Re: As I've commented previously
Too much concentration on the shiny and not enough on keeping basic functions simple and robust.
Agreed. I used to chuckle at people that couldn't fathom what the ECU did, or that under all the sensors was an engine that worked just the same as when it was fed by a brace of carbs and fired by rotor arm and dizzy cap. Suck, squeeze, bang, blow.... Its still the route to happiness.
But now, things have gotten silly. The list of parts that need coding in at a stealership is horrendous. If I stripped the loom out of an equivalent model car, I could probably drive mine 0-100-0 inside the length of the loom.
Fixing a non-starting car used to be as simple as check for the spark, if its there, check for fuel. One or the other would be missing, or if both were present you had usually a carb issue. While I'm quite happy to plug my car into my laptop and interpret sensor logs and fault codes, I actually do most of my fault diagnosis on Google.... which just seems wrong to me.
I can't imagine why much of the tech is present or why its doing a better job than its replacement. Fueling and firing I get, but what does the gearbox need its own ECU for, and why does the airbag need its own ECU? Why is fitting towbar electrics so difficult and what advantage is it bringing? Why does the steering need to be fly by wire? Or the brakes? I love technology. I love cars. But I don't see why they have to be endlessly blended together for little tangible benefit.