I know DesignNews continues to cover automobile data networks, but it is innovations like this liftgate sensor that makes them all the more imperative. As automotive engineers continue to instrument each sub-system on the platform, a common, multiplexed information network will be imperative as we continue. Yards of low-gauge automotive signal and power wire will only serve to increase cost and complexity. Can an on-board, distributed fiber-optic network be far behind?
Yes, this is a very clever idea. It will be interesting to see if it is useful enough to get picked up by the industry at large. Not sure this rises to the level of intermittent windshield wipers, but who knows?
Ever been stopped just as you were going to load your car? A neighbor calls your name, and you turn to see why, or your spouse calls from the front door to add to your shopping list? I can see this door giving you a whack from accidental detection, the "intent" described in the article.
Still, I like the idea very much; the cost added to the power package will be my deciding factor.
Mr. Weaver's comment about an onboard network is bang-on as well, though I don't think it will go to fiber optic. Bussed sensors (Devicenet or the like) already exist; getting them down in cost should work for mass auto production.
Oh, it's a plus, I agree. I rented a car last month, and enjoyed a keyless fob for the first time. Push-start, unlock doors as you grab the handle, just because the fob was in my pocket. It was quite an enjoyable experience.
I agree about not paying extra for it. Yet there have been countless times I've stood in front of a car's trunk with my arms full of grocery bags or luggage. Heck, I was cheap-thrilled when I had a car that had a button in the glove compartment that opened the trunk. My next car didn't have that feature and I actually missed it.
I have to admit, I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to extra features, so I probably wouldn't be willing to pay for this. The problem is, all features come in groups -- some optional, some standard -- and buyers often end up paying for them whether they know it or not.
I agree, Chuck. I don't pay extra for anything. Yet I've ended up with some nice features either because I bought a used car that happened to have features or the car that was on the lot (that I didn't have to wait for) happened to have features. Some of those features, though, have been fine -- like the glove compartment button that opens the trunk.
Rob, I never thought I would need automatic doorlocks on my cars, but now I'm hooked. It's a lot easier than turning around and locking every door in the car. It's easy to get used to some of these little luxuries.
The other "luxury" I've learned to like is the remote key fob. I wouldn't place it in the same category as automatic door locks, but I've learned to like the idea of hearing the beep when I remotely lock the door. I'm one of those people who can never remember if I've locked the door. By pressing on the key fob and hearing the beep, I know it's locked.
If you want the feature, why not put a kick plate on the back of the bumper or a switch next to the tow hitch? In both cases there is no need to verifying intent because you must be intentional to press the switch.
I personally think that we have way too many sensors and gadgets in cars. Lets keep it simple! The more complicated we make them, the more expensive cars become, the more likely they are to fail, and the more expensive they are to fix when they do fail.
I must say I like your "keep it simple" philosophy, VadimR, but we're going to lose that battle. Every time I attend an auto show, there's a handful of new sensor-based systems that I'd never seen before.
This is a great use of sensing techology to make something hands free and more user friendly. I would like to know how long it is necessary to keep your foot under the bumper to have the tailgate completely rise. Hopefully, you would be able to trigger the movement then be able to back up to stay out of the way of the lifting hatch.
The question of whether engineers could have foreseen the shortcut maintenance procedures that led to the crash of American Airlines Flight 191 in 1979 will probably linger for as long as there is an engineering profession.
More than 35 years later, the post-mortem on one of the countryís worst engineering disasters appears to be simple. A contractor asked for a change in an original design. The change was approved by engineers, later resulting in a mammoth structural collapse that killed 114 people and injured 216 more.
If youíre an embedded systems engineer whose analog capabilities are getting a little bit rusty, then youíll want to take note of an upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center class, ďAnalog Design for the Digital World,Ē running Monday, Nov. 17 through Friday, Nov. 21.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.