|
Several problems with this new tech, at least for the next year / two / more:
Cars are already overflowing with computer-controlled gizmos. This is just another one to go wrong, only (like with auto emergency braking systems that don't know the difference between a car, person and a plastic bag) and cause an even worse accident than it is designed to protect against.
Car CPUs / systems aren't that advanced anyway, compared to those in smart phones, let alone 'proper' computers. Either this would put an even greater strain on them and the (often rubbish) control software they are mated with, or it would require changing to more powerful hardware to cope.
All this at a time when there's a big shortage of computer chips, especially those to be used in cars, and far worse possibly still to come if things kick off between China and Taiwan, plus car prices generally far higher due to supply shortages and general inflation being high.
Either this is going to just drive prices even higher (contracting the market even more) or is just (for the moment at least) only going to appear on high-end sports/luxury cars.
|
|
Car CPUs / systems aren't that advanced anyway
They are compared to what they used to be, and more than capable of controlling whats needed of them, its the software thats the problem as Tesla have found out (though they have known for a while which is why they have a separate software unit)
TSMC are expanding their chip making plants and building new ones but some may not be ready for a couple of years
though its the chip fabrication units that take the time to build iirc?
|
Car CPUs / systems aren't that advanced anyway
They are compared to what they used to be,
That's not saying much. My 11yo PC's main processor (and I suspect the graphics chip) is likely significanlty more powerful than that in most ICE cars and maybe a good few EVs.
and more than capable of controlling whats needed of them
If that's the case (i.e. mostly bad software), then why is there a chip shortage for cars - surely any old chip manufacturer could make them, given their design (power/performance) is akin to PCs from 15-20 years ago?
Even today, I can buy an LCD TV of the mine's size (23in) for around 1/3 - 1/4 I paid (I got a good deal back then) in 2006 but with more features - because they make them from tech and components that are proven and low cost due to essentially being generic by licencing older patents cheaply.
Why can't car manufacturers do this with their chips or even the hardware/software that controls their info displays/ICE/sat navs?
I think that part of the problem is that many car manufacturers use non-generic computer components and software, which incresaes the risk of (design and/or operational) faults, significantly bumps up the cost and compounds other quality control and complexity issues. Many cars also appear to be extremely poor on cyber security (as well as physical security).
|
|
That's not saying much. My 11yo PC's main processor (and I suspect the graphics chip) is likely significanlty more powerful than that in most ICE cars and maybe a good few EVs.
Usually comes down to design, I don`t know what the designs are as they are usually kept to themselves, but made for efficiency and the job they have to do, a PC chip is not the same otherwise they probably would use them
I can buy an LCD TV of the mine's size (23in) for around 1/3 - 1/4 I paid
cheap and nasty to be honest, they may use older chips but main difference is the screen, a reason some companies are improving screen tech like OLED and QD OLED because the Chinese found cheaper ways to make LCD screens and flooded the market with basically rubbish screens (for most that is more than good enough and makes them affordable) doesn`t make them any good to look at though....and PS I`m not knocking cheap as it brought LCD prices to a level most could afford
car oems have to design there own or pay a company to design and make a chip, of which the demand for PC and laptop chips outweighed the production capabilities at that time, so some like TSMC are investing in new production lines but the wafer lithography machines cost iro 300 million each as they are printing chip circuits down to 3 nanometers (well Samsung is, not sure of others) but they have to make smaller chips as they want to reduce power usage and increase data transmission
I think you will find that security software is a problem even for the likes of Microsoft and Apple due to the determination of hackers and those who wish to steal your bank details (one reason why some employ Ex criminals who know what they are looking for ) and spend a long time fixing bugs and loopholes in software it isn`t an overnight quick write of software as it has to be checked it works before release,
|
|
Do car makes not use off the shelf microprocessors for all the simple stuff?
I read somewhere that Russia is stripping Ukrainians' washing machines for them to keep its military hardware going.
|
Do car makes not use off the shelf microprocessors for all the simple stuff?
I read somewhere that Russia is stripping Ukrainians' washing machines for them to keep its military hardware going.
someone said the operating system on domestic appliances is either Linux or if -Samsung, its, Tizen which is derived from Linux- though even there TVs are I gather but can`t confirm, I know the high end TVs are.
please correct if wrong!
|
|
|
|
That's not saying much. My 11yo PC's main processor (and I suspect the graphics chip) is likely significanlty more powerful than that in most ICE cars and maybe a good few EVs.
Usually comes down to design, I don`t know what the designs are as they are usually kept to themselves, but made for efficiency and the job they have to do, a PC chip is not the same otherwise they probably would use them
I can buy an LCD TV of the mine's size (23in) for around 1/3 - 1/4 I paid
cheap and nasty to be honest, they may use older chips but main difference is the screen, a reason some companies are improving screen tech like OLED and QD OLED because the Chinese found cheaper ways to make LCD screens and flooded the market with basically rubbish screens (for most that is more than good enough and makes them affordable) doesn`t make them any good to look at though....and PS I`m not knocking cheap as it brought LCD prices to a level most could afford
car oems have to design there own or pay a company to design and make a chip, of which the demand for PC and laptop chips outweighed the production capabilities at that time, so some like TSMC are investing in new production lines but the wafer lithography machines cost iro 300 million each as they are printing chip circuits down to 3 nanometers (well Samsung is, not sure of others) but they have to make smaller chips as they want to reduce power usage and increase data transmission
I think you will find that security software is a problem even for the likes of Microsoft and Apple due to the determination of hackers and those who wish to steal your bank details (one reason why some employ Ex criminals who know what they are looking for ) and spend a long time fixing bugs and loopholes in software it isn`t an overnight quick write of software as it has to be checked it works before release,
If that's the case, why don't ALL car/van/HGV manufacturers come together to standardise the chip design to save on costs and improve quality and similarly do so using generic software?
Some of the big OS software firms (especially those making smartphone OSes) also make cut-down versions for less powerful models for developing nations and the cheaper models in the West (my Nokia 5.3 comes with Android One and is fine, and updates just like the 'full version', just with less facilities [which I don't appear to have missed])
There are also decent alternatives to Apple, Microsoft and Android for OSes and likely they can still have a decent level of compatability with the likes of smart phones. I mean, they've had well over 10 years to get their act together on this since smartphones and tablets arrived on the scene.
That they haven't and appear to cobble together both hardware and software, mostly badly, doesn't say much for their R&D depts or management generally.
Perhaps they should join forces with the makers of industrial equipment or maybe even commercial/domestic appliances to share R&D costs and improve quality. making equipment and systems uniquely is, in my eyes, not a great way of imrpoving quality and reducing costs.
|
|
Some of the big OS software firms (especially those making smartphone OSes) also make cut-down versions for less powerful models for developing nations and the cheaper models in the West
The chips for those are the ones that don`t make the grade as no 2 chips are the same, and graded as a lower spec chip, software can be the same as the top end phones but software for programs or hardware not installed are left in the whole package as its too costly to separate parts not used by phone
If that's the case, why don't ALL car/van/HGV manufacturers come together to standardise the chip design to save on costs and improve quality and similarly do so using generic software?
very simple, one OEM doesn`t want another to use what they have developed, if you remember Apple phones years ago if Samsung or another company copied a design hardware or software they took them to court, same goes for car firms, it appears to be the way it is
I agree they should all work together in all thats designed and made, but as one doesn`t like the idea of one company beating another to the next tech feature I have doubts it will ever happen
though the push to standardise USB is now happening, it may start standardisation across the board but is going to be slow going unfortunately, progress is slow
I think we will get there, but can see one microchip controlling the whole car eventually due to the size of circuits now getting smaller and smaller, as I said Samsung are working on smallest ever PC chip design, problem will be making it as Intel had with there chips
|
If that's the case, why don't ALL car/van/HGV manufacturers come together to standardise the chip design to save on costs and improve quality and similarly do so using generic software?
Seriously?
Standardisation and the use of open source software would lead to generic parts availability and disseminated repair capability.
The punter would not be tied to the dealership, and his car would tend to have a commercially unacceptable extended lifespan.
When i wanted a wheel cylinder for my Lada, there was only one, and it cost a fiver. This was very much NOT the case for my Renault.
You some kind of Communist?
|
|
Progress in any endeavour is typically reliant on a diversity of ideas talents, competition etc.
A single monolithic chip for vehicles would almost entirely paralyse development. Not just the chip, but the systems into which the chip is integrated - engine management, power steering, brake assist, heating and ventilation, sat nav, configurable suspension set up, etc etc.
If changes were to be made, manufacturers would argue endlessly about what to give priority to and who should bear the cost. The government would then need a regulator to ensure that costs, charges, performance and development were properly managed - a little like the water, phone and energy markets.
As e have seen over the past few weeks in energy and water, the government are not very good at regulation. The benefits of central control need to appear overwhelming even to make it to the "interview stage"
|
Progress in any endeavour is typically reliant on a diversity of ideas talents, competition etc.
Yes indeed, while advance and development is continuing. The problem is always recognising when a product has reached maturity. I suggest that ICE vehicles reached maturity about the turn of the century; since then new cars have been sold on extra smart gizmos or safety features, not on the drive train and the basic parts of a car. Chips of course become more complex or numerous (or both), but 'Progress' is not necessarily endless. It sometimes has to change direction.
The technology of steam engines reached maturity about WW1, although a lot of effort went into refining them for another 40 years or so. Many of the advances added complication, cancelling out improvements with higher maintenance cost.
Edited by Andrew-T on 10/08/2022 at 12:47
|
Progress in any endeavour is typically reliant on a diversity of ideas talents, competition etc.
Yes indeed, while advance and development is continuing. The problem is always recognising when a product has reached maturity. I suggest that ICE vehicles reached maturity about the turn of the century; since then new cars have been sold on extra smart gizmos or safety features, not on the drive train and the basic parts of a car. Chips of course become more complex or numerous (or both), but 'Progress' is not necessarily endless. It sometimes has to change direction.
The technology of steam engines reached maturity about WW1, although a lot of effort went into refining them for another 40 years or so. Many of the advances added complication, cancelling out improvements with higher maintenance cost.
I think it has come to that point with cars, especially with the ever-increasing amount of emissions and safety related gadgets that result in smaller and smaller improvements (and as you say with many downsides) but where they are making the cars too expensive to find buyers amongst the general public.
I believe they need to go as simple as possible and to endeavour to make the gains elsewhere.
|
|
You seem to assume that change is a synonym for progress, i.e. that it is necessarily for the better.
A casual browse of this forum abundantly illustrates that, in a recent automotive context, this is very much not the case.
|
|
If that's the case, why don't ALL car/van/HGV manufacturers come together to standardise the chip design to save on costs and improve quality and similarly do so using generic software?
Seriously?
Standardisation and the use of open source software would lead to generic parts availability and disseminated repair capability.
The punter would not be tied to the dealership, and his car would tend to have a commercially unacceptable extended lifespan.
When i wanted a wheel cylinder for my Lada, there was only one, and it cost a fiver. This was very much NOT the case for my Renault.
You some kind of Communist?
When did I say that only one firm could manufacturer computer chips for cars? I'm saying that if they standardised the design concepts, like with lots of computer tech, they could benefit from cost savings.
By all means firms could innovate with new tech, but as others have said, most cars don't need the latest, really powerful computer chips that go inside a modern PC, and nor do they need really fancy software either.
My thinking is more using generic equipment where it can be up-specced as necessary (like a PC's processor, memory or graphics card) but where each of which adheres to industry standards for interoperability of components and from different manufacturers.
This might mean one, two or three different hardware 'platforms' like Intel, AMD or those used in mobile phones/Android tablets for example, plus software that can go on one, some or even any hardware platform.
Some open software OSes like Linux can be installed on different hardware platforms. Similar approaches have reduced the lifetime costs of running Building Services systems such as CCTV, security and Building Energy Management because they don't tie-in buyers to expensive upgrades via one supplier.
Why can't the same go for cars' computerised systems? Manufacturers could then pick and choose what they wanted and thus tailor them more to the needs of the end user. After all, I though that WAS one of the supposed benefits of EVs and such new tech - when something gets old or needs upgrading/replacing, just swap it out at a relatively low cost? And they could use any manufacturer.
Nothing 'communist' about that. Proper competition based on quality of product and after care more like.
|
|
Proper competition based on quality of product and after care more like.
seeing as all processors or microchips are made by computer ie the lithography machines cost iro £300 million each (also a problem Intel had) its down to the computer to check the quality, all a person can do using electron microscopes is check the circuits work and made correctly, if not they are scrapped or sold as a below par chip for use in a tv or similar, if close to original spec sold as lower spec chip in similar devices they were designed for
competition for high spec chips is fading due to cost of the above machines only the odd few companies can afford them one reason TSMC are doing well as they are expanding
|
|
I wasn't criticising your standardisation proposal.
I was suggesting reasons why it wasn't being adopted.
Which IIRC was the, perhaps rhetorica,l question that you posed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the big advantage of current hydraulic brake systems?
Multiple redundancy.
It still works if the electric/electronic systems we now take for granted fail - ABS - ESP etc
Even if a serious hydraulic leak knocks out one of the diagonal dual circuits, there will still be some braking on one front and one rear brake.
And you have the manual parking/handbrake as a last resort.
Where's the advantage of actuating brake systems electrically?
Apart from showing everybody how clever you are of course!
|
|
Where's the advantage of actuating brake systems electrically?
It showed in the video braking and emergency stops were faster and smoother without the brake pedal pulsating as the ABS worked.
apparently some drivers find ABS pulsation of the pedal unnerving and some try to remove foot from pedal because of the pulsing (which wasn`t mentioned in that video)
as cars are going all electric anyway why not have all electric brakes, it removes the fluid and pipes plus it lighter on the car (at least that is the experts arguments for it)
I thought it a good idea at first but changing my mind after thinking about it!
|
apparently some drivers find ABS pulsation of the pedal unnerving and some try to remove foot from pedal because of the pulsing (which wasn`t mentioned in that video)
Not if they are properly trained as I used to train my learners.
They used to get a whole two hour lesson on brakes, ABS, why ABS and roughly how it works, and depending on the weather and location, practice emergency stops by hard braking on my local skid pan which was a country road where an old WW2 runway crossed the road and the tractors would drag mud onto the road which with a bit of drizzle on it was ideal.
|
|
Not if they are properly trained as I used to train my learners.
Not something I have heard of, a driving instructor teaching a learner the braking system, only tell the learner when to brake on first drive, good idea though imo just not heard of it before
pity some have no idea how to use the handbrake or possibly where it is might help...and not talking learners there either!
|
Not if they are properly trained as I used to train my learners.
Not something I have heard of, a driving instructor teaching a learner the braking system, only tell the learner when to brake on first drive, good idea though imo just not heard of it before
pity some have no idea how to use the handbrake or possibly where it is might help...and not talking learners there either!
It's in the official DVSA syllabus Unit 2 lesson L03
"How much pressure to apply to the brakes in varying road and traffic conditions.
The principles of varying braking systems, for example antilock, and how to use them to brake effectively.
How overall stopping distances ? vary at different speeds ? vary with different road and weather conditions ? are broken into thinking distance and braking distance"
|
|
|
|
|
