Report: Cars are vulnerable to wireless hacking

[bananas]

Source: Detroit News

Millions of cars and trucks are vulnerable to hacking through wireless technologies that could jeopardize driver safety and privacy, a report released late Sunday says.

As vehicles grow increasingly connected through wireless networks and become more dependent on sophisticated electronic systems, Congress and federal regulators are worried about the potential for hackers to interfere with vehicle functions. The report overseen by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, says vehicles are vulnerable to hacking through wireless networks, smartphones, infotainment systems like OnStar — even a malicious CD popped into a car stereo.

Its release comes after CBS News' "60 Minutes" on Sunday aired a segment showing how vehicles can be subjects of remote hacking. Just last month, BMW AG said it had fixed a security flaw that could have allowed up to 2.2 million vehicles to have their doors remotely opened by hackers.

Markey cited studies showing hackers can get into the controls of some popular vehicles, "causing them to suddenly accelerate, turn, kill the brakes, activate the horn, control the headlights, and modify the speedometer and gas gauge readings. Additional concerns came from the rise of navigation and other features that record and send location or driving history information."

<snip>

The "60 Minutes" segment showed a researcher with a laptop hacking into a new car — turning on windshield wipers, sounding the horn, deactivating brakes — as correspondent Lesley Stahl was unable to stop in a parking lot.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/02/08/report-cars-vulnerable-wireless-hacking/23094215/

[bananas]

1. Report Sees Weak Security in Cars’ Wireless Systems

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/business/report-sees-weak-security-in-cars-wireless-systems.html

Report Sees Weak Security in Cars’ Wireless Systems
By AARON M. KESSLER
FEB. 8, 2015

WASHINGTON — Serious gaps in security and customer privacy affect nearly every vehicle that uses wireless technology, according to a report set to be released on Monday by a senator’s office.

The report concludes that security measures to prevent hackers from gaining control of a vehicle’s electronics are “inconsistent and haphazard,” and that the majority of automakers do not have systems that can detect breaches or quickly respond to them.

“Drivers have come to rely on these new technologies, but unfortunately the automakers haven’t done their part to protect us from cyberattacks or privacy invasions,” said the senator, Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, whose office published the report after obtaining detailed information from 16 automakers.

In addition to finding “a clear lack of appropriate security measures to protect drivers against hackers who may be able to take control of a vehicle” or hackers who wish to “collect and use personal driver information,” the report expressed concerns over how automakers track drivers’ behavior and collect, transmit and store that information.

<snip>

[bananas]

2. Senator: Your futuristic car is putting your privacy and security at risk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/09/senator-your-futuristic-car-is-putting-your-privacy-and-security-at-risk/

Senator: Your futuristic car is putting your privacy and security at risk
By Andrea Peterson February 9 at 12:01 AM

Cars these days have more in common with smart phones than the Model-T. But a new report from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) warns that the increasing technical complexity of vehicles is leaving drivers' security and privacy at risk.

“Drivers have come to rely on these new technologies, but unfortunately the automakers haven’t done their part to protect us from cyber-attacks or privacy invasions," Markey in a statement. "Even as we are more connected than ever in our cars and trucks, our technology systems and data security remain largely unprotected."

Markey sent inquiries to 20 automakers, including Ford, Toyota and General Motors, last year, asking what the companies were doing to secure the technology in their vehicles against hackers and how personal data gathered through the technology is managed.

Cybersecurity experts have long warned that cars' electronic systems might be vulnerable to hackers, especially as auto-makers started building wireless connections to the outside world into vehicles. Researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek demonstrated how to take over the steering and brakes of a Ford Escape and a Toyota Prius using a laptop connected to the vehicles with a cable in 2013. Last year, the pair released a report detailing the wireless "attack surfaces" of a wide variety of vehicles on the market -- things like, Wi-Fi, keyless entry systems, and Bluetooth that might be targeted by a malicious hacker.

<snip>

[Enrique]

3. why are brake systems, etc. connected to a network?

[DetlefK]

7. Modern cars automatically brake when approaching a resting(?) obstacle at high speed.

Those brakes and their sensors are connected to the electronics of the car.
And those electronics are connected to something else, and those again to something else.
And then those are connected to a wireless network.

[jakeXT]

9. Unfortunately you have to switch it on

[Enrique]

32. your 3rd sentence is what I don't get

I get the first two, but why would that system need to connect to WiFi?

[DetlefK]

35. It's connected indirectly.

Is you keyboard connected to Wi-Fi? No, it's not. But the keyboard knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who is connected to Wi-Fi. If there is any connection for passing on steering-signals, it could be abused.

[Fred Sanders]

37. And it can all be switched on remotely if turned off by the owner.

[billhicks76]

10. Michael Hastings Murdered?

Even Richard Clarke said it's plausible. I think they need to end WIRELESS connections to the car.

[Cooley Hurd]

14. My first thought as well...

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Jeez, sure a lot of paranoids around.

Me too.

First thought.

[Cooley Hurd]

27. That's the thing about paranoia...

...it usually starts as nested in fact.

[billhicks76]

40. It's Usually Just An Analytical Mind

Before 1960 believing the Mafia existed was considered a conspiracy theory and even government officials and law enforcement chastised anyone who believed it as a kook much like 911 Truthers are labeled now. Whether those officials were "on the take" is up for debate but what's not debatable is that the existence of the Mafia is now established FACT. Tired of coincidence theorists...lol.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Unlikely, but even if so, don't need a wireless connection.

Just need physical access to the car for about 20 seconds and ADD a radio to the ODN bus.

But no, I don't think Hastings was murdered.

[bananas]

12. They're doing it with nuclear reactor control systems, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1095&pid=4460

In the discussion thread: What Compsci textbooks don't tell you: Real world code sucks (View all)

Response to steve2470 (Original post)
Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:34 AM
bananas (24,435 posts)

2. And that crappy software is increasingly being used to control nuclear power plants

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=4471

Reply #7

In the discussion thread: Elevator Death Probe Focuses on Computer Replacement

Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #2)
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:08 PM
bananas (19,146 posts)

7. they're starting to to do this with nuclear power plants

2009: "UK safety regulators assessment of EPR and AP1000: grim reading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x219052

2009: "Regulators call for redesign of Areva's EPR reactor"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4130287

2010: "Safety fears about French Areva EPR raised in Europe and U.S."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x254581

2011: "SC's Oconee Nuclear Station to upgrade to digital"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x270337

[AtheistCrusader]

18. The ODN bus is used for everything now.

Its how, for instance, the brake system informs the driver that ABS is engaging, that a wheel is slipping (the brakes are used for traction control on most cars now), or the system is malfunctioning or worst of all, disabled. Controls to force the vehicle into limp mode when problems are detected, etc.

Automobiles are so, so far beyond the days of a single wire to a single idiot light on the dash.

That said, a thought does need to be given to SECURING the system.

[Enrique]

33. thanks,but that seems all done local to the car

I'm not getting the need to connect outside the car.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Abuse of related wireless systems.

For instance, the radio that your car uses to determine if the driver or the passenger has the active key fob, wireless locks, wireless ignition. If that radio stack has a vulnerability, you're in, because the security system is linked into the ignition and other top level systems.

It's even hooked into the telematics system that can create inputs into the car's mechanical systems, for instance, the system that informs the doors to lock when the vehicle gets up over 5mph. If you can get into the part of the bus that informs systems of vehicle speed, maybe you can get from there, into the digital speed proportional steering, etc.

They either need to remove what has now become industry-standard technology, OR expend massive effort on securing components that are, by their nature, totally transparent and unknown to the consumer. The only time today that consumers find out what ODN or Telematics is, or does, is when it breaks or someone has broken into it and done something bad.

Right now cars are a highly proprietary network of computer systems, that is obscure and arcane, but has an entry point (wireless systems), and therefore vulnerabilities, and all the systems in that network trust each other.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

31. I had to think about this a while too. Here's what I came up with:

Before the advent of computer-controlled anti-lock brake systems (and that "computer-controlled" part is an important distinction), automotive brakes were pretty much all mechanical in their operation. When you stepped on the brake pedal, a piston in the brake system's master cylinder (in the engine compartment, directly in front of the driver) moved forward in the master cylinder. As it did, brake fluid was pressurized. The increase in pressure was transmitted through the brake lines to brake components at the individual wheels. If the wheels were slowed by drum brakes, the increased brake fluid pressure caused pistons in tiny wheel cylinders to move apart and press against brake shoes. If the wheels were slowed by disc brakes, the increased brake fluid pressure caused a piston to move within a cylinder in a brake caliper. Brake pads were squeezed against a brake rotor.

So far, it's all mechanical. There were mechanical anti-lock systems in the 70s. Some Lincoln Continentals of the era had anti-lock brakes, but the method by which the anti-lock feature came into play was a mechanical one involving weight transfer. I'll add more later.

ETA: I might be wrong on the method of actuation for the Lincoln. Wikipedia says that the '71 Imperial's system was computer-controlled. (I'll bet that was fun to work on.) The Continental's anti-lock brake system worked on the rear wheels only, which has me thinking that it was weight transfer that caused the feature to actuate. Wikipedia is not clear on that, but you can be sure that many car forums will be buzzing about this in the next few days.

Anti-lock braking system

Anti-lock systems that are computer controlled work differently. Speed sensors on each wheel note a difference in the wheels' rpm. If such a difference is detected during braking, the computer interprets a wheel that is rotating more slowly than another as one that is skidding. The computer overrides the brake pressure to the wheel that is rotating more slowly (or not at all) and reduces pressure in that wheel's brakes. When the errant wheel starts rotating at the same rate as the other wheels, the computer senses that its work is done. This cycle happens many times per second, as need be.

That's the problem. If you can persuade the computer that all the wheels are skidding, the computer will reduce brake pressure to all the wheels. They all keep turning, even though you are trying to stomp the brake pedal to the floor.

That's just my guess.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

54. "Override the brakes, Siri."

Florida East Coast Railway retains Wi-Tronix

[bananas]

4. Car hacked on 60 Minutes

This was broadcast on 60 minutes last night.
They had Leslie Stahl drive a car, while they disabled the brakes, etc.
Video at the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-hacked-on-60-minutes/

Car hacked on 60 Minutes

No real security on the Internet -- even the military is under daily assault - says the man the Defense Department hired to make the web more secure

2015 Feb 06

Even the mightiest military in the world can be vulnerable on the Internet, just like everybody else who uses it. But the government agency that invented the Internet has a brilliant videogame inventor on its side working to make the web safer for all users, starting with the military. Lesley Stahl reports on the U.S. military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the man who heads its Information Innovation Office, Dan Kaufman, for a 60 Minutes story to be broadcast Sunday, Feb. 8 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

<snip>

One of the vulnerabilities Kaufman and DARPA are working to eliminate that affects many is in the automobile. Cars today are loaded with computers networked to each other, and those can be hacked remotely. In a dramatic demonstration, he and his colleagues use a laptop computer to hack into a car being driven by Stahl. Much to her surprise, they were able to take control of many of the car's functions, including the braking and acceleration.

<snip>

[Fred Sanders]

24. Hope no one in government or with evil intent and political power or ambition is abusing this.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Of course they are! They use Wi-Fi. Duh! Why does anyone need that in their car? Or TV?

The corporations and government sure do love wireless and connected devices.

Now Citizens come with built in tracking devices should they choose to dissent from herd mentality they so demand.

Conformity is truth, dissent is treason.

They have their reasons to putting wires on you. And if you disagree, well, they both would like to know about it. And all about YOU.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Because the security system is integrated to ODN and Telematics.

The auto industry is focused on consumer features, selling points. 'Herp derp, this car can't be hacked' isn't a selling point really. But that cool proximity key fob that unlocks your doors, and starts the engine now, is a selling point. Problem is, if a hacker compromises that system, they may be able to 'escape the box' from the security system, and access other car systems, like the brakes, etc.

All of these systems talk to each other, both ways. It opens up an ecosystem that can be exploited. As long as people are focused on convenience, and functionality, rather than security, the auto industry won't change either.

[Fred Sanders]

22. True. And now they want to use wireless to unlock your castle's front door..how convenient is that?

And the funny part is we are lining up, in the rain and snow overnight sometimes, to willingly pay for it.

Or we can just order it online at any time.

Hilarious!

Orwell was not all that imaginative as folk make out he was.

He never imagined the Smartphone, but he got the SmartTV spot on. Who did he have paying for the monitors?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. In this case, I think Aldous Huxley would be the clear winner.

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/

[Fred Sanders]

26. "Technology promised me a space station for Christmas and all I got was this lousy Face book."

I still want the fucking space station they promised me by 2001.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Looks like my pre-computer car might have some re-sale value after all.

There will be folks who do not want to drive wired cars.....

[Fred Sanders]

28. But also standard with the standard WiFi is more standard collision air bags, so it evens up.

[Waiting For Everyman]

45. This issue is why I'm trying to keep mine going too.

And agreed, they'll probably retain more value because of it.

[jakeXT]

6. Sounds like Richard Clark's statements on Hastings death

OK – let me start by saying that The Security Ledger isn’t a web site that’s going peddle in rumor or unfounded conspiracy theories. Period. AND let me note that Richard Clarke, the former Cyber Security Czar and U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism just told the Huffingtonpost.com that he thinks a car hack may have played a role in the suspicious, single car accident that killed investigative reporter Michael Hastings last week.

https://securityledger.com/2013/06/richard-clarke-car-hacking-possible-in-crash-that-killed-michael-hastings/

[Fred Sanders]

29. If covert intelligence agencies can find a new way to kill folks they will find and use that way.

[marym625]

8. yikes!

Stealing a vehicle through this means is not surprising. But controlling what can happen while the car is in motion, that's truly frightening.

I am a tech idiot. I have no idea if it's possible but I would think this could be a way to kill someone and never be caught. Would they ever be able to trace this back to a car hacker?

[DeSwiss]

11. K&R

[bemildred]

13. This is why I won't have a car with WiFi in it.

It's a dumb idea.

[Maynar]

15. Solution?

Drive an old (rebuilt) car.

Works for me.

[Fred Sanders]

30. Just need a car with no WIFi.

[Martak Sarno]

16. other nasty ramifications?

I can see unscrupulous "public servants sitting behind billboards, hedges and near stop lights and school crossings" in places like Ferguson, many towns in Texas or wherever the desire for greater income from the unwary public is wanted (to help pay taxes, public salaries and retirement benefits, etc.) Or where "quotas" which aren't supposed to exist...do!

Imagine driving through a town, maybe even your home town where you ALWAYS obey traffic laws and all of a sudden while slowing to the school zone speed limit, your car accelerates to 15 or more mph above the legal posting or maybe you thought you were stopping at a red light or stop sign but for some unexplained reason, you just kept driving through the stop. And surprise! you just got caught speeding in a school zone, running a red light or stop sign. Try to explain that to a local magistrate then just suffer the fine...or worse.

Far fetched? Want to buy some leftover tin foil hats from the past?

[Diclotican]

17. bananas

bananas

It's allmoust like I miss my old Corolla from 1987 - who at least was no easy to break into as it have no wirless at all.... On the other hand - I could open the car when I hit the right spot on the door and the door lock opened Oh wel - thats life goes I think.... In a few years we might as well get anti-virus on our car, like we do with our computers...

Diclotican

[happyslug]

41. Watch yourself, 93.5% of Americans buy cars with Automatics transmissions....

In 2012 6.5% of all New Cars sold in the US had Standard transmissions:

http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/car-news/192206/manual-transmissions-regaining-popularity.jsp

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a6308/whats-really-killing-the-manual-transmisson/

In 2010, just 3.9% of all cars sold had Standard Transmissions:

http://business.time.com/2012/08/02/last-gasp-for-the-stick-shift/

It is hard, but NOT impossible to drop an automatic into Neutral. Furthermore manual transmission are all direct mechanical connection between the gear shift level and the transmission. It is possible for such connections be electronic (and thus controllable from outside the vehicle) in an automatic. The same is true of the newer "Automatic Manual Transmission" (in fact most are electronic controlled).

Thus if you opt for a Standard Transmission and manual door locks and manual windows, the most they can do is kill your engine. You can still coast to a stop and get out. They can increase the engine speed, but as long as the transmission is NOT engaged you can coast to a stop even if they deactivate the brakes (Through if you are going downhill, and they deactivate your brakes, you better hope the brakes have a mechanical backup i.e. they still work to a degree if you hit the brakes.

[Diclotican]

43. happyslug

happyslug

I drive myself with a shift stick thank you - have never been to found of automatic transmission - and prefer stick shift myself - better on the milage - and its more into how I drive - I like to have some control over my car....

And most americans are not able to drive a stick shift anyway

Diclotican

[happyslug]

46. I have owned ONE automatic in my life

I was taught how to drive on a 1976 Dodge Pickup with a Manual three speed Transmission "On the tree", shifted to an Automatic a few years later when my Father Purchased a Suburban. Drive Army M35s with Manual Transmissions while in the National Guard (Both Gas and diesel M35s, Pennsylvania National Guard had 40 year old trucks when I was in the Guard in the 1980s). I drove a Ford Bronco II with a Five Speed manual Transmission, then a 1982 Chevrolet Pickup with a Three Speed with Creeper gear, manual Transmission, then a 1987 Renault with a manual five speed. I trade that in for a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina, it is the only automatic I have ever owned. It was destroyed when a truck hit it as it was parked during an Ice Storm and I purchased a 1995 Jeep Wrangler, then a Dodge Dakotas, both with Five Speed transmissions. I am now driving a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco with a Six Speed Manual Transmission.

All of my family, except one sister who refuses to learn, can and have driven Standard Transmissions. We like Standard transmissions but they are getting hard to find, One Japanese car maker sells a Manual Transmission version of their Car in the US that gets less fuel economy then its Automatic version. The reason for that is the Manual Transmission has a lower final drive then the Automatic, for the car makers geared the transmission for users in Asia itself who wanted POWER more than fuel economy, but then decided to sell it is the US and it sells it appears for the same reason (the lower geared final transmission can haul more then the Automatic and the people who opt for the Manual want that extra hauling power).

Just a comment some people in the USA still drive a Standard Transmission, no matter how much we hear of people who hate them.

[Diclotican]

47. happyslug

happyslug

In see - I guess it is not many Suburban with a stick shift out there, I have yet to find anyone - I think I know about the M35's - it is like a 7.5 tonn truck from GMC? - The norwigian army had a few of them, in most cases going back to the late 1940s - when it arived as part of the Marshallplan assistance - and was replased by newer trucks in the mid 1990s! - when the trucks was starting to be obsolute - and the reserve parts tending to be little difficult to get a hand on - but even then the Army had tonns of reserve parts to all its GMC trucks all the way up to when it was either scraped - or sold out of the country...

You have had a few ones - I have not - I tend to drive the cars untill it is nothing left :p - And have been withouth a car for some years now - but Im living near bus and trains - 4-5 minutes to the closest bus-stop and 15 minutes walk to the train station, and the bus goes to the train station - so I guess Im rather lucky even if I dosen't have a car... And if I need a car - I have a rental car option at Avis - who I have used a few times - and is a welcome customer there - even is on first name basis with some of them

That's good some still drive a standard transmission in the US also - but I think it is in the minority in US..

And the funy part - is that in Europe - more and more newer cars is automatic as it is seen as more easy to drive than a shift stick - somehing I would disagree with.... My fostermother drive a Subaru with automatic gear - nice enough to drive - even though she often laught at me when I drive it - mostly becouse I tend to try to get the gear when im into a cross section and so one... and is waiwing in the air - But the car itself - is very comfortabel to drive.. Even with a automatic transmission..

Diclotican

[happyslug]

48. I drove Reo-Diamond M35s, the GMCs were either WWII Surplus or M135s.

The WWII 2 1/2 ton truck was the most produced vehicle of WWII, out numbering even Jeep. It was a GMC medium duty truck with four wheel drive installed in the Factory. My unit used them to till the 1970s but they were long gone by the time I entered the National Guard in 1981.

Now, after WWII, the US Army had a plan. The Army was going to replace all of its GMC WWII 2 1/2 ton truck with an 2 1/2 ton GMC produced truck with an Automatic Transmission. This automatic transmission started out as the GM's infamous 2 speed automatic but the Army wanted it upgraded to a three speed. In the interim the Army decided to leave most of the WWII trucks in the Theatres they were in and replace them on an interim basis with Rio-Diamond 2 1/2 ton trucks till the GMC with an Automatic Transmission. The Post war Rio-Diamond were designated the M35, the GMC with Automatic Transmission the M135.

Development of the M135 took a while, but 1950 it was ready and since the Korean War was ongoing at that time period, they were shipped to replace the old WWII era GMC trucks and the M35s already sent to Korea.

In Korea the M135 was hated. The M135s could NOT keep up with the WWII GMC or the M35s, both of which had manual transmissions, thus had to be put in special convoys isolated from the older Trucks. Worse do to its slow speeds on hills the Troops kept rejecting them, demanding M35s or even worn out WWII era GM trucks. The M135s were withdrawn from the Regular forces and then given to various other countries and the US National Guard. The "Interim design" M35 stayed in production till the 1980s (While be converted from a Gasoline Engine Trucks to an Diesel with a Standard Transmission starting in the early 1960s, then in the 1990s into a Diesel with Automatic Transmissions, this time an US Army developed six speed Automatic Transmission).

In the 1980s I drove one of the last M35 with a Gasoline Engine. It had been built in 1947, according to the Data Plate on the Truck. It drove and felt like it was much lighter then the Diesel Versions (and it was lighter) and tended to have better traction in the mud but it needed constant care do to its age, but when it ran it ran well. I was out of the National Guard when the Regular Army started to upgrade the M35s to one with a six speed Automatic Transmissions so I never drove a M35 with an automatic transmission. All the Diesels, even the ones with manual transmissions, had to have larger and more powerful engines then the earlier gasoline job do to Diesel lower torque at low speed.

What Norway received or purchased is unknown to me. It is mountainous so I doubt it was the M135s. It may have been old WWII era 2 1/2 ton trucks (these were NEVER given a designation other then 2 1/2 truck) but I suspect M35s. Either Diesels or Gasoline converted to Diesel.

As to Europe going to Automatics, from what I have read it is to the newer "Automatic Manual Transmissions" not US type Automatics. "Automatic Manual Transmissions" use a computer to shift the gears instead of a person doing so, thus in theory as efficient as a manual transmission. I use the term "In theory" for such computers programs are based on certain assumptions that do not always apply to all locations. Thus they will go into to high a gear in mountainous terrain for the program is based on a more balance terrain then one finds in the Mountains or on the Plains. On the plains they may stay in to low a gear for to long a period.

In my Chevrolet Cruse Eco, I generally get 40 miles to the gallon EXCEPT if I have to go to my County Seat, which is on top of Allegheny Mountain. Now Allegheny Mountain is NOT that tall of a mountain, but I generally see my milage goes down below 40 mpg when I make trips up the mountain to my County Seat.

On the other hand, when I visited my Niece in Colorado last year, in one stretch of milage between the Appalachian mountains where I live and the Rocky mountain where she lives, I did better then 50 mpg for a 500 miles stretch of highway. It was Plaint, almost as flat as the ocean. I bring this up for this is the problem with the "Automatic Manual Transmissions", it is NOT geared for almost exclusive use in Mountains OR exclusive use on the Plains. As a driver with a manual you can adjust your driving to reflect the terrain, the computer MUST assume that the car is traveling in something not quite mountains but also not quite the plains. Some computers can adjust to reflect what it had to do in the past, but most can not and even if they can, it takes them a while to adjust from one set of "Normal" to another set of "Normal" Conditions. Thus I am staying with manual transmission, till I can not get one any more.

[Diclotican]

49. happyslug

happyslug

Im not sure what the trucks was designated - but it was a GMC at least- The only thing I do rembember is that they was, most posible from surplus WW2, given as aid in the Marshall plan - and used for as long as human posible untill the 1990s, when they was repleased by Volvo and Scania trucks - they was after all wearing out (if posible) and wel the army needed newer, more effective tools anyway... But they was well used in the army - where they was used for allmoust everything the army ever did between 1945 and the mid 1990s - everything from troop transport to bulding roads all over the country - the army also keept a lot of whatever the UK was not able to destroy of german equipment between may 1945 and september 1945 - for a long while before they got rid of it too... But I digress - Other way - they are rumored to have the ability to use everything under the sun - when it come to fuel - not just diesel and petrol - but allmoust everything who could be used to run an engine - this engines could do it - and was testet - and in many cases used regulary with fuel that I doubt was in any of the engine designers when the engine was designed back in the 1940s... I think it for the most part was diesel - the petrol engines was to expansive to drive with the service they had - and diesel is more easy to get their hands on in a crunch in Europe anyway... Just ask soldiers of the 8th army.... the few who still remain alive that is...

And as you pointed out, the age was shown on the trucks - but when they ran, they ran well - GMC did made some great trucks back in the 1940s - and they was, for its time maybe some of the best out there... And generations of norwigian soldiers had both found, and less found experiences with this beast of a truck - specially the oldest one who was not excactly on the slim side, even for a truck...

it is the more "automatic-manual transmissions" that's correct - it it meant to be more easy to drive on a regular basis - and it might be that... Many I know, who drive a modern car with DSG? is absolutely in love - and can not give it enogh promise - not just for the comfort it gives - but also becouse it is rather economical to drive - at least on normal roads - Im not sure how it is when you have to drive on other, more shallegenging roads, as you point out, Norway is a montainous country, with a lot of up and downs and turns right and left - but from I know - it is still not to expensive to have a DSG gear.... It helps a lot - that the engines is tending to be smaller than before - with more HP and power than before too.... Even a 1.4 L engine can have more than 140 Horsepower this days - I have rented a few of them - with small engines - but they go fast (never getting a ticket - know on woods) yet...

It is a imporant point you is getting there - the new type of automatic transmission is not excactly geared for the more montanious parts of Norway - and the computers can get false negatives.. But some computers is smart enought to adjust its course - when it experience new parts who the old habits are not really the rules anymore - and I think that's rather interesting - that you can put a computer in a car - and they can learn new things than they are programmed for doing...

But it is not the same as a manual transmission - where you, the driver is the best computer a car can get - and where it is up to your experience as a driver to deside the speed and the transmission... Even the smartest computer can not win over a human brain - yet - and hopefully it wil stay that way for a long while yet...

And I think, I hope my next car wil be a manual transmission one - it is sheaper to buy - and little less expansive to operate - and to repair if needed... I would better have a better sound system - or a GPS or some other fancy "toys" in a car - for the same cost as an automatic transmission...

Diclotican

[happyslug]

51. My unit had "Multi-Fuel" M35s

The "Multi-Fuel" M35s were the first generation of Diesel conversions AND new built Diesel M35s. These Diesel Engines were designed that in a pinch, you could run a Gasoline oil mix in them instead of Diesel Fuel (The Gasoline MUST be mixed with oil, if I remember right one Quart of oil for every ten gallons of Gasoline). Technically ALL DIESELS can do this, but it is rough on the engine AND if the fuel system is NOT set up for it, rough on the fuel system (Rough enough to require replacement of the fuel system, so using the gasoline-oil mix is NOT recommended for use on most Diesels).

These multi-fuels were the worse of the M35s. In the Regular Army they were replaced by later Diesel only engined M35s. In the Reserves, the Gasoline Powered M35s survived them (Mostly do to the fact the Gasoline M35s would require a complete rebuilt (New Engine, New Transmissions, New Fuel System etc), while upgrading the Multi Fuel to a Diesel only generally required replacement of the fuel system.

While I suspect the reason the Multi-Fuel were replace first was the lower cost of upgrading them, the superiority of the Gas Jobs in mud was also a factor. Diesels provide more power overall, but at low speeds in muddy conditions where Gasoline is superior. My unit actually preferred the older Gasoline Jobs to the Multi-fuel M35s. The main reason was that the fuel system of the Multi-fueled M35s caused all types of headaches when it came to maintenance AND operating those M35s. The newer straight Diesels were better then both, for they were 20 years newer and thus less likely to break down (and did not have that troublesome Multi-fuel fuel system), but between the multi-fuel and the gasoline M35s, the Gasoline M35s were considered better.

As to the Norwegian GMC being diesels, I suspect they were diesel conversions. Such conversions were popular in the 1950s and 1960s as the gasoline engines started to wear out. Thus I suspect they were WWII GMC 2 1/2 ton trucks, converted to a Diesel engine that was also called a "Multi-Fuel" engine. Such "Multi-Fuel" engines were popular after the US Army started to use diesel in their tanks (and that is only in 1959. prior to that date all vehicles, including tanks in the US Army were gasoline only jobs). The M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) was originally a Gasoline Engined Vehicle, but it had enough space to be built new with a Diesel starting in 1964 (Only a handful of Gasoline M113s were ever built). Thus in the 1960s the US Army used both Gasoline and diesel vehicles and liked the concept of the Multi-Fuel as a compromise between the two fuel systems.

By the early 1970s the US Army decided to convert to Diesel as much as possible. This required the US Army to get rid of its M114 Scout vehicles (the engine Compartment was to small for a diesel engine of the same power as the gasoline engine the M114 was designed around) AND any other gasoline engine EXCEPT the M151 Jeep. The M151 Jeep's engine was to small to carry a diesel engine of the same power as its gasoline engine. This inability to be converted to a Diesel lead to the HUMVEE coming into being as a replacement for the M151 Jeep. The Humvee took up as much room as four M151 Jeep, but it was a Diesel with an Automatic so the US Army used it to replace the M151 Jeeps.

I did drive the HUMVEE when it first came out. I also drove the M151 and the M113 APC. The M151 could go anywhere, it was small, light and fun to drive. You had to be careful on turns (it could and did tip over), but in the later years of usage a roll bar was added with seat belts (these saved my First Sargent's life when the front tire on his M151 blew out on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and his M151 flipped over onto that roll bar).

Thus the US Army did a conversion to Diesels starting in 1959, but accelerated in the 1970s. M151 lasted to the 1990s in the reserves (and brought back in the late 1990s when it was found that the roads in Macedonia were to narrow for the HUMVEES and the only vehicle that could travel those roads as the then old and "obsolete" M151).

Thus is suspect that the GMC Norway used were old WWII GMC trucks converted to Diesel Power sometimes in the 1950s or 1960s. Probably done in Norway with either a US made or German made Diesel engine capable of using gasoline in a pinch (Thus called a "Multi-Fuel" but probably NEVER ran on gasoline in actual usage). That would have extended the lives of those trucks another 20 to 30 years, thus needed to be replaced by the 1990s (and by then cheaper to buy new than to rebuild those old GMCs, engines and transmissions are expensive to buy AND replace).

Just a comment on the old M35s. I drove them in my youth and I still like them, no power steering and all (Try turning one around with a trailer on a one lane in each direction road to learn why power steering is so well liked by people). In the field you could knock down nice size second growth trees with them, and keep on going. They took a beating and kept on running. Very good trucks.

[Diclotican]

52. happyslug

happyslug

I think we basically is talking about the same trucks - as they was famous beeing able to be used on most fuel who can com bust in an engine - and if not used on a regular basis that way - could do it in a pinch now and then - I doubt the army never treated them that way - even if used for almost everything the army as long as they was able treated the beast as jewels in the logistic services - and even after many, many decades most of them was usable in the 1990s - and sold all over the world - some of them ended even in Africa in some of the hot-spots where they was soldiering on for another decade or two - I suspect some of the trucks is still very well alive down there to this day... Some of them was sold off as surplus - and ended up in civilian hands - as veteran-trucks - and they is still seen on the roads here and there even in small amounts by now - I suspect most of them in the end ended up in the scrap yard when the civilian use was up... Or never, more effective trucks was made available - who also was little more comfortable driving

I also suspect most of the engines used in Norway was indeed diesel conversions - and I suspect most of them got a german engine in the 1950s - as germans have a nack for diesel-engines, and have for some reason always been in the forefront when it comes to diesel powered engines.. Even if I suspect - in the way of getting it both ways - some of the GMCs got US made diesel engines too - it was part of getting it both ways, with our allies I suspect.... The Norwegian government was pretty good at getting everyone who was seen as our friend on its side in that matter...

I Suspect - if it was not for the facts the army was in need of newer trucks anyway - who was more up to the task - the GMC trucks would have been soldier on for another decade - as I suspect some wanted to rebuild its engines on the GMC trucks as best as possible at first - from a person I know - who was in the army back then - he told me about the GMC trucks - and how the army originally wanted to rebuild the engines - but the cost benefit of buying new compared to rebuild the engines was in the favor of just getting new trucks... Instead of rebuilding the engines.... So then - the army got rid of its GMC trucks (some was just happy the beasts was on their way out - some had found memories of the trucks and was sad they was getting out of the army, even if everyone who had driven the beast could state it was a nightmare to drive - as you point out, no powers tearing at all - something that made for some interesting driving experience on Norwegian roads... But as you experienced - they could be nice to drive on even roads - and in the field, no one could even make a challenge to the GMC - as they could drive almost everywhere in the field.... And they could take a beating few others was able to survive - and as you point out - they was good trucks overall...

I suspect the army also had M114 and M113 APCs, or for that matter - still have them in service and rather happy about the APCs - and they are been rebuild now and then, to different duty's and services - and I suspect the engineers who was designing them back in the 1960s and 1970s, had no idea they should be used as long as after the 2000s But then again, i suspect it it something that often happened to military equipment - they often got a life on their own - many decades after they officially is starting to be wearing out their usefullness... The Navy still have 30 year old submarines - who still is as deadly as ever - even though they is in the prosess of maybe either been refitted for another 20 years - getting new submarines (who can take years and years depending of the speed and priority, or something in between - I think the Navy want new submarines - (and the U212/214 is maybe on the forefront on that wishlist )

Diclotican

Diclotican

[Throd]

34. This makes me appreciate my Oldsmobile a bit more.

[libdem4life]

36. First thought...What do you do for a living? I hack cars. Huh?

After reading and thinking, isn't gps a wireless system?

And it does pose an interesting possibility to commit murder and not get caught. Now we know that our shut-off TVs can be filming us, too,as well as our computers. I heard this many years ago...then it was Huh? But not, nothing surprises me. Big Brother time again. Pretty much 24/7.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. DOT has put these things all up and down every major roadway here in Dallas. What do they do???

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. Toll Road RFID Tags

Hat tip: members of a local scanner enthusiast group.

Toll Road RFID Tags

An inquiry to the Texas Department of Transportation produced this reply:

The units are Smart Sensors manufactured by Wavetronix. The Smart Sensor is a digital wave radar used for vehicle detection. The Smart Sensor measures vehicle volume, occupancy, speed and classification. The information gathered is NOT used for law enforcement purposes. We use the information to generate the speed map shown on our web site and to generate the travel times displayed on the dynamic message signs on the freeways.

[happyslug]

44. That is why I buy a car with a Manual Transmission

With a Manual Transmission i.e. one with a clutch, it is a direct MECHANICAL leakage between the Gearbox and the Transmission. In such a transmission you always have the option of neutral. If you opt for a Car with mechanical doors and windows, you can escape after the car coasts to a stop (even as the engine it revving as top speed). My car also has an Rack and Pinion Steering with power assist.

Now, it is possible to design a car today with "Drive by Wire" technology. This is a variation of "Fly by Wire" used in Military aircraft since the 1960s and by commercial aircraft since the 1970s. Instead of direct MECHANICAL LEAKAGE between the wheel and the front wheels, you have electronic wires from one to the other. You turn the wheels 10 degree, an electronic message is sten to the wheel to turn 10 degrees. In old cars this was achieved by direct mechanical leakage. "Power Steering" in older cars was direct mechanical leakage but with hydraulic assistance to provide additional power as you turned the wheel. Today, you can provide that power steering without the direct mechanical leakage by using electrical power and a microprocessor to control the amount of the turn. Technically you can do the same with the brakes, pushing the brake pedal sends a message down a electrical wire to the brakes to operate. In older cars brakes were mechanically leaked with the brake pedal.

Now, such "Drive by Wire" technology is not cheap, but you avoid all of the parts needed to connect the brakes to the brake pedal, and the steering wheel to the wheels. Thus it may be cost effective to use a "Drive by Wire" system then to design mechanical leakage for every car you make. In regards to steering, you do not have to work the Steering leakage around the engine, or the engine around the steering mechanism. Brakes are easier to work around, most use hydraulic systems even if NOT powered assisted. Thus you can put the brake tube almost anywhere around the engine and transmission and body. The disadvantage of such systems is they do leak and must be 100% leak proof. In reality this is less of a problem then it sounds, for most brake systems rarely leak and when they do you feel the result in the braking, most times while before it causes an accident.

On the other hand, electrical brakes can send a signal to the computer if they are working or not (An electronic signal can be hooked up to a true Manual or Hydraulic system, but then you are running two lines, the brake cable or hydraulic line AND a electronic line that sends a message back to the main CPU in the Automobile if the brake are working or not).

Automakers like Hydraulic systems for such systems have been using them since at least the 1930s. They work. Some cars still have mechanical hand brakes that use cables but to my knowledge all cars made in the last 50 years use hydraulic brakes, do to the extra power such brake provide EVEN if not power assisted (and most if not all cars sold today have power brakes which means power assisted hydraulic brakes).

Now, I do NOT know how far such "Drive by Wire" systems have gone, but I can see the advantages of them. The main advantage is the ability to put the wires anywhere unlike mechanical leakage that has to connect to each other is a fairly sold way (more important in Steering then Brakes). You can put the automatic transmission anywhere, you do not have to worry about direct mechanical connection between the gear shift and the transmission, that can be done by a wire.

The down side, no electrical power you have nothing. Technically the computer that runs the car could take over the transmission, the engine, the brakes, the windows the doors etc. You can not escape and you have no control over the car.

Given the complexity of any vehicle, I see "Drive by Wire" becoming the norm over the next 20 years. Most people will NOT notice the difference for most people just jump in their car, start it and zoom off. That the systems of the Auto is operated by Cable, Hydraulics or electrical wires they do NOT care, what they care about is it moving down the word.

The plus side is given the number of vehicles produced, such "Drive by wire" should reduce the costs of such vehicles do to less actual work on each model. The down side is given now many cars are produced the savings will NOT be that much for the older systems higher costs, once designed can be spread over a lot of cars.

Thus high end cars are going to get these systems before low end cars. Cars that the car makers make less than 20,000 a year will be the first target. The reason is the costs of developing a traditional system may be high in such cars do to the low volume of such cars. i.e spread the costs of development over 20,000 cars instead of 200,000 cars of a more popular model. i,e Mercedes vs Volkswagen or Cadillac vs Chevrolet.

How fast will such "Drive by Wire" systems will be adopted, I do not know, but it appears that high end car makers are embracing it big time. The cost saving, on such low volume cars, would be immense.

Do not worry, I suspect the Government will NOT require such systems. Such systems could be used to stop speeding by the simple act of requiring a Transmitter/Receiver that can take messages from the side of the road and that tells the car to stay below the speed limit no matter how much the driver hits the gas. This would be a better way to reduce speeding and Accidents but it would reduce the number of tickets that the police can issue. Most Police (and almost all Police outside the older larger inner cities) depend on such tickets to pay for their police departments. No tickets, not police. Thus such Transmitter/Receivers will NOT be required for they would stop such revenue. Given most State Legislators do NOT want to raise taxes to pay for their State Police AND that is also true of Suburbia, there will be no push for such Transmitter/Receivers even if it become clear the costs of such systems are dirt cheap, easy to install, if bypassed can be readily detected, AND REDUCED ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS. The desire to have traffic tickets pay for police is to great to use another method to reduce accidents, even if the other method is clearly more effective.

Such a System can be started today, and slow down the newer cars who in turn will slow down older cars. As the older cars are replaced, they will slow down traffic to what is the speed limit. It is a workable system but I do not see it being adopted for to many State and Local Government expect the police to be a revenue source NOT a drain on the taxes of the state.

[IDemo]

50. Me: 20 year old truck, 25 year old TV, flip-phone

Ludditism has its benefits.

[NuttyFluffers]

53. i like more 'n more my dumb car, dumb phone, dumb tv...

obedience to one controller at a time is useful in my tools.