Years ago, they really drilled into the performance of the various products they compared and frequently the winner was a specialist product from a brand you had never heard of, but it really was the best on the market. Wirecutter articles did good testing with defined rationale that might not be up to laboratory standards, but it was enough to clearly identify which products were offering the best performance. When they labeled a product "The Best X", you could be fairly confident that it was going to outperform almost everything else on the market. They tested everything from the highest range products to the garbage chinesium specials and if you read the entire article, you could see where some products might outperform in certain areas, but under perform in others, letting you make an informed decision that wasn't simply picking the "Winner". Effort had clearly been put into discovering a full range of products instead of simply comparing the amazon options. Any product that was disqualified from comparison had a clear and reasonable rationale.
Starting around 2018 the quality of testing plummeted into clickbait territory. Many articles appeared to justify their choices entirely based on reading amazon reviews without actually putting hands on the product, a theory reinforced by waves of comments appearing that despite a wirecutter recommendation, the product was absolute junk. My personal "Wirecutter is a lost cause" moment was when I was looking for a new comforter and the writer had simply disqualified every single option that was polyester based because "I don't like how polyester feels." That's not good testing. That's opinion. If I wanted subjective opinions on products I wouldn't be at Wirecutter.
For an contemporary example, pull up their "The Best Drill" article. The reviews highlight things you could discover from holding the drill and looking at it. The testing is a single test performed by a single person with no edge cases or alternative uses considered. If ergonomics are such a critical consideration that it gets entries shot down, shouldn't you have multiple people testing to see how different models perform in different people's hands? Furthermore, the only products tested are mid-range household drills available from big box stores. Nothing from the professional brands like Festool or Hilti or some brand I've never heard of. No explanation why I shouldn't just buy a Harbor Freight special for half the price. No explanation why any other consumer-grade brands weren't included. The articles don't provide "The best drill", they're providing "The best consumer-grade drill for light duty work", and this attitude has spread to every corner of the site. You can't go to wirecutter and find a specialist tool that outperforms the commonly available options any more, because they're not even including it in testing.
The Best Drill article doesn't even mention impact drivers, which are going to be tremendously easier on the wrist/hand for screwing in screws. An explanation for the lay audience would help. Nor are questions such as: "How much torque is there? What is the torque curve? How much torque do you need? Do you need a hammer drill? What is the noise like?" addressed.
I do think more specialty gear is hard to cover, as for example the the impact driver here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_pCeGmQU8w or AvE's youtube coverage of tools goes beyond that. Project Farm tends to have better coverage of general equipment with pretty good objective tests: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2rzsm1Qi6N1X-wuOg_p0Ng but even he can't cover all the brands/models: He covered Festool but not Hilti's SF 2H-A Hammer, for example.
Techgearlab has pretty unbiased coverage, and they also have an small incentive to cover products that have affiliate programs -- however, for example their parent rock climbing site Crash Pad Coverage: https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/climbing/best-boulderi... includes Organic pads which have no affiliate program.
I should probably start off with: yeah, I don't like the Wirecutter drill article or find it useful. They eventually call out their intended target audience:
For most household tasks, a 12-volt drill is more than adequate. It’s the smallest
class of drill, and due to advances in battery and motor technology, such models
have become formidable with regards to power. … If you’re a rabid DIYer with plans
to build a deck, a doghouse, and a tree house, we recommend a stronger, 18- or 20-
volt drill.
They're not reviewing higher end pro tools because that's not their audience. Were pros ever looking at WC for reviews? I know that for tools I'd be looking at more specialized folks like Project Farm or Torque Test Channel.
WC did cover the popular "pro" brands available in America (Milwaukee, DeWalt, Ridgid). Potentially they should've included Makita but Festool and Hilti are way beyond the price point of the home gamer target audience. Hilti especially goes after the fleet market, so even if you're a pro they're not necessarily going to be your goto brand unless you're at a larger company. Anecdotally Milwaukee kit seems to be very popular amongst tradesmen out here. But like with circular saws there's probably some regional variation.
I think WC did miss some important stuff for home gamers and they definitely got it wrong with the Bosch drill. It's small. It's tiny. It's about as long as the DeWalt and about an inch and a half shorter in height. You don't buy it for the power you buy it for the size. If you need to stand it up on the battery, get a bigger one with a foot.
The Great Lakes region has a surprising concentration of advanced manufacturing skillsets. With large manufacturing facilities with extremely stringent quality standards like a bleeding edge chip fab there's going to be a enormous need for people with traditional manufacturing-specific support skillsets that are simply not available in large quantities anywhere else in the US.
If the current administration's support of the transition to electric vehicles doesn't falter, that's going to drive an increasing need for microprocessors in vehicles. Intel locating themselves in central Ohio puts their production facilities on an interstate highway hub that puts them within a 6-12 hour drive of nearly every major auto manufacturing facility in the US, which is an enormous incentive for the auto manufacturers to source from them. Additionally, Columbus has the Rickenbacker International Airport which is a dedicated air freight airport that lets them get their product global faster.
This announcement of two facilities makes me think that Phoenix is going to be a smaller facility handling the more advanced, smaller run chip designs, but host the R&D and design offices (To take advantage of the city's concentration of tech talent) while Columbus is going to be the primary production facility.
I was surprised to learn Minnesota has a fab that's critical to the US govt! They are one of the only secure trusted chip makers.
Growing up there I had no idea. My dad loved to talk up MMM, Honeywell, Monsanto and a bunch of other legacy companies in MN that still play huge roles that I have overlooked.
Just one article at top of search I found even talks about the public-private partnerships (tax & other incentives)
They’re going to fab there and then ship the output to Malaysia, Costa Rica, or the Philippines for package and test. Being close to Detroit doesn’t count for much.
the only thing an ev actually needs chips for is charge controllers which can be old fab tech, and motor controllers which aren't normal silicon or tiny feature size. Tesla is using silicon carbide, and gallium arsenide will probably be next.
The Bollinger takes this route of minimalism. Ironically, an EV has less reliance on processing than a modern ICE vehicle.
> the only thing an ev actually needs chips for is charge controllers which can be old fab tech, and motor controllers
I wish I had the time to explain how this could not be more wrong.
Quickly, I’ll mention that the vehicle I’m working on has 8 separate modules for the driver’s seat. Inside these modules are a combined total of 10 processors with as many bootloaders and flash procedures and validation records and crypto and peripheral drivers, 17 CAN-FD modules, 6 system basis chips, 9 switching power supplies with a number of accessory LDO supplies, at least 40 more “chips” of various functions and capacities… for just the driver’s seat alone
The steering wheel buttons for radio left and right side and the cruise control comprise 3 modules and power supplies and etc etc.
>The Bollinger takes this route of minimalism. Ironically, an EV has less reliance on processing than a modern ICE vehicle.
I know what you are trying to say, but it is largely incorrect. The EVs still have “engine” control modules and powertrain systems. Instead of figuring out injector pulse widths, they’re calculating deliverable torque. The ABS/brake controllers are more complex, the battery heating and cooling systems require modules and processing, the HVAC, the transmission, steering systems, everything is more complex compared to ICE with an old ample supply of hydraulics and coolants and a simple fuel that is stable and usable at all storage temps fed into a mechanical device.
I’m not trying to be confrontational, but you couldn’t be more wrong about automotive electronics.
The previous poster is definitely massively oversimplifying things, and I do value your input as someone who actually works in the field. Obviously, there's still a lot of the same kind of controllers when it comes to all the switches and displays and motorized chairs and turn signal logic and all of those things which are practically the exact same as an ICE. And obviously there's some places where you don't need controllers and sensors on an EV where you would have them on an ICE, like mass airflow sensors and fuel injection controls and stuff like that. Meanwhile you do have additional circuitry like the inverters to actually drive the motors, BMS systems, there's still sensors on the motors and wheels and what not, brake regen, etc.
You mentioned the transmission is more complex compared to an ICE, but that does not make much sense to me at all. To my knowledge most EVs are essentially fixed gear ratio gearboxes, so you're either in drive, reverse, or neutral. Meanwhile ICE transmissions are becoming more and more like computer-controlled manual transmissions what with the rise in popularity of dual-clutch automatic transmissions. To me it seems a ton more complicated keeping track of operating that DCT than just "the dial is in D, change transmission to the forward mode."
you are absolutely right. I couldn't figure out why GAN didn't make sense so I spelled it out and got the wrong one. It is amazing how much smaller and cooler GaN made usbc power supplies and rf power amps. I'm waiting on lunchbox welders based on it. It is so insanely efficient.
Also the infotainment. And real questions because I'm genuinely curious: do driver assists (ABS, ASR, TCS) and their adjustments rely on processors? What about in-car adjustments to suspension height, ride firmness, throttle response (e.g. eco vs sport vs comfort modes)? Lane keep assist, blind spot checking, adaptive cruise control all seem like things that would require processing power as well.
> do driver assists (ABS, ASR, TCS) and their adjustments rely on processors?
If I'm not mistaken, microprocessors aren't the only semiconductor components that have been in short supply recently. Things like shaft position sensors are also solid-state devices.
Most current vehicles use separate embedded microcontrollers for those features. In principle it's possible to build a car with a single powerful processor controlling everything, but the engineering becomes far more challenging and you need a higher level of vertical integration on the parts supply chain. There are also safety risks: you don't want an LKA code defect to cause a TCS failure. And wiring harness would have to grow to carry all the separate data signals.
Tesla is partially going the integration route but they still have many separate processors in the car.
Do EVs not have all of the ancillaries hanging off CANBUS or something? Or is the lion's share of chips in an ICE vehicle engine and transmission control?
Most of the complexity of EVs is just generic modern car complexity, though. EVs don't have to be any more complicated than ICE vehicles, and EV conversions especially are usually really simple (though to be fair a lot of the vehicles being converted are old classic cars that didn't have any computers in them to begin with).
The EV drivetrain might have more or less computers than an ICE drivetrain, but really managing batteries and a motor isn't inherently all that complicated. On the ICE side of things you have a lot more moving parts and the necessity of keeping everything properly tuned so it can pass emissions checks.
Braking and traction control I could see being fairly complicated, but it's a similar problem whether it's an ICE engine or an electric motor.
Self-driving is hugely complicated, but that's not complexity that's inherent to EVs specifically, it's just a feature that's usually only implemented on EVs for some reason.
All the other stuff: infotainment, tire pressure sensors, back up cameras, and so on are just modern car complexity.
The braking is way way more complex because of regenerative. That isn't a factor with ICE.
Trust me - it's not simpler. I know you think we just apply power to the motor and go, but that is not the case. There are facets of "soft start" and it ties in to traction control, there are efficiency processes, etc. Instead of map tables for rpm and injection, you have battery heating and cooling targets with current sensed feedbacks and torque targets, and bla bla bla. Stop making me bring work home with me! ;)
EVs are not simpler. It's literally impossible in automotive to ever get simpler. At least since the 1970s. I think we're hitting a point of unsustainability and the people in charge think OTA firmware is going to fix that, I think it'll make it much worse.
EDIT: fwiw, I wish I could go back to a time when backup camera was even mention worthy of "things I consider complex in a vehicle". It's just a couple shielded wires and plugs into the radio/telamatics. I can tell you without a doubt that the starter in most vehicle is now far more complicated, to the point it too has it's own microcontroller and data bus (typically LIN, not sure I've seen a CAN yet).
I agree it isn't simpler. I only assert that it could be if you ignored all those efficiency gains from regenerative braking and battery temp management. Things that aren't often in ev conversions. But you made me realize that is apples and oranges, because an ICE that gave up on efficiency could be an old vw beatle with aie cooling and a carburetor. I feel you on the seemingly endless stairway of complexity. I work in embedded safety critical and I often tell people to never do anything in software they could have done in hardware. Hardware is cheaper bat this point...
Most conversions have regenerative braking nowdays. Most AC motor controllers support regen as a basic feature. A lot of the old series-wound DC motor conversions didn't have it because it was hard to do on that kind of motor (similar how it's hard to reverse; you have to flip the polarity of one set of leads but not the other, which requires a bunch of contactors or IGBTs or something).
Where regen gets kind of complicated is that you generally need to turn regen off when someone slams on the brakes. Unless the traction control / antilock braking system knows how regen figures into its calculations and can apply the proper braking force to each wheel taking it into account. I don't know what OEM EVs typically do in that situation, but for conversions you usually just have a brake switch so that regen can be automatically disabled when you're actually braking.
What does the software industry look like for this stuff? I've got two decades of embedded c++ experience, some of which is safety critical. How much of automotive is offshored these days? Is it still mostly C and a bsp and a text editor, or is it gitlab and pipelines now?
I don't know, I'm just familiar with what the motor controllers do because I'm trying to do an EV conversion.
I would imagine that the people working on parts for the conversion market have a somewhat different development process than a regular auto manufacturer, in part because they're making things in low volume and in part because they just have to design generic reusable parts that do one thing properly. If you're building a whole car, you have to make sure everything works together as a cohesive whole. In some ways that would be easier because you know exactly what parts are being used together.
I would hope that most of the safety-critical real-time software that controls a car's basic functions like braking and traction control and so on would be relatively simple and straightforward, but maybe that's too much to expect. My understanding of the way the auto industry works these days is that the major manufacturers are increasing dependent on a complicated network of 3rd-party parts suppliers, and I'd expect that to influence the character of the software stack somewhat.
Starting around 2018 the quality of testing plummeted into clickbait territory. Many articles appeared to justify their choices entirely based on reading amazon reviews without actually putting hands on the product, a theory reinforced by waves of comments appearing that despite a wirecutter recommendation, the product was absolute junk. My personal "Wirecutter is a lost cause" moment was when I was looking for a new comforter and the writer had simply disqualified every single option that was polyester based because "I don't like how polyester feels." That's not good testing. That's opinion. If I wanted subjective opinions on products I wouldn't be at Wirecutter.
For an contemporary example, pull up their "The Best Drill" article. The reviews highlight things you could discover from holding the drill and looking at it. The testing is a single test performed by a single person with no edge cases or alternative uses considered. If ergonomics are such a critical consideration that it gets entries shot down, shouldn't you have multiple people testing to see how different models perform in different people's hands? Furthermore, the only products tested are mid-range household drills available from big box stores. Nothing from the professional brands like Festool or Hilti or some brand I've never heard of. No explanation why I shouldn't just buy a Harbor Freight special for half the price. No explanation why any other consumer-grade brands weren't included. The articles don't provide "The best drill", they're providing "The best consumer-grade drill for light duty work", and this attitude has spread to every corner of the site. You can't go to wirecutter and find a specialist tool that outperforms the commonly available options any more, because they're not even including it in testing.