Cars do indeed have to many processors and controllers. Multicore will certainly not improve things or reduce the number of them, it will only serve to increase both complexity and price, particularly price to repair them. Likewise, reliability will dive as more functions get mired in poorly written code.
Remember a few years back, when the car was going to have one giant control module and everything was going to be multiplexed, and the car would only have 3 wires? Now, primarily in the search for "product differentiation", every chunk of hardware that does anything spots it's own microcontroller. Worse, each of these little gimmics is vying for a bit of driver attention. The next goal is full internet connectivity and content, with location prompted advertising. Full time distraction coming to a vehicle, even dispite driving being a full time task.
The problem with all of the automation is that it is not able to deal with the exception correctly, every time, always. Drivers often can respond correctly, if they are not distracted, and if they are allowed to respond correctly. BUt the programmed systems can never be right all the time, because they can't ever be programmed that way.
The solution is not better programming, it is getting rid of much of the automation and allowing the driver to be in control. The system can record just what the driver did, so as to either clear him or to nail him. Of course this reduces privacy, but on the roads we could use some accountability, not privacy.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
Using Siemens NX software, a team of engineering students from the University of Michigan built an electric vehicle and raced in the 2013 Bridgestone World Solar Challenge. One of those students blogged for Design News throughout the race.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.