Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Open Source Car on the Horizon

Posted by Zonk on Fri Dec 08, 2006 04:08 PM
from the will-it-burn-penguins-for-fuel dept.
Hardware Hacking Technology
PreacherTom writes "So here's a question: can open-source practices and approaches be applied to make hardware, to create tangible and physical objects, including complex ones? Markus Merz believes they can. The young German is the founder of the OScar project, whose goal is to develop and build a car according to open-source principles. Merz and his team aren't going for a super-accessorized SUV — they're aiming at designing a simple and functionally smart car. The OScar is not the only open-source hardware project out there: others include Zero Prestige, which designs kites and kite-powered vehicles, and Open Prosthetics, which offers free exchange of designs for prosthetic devices."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Open Source Car on the Horizon 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • As long as it doesn't end up with a bunch of people bickering over what color to make the the cup holder.

  • Pic (Score:3, Funny)

    by markov_chain (202465) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:13PM (#17167008) Homepage
    Here's what it looks like: pic [wikipedia.org]
    • Here's what it looks like: pic

            That's obviously the car on the Gnome desktop. Damn it! Why won't people learn that posting screenshots of new distros makes no sense if they all use the KDE/Gnome/XFCE/Fluxbox/your_preferred_WM_here paradigm?

    • Re:Pic (Score:4, Funny)

      by Your Pal Dave (33229) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:47PM (#17167480)
      I dunno, all this talk of customization makes me think it might look more like this [wikipedia.org].

  • does that mean.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:13PM (#17167014) Homepage
    The young German is the founder of the OScar project, whose goal is to develop and build a car according to open-source principles.

    Does that mean it will crash less than other cars?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jfengel (409917)
      It means that the feature you actually want, the one that's been available in the commercial equivalent for years, will be migrating from the developer's code base to the unstable version on sourceforge just as soon as he's finished with his divorce.
    • "Does that mean it will crash less than other cars?"

      If it has faster 0-60mph times, and handles better than other cars...and doesn't look like a lump (skinable?) like most cars coming out today (like that prius...ugh!)....

      I'd be interested in it.

      • Crashing can be reduced by reducing the dangers. The maximum speed is easy to set. Next, you can limit or warn about following distance. You could also detect a vehicle following you, and emit some warning brake pattern. Erratic (swerving due to some distraction/impairment) driving behavior could be detected and warned (perhaps it could switch to safer limits too).

        I see where you're going with this. Perhaps if we put some sort of sentience in charge of controlling the vehicle, we could accomplish all of

  • If your open source car breaks down... (Score:4, Funny)

    by creimer (824291) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:13PM (#17167016) Homepage
    Auto mechanics will come out of nowhere to help fix your car and get you on your way. A representative from AAA will complain that open source mechanics don't do a great job as traditional (but expensive) mechanics.

    • Re:If your open source car breaks down... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edmicman (830206) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:29PM (#17167242) Homepage Journal
      Actually, depending on your variation, wouldn't it be...

      "You will have to search out mechanics on your own, and in most cases if you find them they will laugh at you for being too stupid to use the car, and point you to libraries spread throughout the country. In each of those libraries there will be manuals that give small, different chunks that sort of relate to the problem you're having. Sometimes you will be lucky enough to find a mechanic who has seen your problem before, and actually gives you a straight answer and gets you back on the road. But good luck on the rest of the times." :-/
  • ...it will wind up smelling like pee. ;P A nod to the_mad_poster [slashdot.org].

  • "mainly software??" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NineNine (235196) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:14PM (#17167028) Homepage
    Merz says that while building a car today "is mainly software, until a certain point anyway,"

    Not a car I would ever drive... I prefer my cars with *no* software.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Poppler (822173)
      Not a car I would ever drive... I prefer my cars with *no* software.
      I'm with you, in that I drive older cars, mostly for this reason. I'm all for this "open source car" thing, though; at a certain point the future, virtually every car on the market will have a computer in it. Do we want to be able to service these things ourselves, or are we going to have to take them to a Certified Mechanic who needs an expensive proprietary interface to work on the car?

      • Re:"mainly software??" (Score:5, Informative)

        by wolfgang_spangler (40539) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:32PM (#17167278) Homepage

        Not a car I would ever drive... I prefer my cars with *no* software.

        I'm with you, in that I drive older cars, mostly for this reason. I'm all for this "open source car" thing, though; at a certain point the future, virtually every car on the market will have a computer in it. Do we want to be able to service these things ourselves, or are we going to have to take them to a Certified Mechanic who needs an expensive proprietary interface to work on the car?
        First I guess it should be noted that you are taking all of this out of context. The quote in the article is referring to the fact that much of hardware design is done via mock-up in software packages, it is not insisting that running the car is mostly software.

        Second: Older cars have the same problem. "What? They do not!" you say! Yes, yes they do. How much money does it cost for all the specialized tools needed in vehicle repair? Flare nut wrenches? No use other than brake jobs. Flywheel puller? Special presses?

        You already need to use expensive, sometimes proprietary (Ford fuel line disconnect) tools to do the job, how is that different than needing to connect a car up to a computer interface?

        BTW, you will find that those fancy computer interfaces can be had for under 200 bucks, which is less than many of your single-purpose tools needed for car work and supports a whole suite of diagnostic purposes.

    • Gee, I hate to break it to you but you most likely drive a car that developed mostly in software. What he said in no way mean that the car is run by software. It means that most of the design process is mostly software. You know, software mockups of a hardware solution to test it instead of making a prototype each time?

      I can't believe you were trying to be sarcastic, unless you just aren't very good at that either...

        • Well, I do now, but I'm saving up for a car that wasn't designed by software. You see, a car with no microchips of any kind is a car that any regular person can fix. As soon as there's any kind of chip in there, you can't fix it yourself.

          Gargh. Can you not see that there is a difference in the phrases, "Designed by software" and "Run by software" ???????

          If I design a cool boomerang by simulating it first in some software package, throwing away several designs and settling on one that works the best does that mean that my boomerang (when I finally build the prototype) is controlled or run by some doggone microchips?

        • Well, I do now, but I'm saving up for a car that wasn't designed by software. You see, a car with no microchips of any kind is a car that any regular person can fix.


          A car can be "designed by software" and have no microchips (or designed by hand, and have several microchips). The two concepts are completely orthogonal.

          • Well, I do now, but I'm saving up for a car that wasn't designed by software. You see, a car with no microchips of any kind is a car that any regular person can fix. As soon as there's any kind of chip in there, you can't fix it yourself.
            Sweet mother of Mary riding on a pony. Give this person a cookie. They understand.

            Thank you.

        • "Gee, I hate to break it to you but..." You blatantly don't - you revel in it.
          Good boy, here is your cookie. I'll also give you a free link to the definition of sarcasm [reference.com]. And perhaps a bonus link to irony [reference.com].

      • Really? You enjoy cars with no dashboard

        No computer required.

        Really? You enjoy cars with no... power steering

        Yes. But, no computer required.

        Really? You enjoy cars with no... anti-lock brakes

        Yes.

        Really? You enjoy cars with no... automatic transmission

        Do you really enjoy cars with automatic transmissions?? Ugh.

        Really? You enjoy cars with no... fuel gage

        No computer required.

        Really? You enjoy cars with no... speedometer

        No computer required.

        Whew, that was a complicated post.
      • "Really? You enjoy cars with no dashboard/power steering/anti-lock brakes/automatic transmission/fuel gage/speedometer/etc?"

        I dislike anti-lock brakes...I feel in less control...good old manual disk brakes on each wheel thank you!. I have never owned, nor ever want to own an automatic transmission car. I go only for sports cars tho....I've only owned one car with more than 2 seats in my life, and that was my '86 930 (R.I.P. in Katrina).

        I don't see that you need a computer for fuel gages, speedometers, ta

        • Now, I'll grant you, computers DO help things on cars, but, I prefer them to be minimal in usage. It is MUCH easier to track down and fix a mechanical problem than trying to trouble shoot something computerized or drive by wire. Especially if you like to do some work on your own as a "shade tree mechanic".

          That is only true if you refuse to keep learning. Computers and on board diagnostics help a great deal in troubleshooting and repair if you take the time to learn how they work.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by drinkypoo (153816)

          I dislike anti-lock brakes...I feel in less control...good old manual disk brakes on each wheel thank you!

          You are, I hope, aware that modern ABS systems typically give a shorter stopping distance than even a talented driver, on any surface other than dry tarmac?

          Now, I'll grant you, computers DO help things on cars, but, I prefer them to be minimal in usage. It is MUCH easier to track down and fix a mechanical problem than trying to trouble shoot something computerized or drive by wire. Especially if

  • AFAIK, about the only thing that isn't 'open' about cars is their engine management software & other associated softwares.

    What else really is there to protect?

    Everything else is trivially reverse engineered. Each of the major MFGs has engineering teams that buy new cars & strip them down to the bare chassis & then do an inventory to figure out how much their competitors are spending.

    Software is really the only black box in a car.
    • Software is really the only black box in a car.

      Yeah, and software isn't even necessary. If anything, I'd be interested in working on (and driving) a car with no software at all.
    • AFAIK, about the only thing that isn't 'open' about cars is their engine management software & other associated softwares. What else really is there to protect? Everything else is trivially reverse engineered.
      "Trivially" does not mean "legally". Auto manufacturers use IP laws to control technology, too, though patent is more important, relative to copyright, than is the case in the software industry.

  • Simpsons did it (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:15PM (#17167046) Homepage Journal
    I still want to buy "The Homer" from Powell Motors. [wikipedia.org]
  • The young German is the founder of the OScar project, whose goal is to develop and build a car according to open-source principles.

    Finally, all those car analogies people make on computer forums might actually be relevant..
      • Does that mean that if you leave your OScars door open, everyone is free to drive it?

        No, that's City CarShare.

        Although, I could see ZipCar or City CarShare being interested in the Open Source Car.
  • From reading TFA, it just sounds like he wants help designing the car for free...

  • Main problem will be laws. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:18PM (#17167104) Journal
    Open-source principles will be good for innovation.

    But there will be a BIG problem with laws - especially mandated safety and emissions testing.

    That's designed on the assumption that large numbers of essentially identical cars are produced by well-funded manufacturers, so the cost of a lot of crash and emission-control testing and design work can be spread out over many units and become affordable.

    Even if you are building using zero-emission or well-tested stock power plants, good luck on getting the safety-testing requirements relaxed. A poorly-designed car endangers, not just those in it, but those in vehicles around it.

    With cars the "blue screen of death" is literal.
    • "That's designed on the assumption that large numbers of essentially identical cars are produced by well-funded manufacturers, so the cost of a lot of crash and emission-control testing and design work can be spread out over many units and become affordable. Even if you are building using zero-emission or well-tested stock power plants, good luck on getting the safety-testing requirements relaxed. A poorly-designed car endangers, not just those in it, but those in vehicles around it. "

      Could you get aroun

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        Could you get around that if you made it a 'kit car'? I've wondered about that...was looking into the Cobra replica kit cars...and wondering if they got around the emissions and other regulations on those....'cause some of the places will assemble them for you for a fee.

        You are permitted one custom car per lifetime. If you wreck it, sometimes you can get away with a re-vin where the vin is transferred to a new vehicle, but usually not - you have to fix the original. Well, let me elaborate - sometimes yo

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cayenne8 (626475)
          "You are permitted one custom car per lifetime. "

          That is a VERY interesting statement. Where does this law come from?? I've been to the sites where you can order these kit cars...and I've not seen any indication of this as a fact. Do you have some links or pointers to info on this?

          I'd think at the very least...this might vary from state to state....I mean car laws are weird state to state...I hear all the time about people who have to get their cars emission tested...strict laws on mods (mostly from CA),

  • do we call it a brick wall of death?

  • An open source car? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The One and Only (691315) <phil@philwelch.net> on Friday December 08 2006, @04:19PM (#17167120) Homepage
    It's a cool idea, but there's a few practical problems. Firstly, open source works for software because an intelligent person can pick up a few books and learn how to write code. Designing a car has a higher barrier to entry. Secondly, lacking the ability to run complex simulations on a car design, much less to produce prototypes for testing, will put an open source car at a disadvantage. Finally, who would mass-manufacture such a vehicle? I'm not saying it's impossible but there are many obstacles to overcome.

    • It's a cool idea, but there's a few practical problems. Firstly, open source works for software because an intelligent person can pick up a few books and learn how to write code. Designing a car has a higher barrier to entry.

      I'm not sure that's really an apples-to-apples comparison. Any (even assuming a decent general education, but no specialty in the field) person off the street is unlikely to pick up a few books and people capable of putting together, say, an enterprise-ready RDBMS from scratch on their

  • I like the ideas in the software:

    The latter module is key, because the OScar project is also meant to be an exploration of alternative designs for individual and collective mobility. While he believes in the right to mobility for everyone, Merz explains, "this doesn't need to translate into individual car ownership". For instance, an efficient system for distributing information about who needs a car when to go where could enable more car sharing. Technology could also be used to recommend optimal routes, e

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grishnakh (216268)
      Car ownership has to be individual for a good reason: people don't take care of things they don't own.

      Ideas about collectively-owned cars have been bandied about here on Slashdot for years, but no one's ever gotten very far in the real world with the idea. The problem is that, while it'd be nice to just "check out" a car on those days you needed one for a weekend excursion or trip across town, you're likely to get a car that has discarded fast food containers or used condoms lying around inside it, and wor
  • Some are even for cars. There are many that relate to computer hardware, but there are others:

    http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/SmallEfficient Vehicles/ [yahoo.com]
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osmc [yahoo.com]

  • Standards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inKubus (199753) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:30PM (#17167260) Homepage Journal
    I think the most important part of Open Source development of ANYTHING is standards. You need to have a standards body. The problem with the auto industry today is there are no real standards. Take for example custom wheels--a simple, non-moving piece of metal that basically holds the tire. It's main purpose is cosmetic after the basic functionality that all wheels share (round, has bolt holes in the middle, etc.). You'd think it would be simple to get a different wheel for your car, but if you ever try you'll find hundreds of different widths, bolt-patterns, diameters, etc.

    This Open Source car would only be better if there were standards employed in these particular sections. Or have any connections be customizeable on both sides of the connection. So, if someone invents a better wheel pattern, it's easy to change the disc brake assembly to to fit it (dependency).

    The problem is that just having the design isn't going to get you very far because of the specialized components involved. A car is very expensive to build but at million plus quantities it's very cheap. But try to one-off one gear for a transmission sometime (it'll be THOUSANDS to get the precision in a $900 off-the-shelf manual transmission like Mazda makes for Ford).

    Instead, from the design stage, standardize everything. A standard ring or star topology for communications and power bussing throughout the car. Then each powered device has a microcontroller that turns it off or on. Then the microcontroller can report back it's status to a central computer. Most of the electricals are easily standardized. Where you run into problems is precision machined steel parts of an engine and transmission. Replacing also those with electrics is the way to go. Use electric motors, magnetic suspension, etc. Modular body panels can have their own microcontrollers also, so the car can reconfigure itself based on what you have mounted. You have the rear door in place, the rear door up/down button appears on the interface. The top is off, no sense showing the moonroof control. Etc etc.

    RFC's and the like are what's really made stuff like linux possible. It's not just having the source but having the standards that really make everything easy to work with, and make sure that many different programmers can all work on different sections of the project without worrying about if their module can talk with the others.
  • What a great thread of comments here. It's nice to see that /.ers can actually joke and make fun of OS practices even if they are directed at something besides software.

    BTW did Hell freeze over?!?
  • A mechanical engineer, a systems analyst, and a software engineer had just completed their open source car. During the first test drive, the brakes give out while heading down a steep mountain grade. After a few harrowing minutes of high speed, tire-squealing, om-my-god-we're-going-to-die excitement, they run the car off the road and come to a safe stop.

    The mechanical engineer says, "There must be a leak in the hydraulic system, and that caused the brakes to fail."

    "Not so fast," said the systems analyst.
  • This is retarded, IMHO. While open source is good for a lot of things, I don't think this is one of them.

    Are car part designs really that incumbered by patents or IP issues? So much so that someone CAN'T design their own without running afoul of the law?

    After all, don't forget that Mopar [trademotion.com] (and countless others) have been knocking off manufacturer's parts for years. And they are still around.

    While it's nice that the designs would be "open", I think practically speaking, they already are.

    • Are car part designs really that incumbered by patents or IP issues?

      I dunno exactly how significant it is in practice, but just as an illustration, here's the Hitachi's page listing their automotive patents [hitachi.us].

  • They've tackled the wrong problem (Score:4, Informative)

    by G4from128k (686170) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:58PM (#17167650)
    As much as I like the idea, they've tacked the wrong problem. It's not the car that needs designing, its the manufacturing systems that need designing. Until they can manufacture 1,000,000 of their cars for under $20,000 ea (if they want middle-class buyers in developed nations), or 10,000,000 for under $10,000 ea (if they want worldwide volume), or 100,000,000 for under $5,000 ea (if they want to pre-empt the environmental nightmare of 1 billion new cars in China & India), they've done nothing to address the problem of transportation's contribution to global environmental problems. Form may follow function, but manufacturing defines what form you can make and sell.

    As cool as their renderings and open-source specs are, they do nothing to address the real problem. And before someone claims that this is only a concept and that manufacturing can come later, they need to know that 80%-90% of the cost of something is baked in during the design phase (the figure comes from companies such as Volkswagen and Lucent). If manufacturing is an afterthought, there's no hope of getting the costs down because it's too late. Maybe a few stock-option millionaire geeks will be able to spring for the vehicle, but it will never hit a price point that sells the volume that makes a difference.

    I hope they switch the focus of the effort to make a breakthrough in manufacturing systems. That would be really cool!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.