Proceed with Caution - Network Modifications and Control Functions
09-19-2015, 09:02 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Proceed with Caution - Network Modifications and Control Functions
I posted on this topic before, but I believe my message may have been lost in the unintended tone of the post. So, here is my 2nd stab at my point - which is:
When you choose options that affect control of your vehicle, or choose to modify your truck's Control Area Network (which includes anything that touches it), deliberate carefully.
Here is my experience, which informs this point:
My job deals with networked computer control systems in commercial nuclear power plants. I am working to drive innovation into the plants and replace ancient control systems designed in the 1960's and 1970's. Trying to go to 2010's in one step. From relays to a completely virtualized software based infrastructure.
I'm all for innovation. But the technology has to be bullet proof in my application. Even if the technology works (nuclear technology WORKED at Three Mile Island), public perception is reality. If you hear "improper control system modification causes turbine failure and plant SCRAM" in the news --- how do you respond? How is the whole industry impacted by the publicity? Especially if the $500M turbine is damaged and your electricity rates go up. This even though no one was injured and nuclear safety was never affected.
When you put in new control systems, one key lesson learned is "operate it as designed." What they CAN DO boggles the mind. But what it is designed to do is predicated on very specific, defined conditions. Go outside those, and performance is not guaranteed. You also need to ask, even within those parameters, "what SHOULD it do."
So. Do you live next to a nuclear power plant? Do you want me pushing the limits of what the control systems can do so I can make a little more profit producing power? Do you want power $0.02 cheaper per KwH or do you want the incremental safety in using the new control system within its design parameters to control the RIGHT functions properly?
I apply the same logic to my trucks. My life also depends on them every day. I like new gizmos. But, "cool" isn't the best reason to put them in. They should serve a purpose and be tested/proven. And, if my truck doesn't do what I want it to do, am I a qualified network engineer who understands how it works enough to change it with the confidence that the critical design functions are unaffected? I may rag on software engineers, but I respect them and their work. I am not qualified to do significant modifications that may take their system outside of its design parameters.
I volunteered for the "science project" to a degree when I bought a 2015. I typically NEVER buy a 1st model year truck. I love the gizmos in my Lariat. All of them. I did not choose the BLIS, lane change assist, or adaptive cruise control for a reason. SHOULD the truck control system do these things? I chose "no" for now. Let the technology prove itself before I trust my life to it.
If someone wants to pursue "manifest destiny" with their truck control system, they are welcome to. I really mean this. No "smart ***" tone. But as an engineer that deals with this stuff every day, I am just offering up some words of caution for folks to think about it first. Be careful. Just because an option is available -- SHOULD I buy it? If the control system doesn't do what I want, am I qualified to modify it? If they answer "yes," or they never asked the questions in the first place -- then either way they need to accept responsibility for the consequences.
My comment on society (for what it is worth) is that because everyone has a laptop and a smart phone and they tinker with those, they then think they are qualified to tinker with control systems on which their lives depend.
When you choose options that affect control of your vehicle, or choose to modify your truck's Control Area Network (which includes anything that touches it), deliberate carefully.
Here is my experience, which informs this point:
My job deals with networked computer control systems in commercial nuclear power plants. I am working to drive innovation into the plants and replace ancient control systems designed in the 1960's and 1970's. Trying to go to 2010's in one step. From relays to a completely virtualized software based infrastructure.
I'm all for innovation. But the technology has to be bullet proof in my application. Even if the technology works (nuclear technology WORKED at Three Mile Island), public perception is reality. If you hear "improper control system modification causes turbine failure and plant SCRAM" in the news --- how do you respond? How is the whole industry impacted by the publicity? Especially if the $500M turbine is damaged and your electricity rates go up. This even though no one was injured and nuclear safety was never affected.
When you put in new control systems, one key lesson learned is "operate it as designed." What they CAN DO boggles the mind. But what it is designed to do is predicated on very specific, defined conditions. Go outside those, and performance is not guaranteed. You also need to ask, even within those parameters, "what SHOULD it do."
So. Do you live next to a nuclear power plant? Do you want me pushing the limits of what the control systems can do so I can make a little more profit producing power? Do you want power $0.02 cheaper per KwH or do you want the incremental safety in using the new control system within its design parameters to control the RIGHT functions properly?
I apply the same logic to my trucks. My life also depends on them every day. I like new gizmos. But, "cool" isn't the best reason to put them in. They should serve a purpose and be tested/proven. And, if my truck doesn't do what I want it to do, am I a qualified network engineer who understands how it works enough to change it with the confidence that the critical design functions are unaffected? I may rag on software engineers, but I respect them and their work. I am not qualified to do significant modifications that may take their system outside of its design parameters.
I volunteered for the "science project" to a degree when I bought a 2015. I typically NEVER buy a 1st model year truck. I love the gizmos in my Lariat. All of them. I did not choose the BLIS, lane change assist, or adaptive cruise control for a reason. SHOULD the truck control system do these things? I chose "no" for now. Let the technology prove itself before I trust my life to it.
If someone wants to pursue "manifest destiny" with their truck control system, they are welcome to. I really mean this. No "smart ***" tone. But as an engineer that deals with this stuff every day, I am just offering up some words of caution for folks to think about it first. Be careful. Just because an option is available -- SHOULD I buy it? If the control system doesn't do what I want, am I qualified to modify it? If they answer "yes," or they never asked the questions in the first place -- then either way they need to accept responsibility for the consequences.
My comment on society (for what it is worth) is that because everyone has a laptop and a smart phone and they tinker with those, they then think they are qualified to tinker with control systems on which their lives depend.
The following 4 users liked this post by chief_bs:
All Hat No Cattle (09-19-2015),
GhostriderI (09-19-2015),
Ricktwuhk (09-21-2015),
tihsyloh (05-01-2021)
09-19-2015, 10:33 AM
#2
Senior Member
Poof.…… lost again!
Pushing the limits are the only way you get to first base, then home plate!
And the new technology, some of it is optional, so we have a choice. Now for the part that's not optional, I suppose we still have a choice, buy older vehicles.
Pushing the limits are the only way you get to first base, then home plate!
And the new technology, some of it is optional, so we have a choice. Now for the part that's not optional, I suppose we still have a choice, buy older vehicles.
Last edited by AbitaPro; 09-19-2015 at 10:56 AM.
The following users liked this post:
NASSTY (09-19-2015)
09-19-2015, 10:51 AM
#3
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I run a new product development team for a mobile equipment mfg. We see it with tech's modifying the parameters that have no business doing so. As a result we have machines that injure people. What we have to do in the end is fence in the parameters so the machine can not get into an unsafe state. I do like some of the new safety features but use them as indicators only. Nothing replace our ability to think and evaluate the environment around us. The dynamic cruise control is one system I'm on the fence with. It looks beneficial and I may still try it out. I plan on replacing my 01 Supercrew with a 2016
09-19-2015, 10:53 AM
#4
I posted on this topic before, but I believe my message may have been lost in the unintended tone of the post. So, here is my 2nd stab at my point - which is:
When you choose options that affect control of your vehicle, or choose to modify your truck's Control Area Network (which includes anything that touches it), deliberate carefully.
Here is my experience, which informs this point:
My job deals with networked computer control systems in commercial nuclear power plants. I am working to drive innovation into the plants and replace ancient control systems designed in the 1960's and 1970's. Trying to go to 2010's in one step. From relays to a completely virtualized software based infrastructure.
I'm all for innovation. But the technology has to be bullet proof in my application. Even if the technology works (nuclear technology WORKED at Three Mile Island), public perception is reality. If you hear "improper control system modification causes turbine failure and plant SCRAM" in the news --- how do you respond? How is the whole industry impacted by the publicity? Especially if the $500M turbine is damaged and your electricity rates go up. This even though no one was injured and nuclear safety was never affected.
When you put in new control systems, one key lesson learned is "operate it as designed." What they CAN DO boggles the mind. But what it is designed to do is predicated on very specific, defined conditions. Go outside those, and performance is not guaranteed. You also need to ask, even within those parameters, "what SHOULD it do."
So. Do you live next to a nuclear power plant? Do you want me pushing the limits of what the control systems can do so I can make a little more profit producing power? Do you want power $0.02 cheaper per KwH or do you want the incremental safety in using the new control system within its design parameters to control the RIGHT functions properly?
I apply the same logic to my trucks. My life also depends on them every day. I like new gizmos. But, "cool" isn't the best reason to put them in. They should serve a purpose and be tested/proven. And, if my truck doesn't do what I want it to do, am I a qualified network engineer who understands how it works enough to change it with the confidence that the critical design functions are unaffected? I may rag on software engineers, but I respect them and their work. I am not qualified to do significant modifications that may take their system outside of its design parameters.
I volunteered for the "science project" to a degree when I bought a 2015. I typically NEVER buy a 1st model year truck. I love the gizmos in my Lariat. All of them. I did not choose the BLIS, lane change assist, or adaptive cruise control for a reason. SHOULD the truck control system do these things? I chose "no" for now. Let the technology prove itself before I trust my life to it.
If someone wants to pursue "manifest destiny" with their truck control system, they are welcome to. I really mean this. No "smart ***" tone. But as an engineer that deals with this stuff every day, I am just offering up some words of caution for folks to think about it first. Be careful. Just because an option is available -- SHOULD I buy it? If the control system doesn't do what I want, am I qualified to modify it? If they answer "yes," or they never asked the questions in the first place -- then either way they need to accept responsibility for the consequences.
My comment on society (for what it is worth) is that because everyone has a laptop and a smart phone and they tinker with those, they then think they are qualified to tinker with control systems on which their lives depend.
When you choose options that affect control of your vehicle, or choose to modify your truck's Control Area Network (which includes anything that touches it), deliberate carefully.
Here is my experience, which informs this point:
My job deals with networked computer control systems in commercial nuclear power plants. I am working to drive innovation into the plants and replace ancient control systems designed in the 1960's and 1970's. Trying to go to 2010's in one step. From relays to a completely virtualized software based infrastructure.
I'm all for innovation. But the technology has to be bullet proof in my application. Even if the technology works (nuclear technology WORKED at Three Mile Island), public perception is reality. If you hear "improper control system modification causes turbine failure and plant SCRAM" in the news --- how do you respond? How is the whole industry impacted by the publicity? Especially if the $500M turbine is damaged and your electricity rates go up. This even though no one was injured and nuclear safety was never affected.
When you put in new control systems, one key lesson learned is "operate it as designed." What they CAN DO boggles the mind. But what it is designed to do is predicated on very specific, defined conditions. Go outside those, and performance is not guaranteed. You also need to ask, even within those parameters, "what SHOULD it do."
So. Do you live next to a nuclear power plant? Do you want me pushing the limits of what the control systems can do so I can make a little more profit producing power? Do you want power $0.02 cheaper per KwH or do you want the incremental safety in using the new control system within its design parameters to control the RIGHT functions properly?
I apply the same logic to my trucks. My life also depends on them every day. I like new gizmos. But, "cool" isn't the best reason to put them in. They should serve a purpose and be tested/proven. And, if my truck doesn't do what I want it to do, am I a qualified network engineer who understands how it works enough to change it with the confidence that the critical design functions are unaffected? I may rag on software engineers, but I respect them and their work. I am not qualified to do significant modifications that may take their system outside of its design parameters.
I volunteered for the "science project" to a degree when I bought a 2015. I typically NEVER buy a 1st model year truck. I love the gizmos in my Lariat. All of them. I did not choose the BLIS, lane change assist, or adaptive cruise control for a reason. SHOULD the truck control system do these things? I chose "no" for now. Let the technology prove itself before I trust my life to it.
If someone wants to pursue "manifest destiny" with their truck control system, they are welcome to. I really mean this. No "smart ***" tone. But as an engineer that deals with this stuff every day, I am just offering up some words of caution for folks to think about it first. Be careful. Just because an option is available -- SHOULD I buy it? If the control system doesn't do what I want, am I qualified to modify it? If they answer "yes," or they never asked the questions in the first place -- then either way they need to accept responsibility for the consequences.
My comment on society (for what it is worth) is that because everyone has a laptop and a smart phone and they tinker with those, they then think they are qualified to tinker with control systems on which their lives depend.
The following 7 users liked this post by 15fx43.5:
130428 (09-19-2015),
19_5.0_STX (05-02-2021),
BISCUT (05-02-2021),
gm125800 (09-25-2015),
Nick Hurter (09-19-2015),
and 2 others liked this post.
09-19-2015, 02:53 PM
#5
Senior Member
Proceed with Caution - Network Modifications and Control Functions
Originally Posted by 15fx43.5
What exactly is your reasoning for this post? Jw
The following 3 users liked this post by uood8:
09-19-2015, 02:58 PM
#6
Senior Member
i think that calls for a "cool story, bro!"
Seriously, everyone who tunes their trucks, or modify it in one way or the other, (should) know that it affects the parameters set by the factory and may or may not cause problems.
Hence the expression "you gotta pay to play". If you blow up your engine, it's only money. If you install a 12" lift and flip over on the on-ramp, well, you dead. it's all about risk tolerance vs rewards
in your case of a nuclear plant, well, the risks are sky-high and the rewards are, I imagine, fairly limited unless you can boost production 200% in one click!
Seriously, everyone who tunes their trucks, or modify it in one way or the other, (should) know that it affects the parameters set by the factory and may or may not cause problems.
Hence the expression "you gotta pay to play". If you blow up your engine, it's only money. If you install a 12" lift and flip over on the on-ramp, well, you dead. it's all about risk tolerance vs rewards
in your case of a nuclear plant, well, the risks are sky-high and the rewards are, I imagine, fairly limited unless you can boost production 200% in one click!
The following 2 users liked this post by Mtek:
19_5.0_STX (05-02-2021),
Nick Hurter (09-19-2015)
Trending Topics
09-19-2015, 06:26 PM
#8
Senior Member
I bet this guy is always the life of the party
Ignore his warning if you must, but don't rag on him for putting out the warning.
We never see the posts from people that have modified their trucks, and got killed or injured because of the mods. Never.
09-19-2015, 07:17 PM
#9
I think making the comparison between what amounts to trivial modifications (intake, exhaust, lifts, tires, hell, even engine tuning) and tinkering with the controls systems on power plants is QUITE a stretch.
The following users liked this post:
youngduece77 (09-22-2015)
