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

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#301

Post by panick21 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:22 AM UTC

OliverJones wrote: post #23

Vehicle electronics have some real environmental challenges as well. They have to function correctly * after they've been parked outdoors in Death Valley all day. * after they've been parked at -40 degrees for a long time. * when doused with slush containing road salt. * when their wiring harnesses deteriorate after a couple of decades of hard use. * at least for a few seconds after a catastrophic crash. It takes the…

> It takes the kind of risk-taking guts that Tesla exhibits to push new, better, electronic parts into test and production.

Its not a risk if you are vertically integrated, have the software infrastructure and have everything need to do the needed testing and validation.

It would take weeks just to talk to the supplier about maybe doing a change for many other car makers.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#302

Post by marvin » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 11:05 AM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #233

perl4ever wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a question of semantics, but I don't understand your usage of "purely". How can it not be "purely" brake by wire, if, when depressing the brake pedal, the friction brakes are not always triggered? If electronics decide not to apply hydraulic force when everything is going fine, that there must be a potential failure mode where they ignore the pedal inappropriately. Can you explain further?

In a brake-by-wire car, if you stomp on the brake pedal with all you've got you end up engaging a cylinder that can directly exert force on the front brakes, even if the electronics are fully dead. (Maybe there are some systems where the brake pedal is truly just a "dimmer switch", but I've not been able to find them).

You probably know this, but in case others are curious: In most fossil-powered cars, you can test the powered braking during start-up by pumping the brake and keeping pressure on it. When you turn on the ignition, the brake will depress further if the system works.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#303

Post by ngrilly » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

pokerhobo wrote: post #92

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…

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5c5KzpamiM by someone who worked for a number of auto OEMs including Tesla where he explains how Tesla does agile hardware

I watched the video. Thanks for sharing. Powerful approach. But wondering how close it is from reality or not. Would be interested to know more.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#304

Post by panick21 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #231

panick21 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cost wise, Tesla pretty much still sells car at a loss and relies heavily on carbon offset subsidies for income. I'm sorry but that is just straight up complete nonsense. Like seriously, you are directly disagreeing with public financial statements. We know exactly how much margin Tesla has, with and without carbon offset. The simple fact is, Tesla has leading automotive margins even when you exclude any carbon cre…

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…

What matters in terms of what we are discussing now is automotive margin.

Their 'Automotive gross margin' is 28.4%. If you exclude regulatory credit that is still '25.8%'.

Those are flat out great margin number in the automotive industry.

These facts literally disprove this phrase:

> Tesla pretty much still sells car at a loss

Unless you simply interpret that phrase differently then everybody else.

If you want to make a larger statement about Tesla on a company level, that is a whole different thing.

If you want to ignore unit economics Q2 they made 354 million $ in credits. Total GAAP gross margin 24.1%, ignoring credits its still 21.8%.

I'm to lazy to calculate the operational margin, but its still good excluding regulatory credits. This regulatory credit storyline is literally on its last legs.

Tesla is still a growth company and their margin and profitability are already good despite them not even having manufacturing in all large markets. In Q2 they didn't even build their high margin vehicles.

My main point being again, claiming that Tesla sells vehicles at a lose, is literally nonsense.

Find the numbers here:

https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/ZBOUYO_TSLA_Q2_2021_Updat...

Any claim that Tesla has no business without credits is just fundamentally wrong.

And Q3 looks like it will beat these numbers again.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#305

Post by panick21 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:25 PM 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 -…

Go look at how much of the raised money is simply cash reserve. There is a difference between raising money because you need to and wanting to raise to build up a cash reserves because you think the stock price is favorable.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#306

Post by boznz » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

petre wrote: post #296

boznz wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

nissan leaf does

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#307

Post by Corrado » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

petre wrote: post #296

boznz wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, my Model Y has a "traditional" 12v lead acid battery. Granted its a small battery as it doesn't have to run any heavy loads (starter motor). Furthermore, it's my understanding that newer Tesla vehicles are being delivered with 12v gel batteries instead of the the lead acid design.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#308

Post by panick21 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #146

mwint wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally, what is it that prevents the established auto makers from making changes mid lifecycle? Seems like Tesla keeps pulling it off; why can’t GM? Is it that the component specification+acquisition cycle you describe is optimized to take as long as the development cycle of a new car?

Tesla has yet to do even a face lift on its Model S. In the meanwhile most incumbent OEMs either came up with EVs based on existing platforms or completely new EV platforms.

First of all, they just did a 'face lift' on the Model S. And its not the first one either.

Other OEM might have new platforms, but those platform are built with supplier and OEM themselves often do not make the detailed choices.

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#309

Post by petre » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

boznz wrote: post #306

petre wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do BEVs still use a 12V lead acid battery?

nissan leaf does

That's a bit silly. What's it used for? Couldn't they just use a step down switching power supply that draws current from the main battery?

Re: Why Carmakers Can’t Transition to Newer Chips

#310

Post by panick21 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #121

mwint wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally, what is it that prevents the established auto makers from making changes mid lifecycle? Seems like Tesla keeps pulling it off; why can’t GM? Is it that the component specification+acquisition cycle you describe is optimized to take as long as the development cycle of a new car?

Small company risk is failure to grow. Big company risk is every other failure. Tesla is valued as a growth/tech company. As long as people believe in their growth, they get more cash. I don't personally understand how Tesla hasn't had more problems with their apparently uncontrolled engineering changes. At least part of it is customer enthusiasm for the product papering over any drawbacks. It's not that GM can't mak…

Have you considered that Tesla actually has a process and good engineers and good models to understand their changes?

Maybe they are simply more dynamic, have better on the fly testing, more flexible software to manage their production, are more vertically integrated and have thus more control over their production.

The argument that Tesla had significant more quality problems compared to others really doesn't hold much water today. The fact is Tesla had far fewer problems with batteries and drive trains while delivering far more EV. People love to complain about minor panel gaps (that most people don't ever notice anyway) and ignore that Tesla has a very good track record in terms of drive train and battery.

Compare Tesla Model 3 to Leaf or the Bold that came out at the same time and had far more problems. Leaf had to replace all early batteries and Bolt is being recalled right now.

Tesla should get credit for this, rather then just them being 'lucky' or that Tesla costumers are just willing to buy broken products (another myth that doesn't hold up).

In terms of drive train and battery Tesla worse failure by far was that they had to under-power a number of Model S produced in 2017. There has never been a large recall of Model 3 or Model Y.