Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 335 posts

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#71

Post by imagi »

baybal2 wrote: post #46
wcunning wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. Why not put those smarts in one big module, say the Body Control Module which is always huge and already g…

> Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. All of this is achieved with a single <$1 part, fixed torque clutch... But who in the world wants to int…

Kids/dogs plus automatic windows…

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#72

Post by cainxinth »

csours wrote: post #51

Disclaimer up front: I work for GM. I don't work on chips or components for my day job. What follows is solely my own opinion. Some things to emphasize: OEMs (GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, etc) do not design components, and they do not want to. They design specifications for components, and then get suppliers to bid. This is great for efficiency in established ecosystems, not great for agility. To my knowledge, GM did not ca…

> A wholesale migration to a modern architecture is risky and costly.

I have no doubt that your company and all the other big automakers are running the numbers and trying to weigh those risks and costs with the risks and costs of not updating.

Given that the chipmakers and supply chain experts are not making rosy predictions for things to drastically improve in the next 12 months or longer, I wonder if the balance is shifting towards taking action.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#73

Post by ulfw »

mathattack wrote: post #25
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like GM and Ford are at US Government and NASA size where getting any change through takes so long and so much middle management and red tape that it stretches to infinity. I’m sure Tesla is more agile than that. For better or worse sometimes…

The bigger the company, the more effort that’s needed to coordinate the parts. At some point one person can’t keep the whole in the head and has to lean on process. Tesla is small enough, and has a CEO that can keep everything in his head.

Tesla has over 70,000 employees. I know people think Elon is god, but come on, he can't have "everything in his head". Tesla isn't some mom and pop shop.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#74

Post by x0x0 »

baybal2 wrote: post #46
wcunning wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. Why not put those smarts in one big module, say the Body Control Module which is always huge and already g…

> Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. All of this is achieved with a single <$1 part, fixed torque clutch... But who in the world wants to int…

> But who in the world wants to intentionally choke somebody with a power window?

children. eg:

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=124854&page=1

> A 1997 government study by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis estimated power windows sent nearly 500 people to emergency rooms in one year, and that half the victims were small children.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#75

Post by IshKebab »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #47
schiffern wrote: post #7

> “We were able to substitute alternative chips, and then write the firmware in a matter of weeks,” Musk said. “It’s not just a matter of swapping out a chip; you also have to rewrite the software.” https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/26/22595060/tesla-chip-short...

Tesla is much better at writing software than most of their competitors. That's how they can adapt so quickly. They also do a lot more in house than their competitors. That means they can optimize their development processes, and align with chip suppliers across different components. If you have to work with a multitude of suppliers that each ship their own hardware and software, life is a lot more complicated. Chang…

Are they better at writing software or do they just care less about how safety critical it is?

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

baybal2 wrote: post #46
wcunning wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. Why not put those smarts in one big module, say the Body Control Module which is always huge and already g…

> Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. All of this is achieved with a single <$1 part, fixed torque clutch... But who in the world wants to int…

> > the sameso that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows.

> But who in the world wants to intentionally choke somebody with a power window?

Accidental is the more significant problem, particularly with children.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#77

Post by im_down_w_otp »

RealityVoid wrote: post #67
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it's a mess and the surrounding tooling ecosystem is a pile of weird Windows GUI tools of about the quality you'd expect for very expensive tools that do very little provided to a captive customer base. It's all very circa 1990s RAD-tool mania-esque still in many ways. That said, we're working with some groups in some automotive companies who are breaking this mold rapidly.

Whom, if you don't mind me asking? I would.love to see stuff change in this field.

I can't upset the NDA Gods on this one, unfortunately. I can say one is a traditional OEM that you wouldn't necessarily expect to be the sort to take vanguard steps like this and the other is a newer OEM that's not as encumbered by tradition (though due to the supply-chain also can't rid themselves of it).

Shameless plug WARNING: we (https://auxon.io) are hiring for engineering, marketing, and BD if industrial & operational technology is your thing.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#79

Post by csours »

cainxinth wrote: post #72
csours wrote: post #51

Disclaimer up front: I work for GM. I don't work on chips or components for my day job. What follows is solely my own opinion. Some things to emphasize: OEMs (GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, etc) do not design components, and they do not want to. They design specifications for components, and then get suppliers to bid. This is great for efficiency in established ecosystems, not great for agility. To my knowledge, GM did not ca…

> A wholesale migration to a modern architecture is risky and costly. I have no doubt that your company and all the other big automakers are running the numbers and trying to weigh those risks and costs with the risks and costs of not updating. Given that the chipmakers and supply chain experts are not making rosy predictions for things to drastically improve in the next 12 months or longer, I wonder if the balance i…

> "I wonder if the balance is shifting towards taking action."

I can't find a public source, but some actions are being taken. Bear in mind that any major shifts would happen in a new product, that is, something 5-7 years out.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#80

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

baybal2 wrote: post #34
01100011 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, Tesla plays fast and loose, treating their product like a manufacturer of consumer electronics and not a manufacturer of a dangerous and durable good. That obviously allows them to out-compete other auto manufacturers who are more aware of things like product liability. See the Toyota accelerator-gate lawsuits. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehic... : > However, on…

It is very troubling development when doing something so trivial even requires a computer. That's a matter readily solved by a PID controller made of a few dozen 74XXX parts. Possibly made n-times redundant. Even a more fancy LP solver probably wouldn't need a fully fledged computer.

Let's start by assuming that the engineers are at least basically competent, shall we?

I mean, I could implement a PID controller without any 74xxx logic at all: a basic op-amp, a handful of resistors and capacitors and boom I'm done!

But there's a reason that engineering doesn't do that these days and it's not that engineers don't know how. My PID control built from an opamp? In 2021 that's almost always a stupid idea. We use computers because doing it digitally has many advantages. We don't use 74xx (or any other logic family) for this because microcontrollers are far more flexible, allow for behavior changes without reworking hardware, allow inventories to scale (the same component can be used in hundreds of products) and more reasons I won't detail.

The reality is that in 2021, often the simplest, most robust and cost-effective way to do something trivial is by using a computer to do it.

Post reply on HN