Mercedes to Offer Subscription for Performance Boost to Electric Cars

[heimdali]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

The entire point is you're not unlocking performance. Additionally, if you're modding your car, I doubt you're taking it to the dealership for maintenance. 

Have you ever owned a car?  Even when you don't modify it and just need to replace a part that's worn out or needs repair, there are things you will have to take it to the dealership for because there is no other way.  Either noone else has the electronic testing equipment that's required or noone has the tools that are required, especially not you.  (And that, as an example, definitely does go for parts of the drivetrain with some Mercedes models because it wears ridiculously fast because it's a bad design, and you're the one to pay for it if you own one.)

 

Other than that, yes, you're not "unlocking performance".  Mercedes is withholding features of your car you payed for and extorts money from you to have them cease the withholding.  I think that's called extortion and probably not legal.  Maybe someone will sue them for it.  The people who can afford cars like that can also afford law suits.

 

[Holmes108]

12 minutes ago, heimdali said:

 Mercedes is withholding features of your car you payed for and extorts money from you to have them cease the withholding.  I think that's called extortion and probably not legal.  Maybe someone will sue them for it.  The people who can afford cars like that can also afford law suits.

 

 

That's all opinion and heavy editorializing. It's not established fact.

 

Edit: I should add that I agree it's probably the worst value ever. I'm just saying legally.

[Godlygamer23]

9 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Have you ever owned a car?  Even when you don't modify it and just need to replace a part that's worn out or needs repair, there are things you will have to take it to the dealership for because there is no other way.  Either noone else has the electronic testing equipment that's required or noone has the tools that are required, especially not you.  (And that, as an example, definitely does go for parts of the drivetrain with some Mercedes models because it wears ridiculously fast because it's a bad design, and you're the one to pay for it if you own one.)

 

Other than that, yes, you're not "unlocking performance".  Mercedes is withholding features of your car you payed for and extorts money from you to have them cease the withholding.  I think that's called extortion and probably not legal.  Maybe someone will sue them for it.  The people who can afford cars like that can also afford law suits.

Parts wearing out is a thing on every vehicle. You're making an argument out of something that wasn't even implied at all. The entire point of my post is that you are not "unlocking performance", and any additional performance you get out of the vehicle comes at a cost - lifespan of various components, including fluids. The engine oil and transmission fluid will now need to do more work and require more frequent changes because of the additional stress on the components. But it is not an inherent requirement to go to the dealership to have parts replaced, or fluids changed. 

 

And yes, I do own a car. I own two actually, and I only go to the dealership when it's absolutely required. The dealership is absolutely the last resort because they will rip you off. 

 

The more we accept the nonsense, the more prevalent it will become because no one fights it.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

The more we accept the nonsense, the more prevalent it will become because no one fights it.

I don't think that is entirely true.

First of all, there are a ton of people fighting it. Just look at this thread for an example. I think very few people defended BMW about their heated seats as well.

 

Secondly and more importantly, I think it is important to factor in what is being locked away and how. In the Intel thread people were really upset about being able to unlock features in a CPU for example, but to me that makes sense because as it stands today, companies are locking down products, it's just that you don't have the option to unlock it again. In the case of the Intel news it also seems like they will have the option to unlock it forever, just like the heated seats in the BMW that were in the news not too long ago. I don't have any issue with it if that's how it will work. Hopefully nothing changes for the customer, except instead of having to drive to the dealership to get heated heated seats if you changed your mind, it can be done remotely. 

 

I hope that this is how things will play out (the numbers are only for demonstration purposes):

Price of a BMW without heated seats today: 30,000

Price of a BMW with heated seats today: 31,000

 

Price of a BMW with locked heated seats in the future: 30,000

Price to unlock the heated seats in the future BMW: 1,000

 

Or in the case of Intel, imagine if we could unlock the CPU multiplier on non-K processors by making a one-time payment of 20 dollars or whatever the difference is. 

 

It would be a win-win.

For the manufacturer it gets easier because they get less SKUs, which can probably result in lower costs (and thus higher margins if prices stay the same). The manufacturer also get the potential to sell more things to the customer further down the line, without the massive deterrent of "you need to take the car to the dealer and leave it there for a day or so".

 

Customers might get their products faster (because fewer SKUs to manufacturer) and after the sale is done, they can change their mind. They might have lived in a sunny and warm place when they bought the car, but then 3 years down the line they moved to a snowy place and suddenly want heated seats. No need to bring the car to the dealer! Just click some buttons in an app and suddenly the car has heated seats. This would be especially appealing to second hand buyers, who might now be able o buy a car that lacks some functions they want, but can easily be enabled afterwards without having to go to a dealer.

 

 

Again, all of this assumes that's actually how it will play out, and that we won't end up in a dystopian future where everything is a subscription and you can never get a feature for a one-time payment again. 

[heimdali]

11 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

Nobody cares, but you're making the conscious choice to do it and are presumably aware of the risks at that point.

Only it doesn't work that way because when you increase power from 600 to 1000HP, you'll blow the drive train and/or the transmission and whatever else gives in unless the manufacturer built the car to withstand the increased power for at least as long as the warranty doesn't expire.  You also need better brakes.  And that means that the car will be more expensive to manufacture and the buyers will pay for it.

11 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

Another example is batteries get "limited" in electric cars so you aren't using 100% of the capacity (for longevity, I'm not talking about for upselling), etc.. so it can become a little grey as to what is "100%" of the product you paid for, and are they ripping you off by holding back for various reasons. Cars also come with governors on the engine, at least in some instances in some places.

 

None of this is exactly relevant to the heated seats controversy or this one, but when talking about the broader practice of limiting functions, it's just not unheard of, is all.

One difference is that they're not extorting money from you by implementing limits or removing them.  There are/have been very few cars without a governor on the engine because the manufacturers don't want the engines to blow up before the warranty expires.  The limits on batteries are also there to protect the batteries from wearing out before the warranty expires.  In this case, Mercedes isn't limiting anything but they're actively and intentionally withholding what the buyers payed for and are trying to extort money from them to cease the withholding.  And that is something entirely different.

 

Besides, I expect a manufacturer to stand behind their products and to make software improvements available at no additional cost.  That goes expecially for a manufacturer like Mercedes which claims to make the best cars.  As a buyer, you already pay a lot of money for "better", and what Mercedes is doing is now is screaming out to the world as loud as they can that they suck badly and are a shit manufacturer who doesn't give a crap about their customers and products and that you're better advised to buy your car from someone else.  Mercedes has forgotten that they wanted to make cars when they announced that they want to concentrate on luxury cars, or, more likely, decided against making cars at all, and that must have happened long before the announcement.  I can understand it, they make more than enough money with trucks, and personal vehicles are no longer relevant because there are fewer and fewer people left who can afford them, and to those, you can sell luxury cars.  So when someone is so keen as to have a Mercedes, why shouldn't you extort all the money you can get from them.  You can't piss them off no matter what.  While trucks still sell, Mercedes can figure out what to do next and shift into whatever direction promises to yield the most profits.

 

When you're referring to heated seats, is that also a matter limited to a different software, or does it take extra wires and switches for those?

 

[Holmes108]

8 minutes ago, heimdali said:

and what Mercedes is doing is now is screaming out to the world as loud as they can that they suck badly and are a shit manufacturer who doesn't give a crap about their customers and products and that you're better advised to buy your car from someone else. 

 

You may be right. And that's basically what it boils down to. Either customers will find enough value in their pricing model, or they won't. 

 

Still an interesting conversation though, to be sure. One things for sure, while I'm not quite willing to completely write off the practice of limiting hardware as evil, people do seem to be more united in the opinion that the upsell being a subscription is bad. We'll see if people vote with their wallets too.

 

Let's hope not too many gamers are buying Mercedes, because we know they (we?) never vote with their wallet lol. 

[Godlygamer23]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think that is entirely true.

First of all, there are a ton of people fighting it. Just look at this thread for an example. I think very few people defended BMW about their heated seats as well.

 

Secondly and more importantly, I think it is important to factor in what is being locked away and how. In the Intel thread people were really upset about being able to unlock features in a CPU for example, but to me that makes sense because as it stands today, companies are locking down products, it's just that you don't have the option to unlock it again. In the case of the Intel news it also seems like they will have the option to unlock it forever, just like the heated seats in the BMW that were in the news not too long ago. I don't have any issue with it if that's how it will work. Hopefully nothing changes for the customer, except instead of having to drive to the dealership to get heated heated seats if you changed your mind, it can be done remotely. 

 

I hope that this is how things will play out (the numbers are only for demonstration purposes):

Price of a BMW without heated seats today: 30,000

Price of a BMW with heated seats today: 31,000

 

Price of a BMW with locked heated seats in the future: 30,000

Price to unlock the heated seats in the future BMW: 1,000

 

Or in the case of Intel, imagine if we could unlock the CPU multiplier on non-K processors by making a one-time payment of 20 dollars or whatever the difference is. 

 

It would be a win-win.

For the manufacturer it gets easier because they get less SKUs, which can probably result in lower costs (and thus higher margins if prices stay the same). The manufacturer also get the potential to sell more things to the customer further down the line, without the massive deterrent of "you need to take the car to the dealer and leave it there for a day or so".

 

Customers might get their products faster (because fewer SKUs to manufacturer) and after the sale is done, they can change their mind. They might have lived in a sunny and warm place when they bought the car, but then 3 years down the line they moved to a snowy place and suddenly want heated seats. No need to bring the car to the dealer! Just click some buttons in an app and suddenly the car has heated seats. This would be especially appealing to second hand buyers, who might now be able o buy a car that lacks some functions they want, but can easily be enabled afterwards without having to go to a dealer.

 

 

Again, all of this assumes that's actually how it will play out, and that we won't end up in a dystopian future where everything is a subscription and you can never get a feature for a one-time payment again. 

A single upgrade cost from a lower tier product to a higher tier product isn't necessarily an issue because I may not need those features right away, and maybe I can get away with a lower tier product for the time being and upgrade later. BUT, I don't agree with the notion that the product is actually cheaper in the long run. It just _appears_ cheaper. If I buy a CPU with less cores enabled(which based on the fact that overclocking is of less value nowadays for the moment, this seems like a thing that will happen or is already happening), but the die is fully functional, and the manufacturer offers the ability to unlock the additional functionality, that CPU will be more expensive than if the manufacturer just sold it like that in the first place because they have to verify that all of those parts are functional and able to handle the required voltages and frequencies without a guaranteed return on their costs, in addition to the physical addition of the materials that are actually able to be a higher end part versus a die that's half functional. Then if I want to upgrade, then I would imagine that I would basically be paying for the other half of the CPU, so if the fully enabled part is $400, and the half enabled part is $230, then I would actually pay $430 instead overall.  

 

The people that fight it are not the right ones to fight it. Hell, even a fight doesn't mean the opposing side will become victorious because in the end, the manufacturer will still make money off people because it's BMW or Mercedes. There won't be enough people to bring a stop to the issues, and eventually other manufacturers may end up following suit. Over time, I suspect that we will become more used to the idea of subscriptions as time goes on, for just about everything. We already subscribe to various services anyway, including Internet, streaming, and cloud storage solutions. If manufacturers don't give in because enough people with actual power don't force them to, it will continue to occur until we're all tired of fighting and just accept it. The only way around it in that regard is if governments step in, but that requires the members that make those decisions to actually be convinced it's a problem. If they're not convinced, no changes happen.

 

While a case can be made for having the ability to simply subscribe to something, and it can theoretically be cheaper, I don't know if that's actually the case. If the car is already including all of the components, and you just need to enable it in software, every consumer will pay for inflated costs of the vehicles, in addition to hauling all of the components around, because those materials are STILL being used and there is no immediate return from the manufacturer. So you end up paying for the parts anyway, PLUS a subscription service. 

[Holmes108]

15 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

If the car is already including all of the components, and you just need to enable it in software, every consumer will pay for inflated costs of the vehicles, in addition to hauling all of the components around, because those materials are STILL being used and there is no immediate return from the manufacturer. So you end up paying for the parts anyway, PLUS a subscription service. 

 

Possibly. Theoretically they are also hopefully regaining some savings (the company is) through a streamlined manufacturing service. And with products other than cars, other things are simplified too, like packaging, shelf space, etc... This doesn't HAVE to change the overall pricing more than regular inflation would. I'm sure it often will because companies are greedy. But I don't think the system is inherently more expensive overall, as a blanket statement. Like all things in life, it's probably complicated. 

Maybe there's even an environmental angle on physically producing less SKU's? I really don't know about that, but just a thought. Even if so, I doubt that's the biggest upside for anyone (assuming there's an upside at all).

[heimdali]

1 hour ago, Holmes108 said:

Maybe there's even an environmental angle on physically producing less SKU's? I really don't know about that, but just a thought. Even if so, I doubt that's the biggest upside for anyone (assuming there's an upside at all).

Yes, you will have to buy new hardware every 3 years and some kind of contract you have to keep paying for instead of buying used hardware at about 5--10% of the cost which you can use for as long as you see fit.  That not only drives up the costs by a factor of 15--20 (at least, depending on how long you have been able to use the used hardware in the past) plus some for the contract, it also means more trash that needs to get recycled and a hell of a lot of resources needed to produce the new hardware.  It's literally gona be a real blast for the environment when everyone needs to replace their stuff 3 times as fast or faster.

 

The more they tell you you need to be environmentally friendly, the more wasteful they make and allow everthing to be.  Haven't you noticed yet?  Here it started in the 90ies when they invented a system that presumably recycles packaging and made everyone pay for it, and now we have 20 times as much packaging than we used to.  It's no problem because it all gets recycled.  Meanwhile there's a whole continent of plastic swimming in the oceans and lots more we don't see yet, and I'm sure it'll be a much bigger problem than global warming because it already has gone right into the food chain.

 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I hope that this is how things will play out (the numbers are only for demonstration purposes)

Tesla also did the same thing.  When they changed the "all cars will now have the heated seat option enabled" they increased the price.

 

Sad thing is you get the argument from people who take the option of "reduced SKU's means reduced cost and the same price to ultimately produce it without...why don't they just give it to you for free instead of trying to make money on having it as a feature".

 

Actually, it's something that always bothered me about Linus' coverage on something such as Tesla.  The fact that he used the price of the vehicle to classify it as a luxury vehicle (without comparing to the cost to build an EV vs ICE vehicle).  It's why you can't directly compare the features between the two and put it in a luxury pricing; as the battery on some of them costs like $20,000 alone.  [Ioniq is the only EV that truly competes and maybe beats Tesla in the category]

 

8 hours ago, heimdali said:

It's probably not legal to rely on engine braking.  Going by your logic, you'd need motors that can brake more because you still need to be able to brake more when at higher speeds.  Double the acc-/deceleration, and you need four times the power.

 

...uhm do you not know what regen braking is on EV's and the concept behind it?  All EV's do it, which is why on a lot of EV's you don't actually usually need to actually use the physical brakes.

 

On vehicles it slows you down quite quickly.  You do understand that the same motors that drive the vehicle would be used for the regenerative braking?  All you really need is to make sure that the battery can handle the current (which is why regen braking is less pronounced on 100% charged vehicles).  From there the same motors are spun, generating electricity which should in theory match what it's capable of while accelerating.

 

Also, like I said, the brake pads are designed to overcome the torque of the motors...so it doesn't matter if they offer an "unlock" faster acceleration, they are using the exact same motor to do so...just probably pumping more juice to it (which will likely cause bigger battery degradation overtime).  The fact is though the brakes will still be able to stop the motors.

 

An more ICE level equivalent, imagine if they put a lock on it so when you floor it you don't hit super high RPM's but they offer an option to allow you to hit those high RPM's.  The power of the engine isn't changing...just how much you are using it does.

 

6 hours ago, heimdali said:

They're just gona say well, you've subscribed to the more power plan, and that voids your warranty, or you have to pay a much higher share of the replacement cost.

 

They'd be stupid to make it a buyable thing: You already payed for the more powerful car when you bought it and they make more money for nothing by having you keep paying to use it.  At first it's only more power, the next step is braking and then your car won't even move without you paying all over again for it, and it will $2000 per month.

No they won't.  Batteries are warranties typically from range and years.  Just like Tesla and their superchargers.  Some people exclusively fill up with superchargers and burn out their batteries.  Those people still get warranty replacements.

 

If they offer an option that might affect how many units are warranties I definitely see why they might want to charge extra for a feature like that.  With that said, it's what @LAwLz was saying, we are really only arguing that we don't have an issue with this if there is a full purchase option.

 

What you did pay for is you paid for a vehicle that matched the specs you purchased.  They offer an optional upgrade to push the hardware to a higher limit.  Just like if you have a Tesla that has a 90kWh battery in it but software locked to 60kWh.  You still only paid the price as though it were the "60 kWh" battery, and you could unlock it for a price.  If you really  wanted the full "90" then you can simply get a hacker to change it for you (but expect the consequences if you do).

[Holmes108]

1 hour ago, heimdali said:

 Here it started in the 90ies when they invented a system that presumably recycles packaging and made everyone pay for it, and now we have 20 times as much packaging than we used to.  It's no problem because it all gets recycled.  

 

 

Kind of like "I can have 2 cokes now because it's diet" lol.

[WildDagwood]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:54 AM, Holmes108 said:

I don't know where to fall on this stuff. My first instinct is of course to hate it. 

 

But imagine this. Let's say the lowest end card Nvidia wants to make is $1000... let's assume that's truly the cost, plus just a reasonable profit (it's fictional, just imagine it okay!?). If they said "Hey, the cost doesn't make sense for manufacturing another SKU, maybe the market isn't there, whatever, but we'll put some sort of governor on there, and sell it for $500. We'll eat the cost just so there's an option for people with less money, who don't need all the power". It'll just essentially be supplemented by the higher tier purchases. 

 

This doesn't seem unreasonable. It even seems like a good guy move. I realize the example is ridiculous and there'd be more than a market for a $500 graphics card. But make up whatever example you want, the principle is the same.

 

The problem is, you can't really distinguish where that type of scenario begins, and where the predatory upselling ends. Are you really getting a cheaper option that wouldn't otherwise exist? Or are the costs of the features just bumping up? You can't possibly know intent, or products that would or wouldn't exist in alternate timelines...

 

I suspect more often than not it is NOT doing the customer any favors. But I can see the usefulness of the strategy in certain scenarios in theory. So I'm not quite ready to call the whole practice evil.

 

Tesla and their battery might be another  decent example. Maybe it truly is giving a cheaper option that wouldn't otherwise exist (limiting battery power). Why must they physically create a smaller version? To satisfy our psychological issue with it? Because that seems to be the main issue, a psychological one. 

 

It's not unheard of to supplement smaller products with larger ones. Perhaps creating an entire production chain for a 2nd car battery would just jack up the cost of ALL models and make the savings moot? I have no idea.

 

It still feels a little gross though. Just trying to devil's advocate it a bit.

Not sure I entirely follow the logic here.

 

If the product is already fully-manufactured, then all costs are accounted for already. Artificially limiting a perfectly good product to sell it for a lower price and segment your offering just suggests that the fully-enabled product can be sold for that same lower price.

 

Different than when, as an example, a CPU/GPU has disabled cores etc. because they're defective or couldn't meet validation for the higher tier.

[Holmes108]

42 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Not sure I entirely follow the logic here.

 

If the product is already fully-manufactured, then all costs are accounted for already. Artificially limiting a perfectly good product to sell it for a lower price and segment your offering just suggests that the fully-enabled product can be sold for that same lower price.

 

Different than when, as an example, a CPU/GPU has disabled cores etc. because they're defective or couldn't meet validation for the higher tier.

 

Yeah, I've kinda already gone over all my potential arguments throughout the thread, but the gist is that in a perfect world, where there's no greed trying to extract every single penny, they could sell the lower model at a lower profit margin than they would normally be willing to accept, while allowing the higher tier purchases to help supplement. All in the name of creating some combination of consumer choice, simplified manufacturing, etc. Plus reducing SKUs might also help reduce the cost in some fashion.

 

We always want to assume the worst (because we're usually right) and just say that they're selling the lower model at the exact same price the fully featured model would go for, and that the upper tier model is now extra beyond that. But that doesn't have to be the case in principle. (Edit: It's also essentially impossible to truly quantify and prove 100% when it's a newly released model).

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

BUT, I don't agree with the notion that the product is actually cheaper in the long run. It just _appears_ cheaper.

Hold on. I am not sure if you are replying to me or what the person you replied to earlier said, but I never said this would result in cheaper products.

In my "best case scenario" example, the products cost the same. 

 

 

3 hours ago, WildDagwood said:

Not sure I entirely follow the logic here.

 

If the product is already fully-manufactured, then all costs are accounted for already. Artificially limiting a perfectly good product to sell it for a lower price and segment your offering just suggests that the fully-enabled product can be sold for that same lower price.

 

Different than when, as an example, a CPU/GPU has disabled cores etc. because they're defective or couldn't meet validation for the higher tier.

The manufacturer charges different margins and as a result they might still get a profit from it.

 

Let's say adding heated seats to a car costs 10 dollars if done on all vehicles, but it costs 14 dollars if only done to half of them (because you now require separate production lines to make the different seats, and you can't buy in as large quantities).

 

Let's say they make 100 cars and 75% of customers want heated seats.

If they went the traditional route it would cost them 75 * 14 = 1050 dollars.

If they installed it in all cars but disabled it in software in 25% of the cars it would cost them 100 * 10 = 1000 dollars.

 

But now let's say heated seats are an optional extra and the manufacturer charges 30 dollars to enable it.

All of a sudden they get 75 * 30 = 2250 dollars in revenue from it.

 

Yes, they could sell the car at a lower price and just include all optional features, but that wouldn't make them as much money.

As for CPUs and GPUs disabling cores and features, please note that there are plenty of examples of hardware features being locked through things like firmware in computer hardware just to create artificial segmentation. For example Intel could enable overclocking on all their processors if they wanted, not just the K-variants. It wouldn't cost them anything, but by selling K and non-K products they are able to charge a premium for the K-variant and the end result is that they make more money.

 

Giving away things for free that people are willing to pay for is usually a bad business strategy. AMD used to disable perfectly functional cores on their Phenom II processors as well for example, because they wanted to sell a lower end SKU to entice people with a lower budget. They still made money from it because it cost them like 15 dollars to manufacture and they sold the dual cores for 100 dollars (and the fully unlocked quad cores for like 200 dollars). They could probably have lowered the pricing on their quad cores to 100 dollars and just sold almost all of their dual cores fully unlocked, but why do that when people are willing to pay 200 dollars for a fully unlocked processor? You should always charge what people are willing to pay.

[heimdali]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

...uhm do you not know what regen braking is on EV's and the concept behind it?

I do, and it still may not be legal to rely on engine braking.  If it isn't illegal, it should be made illegal.

 

Look at a common brake system used on a car.  Where do you have the redundancy in the safety features with a single electric engine in a car (Or does Mercedes use multiple engines?).  There's also a lot a to be said for the simplicity of the common brake systems and it would be outright stupid and reckless if they were to fit weak brakes on a car in the hopes that electric braking will always reliably stop it.  The design of these brakes has proven quite reliable over many decades.

 

When you rely on electric braking, all it takes is a computer glitch, a virus or attack, a software error, a burned fuse or wire and a lot of other things we don't know about, and your brakes are gone.  I wouldn't want to drive in a car that doesn't have sufficient brakes.

 

[Heliian]

33 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Look at a common brake system used on a car

Its the exact same type of brake system.  I haven't seen an EV that doesn't have actual brakes. 

Modern ICE vehicles are all digital also.

 

Mercedes should just sell the unlocked version outright at a higher price but them and BMW have an incredible amount of leasees who they can tap for the extra cash.  It makes way more sense on a lease but I still think it's a dumb practice of paywalling built-in devices. 

[heimdali]

7 minutes ago, Heliian said:

Its the exact same type of brake system.  I haven't seen an EV that doesn't have actual brakes. 

You entirely missed the point.

7 minutes ago, Heliian said:

Modern ICE vehicles are all digital also.

I doubt that they don't have airbrakes.

[Godlygamer23]

2 hours ago, heimdali said:

You entirely missed the point.

I doubt that they don't have airbrakes.

While I think most cars have the brake pedal hooked to the actual braking fluid, the C8 Corvette(at least) uses brake-by-wire, so it's directly hooked to electronics, and the electronics apply the actual brakes.

 

Edit:

Did more research. The brake-by-wire aspect is only for pedal feel on the Corvette. But parking brakes are also now applied electronically in many vehicles.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Godlygamer23

[Godlygamer23]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Hold on. I am not sure if you are replying to me or what the person you replied to earlier said, but I never said this would result in cheaper products.

In my "best case scenario" example, the products cost the same. 

I think I just got carried away with my post in the beginning when I was thinking of how to write it lol.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, heimdali said:

I do, and it still may not be legal to rely on engine braking.  If it isn't illegal, it should be made illegal.

 

Look at a common brake system used on a car.  Where do you have the redundancy in the safety features with a single electric engine in a car (Or does Mercedes use multiple engines?).  There's also a lot a to be said for the simplicity of the common brake systems and it would be outright stupid and reckless if they were to fit weak brakes on a car in the hopes that electric braking will always reliably stop it.  The design of these brakes has proven quite reliable over many decades.

 

When you rely on electric braking, all it takes is a computer glitch, a virus or attack, a software error, a burned fuse or wire and a lot of other things we don't know about, and your brakes are gone.  I wouldn't want to drive in a car that doesn't have sufficient brakes.

 

You say you do but talk as though you don't.

 

To start, it's better to call EV's motors vs engines.  The other thing is I already address what you are saying.  The brakes have to be able to overcome the torque of the motor.

 

I'm saying that the motor as well is used to "brake" with regen braking for the most part because it increases the efficiency of the vehicle and saves on utilizing your brake pads.  I never said that they rely on "engine braking" to achieve braking to comply, I literally said they have brakes that can overcome the torque.

 

e.g. Tesla brakes run on a different system that is an electric brake, so it can stop it if someone stomps on the brakes (as well it also has additional safeguards where it cuts power to the motors if depressed for a certain amount of time)

[heimdali]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The brakes have to be able to overcome the torque of the motor.

The brakes need to decelerate and eventually stop the car.  When you slam on the brakes when going 250km/h (if Mercedes kept the speed governour they put into their cars decades back, otherwise you may be faster), you want to stop the car as fast as possible.  Electric braking may help doing that to some extend, but it is totally irrelevant for that in first place.

 

How much have you been driving at such speeds?  You sound like you don't have much, if any, driving experience.

[WildDagwood]

15 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Hold on. I am not sure if you are replying to me or what the person you replied to earlier said, but I never said this would result in cheaper products.

In my "best case scenario" example, the products cost the same. 

 

 

The manufacturer charges different margins and as a result they might still get a profit from it.

 

Let's say adding heated seats to a car costs 10 dollars if done on all vehicles, but it costs 14 dollars if only done to half of them (because you now require separate production lines to make the different seats, and you can't buy in as large quantities).

 

Let's say they make 100 cars and 75% of customers want heated seats.

If they went the traditional route it would cost them 75 * 14 = 1050 dollars.

If they installed it in all cars but disabled it in software in 25% of the cars it would cost them 100 * 10 = 1000 dollars.

 

But now let's say heated seats are an optional extra and the manufacturer charges 30 dollars to enable it.

All of a sudden they get 75 * 30 = 2250 dollars in revenue from it.

 

Yes, they could sell the car at a lower price and just include all optional features, but that wouldn't make them as much money.

As for CPUs and GPUs disabling cores and features, please note that there are plenty of examples of hardware features being locked through things like firmware in computer hardware just to create artificial segmentation. For example Intel could enable overclocking on all their processors if they wanted, not just the K-variants. It wouldn't cost them anything, but by selling K and non-K products they are able to charge a premium for the K-variant and the end result is that they make more money.

 

Giving away things for free that people are willing to pay for is usually a bad business strategy. AMD used to disable perfectly functional cores on their Phenom II processors as well for example, because they wanted to sell a lower end SKU to entice people with a lower budget. They still made money from it because it cost them like 15 dollars to manufacture and they sold the dual cores for 100 dollars (and the fully unlocked quad cores for like 200 dollars). They could probably have lowered the pricing on their quad cores to 100 dollars and just sold almost all of their dual cores fully unlocked, but why do that when people are willing to pay 200 dollars for a fully unlocked processor? You should always charge what people are willing to pay.

Maybe just the example that's off to me, but I don't think they'd have a separate production line for an add-on. I would think the items would make a detour to an install station, before rejoining the line again. Would be absurdly inefficient to build an entire line for just that, and then the same for power seats etc.

 

Didn't really elaborate I guess, but I don't have an issue with charging to enable something (as a one-time buy). Subscriptions that nickel and dime consumers for things that aren't even a service are what irk me the most, and I think it's an anti-consumer practice that's creeping it's way into more and more industries.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, heimdali said:

The brakes need to decelerate and eventually stop the car.  When you slam on the brakes when going 250km/h (if Mercedes kept the speed governour they put into their cars decades back, otherwise you may be faster), you want to stop the car as fast as possible.  Electric braking may help doing that to some extend, but it is totally irrelevant for that in first place.

 

How much have you been driving at such speeds?  You sound like you don't have much, if any, driving experience.

What is irrelevant is ignoring what I am saying and failing to apply common sense here.

 

The brakes are designed to be able to overpower the torque of the motors.  We are talking about acceleration here, it has absolutely zero effect on the brakes.  Even in your "250 km/h" that doesn't matter.  Velocity does not equal Acceleration!  If you can accelerate to 100 km/h in 5 seconds or 100 km/h in 3 seconds it doesn't matter.  You don't need more powerful brakes to handle that.  It still requires the same amount of energy to do so (just over a shorter period of time).

 

So I'll say it again, the brakes are powerful enough to overcome the motor.  They have the same motor in there, so a different set of brakes are not necessary.

 

Again, I am guessing that pushing the extra acceleration likely hurts the batteries more with heat degradation.

 

[airborne spoon]

this crap is stupid and it needs to stop. However, I do support them putting the same parts into everything to make manufacturing costs down. What they can do is what tesla used to do they would put a 75kWh battery in all the 60 and 70 cars and then if the owner wanted it they could unlock the extra battery storage for a one time fee and it was a permanent upgrade. Mercedes and BMW could easily do this with the motor speed and heated seats just charge a one time fee for the upgrade/unlock and be done with it instead of trying to nickel and dime consumers with this stupid subscription crap.

[heimdali]

On 11/25/2022 at 6:39 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

What is irrelevant is ignoring what I am saying and failing to apply common sense here.

 

The brakes are designed to be able to overpower the torque of the motors.  We are talking about acceleration here, it has absolutely zero effect on the brakes.  Even in your "250 km/h" that doesn't matter.  Velocity does not equal Acceleration!  If you can accelerate to 100 km/h in 5 seconds or 100 km/h in 3 seconds it doesn't matter.  You don't need more powerful brakes to handle that.  It still requires the same amount of energy to do so (just over a shorter period of time).

 

So I'll say it again, the brakes are powerful enough to overcome the motor.  They have the same motor in there, so a different set of brakes are not necessary.

 

Again, I am guessing that pushing the extra acceleration likely hurts the batteries more with heat degradation.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.  Talk to some people who do 1/4 mile races maybe and let them explain a thing or two about energy.