Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Electric Cars — Good Idea Or Not?
thecarchik submits this interesting bit of flame: "Many are keen on the concept of open source electric cars — that is, electric cars where the built-in software can be tweaked, parameters can be changed, and in theory, the cars can be improved. Only it's a really, really bad idea. ... Even carmakers themselves have trouble with software — Fisker has issued a recall and apology recently with its Karma — so allowing average Joe to tweak the car's inner workings seems like a bad idea. Changing the characteristics of an electric car isn't as simple as re-jetting the carbs or swopping out the air filter." Whether software is controlling electric cars or not seems to me beside the point; access to the underlying software doesn't guarantee improvements, but blocking access to it doesn't stop car makers from making software mistakes — it only ensures that those few interested hackers who might be able to work around them have a harder time of it. (Not that tweaking car software is new, or going away.)
But just remember to submit patch or post on bug tracking system from the hospital or grave!
I'd hate to die in a huge interstate pileup because some dipshit decided to push the overclocking on his car too far and it blue-screened on him at 80 mph.
Of course, many will point out that people have been tinkering with cars since they were invented, and that's true. But generally in the past, it took at least a modicum of skill to work on a car. Letting any douchebag with a computer plug in and play with any aspect of his car's functions is a little more scaring than a grease monkey putting in new headers on his 66 Mustang.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Have it open source, but the car only accept signed code from the manufacturer. People can find bug and patch them, submit back to central place to commit approved changes.
People have been building electric cars for decades. The internet is FULL of open source electric car projects.
Did anyone even try google before asking?
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=build+an+electric+car&oq=build+an+electric+car&aq=f&aqi=g4g-v6&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=igoogle.3..0l4j0i15l6.66739.69666.0.69806.21.21.0.3.3.0.188.1920.5j13.18.0.
It's the best idea to have open source everything. Building your own car, electric or gas is a wonderful thing and where real innovation comes from.
Someones back yard shed or garage is the best place to come up with better ideas.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So, why shouldnt the same extend to electronic cars (including safeties to ensure only modifications that the owner approves are allowed)
Provided there are safeguards to prevent someone from doing something really stupid with their car's software, especially as concerns safety.
We're never going to eliminate tinkering; no matter how closed a system is, people find ways around it whether they like it or not. With safety concerns, I don't see why they can't have core safety software be read only (to prevent people from blowing up their batteries or something stupid) while still allowing people to poke around in less crucial areas to customize their car's operation.
They should be open source. And, just like homebuilt airplanes, not allowed out in public until they've been inspected and passed the same level of rigor.
Most open source makes it clear "no guarantee" "you are responsible" etc. When you're fiddling around with your computer, not a problem, you are pretty limited in the scope what you can really mess up (and your ISP has a pretty easy switch to cut you off). But, when we start looking at cars- most places have liability insurance requirements, because when things go bad, they can really go bad- far faster than most people have cash reserves to cover (in the case of someone else's injuries). How do we extend this to cars? It must be in place to some extent, since people have been modifying cars since there were cars.
Good grief, you're STILL USING CARBURETTERS when the rest of the world has moved onto fuel injection. America, this is what's wrong with your car industry and why nobody wants to buy them.
interested people already modify the car's computer(s). if your car won't stop when its blue-screened you bought a poorly designd (and perhaps overpriced) piece of shit. all good cars can steer and stop when "blue-screened". and by the way, if you can't steer your car without power steering assist you're a pussy who should stay in the basement. parallel parking with a broken power steering belt is merely annoying
All software is complex. Allowing users to modify it is a REALLY BAD IDEA!!! They might make a mistake! Kitchen knives should be illegal too. Someone might stab their neighbor or a fuzzy animal! And hairspray is flammable! People should be limited to 3oz of this explosive substance!
Many are keen on the concept of open source electric cars — that is, electric cars where the built-in software can be tweaked, parameters can be changed, and in theory, the cars can be improved.
Operating systems can also be tweaked, parameters can be changed, and they have indeed been improved. Do you see average Joe tweaking the swappiness of his kernel? Also, opensource isn't just about tweaking but also contributing back to the community the improvements found.
so allowing average Joe to tweak the car's inner workings seems like a bad idea.
So what? Average Joe can also play with the inner workings of his phone, router, TV, etc.. does he do that? No, if he wants to mess with his router he asks to the geek living next door.
lame
Personally I'm often annoyed that I can't //easily// get access to car systems and that I'm forced to use the system in a very specific way. I'd love it if the systems on a car are far more user settable via more simple means. Yes you can get into it but I think that auto manufactures are to (and I hate to admit it rightfully) concerned about people making mistakes and causing major fatalities and the ensuing lawsuit. Enough so that access for people who have a reasonable understanding just isn't available.
Although at the same time you start to think about people defeating aspects of the cars.
http://www.ted.com/talks/avi_rubin_all_your_devices_can_be_hacked.html
He references some of the experiments that have been done on security in cars and the papers issued by a few universities in different tests. Obviously it's different and yes nothing is secure but I think automakes have simpler concerns around this same problem with opensource cars that are user configurable.
Read Jailbroken iphone with default root pw worms.
I have no problem with people coding the software in their car. I have a problem with people driving them on the public road before a certification process.
People doing experimental stuff in linux does not bother me. People doing experimental stuff on a machine I have stored my credit card info on does bother me.
What if somebody else hacks your car? E.g. so that it won't drive slower than 80MPH, and if you try the batteries explode? Yeah, that particular scenario is probably impossible, but the point is that the electric car version of cutting the brake lines or making the throttle sticky, though harder to do, could also be harder to detect, and harder to stop.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
After all the shit Big Auto has done over the years, and suddenly the open source model is under attack because of merely two recalls of a new type of product thats never really been done on a mass scale before?
Anyone has actually used software knows there are FAR less bugs in open source software than closed. Think about it or a second. You have more people looking over the code in error checking, far more man/hours going into the project than would be feasible for a for-profit closed source project, where you'd have to pay everyone who even came close to the code.(not cheap either).
Then we have quality of individual. People who program closed source don't give a shit so long as their job doesn't go away. Open Source Programmers CARE. Next your going to tell me some guy in a cubicle with a bachleors, or even associates in computer science is going to match
Back to the topic, Open Source cars are STILL a great idea. We just need some people who are better at it.
Yes to open source. Vehicular software needs improvement, especially for electric and other alt fuels. Auto manufacturers and their software vendors will just drag everything down with patent and copyright nonsense. Actually, Federal funding should mandate open source status so development can "accelerate."
However, rooting/jailbreaking should cause 100% liability falling in the lap of the rooting party. If they want to develop the software, they should have to take responsibility for whatever disasters occur. This includes automatically notifying the insurance company vultures so premiums can be adjusted out in the open.
This probably will discourage quick-buck artists, but make little or no difference hacker hot rodders.
I have no problem with people coding the software in their car. I have a problem with people driving them on the public road before a certification process.
People doing experimental stuff in linux does not bother me. People doing experimental stuff on a machine I have stored my credit card info on does bother me.
I hate to tell you this but with many financial institutions the machine your credit card info is stored on is running Linux. In the case of my employer Red Hat Enterprise running Oracle RAC.
Which kind of software gets hacked more, open source or closed source?
Which kind of software has flaws that are corrected more quickly, open source or closed source?
Which kind of software is more flexible under unanticipated new situations, open source or closed source?
Which kind of software should run your car? Easy answer.
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
The Nissan GT-R has a limiter that disengages when the GPS registers it's at a race track. How about the same technology controls whether or not the car can run only manufacturer-signed code?
Race tracks will need to be registered with the manufacturer, track location data will need to be distributed some how (and promptly updated when street tracks are in session, like Targa Tasmania etc.) but hey, that stuff is easy by comparison with convincing people user-adjustable cars are a safe idea (no matter how out-of-date this idea actually is).
Seriously? User-end software development now counts as hardware hacking? SERIOUSLY?
Let me spell it out. Hardhacks are hacks which require changes in HARDWARE. Like adding a pull-down resistor to a flash ROM to keep your expired satellite service from deleting its own keys.
Even carmakers themselves have trouble with software--Fisker has issued a recall and apology recently with its Karma — so allowing average Joe to tweak the car's inner workings seems like a bad idea
I don't know any average Joe who can write enough software to make a light off an MCU blink. And who said that Fisker ever hired competent or experienced programmers?
What has this world come to.
Electric Cars have all been commercial flops
Therefore Electric Cars are not a good idea
Therefore Open Source Electric Cars are not a good idea
Q.E.D.
Why?
People modify their cars all the time and drive them on the open road with no such certification process. Should I no longer be allowed to replace the braking system or swap out injectors or add a turbo to my cars? That machine that stores your credit card info might well be running linux. Many Point Of Sale systems are running it.
no, not the whole car, the actual wheels micro code... that does not sound right :)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
And how the hell do you propose we do that? Mandatory roadside checks so the police can make sure your custom firmware is sound?
Everyone keeps saying "as long as they're inspected/regulated" but how in the hell would you enforce something like that? If the system is open to user modification at all than there is simply no way to stop people from doing so whether it's regulated or not. People are going to do it anyway.
This is why I feel that certain safety related features be set to "read only" by the factory, while allowing code monkeys to get in there and play around with non-essential stuff would be the way to go. There will always be grumbling from people looking for deeper access (and lord knows they'll hack their way in whether you like it or not, so even that isn't 100%) but it will at least prevent the "script kiddies" from downloading malicious code and blowing up their car's batteries or have their braking system BSoD on the freeway.
This is a war that's been raging for years on other fronts...the automobile is just the newest battlefield.
"Carmakers themselves have trouble with software--Fisker has issued a recall and apology recently with its Karma". Perhaps they should not be allowed to use proprietary software code. Opening up the code allows for more control by the people who actually own the cars.
Furthermore, in many incidents like the Toyota acceleration issue, having open code/data is essential for proper investigations and accident reconstruction.
I for one, really do want to buy a car running on a RMS style of software freedom. I'm trusting my life to this car, I want to increase the chances a bug will be caught. I don't even necessarily want to make any modifications without the car companies blessing. At the end of the day, I'm spending >$20,000 on this thing, I want and should have control of it.
So.. which car companies/cars are the most easy to modify by the owners? Have any car companies embraced this? If not for underlying systems, how about at least for the GPS/Infotainment systems?
This needs to be seen
If tweaking real car is too dangerous then you could build simulator that runs open source software and then real car builders could make a real car after rigorous testing using some ideas from open source car.
I would like to see it take an open-source model with a review board to make sure the changes are safe. I propose the review board is half computer engineers and half automobile engineers, and they will judge and pass/fail the additions with sufficient documentation on their decision so the proposer/person adding the code or feature can modify it to suit their approval.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
...Only it's a really, really bad idea...
But it's an OK idea to work on petroleum product based transportation?
The WikiSpeed project is aimed at producing street legal cars that get 100 MPG, have 5 Star crash ratings and would be priced at $25,000. They've won an X prize already.
They are applying the principles of agile development to every aspect of the process possible. Everything is modular so that you can work on an engine system separately from other parts of the machine. You could do a hybrid, or straight electric system if you wanted to.
Ever since RMS conceived his scheme to get open hardware by giving away free software, the difference between hardware and software, with regard to being open or free is just a mess.
An open source car, would have it's specs and software available for the public to look at, but not necessarily allow for the running of unapproved code variants, because the source is open no the hardware.
A Car that was open hardware, would let you run your own code and modify components, without necessarily letting you see all the details of the running code or factory parts.
Open source cars, could be safer because of external review.
I think that cars with open hardware might be a bad idea because cars a potentially a large public menace (and might be domestically the most lethal type of machine) and verifying the relative safety of any modifications would be very hard. Car makers have large budgets for that and they don't always get it right.
One writer, with no discernible software background, using another writer, with no discernible software background, as a source. Both make assumptions that open source somehow attracts a lower skill level of software developer than than large corporations (who have been known to source based on cost rather than skill). It's funny that their supporting data comes from a closed environment.
in 1912 they made an electric car.. marketed it towards women. it had no software. no PC running things. just simple levers and pullys and there you go. My HPI E-Firestorm Brushless truck has no PC or Software and it is Remote Controlled.. why oh why are the car makers not using the current RC car tech? my truck with a 3c lipo will wheelie and take off to go up to 70MPH, granted i couldnt ride it to work 30miles away, but if all the parts were full scale I would bet it could.
At GM at least, the car software is written by real engineers, the kind that hve passed certification tests and are responsible for life and death choices. The people who do web sites and apps and call themselves engineers (ie, people like me) aren't allowed near that stuff. And for good reason: it's an utterly different skill set.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Some of the commenters I see here are asking whether this is one of those things you just don't want people fooling around with, since accidents caused by someone tinkering could cost human lives.
To that, all I can say is, "Huh?" There's an inherent danger in driving or even just riding in a motor vehicle on a public road. We've all accepted that, since the positives seem to outweigh the negatives -- even though MANY, MANY people are killed in vehicle accidents each year. So how does one make the logical conclusion that although all of THAT is acceptable, it's suddenly NOT acceptable to allow end users to edit software on their electric vehicle?
It seems to me that most "bad" modifications one could do would only lead to such things as premature wear or failure of parts, meaning more expense for the owner due to breakdowns (not covered by a warranty). That's not really any different than it's ALWAYS been, with people deciding to upgrade or swap out parts of their gasoline powered vehicles. You do it the right way and you might gain a few HP or foot/lbs. of torque. You do it the WRONG way, and you wind up breaking your driveshaft or causing check engine lights, or create a "flat spot" where your car lacks power in one part of the powerband, or ?? You *might* even do something so wrong, your car catches on fire and explodes (like introducing a fuel rail leak while trying to upgrade to larger injectors?).
Anyway, even with no "open source" available for most current engine and transmission computers in cars, people manage to hack them. All open source does is make the job easier for people inclined to make such changes, and gives them a better shot at doing a thorough/proper job of it too.
Many people want to make the things they aren't competent to do, or don't trust themselves to do, illegal for YOU to do - unless you hold special license. These people may well believe that they are inherently better than you, but they also have an instinctive willingness to obey authority figures such as Milgram's white-coated doctors and government-sponsored certification authorities.
In reality, you should be able to tinker however you will with anything you own, and simply held responsible for any harm that you do in the process. Full stop.
Great idea, because the electricity comes from the power supply, there is no energy loss over landlines, and giant batteries are extremely eco-friendly.
There are reasons why automotive OEMs are few, why they are trying to merge with one another and why the industry is so close to collapse when people stop buying new vehicles. The business is very complex and exposed to many risks. A modern car design engineering effort is few million hours of work, and this when the car is specifically targeting some market segment and is build on already developed sub-systems. When it is to be a generic purpose platform for a very small market and also designed (almost) from scratch - development cost will be times more. And of course - it won't pass state regulations and will not be safe.
As long as your brakes work (regenerative brakes usually have pads as secondary) i think it'd be more dangerous mapping an existing gasoline engine too lean & blowing it up, or perhaps a diesel too rich causing it to surge, than simply over/undervolting an electric motor that's usually directly connected to the differential.
I own two vehicles with regenerative braking and the conventional brakes in both are capable of stopping in the minimum distance achievable given the limitations derived from the weight and speed of the vehicle and the reaction time of the driver (which is the biggest factor, incidentally). Also, in my vehicles, regen cannot be turned off in software. Also, in my vehicles, regen by design creates usable power, so it does not suffer at all from power failures.
Both my vehicles have a neutral position implemented in hardware. The only EV that I know of that does not have a means of physically disengaging the drive motors from the wheels is the electric ox (which is basically a lawnmower). But this is not really a concern, anyway - it's trivial to cut power to a traction motor compared to disengaging a mechanical power train.
It's best not to recommend policies based on guesses at how these technologies have been implemented. The owners are usually in the best position to determine who should work on their vehicles and what work should be done - allowing ignorant politicians or profit-driven car vendors to make these determinations is not wise.
Changing the characteristics of an electric car isn't as simple as re-jetting the carbs or swopping out the air filter.
Or spelling swapping, apparently. Fortunately, people rarely do any of this themselves unless they already know what they're doing. Usually they just buy parts (or, say, EEPROM firmware) made by someone who does.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Back in 2009, Ford said the F22 radar technology which they took and built upon for their Taurus was all open source.
This is all about the execution.
Do you want to be driving in traffic knowing that the guy next to you may have rewritten the software for his anti-lock breaks?
Ideally the source is open but the software needs to be signed before it will run on the car. Hardware would have have similar certification steps.
I would variations based on what was being modified and the risk. Modifying the entertainment system is different that breaks, and modded cars in rush hour traffic is different from the back 40.
All the accepting responsibility in the world doesn't bring back someone killed in an accident. Maybe that's a non-issue in this case, but the question should be asked and given more thoughtfulness then some smug, self-impotent, knee-jerk reply.
Actually the Milgram's test gets overused and misinterpreted. The most commonly reported test had the most extreme rate of compliance, but a lot of people don't know that they had a lot of variables that they altered with other tests. When the doctors gave direct orders the subjects were much less likely to obey, which contradicts the idea of blindly obeying authority figures.
I love the idea of an open source car....
There are too many things that could go wrong. A few things.
Oh No, someone hacked my car.
The ex wasn't happy so my car blew up while I was diving. Or popular now and then accelerator stuck and no breaks.
Your self-important concern trolling is more "thoughtful" than my "self-impotent" (whatever that means) reply?
You can go right ahead and assume that everyone you don't know is completely incompetent, but I'm pretty sure you're just judging based on what you see in the mirror every morning.
Without exception, every EV owner I have ever met was easily competent enough to understand what could and couldn't be safely modified on the vehicle. I cannot say the same for Internet concern trolls such as yourself.
Those cars run on COAL!!! You know, burn COAL, heat water to steam and turn a turbine and turn a generator and transmite eletricity a long way and charge a battery. It makes no thermodynamic sense!!!
You are driving your open source car as long as your batteries are not flat. Then you want your own open source power station.
Feel free to tinker with your car. Unless you can prove it's as safe as industry best practice, don't expect to be allowed to use it on the public road where it threatens the life of others. How is this difficult to understand?
I wouldn't trust a single one of the EV owners I've met to operate an electric screwdriver safely, let alone trust them to be competent in deciding what hardware or software systems they could safely modify on their vehicle. I'm not saying they're all incapable, just that your experience does not match mine. This is what people worry about.
Of course they should be "Open Source"!!! To assume otherwise is to assume that people are incapable of understanding the technology that they use. Arrrrrrghh!
The level of proof you are demanding, which is founded in a mindset of fear, is impossible to achieve. You can always find something to fear, when you are fundamentally a terrorized coward. The likelihood of any individual act of tinkering causing harm is tiny, and well worth risking, compared to the certainty of harm that will be caused by restricting the actions of people who have as yet done no harm.
If you still don't understand why prior restraint based on fear and suspicion is inimical to the social interaction of human beings, I doubt I can explain it to you. My apologies.
Taken from what I wrote a decade ago: http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html
What have funding policies in automotive intelligence wrought?
Consider again the self-driving cars mentioned earlier which now cruise some streets in small numbers. The software "intelligence" doing the driving was primarily developed by public money given to universities, which generally own the copyrights and patents as the contractors. Obviously there are related scientific publications, but in practice these fail to do justice to the complexity of such systems. The truest physical representation of the knowledge learned by such work is the codebase plus email discussions of it (plus what developers carry in their heads).
We are about to see the emergence of companies licensing that publicly funded software and selling modified versions of such software as proprietary products. There will eventually be hundreds or thousands of paid automotive software engineers working on such software no matter how it is funded, because there will be great value in having such self-driving vehicles given the result of America's horrendous urban planning policies leaving the car as generally the most efficient means of transport in the suburb. The question is, will the results of the work be open for inspection and contribution by the public? Essentially, will those engineers and their employers be "owners" of the software, or will they instead be "stewards" of a larger free and open community development process?
Open source software is typically eventually of much higher quality
http://www.fsf.org/software/reliability.html
and reliability because more eyes look over the code for problems and more voices contribute to adding innovative solutions. About 35,000 Americans are killed every year in driving fatalities, and hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. Should the software that keeps people safe on roads, and which has already been created primarily with public funds, not also be kept under continuous public scrutiny?
Without concerted action, such software will likely be kept proprietary because that will be more profitable sooner to the people who get in early, and will fit into conventional expectations of business as usual. It will likely end up being available for inspection and testing at best to a few government employees under non-disclosure agreements. We are talking about an entire publicly funded infrastructure about to disappear from the public radar screen. There is something deeply wrong here.
And while it is true many planes like the 757 can fly themselves already for most of their journey, and their software is probably mostly proprietary, the software involved in driving is potentially far more complex as it requires visual recognition of cues in a more complex environment full of many more unpredictable agents operating on much faster timescales. Also, automotive intelligence will touch all of our lives on a daily basis, where as aircraft intelligence can be generally avoided in daily life.
Decisions on how this public intellectual property related to automotive intelligence will be handled will affect the health and safety of every American and later everyone in any developed country. Either way, the automotive software engineers and their employers will do well financially (for example, one might still buy a Volvo because their software engineers are better and they do more thorough testing of configurations). But which way will the public be better off:
* totally dependent on proprietary intelligences under the hoods of their cars which they have no way of understanding, or instead
* with ways to verify what those intelligences do, understand how they operate, and make contributions when they can so such automotive intelligences serve humane purposes better?
If, for example, a
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It's reasonable to be worried. It's not reasonable to be so terrified that you are willing to impose restrictions on the actions of literally millions of people who have taken no action that demands punishment.
How about this, for an example of what I'm talking about - any computer illiterate reading slashdot is going to be intimidated by technical jargon. OK, scratch that, make it "slashdot ten years ago". ANYway, if the computer illiterates are cowards, they might demand that the modification of computers be made illegal, due to their fear. This is stupid. Taking away the freedom to tinker is an act of oppression or punishment, and you should not oppress or punish people based on the fear that they might do something wrong. It leads to unrest and disrespect for laws, which in turn leads to social and economic breakdown. Fear is the mindkiller.