impossible for them to ask infotainment system to talk to brake system to do update. But Tesla is different in the same way SpaceX is different to ULA, Tesla systems are all designed in-house, they are able to update critical components over the air as required.

Of course there are cases where OTA updates could be hacked. But that is a software server security issue, and not a problem for end user. Despite Microsoft and Apple being huge targets for their auto-updating computers, no one have managed to distribute malicious updates.

Do you not think its worth testing software updates (especially on something as critical as a braking system)

In JLR's case I would expect them to do the software update and then to undertake a brake test (the dealerships will have the required equipment for this - its needed for an MOT). They can then check that the vehicle is performing correctly before handing back to the customer, that would be a responsible way of doing it.

Your Microsoft analogy is not a good one, there have in the past been Windows updates that have caused significant issues, and Microsoft have been forced to recall the update from their downloads, or issue a critical patch within hours of the problems being reported.

If you are happy for unattended software updates to be undertaken on critical systems (like braking) then fine, its your choice, but me, personally I would want it tested properly before I get the vehicle back.

I work in real time software on automated production lines, and there is no way I would release software to multiple machines without testing it on each machine as I release it. I do not want an unforeseen issue to come back and bite me.

 

[PaulF]

The 737 Max 8 and 9 grounding issue is still on-going, and last time I checked, because there isn't an agreed software fix.

The JLR issue is entirely software, their PR have said so. "will update the software to reduce the delay" That is the only thing they'll do.
If they had over the air capability enabled for whole of the vehicle software, it could entirely be fixed without visiting dealerships.

My guess on why that is the case is simple, normal car manufacturer are essentially component assemblers. So they buy in online capable infotainment system, buy in separate brake system software, separate wiper software, etc. It would be almost impossible for them to ask infotainment system to talk to brake system to do update. But Tesla is different in the same way SpaceX is different to ULA, Tesla systems are all designed in-house, they are able to update critical components over the air as required.

Of course there are cases where OTA updates could be hacked. But that is a software server security issue, and not a problem for end user. Despite Microsoft and Apple being huge targets for their auto-updating computers, no one have managed to distribute malicious updates.

JLR have OTA updates, I think you knew that, you are correct that JLR can only OTA update certain parts of the software in their vehicles (all models not just the EV ones).

Personal choice I guess but didn't a few groups of hackers take control remotely of Tesla cars via in car browser vulnerabilities. That might be a bit of a pain if they start messing with the infotainment system but a whole world of pain (the real type including blood and death) if they can mess with the brakes.
Perhaps not allowing OTA updates to critical parts of the software could be seen as a sensible considered decision, or maybe your 'guess' that the infotainment system can't connect to the brake system is correct, don't you work in firmware for the defence industry? You must know you were talking absolute rubbish with that 'guess' when you typed it.

 

[PaulF]

This is being used in Ghent, Belgium.
Free to hop on.

 

[wyx087]

JLR have OTA updates, I think you knew that, you are correct that JLR can only OTA update certain parts of the software in their vehicles (all models not just the EV ones).

Personal choice I guess but didn't a few groups of hackers take control remotely of Tesla cars via in car browser vulnerabilities. That might be a bit of a pain if they start messing with the infotainment system but a whole world of pain (the real type including blood and death) if they can mess with the brakes.
Perhaps not allowing OTA updates to critical parts of the software could be seen as a sensible considered decision, or maybe your 'guess' that the infotainment system can't connect to the brake system is correct, don't you work in firmware for the defence industry? You must know you were talking absolute rubbish with that 'guess' when you typed it.

"Yes, we can update the infotainment system, therefore, we can say we have OTA updates, box ticked."

The hacker with Tesla had to gain physical access inside the car before the hack can be carried out. As you have pointed out, it's browser based vulnerabilities. It has nothing to do with the update system.

In my work, I know how difficult it is to take two in-house products and make them talk to eachother, understandably we don't have a standard interface between projects. We have never attempted or been asked by our customer to do upgrade from another company's system. The amount of collaboration work this requires is huge. This is the problem with traditional car manufacturers if they try to do OTA update for the whole car. They buy systems from Bosch, Delphi, etc. I don't know if there's currently a standard for delivering software updates from another system in the automotive industry? Hence, my guess, I'm honest with my assumptions and unknowns.
But I think Tesla does their whole software stack in-house, hence they can do whole car OTA updates.

I do hope JLR dealers will test the fix. But my experience with dealers is that they won't lift a finger if they aren't told to do so. The JLR press release did not say test will be carried out. Worryingly fix is also in North America only, I hope their cars in other parts of the world doesn't require the fix.

 

[PaulF]

@wuyanxu you have side stepped the point, again.

You are criticising JLR for not doing OTA updates to the braking software.
I am suggesting that not allowing OTA updates to a safety critical aspect of the vehicle is a good thing.

Do you really want the risk that somebody could, in theory, gain access to your car OTA and then have access and influence the safety system within the vehicle putting you and your passengers at risk of an accident?

Personnaly I'd prefer a trip to the dealers to have work done on any critical aspect of the vehicle. I'm happy to have map updates OTA and infotainment updates by USB but the rest, call the dealer.

If you're happy to allow OTA access to all parts of the vehicle, that's your choice.

 

[wyx087]

I thought I've covered that already?

Of course there are cases where OTA updates could be hacked. But that is a software server security issue, and not a problem for end user. Despite Microsoft and Apple being huge targets for their auto-updating computers, no one have managed to distribute malicious updates.

Only difference between OTA updates and someone plugging in a computer is that OTA update create vulnerability by having server as a centre point of attack for all cars. So as long as you secure at the server end where it distributes the update, it shouldn't present more risk than plugging in a computer to do the update.

Do you really want the risk that somebody could, in theory, gain access to your car OTA and then have access and influence the safety system within the vehicle putting you and your passengers at risk of an accident?

In theory, that is possible, but in practice, decoding the encryption will take too long.
Of course you can gain access physically as you've suggested with the browser hack, but that kind of vulnerability would be the same as someone gaining access and plugging in a computer to mess with your car's systems.

 

[PaulF]

I thought I've covered that already?

Only difference between OTA updates and someone plugging in a computer is that OTA update create vulnerability by having server as a centre point of attack for all cars. So as long as you secure at the server end where it distributes the update, it shouldn't present more risk than plugging in a computer to do the update.



In theory, that is possible, but in practice, decoding the encryption will take too long.
Of course you can gain access physically as you've suggested with the browser hack, but that kind of vulnerability would be the same as someone gaining access and plugging in a computer to mess with your car's systems.

And, no corporation in the world has ever had a successful hacking attack happen.
Oh wait, they have, several, Yahoo, Ebay, OPM (US federal dept), Uber, you get the idea, its a long and ever growing list.
What makes you think Tesla's severs are not in any way vulnerable to attack in the future and thus putting Tesla drivers at risk.

It really is a matter of risk management and just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be.

 

[gman]

Surely over the air updates would need to have a fair few and rigorous fail safe measures built in as well? The obvious one being that there would need to be a verification check that the download was fully completed and not corrupted due to loss of signal and it should be able to resume or start again - this bit should be easy enough to achieve though as even torrent clients can do it.

But also what about when an update is being applied to the car, I would assume it can't be done whilst driving for obvious reasons so it would be parked up and ignition on presumably, but what happens if your car loses power during the update? There would need to be some pretty good integrity and verification checks to avoid corruption which could leave you stranded or worse with a faulty car due to an incomplete update install.

My car takes three hours to update the maps via USB and the ignition has to be on the whole time. I'm not sure how long other updates in a car can take but I'm assuming some may take a while? How many people would be prepared to sit in their car for extended periods of time as an update is installed? Would this encourage people to leave their cars unattended with the ignition on?

What happens if an update is rolled out over the air and it turns out that it causes a serious fault, say even safety related? If it's being done in a garage I would presume they would have a greater chance of spotting an issue and can hold the car, but would people having it done OTA just continue driving? Does a subsequent patch get sent out, but then how would they know if that's not faulty also? What if the original fault corrupts the OTA update ability, then you have serious issue!

Apologies if any of this has already been said but it's difficult to read this thread in detail because of the incessant and repetitive ping pong posts, so I tend to skim.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

And, no corporation in the world has ever had a successful hacking attack happen. ... It really is a matter of risk management and just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be.

I believe you have put your finger on the problem.

I spent most of my working life in IT (from long before it was called "IT") and have seen many cockups of stupendous proportions, carried out sans the assistance of black hat hackers. None have been as appalling as the 737 Max disasters but I think that's more luck than judgement.

I've also seen how absurdly lax many if not most organisations are on security. I think we've been very lucky not to see deaths caused by black hats attacking mission critical systems and I think it's only a matter of time before such attacks are carried out successfuly.

As you say: just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

 

[PaulF]

I believe you have put your finger on the problem.

I spent most of my working life in IT (from long before it was called "IT") and have seen many cockups of stupendous proportions, carried out sans the assistance of black hat hackers. None have been as appalling as the 737 Max disasters but I think that's more luck than judgement.

I've also seen how appallingly lax many if not most organisations are on security. I think we've been very lucky not to see deaths caused black hats attacking mission critical systems and I think it's only a matter of time before such attacks are carried out successfuly.

As you say: just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

I too work in IT, it still amazes me the lack of security of some major financial and defence institutions.

I can, but won't, name a few that still use Windows xp!, will let visiting IT professionals wander around unescorted and not question when someone they know does not work directly for them walks out of the building with their IT kit, including servers and network kit!

 

[wyx087]

And, no corporation in the world has ever had a successful hacking attack happen.
Oh wait, they have, several, Yahoo, Ebay, OPM (US federal dept), Uber, you get the idea, its a long and ever growing list.
What makes you think Tesla's severs are not in any way vulnerable to attack in the future and thus putting Tesla drivers at risk.

It really is a matter of risk management and just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be.

As I've pointed out, no one have managed to distribute malicious updates via the OTA update channel (yet?). I understand it could be a concern, but I trust it a LOT more than having an internet connected car without any updates (a problem you've alluded to with Windows XP).

Surely over the air updates would need to have a fair few and rigorous fail safe measures built in as well? The obvious one being that there would need to be a verification check that the download was fully completed and not corrupted due to loss of signal and it should be able to resume or start again - this bit should be easy enough to achieve though as even torrent clients can do it.

But also what about when an update is being applied to the car, I would assume it can't be done whilst driving for obvious reasons so it would be parked up and ignition on presumably, but what happens if your car loses power during the update? There would need to be some pretty good integrity and verification checks to avoid corruption which could leave you stranded or worse with a faulty car due to an incomplete update install.

My car takes three hours to update the maps via USB and the ignition has to be on the whole time. I'm not sure how long other updates in a car can take but I'm assuming some may take a while? How many people would be prepared to sit in their car for extended periods of time as an update is installed? Would this encourage people to leave their cars unattended with the ignition on?

What happens if an update is rolled out over the air and it turns out that it causes a serious fault, say even safety related? If it's being done in a garage I would presume they would have a greater chance of spotting an issue and can hold the car, but would people having it done OTA just continue driving? Does a subsequent patch get sent out, but then how would they know if that's not faulty also? What if the original fault corrupts the OTA update ability, then you have serious issue!

Apologies if any of this has already been said but it's difficult to read this thread in detail because of the incessant and repetitive ping pong posts, so I tend to skim.

OTA updates in Tesla works just like on your phone. You get notified there's a new version available, you choose when you want it to install (usually overnight) and it's ready to go in the morning. You can stay with old version indefinitely if you want.

Being battery powered car, there's no concern with needing the ignition to be on or car looses power. Remember, EV battery are pretty big.

If an update is rolled out over the air and it turns out has serious fault? A bug fix update could be quickly rolled out. Cautious people can choose to not install the update for a few weeks to make sure no reports of such fault. Same question can be asked of dealership recalls, what if the recall causes problems? VAG dieselgate "fixes"?

Corruption is an issue, I'm not sure how often that happens, probably very low. I know friend with bricked iphone from OTA updates. Question I want to ask here is what happens if update corruption happens when your car is out of warranty?