Oh Lord
And these clowns think autonomous vehicles will be ready in a few years. It looks like wetware 1.0 is still better than the crapware they are using.
Fiat Chrysler America is recalling 4.8 million vehicles in the US to fix a software bug that could lock the vehicle's cruise control. Until it's fixed, owners of some Ram pickups, Jeep SUVs, and other Chrysler and Dodge vehicles are being warned against using cruise control. The auto-maker's recall announcement said: In …
This sounds like it's little to do with self-driving. More with basic electronics and a potential short. That's something even wetware 1.0 will have trouble with..
mind... NOT having a single F-U Big Override button in a convenient place for said wetware seems a bit of an oversight for me....
"NOT having a single F-U Big Override button in a convenient place for said wetware seems a bit of an oversight for me...."
Ever take a knee to the groin? Or a good solid thump to the so-called "solar plexus"? Or a shillelagh to the temple? All will override wetware quite nicely ...
@ Aitor 1:
That is why on new cars past the 2003 model year, the driver side floormats have those plastic hooks in the floors, to prevent such an occurrence.
But then, I can see people going 'what's that hook for? I don't need that! and either not fitting the floormat on it, or doing something else entirely. :)
The fun comes when people start with a mostly-working system and try to improve it. I am currently in negotiations with Nissan over just such a set of "improvements" on the new Qashqai. The previous model had an emergency braking system, which was just about sensitive enough to turn a moderate crash into a less serious one. The major downside was that the slightest bit of snow or organic dirt on the sensor caused it to stop working.
The new, facelifted Qashqai models have a slightly different radar system. The positioning has changed; it is higher up on the front of the car, behind the logo. Unfortunately the unit is now a lot more sensitive and is also, at least on my one, buggy. Drive for around an hour and the unit throws a system fault and either stops working, or claims to be obscured (then throws a fault). When it isn't throwing a wobbly, it is complaining about parked cars, radar-reflecting bits of road and all manner of other stuff; the poxy horrible thing is much too sensitive to be useful and instead manages to be an irritation and a plague.
I am in the process of getting the radar unit replaced now; a new unit is being sourced from Amsterdam for a UK car, which suggests a continent-wide radar manufacturing fault that Nissan would very much like to keep quiet about.
RE.Cashcow My Honda has a crash mitigation system. They put the radar /laser range finder on the windscreen so that it gets swept clean by the wipers.
It works quite well (practiced on cardboard boxes;) but it can be slightly over cautious when I pull on to a roundabout/ slams brakes on and doesn't stall! No idea how I haven't been rearended yet.
The issue here is that with computers it was fun careless days before we connected them together. In the early days computers were mostly islands and security was really not an issue. Programs were written to work and testing was testing with normal usage and not to check for buffer overflows to break the program. In other words, it was a simpler world. A world that car manufacturers still live in. I do not know if it is a good idea to let these people network a lot of two ton computers with wheels and hurl them down the highway.
Where one human driver can only manage to do so much damage. What happens when the entire line of some self driving cars on feb 12, 13.15 triggers a bug that slams on the breaks on all of them, or more likely they get hacked by some terrorist. We have to assume at least that foreign nations and probably our own will exploit this as a weapon of war.
"In the early days computers were mostly islands and security was really not an issue. "
In the world of safety critical systems, safety and security have long been understood as closely related, and indeed a third S, simplicity, was also valued.
This was well understood in the early 1980s era of long-lived digital control systems in safety related applications.
It started becoming an unfashionable viewpoint in the 1990s, had largely been forgotten by the early 21st century, and is finally being rediscovered in a networked world by people like Ross Anderson, Professor of Secuity Engineering in Cambridge (Computer Labs?).
The good Professor has even recently discovered Trevor Pott and/or vice versa, and the nightmare of keeping defective-when-shipped software and hardware fit for continued use in the real world when there's more at stake than ... well, you have a look.
https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/06/01/when-safety-and-security-become-one/
But some people were thinking about these things as far back as the 1990s [1], till the PHBs decommitted the funding.
E.g.
https://www.misra.org.uk/MISRAHome/AbriefhistoryofMISRA/tabid/69/Default.aspx
[edited to add MISRA reference and date]
"
It looks like wetware 1.0 is still better than the crapware they are using.
"
Oh, I dunno about that. This is s bug that has not so far exhibited itself in 10000's of vehicles, and will only happen if an unlikely set of events were to occur. Wetware on the other hand frequently makes very basic errors, and cannot be relied upon to follow even very simple programming instructions.
Software would have to be pretty buggy before it screwed up as often as wetware does.
"
So, Cynic_999, I presume you are planning on reporting to the scrap pile shortly? Seems your programming is faulty ...
"
My point was that we know that humans are not perfect and quite prone to making mistakes and occasionally behaving irrationally, yet we deem our wetware good enough to be in control of huge & dangerous machines. Yet we do not trust a computer to do the same unless it is shown to be 100% perfect.
Most certainly if a computer made the same mistake as most of the human errors that caused serious accidents, it would indeed be on the scrap heap.
A couple of years ago for a period of a few months I had the use of a dealer mileage only small "city car" in addition to my usual small estate car (same dealer).
The city car spec wasn't my exact choice, but it seemed harmless enough on paper - nothing too special, with the exception of a direct sequential automatic gearbox (which was quite handy) and something along the lines of "city brake assist" (which was new to me).
On its second journey it unexpectedly went into neutral at 30mph or so. Fortunately no other traffic around.
After it happened again a couple more times I reverted to my small estate for most journeys but continued to use the city car occasionally for a low-speed low-traffic low-risk commute to work (a couple of suburban miles, rarely exceeding 20mph, ).
Eventually it emerged that if the "brake assist" saw an "obstacle", in the right/wrong circumstances the gearbox went into neutral, even if there was no conceivable need to brake. It wasn't exactly 100% repeatable, but doing the same route at the same speed in the same circumstances a minute or two later (ie go round the block) **with radar/brake assist disabled** nothing unusual would happen, go round again with brake assist enabled, and the gearbox would go into neutral.
How unlikely is that?
I didn't keep the little car much longer.
I've still got the estate. But that's another story.
OK, I've remembered another important detail:
When the gearbox spuriously went into neutral, there were no warning lights for the driver, but the gearbox was unresponsive. Turning the car off and on again did temporarily restore expected service, but nothing was logged (that the dealer could see) in any logs anywhere.
How unlikely is that?
"...an over-the-air vulnerability that gave attackers access to engine management, braking, and the entertainment system." Combined with: Yeah, but please make an appointment to bring your vehicle in for an update.
Hey Fiat: Why not hire the over-the-air hackers to push out the required software patches?
IIRC something similar was done with the last round of wi-fi nationwide cellular hacking scandal. The research group that found it, got the ip address/ports blocked with the cellular operator as quickly as possible, to stop any actual damage from the manufacturers negligence.
Imagine...the combined "engineering" and "quality" talents of Chrysler *and* Fiat!
Takes some real talent to screw up cruise control...something that has been around so long, I thought it would be a drop-in third party module. I guess someone had a "better" idea - hey, let's save a couple pennies and not buy the module, we can code it into the ECU!
Yeah, that worked out well.
Wife has a 2007 Wrangler. Loads of fun with the top down and the doors off, but the word on the street is that the engines tend to self-destruct (and ours is sucking down a quart (litre) of oil every 500 miles (600 km) right now.
"every 500 miles (600 km)"
A bit off...
800 kilometers is 497.09695379 international miles.
British and American statute miles differ from this length and from each other, and numerous other countries have or used to have miles that differed anywhere from an insignificant amount to an order of magnitude. Nautical miles, of course, are different again, and different countries use different nautical miles.
I look forward to the day when we can finally ditch all these ambiguous non-metric measures... life will become subtly but definably better for us all.
I have read elsewhere that not only will the cruise control not turn off, it will not let you turn the engine off with the push button control while cruise control is on. Any chance we can get an Old-Fuddy-Duddy package on our vehicle that uses metal keys without computer chips and old-fashioned mechanical interlocks?
I've had a FOBIK (Chrysler's newfangled key) fail and strand me.I've also have the pickup wires to detect the "chip" (just a small resistor in the key) in my 2000 GM vehicle fail on me. I've never had a car stolen. I do live in an area of the world where an automobile that won't start can be a matter of life or death (or a matter of lost digits due to frostbite). Loving the idea of the Old-Fuddy-Duddy option.
Any chance we can get an Old-Fuddy-Duddy package on our vehicle that uses metal keys without computer chips and old-fashioned mechanical interlocks?
No, because a reliable mechanical keyswitch costs way more than a cheap button. And the computer chips are needed anyway to make your insurance company happy.
I gotta disagree, Chairo. Good, reliable mechanical key switches are often less expensive than good, reliable buttons.
Also, that word "needed", I don't think it means what you think it means. My insurance company is perfectly happy covering my vehicles without computer chips.
You should bother to read a data sheet some time. The more expensive push button is rated for 50 amps, meanwhile the switch you listed is only rated for 30 amps. If your looking at cost per amp, the push button is cheaper at $0.33 per amp compared to $0.34 for the mechanical.
>Any chance we can get an Old-Fuddy-Duddy package on our vehicle that uses metal keys without computer chips and old-fashioned mechanical interlocks
Wasn't that BMW base spec? Or "poverty spec" as some termed it of people ordering cars out of their pay-grade but still wanting the badge.
They have lagged behind in the technology stakes and are now trying to shoehorn-in all this great new tech for cars in one go.
Things are bound to break.
But is there the type of rigourous test & certification or even just the culture, that you get for aerospace and medical, in place to catch stuff like this?
Yes there is. Mistakes can still happen. Given the failure combination that is required to happen and the fact that you can over come it by pressing the break this isn't really that significant. Beyond the number of vehicles that require to be reprogrammed by a dealer. This is more annoying as they deliberately make it difficult for non dealerships to fix, which in turn slows the whole process down.
"and the fact that you can over come it by pressing the break"
The implication of the article was that you can't use the brakes - you have to put it in neutral first. In the heat of the moment, quite a few people might not think of trying that. Even if they did, they might not have time because they probably only found out that the brakes no longer worked when they suddenly had to use them.
Your reading of the article is wrong.
Even if the cruise control is stuck, you can stop it by braking. It is a legal requirement that full braking power can overcome full engine power. But it could require very strong braking.
They tell you to put it into neutral because it makes it much easier to stop.
" It is a legal requirement that full braking power can overcome full engine power. But it could require very strong braking."
Legal requirement in which jurisdiction(s)?
It's also a legal requirement in many Western jurisdictions (and quite possibly elsewhere) that manufacturers are held liable for stuff they design and sell (typicall called Product Liability laws, other names may be available).
For some reason, it's not something you read about being enforced much, especially when computer technoogies are in the picture. Presumably that is because of the revolutionary achievement that all products incorporating computers are fit for purpose as designed and sold.
"They tell you to put it into neutral because it makes it much easier to stop."
I was under the impression that in some newer cars the control lever for the transmission just generates a signal to the computer to tell the transmission to do something.
If so, that could conceivably be taken out by a software failure.
1969's Diesel Landy. :)
Agreed with the sentiment that old-fuddy-duddy technology sometimes are the best, especially if you're deep in the boondocks. Then you most certainly don't need some 5c resistor deciding that now would be a good time to carp and prevent your car from starting/unlocking/getting filled with fuel.
Old-fuddy-fuddy tech is easy to repair in the field, whilst advanced tech is not that easy to repair, most of the time you'll have XP technicians swapping out parts until the fault goes away, and that you most certainly cannot do in a rural area (or especially when you're stuck in a desolate place).
There is a time and place for both. Most of us most certainly don't need fancy things like aircon or electric windows or a heated chair which'll massage your butt at the same time.
Let the city slickers have it with their technologically advanced cars, and let us old-fuddy-duddy guys have our old-fuddy-duddy tech cars, and everybody will be happy.
Any engine that isn't properly maintained can and will let you down at the most inopportune time. Usually because a 15 cent part failed leading to over $1,000 in damage because you[0] were too stupid to understand why regular maintenance is important.
[0] That's a generic "you", not anybody in particular.
It's pretty rare for a diesel to run away, last time it happened to me was a single cylinder Ruggerini on a site generator, one of the machanics hadn't noticed the dipstick was broken so kept putting oil in until it matched a scratch on what was left of the dipstick ( this engine was lucky , it had two dipsticks, one broken the other with a spanner and a pair of overalls).
The di... mechanic then started the engine, I heard the revs climbing from the office and ran out, the mechanic was faffing around trying to cut the fuel , not realising the thing was running on crankcase oil. I dragged him off and a few seconds later it spat the conrod out of the bottom and fired the piston at the head which luckily just distorted.
Regarding Landrovers; I have stripped and repaired both the distributor and carburettor with a Leatherman tool on the roadside at different times, and changed a halfshaft halfway up a Welsh mountain. Had a bit more than a Leatherman for that one)
Car manufacturers use chips and software because it locks in the customer and makes more money for them and their dealers, it has nothing to do with what is ultimately better for the average driver it's marketing and making a profit.
I have a '92 Disco only basic physics between my foot and the engine, none o' that fancy hi- falutin' eelektronics stuff.
It's pretty rare for a diesel to run away,
More common nowadays with early-model turbodiesels that haven't been properly maintained, i.e. 3rd-hand Citroens whose owners have long since given up on annual services. The turbo seizes or fails, cracks, and the engine starts to suck in oil from the turbo bearing oil feed. Last time I saw one it was at the side of the road, belching smoke and screaming at way over redline revs, while the passers-by very sensibly kept well back. I didn't hang around to see the final 'bang'.
> Car manufacturers use chips and software because it locks in the customer and makes more money for them and their dealers, it has nothing to do with what is ultimately better for the average driver it's marketing and making a profit.
That is a reason, but not the main one.
The main reasons are:
1) Emissions/fuel efficiency - a lot of the engine electronics (EFI and using ECUs) are to increase fuel efficiency and lower emissions.
2) Safety - to meet increasing safety requirements, things like ABS, stability/traction control, airbags, pre-tension seatbelts, and so on require electronic - computer - control to work.
3) 'wow' factor. Gotta have something to try and convince the unwashed masses to buy their car over someone else's - cruise control, heated chair which'll massage your butt (I really want one of these!).
I drive a '99 Hilux Diesel, so I'm not wedded to or invested in the electronics, but I can see the place for many of them.
I think I have to disagree somewhat; generally speaking cars have become much more reliable for what most people use them for over the last decades. Electronic motor management is an improvement over carburettors and manual chokes for the _vast_ majority of drivers. 40 years ago it was a major achievement when a car passed 100,000 km, now I would view it as a lemon or mistreatment if it did not do 200,000.
Just think of the wonders of British Leyland...
For my tastes, my 2005 Accord is about right. Enough electronics to be useful (Climate system is great, so is rain sensor), still no option of connecting anything outside the engine bay; not even USB to radio.
"40 years ago it was a major achievement when a car passed 100,000 km, now I would view it as a lemon or mistreatment if it did not do 200,000"
Nope.
It depended on the car, of course, but in that era, a car with a real frame and a Chrysler slant-6 could go a million miles (1.6 million km) on the original engine.
Even the later slant-6 engines, festooned with emission control stuff, could last a long time. Mine went well over 400,000 km, and only expired because road salt rusted the unibody. The engine was just fine.
"Car manufacturers use chips and software because it locks in the customer "
Car manufacturers primarily use software because it reduces weight and opens other ways of improving fuel efficiency in the continuing race to keep up with ever more unlikely but legally mandated fleet fuel efficiencies.
This motivations also accounts for roof lines that make the back seat unusable past the age of near adult height, and shrinking cars that have made trucks and SUVs the overwhelmingly dominant passenger vehicles, now accounting for over 70% of sales, as the trucks and SUVs are still big enough to be flexible and useful vehicles, rather than dedicated office commute only devices.
"Car manufacturers primarily use software because it reduces weight "
No, modern cars are generally heavier by quite a fair margin, google it if you don't believe me. What electronics help with is getting far more power and fuel economy out of an engine than you would get 20 years or more ago, combined with modern engineering and materials .
Quite scarey really. I used to own a 1978 hatch with a tuned 1600cc engine, twin carbs, lumpy cam, rally exhaust system. Used to rev to over 7000rpm.
That cast iron short stroke pushrod lump was pushing out similar power to the engine in my parents recent 1600cc Diesel thing from South Korea.
That is sporty engine similar specific power to a Diesel hatch engine. Or similar sized modern builders vans engines.
But then the 1978 hatch was much lighter, handled better, more fun, and rust got it not engine wear. Next model up now worth a fortune with a 2.2l 16v engine rather than 1.6l 8v.
Also used to own a mid 80s executive saloon, only 1200kg, less than many modern hatches.
Replacement model was just over 1400kg. Lighter older car, was quicker with around 10bhp less.
Bowden cable to the throttle body, a mechanical key that you can turn off when the engine disobeys your input, a second set of Bowden cables attached to levers on the back brakes for emergency use and a third pedal, I dunno, call it a "clutch" that disengages the engine from the gearbox completely as a last resort.
Spooky - I was out in my Spridget yesterday and the throttle cable jammed approaching a roundabout. I fumbled for the key whilst braking and dumping the clutch and the bugger fell into the passenger side, with the engine still revving it's nuts off.
Fortunately I also have a rudimentary kill switch wired into the circuit so searching the dank, dark depths beneath the dash was not required.
... except steer the car. Or put the car into neutral to stop acceleration, and then use the brakes to stop. Or hit the brakes hard enough to overcome the power from the engine. The neutral route is easier.
Cannot agree more with the FDT comments since electric windows are the bane of my driving life. Once they decide to stop working, usually when the window is fully down, there is not much you can do about it.
At least with FDT you could take the side of the door of, see what was going wrong, and fix it. Not with electric motors once they go they go.
Are we that lazy we cannot role windows down anymore.
> Fair point on number 2.
The best car I've owned had electric windows and sunroof.
I could turn off the ignition, get out, close the door start walking away knowing the turbo-timer would shut the engine off, and on pressing the car-lock on the remote control all the doors would lock (duh), and all the windows and sunroof would close.
Talk about being lazy!
Once they decide to stop working, usually when the window is fully down, there is not much you can do about it.
A colleague got a new car with an electric sunroof, quite spiffy back then. It turned into a not at all spiffy unfixable hole where the rain came in when the fuse blew..
I only had a couple of cars with electric sunroof before aircon became a semi-default option, but I'm pretty sure that the Fine Manual described the little concealed handle which allowed the sunroof to be closed if the motor or its controls failed (exceptions apply).
Don't remember seeing an equivalent for electric windows thought.
"A colleague got a new car with an electric sunroof, quite spiffy back then. It turned into a not at all spiffy unfixable hole where the rain came in when the fuse blew.."
Shoulda RTFMed and found the manual release then. Every car I had with an electric sunroof had a manual operation too, usually hidden behind a panel with the winder motor or just an unlock/release so you could slide it back into place by hand.
"Are we that lazy we cannot role windows down anymore."
Maybe it's not laziness.
When driving at 120 kph embedded in five or six lanes of traffic, some of which is going rather faster, being able to adjust the windows without compromising driver attention or control of the vehicle is worth a bit of complexity.
My Dad's oldish Subaru Imprezza is all FDT.
It seems weird being in car that has manual windows and manual door locks.
It'll probably last forever... no fancy stuff to break.
Hmmm... just realized it has an auto tranny, so it's not completely FDT.
Maybe FDT will be seen as retro/hip/trendy some day.
Hydraulic operated slushbox transmissions are fuddy duddy tech. They've been around for over 80 years.
A friend once bought an old 500SEL and restored it. Once all the tyres, hoses and seals had been replaced, new exhaust and so on, he thought maybe he should take it to a Mercedes dealer and get the diagnostics run on it to see what further work needed doing. They told him there was a fault in the auto box and it was going straight from second to fourth and so using only two gears. He hadn't even noticed.
A local garage was run by an ex-services guy who offered to take a look at the box. To his surprise the hydraulic control system wasn't that difficult to fix - it really just needed cleaning out.
Manual gearboxes often suffer from incompetent drivers (worn selectors, rounded dogs ) but a well designed slushbox looks after itself. The fuel consumption is not so good, true, but that's the only real downside.
"Tried to teach my son to double-clutch but he wasn`t interested. His second car is an automatic."
Pretty much a forgotten art these days. Useful when you need it, though.
It is really hard to find a car with a manual transmission - maybe one in a hundred or fewer, these days.
"It seems weird being in car that has manual windows and manual door locks.
It'll probably last forever... no fancy stuff to break."
In my experience, the death of window mechanisms is less due to the type of mechanism, and more to the effects of hard frozen ice that doesn't want to melt, coupled with inattention or impatience... or necessity plus optimism.
I've seen both types fail, and it is usually the attachment of the window glass to the metal frame that moves it up and down.
Often brute force breaks the ice, but eventually it breaks the window mechanism.
It is now quite common for the "controls" on a car (especially automatics) to be nothing more than request signals into the engine / gearbox / brake controller.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as someone has done a full systems analysis as part of functional safety and have ensured that failures can be adequately controlled.
It is also a good idea to design things in a way that neutral / stop / brake are always acted upon (i.e. not requiring other inputs / state changes to occur before cancelling cruise).
Unfortunately, there are some other issues that can cause problems that may go undetected. Consider the following trival state machine implemented in 'C':
bool f ( void )
{
static enum { S0, S1 } state = S0;
switch ( state )
{
case S0: state = S1; break;
case S1: state = S0; break;
default: error(); break;
}
return state == S0;
}
The 'default' case is supposed to call an error handler if the state variable becomes corrupt - this may (validly) be optimized away by the compiler. If this were to happen in a cruise control system, it may mean that the throttle is left at a particular setting with no checks being made to see if the system should be cancelled due to the brakes being pressed.
Don't believe that a compiler would do that? Put the code in the Compiler Explorer (godbolt.org), select 'clang 6.0.0' and enable optimzation (-O1). Latest gcc seems not to make the same optimization, though it is perfectly acceptable for it to do so.
I'm not sure "optimization" is the appropriate term here. A compile time warning "Statement at line 8 - default: error(); break; - will never be executed" seems reasonable. But quietly ignoring the code seems to me an emulation of a common form of human "intelligence" often associated negatively with civil servants.
How about "logic devolution" instead of "optimization"
https://electrek.co/2018/05/25/tesla-model-3-unofficial-road-trip-crash-driver-blames-autopilot/
The word that pops into my mind when thinking about 'autopilots' and self-driving and even adaptive cruise control is 'Numbskulls'. Because trusting their lives to some thing that has had no quality audit (like wot aircraft auto-pilots get) is just madness.
YMMV
The problem starts with the fact many people think aircraft auto-pilots are magically super smart, sophisticated devices. In truth aircraft autopilots are dumber than a pile of bricks. It'll happily fly an aircraft straight into a mountainside, or straight into the ground. Autoland isn't all that sophisticated either and relies on large external radio systems to guide the plane to where it needs to go. If those are wrongly set up or fail during a landing sequence the plane might still happily fly itself into terrain. Autopilots also require thorough knowledge of their operation and limitations when using, and can CAUSE unexpected behaviour of the aircraft. (see for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951)
Misuse (intentional or accidental) of an aircraft autopilot can still easily end up with an accident.
I prefer a car without all the connectivity and brainboxen. I like the pneumatic cruise (con)troll on my 2001 Volvo, there is a mechanical switch on the left control stalk that switches off the vacuum to the pneumatic servo AND switches off the separate brain box. Switch it off and it's dead. If that doesn't do the trick, switching off the ignition will remove power from the brain box and reset it. Since it's a manual, this can be done "on the run".
Not that I've ever actually had to do it, because the electronics on the thing might be poorly designed from a maintenance and accessibility/repair-ability perspective, they are rock solid.
Fiat Chrysler says "In certain vehicles,..." which seems to be implying a relatively small number of specific models, possibly a specific small range of VIN, ie not all of modal/brand. Yet they are recalling 4.8 million cars across a range of brands and models. They must have "weasel words" as part of the job description.
In date order
1) 1970s The electronic ignitions and carbs.
I DETEST points, carbs not great but at least no points.
Not a fan of basic single point injection systems, nor the early mechanical injection.
2) 1980s 1990s Multi point fuel injection with cam crank and later lambda sensors.
Not too complex and perfectly user servicable with a code reader, used to get fault lights, found out exactly which cylinder had done its coil pack due to an oil leak boiling it.
3) Early ECU Diesels 1990s
Remap central with engines not encumbered with DPFs and the need to inject fuel on the exhaust stroke for emmisions. Engines were designed to be clean but not so clean that they have issues. This was unit injector and early common rail era. Just on from high pressure fuel pumps.
Now they are too complex with CANBUS, keyless entry, stop start buttons.
Car ECUs are best off being a metal box with one or two jobs, and NOT CANBUS.
My currently one has Lucas, Bosch, Wabco ECUs AFAIR