Filed under: Concept Cars
Open Source - it works for software, why not cars?
At least that's what the people behind the OScar (open
source car) project believe. The project has been underway since 1999, with the goal to develop a simple and innovative
car, planned and developed by a community of people on the web.Currently, OScar is in Release 0.2, and is envisioned as an electric vehicle with wheel hub motors. Since we're borrowing from the software development paradigm, OScar has a Requirements Spec (you software types out there are nodding sagely at this point) and I wish the designers of my cars had paid closer attention! (This is why "common sense" is an oxymoron...)
Here are the high level OScar requirements:
- Simple - small number of mechanical parts and components
- Multifunctional- Multifunctionality through changeable build concept
- Design - Form follows Function
- Sturdy - stable construction of chassis frame components
- International - Provisions for international requirements
- Modular - Modularisation of vehicle concept
- Maintainability - Easy
There is lots of room to participate in the project (the current group looks pretty small), so if you've always wanted to get in on the ground floor of the car business, check it out. The group has just kicked off the OScar Release 0.2 Design Challenge, so sharpen your pencils!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lithous 10:18PM (2/03/2006)
Most people have probably seen this but what the heck...
http://autorepair.about.com/cs/funstuff/a/bl_funny_2a.htm
"The project started in 1999. In December 2005, it reached release 0.2."
I guess the wait for the Camaro in 2008 doesn't seem quite as bad. I guess instead of nightly builds these guys do yearly builds.
Apparently they are NOT using the Factory Method design pattern.
That's all I have for now.
Reply
Lithous 10:24PM (2/03/2006)
Oops. Wonder if their car will be as buggy as some website's software, here is the link again:
(http://autorepair.about.com/cs/funstuff/a/bl_funny_2a.htm)
(http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/tao-of-programming.html#book8)
(http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/tao-of-programming.html#book8)
Reply
rob 1:16AM (2/04/2006)
whaddya mean common sense is an oxymoron? You're confusing 'sense' with 'good sense'. 'Common sense' just refers to 'that sense which is common'. It is most definitely not an oxymoron.
As for the car... open source will ensure that it gets designed.... but with no regard for an actual market.
meepmeep
Reply
John 2:52AM (2/04/2006)
Software tends to lend itself to open source because it is detached from the physical world. Tangible items or real property tend to become less modular as simply scaling up funtions and messing with compilers will not make it possible to end up with a working motor or an energy efficient home.
Heck, even other real-life conceptual things cannot be made modular. Try to make a book open source where copyediting occurs via online discussion forums and using sample text pulled from email lists. What about a open source forum of government or a framework for making minesweeping robots. Fun to talk about, but hardly worth the time to implement.
I think these OSCar guys should spend more time working on more efficient ways to move 2,500 vehicles down a road than trying to find a novel way to assemble a 2,500 vehicle.
Reply
Lithous 8:56AM (2/04/2006)
"Software tends to lend itself to open source because it is detached from the physical world."
I agree, that is why software can be open source successfully. It costs virtually nothing to reproduce 5 million copies to distribute to users. Software it lends itself well to people working on it on their own time because the materials necessary to produce software is much cheaper (just about free since you already have a computer anyway and you can go get eclipse free of charge and some plugins and start building some high quality software) than the materials to produce cars.
"Tangible items or real property tend to become less modular as simply scaling up funtions"
In some ways the car industry has much more modularity than the software industry (at least at the start of a project). I mean, every modern car is usually designed such that you could put one or more engine types in it and certain things are ALWAYS thought of as separate entities from the start. Even though "skins" have been around in the car industry for a while it took a long time for modularity to support skinning in software (but I guess it is relative such that software is not as old as cars). In software, the modules are usually thought about after lots of the product has been coded. For instance here is a quote on the Struts framework:
"To make the Struts Action Framework easier for us to maintain, we've subdivided the original monolithic distribution into several subprojects." (source:http://struts.apache.org/#Why_so_many_subprojects_)
A ton of software products start out as monolithic and then get modularized later on just like struts.
"Try to make a book open source where copyediting occurs via online discussion forums and using sample text pulled from email lists."
The wiki is basically an open source book, right?
BTW, I'm not disagreeing just throwing out some observations.
Reply
JZeke 9:31AM (2/04/2006)
Is it naive to consider Open Source as perhaps a new philosophy for manufacturing?
Maybe we should be looking at the design and creation process as an opportunity to implement these ideas. Obviously that goes against the grain of Industrial business practice, where design is most protected element a company has... But if you gave designers and engineers shared hard points from which to build ideas - you at least reduce the costs of creating something new.
An example: If I designed for Toyota and a colleage BMW, if we wanted to create a new seat for one our model lines we would sketch, model, send over to engineering to create a frame, foam, electrical then send to testing to validate the crash worthiness and reliablity of all these parts. At most what might be shared is a airbag wiring harness or some washers and grommets.
In an open source world both of us again would start sketching, but their would already exist a database of a variery of frame shapes and sizes from which to work on. Shared not only internally but internationally. Why create completely different electrical systems to handle the same functions? Why have different suppliers creating individual motors or systems for these seats when a wide array shared across the board would suffice?
The end product would retain each of our corporate identities, but with the underlying hardware already have been proved out we've made immense cost reductions. Plus in a true Open Source system manufacturers would be allowed to make improvements to these shared designs, but every company would reap benefits.
The key is understanding how to create enough difference in the end product to justify profits. No company wants to share these investments with everyone because the low end will be taking advantage of the high end and the high end's perceived value could be erroded -- can u imagine what an uproar would be caused if people knew 50% of hidden parts in any car couldve easily been in an Hyundai to BMW?
Reply
winter 10:48AM (2/04/2006)
Funny thing is, it could be considered that, programmers borrowed ideas from electronic design to create OOP. I think open source design is not a bad idea. Though perhaps something smaller to start with would be good. The electronics market is ripe for open source designs and already has some. One of the only limitations I see to open source design of a car is the possible lack of labs.
Reply
ato finkelstein 11:24AM (2/04/2006)
Btw it is not nice to steal other car name - Oscar is a famous custom built (for Paris - Dakar) offroad vehicle.
http://www.osc.lv/
Of course makers of real Oscar is a small company which will not sue those guys to to death, but anyway it sucks... An open source - steal other people intellectual property and give it away for free, and feel proud of it.
Reply
winter 11:38AM (2/04/2006)
ato finkelstein, please suggest to the OS guys to use another name. They probably don't even know OSC exists. If they do, they I'll have agree with you.
Reply
JimC 1:03PM (2/04/2006)
"Open source software" is a pretty silly analogy to use for designing a car. Cars are basically "open source," you can(more or less)rip one apart and see how it works, change it however you like, and even resell it.
Probably the biggest problem, though, is that cars are pretty much the most exquisitely designed and engineered products on the planet(aerospace stuff is just over-engineered.) Software is definitely not. Most software barely works, let alone has any kind of thoughtful and well-executed Design(which is not something open source software is good at.) Almost all software projects under way at any time are behind schedule and over budget.
That a bunch of hobbyists can do a better job than professionals at (certain kinds) of software--of course most of these hobbyists are IT professionals--that's not an indication of the power of "open source," it's an idication of the sorry state of software development.
Reply
Mad Scientist Matt 10:37PM (2/07/2006)
The biggest question is, "How do you apply open source to a large, manufactured object?" Open source makes sense for easily copied software. I've seen the concept applied to some kinds of automotive electronics like MegaSquirt and the VEMS Genboard. But circuitry is still something that can be assembled at home with common parts.
Now, how do they intend to put the Oscar into production? I can't see assembling these in thousands of local shops and having the same economics of scale as what you would have if a big corporation built these. Software does not need economics of scale, but cars certainly benefit from it.
Reply
Sportbook Casino 2:54PM (6/23/2009)
Sportbook has the very best sports betting and wagering action that only a world-class sportsbook can offer. Enjoy a huge variety of fast and easy betting options, straight bets, money lines, parlays, teasers and props, combined with the most popular bonus offers!
casino on line
www.enterbet.com
Reply