HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Page 1/3  >  >>
warren@fourward.com
User Rank
Platinum
Ok for now, but...
warren@fourward.com   4/23/2013 9:51:02 AM
NO RATINGS
One EMP and poof! No car...

Cabe Atwell
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
Cabe Atwell   4/22/2013 6:17:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Chuck,

I see... thanks for the link.

I am starting to lean toward William K's thoughts, stop adding features. The statement of 1 year olds distracted is what got me. I see them already, texting and driving. So, why add more to the fray. But that is new HMIs.

As for a single chip to drive it all... I am still think eggs in one basket applies here.

C

William K.
User Rank
Gold
The incredibly complex processor connections
William K.   4/11/2013 10:14:44 PM
NO RATINGS
One more point about the constant addition of features that serve mostly as profit sources for those who sell them. The wiring will kieep getting more complex, either because all of the wires now run to one module, or because those wires are distributed between about 250 individual modules. Either choice will reduce reliability and make servicing a vehicle a financial disaster. One alternative is the use of some kind of bus structure, which it has been shown that a bus won't be accepted in cars because the cost in both dollars and failures is far greater than the benefits.

So the sensible solution is to STOP ADDING FEATURES! We simply don't need them, and the very small minority of drivers who would benefit from those features should simply not be accomodated by the OEMs. Few enough folks need those features so that they could easily be added by the aftermarket folks. THAT would offer a benefit to a lot of value-added companies, and not force the rest of us to purchase expensive systems that are primarily designed to compensate for the errors made by 17-year-olds driving. The rest of us can think well enough to not need those features.

Cabe Atwell
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
Cabe Atwell   4/9/2013 5:45:39 PM
NO RATINGS
Chuck,

That sounds quite interesting "Supercomputers on wheels," you should put together some articles on the subject.

C

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
Charles Murray   4/5/2013 5:05:14 PM
NO RATINGS
I have to admit, Cabe, I don't know if I would ever have confidence in the arrival of a single-controller design. Even if we could do it with today's electronic complexity, what would we do in the future? Remember, active safety systems are on their way. Adaptive cruise is here; so is lanekeeping. To a small degree, collision avoidance is already here, too. At some point, most vehicles will begin to incorporate all those features. A few years ago, autonomous vehicles had their trunks packed with multiple computers. Rear seats were packed, too. Designers of those vhicles referred to them as "supercomputers on wheels." So my point is, even if we could get down to a single-module design today, the automotive community would just start incorporating all the active safety systems, and we'd be doing the same process all over again.

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=224504

William K.
User Rank
Gold
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
William K.   4/5/2013 10:14:39 AM
NO RATINGS
Cabe, completely aside from the use of a single chip there exists that reality of the amount of external I/O that is needed for the automotive application. The car-body environment is a good example of the real world in that most of the inputs and outputs connect to real things, not to display screens and touch panels. A single module would put all of that I/O in one box as well, and that one box would only be serviced as an assembly. THAT is the other reason for believing that it would benefit nothing except possibly the makers bottom line.

A ten year warranty would be a good start towards making a single module realization somewhat acceptable, but it would need to be far more inclusive than the warranties that I am familiar with. As far as making the chip "reliable enough", there would need to be 100% testing done at least twice in the prodduction process. Once at chip level and then again at the completed moddule level.

Cabe Atwell
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
Cabe Atwell   4/5/2013 2:03:59 AM
NO RATINGS
Chuck,

Like William K, I have to stick with the array of simpler chips as opposed to one to rule all of the car.

Like SoCs or Integrated motherboards, one aspect of the systems goes, the whole operation comes crashing down.

In an effort to avoid being a "do it the old way" guy, what would it take to place all our confidence on a single chip?

C

William K.
User Rank
Gold
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
William K.   4/4/2013 6:22:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Elizabeth, It is probably correct that things will move in that direction unless something changes to make it more expensive than some other approach. What might be effective would be a boycot of vehicles that were excessivly expensive to repair, or, better yet, a mandatory ten year warranty on vehicular comtrol modules. A law like that could also, possibly, improve quality. But it is far more likely that it will simply mean that vehicles will be scrapped much sooner, since replacing that VERY EXPENSIVE module might nit make economic sense for an eight year old vehicle. But how will it be rationalized for those long-life-still-pricey battery electric cars? 

Of course it could also create a whole new industry that produced custom modules for cars, which could offer the benefit of allowing the owners to have completely different software that ignored all government mandated functions. That could be an unanticipated benefit.

Elizabeth M
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Targeting Vehicle Complexity
Elizabeth M   4/4/2013 5:46:44 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, William K, I think that wouldn't be such a great idea, either, to have a single master controller. But I can see how this might be one direction the industry might head, having seen examples in other industries with other technologies. Or maybe the idea would be vetoed from the beginning since engineers would anticipate what a disaster it would be, as you describe!

Page 1/3  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Technology has proven over and over again to be tremendously empowering, to individuals and organizations alike. Misuse that power, however, and you might find yourself in big trouble.
Steadfast in its belief that diesel engines are right for the times, General Motors is expanding US availability of the compression-ignited technology in Chevrolet cars and light trucks.
Most cyber attacks could be avoided by adopting a list of Critical Security Controls that were created by the Center for Internet Security. That’s the message from Steve Mustard of the Automation Federation.
How 3D printing fits into the digital thread, and the relationship between its uses for prototyping and for manufacturing, was the subject of a talk by Proto Labs' Rich Baker at last week's Design & Manufacturing Minneapolis.
The term “range anxiety” began fading into the rear view mirror recently, as major automakers made announcements about longer-range, battery-powered cars.
More:Blogs|News
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Sep 12 - 16, Analytics for the IoT: A Deep Dive into Algorithms
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10


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.
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service