Wish list for next generation Prius Plug-in

i asked my wife if she wanted to test drive the avalon, but she didn't want to go up in size, that car holds a lot of people and luggage and gets great mpg's for it's size. but we would hardly ever take advantage of it. that's why i have a prius, it's perfect for 99% of what i do. she's just not as comfortable in a small car, and has to get her 91 year old mother in and out.

 

You know, I pretty much guarantee the next PiP will have more range.

Already now the next gen will have a slightly larger body. So we could perhaps fit another 1 KW in it without compromising too much space, that's 5.4 KW. Then, we could probably fit another 1KW in the middle console ala Prius Alpha/Plus, that's 6.4 KW.

That's a 46% increase in battery. I'm guessing more efficiencies in the battery as well so it could be safe to guess that a PiP could reach at least 16 miles continuous, or 20 with the increase in efficiencies.

What do you guys think? With inductive charging and what not coming in, I highly doubt it'll be the same range. And with that it seems toyota is committed somewhat to plugins

 

I think the opposite is true.

 

But why in the world would they generate buzz, buy induction charge tech, etc, etc!? Small battery packs would be useless for the induction charger and I think the PiP is definitely the smallest of smallest and will be used as a benchmark

 

Not sure, but they have said over and over the fuel cell tech is their aim.

 

Yeah where it can be refueled which is almost strictly west coast except for a couple places on the east coast.

Of course if they offered it and I could get refueled within a 25 mile radius, I'd be first in line.

 

That's a safe bet. Refinements to the system along with battery improvements would increase range without even having to increase capacity. There's an obvious marketing appeal to offer more as well.

Toyota will strive to strike a balance, not wanting to sacrifice the practical nature of the cargo area for the sake of offering too much more, but still wanting to offer clear upgrade over the current model.

 

OK, here's another wish. That Priuses aren't susceptible to hacking like the Model S.

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Model S Highly Vulnerable To Hacking

 

It would be good for everyone to think more about computer security and automobiles.

Defcon presenters preview hack that takes Prius out of driver’s control

Hackers Reveal Nasty New Car Attacks--With Me Behind The Wheel (Video) - Forbes

A quote from the latter article:

Except... I know that with about 4 seconds access I can install a bluetooth connector into the OBD II port -- I do it all the time in my own vehicle just to look at the statistics. Or if we really want to assume that the driver never lets his car out of his sight, I know that the bluetooth driver is buggy, and I'd bet dollars to donuts we could get remote code execution. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/business/10hack.html?_r=1& talks about academic research around remote access to vehicles.

This is another of the 'Internet of Things' problem. The guys developing these systems aren't mature security researchers. They haven't spent decades doing the basic block and tackling that we've had to do in the software world. They haven't had to think about attack surfaces and priv escalation.

People do expect that there will be an app on their cellphone that will make their car more useful. And so people will get hired to help develop good security models for those apps -- hopefully before there is significant loss of life and property.

But then, this is my day job -- I'm an information security architect. I see these forces at work all the time. And I'm optimistic that it will get better.

 

Except the quote you posted said that Toyota tests EXCLUDE things that would require physical access.

But to the point...when you install the OBD II bluetooth device can you "take control" of the car or just read data? Or change a few non-realtime driving parameters? It seems that the problem (security hole) in this case is that the use of OBD II is a required capability on all cars and it should only allow reading data and disallow some (or most) writing of data when the car is in motion -- just for example.

Mike

 

This will be an interesting vote that maybe Toyota could see...

 

I don't know if this has been suggested already, but they could, after adding a steering wheel heater, put a menu choice in the main panel that lets you choose either remote A/C activation from the fob, OR remote seat and wheel heater activation, using the same fob button. An electric defrost panel in the windshield could be activated that way as well.

 

Right -- and I'm asserting that is not a realistic assumption. (Apparently Ford agrees with me if the article is correct.) I do have some sympathy with the position - if they have physical access, it would be possible to do less subtle things, like plant a thermite grenade. But irrespective of this, I know the perimeter is permeable. For example, per NHTSA and the TREAD act, the Toyota Tire Pressure Monitoring System transmits information wirelessly from wheels. Stuff crosses the physical barrier. Back in the 90's, we always put up perimeter firewalls and huddled behind them thinking we were safe. We don't do that any longer -- we put important systems in enclaves, we put controls on each host, and even then we expect that things will get through and design accordingly.

That's pretty close to correct, I think. But I'd nuance this a little bit: Automobiles have controller area network busses (bus in the sense of "a distinct set of conductors carrying data and control signals within a computer system, to which pieces of equipment may be connected in parallel" not yellow with school kids). A CAN bus doesn't have a lot of security built into it. It has a frame address of 11 or 29 bits, and a payload of up to eight bytes. What security exists has to be provided by state or by the ends.

The first observation I was making is that the CAN bus implemented for and accessible via OBD II at times may be connected to important elements (particularly if there only one automotive CAN bus in the vehicle.) So the 'disallow writing' isn't likely to be possible -- OBD II isn't passive, it needs to send commands -- and thus this is a risk.

The second observation I was making is that even if there are separate CAN busses, we have to be *really* careful about what ECU's are on which bus. Everything is 'drive by wire' today, so if you can control the bus, you can control the behaviour of the vehicle. My observation is that the automotive industry has yet to learn the lessons that the software industry learned painfully over the last thirty years, and there is likely to be some disruption and loss as they learn those lessons.

 

(I'm not disagreeing with your concern over security)

But I have to chuckle when you say the car makers have a lot to learn from the software industry

Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: if GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they painted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to re-install the engine.

4. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five percent of the roads.

5. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

6. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

7. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50 percent or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Dept.

8. Every time GM introduced a new model, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

9. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

 

Grin. I'm not suggesting that GM (or Toyota) develop CAN security the way Microsoft did. (They are much better than they used to be, but can not be considered poster children for security.) I think there is a lot of hubris on all sides.

The problem with general software (and Microsoft in particular) is that it didn't cost any money for them to screw up. Microsoft in particular had the parade of horribles you site above because they were -- except to a few academics and screwballs, and some bean counters or researchers behind glass walls -- the only game in town. They wrote their contracts so that if the bad things happened, it was your fault. But it did eventually cost them money, so they started to learn -- and learned painfully.

GM and Toyota have a lot of skin in the game today. Ask Mary Barra what she thought about talking to congress today about automotive security. I would bet that hiring really good infosec engineers and infosec architects is something they are going to be thinking about. Relate ignition switch defect to mobile code on ECU defect, and smart executives will pay attention. I believe the executives at GM and Toyota are pretty smart, actually.

 

Uh, you're going on topic again! Sheesh.


iPad ? HD

 

Oh, yeah, wish list.

Something really cool (that tickles me each time it happens) is that when I walk up to the car at night, the lights on the interior come on, and as I reach for the door it unlocks. Magical action at a distance. I'd like something similar to occur in reverse -- when I walk away, the door automatically locks [unless some other state is present, like I pressed a button to *not* lock the car, or there is a passenger in the front seat] and the lights, including the headlights go out. Possibly this would be a configurable option -- because I'm typically a solo driver, lock and power down when I walk away is the right answer, but others might have different defaults.

In short, be smart about the presence of the keyfob being present in both positive and negative senses.

 

- A more sensitive touchscreen; the current one (in my '13 PIP) stinks;
- A programmable button on the steering wheel so that I can get to a screen without multiple clicks (speed-dial is what I'd use it for);
- Apple's new CarPlay interface for the audio system;
- More EV mileage
- Spare tire

 

A solar panel embedded in the roof, and not like the one that runs the vent fan. Something that would actually charge the hybrid battery.

 

not enough square feet for that one, unfortunately.