Don’t buy the damned things. I just bought a 1989 Toyota pickup. Manual transmission, locks, windows, etc. Super reliable and easy to work on. It’s got a standard double-DIN stereo opening, so you could install the latest touch-screen gizmo if desired.
> Don’t buy the damned things. I just bought a 1989 Toyota pickup. Manual transmission, locks, windows, etc. Super reliable and easy to work on. It’s got a standard double-DIN stereo opening, so you could install the latest touch-screen gizmo if desired.
How did this comment die so fast? It's a valid point of view. I also much prefer older cars. Late 80s ones are getting hard to find in decent condition though but I would certainly consider one if available.
I totally agree. It's nice to have something that doesn't require magic vendor tools to fix. You don't have to go all the way back to the 80's though. The 90's are fine too and you still own your vehicle in the 00's. Late 90's make the vehicle harder to steal.
I doubt standardization for anything consumer-related is going to make a return unless enforced by regulators.
Standardization still works between companies (e.g., interfaces between parts for computers, that are put together by computer-manufacturers), but not where there is no advantage for any company.
A bit of plastic for an over-priced OEM infotainment module is more useful than being able to switch suppliers for radios easily.
My teen-aged son was just in a bad accident last week. A lady pulled out from a driveway right in front of him while we was going 45mph. There's no question in my mind she at least would have been dead if she were in an older car without modern side impact safety standards. She had to be cut out of the car, but it protected her pretty darn well. His car was entirely destroyed all the way up to the firewall, after which point there was basically no visible damage at all. Modern cars are definitely safer.
I had a similar crash about 5 years ago when someone in a pickup abruptly made a u-turn in front of me. Said they didn't see me lol. Based on how the crash felt, I was stunned when I saw how fucked up the front of my car was. Well, that and wondering how people survive freeway crashes when a ~40mph crash screwed my car up that much!
We were a bit bruised but everyone walked away. I consider us lucky the pickup driver hadn't modified their truck and it had the OEM ride height and bumpers. Lots of people like deleting their bumpers and lifting the truck. that would have been so bad.
This is the counterintuitive thing. It’s actually good that cars get so messed up in accidents now. It usually means that the energy was dissipated via the cars designed failure modes (like crumple zones) instead of just transferring all of it to you.
First, at least in europe, regulations won't allow carmakers to build basic cars. Cars are required to be online for an emergency call in case of accident. Plus all fancy systems like lane keeping are now compulsory.
So you can't no longer buy such cars. And in case you go for the used market, regulations will keep you away from cities due to polution issues, even for tiny cities.
Fatalities and collisions are both down significantly in places with those kinds of laws, and there are some interesting natural experiments created by exceptions which strongly indicate those links are causal.
Just because a law has a side effect you don’t like doesn’t mean the Illuminati are out to get you.
For many people is either I buy something I can afford, or I don't buy anything.
What is safest. Regulating new cars to expensive safety standards, and make them unaffordable for the masses or being more conservative about such standards and allow affordable cars to exist?
European govermentes have chosen the first option. In the meantime, the car average age keep increasing. Much safer, indeed.
The end goal is to have much less cars on the road, not conspiracy, but an actual statement. And of course, the cars to get rid of are not those of the wealthy.
It's a fair point. The one detraction I would mention is safety. I wish there were ways to retrofit for better crash protection like there are to electrify an older vehicle.
I don't agree with comments like that dying since I think it does contribute a unique POV to the discussion, but I also think it's not a very persuasive one and feels a bit like the reflexive "just run Linux" if someone brings up a Windows issue.
The problem with old cars as the solution is that first and foremost, that's obviously not a long term solution or one that will work for car buyers as a whole. Not everyone is going to be OK with buying a 34 year old car, and even fewer are going to be OK buying a 44 year old car 10 years from now. Even if they were, cars don't last forever and eventually we'll all be in a bidding war over the last analog car.
That approach also throws the baby out with the bathwater. Infotainment aside, new cars are vastly better than old cars in a number of areas. Safety, comfort, efficiency, reliability, performance, etc. Missing all this because modern infotainment features are bad does not seem like a good tradeoff, particularly since new cars will continue to progress in all those areas while old cars obviously won't. The smartphone comparison is actually pretty appropriate here, because a modern smartphone is a huge improvement for the vast majority of people over an old dumb phone, even if the improvement comes with some tradeoffs.
Instead I think it would be more useful and realistic to push for more consumer friendly car technology, either by voting with our wallets or pushing for appropriate legislation. Pretending cars peaked the year Taylor Swift was born does not feel like the right alternative, even if some people do genuinely like older cars.
Is buying old cars instead of new ones not voting with your wallet, as you suggest? I can’t think of a better way to convince car manufacturers to change than not buying newer cars. Especially if resale values of newer cars is lower than older cars, consumers will be less likely to buy a newer car even if they want one!
That's a fair point, although I think the persuasive impact is lessened by the fact that a lot of people won't be wiling to make the old car tradeoffs and there is still the ever limited supply problem. But for those willing and able to do it, it may help send a message for sure.
All valid points. The problem with modern cars is that it's going in the same direction as most technology, that you can't do much with it yourself in terms of modifications or repairs. There are solutions like that with laptops (eg. Framework) but I'm not sure there will be similar initiatives with cars. Most people don't want to fix their own cars (or laptops for that matter!) so it's difficult to get market forces to work towards it. But a small number of people will always appreciate simpler technology even if it comes with downsides in terms of less safety or comfort, due to the increased self-reliance it provides.
> Most people don't want to fix their own cars (or laptops for that matter!) so it's difficult to get market forces to work towards it.
I think that's the big problem, it's not a major consideration for most people. I would imagine that there would be some motivation in terms of a more easily repairable car also being cheaper to have someone else repair even if you don't want to do it yourself, but I'm not sure if that makes a difference in reality. Like I have zero interest in fixing my own car beyond simple stuff, but if a more open car saved me a lot of money at the mechanic, I could see the benefit.
Smartphones require wireless network connectivity for basic functionality and there's no way around that. Cars do not, so they will never be the same as long as some consumers are willing to push for their own individual interests. At the end of the day, I can always physically remove all the radios from my vehicle, and enable simpler versions of desirable features with aftermarket mods. There will always be a way to turn a wheel by exploding some gasoline (or using a battery) without involving a cloud service or remote authentication, and every car has all the parts necessary to do that.
I work on cars as a hobby. Many newer cars are so intergrated and removing the radio/cellular system would render the car inoperable. This is not hyperbole, I have tried doing exactly this on a few newer cars. I was able to make one work by spoofing the device on canbus(non trivial), but the other I was not. Most cars would require rewiring to use a stand-alone ecu at a minimum, and that will leave you without a working stock dashboard, and/or in some cases no lights at all, no locks, no windows.
Please consider publishing your research. No matter the model, I think a lot of people (myself included) would be interested in reading and learning more about how modern cars work.
I love my 2001 Chevy Silverado short bed regular cab 4x4 truck. My friend also liked it, so he bought a slightly newer next gen 2009 Silverado.
His fuel pump management module died. That was weird enough to me. Why does a fuel pump need a module? Just give it 12v and call it a day, like cars have done for 50 years.
Gets even better. He bought a used one off eBay. Wouldnt work. The module needs to be programmed to his Vin#. Why??? Security? What security, when the programmers are available online, craigslist people will do it for you, mechanics have the tools, and even if you went to a dealer I somehow doubt they check against some theft database or anything. It's all insane.
On a lot of newer cars the fuel injectors, fuel pump, and starter are part of the immobilizer system.
The transponder in the key bow or your keyfob is checked by the car and it needs to see the right key for those parts to function.
This is part of the anti-theft to stop simple hot wiring. Although I will be honest seems more like away for dealerships to charge an insane amount for new keys.
If I am being generous the security would be trying to stop the car running in the event those are tampered with but I don’t entirely believe it.
To be more fuel-efficient? Or to block the fuel line for anti-theft purposes?
The software part of their houses is total mess, but they won't just arbitrarily add pieces of hardware that don't make any sense to someone (you, them, dealership, or some government) - that'd be a waste of money.
Not theft of the part but of the vehicle, i.e., the fuel pump is part of the immobilizer. The programmer will only work if the manufacturer central system agrees, and it wont if the vehicle was reported as stolen.
Buy a cheap used car and convert it to electric. I'm serious.
For the price of a modern, cellular tracking device with wheels you can buy a classic retro "sleeper" car that's an EV with hundreds of miles of charging capacity.
Last time I investigated this idea, there was virtually no practical instructions, and any kits that might have been available were from sketchy looking companies in India. Am I wrong about this?
I don't think it's easy. You can in theory buy a motor from ford, get a battery from somewhere else, and tape it together. You need to at least know someone with a lot of equipment and time to help.
You’re right on the money, this idea is very popular with three groups of people; mechanically inclined with money and infinite free time, lots money and no real need for a car, and people who have done no research but think it’s a cool idea.
Nope. The kits (that cost less than 3x the car) suck. The good conversions are largely repurposing modern running gear from a tesla or other ev. Also typically consting more than what you seek to convert.
Just buy and drive a used car. Making more waste is a bigger net environmental harm than running the ice engine.
So the conversion cost almost as much as my 2020 model. I mean, that is borderline imo. If you are really dedicated to the idea, then I could see convincing ones self that it's worth it. But I suspect it's like many things that us tech people enjoy, in that it will end up being way more work to maintain than you realize, and have no real payoff.
Ah yes, becoming a mechanic and building your own car is the solution.
For the people who can do it it's great, but most just can't. I can barely change my tires, how would I swap an entire drivetrain and rewire the whole thing?
While this can provide a solution for some people with enough skill AND equipment, it doesn't offer one to anybody who is missing one of either of those things.
Further, it omly delays the inevitable. One day there's not going to be enough vehicles left to convert that one can readily find parts for.
There are always loopholes around regulations, "kit cars" that you need to assemble yourself (even if it's a simple last step) being one of the most well-known.
That doesn't solve the problem. I mean, a manufacturer that doesn't want to grant you access to repair your car can use analog computers, analog transmission/reception protocols and most importantly, deny selling you proprietary parts, tools and documentation. That is, unless you were expecting them to make new cars reusing designs from the '70s.
No, what I need is a manufacturer that is willing to sell at reasonable price the parts, diagnostic/repair tools and documentation to any car owner or repair shop without any delays or restrictions.
Even better, I would like a car that doesn't save and/or transmit to the manufacturer any information about my car usage and location. Or a manufacturer that supports my right to modify the car any way that I wish. But those two are completely different topics. Related, but not the same as right-to-repair.
My next vehicle will be brand new anyway. I hate the idea of products that can't be worked on without asking the manufacturer for permission, the increased safety compared to cars from the 90s/00s is too important to ignore.
Does anyone have the data on what an individual's chance of dying in any particular year is if they drive a car from, say, 2000, vs. a car from 2020? The difference has to be so slim, my gut feeling is the difference between 1 in 50,000,000 and 1 in 100,000,000. But I guess that's why I'm asking for the actual metric.
Actually owning the vehicle, paying less for it, having a less complex more reliable vehicle, having a vehicle I can maintain myself, having a vehicle that obeys my commands rather than deciding on its own to refuse to run or to slam on the brakes, a vehicle that doesn't phone home data about me and my driving, is so much more important to me than a lottery ticket odds difference in whether I might die.
I like new cars. I like the new technology, new features, new safety standards, all of it. I even like the smell (though it's probably cancerous, whatever). So while I get that the knee jerk answer is "I love my old car and I'm never buying anything made since 2001", I think the better discussion to be having is how we adjust regulations to affirm that in fact we do still own the cars we buy, regardless of the technology installed in them.
I'll do you one further. If buy a game on Steam, I should be able to play it on PlayStation as well.
It's the exact same product - the perceived difference is a mirage. Digital media is the only product that works this way, and it's stupid.
Platforms and stores would have to, I don't know, actually compete then. Who offers the better experience? The better price? The better device? Not "You bought your shit here, so you're stuck. Sorry"
Platform holders should take a cut of anything sold on their platform, but it's because a user chose to buy it from them because they offer a better service, not because it's the only way they can use it.
My reservations about DRM aside, you can still achieve this without dropping DRM. It would have copy protection still.
Except it isn't a case of you buying anything anymore. You're "licensing" it.
The seller isn't selling it to you. They're "licensing" it to you. You could "sell" the license. That's just paperwork (that they in no way are obligated to make easy or support facilitating your ability to do, mind.)
This is the new world that the business schools have wrought for you. Don't you like it?
While I sympathize, they're actually very much not the same product. It isn't a simple matter of cross compiling for a different CPU architecture, the APIs and platforms are sufficiently different to be distinct.
82 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadA local dnsmasq[1] is the simplest solution for tech people, and decent odds you already have a local resolver anyway.
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702
1. https://gist.github.com/ardislu/b2f2b4b439c5da2f7ccb6bb42e7a...
How did this comment die so fast? It's a valid point of view. I also much prefer older cars. Late 80s ones are getting hard to find in decent condition though but I would certainly consider one if available.
Standardization still works between companies (e.g., interfaces between parts for computers, that are put together by computer-manufacturers), but not where there is no advantage for any company.
A bit of plastic for an over-priced OEM infotainment module is more useful than being able to switch suppliers for radios easily.
We were a bit bruised but everyone walked away. I consider us lucky the pickup driver hadn't modified their truck and it had the OEM ride height and bumpers. Lots of people like deleting their bumpers and lifting the truck. that would have been so bad.
So you can't no longer buy such cars. And in case you go for the used market, regulations will keep you away from cities due to polution issues, even for tiny cities.
Just because a law has a side effect you don’t like doesn’t mean the Illuminati are out to get you.
What is safest. Regulating new cars to expensive safety standards, and make them unaffordable for the masses or being more conservative about such standards and allow affordable cars to exist?
European govermentes have chosen the first option. In the meantime, the car average age keep increasing. Much safer, indeed.
The end goal is to have much less cars on the road, not conspiracy, but an actual statement. And of course, the cars to get rid of are not those of the wealthy.
Does that mean online as in internet connection or just GSM?
No. They are not required to "be" online but just capable to connect if/when an accident occurs.
That these modules that can connect are abused to always be connected is an invention of the manufacturers.
The poster is shadowbanned and seemingly has been for a while, so their posts are autodead. Enough people vouching for it should un-dead the post.
The problem with old cars as the solution is that first and foremost, that's obviously not a long term solution or one that will work for car buyers as a whole. Not everyone is going to be OK with buying a 34 year old car, and even fewer are going to be OK buying a 44 year old car 10 years from now. Even if they were, cars don't last forever and eventually we'll all be in a bidding war over the last analog car.
That approach also throws the baby out with the bathwater. Infotainment aside, new cars are vastly better than old cars in a number of areas. Safety, comfort, efficiency, reliability, performance, etc. Missing all this because modern infotainment features are bad does not seem like a good tradeoff, particularly since new cars will continue to progress in all those areas while old cars obviously won't. The smartphone comparison is actually pretty appropriate here, because a modern smartphone is a huge improvement for the vast majority of people over an old dumb phone, even if the improvement comes with some tradeoffs.
Instead I think it would be more useful and realistic to push for more consumer friendly car technology, either by voting with our wallets or pushing for appropriate legislation. Pretending cars peaked the year Taylor Swift was born does not feel like the right alternative, even if some people do genuinely like older cars.
I think that's the big problem, it's not a major consideration for most people. I would imagine that there would be some motivation in terms of a more easily repairable car also being cheaper to have someone else repair even if you don't want to do it yourself, but I'm not sure if that makes a difference in reality. Like I have zero interest in fixing my own car beyond simple stuff, but if a more open car saved me a lot of money at the mechanic, I could see the benefit.
Tell that to Cubans.
Which model(s)?
His fuel pump management module died. That was weird enough to me. Why does a fuel pump need a module? Just give it 12v and call it a day, like cars have done for 50 years.
Gets even better. He bought a used one off eBay. Wouldnt work. The module needs to be programmed to his Vin#. Why??? Security? What security, when the programmers are available online, craigslist people will do it for you, mechanics have the tools, and even if you went to a dealer I somehow doubt they check against some theft database or anything. It's all insane.
The transponder in the key bow or your keyfob is checked by the car and it needs to see the right key for those parts to function.
This is part of the anti-theft to stop simple hot wiring. Although I will be honest seems more like away for dealerships to charge an insane amount for new keys.
If I am being generous the security would be trying to stop the car running in the event those are tampered with but I don’t entirely believe it.
To be more fuel-efficient? Or to block the fuel line for anti-theft purposes?
The software part of their houses is total mess, but they won't just arbitrarily add pieces of hardware that don't make any sense to someone (you, them, dealership, or some government) - that'd be a waste of money.
For the price of a modern, cellular tracking device with wheels you can buy a classic retro "sleeper" car that's an EV with hundreds of miles of charging capacity.
Bespoke EVs, for the win!
I would
Just buy and drive a used car. Making more waste is a bigger net environmental harm than running the ice engine.
Resell value greatly increased when a professional warranty is applied to your conversion.
From the third one:
Price Range: Turn key conversion - contact for a quote, DIY kits $19,185 to $22,500
For the people who can do it it's great, but most just can't. I can barely change my tires, how would I swap an entire drivetrain and rewire the whole thing?
Can you link to a kit you'd recommend?
Further, it omly delays the inevitable. One day there's not going to be enough vehicles left to convert that one can readily find parts for.
No, what I need is a manufacturer that is willing to sell at reasonable price the parts, diagnostic/repair tools and documentation to any car owner or repair shop without any delays or restrictions.
Even better, I would like a car that doesn't save and/or transmit to the manufacturer any information about my car usage and location. Or a manufacturer that supports my right to modify the car any way that I wish. But those two are completely different topics. Related, but not the same as right-to-repair.
There's a startup that is making a pledge to support your right to repair, but they are not manufacturing their cars yet. And honestly, their cars aren't for everybody: https://aptera.us/right-to-repair-commitment-feat-rich-rebui...
Actually owning the vehicle, paying less for it, having a less complex more reliable vehicle, having a vehicle I can maintain myself, having a vehicle that obeys my commands rather than deciding on its own to refuse to run or to slam on the brakes, a vehicle that doesn't phone home data about me and my driving, is so much more important to me than a lottery ticket odds difference in whether I might die.
In 1985, before airbags etc: 2.5 deaths per 100 million miles travelled.
In 2000, after airbags: 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles travelled.
After 2010, with extra safety systems: Around 1.1 deaths per 100 million miles travelled.
If I buy a game on steam, I should be allowed to sell it. Just like I’d be allowed to sell a physical game.
If I buy a game, no DRM claim should be able to claw back that game from me.
It's the exact same product - the perceived difference is a mirage. Digital media is the only product that works this way, and it's stupid.
Platforms and stores would have to, I don't know, actually compete then. Who offers the better experience? The better price? The better device? Not "You bought your shit here, so you're stuck. Sorry"
Platform holders should take a cut of anything sold on their platform, but it's because a user chose to buy it from them because they offer a better service, not because it's the only way they can use it.
My reservations about DRM aside, you can still achieve this without dropping DRM. It would have copy protection still.
The seller isn't selling it to you. They're "licensing" it to you. You could "sell" the license. That's just paperwork (that they in no way are obligated to make easy or support facilitating your ability to do, mind.)
This is the new world that the business schools have wrought for you. Don't you like it?
"If I buy a car, I should be able to drive thru train tunnels."
Couldn't imagine being stuck in an overpriced spyware cage.
it will popup with a message like: your honda civic just tried to send a video payload over cellular to analytics.honda.com, allow or deny?
driving a car without it will feel like running a macbook with littlesnitch. disgusting.