Unnecessary Complexity

[Mr. Scram]

STEER-by-wire, however, adds complexity. And the short-term risk of a failure is much greater in your steering than in your throttle... even if you can't turn off the engine you can at least take it out of gear and let it redline itself into oblivion. Power assisted steering adds complexity but it's a backup system the way it's implemented, which means you can still steer even if the power system stops working.

Things should be designed to "fail gracefully" where possible, not catastrophically. Losing your car's remote control means you can still unlock, start, and drive the car in the traditional manner - IF it has traditional keylocks. Otherwise you are standing outside your car with very few options. Losing power steering means you can still steer the car. Losing steer-by-wire... well, who knows?

I have a related story that happened to my wife and son a year ago. Background: Toyota makes the only minivan in the USA that offers optional AWD, and we live in snow country so AWD/4WD is an absolute requirement. Trouble is, to make room for the rear differential Toyota jettisoned the spare tire (!!!) and deliver the vehicle with runflats (!!!). Those are about 2X as expensive, drive horribly, and only last about 30K miles, so we had the local tire shop replace them with four top-end traditional radials and bought a spare wheel with a spare tire mounted on it, which we carry in the back end. Returning to the story, some object in the road took out a tire in the minivan. This was very late at night (of course) during an intense snowstorm (of course) while I was out of town (of course). But my family is self-reliant so they broke out the jack and got the bad wheel off. When they went to mount the spare, the wheel had some sort of decorative cover over the lug holes - which was held on by a special screw requiring a special tool! They called me from the side of the road, across the country, and I seriously could not understand WTF they were saying because how can it possibly be that they can't "get to" the lug holes on a car wheel? They finally hung up in frustration. The story is long, but the short version is that they ended up having AAA trailer the car to the tire shop at midnight. The next morning the tire shop's response was "Oops". It also turned out that the lug holes were so deep and narrow that the factory lug nuts wouldn't even fit. Needless to say, when I got home that wheel cover had a serious and permanent accident... I confirmed the wheel actually fit (something I should have done earlier)... and I required the shop to provide a dedicated set of lug nuts free that now stay with that spare. All of this was a result of "unnecessary complexity", just exactly like a keyless fob with no mechanical backup key.

Security nuts are fairly common and tend to catch a lot of people out. That's not someone obsessed with security, by the way.

[SilverSolder]

Drive by wire is actually less complex than traditional.  Take the throttle for example.  A traditional cable operated has the cable from the pedal to the throttle body...

I have had that cable get stuck at wide open throttle, on 4 different vehicles, so far in my life...   good thing there was a simple manual ignition switch in all of them!   I have never had a problem with a drive-by-wire electrically operated throttle (knock on wood).

Difference is that a routine inspection of the bowden cable end would probably reveal fraying long before it jammed. The electronic throttle is not amenable to inspection, and the failure could happen at any time.

On the other hand the electronic throttles provide feedback to the computer about throttle position in real time - i.e., it is a closed loop system - using dual track, independent pots in many cases.  The accelerator pedal also contains redundant sensors.  If the sensors give conflicting data, the system goes to limp-home mode or total shutdown.  So in some ways, an electric throttles can be made safer than a cable, without needing constant manual inspections [that may or may not happen!]. 

[CatalinaWOW]

All of these comments on automotive complexity are valid, BUT they illustrate that reliability and complexity are in the eye of the beholder.

These electronic engine control systems are far more complex and have many, many more potential points of failure than the systems that preceded them.  But they also have many more performance checks and responses to the changes in performance that are observed.  It is really common now to find an ICE engine still performing reasonably well with no maintenance and well over 100k miles of service (160 km for the metric guys who don't routinely go back and forth).  Unheard of for systems that depended on points and open loop carburetors.  Complexity for the designer and manufacturer has resulted in simplicity for the operator.

Those security nuts on wheels make no sense at all where I live and where many others live.  And are absolutely the difference between being able to go out and drive your car or find it up on blocks with no wheels for those in other locations.  Same thing applies to locking gas caps.  At several places I have lived a locking gas cap doubled my fuel economy, although it would have no effect now.  So whether it is necessary complexity is location dependent.

Same kind of things apply to to the electronic key fobs.  To the woman (or man, this is the twenty first century) with one arm full of groceries and the other full of toddlers that key fob is absolutely necessary and a reasonable trade for the rare lock out situation.  Battery life isn't much of an issue for those who turn the vehicle in after the three year lease is over.  For the crusty old retired engineer driving a decade old car the answer is different.

[IDEngineer]

Security nuts are fairly common and tend to catch a lot of people out. That's not someone obsessed with security, by the way.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about security lug nuts (the kind that require a special interface socket so your wheels can't be stolen). I'm very familiar with those and you're correct, they're fairly common.

I'm saying there was a sort of plate installed over the entire lug nut area on the wheel, such that all of the lug nuts were inaccessible unless you first removed the plate. Removing that plate involved removing a single special screw, which in turn required a special tool. I have a full set of security bits for pretty much any hardware out there, but I was 2000 miles away and the bits were at the house, not at the car. And honestly, by the time I got home I didn't care what bit it required, it was coming off and staying off forever!

[IDEngineer]

Same kind of things apply to to the electronic key fobs.  To the woman (or man, this is the twenty first century) with one arm full of groceries and the other full of toddlers that key fob is absolutely necessary and a reasonable trade for the rare lock out situation.

If depending upon the fob is optional, I'm right there with you. That's why I thought Toyota's 2011 solution was perfect: A fob that contained a backup key that can be used to unlock, start, and drive the car if anything happens to either end of the RF link for the fob. "Graceful degradation" as mentioned earlier. Where I find fault is making the fob mandatory such that its failure renders the car unusable with no backup plan.

[tooki]

[Example: Our new 2018 Honda Pilot has no external keyholes at all, and no emergency ignition keyhole either. The fob does have an emergency key but according to Honda its sole function is to lock the glovebox. If you're outside the locked car, you are SOL if EITHER the fob or car battery is dead because there is no mechanical backup. At least that I know of, can find in the manual, or that Google can find on my behalf.

Utter insanity.

Curious, I downloaded the PDF manual (the one called Owner’s Manual; the Owner’s Guide is just a quick start guide), and on page 130 it describes and depicts using the key to unlock the door when either the “remote battery or vehicle battery is dead”.

The slow Honda file server notwithstanding (took like 15 mins to download a 51MB PDF on WiFi that just tested at ~200Mbps!) it took me like 3 mins to find this in the manual, since searching in the PDF for the word “key” worked perfectly on my iPad.

[David Hess]

Our 2011 Toyota minivan has an emergency key within the fob, and the driver's door has a keyhole, so yes - that was available in the past. But current model cars have abandoned the physical key altogether. Example: Our new 2018 Honda Pilot has no external keyholes at all, and no emergency ignition keyhole either. The fob does have an emergency key but according to Honda its sole function is to lock the glovebox. If you're outside the locked car, you are SOL if EITHER the fob or car battery is dead because there is no mechanical backup. At least that I know of, can find in the manual, or that Google can find on my behalf.

GMC has them beat by a couple decades.  How about having an electric hood and emergency break releases?  So when the battery dies, you cannot push the car back to gain access to the hood and if you did have access, you cannot unlock the hood anyway.

My current gripe about GMC going back at least 2 decades is that their built in security system which is an optional feature but always present prevents push starting any of their manual transmission cars.  If you have a battery or starter failure, then it is game over where on an older vehicle, you could at least push or hill start.

[james_s]

I have had that cable get stuck at wide open throttle, on 4 different vehicles, so far in my life...   good thing there was a simple manual ignition switch in all of them!   I have never had a problem with a drive-by-wire electrically operated throttle (knock on wood).

Difference is that a routine inspection of the bowden cable end would probably reveal fraying long before it jammed. The electronic throttle is not amenable to inspection, and the failure could happen at any time.
[/quote]

On the other hand the electronic throttles provide feedback to the computer about throttle position in real time - i.e., it is a closed loop system - using dual track, independent pots in many cases.  The accelerator pedal also contains redundant sensors.  If the sensors give conflicting data, the system goes to limp-home mode or total shutdown.  So in some ways, an electric throttles can be made safer than a cable, without needing constant manual inspections [that may or may not happen!].
[/quote]

I've never had a single problem with a throttle cable, I squirt a bit of lubricant in it about once every 3-5 years, I've had one of my cars now for 20 years. If the cable ever jammed wide open I could depress the clutch. If the clutch actuator failed I could pull the mechanical shift lever into neutral. I can turn off the ignition, I can firmly step on the brakes which in every car I've driven are more than adequate to stop the car against the full power output of the engine, provided you step on it and stop rather than ride the brakes until they overheat.

Simple to diagnose, simple to repair, I don't want to limp home, I want to be able to fix it on the side of the road and drive home normally.

[David Hess]

On the other hand the electronic throttles provide feedback to the computer about throttle position in real time - i.e., it is a closed loop system - using dual track, independent pots in many cases.  The accelerator pedal also contains redundant sensors.  If the sensors give conflicting data, the system goes to limp-home mode or total shutdown.  So in some ways, an electric throttles can be made safer than a cable, without needing constant manual inspections [that may or may not happen!].

Unfortunately the ones I have seen the details for (Toyota) are not fault tolerant.  They use two identically wired sensors so if the cable hardness shorts, they both return the same bad throttle position.

[SparkyFX]

Unfortunately the ones I have seen the details for (Toyota) are not fault tolerant.  They use two identically wired sensors so if the cable hardness shorts, they both return the same bad throttle position.

There are accelerator pedals with pots working in opposite directions (electrically), there are variants that give half the signal value of the other. Both will limit the use of faulty signals as they do not get past the check in the engine controller which will e.g. disable cruise control, rely on one pot only or stop working with a malfunction indicator light and store a trouble code. Typical error checking includes out of boundary checks to find open and short circuits and the mentioned relation of both signals to each other.

Where two redundant sensors are not feasible, a simple resistor in parallel or in series can add a lot of safety to the signal supervision capabilities as an error would need to be of a very specific value.

Harder to detect are stray pulses that are short enough to not trigger error detection but raise the average value during sampling, should they not be filtered by the differential signaling.

[Siwastaja]

These electronic engine control systems are far more complex and have many, many more potential points of failure than the systems that preceded them.  But they also have many more performance checks and responses to the changes in performance that are observed.  It is really common now to find an ICE engine still performing reasonably well with no maintenance and well over 100k miles of service (160 km for the metric guys who don't routinely go back and forth).  Unheard of for systems that depended on points and open loop carburetors.

Nice to hear that marketing has reached you.

I drive a 1988 Toyota, 1.6 liter engine, with a carburetor, no sensors, no computers, no electronics, and have 410000 km (250k miles) on it. Rust has eaten most of the car already, and my tailpipe just broke in half (sorry, neighbors!). I'm waiting for the car to convert itself into a cloud of rust, like poof. Meanwhile, I'm driving it. It passes the inspection, anyway...

I bought it four years ago, for 400EUR, driven 360000km, after which I have driven 50000km. I have had to replace wiper blades.

But the engine is working perfectly. At 370000km was the first time in its history it needed any adjustment. This was a 5-second job of turning one screw to adjust the mixture, during the mandatory exhaust analysis, without extra cost. This was 3 years ago, and it still passes the exhaust tests with a large margin, and runs just fine. No problems whatsoever with the engine.

Normal oil changes only - no special maintenance ever done. I stopped doing oil changes after 380000km as well.

160000km "unheard of".

Yeah, we hear that a lot. That carburetors were unreliable and you need a complex computerised system. These ECUs tend to be extremely reliable, indeed. It's the multitude of sensors and the ECU's dependence on them producing right data, that causes issues in reality. But I well understand this is all needed to slightly increase fuel efficiency, increase the weight-power ratio of the engine, and decrease pollution; all good, especially the last one. But let's be honest about it, it being "more reliable" is just pure marketing bullshit, and that's understandable because people (me included) are selfish idiots who are not concerned about the environment, but want a reliable car. Thus this is what the marketing needs to tell us ("carburetors were unreliable, now we have a more reliable system!"), even if it is an outright lie. In reality, they have different failure modes. And the modern one has many, many more, some of which are fairly common (lambda sensor being one typical failure point).

[CatalinaWOW]

I am happy for you good experience with your Toyota.  Wasn't my experience on a variety of vehicles, nor was it most people's experience.  Of course it is hard to compare apples and apples.  The whole quality revolution in cars happened about the same time as computerized engine controls.  Your Toyota is after the start of the quality changes, and must also be among the last non computer engines.   I certainly have worked on and owned many computer controlled vehicles that preceded it.

[SilverSolder]

Simple to diagnose, simple to repair, I don't want to limp home, I want to be able to fix it on the side of the road and drive home normally.

That's a good description of the Ford Model T.

I guess we all favour "useful complication" but are against "unnecessary complication"...   may God grant us the wisdom to tell the difference!

[T3sl4co1l]

I have a '95 Toyota with over 320k miles -- that's almost 500k km for you euros.   Manual transmission shifts perfectly fine; engine slowly burns oil and is leaking coolant somewhere; underbody is long gone, exhaust is now third generation, and it's just a matter of time before the wheel wells, nearby body panels, and pretty much anything in the rear, fully succumbs to rust.

The 90s were probably the best generation, in terms of reliable, simple, single-purpose computers (there's a few in this one actually: engine, cruise and ABS apparently, I think), and maintainability (if you have a problem, it's almost guaranteed mechanical, replace the component and you're set*).  Give or take a decade, as more expensive cars began introducing these systems in the 70s and 80s (emissions controls, fuel injection, air and fuel metering, and controls systems -- they were analog at first! -- Audi I think?), and whichever designs of this style survived into the 2000s before networked-computers-everywhere fully engulfed the market.

*One could make note of some Unnecessary Complexity in the mechanical design of various automotive lineages over the years, like the GM favorite of hiding the oil filter behind a wheel, or there was a VW I think that you basically had to lift the engine to do much of anything?

Tim

[T3sl4co1l]

Simple to diagnose, simple to repair, I don't want to limp home, I want to be able to fix it on the side of the road and drive home normally.

That's a good description of the Ford Model T.

I guess we all favour "useful complication" but are against "unnecessary complication"...   may God grant us the wisdom to tell the difference!

Bingo. It's easy to rant about something that's complicated and buggy, but mostly useful -- see most of the responses in this thread.  It's a rarer sight, to find something that just makes you think, on all levels, in all aspects: "Why?"

Tim

[SilverSolder]

I drive a 1988 Toyota, 1.6 liter engine, with a carburetor

Nothing wrong with that,  I have a lawnmower and a snow blower here, both with carburetors and both work reliably...  as long as you remember to put preservative chemicals in the fuel, to avoid the carburetors getting gummed up when the machines stand unused for long periods out of season!

I also have an old Mazda MX-5 with 180K miles, a 1990, with electronic fuel injection.  It doesn't get driven in winter, but it always starts on the first crank despite having stood unused for up to half a year...   nothing ever goes wrong with that car apart from normal maintenance items, millions of people love these little cars and they just go on, and on, and on!

Let's not forget that even a modern carburetor is far more complex than the original designs that you find in e.g. the Ford Model T.   If simple and effective solutions was all anyone ever wanted, we would all be driving Model T's still. 

I'd actually love to own a Model T for fun.  From what I see on Youtube videos they would actually function adequately as transportation even today, 100 years later,  if you are willing to put up with a few quirks and inconveniences!

[SilverSolder]

[80's] ...fuel injection, air and fuel metering, and controls systems -- they were analog at first! -- Audi I think?)

One of the first successful automotive fuel injection systems was the Bosch K-Jetronic CIS (Continuous Injection System) which, despite its name, was a completely mechanical system based on a flap in the airstream into the engine opening a precise valve that let fuel into the engine through one injector per inlet port.  It was a good and reliable system, as well as a true masterpiece of precision mechanical engineering and production.  It was used on many "specialty" cars at the time including the early Golf GTIs, sporty Audis and many other cars including some sporty European Fords (Capri 2.8i, Sierra XR4i, etc).  Too expensive to put on mainstream cars, though.

Not many complained that it was an "unnecessary complication" because it just worked, and delivered on the performance front!

[IDEngineer]

Curious, I downloaded the PDF manual (the one called Owner’s Manual; the Owner’s Guide is just a quick start guide), and on page 130 it describes and depicts using the key to unlock the door when either the “remote battery or vehicle battery is dead”.

Must be a different year or model. Here's page 130 from my manual. Also, the "bigger" manual is now called the "Owner's Guide" (~180 pages) which is separate from the much shorter intro manual. Maybe they flip the names on odd/even years. 

I did find information about starting the engine "when the battery in the remote transmitter is weak". But dead? Damaged? Dropped in water? I still have found nothing.

[IDEngineer]

One of the first successful automotive fuel injection systems was the Bosch K-Jetronic CIS (Continuous Injection System) which, despite its name, was a completely mechanical system....

The fuel injection on the Cummins diesel engine in my Case 580SK loader/backhoe is 100% mechanical too. The most complicated electrical thing on that machine is the horn relay! (Well, OK, the Hall effect sensor for return-to-dig is OK too.)

[IDEngineer]

Bingo. It's easy to rant about something that's complicated and buggy, but mostly useful -- see most of the responses in this thread.  It's a rarer sight, to find something that just makes you think, on all levels, in all aspects: "Why?"

Speaking for myself, I don't have any problem with including things like ignition fobs. They are useful and convenient. My complaint is the removal of the traditional components that should serve as the reliable backup against the more complex conveniences. As an Engineer, I think about ways things can fail and try to plan for graceful degradation instead of catastrophic failure. We're not talking about a lot of money here. I just replaced the ignition switch on my loader/backhoe and the part, purchased from my local NAPA, was under $20.

[IDEngineer]

Nothing wrong with that,  I have a lawnmower and a snow blower here, both with carburetors and both work reliably...  as long as you remember to put preservative chemicals in the fuel, to avoid the carburetors getting gummed up when the machines stand unused for long periods out of season!

That's interesting. Gasoline doesn't "know" that it's in a carbed vs. injected engine. It will degrade and varnish/gum just the same. For that reason, I use fuel treatment in all of my occasional use engines no matter their fuel handling technology. Ever had to have a fuel injector serviced? Their ports are really small, like carb jets, and just as prone to contamination. Last one I had serviced was over a hundred bucks - which I considered a bargain since replacing the injector would have been something like $250. 

EDIT: It's for that reason that I use diesel-specific treatment in all of my diesel fuel. Ever since the EPA required diesel fuel to have most of its sulphur content removed, the fuel has drastically lower lubricity. The injectors and other components of the fuel system depend upon the fuel itself for lubrication, so it's wise to replace that lost lubricity with aftermarket treatments that address that specific issue. The stuff isn't terribly expensive and I consider it cheap insurance against shortened component life and expensive fuel system repairs.

[eugenenine]

[80's] ...fuel injection, air and fuel metering, and controls systems -- they were analog at first! -- Audi I think?)

One of the first successful automotive fuel injection systems was the Bosch K-Jetronic CIS (Continuous Injection System) which, despite its name, was a completely mechanical system based on a flap in the airstream into the engine opening a precise valve that let fuel into the engine through one injector per inlet port.  It was a good and reliable system, as well as a true masterpiece of precision mechanical engineering and production.  It was used on many "specialty" cars at the time including the early Golf GTIs, sporty Audis and many other cars including some sporty European Fords (Capri 2.8i, Sierra XR4i, etc).  Too expensive to put on mainstream cars, though.

Not many complained that it was an "unnecessary complication" because it just worked, and delivered on the performance front!

Also the 70's straight 6 Ford, I saw it using in the econoline vans used by FedEx and UPS before they started using big box trucks.  It had a mechanical fuel pump in 6 hard lines going to the injectors much like a diesel engine.   Very simple fuel injection in an old gas engine that would run forever.

[eugenenine]

GMC has them beat by a couple decades.  How about having an electric hood and emergency break releases?  So when the battery dies, you cannot push the car back to gain access to the hood and if you did have access, you cannot unlock the hood anyway.

Tesla does that today.  There is a small access hole that you open and connect jumper cables.  Of course any crook can do that too.

[David Hess]

GMC has them beat by a couple decades.  How about having an electric hood and emergency break releases?  So when the battery dies, you cannot push the car back to gain access to the hood and if you did have access, you cannot unlock the hood anyway.

Tesla does that today.  There is a small access hole that you open and connect jumper cables.  Of course any crook can do that too.

I ended up charging the battery through the cigarette lighter when I discovered this feature from GMC.

Discussing starter battery failure reminds me of another "improvement" modern cars have.  The battery terminals which now accept a threaded bolt have been moved to the side of the battery for a lower profile which should not be required.  Unfortunately this means that when the battery case leaks sulfuric acid at the terminal, it gets into the threads of the bolt and seizes it.  The bolt of course has a tiny 10mm hex head which immediately strips off under these conditions so the only way to remove the battery is to cut the cables.  That is progress.

The geniuses who approved this and SATA connectors without positive retention should be fed to a sarlacc to be digested together over a 1000 years.

[eugenenine]

Those side terminals have been standard for decades on gm vehicles, they rarely have issues but you can easily replace them with an aftermakret top post.