Will drive it till it rusts out and in praying the market will have corrected by then
Also two words: Crumple zones. You don’t want a super hard Skelton, that will only increase crash forces.
No shit, that's why I mention a helmet.
Roll cages, if properly done, do not affect crumple zones. The passenger compartment should not be crumbling and that's the only part a roll cage should be in. Keep in mind that actual race cars have a rigid occupant compartment, crash at higher speeds, and have great safety records due in part to the protection offered from a harness, helmet, and hans. On the other hand, airbags are more prone to failure and can injure or even kill people.
The only reason I mention a roll cage is because it would be for dual use. You could use a helmet/hans in place of an airbag in a regular street car and would likely be safer. Again, the only reasons we have for not doing that is that some people don't use their seat belts and most people would find it inconvenient.
... and televisions, and phone apps, and solar inverters (with wifi!) and air purifiers (with wifi!) and drones (with wifi to activate) and scooters (to activate), and on and on...
I can't count the number of times I've heard naive users blame themselves when it's a device/system/app misaligned with their interests.
I have a European-made EV that has no "intelligent" (surveillance) capability at all.
So it has the capability to connect? No thanks. I don't think that's the distinction OP was trying to make.
All well and good for you, and I don't fault you for making that decision for yourself. OP's stated requirement was...
>not an always-connected surveillance device
... which without opting into the service, the Leaf is not.
Happy to have OP clarify for themselves, though.
I'm betting the car always connects, it's just whether or not you enable any benefits of the connection.
Anyone with actual knowledge about cars with such devices willing to chime in?
Edit: consider how the car knows whether or not you're paying for any service.
Other systems... I can say my Maverick lets you select whether to have vehicle location data shared or not, but TBH I don't trust opt-outs. [0] I've also run into the issue on my said car, where my opt-outs got de-opted when the dealer runs updates.
[0] - Also as a side note, I've had at least one loan note in the past (from a larger bank) where they stated a tracking device may be placed in the vehicle. Not sure whether they sell that data.
I don’t think so. I was trying to get a firmware update, and I can’t without going to a dealer as far as I can tell.
This is an easy way to excuse Tesla's behavior. You're implying everyone does it. <shrug> What can ya do, right?
There's 0 evidence other car companies are allowing PII like this to be spread internally, and employees are so brazen as to use them as the basis for memes.
And absolutely no surveillance built in. Until then I'll stick to gasoline cars.
Many modern cars are this way. Tesla is just egregious about it. Ford, Toyota etc can still do it.
Remember the remote start payment plan for Toyota?
https://www.thedrive.com/news/43329/toyota-made-its-key-fob-...
Or even the reports of hacking a cars canbus?
https://www.dmv.com/blog/can-your-car-be-remotely-hacked-523...
All that said though. I totally agree. I will never drive a car like this or one that tells me I need to update before I can drive.
And if I do get a computer car (at least one like a Tesla that runs something resembling a Linux or bsd kernel, then I would expect to be able to access that system just like the engine etc). It’s my property.
The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Even so, there are documented security issues with most connected vehicles.
I can find a proposed requirement for data portability when cars are connected (the European Data Act; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_...) but nothing of the nature you're describing.
-- from source --
Compulsory for new car models
If you buy a new model of car, approved for manufacture after 31 March 2018, it must have the 112-based eCall system installed. This rule applies both to cars with no more than 8 seats and light commercial vehicles. If you have a car which is already registered, you are not obliged to retrofit an eCall device but you can have it installed if your car meets the technical requirements.
I'm not inclined to see this as anything remotely similar to what a Tesla has, and would hesitate to call it a "connected car" off such a feature by itself. The claim of "connected at all times" appears to also be a falsehood.
Again, I'd google it myself to see if what you're claiming is true, but I have a hunch it'd just be wasting my time because someone makes a wrong claim online. But hey, maybe I should start baking the humble pie while waiting for the citations from trustworthy sources?
Edit: you've replied to other comments saying "lookup eCall". That's what I described in the first paragraph. Not "connected all the time". Throwaway commenter writes bullshit, news at 11!
I'm not sure how difficult or possible it is to actually get a car so configured, but you can always rip out the GSM radio yourself if you wish (which voids your warranty, natch).
A bare bones, maximum efficiency, rugged EV.
A man can dream.
ICE to EV has been around for a while before EV’s were mainstream and was much more expensive ultimately than buying a new Tesla, with significantly lower construction quality and performance results.
Yes, OnStar, but that's 1) not specific to EVs, and 2) trivial to disable.
Just a normal car, but electric.
We have an Audi etron now and I can’t stand it. I miss the bolt.
What is wrong with the Audi?
Dacia Spring if you live in Europe. Doesn't get any more barebones than that.