The big automotive semiconductor problem
asianometry.substack.com
The big automotive semiconductor problem
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#2From the article:
> Mobile phone SOCs integrate a substantial amount of function right onto the chip. Why hasn’t that been the case for the car?
Because your mobile phone SoC is not certified for -20/+80 degrees Celsius, copious amount of vibration, error-free operation on many environments (incl. inputs with wrong voltages, shorts, etc.), and have a lifetime of 10+ years with the same performance characteristics.
Your car is running a real-time simulation of your engine to keep itself operational, and it's a much serious business than running Android or iOS.
More information: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#3[deleted]
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#4From the article: > Mobile phone SOCs integrate a substantial amount of function right onto the chip. Why hasn’t that been the case for the car? Because your mobile phone SoC is not certified for -20/+80 degrees Celsius, copious amount of vibration, error-free operation on many environments (incl. inputs with wrong voltages, shorts, etc.), and have a lifetime of 10+ years with the same performance characteristics. Yo…
How does functional integration interfere with robustness?
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#5From the article: > Mobile phone SOCs integrate a substantial amount of function right onto the chip. Why hasn’t that been the case for the car? Because your mobile phone SoC is not certified for -20/+80 degrees Celsius, copious amount of vibration, error-free operation on many environments (incl. inputs with wrong voltages, shorts, etc.), and have a lifetime of 10+ years with the same performance characteristics. Yo…
How does functional integration interfere with robustness?
One method of making a chip 'tougher' is to physically increase the size of the semiconductor elements (e.g. transistors, FETs). This would seem incompatible with highly-integrated ICs.
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#6This article does a good job outlining why these systems can't just be replaced with a Raspberry Pi or an Arduino: Durability. At one point I was interested in replacing the ECU in my old '88 Suburban. The ECU is probably the only "real" bit of electronics in the whole vehicle. And yet after almost 35 years it's still doing fine. The Arduino based ECU I was looking into, as it turns out, is a great hobby project, but not so good for reliability due to the harsh conditions.
Still, I think electronics in modern vehicles are completely over the top, but then again... I drive a 30+ year old Suburban. I'm prone to thinking that way :D
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#7From the article: > Mobile phone SOCs integrate a substantial amount of function right onto the chip. Why hasn’t that been the case for the car? Because your mobile phone SoC is not certified for -20/+80 degrees Celsius, copious amount of vibration, error-free operation on many environments (incl. inputs with wrong voltages, shorts, etc.), and have a lifetime of 10+ years with the same performance characteristics. Yo…
How does functional integration interfere with robustness?
The discrete components are designed, tested and verified after a long stint and their specs are frozen. It's a bit like space hardware. You verify an older CPU design can work reliably in space, and certify that processor. Then, you use the same foundation for a decade or so.
It's same with automotive industry. You have a well defined and certified stack from Delco, Bosch, Delphi, etc. and you can trust that hardware. Integration makes you return back to square one.
I remember Toyota tried unifying some control units into a single box, and 5-6 years considered realistic if not a little optimistic.
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#8From the article: > Mobile phone SOCs integrate a substantial amount of function right onto the chip. Why hasn’t that been the case for the car? Because your mobile phone SoC is not certified for -20/+80 degrees Celsius, copious amount of vibration, error-free operation on many environments (incl. inputs with wrong voltages, shorts, etc.), and have a lifetime of 10+ years with the same performance characteristics. Yo…
They do however use SoCs for HMI/head-units/carputers now however.
The bigger reason is just the nature of automotive development. Every part is developed by a specced or sourced by different teams and outsourced to a different Tier 1/2/3. Things are designed to be modular, so if you pick Option A for something, it might use ECU A, and if you pick Option B, they might pack a whole different ECU B. Also, every ECU is costed down to only support the intended application, so ECU A likely doesn't have the extra bandwidth to add on extra features for Option B.
Also, none of this is decided or developed at the same time, so you have all the different features and ECUs developed throughout. Some things are changed mid program. Some things carry over from previous programs, so it's usually just easier to go your own way and not work with other teams on combining features.
Every automotive OEM has a person who comes up with the brilliant and cost saving idea of combining ECUs. I know 4 such people from different OEMs but they have all failed for some of the reasons mentioned above.
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does functional integration interfere with robustness?
The discrete components are designed, tested and verified after a long stint and their specs are frozen. It's a bit like space hardware. You verify an older CPU design can work reliably in space, and certify that processor. Then, you use the same foundation for a decade or so. It's same with automotive industry. You have a well defined and certified stack from Delco, Bosch, Delphi, etc. and you can trust that hardwar…
To add to that, some of these features are extremely specialized, and for each feature, 1-2 of the big players might have a huge technical advantage and economies of scale in production and in supplying. This leads to higher barrier to entry and not enough margin for other players to replicate the feature.
Re: The big automotive semiconductor problem
#10This article does a good job outlining why these systems can't just be replaced with a Raspberry Pi or an Arduino: Durability. At one point I was interested in replacing the ECU in my old '88 Suburban. The ECU is probably the only "real" bit of electronics in the whole vehicle. And yet after almost 35 years it's still doing fine. The Arduino based ECU I was looking into, as it turns out, is a great hobby project, but…
The space shuttle used a hardened 386 (or something similar) that cost a bazillion dollars. The drone currently on Mars used commidity off the shelf chips (snapdragon IIRC). The harsh conditions thing is not something to laugh at, but I also think we might have over-engineered somethings a bit.