 Dwi'n meddwl, yn Llyfrgelliannol Cymru, mae gennym i bydd cyfosigfaen o'ch cyffredin iawn, ac rwy'n meddwl o'r teis newlydiadau widthiaeth i mewn rhain, dwy méfyrdd yn i ysgrifennu cyntaf, atio atoges o gweithio i weld. Rwydd, dda i'n cael gwaith. Dda i'n gwaith, rydyn ni'n gallu byddiwch. Rydyn ni'n ôl i gael dw i'n fynd i bobl oeddwn i gael y flwyddyn, ac ti'n gweithio i mewn o gyflusio'n gweithio'n gwerthio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Maenai, ddyn nhw, mae Fawkes Fawkes Polo, 20 yw'r argynwys yn ddwy'r ceisio'r ddyn nhw, ddyn nhw, yn ymddangos, yn gwych gyda'r chylaid. Mae'r glasiwch, ddyn nhw, yn y 1960, yn Y Herald 948, yn ysgwyllt y ddyn nhw'n gyflawn i'r gweithio yng Nghyrru. Felly bydda'r cyfan yn gweithio'r ddyn nhw. Mae'n ddod am ychydig fod yw ddyn nhw'n gweithio. mae i�� o bod y gyd yn dweud, mae gennych, mae gennat i ôl yn gyllid, a fy sy'n ystod i fy modr pan fydd yn ôl, iddyn nhw'n gwybod hynny, maes rai iddo, mae hynny iddyn nhw'n mynd i. Ond dros gyfaint y gyrfa, rydyn nhw'n gweld bod hi fynd i fyddech chi mwy fydd yn digwyddio o'r embrys o bobl o gyrfa yn cyllid, ac yndyny, y gyrfa llwyddau o wneud y clywed yn y motoru. Mae'n ddigonol i gennych cael ei ddeud. Mae'n ddigonol i fflawni gydiau gael, mae'n ddigonol i fi'n ddigonol i fi wedi cyffredinol, mae'n ddigonol i fi'n ddigonol i fi gael, ac yn cael i ddweud y cyfrifig a'r newid yma. Mae'n intech i chi ddwyf yn eitem wyrstellung i'r cyfrifig almighty, Give ddwyf yn fwypt gael y llyfrig plannol, felly maen o ran mewn eitem, mae'n ddigonol i fi fyddwch. Yr hyn yn fwyaf cyfrifio'r cyfrifio y industry yn ddiwedd yn cael ei gŷn o'r 100 ysgol, a gwneud yn cerdd y gweithio'r bagachol yn y gweithio. Yn y gweithio eich cyfrifio eich cyfrifio o'r geniwyn llywyr, rywbeth cyfrifio'r ymddir ymlaen. Yn yw'r cyfrifio eich cyfrifio... ...nydd yw? Yn y cerdd y cyfrifio eich cyfrifio 40 yw'r cyfrifio, yw'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio. Yi cyfrifio eich cyfrifio eich cyfrifio it will carry four people at motorway speeds all day. It won't use much fuel, most cars nowadays are in the 50 to 60 miles a gallon. I'm afraid I don't know what that is in liters per 100 kilometers, but they don't use much fuel. It won't rust, it will last a long time. Its metallurgy and rust protection is fantastic. Its oil with synthetic oils in the engine. You're engine just doesn't wear out. Now if any of you have owned Classic cars or any of you started arriving career decades ago, that isn't the case when I started driving, which is nearly over 30 years go now, cars rusted. You know, we had if you had a 10 year old car, or car over 100,000 miles, in a lot of cases you are doing quite well because you had 20, 50 multigrade oil and what passed for steel sydd wedi cael ei ddweud yr ydych chi'n gweithio'r peidio yng Nghymru, felly mae'n cael ei ddweud sy'n cael ei ddweud y 5-yrddion ymlaen gyda'r gweithio yn y oblyg. Rwy'n meddwl ychydig ar gyfrifau gyda'r gweithio'r sef, a'i nhw'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio ar gyfer cyfle. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r gweithio ar gweithio, boi'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio ar gyfer gyfrifau gyda'r gweithio. Felly, mae'n gweithio'n dweud, y cas i'r cair yn ni'n gweithio, dda i'r cyflogion, mae'n gweithio. Ond ydy rydyn ni'n gweithio eich gweithio? Rydyn ni'n gweithio y ffion iawn y Fiat 127. mae'n gweithio bai'r cyflogion oedd. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio, maen nhw'n gweithio'r car a'r cair ar y cwrnod. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio yma mae'n gweithio i'r gweithio, y frontwheel drive a'r gearbox ar y gyrdd yma. Mae'r rhai olyw, fel y Citroen Traxion Avent ar y 30-rhyw, y frontwheel drive a'r gyrdd yma. Mae'r ffans yn ymdw i'n fwy o'r gyrdd. Mae'n ddim yn ystod, ond Alakiss Agonis yn y gearbox yn y gyrdd yma a'r oil yn y gyrdd. Y Ffiat 127 o'r posibl yw'r hynny'n ddim yn ychenty ar y dyfod yw'r ffordd. Mae'r ffordd, ond ychynig yw'r ffordd modern. Mae'r gyrdd yma ar y gyrdd yma, yw'r frontwheel drive ar y gyrdd yma, yw'r ffordd modern. Mae'r Ffiat 127 o'r rhai olyw, ond mae'r ffordd yw'r cyffredinol. Mae'r ffordd yn ymdw i'r ffordd. Y Ffiat 127 o'r ffordd, mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd. Mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd ffyrdd. Felly ychydig, mae'r Ffiat Ddechrau Gwoesi Gweithio, oedd hynny'n gweithio i'r ffordd o'r sonion. Mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd. Mae'n gweithio i'r Fesoedd Gweithio, yn gwybod造 yn 1970 er хорошо yna, oedd yna bod y ddechrau a oedd yn gweithio. Mae'r ffordd o Westminster o'r rhai o'r rhai o'r rhai. Nid yw'r ffordd. Wrth ffrws, mae'r ffordd newydd o'r ffordd, mae'r Ffiat Panda. Mae'r ffordd yw'r ffordd o'r Ffiat Panda, y bod eich bod mae'r cwelch yn cyfry ag ystod. Mae'r cyfry ag ystod, mae'r gwybod bywyr hefyd. Mae'r gweldtiau a llïddau plasig. Mae'r cwelch yn cyfry ag ystod, mae'r cyfry ag ystod, mae'r cwelch yn cyfry ag ystod, mae'r gwybod. Mae'r gwybod i'r cyfry ag ystod. Mae'r gwybod i'r ffraith o'r lefadau, mae'r cyfry ag ystod yn vehwyr, a mae'r gweithio hefyd mae ffin yn gweldwyr gweithio hefyd. Mae'r rhaglau amall yn y 70s wedi bod yn ystod oesol. I flwyddyn sydd ei f grouping arno gyda'r rhaglau sy'n gair glwn o'r llas a gweithio'r sall. A phwyl yn ddi, a ond ti wedi credu'r rhaglau wna'r rhaglau. Y meddwl yn gallu ddwybod, y methalergyd, y mhi-io. Mae'n ddiddordeb mesurau ar geyrd o็r. Ymgyrchu, rwy'n gweithio y ddechrau, rwy'n gweithio ar y cyflawn i adeutau Aldi dechrau. Mae'r adeutau Aldi, ac y ddweud â'r adeutau, mae'r ddechrau Cymraeg haf ystafell yn Monaco, a dweud y cyflawn i'r ddechrau sy'n gallu'n ddweud y cyflawn. A'r ddweud y cyflawn i'r ddweud a'r ddweud yn ddefnyddio'r ddweud, ac y ddweud yn gweithio'n ddechrau, ac y cyflawn yn ddechrau. A'r ddweud y dyfodol yn gweithio, yn y 80s, mae'r If cars are so good, why have they got baggage? Why are they all so bad? Now, I'm going to illustrate with a procession of cars. This is a Triumph Herald 948 from 1959. This isn't my car, but I drove one of these for about 25, 30 years. My car is, as I say, with my friend's son at the moment. He's really enjoying it. This is a very old-fashioned car. This is one of the last British cars made with a separate chassis. The point with this car is it's horribly unreliable. All sorts of things break, it rusts. But the flip side of that is there is nothing on that car. Even nowadays, there aren't many parts on that car that cost more than 100 euros. Most parts cost 10 euros. You can repair that car in almost anything with a very simple set of spanners and screwdrivers. There's almost no part of a Triumph Herald I haven't taken to pieces. On one respect, this is a very bad car. But on another respect, it's a very good car because you can keep them running for 60 years with minimal effort. I know because I've done it. Let's move forward. I've put 1983 there. That's 1992. I am so bad. That is a Volkswagen Polo 6M. It's basically they had the Golf Mark 1, then the Golf Mark 2. Then the new Golf Mark 3 was a much lardier platform, so they renamed the Golf Platform the Polo and kept on making it. This is a car from the early 90s. It has some characteristics in common with the Herald. It's actually quite possible as a geek to repair one of these in your garage. There are a lot of electronics in there but there's nothing too difficult to deal with. It's got a catalytic converter. It's got electronic ignition. It's got oxygen sensors and stuff like that. But if you're prepared to learn about how those work, you can fix this car. This is a Focus C-Max. It's actually the first car of shiny where I haven't actually owned one or driven one. I use this one because my friend has one. It's a people carrier from the mid 2000s. I always remember the first time I sat in it. It was the first time I'd sat in a car where the experience of turning the car was of it booting up. This thing, at least I don't know if this one here, but my friend's Focus C-Max. The whole thing in front was a TFT and you literally got a logo, a boot logo. I strongly suspect if you delved in behind you'd probably have a Linux prompt. When she had it, it was actually a little old, so everything was starting breaking. Everything was all in one computer. To be honest, for a repairability point of view and a complexity point of view, this thing is not repairable. You will see 60-year-old triumph heralds around. You will probably, at the moment, see 35-year-olds, Fox, Vag and Golf Mark IIs, and Polo 6Ns around. I'd be very surprised if you see any Focus C-Maxes more than 15 or 20 years old. There'll always be somebody who has one, but they've managed to make a car that is brilliant in every way. It doesn't rust. It's engine goes on forever. You can go to the moon and back if you change the oil regularly in one of those, but they won't make more than 10 or 15 years old because that digital dash will break. This is the problem facing car makers, that they've made incredible cars, but they don't want them to last forever. They want them to die. They want them to die early. I've used the phrase complexity as the new rust. When I started my motor in Korea, basically, we all had cars that were about 10 years old, but they were rusty as anything. We got to know body filler and all the tricks to get them through the APK, the MOT in the UK. Nowadays, you have a 20-year-old car and it's just rust-free. This is a miracle, but that's really bad for the car manufacturers. They've basically upped the complexity, where if something broke in the Herald, it would cost you 10 pounds, 15 euros, and a day with a screwdriver. If something breaks in the CMAX, you'll take it to the dealer and they will say, well, that module will cost you 1,500 euros, and that's more than the car's worth, and so you scrap it. If you go into a modern scrapyard, you will find it is full of cars that, back in the 80s, when I started driving, we could only dream of cars with perfect engines, perfect bodywork that are only in there because something too complex and too expensive has broken. So, here we are in 2022. The problem with electric cars is that electric car is fundamentally a very simple piece of kit. If you want to see how simple an electric car can be, if you go around these hacker camps, you'll probably see hacky racers. If you see my friend Mike's, little tykes, a cozy coop thing driving around, that's a hacky racer. That's an electric car stripped to its essentials. That is not road legal, but it's a good illustration of what you need for an electric car. You need a floor pan platform, so you need something with wheels, suspension, brakes, et cetera. You need an electric motor and a transmission. You need a motor controller, you need a battery manager, and probably you need something to manage the anti-lock brakes. That's three computers, three microcontrollers, and you can make a road legal electric car. A transmission controller, power management, and anti-lock brakes. These are not the electric cars we're getting. I mean, if you drive an electric car, I'm guessing that you quite like the toys. You fire up your Tesla, even your Nissan Leaf, whatever, TFTs everywhere. You know, toys. You didn't pay for some heap of shites with like just one dial. You paid for the experience. The trouble is, particularly with things like Teslas, Teslas go out of support before they're 10 years old. Teslas, actually Teslas also have awful build quality. I think I would prefer a U-Go to a Tesla, because I actually prefer a car with build quality. The problem is we're repeating exactly the same problems as we did with the petrol cars beforehand. That we're producing zero tailpipe emission cars that won't be put off the roads by emissions legislation. And so the manufacturers are making damn certain they come off the road by loading them with unnecessary features and integrating the features. So when the technology dies, the car dies. And I would be prepared to put money on it. If I were to walk into a scrapyard in, let's say, 2030 or 2035, I would find it full of Nissan Leafs and Teslas and E-Golfs and, oh God, what's the other, your normal crop of current day electric vehicles that are in perfect condition. They still have plenty of capacity in the battery. They have no rust. They look as though you could drive them away, but they will be dead and they will be in the scrapyard because some loaded extra feature has died which costs a fortune to replace and the owner has just said, I'm going to scrap it. And thus, I'd say that when environmental soundness is linked to longevity rather than to tailpipe emissions, an electric car that lives for less than 10 years or even less than 20 years isn't environmentally sound at all. I think I'd rather go a more environmental route. I might hazard a guess that driving a diesel pickup truck fuelled by endangered whale oil would probably be more environmentally sound. Oh jeez, there it goes. Help. Oh, we're back. Yay. So coming back to what I said about the hacky racers. Electric car, this is actually a prototype Ford electric car from about 1914. And as you can see, it's an electric car stripped to the minimum. Personally, looking at that, it's got brakes on the back wheels only and it's got lead acid battery and it's got no safety features whatsoever. Maybe that's a bit too minimalist. But really, it comes back to what I was saying about the hacky racers. To make an electric car, you do not need all the extra things. It's a genuine opportunity for manufacturers to throw away the baggage and make much simpler cars with longevity in mind. If they're serious about environmental soundness, they need to look at the way they make cars and make them for lifetime environmental soundness, not just the smug feeling of the first person who drives it off the forecourt. So this is something I came up with for Hackaday a while back, the minimal motoring manifesto, which is, this is how I want to see cars made. I don't know if you lot agree with me. I'm guessing they'll probably be one or two automotive engineers in the audience who will tear me to shreds in the comments. But this is a hill I'm prepared to die on. Personally, I would like to step into a car, something like a Willys Jeep, with one dial in front of me and minimal controls. But I realise, not everybody is like me. People expect the toys, they want the toys, they've earned the right to the toys. Yeah, fair enough, you should have toys in a car if you want to. But car design needs to be able to deliver the toys without delivering that built-in planned obsolescence of one thing breaks and the whole car is scrap. So here's the manifesto. Separate the subsystems. Why are unnecessary subsystems integrated closely with necessary ones? Why, when something that is unnecessary for the car breaks, do I have to replace a module which costs a fortune because it runs every other subsystem on the car? Why, when something unnecessary on the car breaks, can I not just ignore it and keep driving and keep going for an APK or MOT and keep the car on the road? When my Triumph Herald is a bad example because it has no toys. OK, when my Polo 6N's air conditioner died or central locking died or any of its other subsystems, and believe me, all its subsystems did eventually die, I could keep driving the thing because it still had enough of its subsystems separate that it kept on the road. The speedometer worked, the lights worked, whatever. That focus CMAX, if almost anything dies, anything affects that can bus, whatever. The whole bloody lot dies. When you've had the experience of seeing somebody with a headlight bulb that's broken and it's not just a headlight bulb like it was in the Triumph Herald, it's a fucking computer system and there's a microcontroller in there that's died so they're stuck with no headlights by the side of the road, you start wondering maybe complexity is the enemy of the motorist. My next thing on the manifesto is provide a minimal way in. Now, we're all familiar with OBD2. Most of us have probably got one named little Bluetooth dongles, you plug into your car and you can read off all sorts of interesting stuff. Now OBD2 is great, it's a standard because some parts fit a standard. Now of course every manufacturer has extended the standard and made it non-standard. I would suggest, I would like to advance the proposition that we need a standard for essential services in a car. So if something very expensive dies and means that you can't get it through an APK, you need to be able to unplug that digital dash or that module and throw it away and drop in an open source one that provides the essential services needed. Throw away the toys, just put in an open source speedometer or whatever that just works. The last one is if you read reviews of mobile phones. I know this, I'm a journalist, when you're writing a review of something you need to find something to get excited about. I pity people who review mobile phones because all mobile phones are basically the same. They're a black slab. This is actually quite galling. If you pay a thousand euros for an iPhone, you get a black slab. If you pay 50 euros for an Alcatel, you get a black slab. They look absolutely identical from a distance. As a journalist, when you're writing about this stuff, you've basically got to find the things that you can say, oh, the iPhone is so special because it has a curved edge or something stupid. But it's basically, sorry, it's a black slab. This is the same problem with cars. There was a time when cars were all different. If you go back to the 1970s, you could genuinely, if you wanted a car with a rear engine, there were several ones. If you wanted a car with adventurous styling, there were several ones. If you wanted a real-world drive car, you could take a choice. But to be honest, now you look at the models from the main manufacturers and you can't get a cigarette paper between them. They're so similar and they're all very bland. When you read reviews and things, the reviews are all about the toys in the cab because the poor journalist has got nothing else to write about because the car itself is so boring. I would turn around and I would say, if you're a designer of cars, you need to go and drive a 1950s car and find what makes a car fun to drive without bells and whistles because if you can make a car that doesn't need all the extra crap, you've probably made a better car in the first place. My friend used to try to start a business in kit cars and it failed. He came to me and he said that the car business is either one of two types of people. You're either a crook or a dreamer. I'm not in the car business but I realise that the thesis I've just delivered makes me a dreamer because it's never going to happen. It's not in the interests of car manufacturers to make cars that last longer. They want to flog cars. But still, if we're living in late-stage automobile design, the automobile is about to change and shuffle off this mortal coil as we know it, we still don't have to like it. Anyway, I've been to any list. If you like this talk, I'm going to talk to you for a very short while about Stishing Transrescue Foundation. This is the non-profit of which I am treasurer. We're actually based over by the Badge tent. We help transgender people get out of very dangerous places. We're unashamedly here to raise money. If you'd like to come and talk to us, if you'd like to donate, please come and do so. Anyway, thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions? You can tear me to shreds. If you have any questions, please walk to the mics and you can ask them. Hello. Are you first? Okay, thanks. Thank you. It was very interesting. I drive an electric car. I had been researching which car to drive for months and ended up leasing for the first time in my life because that wasn't the perfect car. Yes. But I was wondering, did you hear about the Sono Motors car which comes only in one variety and has a photovoltaic system? Do you repeat the make of the car? Sono Motors, S, O, N, O. Okay. Is that the one that looks a bit like a Volkswagen micro bus? I think so. You can just get it in black and it has solar panels all around and their goal is to make a simple car. Have you heard about that? That is a wonderful idea. I have seen more than one attempt to do that. However, I'll refer you back to the Crooks and Dreamers slide. I would love to drive a car like that, but all the ones I've seen, I may not be quite familiar with the one you've described, but all the ones I've seen are either way more expensive or the company basically isn't going to belong to this world. I really want a car like that and if I could get one, that's great, but I'm afraid I would end up paying a lot more money than I can afford and I might well end up with something with zero spare support because the company's gone bust. Actually, I'm not sure if they are getting ready. We had reserved one and it's delayed, delayed, delayed and I've heard mixed things, so I was wondering if you know about it and what your opinion is. I may not be familiar with that particular one, but I've seen quite a few. I'm a motorcyclist as well as a driver and there are also some very exciting small motorcycles in the 125cc class and it's not impossible as a lifelong car driver and a motorcyclist, I might actually become purely a motorcyclist for the same reason because there are some simple ones there. Thank you. Hi there. I won't shred you to threads because I really liked your talk. Thank you. I always bought old cars and I did a lot of repairs on them until indeed the cars became too complicated to do it myself and recently a log failed and I had to like the ignition log and I had to pay 400 euros because it had to be reprogrammed. I was amazed. I kind of fell over complexity as the new rust, whether it's the intention of the manufacturers to make a car that is very obsolete, obsolete very soon, because I'm wondering whether, I mean you're blaming the manufacturer but I think the manufacturer is also driven by us as consumers. So my question is the deliberate choice of the manufacturers or is it lack of critical consumer feedback? I would say there's an element of both because of course the consumer, because the trouble is the consumer, as in you and I, is different from the consumer who buys the cars because people who buy new cars they don't buy them for the same reason we do. And yes you're right, the consumer just wants toys but the manufacturer is consciously making cars that are bad for maintenance. The manufacturer is consciously making cars with software licenses. The manufacturer is consciously selling frigging heated seats as a service or whatever other stupid ideas. The manufacturer is enthusiastically embracing this so I'm still going to go with the manufacturers here. Yeah but if you look like a fair phone to look at the phone side, they kind of try to do what you're suggesting to make it modular. I'm going to answer that though. Outside this field, who has a fair phone? Yeah, exactly. I mean great, there is a fair phone but the fact is that virtually nobody outside our community has heard of it. So I would say that you're right, fair phone are doing the right thing but they are a very niche manufacturer. If Huawei start doing that, then I'm listening. But I would say that that approach is great but I don't see any of the big manufacturers doing that. Yeah and that's why I think that... Let's take this discussion offline and please give the next question. Thank you. John. So first of all, I would like to thank you for addressing this because I think it's a real issue, especially when the population is growing and more and more people want or need cars. At the same time, I would like to ask because this still revolves around car ownership because you have a car and at some point it stops working and you need to repair it or buy a new one. And now, hypothetically, if there will be a future where car ownership isn't the norm because most cars, they are produced, then they are in parking lots for over 90% of the time, which is kind of a waste of resources, I'd say. So what if cars would not be personal property but rather be a service people can make use of? Would that change the conclusion of your thesis? Well, it would still mean that those cars, if they're over complex, would go on the scrap heap quicker, which basically means that they are in less environmentally sound. So it doesn't change what you might call the hardware part of the thesis, but also it's the same thing with cloud software. When I pay for something, I want to own it. I don't want somebody else to own it. And, fair enough, I use Gmail because I mean, Jesus, this is a Google presentation. But there are things where I draw the line. I want to own something. I want to own my CAD package. I don't want it in the cloud. Thank you, Autodesk Eagle. I want to own my car because I don't want somebody else to harvest my every use of it and sell it to somebody else. I don't want to be beholden to an evil corporation on it. So there's the hardware side of it that it doesn't matter who owns the car if it's on the scrap heap in five minutes. That's a bad thing. But there's also the ownership side of it that I want to I want to be able to use my car on my terms. Also, I grew up, it come out in Britsa Bordari. I grew up on a British farm. And these kind of shared models sort of cars as a service, they're great if you live in a town. But most people don't. And most people don't live in the kind of town that has that kind of thing. If you live in a hollowed out town in the hinterlands, you're not the first people to get these services. You're the last people to get these services. So there's still a big need for people to have vehicles they own, I would say. But from a hardware perspective, I would say the same completely applies whatever the ownership model is, if the car is on the scrap heap before it's time, then it's not sound. Fair enough, thanks. I'd like to disagree with you. Please do. First, I think we're having a people problem. As you said to the questions before, people want gadgets. You shouldn't be angry at car manufacturers, but you should be angry at people that just want to live with it. Or try to change and educate people to be more sensible of this thing. And I'll take you on the 2030 bet. I'm sure there will be not many cars in perfect condition in scrapyards. And another thing, sorry. Cars are pretty resilient. Like in a Tesla, you can remove the centre of view and you lose air conditioning and some commodity features. The car still runs. When I came here, I was playing with a can bus of a Tesla and I shorted the motor control bus, can bus. And it still drove fine. And it just disabled regenerative braking. But there are also many open source projects that are addressing this. Like there's open source, as you said, speedometers. Like an acrofondroid with an ASP32 connected to the can bus that works. And I'm sure there will be a thriving community in this kind of project that aims to remove the MCU and make the car number as you like it. But I think it's also a generational problem. Like people with carburetors were complaining when injection got introduced. And it's also... The world is more and more complex every day. So everything is more and more complex. It's like entropy. It's still accessible. You can still route a Tesla. You can still reverse engineer a can bus. It's just more difficult. I would turn around. On the first point, I'd say that it comes back to that separate the subsystems thing. Fair enough the customer asks for the toys. The manufacturer is not separating the subsystems. But also I would say that yes, there are all these open source projects and they are absolutely great. The trouble is they are not accessible to the kind of people who are not on this field. And it's great. Yes, it gets more complex. But if you basically have to be the kind of person who goes to hacker camps to even attempt it, it's failed. Basically that Triumph Herald, as I say in a lot of ways was an awful car. But almost anybody in his backyard with a screwdriver could maintain it. Now obviously we have moved on since Triumph Herald. I agree to making it easier for somebody who isn't on this field. And I agree there are some wonderful open source projects. But I have an electronic engineering degree. I can do this. But I don't think it's fair to expect the average bloke on a estate in my hometown of Bista to also be able to do it. Yeah, but where there's a wheel, there's a business. So if many people want this, the people from the open source project will manufacture a product that you just plug in. There are many projects that went this way. We've had these things for quite a long time in those businesses that haven't appeared. And meanwhile, there are a few businesses like that, but it has not a mass market thing. Please move the discussion to outside and give room to the next question. By the way, if we come along to WTF 2033, there's a club martyr in that bet. Hello. So a very quick one maybe. We are adding the complexity to the systems to the cars to increase the safety. So in the 1970s, the car that you just show, we had about 20,000 people dying in Germany alone and road kills a year. Now we have about 2,000. So we are saving 18,000 lives a year. I mean, we can reduce airbags, we can reduce ESPs, we can reduce all of these microcontrollers, all of this logic. Right now we are adding all the compute to the cars to save lives. I would disagree with you. Obviously a lot of technology in the car for safety. There is the design of the monocoque. There is the metallurgy of the monocoque. There are things like crumple zones. There are reactive systems like airbags and stuff like that. But the kind of things I'm talking about are not the essential safety systems. They are the ludicrous amounts of extra complexity and non-essential systems that is tied into the rest of the car. Of course we need safety systems. Oddly, that triumph herald is actually one of the safer cars I featured there because it has a separate chassis. There is test data on 1970s crash tests on the triumph Spitfire in which it actually came up quite well because the chassis just goes yonk. But that's an outlier. Safety is obviously an important thing but I'm not talking about safety systems here because it's not the safety systems that are the problem. Any other takers? Come on, this is a hill I'm prepared to die on. Come at me. Well, if that's all then thank you very much and thank you for being a polite and attentive audience.