[ausev] EV controller resiliency offsets/perspectives.

[jtp]

Ian,
 Yes, I understand that.  However, in standardization of EV's, (and  major
OEM's may mostly set these standards while doing long-term testing, which
constitute their needed trade secrecy),    I hold that simply this:
  You may have 10,  15, or 20 main EV designs, of which servicing and
diagnosis is direct, immediate, finite, non-compound-complex with a fairly
predictable set of expected expenditures during its 20 to 30 year service
life:
  What I am comparing an estimated 20 differing EV designs to is the
exponential growth of ICE systems. (Place aside momentarily the reliability
concerns until the last part of  my email). The exponential growth of the
sheer number of systems currently and planned-to-be introduced-number of
different systems into ICE engines, constitutes the hitting of an
overall-economic brick wall for the consumer whom is
electronic-systems-risk-averse. (Which is just about all of us, as I
appreciate your sensitivity to this).
 Up to 64 computers may be included within designs nowadays (TIMES each
make, model, submodel and year), and, as compared to one or two or or three
integrated circuits in an EV, (irrespective of resiliency for this
paragraph),  this number of  ICE electronic modules is not financially
feasibly supportable long-term as the risks increase due to service
inadequacy, service error, current  and future availalability of technical
support, as affecting, for just one example . . .

  Comprehesive Component Identifications[sic] (WHICH ARE alpha/numeric codes
NOT ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED IN A SCAN IN AFTERMARKET), which are supposed to
"identify" [sic] which component has had a failure of a test (which test
type itself is ALSO not identified although they are all called 'TEST ID's"
as well as "COMPONENT ID's"      are mostly NOT identified.).
 This causes ALL,  repeat ALL auto parts stores, technicians, auto repair
businesses, and most certainly the vehicle owner untold billions each year,
in this example, because we can not get
             "COMPONENT  ID'S   identified,   and
        "COMPONENT TEST ID'S  identified.

 This is something that is "not on our side" for auto parts stores,
aftermarket service businesses, and most certainly, the technician and all
of us ICE owners, and yes,  the EV community and all future EV'ers as well.

If you tell me that an EV Controller has a fault, (remember for this
paragraph that we are not yet talking about comparative resiliency),  then,
I know what is wrong, I can take many avenues of corrective action in
building it better, making more safegards, telling an owner how better to
use it.
That is all in yours and my control.  Auto parts stores also get the bad end
of the deal when COMPONENT ID'S[sic]are not identified and parts are
returned to them immediately, or after it has prematurely failed due to
insufficient identification of PCM TEST processing, causing insufficient
diagnosis, and resulting underservice.
 But if you KNOW what you need, and what the limitations are of what you
have, then you know how to control and improve what you have or conform to
its limits until improvements are available.
   If consumers must pay unaffordable amounts of money for any of up to 64
computers that fail, then they have less money for preventive maintanance of
all other things ICE.
(That in turn makes LESS FUNDING available to all levels of auto repair
businesses, which is what increasingly has been the case.  Then, the overall
overhead of all automotive businesses, new vehicle sales included, may
become stressed into directions where they ought not belong.)
 Believe me, I have been closely watching this for the last 8 years, so,
yes, there is room for EV manufacturers to learn and experiment with "second
use vehicles" in the strongest of good faith that you are trying your best
at all times. I see daily that about half of those whom raise an auto's hood
are resigned to not learning, and have given up. (These are intelligent
people whom work hard also).
  EV's technologies are trainable.  And, if the consumer is given the
opportunity to have informed choice, (EV purchase, and use, and external
care classes), then they will accept and be content with these
early-production finite risks because they are expected beforehand.
 The comparison that what there "is now" regarding an undeveloped EV
industry, even absurdly compared to what there "is now" in a trillion dollar
100 year ICE industry is no reason to suggest that ICE-disgusted consumers
will not accept unknowns and be pioneers with EV's as their second vehicle.
Pioneers get shot in the back with a lot of arrows.  But pioneers they are,
whether "biting the bullet" for initial imperfections and doing their best
to help improvements, or  those whom take informed risk as to what to expect
with their purchase.
Yes there is strong interest in the auto parts store industry to merchant
ANYTHING "transportation"  wherein there is already a trained "meeting of
the minds" as to "fitness of merchantability". Meaning;  you know exactly
what it is, what it does, and everything else about it, and are responsible
in its use and are a satisfied customer with that. Auto Parts Stores have a
really bad time with high percentage returns because it throws off their
inventories and does a lot of other bad things to them.  EV batteries, for
example, will not get returned because they have a very specific
voltage/wear profile when used up,  as opposed to  one being defective. Of
course they would merchandise in a competitive volume purchase to an
informed clientele', in addition to merchandising any of  the other $5,000
worth of EV components should they see repeat business from loyal customers,
EV  or  ICE parts too.
Dan Petit.