openinverter forum

I have some ideas making some things more accessible for the masses.
But this would in general help to fix cars. I would have to spend much time into figuring out how to implement protection to remove the ability of users to fix cars that would burn fuel at the end. I do not know if i would be capable to build in such protection.

I have fear i could create something that is intended to help EV's but at the end get abused. It could end up fixing more fuel burning cars then electric cars.

Any general thoughts on this?

Fixing things isn't the worst plan. Lots of carbon offsets by fixing things versus buying new.
My advice is to skip the protection, it's just extra bs to deal with for no good reason, usually. And if you're somewhere without special tools you're screwed.

I have these exact thoughts whenever laying hands on an ICE car. The quicker they are off the road, the better.
But then it's quite likely if the car can't be fixed it will be replaced by another ICE car with an even longer lifespan.

Dramatic story: a friend was comitted to buy an EV but her mechanic talked her into buying a hybrid. A week later it was rear ended. She then bought an EV. No kidding

johu wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 9:07 pm The quicker they are off the road, the better.

Exactly.

johu wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 9:07 pm But then it's quite likely if the car can't be fixed it will be replaced by another ICE car with an even longer lifespan.

In some countries the statistics confirm what you say. But happily there are some others with different statistics. I did some deeper research for this answer i am writing here. You are reporting about your trips to Sweden. In Sweden the amount of cars that are added to the country are at 58% (plugin hybrid + pure ev). From this point of view, it would be good when no one there would have access to tools to repair pure fuel burning cars.
When you take a look at the numbers of Norway, then the number goes up to about 92% for the year 2024. In Hongkong the number is at around 70%.


But this was not the point i liked to bring up with my first post.
When someone develop a free and easy to access tool that can only be used to fix pure ev cars, this is a benefit for such cars. At the same time this puts fuel burning cars at a worse position then before.
You can see this from the same point like taxes. When you put the pure EV cars at a better position from the user point of view then fuel burning cars, then there are less reasons to get a fuel burning car.

The user have to take care about things like:
* Cost to put energy into a car
* Convenience to put energy into a car
* Cost to get a car
* Convenience to get a car
* Cost to do the maintenance on a car
* Convenience to do the maintenance on a car

When i develop something that would handle all cars equally, i wont give one further reason to move towards better car technology.

jrbe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 10:05 pm And if you're somewhere without special tools you're screwed.

Yes. This is what i try to support. People with fuel burning cars should be screwed because they do not have as simple as possible access to the special tools that are required to get the car working again.
The overall experience with a fuel burning car from the user point of view should be:
- They cost more then twice as much as pure EV cars
- You need a special teached technician at service points to fix fuel burning cars that is adding up much to the cost
- You can not fix issues on your own, because all the software you need to do so is locked up, there is no open source replacement for it and no one care to create some
- You need to drive at least 50km away to get to a place where you can buy energy for a fuel burning cars
- The price after you have driven at least 50km is at least 5US dollar for a single liter
- All your neighbors use their solar on their roofs to charge their cars. You on the other hand would have to spend some billions to get to the same point by drilling for oil, build a refinery to convert it to something you could use, and so on. Even if you reach this point, then you are not allowed to sell the result. What is getting out of the hole you drilled and what is getting out of the refinery is for own and private use only. Because you do not have billions, you continue to have to drive at least 50km away to get the energy. Some time later you get the news it is shutting down in the next 6 months. After the shutdown you have to drive at least 80km away to get the energy for your fuel burning car.
- Some newer cars like the ones from https://aptera.us/ do not even require in most use cases to get any external energy. Just park it outside and drive it when you need to get somewhere. The firmware in the car is open source, the software you run on your computer to do maintenance is also open source. The car manufacturer itself is sending you every single car part you would need to repair your car. You do not have to figure out quality or anything else third party companies produce if you do not want to. Just scan the QR code on the car part and confirm the order.

- When your fuel burning SUV broke down and you put out the warning triangle, no one is stopping to help you for free because they see the fuel burning SUV. You have to pay for a tow truck that is pulling your car to the next service point where you get charged with a high bill for the special teached technician. And because this service point does not have bought the closed source service software, they tell you, that there would be some additional 5000$ fee on top, because they have to buy some closed source software to fix the car instead of just using the free to access open source one they use all the time on other pure EV cars

Hmm. Overthinking alert from my point of view

Just develop whatever you want to develop.

And despite thinking that it's better for humanity if fossil burning stops we shouldn't wish for any individual to be stranded or get screwed otherwise.

Your perspective is very ideologically driven. I would welcome improvements in the technology and infrastructure surrounding electric mobility, making it more convenient and affordable. Making internal combustion engines more expensive and less appealing will not foster societal acceptance of a shift in mobility, rather, it will lead to resentment and rejection.

johu wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 4:44 pm or get screwed otherwise.

I tried to imagene where did this get from. I expect this to be the source:

there would be some additional 5000$ fee on top, because they have to buy some closed source software

This is just a example fee for the software. Software the service center have to pay themself to get the software and infrastructure for the software running. This is not a service center screwing their customer like for example 2000$ software cost but asking the customer to pay 5000$ for the software.

johu wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 4:44 pm individual to be stranded

This would be the case some time in the future for fuel burning cars. More then 15 years ago, the EV cars did not have great range and also the public EV chargers was rare. When people stranded with a EV because of broken charger and empty battery, they could just ask at some house anywhere in the world to plug into their socket and charge for some hours. It would get really interesting in the future when more and more fossil fuel stations close. You can not just ask at a random house to get some fossil fuel.

muehlpower wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 5:14 pm Your perspective is very ideologically driven.

Not just very. It is 100% ideologically driven

muehlpower wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 5:14 pm Making internal combustion engines more expensive and less appealing will not foster societal acceptance of a shift in mobility, rather, it will lead to resentment and rejection.

Why do you think like this? Burning fossil fuel with a aircraft is for example way too cheap. Some times cheaper then driving with a train. In some rare situation the electricity cost a EV car are higher then a ticket for a fossil aircraft. There are not enough 'very ideologically driven' people out there who would pay more for the travel to get there with for example public transport then with the aircraft.

There are two ways to modify the incentives the people experience. One is for example making public transport free of charge, free EV chargers and other things like that. The other is making the not so good things more expensive.
Using both ways is the fastest way to reach the social change.

The numbers i listed for Hong Kong are a example for such strategy working in real life. Here some more background information: https://cleantechnica.com/2026/02/26/wh ... ake-sense/
In Norway its similar. The background for the great Numbers in Norway: https://www.gridserve.com/why-norway-le ... -adoption/

Because as a single human i simply do not have (and do not want to have) billions of dollars to do the same a country can do with tax money, i try to explain other people why it is important to be 'very ideologically driven' (johu is also trying to convince people outside this forum to get a pure EV cars ) in combination with creating myself something to give more people the chance to fix something on their own in pure EV cars to reach this:

muehlpower wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 5:14 pm I would welcome improvements in the technology and infrastructure surrounding electric mobility, making it more convenient and affordable.

When i create something people could use to fix things in their pure EV cars for near to no money, this would hopefully help to choose a pure EV vehicle. When i describe all of that as good as i can in https://openinverter.org/wiki , then it would be probably even more easy for the people to find and use this.
But when the software is completely universal working on pure EV the same like on fuel burning cars, i destroy a chance to make a change in the world towards more pure EV vehicles.

I think writing all this down helped myself to realize even more, that i would not try to get to this goal without doing my best to prevent making the software work on fuel burning cars.

You don't make change happen by forcing people to do things. You make change happen by making the right choice the easy and affordable choice.

Paying different taxes for different things is something you would say is forcing people?

jrbe wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 11:20 pm You make change happen by making the right choice the easy and affordable choice.

But when i also make fixing fuel burning cars more easy and affordable, i do not think i would be doing something good to the world.

hjdlsnbc wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 11:46 pm Paying different taxes for different things is something you would say is forcing people?

Flip your position with theirs, if gas burners wanted to make owning an EV more expensive you'd see that as forcing something, right?

But when i also make fixing fuel burning cars more easy and affordable, i do not think i would be doing something good to the world.

You need to be thinking and doing the math 5, 10, 15 years out. Like Johu said, fixing a gas car to get say 3 more years might mean their next vehicle is an EV instead of a new ice today that lasts say 15 years. Maybe you help make fixing emissions issues easier to fix, that's a clear win that would otherwise go polluting.

It's very hard to figure out if things like this are good or bad long term. CFCs replaced "dangerous" gases with something much worse. Good intentions, maybe one of the worst outcomes vs the perceived upside when they started the switch. Almost everything is a trade off, thinking it through isn't easy.