Active safety will continue to drive the need for faster processors and more affordable memories, Delphi Automotive chief technology officer Jeff Owens told Design News Radio recently.
Owens, an auto industry veteran who heads a staff of 17,000 technologists at Delphi, said the automotive industry is looking to a new generation of electronic components to meet the needs of so-called active safety systems, which can prevent accidents. "The cost-benefit to this technology is significant," Owens said. "We think it's the next big step to having that curve of fatalities drop downhill."
Active safety systems, which can take control of a vehicle's brakes or steering, are built atop many of the same processing innovations (microcontrollers and memories) that have served as the foundation of the passive safety revolution. "That's been the breakthrough that has allowed many new safety loops in the vehicle, for driver and passenger bags, as well as for rollover, side curtain bags, knee bolsters, and rear bags," Owens said. "It's all been enabled by the capabilities of electronics and faster processing technologies."
However, he also said the annual fatality figure of 33,000 may be reaching a plateau. That's why the industry needs to begin the transition from passive to active safety.
"We need the ability to see the accident before it occurs and have the vehicle take some kind of mitigating action," he said. "Putting on the brakes, maybe even going into a full panic stop -- those are the kinds of things that would eliminate or at least reduce the impact of a collision."
Fuel efficiency laws, such as the 54.5mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandate, will also have a profound effect on the automotive semiconductor market, according to Owens. Technologies such as gasoline direct injection, turbocharging, and nine-speed transmission designs will also drive the need for automotive electronics. Such systems need better electronics to run the software algorithms, sense important events, and meet tighter time constraints.
"Faster processors and more affordable memories open up many doors and windows into automotive electronics," he said. "When the processing power is available, it will be used."
I wonder if they will also start to use artificial intelligent software that will start to learn different drivers and how they drive and where their weaknesses are. It's all very exciting. Good article.
Ghost in the Machine? Self realization of the machines?
I like the last line, "open up many doors and windows", does this imply that the car will 'sense' the owner and open the door. Open the windows as the occupant approaches drive-thru venues. Or is this just a play on words? Funny either way!
I'm not ready to let a programmer decide what course of action to decide vehicle safety. The operator in charge should always have the final decision.
The Airbus crash at the 1988 Paris airshow makes this point clearly. The pilot and flight control computer got into disagreement as to what the plane should do:
TJ McDermott, I agree. When it comes to vehicle safety, I like to be in control as to some software running on a black box. I believe one key to vehicle safety is to pay attention to the road while driving.
You know, there is a slippery slope on this topic. While there's no argument that electronics advancements have increased safety in vehicles over the years, (airbags & curtains, proximity sensors, back-up cameras and Bluetooth hands-free audio as a few examples) there are other electronic innovations that I simply just do not support; such as automatic braking in high end sedans currently. This type of "Safety" feature I think is more of a problem than a solution, lulling the distracted driver into a sense of security. And the Ford Focus that can parallel-park all by itself-? Fantastic technology, but it allows the incapable operator to climb behind the wheel. I can't support it.
Meanwhile, it was refreshing to see that the Delphi CTO had a short list of electronics advancement being developed that sounded more valuable to safety and performance than these two marketing gimmicks of auto-brake and auto-park.
I think the key is to have the computers help the operator to make decisions faster, with greater information. Being sure not to have the computer make the final decision. Because occasionally all of the data may point one direction while a human can decide that is still the best course. What would have happened in New York if the computer had tried to get to the runway rather than that pilot putting the plane down in the Potomic. Possibly a very large disaster.
It is an interesting assertion that somehow cars are becoming safer because of all of those unreliable electronic systems being added. They are unreliable because the primary design target is minimum cost to produce them, all other considerations are secondary. Even worse, the systems all are set up to protect the very most unskilled and ill-prepared drivers, which means that they will be constantly fighting against the experienced drivers, who probably are at least half of all drivers. On top of that problem, none of the vehicle safety features that I have come across is able to handle exceptions. The ABS system assures excessive stopping distance on loose gravel and when there are leaves or sand blown onto the road surface, and the stability control system assures that a very quick swerve to avoid something will not be done the way the driver intends it to be done. They will probably protect a 17 year old beginner driver, and possibly the 90 year old grandmother, that is true. BUT most drivers are not in either one of those groups.
UNFORTUNATELY we are no longer allowed any choice about which systems we will have operating in our cars. So a whole lot of us will be fighting with systems designed soley to protect that portion of folks who perhaps should not be driving at all. Is this a benefit for society?
Good points, William K. One of the questions we asked Jeff Owens was, "Why not take the cell phones and some of the other electronic content out of the vehicle, so that we don't need to be rescused by more electronics?" You'll have to listen to the radio show to get his answer.
Antilock brakes DO assure that you will slide straight into something when you can't stop, that is true. And occasilally they can be handy, BUT there is no simple way to make them understand that the situation is an exception and that stopping the whels is the only smart move. Perhaps a means to bypass the function if I mash down hard enough on the brake pedal, since I never do that in normal driving, not even in emergency stops. Hard braking yes, but not the two-feet-on-the-pedal kind. That level of effort should bypass the pulsing and lock those wheels.
That is the reason that I don't like all of those features, which is that they don't handle exceptions well, and I happen to get into a few "exceptions" , possibly more often than some others do.
And the reason that we can't get all those other distractions out of the vehicle is really quite simple: there is too much money to be made having them there. It matters not how many thousands get killed, there is lots of profit in cell phone use while driving, and so it can never be stopped. The phone companies have way more money to spend to assure that than the tobacco companies ever had. And if you have enough money you CAN buy what you want.
If you have antilock brakes, it is worth experimenting with them and understanding how they work under different conditions.
Almost all antilock brakes do turn off by pumping the brake pedal. If you are in a situation where you don't want antilocks to "work", pump the brakes quickly yourself, then do whatever you want. This will turn off most antilock brakes.
Pressing the brakes (not pumping them) is the proper way to stop with antilock brakes. This allows the ABS system to start pulsating if wheel lock occurs on one or more wheels.
William K: It surprised me last December when the National Transportation Safety Board called for a law that would prevent phone usage by drivers, and the response was so negative. It wasn't the electronics manufacturers weighing in, but the consumers. They were writing to newspapers and calling radio talk shows to make their case of the need for cell phones in the car. Unfortunately, it seems that drivers, especially younger ones, just can't put their phones down.
I personally like Anti Lock brakes, and traction control, which both somewhat fall under the category of "black boxes" taking control. I think the actuarial data on antilock brakes would prove that the average driver is better of with them than without. If you drive on snow and ice you come to befriend traction control if you use it. I feel much safer on ice with traction control and antilocks. I attempt to drive in a way that doesn't cause them to work, but I take comfort in the fact that when I push a little too hard, the electronics kick in and correct.
Allison makes automatic transmissions for trucks now, and I'm sure that most "skilled" drivers would bad mouth the automatic over the "control" that a clutch (supposedly) gives them. Allison does pull-offs with experienced drivers using manual transmissions, pulling against inexperienced drivers with automatic transmissions, and the experienced driver with a clutch never wins against the automatic.
I understand the reservations about the black box thing, but in time the technology usually proves itself worthwhile.
Another example is the "launch" electronics in formula cars. Drivers first resisted it, but relented when the guys using the launch control were driving up their tailpipes on every start.
As for enabling idiots to get behind the wheel, we already do that. So you might as well make the car smart enough to drive, because many of the people we give licences to aren't.
In order to reach the upcoming CAFE standards, cars will be smaller and they will be made of lighter materials. Safety devices via electronic systems may help consumers gain confidence in smaller, lighter cars.
I agree, Rob. Electronic safety systems will have a positive effect. It's been said that approximately 90% of accidents are caused by some kind of driver error.
That stat sounds about right, Chuck. Yet, if you're not driving a big SUV, and you get hit by a big SUV, your chances of injury are elevated. Any electronic devices that can help ameliorate this situation would be very helpful.
The good news is that we are reaching that point very quickly. The three main pieces of the active safety puzzle -- adaptive cruise control, lanekeeping and crash avoidance -- are already in use.
Yes, it is true that most of the accidents are caused by driver error, and the main driver error is not paying enough attention to driving. Probably 80% of all of the accidents are caused by inadequate concentration on the driving task, which of course willm indeed lead to errors in actions. When the radios only had 6 buttons to select stations drivers were much less distracted then when it takes several button selections to get a specific station. But the complex radios sell for a whole lot more than the old ones, so the profit is much larger. So probably radios won't get any less complex, although more controls will go to the back side of the steering wheel. This allows tuning without looking but the distraction is just as great. The problem is in the break in attention, not in the time looking at things. At least some of the times that is the problem. So removing the need to look at things is only a small partial solution.
By refining topologies and using new fluid technology, Moog's new peak sine drive controller increases available power without increasing controller volume.
Lantronix Inc. has expanded its line of controllers for sensor networks with the release of a rugged controller that improves management of automation systems used in a number of industries, including manufacturing, oil and gas, and chemicals.
Inspired by the hooks a parasitic worm uses to penetrate its host's intestines, the Karp Lab has invented a flexible adhesive patch covered with microneedles that adheres well to wet, soft tissues, but doesn't cause damage when removed.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
7 
