Cell Phones Disable Keys for High-End Cars 463
Geoffrey.landis writes "Turns out if you have a top-end Nissan car, your cellphone may erase your car key. '"We discovered that if the I-Key touches a cellphone, outgoing or incoming calls have the potential to alter the electronic code inside the I-Key," Nissan spokesman Kyle Bazemore said. "The car won't start and the I-Key cannot be reprogrammed."'"
Only high-end cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, my understanding was that with most of these, the key leaves the factory with a fixed number, no two keys have the same number and you reprogram the car to recognise the key rather than reprogramming the key to work the car. This sounds to me like a simple case of bad engineering which was never considered when the key was designed.
The upshot is that Nissan will re-design the key so it's not affected by cell-phones, new cars will ship with the redesigned key and owners of existing cars will have to pay a small fortune to replace the keys because it's not a safety recall issue.
This is precisely why... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is precisely why, at least where I live, the cars you most commonly see are more than 15 years old OR are less than three years old.
The relative simplicity of cars even from the early 1990's, nevermind the 60's and 70's, is what allows them to stay on the road so long. They're easier to work on (no super-expensive diagnostic equipment needed in most cases), the parts are made of stronger metals (steel and iron instead of aluminum and plastic) and the electrical systems are more independent of eachother than in today's cars.
The electrical mess that is today's cars is probably the single largest contributing factor to people's desire to replace a car instead of repairing it. Electrical gremlins are one of the hardest problems to chase down in today's cars because everything is sensor this and computer that. The systems are not redundant in most cases, and the parts and skills necessary to fix the problem once its diagnosed can be cost-prohibitive.
In an age when everyone is rightfully concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency, why are we building cars that are very complicated, have a high energy cost to produce and go straight to the junkyard, on average, in less than 10 years?
The worst problem is that, with the exception of some of the more advanced engine control systems allowing better fuel economy, very few of these electronic 'improvements' actually make driving safer, better or more enjoyable.
I mean, as cool as it looks to wave an electronic key and have the car start, have we gotten to the point where a mechanical lock and tumbler are too hard to turn?
People got along for more than 100 years in cars without GPS systems telling them (in some cases incorrectly) to "turn right in 300 yards".
Even hybrid gas-electric cars are based on 80+-year-old tech. Diesel-electric submarines were built and operated with very little, and early on no computer support systems.
As with a great many things, I think it's time we take a good hard look at what we have, and attempt to simplify instead of further complicate.
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Slightly OT (Score:3, Interesting)
I've looked into this and I'm not the only person who has speakers/electronics that respond to cell phones this way. Are they really pumping that much juice in the signal these days or is my setup wired so that EM signals somehow translate into sound on the speakers? And how do I fix that?
TLF
20% of vehicle problems stem from electronics. (Score:4, Interesting)
The electronics have given us more features and higher fuel efficiency. But still, there are times when it would be nice to make it all manual. Cars that you can't shift into neutral unless the battery is charged can be a pain to get off the road after an accident. If a wheel sensor goes bad, you ought to be able to turn them off and drive the car to a service station, instead of put-putting along at five MPH on the side of the parkway.
Re:Honda and Microwaves (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why... (Score:4, Interesting)
On a similar note, I was getting ready to store my jumper cables in the trunk (accessible only through one of three electric pushbuttons) when I realized that if the battery dies, I won't even be able to get into my trunk! What kind of crap is that?
They were warned... (Score:1, Interesting)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/b
Since I notified them about this class of problem and they chose to ignore it, I feel no sympathy for them now that they have been finally burnt bad by their poor engineering.
It goes to show that ignoring customer complaints and engineering problems leads to bad design, bad press, and bad business.
I have subsequently switched to driving a Honda, a car designed by a Japanese run company that still values solid engineering.
Nick (Electrical Engineer, Chicago IL)
P.S. My experience is that most American Engineers and companies are very bad at being thorough in their up-front design of complex systems and in their investigation of failures. Our schooling does not emphasize this as a core value. The almighty quick buck seems to rule.
Stupid New Software (Score:3, Interesting)
Products compete on price and glitz, not reliability or security.
Reliability and security were supposed to be _givens_ -- something you didn't pay attention to because they were minimum standards. Unfortunately, because most people were focusing on "glitz", "over here", software manufacturers were quickly taking money and resources from "QA" and security and putting them where they could get the best return on their money -- in "glitz".
Despite the tons of bugs in almost all software, how often do you see a company do a "bug-fix-only" release? Most people wouldn't pay for such a release -- or wouldn't pay "much". That's the problem. People don't want to pay for a bug-fix-only release, because they assume the product wouldn't be released if it was "faulty".
Unfortunately, I tend to agree. It would be painful to go back now and rewrite all existing software to be "bug free" or "fault free". Many might argue that it would bankrupt the industry -- maybe it would. But consumers have gotten used to a certain level of merchandise quality in the market.
If a product is "faulty", it gets recalled, or replaced or repaired -- at the manufacturer's expense. At least this is true for "most" consumer products. However, for whatever reason, software companies have convinced everyone that following the same standard as virtually every other product on the market place would just be "too hard". "Cost too much".
So often people complain about "cars", citing the computer industry where computers are 1000's of times faster and cheaper than 30-40 years ago and if cars had made such progress, we'd have cars getting a 1000 mpg with 0-60 acceleration or deceleration in 2-3 seconds...etc. But people usually don't think about the reverse -- if cars develop faults, people's lives may be endangered. The manufacturer, knowing they can be held liable, issues a safety recall. With software -- software manufacturers sell products, not only without warranty, but with explicit disclaimers that the software being bought is good for _no_ purpose.
Imagine buying any consumer product that not only claims it is good for "no purpose", but where the manufacturer claims it isn't a sale, but you are "leasing" the product from them and your rights concerning the product are limited --- with all the baggage that software "licenses", supposedly, limit you to. The idea of applying software "restrictions" to every and any other purchase seems laughable. Imagine your house being good for no purpose (including as shelter)...etc. Maybe airlines should start putting shrink-wrap licenses on the seat-backs. If you don't accept the seat-back license, you are free to get up and get off the plane. Otherwise, you consent to complete abrogation of your rights. Maybe it's just a matter of time...
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen! It's important to remember that Ford is just fucking stupid. There's power in the doors of many Fords even when the vehicle is off, because the window motor switches supply ground instead of power - power is constant. This is, quite simply, retarded, and it is the opposite of what basically every other manufacturer does.
Amusingly however, when Ford bought Jaguar, their electrical systems actually improved. It seems that even Ford is more competent than Lucas. But there is only one year where there was still an XJ12 with the new electrical; after that, pretty much everything has gone V8.
Regardless, the first lesson is don't buy a Ford. There are reasons other than their idiot engineering, such as that they change things (for no reason whatsoever) every few years. A 350 chevy is a 350 chevy from about 1969 or whenever they started using it (even earlier I think, 1965?) until 1990-whatever, when they stopped and replaced it with the third generation powerplants (LSn.) Even the so-called second-generation 350 mostly just has a water pump that pumps in the other direction. But if you want a gasket set for a 302 (I pick the 350 and 302 because of how very common they are) they are good for about three years, and often for only one model (e.g. the same 302 with the same fuel injection is in the Mercury Grand Marquis and the Ford Mustang, but they have different gasket sets with actual differences between them.)
Re:Bad, bad analogy! (Score:3, Interesting)