Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
- From: Jim Yanik <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Dec 2008 22:31:28 GMT
Dave Head <rally2xs@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:jl1tk4555j3bq00rpl56191qnn36eggnsn@xxxxxxx:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:02:31 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:31:01 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:38:34 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:16:03 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Do we have an aftermarket ECC industry big enough to service _all_
those ECC's on _all_ the cars the big 3 build?
Uh, Dave... wouldn't the guys who do it now for GM etc be looking
for jobs? And wouldn't they get them doing this?
Well, yeah, but they wouldn't be bringing the source code along, so
they would just be experienced real-time programmers with automotive
experience. If the had to recreate all that software, tho, it'd take
almost as long, and require almost as much $$$testing$$$ as it did
the 1st time. And, they wouldn't be able to spread that expense
amongst hundreds of thousands of vehicles that roll off an assembly
line, they'd have to get it from people that need repair parts.
Of course, they're going to actually (probably illegally) reverese
engineer the existing software, but that wouldn't be cheap, either.
Russotto has posted an appropriate response to this. You started off
saying it couldn't be done, then you said could be done but couldn't
be done cheap and now we see it can be done and done cheap, because
the market will work as its supposed to.
You've gone from generally saying there wouldn't be parts available to
going to specific things like big casting, where it was disproved, and
now electronics, where its been disproved.
Now, in the event you're able to identify an actual parts problem, my
question which I've asked before, and to which I haven't seen an
answer if you've posted it, is...
Why do you think that we, the taxpayers, owe someone who owns an
obsolete product?
I haven't seen anything that says reverse engineering the software is
cheap - rather, it has been said that it would likely be a bitch to
get it out of the microprocessor/memory combination. Depending on
the time it takes, and the cost of the equipment necessary to do it,
it still may be a $50,000 undertaking. Is there going to be a $50,000
reverse engineering job on an ECC software program that may only sell
200 of them for a rare vehicle?
If they're that rare,then it's too bad.
LOTS of rare cars have gone by the wayside.
No one should expect to maintain a vehicle forever.
(although the Cubans and Guam have done well with their '50s US autos..)
Other people have done some hand-waving about the large castings
thing, but I haven't noted any solutions I've agreed with. I still
think there won't be large castings of tranny cases and differentials
and engine blocks,
Those don't get changed often.
let alone the automated machining that goes into
each one that makes them affordable (try doing this stuff with a guy
and a milling machine, and pay him the $45 - $75 an hour he'll want to
do it) and I still haven't seen a solution.
Owe? Nope, but we'd be well advised to assist our fellow Americans.
if there's enough demand,Taiwan,Red China or Japan may choose to provide
parts. Or engineer conversions,engine swaps,etc. Then there's overseas
divisions of GM and Ford.
Look at how US Hondas are getting reman'd Jap motors.I also see conversions
for older Hondas to use newer Honda motors.
Hondata has their own ECUs for them.
Hasport provides conversion parts and help;because there's a market for it.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
- From: Dave Head
- Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
- Prev by Date: Re: Riddle Me This, Batman
- Next by Date: Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
- Previous by thread: Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
- Next by thread: Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
