I like the idea, and we need variety in the market to keep things evolving, but I like the bells and whistles. I just don't want it to phone home. Honestly, I want the title to be 'we don't have a network connection and we can still be a car'. Privacy is my #1 feature.
I own 3 EVs. Two of those, from 2012 and 2014, were built with 3G modems, and fully lost connectivity in 2022 when the 3G networks were turned down. Nothing changed, not even an error message inside the car, except that trying to connect to them with their apps now fails. They're still totally functional cars. The failure mode on both appears to have been "guess I don't have service, I'll sleep the modem." Bluetooth still works, but even if that failed one of them has a functional CD player!
My newer EV that came with LTE connectivity will also fully work without network connectivity, except for the apps and remote updates. You can turn off the built-in cell connectivity via the head unit menus, and if you're especially paranoid, you can pull the fuse on the modem (and I've done it!). When it doesn't have a network connection it too operates just like a normal car.
There's a lot of fear around EVs being "software on wheels" based on a few manufacturers making non-remote features that depend on remote connectivity and botching updates or requiring subscriptions, and I agree that all is super problematic both from a privacy perspective and point-of-failure reason. But there's absolutely nothing intrinsic to the core design of EVs that demands that they're connected to the network.
On some cars you can also unplug whatever radio/modem doodad is responsible for phoning home. I have a Ford Maverick and disconnected the "telemetry module" which resides under the transmission hump by the front passenger seat.
I no longer receive updates to the infotainment system and I can't unlock the doors with my phone, but I also don't have the dealer emailing me service ads with my exact current mileage and tire pressure.
(one of those things I've seen very little discussion of, the WP page correctly points out that this mandates a mobile-station in every car; although it does not precisely mandate that it be always-on, in practice it will be in order to manage messaging promptly)
This is no longer reliably the case, because the carrier is legally required to provide a minimum set of information about the caller (its location) to the emergency services, which many cannot fulfill if the call was made without a SIM.
In the past they handled the call without that information, but after an incident in 2013 the court ruled that the requirements also must be fulfilled without a SIM (0).
So some carriers (notably all German ones) stopped accepting Emergency calls without SIM, first to not be in violation of the law but nowadays apparently due to "misuse" (?) (1).
I mean, even back in the OnStar days, you could "opt out" and cancel the service and it would track you anyway. With BYD or any other car maker, I'd be worried the SIM was a placebo.
This is where things like a HackRF or flipper zero are useful - leave a scan running over 24 hours from multiple fixed locations within the vehicle and you can detect if there are any wireless transmissions, and then triangulate on exactly where they come from using several pieces of yarn cut to the length of estimated distance from the source.
Cars should be independent, local only devices. Having cloud dependencies is just reckless and stupid.
Anyone know of reviewers that do this for cars? I just don't see privacy focused reviews on basically anything. We have reviews about how reparable things are and how good/bad the features are but rarely do I see privacy mentioned or in-depth analysis of TOS and the like to give buyers a sense of how good/bad cars and other devices are. Does everyone just assume it is terrible and go on or is there some reason this isn't a top level item for journalists to evaluate?
You'd need to differentiate between sources - you'd want to capture every signal, then sort into buckets by frequency, by regular timing, and so forth - if a device is sending a burst every 5 seconds, then you can grab every 5 second occurrence of a signal at that frequency and make a reasonable assumption that all that data is from the same radio.
You can filter for all the frequencies that show up regularly, then you differentiate by signal strength - group occurrences of the same frequency into similar dB buckets, then correlate the changes based on new fixed positions within the car, and run some calculations on changes in signal strength to obtain a dB to distance calculation. The strength to distance calculation can be estimated by making some assumptions about the type of radio you're looking for - a simple cellular module is going to be different than a WiFi repeater, or a wireless fob, or a bluetooth tracker.
From the fixed points within your car, you can tie one end of a piece of yarn to where the sensor was affixed, and the length of the yarn should correlate to your dB to distance estimate for that position, and with 2-3 or even 4-5 threads you'd be able to group their loose ends together to get a rough physical indication of exactly where the radio transmission is coming from.
The grouping won't be exact, but it'll literally point in the right direction, and if the threads are too long, or pointing to something buried in the chassis or whatnot, then you can reduce the lengths of your yarns by the same percentage of reduction and they'll be "pointing" at wherever the radio source is.
You're going to get a general location, like "under the dashboard" or "in the glovebox" or "somewhere under the spare in the trunk", not a millimeter precise location. You could probably vibecode a way of processing the data in a browser, and use a bunch of splats and AI modeling of your car and so forth to get a very precise and useful pinpoint of a device with a fancy UI, but you can just use a spreadsheet and text files of logged signal records, the process isn't super difficult.
How far of a jump is it from the buses in Norway with hidden remote access to "decoy sim"? It might not even be a decoy -- it might just be the sim for the "user facing" telematic/infotainment, and there's another, non-optional one.
analytics. same thing anyone that collects data gets. how they use it might be different. most use it to monetize the data. some might actually use it to improve things. because some do use for making money, those that do for actual improving will always be deemed suspect
You are seriously positing that car manufacturers would install decoy sims in their vehicles to discourage people from finding the true sim, all so they might collect data without potential user disruption?
There are a lot of smart TV's (name-brand ones!) that will try to connect to any open wifi. Monetizing from analytics and telemetry are literally priced into the cost of the gadget. A lot of smart TV's will even ship with their cameras turned on. And Hyundai/Kia and Subaru literally disabled certain in-car features for people in Massachusetts after the repair bill passed (https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/)
Given that, I hardly think that 'decoy sims' are much of a stretch.
This boring paranoia always comes up in discussions about "smart" devices. In theory possible, in practice too many legal issues, so in reality it's never happened. I find it rather dull when someone brings it up.
There's some paranoia here but there's also some truth.
Okay, nobody is putting in a placebo sim, but in software, we DO have placebo controls. If you flip a switch saying "don't track me", that usually means "track me slightly less". If you delete something, that doesn't mean delete it - that means keep it, but say it's deleted.
If you go through the Windows install, for instance, even if you flip off all the stuff it will tell you "we're still going to do this, just in less circumstances".
What are those circumstances? I don't know. I'm not even sure Microsoft knows.
It is crazy how paranoid people can be, IMO. They don't seem to understand that these companies don't really value one person's information highly enough to do stuff like that.
It is everyone's information that they value, not that one guy who goes to the trouble of killing the radio.
What do you imagine their profit per analytics profile to be? I'm genuinely curious. I would think any random individual's data would not be all that valuable.
What did GM gain from lying about turning off On-Star?
The only reason a decoy sim is going a bit far to believe, is because it wouldn't actually work. It wouldn't actually fool anyone and would just look bad when the first reviewer pointed it out a year before the car is even available for sale. If it weren't for that, we already have countless example proofs that a company will do literally anything if it will work merely 1% more than whatever it costs. Including car makers obfuscating and even flat out lying about their various connections.
What do they get out of it? data & control, same as ever.
Speaking of variety in the market: does anyone know how the capital barrier for developing an EV compares to a combustion drivetrain?
I wonder if, now that China has a developed supply ecosystem, it's becoming possible to build a car with lots of commodity/white-label parts. And I wonder if, as the quality of this supply chain improves, that means we'll start to see more small players emerge?
As with everything to do with society and computerised features, it is a matter of scale.
Cameras reading numbers plates at multiple locations -including speed! - is one thing.
Noting your : location, speed, direction in subsecond increments, your climate control preferences, what songs/eBook you are listening to, your face imagery (thanks sleep alert camera) and listening to your conversations... this is a whole other level of possible privacy invasion.
Is all of the above being tracked? I could imagine much of that is unwieldy, or not that useful, data. But how can you know whether a company is taking this data or not without first being suspicious? And if you are suspicious at this level, then what could a company say to convince you they are above board, and only using your data to your benefit.
A data connection still has tangible benefits e.g. remotely starting the AC/heating, live status of chargers / route planning, online map updates, eCall etc
If only I could trust that is all it did. I want 'airplane mode' for my vehicle. I turn my phone to 'airplane' mode all the time specifically because I don't want to give them access to where I am and all the other telemetry. I want incredibly strong protections that their network access isn't abused. Tools like logging all connections by application and the ability to block anything. Blocking when these tools can use the network (only when I have actively let them because I am actively using it for example) and opt-out by default with independent third party auditing of everything they release so I can build trust. I want real guarantees with real consequences when they are broken. I want devices to be mine, not theirs. Right now it is like someone has keys to my house and regularly comes in and installs hidden cameras without my permission. It is evil and people should go to jail for it. Unfortunately though, right now I have 100% trust that they will abuse their position which means I see every 'feature' that connects in any way as a major negative and not a positive. It is deeply unfortunate because I want to enjoy the things I pay for instead of treating them like the enemy that they currently are.
Exactly. If the last decade has shown us anything, consumers will always opt for the convenience features and cost far ahead of privacy concerns. I can't think of many successful consumer products with privacy as their key selling point, despite how many times it shows up here. Apple products maybe, but privacy is listed as feature #6 of the 7 features highlighted halfway down the page on https://www.apple.com/iphone/
I respect your choice, but do you walk the walk - don't carry a phone, no bluetooth devices, built your own router, run no javascript on your browser, etc, etc, etc.
I like the general design very much. And additionally the fact that it is small, lightweight, and not imposing, while apparently being a fast car.
Except for one thing: the brushed metal dashboard. I can imagine how terribly it's going to reflect the sun from behind when the roof is folded. I hope they can offer a tasteful matte dark version.
As of the lack of bells and whistles, the dashboard seems to be prepared for being customized. I suppose it's not a cheap car, so a customization job is not going to ruin the buyer's finances. I can imagine that a custom radio with protected but visible vacuum tubes could appeal to some buyers.
I'm assuming that its stainless. it were were aggressive about it, it would take a patina for anything from grey to black. stainless also develops a really wide variety of colors if you heat treat it in an oven with good temperature control. there a bronze-like color that's nice, and also a blue.
I'm amused to see that so many cybertrucks have been powder coated or wrapped in vinyl.
What makes you draw that conclusion? The wraps and powder coating can be observed but how can you infer intent? Which one is the “car person” and which one is just a Cybertruck owner?
They both wrap their vehicles or get custom paintjobs. How can they be differentiated by vehicle appearance alone?
In my part of EU it's actually pretty common, especially on exotic cars.
I guess the main appeal is "paint protection". Seems redundant to me, but people do like to apply screen protectors to their phones, which is another thing I don't fully comprehend so you know...
I like the obvious porsche 356 inspiration on this car. If the truck actually hit the 50K launch price, id also love to have one in the collection. But hey, make life easy by putting people into "buckets" so you feel like you have a grasp.
'engined-turned stainless' (not brushed.) was used in vintage race cars because it was the non-reflective option and looked nice. hid tooling marks from manufacture.
Same for me. The car looks beautiful and then you see the dashboard and it's just plain ugly. Doesn't match the rest of the car at all. It's easy enough to simply offer another trim option for the dash though.
The post's title was editorialized: the archived page makes no mention of analog. The neutral title would be "The 100% electric Carice TC2: a real retro head-turner".
I think OP meant there were no screens in the sparse cockpit, just some analog gauges.
And yeah electric cars need a battery management computer, a charge controller, and a motor controller at least.
I have an unusual EV made by a relatively small company of which only a handful got to private customers, so if I want to fix something, I have to reverse-engineer it first. Most of the time, I will find out that the components used in my vehicle were also used in other cars.
Regarding the difference between EVs and ICEVs, only the powertrain components are relevant and between those, some are more exchangeable and some are less so.
As with ICEVs, most manufacturers have "platforms" that are shared between multiple makes/models. Having shared components with other vehicles of the same platform is the rule rather than the exception.
In the cars I have seen, the whole battery often only fits that specific model, sometimes also for other cars within the same platform. The modules that make up the battery are often exchangeable with other cars made by the same company/group. The cells that make up the modules are almost always generic, but very hard to replace. The battery management system is usually specific to the battery.
I don't know about the current state, but for early EVs the motor and inverter (which converts battery DC to AC for the motor) were often made by external suppliers. Especially EV variants of otherwise ICE-based vehicles like the Fiat e500, VW Golf/Jetta, and some french cars all use the same motor and inverter made by Bosch. If an inverter is connected to a different type of motor, it needs to be tuned for it which is not trivial.
Onboard Chargers (OBCs), that convert AC line voltage from AC chargers to battery voltage are often quite generic and developed and manufactured by suppliers. They are almost always interchangeable within the same platform, but I haven't yet seen completely unrelated OEMs use the same OBC. The same applies to fast charging communications equipment, which is often integrated into the OBC.
DC/DC converters (the alternator equivalent) are rarely separate components anymore and often integrated into either the OBC or the inverter.
Voltage-wise, all these components are often surprisingly flexible and can be used with much lower voltages than their maximum rated voltage.
Other components like contactors and connectors are very generic and I haven't yet seen one that only one OEM would use. There are likely exceptions to this. Often, the base components like the OBC or the inverter are almost identical, only using other (also generic) connectors.
While technically all these components could be replaced in the "old school" style, almost all of them require either coding the components to the specific vehicle, or flashing an OEM-specific firmware. While the former is only doable with OEM-specific software (that is far too expensive for both indiviuals and most independent workshops), I haven't yet seen any example of the latter, at least not for swapping components between unrelated platforms.
As of now, there are almost no "official" aftermarket replacements for these major components. I don't know of any major supplier that will directly sell parts in small quantities and OEMs likely won't sell you as an individual replacement parts either. For DIY repairs, finding used parts from wrecked cars and coding them with cracked software or having it done in an authorized workshop (if even possible) often seems to be the only option so far. Also, everyone will discourage you from working on your EV for "electrical safety" reasons (actually, it's more profitable if they do the work). Working on an EV is quite safe, if done right (which is not hard).
Most of these limitations do not only apply to EVs, but to almost all modern cars. Often, the necessary work of reverse-engineering and cracking software has already been done for ICEVs for tuning purposes.
J1772 is significantly more than a single resistor. And, while the signaling is analog, all practical implementations are going to use digital circuitry to generate and detect it.
Op-amps are absolutely, 100% analog in every sense; there's no need to limit this assertion with the nonstandard adverb "technically". The term "analog" was invented in the first place specifically to describe circuits made out of op-amps rather than "digital" circuits. And, yes, you can totally balance the charge on your cells using op-amps and similar analog circuits. You will probably want some sharp PWM waveforms in the circuit, but PWM isn't all the way to digital.
I would question whether a PWM "technically" counts as digital... It is on and off, sure, but so is a mechanical power switch, which few would describe as digital. "Digital" is more when we get higher level values represented by multiple signals that are on or off (aka bits).
A mechanical power switch can certainly be digital; the Harvard Mark I digital computer was made entirely out of mechanical power switches, actuated by solenoids (so-called "relays"). It depends on how you use it—as you say, by combining multiple different bits, either simultaneously or serially.
I agree that a PWM signal is not really a digital signal, but it's kind of on the edge—for example, https://tinyurl.com/25y54mph is a simulation I designed of a completely analog PWM generator (a simulated LM324 op-amp, five transistors, 13 resistors, and a couple of caps), and several vendors offer better-designed versions of the same thing on an IC, but you can also get a perfectly adequate PWM signal out of a digital GPIO pin, and the PWM peripherals commonly included in microcontrollers are entirely digital.
> Prices for a TC2 start at €44.500 excluding taxes (€53.854 including 21% btw/Dutch tax).
> The Carice TC2 complies with the European regulations and can therefore be driven in all EU countries and countries that adopt those regulations, like Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Monaco and Norway.
It very much looks like it's designed to be your second/third/tenth car. Not as impractical as a daily driver as most sports cars, but you won't use it for a trip to Ikea either
In terms of not-yet-shipping not-online vehicles, we already have the Slate. So this looks to be a good compliment, for a moderately-wealthy two car household.
Keep in mind a Tesla Model 3 costs €45-60k in the Netherlands, it's one of the most expensive countries for buying private vehicles.
If you built the same car in China it would cost €15k or less. Eventually with enough volume they could probably cut the price in half, producing in one of the cheaper eastern european countries which already have strong manufacturing hubs.
For something of the value proposition of an Mazda MX5 with Nissan Figaro styling, I mean it's not terribly far off the mark. If you want the average Top Gear readers budget choice, the Renault 5 with 255 miles of WLTP range is about €32-34k as an 'everyman' Supermini without serious compromises in any particular area.
Short of getting some sub-BYD CDM manufacturer to compete directly, there's not much scope out there to cut much further than that for an acceptable 2+2 QOL car in 2025. Mainly I can see the likes of Dacia cutting corners in the interior to crew-cab standard and releasing a low-tide mark EV like their proposed 'Hipster'.
Dacia has stated that the target price for the entry-level Hipster is planned at around €12-15k - undercutting Dacia's most affordable electric model, the Spring, with an entry RRP of around €18,000 euros.
Look at the Bugatti Tourbillon. About as analog-appearing as it gets. Clearly there’s a recognition that this is what luxury looks like — but switches (let alone dials!) cost more than touch screens.
My 34-year old base spec Chevrolet has digital controls for timing advance, fuel trim, and integrated Engine and Transmission Control Units. But my dash has some analog components ( fuel level is variable voltage instead of PWM ). The mechanics would all say that my truck is very simple, and "old school"
The Lay use of 'analog' is far removed from function. As long as there isn't a screen, it isn't seen to be digital. I studied photography in college and loved shooting film. I have a processing machine that is based on a 6502. When people would talk about non-digital things as analog it would bug me (One is chemical, and one is a computer).
The last real analog stuff would be either carb'd bikes / cars or mechanical fuel injection, which is the worst of both worlds.
However, those ECUs are more closely related to embedded programming than digital dial outs and SIM Card loaded cars with a internal network canbus these days. Analog / Digital Inputs and outputs as a closed loop controller.
The first 20yr of automotive computers they weren't really talking to each other and when they were it wasn't really bidirectional and it wasn't typically on a bus unless you wanna call a dedicated wire a bus.
That was after the first 20 years of automotive computers, though, wasn't it, if only barely?
WP says, "In the early 1970s, the Japanese electronics industry began producing integrated circuits and microcontrollers used for controlling engines.[6] The Ford EEC (Electronic Engine Control) system, which used the Toshiba TLCS-12 microprocessor, entered mass production in 1975.[7]" Reference [6] says, "First half of 1970s: Japan starts developing ICs for automobiles ahead of the U.S.: Development of ICs for automobiles started with analog ICs for in-car entertainment, and was followed by 4-bit microcontrollers and other digital ICs for use with the wipers, electronic locks, and dashboard, and then by microcontrollers with 8-bit and wider bits for engine control."
But I don't know any more details. Was Toyota controlling its windshield wipers with a 4004 in 01974? Was Nissan controlling a speedometer with an RCA 1801 in 01973?
Anyway, if we date it from 01975, then 01995 would be year #21.
EEC-1 exists because regulatory uncertainty forced OEMs to build in a place where they could cheaply change the logic around emissions effecting systems. It is a computer in the same way a modern toaster is.
Figure 5yr between "developing" and "fielding". And if you ignore the Plymouth Prowler exercises in putting cutting edge tech into low volume models to get practice doing so it adds another few years depending on what the item is and how bad the OEM wants it in the field.
In any case, by the 1990s these are computers comparable in complexity to the bare minimum it takes to run an oven from 2010 that has a digital timer and some automatic functions. They read inputs and implement simple if-then and timer logic. They don't do any communicating with other systems, and if they do they pretend to be a simple sensor or actuator (depending on which end of the connection they're on). The closest thing you're gonna get to a "bus" is a shared ground or a shared reference voltage circuit.
Take for example a hypothetical 1995ish Ford (EEC-IV, which was pretty advanced for its time) that combines every possible module you can have across the whole lineup. At best you're gonna get is five computers. ABS module reads vehicle speed (VR sensor) and does it's thing. It then sends out approximately the same voltage/frequency signal it got in to the transmission controller or ECU which does the same thing and sends the signal to the digital odometer. The ECU directs the ignition module, but the ignition module isn't really a computer, it's a bunch of solid state circuitry that implements essentially one function which is turning on and off high current in response to a low current signal but with some automatic loops in there (it's broken out from the ECU for cost reasons, on some models it's integrated). You also have a body control module but once again, just simple dumb logic that people the world over implement with analog controls every day, "if engine off then door close wait 30sec before headlights off"
At no point is there bidirectional communication nor is there any sort of bus anywhere. When there is complex feedback where A tells B to do something and then cares about the result, it's architected such that B isn't implementing any logic, it's pretending to be a sensor and an actuator, taking a "do things" signal and returning a "I did things" signal (voltage change usually).
These are not in any way comparable to a modern car where everything shits messages onto various buses and things actually listen for messages, ignore what they don't need, output messages when they've done things, etc, etc.
The only people using CAN in the 90s were Ze Germans, because they're who invented it.
>Was Toyota controlling its windshield wipers with a 4004 in 01974? Was Nissan controlling a speedometer with an RCA 1801 in 01973?
No. Toyota was using analog circuitry for that then and Nissan kept a physical cable at least into the 90s.
> 1981: General Motors introduced its "Computer Command Control" system on all US passenger vehicles for model year 1981. Included in this system is a proprietary 5-pin ALDL that interfaces with the Engine Control Module (ECM) to initiate a diagnostic request and provide a serial data stream. The protocol communicates at 160 baud with Pulse-width modulation (PWM) signaling and monitors all engine management functions. It reports real-time sensor data, component overrides, and Diagnostic Trouble Codes. The specification for this link is as defined by GM's Emissions Control System Project Center document XDE-5024B.[4][5]
This is still a far cry from modern cars using CAN buses for all kinds of things, but it's at least digital communication over a bidirectional data link. And then OBD-I is from 01988.
I would gladly pay extra (in terms of OEM's profit margin) for a de-contented EV that aims to stay reliable, offline, and be easier to field-repair and upgrade as components improve. Our phones are better than any infotainment system. Batteries and motors will get better in time.
https://www.slate.auto 's pickup seems to be heading in this direction, and now Carice enters in a higher-end market segment. If someone does a minivan or other people-hauler configuration similarly, I'd be first in line.
Lack of DC fast charging makes the range even more limiting. It takes 2.7 hours to add another 150 miles. Modern EVs can add 150 miles of range in 10-15 minutes.
It's a recreational vehicle for booting around to and from the country club and out to the fancy places that European gentlemen go on afternoon Sunday drives to impress their mistresses.
Oh that reminds me, I should go check my lottery ticket.
Yeah, the unfortunate reality with EVs is power and weight are tightly correlated, since the power output is limited by the batteries, and more battery capacity generally means more power output.
From the pictures, this is the kind of vehicle that you would gladly pay extra to have delivered to your second vacation home so you can park it next to your 6 other semi-exotic cars and drive it half a mile to the country club on Saturdays.
If that is not your demographic, they might have geo-located your IP and blocked you based on the median income of your area. (Only half joking.)
Oh, c’mon, it’s 44K. One can easily spend 30K or more on a motorcycle these days, we are a long way from “country club” prices. If it came to the U. S., I’d probably pick one up to park next to our Hyundai (yeah, a Hyundai, not a Range Rover).
Why are you guys ignoring that part of the equation and only talking about $44k as though it's the same as the $44k everyone else spends on that Hyundai that they actually need to be useful and haul kids and tools and furniture around a country that's bigger than the Netherlands all day every day like a mule?
Pretty sure I can get groceries in that thing, but that isn't the point.
Why are you guys ignoring that part of the equation...
Because that wasn't the question at hand. I was responding to the idea that to buy this thing one must have a country club membership and two Ferraris in the garage already. I'm just saying that this is wrong, and plenty of "ordinary" people would drop that on a weekend toy. But if you're poor, yes, this is not the car for you.
You're Web browser probably isn't leaking enough identifiable information for the site to judge whether or not you're a bot, so it default to denying you.
specifically, “free” VPN isn’t free. They use your computer that has the VPN software installed as an exit nodes for other customers. Those other customers hammer websites for their AI until it gets blocked. Sucks for you, unfortunately.
Talk to your kids about the dangers of VPNs before it's too late.
If you had a company whose core business proposition was Quite Obviously Shady, would you expect them to be scrupulously legit in other areas?
Quick question for you - rhino poaching is a huge problem in Africa, with poachers getting a surprisingly small amount of money per rhino they shoot, because the buyers only want the horns. Do you think paying the poachers more to not shoot the rhinos would solve that problem?
Hola is the big one, but in practice, if we hypothesis that no one's running a VPN as a charity, free VPN products need to make money someway, and if you're not paying to use it, how else are they gonna make money?
So basically be suspicious of every single "free" or suspiciously cheap VPN. Go with known brands that come recommended by mulitple people, especially from people "in the know".
Though PirateSoftware (a person) has a good bit on why he doesn't advertise for VPNs on his channel.
Hola's worst division got spun out into a separate company, Bright Data. Bright Data's worst innovations since "Free VPN" are using those "Watch this ad for 30 seconds for bonus in-game currency" things in many, many awful mobile games and using those as a "opt-in" signal to use the user's device for those 30 seconds (or however long) as an exit node for whatever scanning/botting processes they resell.
It looks like a kit car version of a Porsche 356 crossed with a Nissan Figaro.
It actually looks rather more expensive than it is - it's about 44,000EUR putting it at the same sort of money as a Focus ST. Expensive toy, but not horribly so.
Unsure what it's based on, probably (like the Figaro) some fairly inexpensive existing car's subframes.
590kg is amazing. Not a big fan of the body design, although it's not terrible. I want a hard top option with all wheel drive. I would love to daily a lightweight electric coupe, but it must be able to deal with the snow.
1) Cool, i hope they get lots of orders.
2) We're not past the 'zero emissions' rhetoric? I get evals 'at the tailpipe,' yet i think we've come past that line of thinking (e.g. Fairphone's Cameroon country outline inside the phone, behind the battery cover)
3) Will be interesting to compare results to other cars, e.g. Slate, which approach a similar need/desire from a remarkably different angle.
I guess the complaint is that electricity production is not zero emissions in most of the world, so it could be considered misleading.
I don't think it makes sense, ICE vehicle emission ratings have never included the drilling, refining, and transportation of fuel, and the alternative is for every vehicle to just advertise "unknown emissions" because it's impossible for the manufacturer to know anything beyond what the vehicle itself produces.
There are still emissions during production and decommissioning. And cars are sources of noise and light, and emissions due to component wear (tires and brakes, probably others as well). A specific car may be not as bad as others for the environment, but there is always some impact.
The term "zero-emission" has a specific meaning for the DOA, EPA, and CARB specifically referring to the tailpipe and combustion emissions produced when operating the vehicle.
I don't see anything on the web site about the car not being digital. It's just an advertisement. The title is misleading and should be changed to the target page's title.
I also don't see mention of the battery technology, though maybe I didn't look hard enough. I'd want it to be LFP.
This reminds me of eGolf, and, I think, this is the right way to go for electric cars. They shouldn’t be apps on wheels, they should be cars, but with an electric motor.
I also got a bad impression from that, but upon further reflection, it's a more interesting choice. Keeping the plug port in the trunk means that the charging cable (kept in the trunk) can stay semi-permanently plugged into the car, which is perhaps nice when you're charging away from home. The question I have is, because the cable goes through a cut-out in the trunk to reach the charger, how well that holds up to rain, attempts to break into the trunk, etc.
Not a fan of how this car would work ergonomically. Center mounted speedo is annoying and there's zero attempt to prevent glare from them. I also can't tell what's going on with all of the switches on the passenger's side and the handbreak.
200km and 300km (I guess) WLTP mean a very small battery pack, so AC only charging seems pretty normal. It's probably some ~8-10 years old technology put in a small chassis.
I like the design, but I can't see myself owning it beyond having it as a hobby vehicle to around town. I've grown far too used to a GPS screen, rear camera and an entertainment system (free of ads thanks to my streaming subscription).
I have to agree. A car with a digital dashboard an infotainment system doesn’t need to feel “complicated”. I get they want as little automation as possible, and I’m fine with giving up on lane keeping, adaptive cruise control, forward safety systems, and eve a rear camera (I often just use the mirrors anyway), but not my music and maps.
I was hoping for a lower price, but it does appear that these are not mass produced like most car manufacturers and they do have some nice designs on them, which I'm sure adds to the cost.
Nice, a cross between the 356 and the Copen. Price is ~55000 Euros including taxes. They're Dutch, I wonder who is backing them, this looks like an expensive thing to develop.
This is nice! not a big fan of the design and would really prefer a fixed roof but the concept is still a good one and the avoidance of all the digital doodads is great!
I like the fact that it looks like a "classic" car. I was very disappointed when the electric Mustang looked like any other electric car and not like a classic Mustang.
I'm holding out hope for https://www.slate.auto/en I know it's somehow associated with Amazon, is it going to be a cloud-connected privacy nightmare. I haven't heard anything about it, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
Privacy nightmare undoubtedly, but if you want affordable EVs BYD has you covered. A fully-functional, crash-worthy and apparently quite decent EV for around 16,000 USD (in Australia).
It's 45k for a very unique car built in the EU. I don't think the price tag is that bad, honestly. It's a fun car for people who already have 2 others.
Yeah toy might be a little negative. I think it's a leisure vehicle, and, at least as I read the marketing, they're leaning into that. Seems like the extended range model is 300km. If you need a car, you probably don't want it to be this one.
My newer EV that came with LTE connectivity will also fully work without network connectivity, except for the apps and remote updates. You can turn off the built-in cell connectivity via the head unit menus, and if you're especially paranoid, you can pull the fuse on the modem (and I've done it!). When it doesn't have a network connection it too operates just like a normal car.
There's a lot of fear around EVs being "software on wheels" based on a few manufacturers making non-remote features that depend on remote connectivity and botching updates or requiring subscriptions, and I agree that all is super problematic both from a privacy perspective and point-of-failure reason. But there's absolutely nothing intrinsic to the core design of EVs that demands that they're connected to the network.
I no longer receive updates to the infotainment system and I can't unlock the doors with my phone, but I also don't have the dealer emailing me service ads with my exact current mileage and tire pressure.
(one of those things I've seen very little discussion of, the WP page correctly points out that this mandates a mobile-station in every car; although it does not precisely mandate that it be always-on, in practice it will be in order to manage messaging promptly)
In the past they handled the call without that information, but after an incident in 2013 the court ruled that the requirements also must be fulfilled without a SIM (0).
So some carriers (notably all German ones) stopped accepting Emergency calls without SIM, first to not be in violation of the law but nowadays apparently due to "misuse" (?) (1).
(0) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
(1) https://www.heise.de/en/background/112-Emergency-Call-Day-No...
Cars should be independent, local only devices. Having cloud dependencies is just reckless and stupid.
You can filter for all the frequencies that show up regularly, then you differentiate by signal strength - group occurrences of the same frequency into similar dB buckets, then correlate the changes based on new fixed positions within the car, and run some calculations on changes in signal strength to obtain a dB to distance calculation. The strength to distance calculation can be estimated by making some assumptions about the type of radio you're looking for - a simple cellular module is going to be different than a WiFi repeater, or a wireless fob, or a bluetooth tracker.
From the fixed points within your car, you can tie one end of a piece of yarn to where the sensor was affixed, and the length of the yarn should correlate to your dB to distance estimate for that position, and with 2-3 or even 4-5 threads you'd be able to group their loose ends together to get a rough physical indication of exactly where the radio transmission is coming from.
The grouping won't be exact, but it'll literally point in the right direction, and if the threads are too long, or pointing to something buried in the chassis or whatnot, then you can reduce the lengths of your yarns by the same percentage of reduction and they'll be "pointing" at wherever the radio source is.
You're going to get a general location, like "under the dashboard" or "in the glovebox" or "somewhere under the spare in the trunk", not a millimeter precise location. You could probably vibecode a way of processing the data in a browser, and use a bunch of splats and AI modeling of your car and so forth to get a very precise and useful pinpoint of a device with a fancy UI, but you can just use a spreadsheet and text files of logged signal records, the process isn't super difficult.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45824658
Given that, I hardly think that 'decoy sims' are much of a stretch.
Okay, nobody is putting in a placebo sim, but in software, we DO have placebo controls. If you flip a switch saying "don't track me", that usually means "track me slightly less". If you delete something, that doesn't mean delete it - that means keep it, but say it's deleted.
If you go through the Windows install, for instance, even if you flip off all the stuff it will tell you "we're still going to do this, just in less circumstances".
What are those circumstances? I don't know. I'm not even sure Microsoft knows.
It is everyone's information that they value, not that one guy who goes to the trouble of killing the radio.
The only reason a decoy sim is going a bit far to believe, is because it wouldn't actually work. It wouldn't actually fool anyone and would just look bad when the first reviewer pointed it out a year before the car is even available for sale. If it weren't for that, we already have countless example proofs that a company will do literally anything if it will work merely 1% more than whatever it costs. Including car makers obfuscating and even flat out lying about their various connections.
What do they get out of it? data & control, same as ever.
I really don't get this insane need to track everything. The computers in cars should be pull data, never push.
I wonder if, now that China has a developed supply ecosystem, it's becoming possible to build a car with lots of commodity/white-label parts. And I wonder if, as the quality of this supply chain improves, that means we'll start to see more small players emerge?
(Pure speculation)
Cameras reading numbers plates at multiple locations -including speed! - is one thing.
Noting your : location, speed, direction in subsecond increments, your climate control preferences, what songs/eBook you are listening to, your face imagery (thanks sleep alert camera) and listening to your conversations... this is a whole other level of possible privacy invasion.
Is all of the above being tracked? I could imagine much of that is unwieldy, or not that useful, data. But how can you know whether a company is taking this data or not without first being suspicious? And if you are suspicious at this level, then what could a company say to convince you they are above board, and only using your data to your benefit.
I respect your choice, but do you walk the walk - don't carry a phone, no bluetooth devices, built your own router, run no javascript on your browser, etc, etc, etc.
Except for one thing: the brushed metal dashboard. I can imagine how terribly it's going to reflect the sun from behind when the roof is folded. I hope they can offer a tasteful matte dark version.
As of the lack of bells and whistles, the dashboard seems to be prepared for being customized. I suppose it's not a cheap car, so a customization job is not going to ruin the buyer's finances. I can imagine that a custom radio with protected but visible vacuum tubes could appeal to some buyers.
I'm amused to see that so many cybertrucks have been powder coated or wrapped in vinyl.
There are car enthusiasts and Cubertruck owners. There is little overlap between these two sets.
Apparently owners often want a bit more manicured looks.
They both wrap their vehicles or get custom paintjobs. How can they be differentiated by vehicle appearance alone?
I guess the main appeal is "paint protection". Seems redundant to me, but people do like to apply screen protectors to their phones, which is another thing I don't fully comprehend so you know...
It has a standard EV charge port, so it's definitely got computers in it somewhere to negotiate charging at a minimum.
I think OP meant there were no screens in the sparse cockpit, just some analog gauges.
And yeah electric cars need a battery management computer, a charge controller, and a motor controller at least.
A stupid title.
So much of "old school" auto maintenance was having a relatively standardized size/fit for similar components.
I have an unusual EV made by a relatively small company of which only a handful got to private customers, so if I want to fix something, I have to reverse-engineer it first. Most of the time, I will find out that the components used in my vehicle were also used in other cars.
Regarding the difference between EVs and ICEVs, only the powertrain components are relevant and between those, some are more exchangeable and some are less so.
As with ICEVs, most manufacturers have "platforms" that are shared between multiple makes/models. Having shared components with other vehicles of the same platform is the rule rather than the exception.
In the cars I have seen, the whole battery often only fits that specific model, sometimes also for other cars within the same platform. The modules that make up the battery are often exchangeable with other cars made by the same company/group. The cells that make up the modules are almost always generic, but very hard to replace. The battery management system is usually specific to the battery.
I don't know about the current state, but for early EVs the motor and inverter (which converts battery DC to AC for the motor) were often made by external suppliers. Especially EV variants of otherwise ICE-based vehicles like the Fiat e500, VW Golf/Jetta, and some french cars all use the same motor and inverter made by Bosch. If an inverter is connected to a different type of motor, it needs to be tuned for it which is not trivial.
Onboard Chargers (OBCs), that convert AC line voltage from AC chargers to battery voltage are often quite generic and developed and manufactured by suppliers. They are almost always interchangeable within the same platform, but I haven't yet seen completely unrelated OEMs use the same OBC. The same applies to fast charging communications equipment, which is often integrated into the OBC.
DC/DC converters (the alternator equivalent) are rarely separate components anymore and often integrated into either the OBC or the inverter.
Voltage-wise, all these components are often surprisingly flexible and can be used with much lower voltages than their maximum rated voltage.
Other components like contactors and connectors are very generic and I haven't yet seen one that only one OEM would use. There are likely exceptions to this. Often, the base components like the OBC or the inverter are almost identical, only using other (also generic) connectors.
While technically all these components could be replaced in the "old school" style, almost all of them require either coding the components to the specific vehicle, or flashing an OEM-specific firmware. While the former is only doable with OEM-specific software (that is far too expensive for both indiviuals and most independent workshops), I haven't yet seen any example of the latter, at least not for swapping components between unrelated platforms.
As of now, there are almost no "official" aftermarket replacements for these major components. I don't know of any major supplier that will directly sell parts in small quantities and OEMs likely won't sell you as an individual replacement parts either. For DIY repairs, finding used parts from wrecked cars and coding them with cracked software or having it done in an authorized workshop (if even possible) often seems to be the only option so far. Also, everyone will discourage you from working on your EV for "electrical safety" reasons (actually, it's more profitable if they do the work). Working on an EV is quite safe, if done right (which is not hard).
Most of these limitations do not only apply to EVs, but to almost all modern cars. Often, the necessary work of reverse-engineering and cracking software has already been done for ICEVs for tuning purposes.
For USB sure.... I'm pretty sure this doesn't charge over USB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#Signaling
I agree that a PWM signal is not really a digital signal, but it's kind of on the edge—for example, https://tinyurl.com/25y54mph is a simulation I designed of a completely analog PWM generator (a simulated LM324 op-amp, five transistors, 13 resistors, and a couple of caps), and several vendors offer better-designed versions of the same thing on an IC, but you can also get a perfectly adequate PWM signal out of a digital GPIO pin, and the PWM peripherals commonly included in microcontrollers are entirely digital.
> Prices for a TC2 start at €44.500 excluding taxes (€53.854 including 21% btw/Dutch tax).
> The Carice TC2 complies with the European regulations and can therefore be driven in all EU countries and countries that adopt those regulations, like Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Monaco and Norway.
I know that's just me, but still, it bothers me and I'll likely cancel my pre-order.
There's a stink around everything he touches that is repugnant to me.
If you built the same car in China it would cost €15k or less. Eventually with enough volume they could probably cut the price in half, producing in one of the cheaper eastern european countries which already have strong manufacturing hubs.
Short of getting some sub-BYD CDM manufacturer to compete directly, there's not much scope out there to cut much further than that for an acceptable 2+2 QOL car in 2025. Mainly I can see the likes of Dacia cutting corners in the interior to crew-cab standard and releasing a low-tide mark EV like their proposed 'Hipster'.
Dacia has stated that the target price for the entry-level Hipster is planned at around €12-15k - undercutting Dacia's most affordable electric model, the Spring, with an entry RRP of around €18,000 euros.
https://www.carscoops.com/2025/10/dacia-hipster-previews-dir...
I can't fathom why we can't have a modern car with analog displays and switches in the cockpit.
I own a 25 years old car which only has a digital radio (removeable!) and that's it, perfectly enough.
My 34-year old base spec Chevrolet has digital controls for timing advance, fuel trim, and integrated Engine and Transmission Control Units. But my dash has some analog components ( fuel level is variable voltage instead of PWM ). The mechanics would all say that my truck is very simple, and "old school"
The Lay use of 'analog' is far removed from function. As long as there isn't a screen, it isn't seen to be digital. I studied photography in college and loved shooting film. I have a processing machine that is based on a 6502. When people would talk about non-digital things as analog it would bug me (One is chemical, and one is a computer).
However, those ECUs are more closely related to embedded programming than digital dial outs and SIM Card loaded cars with a internal network canbus these days. Analog / Digital Inputs and outputs as a closed loop controller.
WP says, "In the early 1970s, the Japanese electronics industry began producing integrated circuits and microcontrollers used for controlling engines.[6] The Ford EEC (Electronic Engine Control) system, which used the Toshiba TLCS-12 microprocessor, entered mass production in 1975.[7]" Reference [6] says, "First half of 1970s: Japan starts developing ICs for automobiles ahead of the U.S.: Development of ICs for automobiles started with analog ICs for in-car entertainment, and was followed by 4-bit microcontrollers and other digital ICs for use with the wipers, electronic locks, and dashboard, and then by microcontrollers with 8-bit and wider bits for engine control."
But I don't know any more details. Was Toyota controlling its windshield wipers with a 4004 in 01974? Was Nissan controlling a speedometer with an RCA 1801 in 01973?
Anyway, if we date it from 01975, then 01995 would be year #21.
Figure 5yr between "developing" and "fielding". And if you ignore the Plymouth Prowler exercises in putting cutting edge tech into low volume models to get practice doing so it adds another few years depending on what the item is and how bad the OEM wants it in the field.
In any case, by the 1990s these are computers comparable in complexity to the bare minimum it takes to run an oven from 2010 that has a digital timer and some automatic functions. They read inputs and implement simple if-then and timer logic. They don't do any communicating with other systems, and if they do they pretend to be a simple sensor or actuator (depending on which end of the connection they're on). The closest thing you're gonna get to a "bus" is a shared ground or a shared reference voltage circuit.
Take for example a hypothetical 1995ish Ford (EEC-IV, which was pretty advanced for its time) that combines every possible module you can have across the whole lineup. At best you're gonna get is five computers. ABS module reads vehicle speed (VR sensor) and does it's thing. It then sends out approximately the same voltage/frequency signal it got in to the transmission controller or ECU which does the same thing and sends the signal to the digital odometer. The ECU directs the ignition module, but the ignition module isn't really a computer, it's a bunch of solid state circuitry that implements essentially one function which is turning on and off high current in response to a low current signal but with some automatic loops in there (it's broken out from the ECU for cost reasons, on some models it's integrated). You also have a body control module but once again, just simple dumb logic that people the world over implement with analog controls every day, "if engine off then door close wait 30sec before headlights off"
At no point is there bidirectional communication nor is there any sort of bus anywhere. When there is complex feedback where A tells B to do something and then cares about the result, it's architected such that B isn't implementing any logic, it's pretending to be a sensor and an actuator, taking a "do things" signal and returning a "I did things" signal (voltage change usually).
These are not in any way comparable to a modern car where everything shits messages onto various buses and things actually listen for messages, ignore what they don't need, output messages when they've done things, etc, etc.
The only people using CAN in the 90s were Ze Germans, because they're who invented it.
>Was Toyota controlling its windshield wipers with a 4004 in 01974? Was Nissan controlling a speedometer with an RCA 1801 in 01973?
No. Toyota was using analog circuitry for that then and Nissan kept a physical cable at least into the 90s.
> 1981: General Motors introduced its "Computer Command Control" system on all US passenger vehicles for model year 1981. Included in this system is a proprietary 5-pin ALDL that interfaces with the Engine Control Module (ECM) to initiate a diagnostic request and provide a serial data stream. The protocol communicates at 160 baud with Pulse-width modulation (PWM) signaling and monitors all engine management functions. It reports real-time sensor data, component overrides, and Diagnostic Trouble Codes. The specification for this link is as defined by GM's Emissions Control System Project Center document XDE-5024B.[4][5]
This is still a far cry from modern cars using CAN buses for all kinds of things, but it's at least digital communication over a bidirectional data link. And then OBD-I is from 01988.
https://www.slate.auto 's pickup seems to be heading in this direction, and now Carice enters in a higher-end market segment. If someone does a minivan or other people-hauler configuration similarly, I'd be first in line.
- 31.5kWh
- 630kg
- 300km (186mi) range
This review explains the concept behind the car in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aTzuUrdyIc
You can drive from just about any point in the Netherlands to any other in less than 300km.
For a weekend toy in the densely populated parts of Europe the range is fine.
Oh that reminds me, I should go check my lottery ticket.
If that is not your demographic, they might have geo-located your IP and blocked you based on the median income of your area. (Only half joking.)
Not a hell of a lot more than say a Fiat 500E convertible, and quite a bit cooler.
Why are you guys ignoring that part of the equation and only talking about $44k as though it's the same as the $44k everyone else spends on that Hyundai that they actually need to be useful and haul kids and tools and furniture around a country that's bigger than the Netherlands all day every day like a mule?
Those are two entirely different $44k.
Pretty sure I can get groceries in that thing, but that isn't the point.
Why are you guys ignoring that part of the equation...
Because that wasn't the question at hand. I was responding to the idea that to buy this thing one must have a country club membership and two Ferraris in the garage already. I'm just saying that this is wrong, and plenty of "ordinary" people would drop that on a weekend toy. But if you're poor, yes, this is not the car for you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45741357
Talk to your kids about the dangers of VPNs before it's too late.
What, you think they're leaving that money sitting on the table?
It's another thing to claim all of them are obviously corrupt.
Quick question for you - rhino poaching is a huge problem in Africa, with poachers getting a surprisingly small amount of money per rhino they shoot, because the buyers only want the horns. Do you think paying the poachers more to not shoot the rhinos would solve that problem?
Statements of categorical fact about a whole class of things (in this case VPNs) demand more than that.
You do you.
So basically be suspicious of every single "free" or suspiciously cheap VPN. Go with known brands that come recommended by mulitple people, especially from people "in the know".
Though PirateSoftware (a person) has a good bit on why he doesn't advertise for VPNs on his channel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Data
It actually looks rather more expensive than it is - it's about 44,000EUR putting it at the same sort of money as a Focus ST. Expensive toy, but not horribly so.
Unsure what it's based on, probably (like the Figaro) some fairly inexpensive existing car's subframes.
Full Analog System No Electronics!!!! No Computers!!!! 800+ Horsepower 0 to 60 in .5 sec
I don't think it makes sense, ICE vehicle emission ratings have never included the drilling, refining, and transportation of fuel, and the alternative is for every vehicle to just advertise "unknown emissions" because it's impossible for the manufacturer to know anything beyond what the vehicle itself produces.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-basics-ev https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/4249
I also don't see mention of the battery technology, though maybe I didn't look hard enough. I'd want it to be LFP.
EDIT: Ah, it's not sold for the US market, so that's how.
The 54HP is right about what a 356 would have made with the larger engines, and the price with VAT is inflation-adjusted, roughly identical as well.
Granted, it's better than the status quo, which probably couldn't withstand a Flipper Zero...
Only thing that goes on my head, but I like the car. :)
> Prices for a TC2 start at €44.500 excluding taxes (€53.854 including 21% btw/Dutch tax)
Street legal in Europe but not the US, up to 300km range.
Wake me up when a manufacturer finally commits to making an EV that everyone can afford and isn't a cloud-connected privacy nightmare.
I haven't heard specifically about connectedness otherwise, but I highly doubt there is a hidden SIM card in there somewhere.
It can lead to conflicts of interest (see also: https://www.law.com/delbizcourt/2025/10/29/attorney-for-amaz...) but that's a far cry from significant data sharing.
If you can't buy one, blame your government:
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-reviews/2026-byd-atto-1-rev...
> Prices for a TC2 start at €44.500 excluding taxes (€53.854 including 21% btw/Dutch tax).