Please explain how it would be "easy" to save 40% of those costs. The chips are doing things that are legally required or that customers demand, like controlling the ABS or streaming Bluetooth audio. Sure it's theoretically possible to build a cheap car with minimal electronics but it wouldn't be legal to sell, and few customers would even want it. (Yes I am aware there are some people who want a simple car. They aren't a large enough market segment for any manufacturer to care about.)
I'm all for computer controlled engine fuel and ignition, but otherwise I don't want computers in my car.
I was happy with my 1987 Chevy S-10 Blazer until the oil pan rusted out due to winter road salt. Then I upgraded to a 2001 GMC Yukon. The Yukon has some automatic stuff, and I hate it. If the newer cars have more automatic stuff, then I will hate that, too.
I don't believe you are correct that the laws and regulations require automation that needs for computers in cars. E.g., as I recall, we had anti-lock brakes long before we had computer chips in cars.
I used to be a car guy so understand quite a lot about cars and how they work. E.g., need computer chips to monitor the transmission? We've had transmissions for 100 years and quite good automatic transmissions since the 1950s all without computer monitoring.
For the drivers wanting Bluetooth, ..., an entertainment center, a communications center, a lot of self-driving, a touch screen, I doubt it.
Use computers to help with door locks? To me that is directly from wack-o land.
For what the computers do, I don't want it. For their buzzers and flashing lights, I wish they'd just go away. I don't want to pay for the chips when I buy the car, put up with the false alarms, or pay for repairs.
E.g., my Yukon has a little light on the instrument panel that says something about "BRAKE". Well, it's a tiny, obscure thing, so I looked at the PDF of the owner's manual I downloaded and got the details. It's a light about the parking brake. The parking brake is NOT on, and the light is a false alarm. I wish the light would stop, quit, turn off, go away, disappear, be gone. A false alarm for the parking brake and then reading up in the PDF -- WASTE of time. Busy work. Deliberate extra complexity.
To me, most of that computerization looks like a crowd pushing/following a fad, a fad that will go away in a few years.
It's like the low flow plumbing: Maybe, I doubt it, but maybe in a desert there is a reason. Otherwise it is a waste of my time -- takes longer to fill a pot with water. I don't live in a desert. We have plenty of water. Low flow is the result of people making work for themselves and hurting my life. But, the talking about saving water has died down and maybe the same for low flow plumbing. Hopefully any low flow is implemented with just a little restrictor that can be removed, drilled out, or otherwise disabled.
I suspect that the cars are designed so that no matter what happens to the computerization, the car will still function -- the doors will still open and close, the door locks will still work, etc. That is, the designers knew that the computerization is glitz, nonsense, that can't be permitted to be essential to the car.
The US has a compulsion, can't quit, "change the cars!!!!". Can't leave good enough alone. Bunch of people making jobs for themselves, jobs that don't need doing -- jobs doing things for helpless me I very much do not want done.
And, whatever else, that 40% is a big waste of money, and the US has more than enough pressures on family budgets to waste money.
Big Point: US is failing at family formation and having kids. The birth rate is so low that we are going extinct, literally, rapidly. IMHO, the main reason is that US families are short on money for having kids. The two big expenditures are a house and two cars. If we could save the 40% on each of the cars, then, net, the US would have more kids.
But I might be wrong, in small ways or big ones.
This whole thing is part of a big pet peeve of mine: I want to keep things simple and spend my time, energy, and money working on my startup or whatever, certainly not mud wrestling with maintenance of absurd nonsense on a car.
E.g., several times a day my Firefox browser reminds me that there is a newer version I can download. I HATE that. I do NOT want a newer version. Where can I even pay money to STOP the notifications of updates? A newer version will make changes, there are no changes I want, the changes may make some things worse, and there is nearly no chance the changes will make any improvements. The version of Firefox I use has something it calls "pockets". I don't know what they are, and I don't want to devote the time or energy looking into what they are.
The Internet, TCP/IP, the Web, URLs, HTTP, HTML, CSS, Ethernet, WiFi, etc. are all very nice and simple. I just want to use them, not futz with more that is worthless.
I needed a laptop, got one, and it had Windows 10. I HATE Windows 10. My development computer is Windows 7 Professional, and THAT is what I like and want. From all I've heard about Windows 11, I will hate it even more. I just want an operating system to do the basic things, let me run my programs and write more programs.
It goes on this way -- people trying to make a living by making stupid changes and then forcing them on me.
No I am 100% correct. FMVSS requires stability control. It is impossible to meet that regulatory requirement without computers. And that's just one example, there are others. Read the rules.
Besides safety rules, new vehicles are also legally required to meet stringent emissions and fuel economy requirements. As a practical matter that also requires computers.
> No I am 100% correct. FMVSS requires stability control.
So, we have the DOT, Department of Transportation, the NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the FMVSS, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
49 CFR Part 571 Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles
As I read this, it is only for "heavy vehicles",
"This proposes to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 136 to require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on truck tractors and certain buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds). ESC systems in truck tractors and large buses are designed to reduce untripped rollovers and mitigate severe understeer or oversteer conditions that lead to loss of control by using automatic computer-controlled braking and reducing engine torque output."
It is not clear that that regulation ever got implemented. And it is less clear that it got implemented for passenger cars.
"When ESC detects loss of steering control, it automatically applies the brakes to help steer the vehicle where the driver intends to go."
Also
"ESC has been mandatory in new cars in Canada, the US, and the European Union since 2011, 2012, and 2014, respectively."
So, yup, I'm driving and the ESC gets confused and applies brakes at some of my wheels and reduces my engine power. No thanks.
Sounds like the DOT, NHTSA, and the FMVSS went all obsessive and compulsive. And maybe they made the stockholders of Bendix really happy. I'd like to see some statistics, (1) when the ESC, electronic stability control, helped and when (2) when it failed and caused an accident.
I quit reading at the claim of 1000 chips in a passenger car.
For your
> Besides safety rules, new vehicles are also legally required to meet stringent emissions and fuel economy requirements. As a practical matter that also requires computers.
I agreed that computer based engine controls are good. They are terrific.
To see some of why, just get a little understanding of what we put up with before, with carburetors, chokes, ignition points, centrifugal advance springs and weights, etc.
E.g., for a carburetor, it sits on top of the intake manifold. It has several ounces of gasoline in its float bowl. Turn off a hot engine, and heat from the hot cylinders conducts to the float bowl and boils and evaporates the gasoline then heats the carburetor and warps its shape changing its fuel/air mixtures. The worst is the choke: For a cold engine, just block the flow of air into the carburetor and suck in lots of raw gas. In cold weather with a cold engine, only a little of the gas evaporates and creates a combustible mixture, and the rest is wasted, washes down the cylinder walls and into the oil pan, dilutes the oil, and shortens engine life.
And the ignition system: Maybe occasionally it delivers a good spark at the right time!
These are some of the worst problems, but there are more.
Computer controlled fuel and ignition deliver a good mixture, hot or cold engine, hot or cold weather, sea level or high altitude, and a good spark on time. Engines get to last about twice as long, 200,000+ miles.
But computer controlled engines don't require anything like the "1000 chips". Add in ESC and still are far short of 1000 chips. So, your
> No I am 100% correct.
is an exaggeration!
1000 chips? For a car? GADS!
The chips are "40%" of the cost
of a car? Double gads!
How to save nearly 40% of cost of a car? Sure, get rid of nearly all the "1000" chips.
For ESC, good to see that if there is any question, should be able to disable the thing just by cutting some signal wires. Same for anti-lock brakes.
I've driven about 1 million miles to the present without an accident and without any of that fancy stuff for the brakes. Okay, I'll go along with the dual master cylinder requirement. For the rest, no thanks.
Congress and the DOT, NHTSA, and FMVSS -- politicians get into mechanical engineering. Not good. Looks like my 2001 Yukon is a jewel of special value!!!!
For a car of 2011 or later, looks like I will need a list of the wires to cut to disable nearly all the electronics. I don't want some computer applying my brakes or keeping me from applying my brakes.
1000 chips in a car -- still sounds like way too many.
The chips 40% of the cost of a car? Yup, sounds like a great, fast, easy way to lower the cost of a car by about 35%! Cars are a very competitive, price sensitive market -- 35% off the price is a great way to get a lot more market share!!
Yup, even in my 2001 Yukon, when I pull into my garage, the headlights come on automatically!!! Sick-o. Demented. Deranged. Delusional. And if it fails, it could leave the headlights on too long and run the battery down. Fortunately, I have plenty of means to recharge the battery.
Dead batteries? I remember. That's how I got to college. When my battery went dead, I pushed the car down out of my driveway -- got it rolling and then jumped in. Once out of the driveway I rolled and steered it so that it was headed downhill on the street. Then pushed the car, got it rolling, and then reached in and swatted the gear shift lever to put the transmission in third gear (test question, why not first gear?), kept pushing, and as the engine began to start jumped in, pulled the door shut, put the transmission back in neutral, let the engine get going fully, and then drove to college.
And I need computers in my car? Laugh of the millennium!
Politicians, keep your dirty, crooked, paid off, incompetent, fumbling hands OFF my cars.
Computer controlled engines are extremely vulnerable to EMPs. Read "one second after". Congress held hearings on this with the military saying it is one of the worst threats the US faces right before 9/11 eclipsed it.
All modern US military combat vehicles rely on computerized engine control modules. They are shielded to some extent. But concerns about vehicle vulnerability to EMPs are exaggerated. Due to the inverse square law, the flux drops off rapidly unless you're close to the explosion. And if you're close to the explosion then you have other problems.
https://electronics-sourcing.com/2022/05/04/how-many-chips-a...
has:
"By 2020, electronics now comprise 40% of the car’s cost,"
WOW. Looks like a golden opportunity of a really fast, easy way to save nearly 40% of the cost of a car!