Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#291

Post by BenjiWiebe » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #144

tyingq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are cars where the enthusiast scene burns their own ECU EEPROMS to compensate air:fuel calculations after installing larger injectors, better flowing intakes, etc. Edit: There's also some "universal ECUs" from companies like Haltech. They sell a single ECU plus some adapter cables to make that single ECU run on a broad variety of cars from the 90's. Possible since the 90's cars all have the same rough types/num…

Yeah, but I think those enthusiasts are mostly just fixing up calibration values, not changing the actual control software.

Check out rusEFI. That's exactly what some people are doing... Writing their own engine control software.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#292

Post by Factorium » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #32

dboreham wrote: post #11

Admittedly it was a long time ago, but I worked in the semi industry and this isn't how things were done. We manufactured batches of totally obsolete EOLed devices for various customers when they had sufficient volume. Devices that are in volume production (e.g. for cars) are carefully managed by people who do nothing but ensure that they're available in the right place at the right time in the right volume. In order…

The customers screwed up the forecast. That's a huge part of the problem. They assumed the pandemic would kill demand and cancelled orders, but it didn't, and the cancelled capacity was already sold to someone else.

It didn't because the US Government printed trillions of dollars:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0

There are a lot of people who have benefitted enormously from the economy/stock market crashing, then being resuscitated by this unprecedented money injection:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed-vice-chair-traded-stocks-1527...

https://fortune.com/2021/07/08/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-hu...

Politicians and bureaucrats should have planned with industry ahead of time and notified them that the COVID impact would be cushioned by huge financial stimulus. But why do that if you as an individual bureaucrat or politician can make millions by trading on that insider knowledge?

Its unfair to blame suppliers when there has been Government conspiracy against them.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#293

Post by petre » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #271

smolder wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, brakes that don't function when power is lost would just be too brittle. That'd be unacceptable in any market regulated by one or more working brains.

It's a matter of semantics, but I object to saying a braking system isn't purely brake by wire when electronics alone can cause it to totally fail. There's a difference between a fail-safe that usually works, and a mechanical connection that's always there. Electronics can fail in many interesting ways other than simply turning off. And they do! Ever looked at nhtsa.gov? "Brakes Failed problem of the 2017 Honda Accor…

We also have an older Civic (2005 FK) plagued with electrical issues regarding steering and VSA. The mechanic said it occured during peak current draw, but I'm a bit skeptical since all the lights went on once in the summer while travelling at highway speeds.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#294

Post by petre » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 5:35 AM UTC

snthd wrote: post #133

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…

>40-60V system What makes that voltage a better trade off?

Less current draw, thinner cables mainly. 40-60V or higher is also great for electrical motors and power electronic, but anything above 50V is high voltage, so 48V is still safe enough. Cables in a passenger vehicle amount to >4 km and ~30 kg.

I'm an electrical engineer working in an automotive related field.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#295

Post by petre » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 5:39 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #214

formerly_proven wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Siblings covered why 12 V is annoying, let's talk about why 12 V was chosen in the first place. 6 and 12 V electric systems in vehicles came about because lead-acid batteries made sense in this application, and cetpar. a higher voltage lead-acid battery is overall costlier to manufacture, because it contains more individual cells. Another big thing is that there are many switches and relays in a car, and those often…

I seem to recall, several years ago (when stopping the engine at traffic lights and restarting as soon as the driver released the brake), at least one company was exploring moving to 24V. However, the effort failed precisely because the lifetime of 24V switches was significantly shorter. Naturally, I can't find any links to the info...

Trucks and agriculture equipment already use 24V systems, so the point is moot. Vehicle usage during the lifetime of a truck greatly exceeeds the lifetime of a personal passenger vehicle and agriculture equipment is also exposed to dust and grime, yet both continue to operate normally. So I guess it's more of a cost problem than a component issue.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#296

Post by petre » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

boznz wrote: post #282

tuatoru wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Above 30V - 50V DC, contact arcing becomes a huge problem. (It's a problem below that, but less huge.) With AC, the arc will self-extinguish a half-cycle after the switch opens. With DC there is no cycle, and contacts can be completely vaporised in tens of milliseconds. Commodity switching components are usually rated "30V DC, 250V AC" for this reason. It is possible to design switches so that even DC arcs self-extin…

if we are going to 48V then pretty sure all power switching would use solid state relays/MOSFETs, Any mechanical switch would just be the input to a micro at 5V or lower. You could also just switch the HV (400V+) bus directly down to 48/60V as all the high current devices motor/ac/power steering etc run off the HV bus and you would just be left with lights, entertainment and servos on the low voltage side. The 12V ba…

Do BEVs still use a 12V lead acid battery?

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#297

Post by petre » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:02 AM UTC

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 guess this could also catalyze the switch to EVs as they have quite different requirements.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#298

Post by hef19898 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:07 AM UTC

pokerhobo wrote: post #269

mcguire wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd go strongly either way. According to reports ( https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/investing/tesla-profitability... ) Tesla received $1600M in regulatory credits and had a net income of $721M. If you look at the 10K ( https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459021... ), Tesla received $27,236M in automotive revenues (which includes sales of regulatory credits, thanks Elon). The correspo…

Tesla has to deduct the “cost” of issuing new shares for stock compensation like for their CEO. It’s not a cost as in they spent cash, but is deducted because it lowers shareholder value. A better sense of their actual profit/loss is their free cashflow which is positive even after your deduct ZEV credit sales.

Cash flow =|= profit. You can be cash positive and profitable (best case), cash positive and not be profitable (at least you won't go under automatically), cash negative and profitable (you face the risk of going bancrupt by running out of cash) or cash negative and not profitable (usually dead).

Whatvyhe other poster did was diving into Tesla's sec fillings. Those show:

Tesla is offering stock -> they still raise money

Tesla is selling emissions certificates -> that explains most, if not all, of their profits.

Not sure how new funding factors into their cash flow, and I am too lazy to look it up. It does seem so, that Teslas car business isn't enough to stand upon for now.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#299

Post by rixed » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:09 AM UTC

Why can't they transition to fewer chips instead?

My old car runs fine controlled with a single atmega128 for the injectors, and that is the only chip in there (outside of the radio that I never use (I already carry a phone for all sort of entertainment))

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#300

Post by optimiz3 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 7:31 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #222

optimiz3 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is past the cash raising phase though - they are massively profitable and actively retiring debt early. https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/0000... "On July 16, 2021, we issued a notice of redemption to the holders of the 2025 Notes informing the holders that we will redeem the notes in full in August 2021 at a redemption price equal to 102.65% of outstanding principal amount, plus accrued a…

>Tesla is past the cash raising phase though It appears to me that they are steadily issuing stock at the rate of about 20% of their market cap per year, or roughly at the rate of $10 billion per month. It looks like the number of (diluted) shares outstanding increased by over 20% between 2019 and 2020. What did that consist of? Their annual report says mainly: - Issuance of common stock for equity incentive awards -…

As you mentioned, TSLA's last public offering was in 2020.

2020 was a significant shift in the company as it became profitable ex-ZEV credits. Future public offerings are unlikely absent major changes in the company's fundamentals.

Stock based comp is a standard cost of business in most large tech companies; given how badly TSLA is been beating competitors (esp in the context of the chip shortage), it seems to paying off.