I agree, Mydesign. It's quite amazing how much can be tested and validated virtually. While the process involves quite a bit of number crunching, the number crunching moves more quickly now, and it certainly beats building prototype after prototype.
"it was simulation to validate reliability of a traction inverter."
Rob, thanks for the clarification. So they are doing the simulation experiments at various levels for Power system reliability. Nothing concerned with the market demands like mileage or engine power. I think, they have to give much important to these type of issues.
What will it take to make a monumental effort if a grid overhaul in the USA? Another depression, which created much of the early infrastructure of the past, the canal, state park art, etc. Perhaps a sharp increase in prices.
What holds back progress in the states is the willingness to work on something without a payback. That is why we trail in internet speeds, tech innovation, and now EV support.
The USA spends around $500 billion on gasoline a year, according to the Los Angeles times. Switch to EV and we only spend 1/25 of that, on average ($20 billion). With the rest of that money, could we not start to upgrade the infrastructure?
Someone -- automaker or tier-one -- will have to focus on the electronic complexity problem. I don't know whose realm it falls under (automaker or supplier), but they're going to have to figure out how to reduce the 70 lbs of wiring and the number of MCUs in every vehicle. Seventy or 80 MCUs is too much.
Mydesign, in this particular instance, it was simulation to validate reliability of a traction inverter. The simulation showed there were reliability issues. Upon making changes, a further simulation proved out reliability. But that was just one instance. They were doing tests up and down the power system, including making sure the electrical power system did not interfere with the electronics in the cab of the vehicle.
That's right, Chuck. I was surprised just how much of the power system is owned by Lear. This is no longer just a supplier and a customer; the relationship is now a partnership with collaboration on design.
Charles and Rob, I worked in the Auto Industry for 18 years in various capacities as an Electrical Engineer. What you're seeing is the vision that Automakers focus on new body designs and systems integration of electrical-electronic systems. In reading the article, I recalled an IEEE meeting I attended in Dearborn MI several years back where a Ford Executive stated the days of designing and building ECUs are gone. The key focus for Automakers is in Electrical-Electronic Vehicle simulations. The Ford Executive continued to explain that their Tier 1 Suppliers can take an active role designing and developing electrical-electronic modules in which OEM Auto Engineers will integrate them into their vehicle designs. Yes, times have truly changed gents!
Yes, this story was surprising to me, Chuck. I didn't realize how much of the hybrid and EV technology IP is not owned by the OEMs. I can understand the financial and technical benefits of shifting electrical power system development to suppliers, but it's odd to think of the OEMs not owning the technology in their cars.
Just when you thought mobile technology couldn’t get any more personal, Proctor & Gamble have come up with a way to put your mobile where your mouth is, in the form of a Bluetooth 4.0 connected toothbrush.
The grab bag of plastic and rubber materials featured in this new product slideshow are aimed at lighting applications or automotive uses. The rest are for a wide variety of industries, including aerospace, oil & gas, RF and radar, automotive, building materials, and more.
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.