[Matthias247]

I've worked at a major automative company in a R&D org of 5k people. Nothing in our org was "set up for ICE", and none of the suppliers would have been specialized for that. Keep in mind that a motor is only one part of a car, and even if you add other drivetrain related parts (exhaust, transmission, etc) it might barely end up as 33% of a car.

Infotainment is pretty much independent of the engine (apart from some icons/visualizations/settings here and there), as are most driver assistance systems, safety systems, anti-theft, chassis, mirrors, lights, wheels, brakes, doors, trunks, etc.

[stcredzero]

...Nothing in our org was "set up for ICE",...

Infotainment is pretty much independent of the engine (apart from some icons/visualizations/settings here and there), as are most driver assistance systems, safety systems, anti-theft, chassis, mirrors, lights, wheels, brakes, doors, trunks, etc.

From what little bit I know about testing of automotive systems, there is a vast warren of disconnected, diverse microcontrollers and separate communications busses in the typical ICE vehicle from several years back.

Tesla turned this all on its head. Just about every system with software in a Tesla vehicle can be upgraded by a car's central computer through an over the air update.

Exactly the situation you describe above is what some would naively term, "set up for ICE." It's set up for the legacy ICE world, where there were no over the air updates, and the car wasn't a computerized robot on wheels. This legacy can be seen in the failed updates coming out of GM and Ford. There have been reports of legacy auto updates requiring buyers to go back to the dealership, but then the dealers are afraid to apply the update, because they experienced "bricking" the vehicle.

[detaro]

naively, yes.

Those developments are basically unrelated to ICE vs EV, at least from what I've seen. Car companies are working on that in ICE models too (and tried before they announced EVs). Car companies make EVs that don't have this kind of integration, and will continue to do so. Some probably have decided to align it and develop it in parallel for EV models only, or at least pretend to do so for marketing reasons, but it's not a fundamental property of either/or.

"Having" to do both now of course doesn't make life easier for car companies, many of them still struggle very much with this "software" thing, and it shows.

[vineyardmike]

> Tesla turned this all on its head. Just about every system with software in a Tesla vehicle can be upgraded by a car's central computer through an over the air update.

They could do this with ICE couldn't they? What does that have to do with EV specifically? It seems it just adds to the lore of Tesla - The Tech Car

[stcredzero]

They could do this with ICE couldn't they? What does that have to do with EV specifically? It seems it just adds to the lore of Tesla - The Tech Car

Actually, ICE is quite significant in the degree of computerization Tesla can achieve. Since engine compartments can get very hot, ICE manufacturers have to use slower, specially hardened chips in such spaces. The Tesla cars, being EVs, don't need to do this. This results in more computing resources and less expensive components.

Granted, the other manufacturers could do this as well. But this should cause us to ask, why haven't they? Even GM and Ford haven't been able to achieve the kind of integration Tesla has. That warren of diverse microcontrollers and systems is associated with a warren of supplier relationships.

So, maybe it does have more to do with being "The Tech Car" -- but isn't that even more powerful and tied to the principle of disruption than just being electric?

[fomine3]

Some ICE car receives update for ECU and of course for infortaiment system, so it's not EV specific feature.