• Trilogy3452@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    We at least know it could potentially have really low failure rates since airplanes have the same type of systems today, and that’s highly regulated

    • kjetil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m more concerned about the failure mode than the failure rates. Mechanical and hydraulic brakes can experience gradual failure, giving the driver a chance to pull over get the car repaired.

      EVs usually have a single motor and a single inverter , both of which can fail suddenly. Electronics usually work perfectly fine until they suddenly don’t work at all (blown fuse, bad connection, blown capacitor etc)

      How are they gonna build redundancy so that no single component failure means youre freewheeling downhill on the highway

      • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Back in the day you had to have two distinct hydraulic lines, crossing over and serving 3 wheels each, so that you could still break if one went down, but you’d feel it.

        Guess they’ll have at least 2.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        22 hours ago

        single component failure means youre freewheeling downhill on the highway

        Do people really think Professional Engineers are stupid?

        • stray@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, they’d never put an unsafe vehicle into production. It would help boost confidence if someone explained what the backup plan is.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Brakes on airplanes are used infrequently (though when they’re used, they’re safety-critical) so the usage pattern is very different than for cars.

        • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s the real difference to me, maintenance. Planes have a strict schedule of inspection and replacement. Moms minivan last saw an oil change before the kids made it to middle school. There’s going to be some failures.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I mean, airplane brakes probably have about a 3% duty cycle (the percentage of time they’re in use), so they’re generally idle. For city driving, car brakes probably have about a 25% duty cycle.

          If those numbers are close to accurate, that means planes are using their brakes about 10x less than cars.

          BTW, I didn’t pull those plane numbers directly out of my ass, but they’re definitely a rough estimate. I’m figuring about 5 minutes of breaking time per flight, counting landing and during the taxi to and from the runway. And I’m assuming a 2.5 hour flight, figuring that could be close to an average flight time.

          • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I don’t think taxi and landing wear the brakes evenly. Landing must be something like 99% of the brake wear in <30 seconds of braking it takes for the plane to stop.