John Day
John Day RSS
Choosing sides
We form opinions quickly these days and increasingly we gravitate toward those who agree with us and tune out opposing arguments. It happens with political and social issues and it’s happening with Toyota as the company struggles to determine the cause(s) of unintended acceleration. Some have empathy while others delight in the company’s difficulties.
One problem with polarization is that details can be lost in the emotion. As I see it, Toyota believes that the cause of the problem is mechanical, and not electrical, but it is continuing to explore all possibilities, including electrical/electronic hardware/software. It’s in Toyota’s interests to project confidence, but it also has to expect the unexpected, and it’s under intense time pressure.
Whether Toyota’s unintended acceleration problem involves electrical and electronic design issues or not, I see it contributing to a cloud of suspicion that is hovering over automotive electronics. Electronics in cars is perceived, at least by some people, as dangerous stuff. Thanks to electronics, it’s difficult if not impossible for individuals to tinker with their vehicles – not like in the old days. And electronics equates to computers, which conjures up images of inexplicable crashes and “blue screens of death.” Paradoxically, we want to be safe, but don’t know whom or what we can trust.
Are there ways to make automotive electronics less threatening? It helps that the vast majority of experiences that individuals have with in-vehicle electronics – GPS, for example – are positive. GM consistently stresses the safety and security benefits of OnStar. Ford touts SYNC’s voice control, so drivers can keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. And Ford just announced security features to guard against identity or data theft.
But what about electronics under the hood? Has anyone seen an especially good presentation of vehicle control electronics aimed at non-engineers? Is it possible to make the technology understandable, and is there a benefit to doing so?
Tags: Ford, GM, GPS, OnStar, SYNC, Toyota, unintended acceleration
Credit where credit is due
Do you ever watch the credits at the end of a movie? When you see all those names and titles for jobs that might not mean much to those outside the business, it’s evidence that filmmaking is a complex undertaking and a highly collaborative effort.
Kind of like cars.
Those thoughts came to mind when Volvo announced its new S60. The list of electrical and electronic features in the vehicle seemed to go on and on – pedestrian detection with full auto brake, rollover protection, driver alert control, blind spot information, lane departure warning, and myriad improvements to various safety systems.
Volvo’s announcement did not mention any of the suppliers that helped develop the S60, but to Volvo’s credit, the automaker allowed at least some suppliers to reveal themselves. As a result, we know that the Volvo S60 active safety includes a Delphi radar and vision system, consisting of a camera, vision control module, radar sensor, and sensor fusion algorithms. We also know that Delphi partnered with Mobileye on the vision processor and algorithms.
This gives – or allows– credit where credit is due, and I’d like to see more of it. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see much of a downside to an automaker identifying suppliers once a design has been set. Sure, the business is competitive, but how many consumers will select one brand over another because of the 32-bit microcontrollers it contains?
After all, how many car buyers know that a vehicle contains 32-bit microcontrollers, or even what microcontrollers are? All most people know is that cars have a lot of electronic stuff in them and that electronic stuff might cause problems. What if consumers knew more about the benefits of electronic content in vehicles and knew more about the companies working to provide that content and ensure its reliability? Does anyone else see an opportunity?
Tags: blind spot information, Delphi, driver alert control, full auto brake, lane departure warning, Mobileye, pedestrian detection, rollover protection, S60, sensor fusion, Volvo
Audi, then Ford
I’m debating whether or not to get a smart phone. Do I really need one – or do I just want to have one? Well, either way, which one do I get? It’s not a simple decision, because the thing is going to have to last a couple of years, and the technology is advancing so quickly that no matter which phone I choose, there is likely to be a better one available before I’m out the door. That’s the way it is with consumer electronics.
And increasingly, that’s the way it is with cars. It’s almost a cliché now to say that cars are fast becoming connected consumer electronics devices. Take the new Audi a8, for example. When Audi and its supplier, Qualcomm, wanted to introduce their connected car, they showed it at the GSMA Mobile World Congress – a show for smart phones.
It actually sounds pretty neat, with a Mobile Media Interface Plus navigation system that provides UMTS connectivity, so drivers can talk on the phone and access data simultaneously. Passengers can also connect their Wi-Fi devices because the system functions as a Wi-Fi hotspot – and it features Google Earth. I’ve not seen the demo, but combining Google Earth with a detailed street atlas sounds quite impressive – also potentially distracting, but I’m sure that Audi has taken that into account.
What will please the customer most? What features will be most effective at differentiating a vehicle from its competition? Which car to buy? Audi offers Google Earth, and this week Ford announced an enhancement to its navigation system for 2011 vehicles – High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane routing. It may seem like a simple thing, but I can imagine drivers with passengers appreciating it, especially in unfamiliar territory.
“We’ve worked so hard to make sure our navigation system is not only extremely helpful, but exceptionally intuitive,” says Jim Buczkowski, Ford’s director, Global Electrical and Electronics Systems Engineering. “We have added services and features that will help our customers access exactly the information they need while they’re on the go.” The pace of technology quickens. Stay tuned. Oh, and Ford is also adding HD Radio.
Tags: Audi a8, Ford, Google Earth, GSMA Mobile World Congress, HD radio, HOV lane routing, Jim Buczkowski, Mobile Media Interface Plus, Qualcomm, smart phone, UMTS connectivity, Wi-Fi hotspot
Finding the telematics business case
I’ve seen a lot of really cool automotive electrical and electronics technology that hasn’t yet reached the market, not because the technology won’t work but because automakers have not yet articulated a sufficient business case.
What’s the problem? I asked Ralf Hug specifically about the business case for telematics, where he has a lot of experience on both the OEM and supplier side. He asks himself the same question and then suggests one possible answer.
“OEMs can sell a telematics control unit, either as a standard feature or an option, and top of that is the revenue from selling content and services,” Hug says. “The ultimate objective, of course, is to use telematics as a unique selling proposition and achieve more vehicle sales – or halt declining sales.” He cites Ford as a good example of that, since Ford claims increased sales due to SYNC.
Then there is the ability to retrieve diagnostics data, which should interest managers responsible for warranty repairs and overall vehicle quality and production. And consider the potential for updating electronic control units remotely in much the same way the Microsoft updates Windows.
Building better relationships
“Building better relationships with car owners through vehicle health reports and dealer integration not only increases the likelihood of maintaining customer loyalty but also improves parts and service revenues and profitability of the OEM and dealership and keeps customers loyal within the OEM dealer network,” says Hug.
The problem, as he sees it, is that there are many “businesses” within a car company, each with its own priorities if not its own P&L. “Sometimes all of the internal businesses’ objectives come into alignment, but more often there are conflicts among them,” he says. “When I worked for a luxury car maker I had to re-open the business case for telematics about every three months because someone thought the ‘telematics’ line item could be deleted to lower the cost of the vehicle. My team and I had to deal with each objection by explaining the value that telematics creates despite having a program in place for many years.”
What’s needed, Hug suggests, is someone high enough up in the organization to be able to sort through conflicting priorities. “Someone has to have the vision and the clout to negotiate the rather complex ecosystem and make something happen at a senior management level and be able to work across various functions within a car company.” But telematics has not gained sufficient mindshare at a high enough level because the people running car companies today are, for the most part, car people who think a lot more about mechanics than they do about electronics.
“A change in organizational structure is needed to overcome these barriers for a holistic business case,” Hug says. And electrical/electronics engineering is likely to become a more viable career path.
Tags: Ford Sync, Microsoft Windows, Ralf Hug, telematics
Attention deficit disorder
It looks like Toyota’s reliability problems will be with them – and us – a while longer, so what, if anything, can we learn from the situation?
It seems clear that electronic content in cars will continue to increase due to the entertainment and comfort features we want as well as the need for better fuel economy (reducing weight by replacing mechanical subsystems with electronics).
That means more electronic control units (ECUs) and correspondingly greater communications complexity, since the ECUs need to talk with each other. Mentor Graphics VP Serge Leef says that for any seemingly simple function – hitting the brakes, for example – “a multitude of signals have to travel across multiplexed communications fabric and arrive at the right places at the right times.”
He adds, “When you have so much software, so much communication, and so much underlying computing complexity, there are millions of possible scenarios in the operation of a vehicle.”
Leef and others believe that, in general, automakers are not paying sufficient attention to real-time communication issues and, in particular, are not performing the kinds of tests needed to identify and resolve corner cases – the kinds of pesky, irregularly occurring issues that Toyota is trying to nail down.
Antal Rajnak, chief scientist in Mentor Graphics’ automotive business, adds, “The industry-wide general lack of respect for and understanding of real-time issues, and how to ensure and prove deterministic behavior in distributed systems, is most likely a factor in the (Toyota Prius) braking issue.”
That’s stunning, in my opinion, but it’s understandable if most senior managers in car companies worked their way up the ladder either through mechanical engineering or finance. The mindset needs to change, fast, but it’s obviously easier to say that than to do it.
Is AUTOSAR the best hope for the future? Mentor Graphics and other tools vendors contend that proprietary tools are available now for resolving real-time communication issues. “Some automakers are content to wait until AUTOSAR tools are sufficiently mature; others are willing to assume the risk of adopting AUTOSAR tools as they currently exist – or will opt for proprietary tools,” Leef says. “As electronic content in vehicles continues to increase, it is clear that something must be done.”
Tags: Antal Rajnak, AUTOSAR, electronic control units, real-time communication, Serge Leef, Toyota, Toyota Prius
Rummaging through the Virtual Garage
Mentor Graphics is acquiring the Virtual Garage software product line from Freescale Semiconductor and that brought two thoughts to mind: One, since the press announcement wasn’t very specific, what did Freescale say about the tools in its garage. Two, what nifty tools are there in my garage. Postponing an answer to #2 until sometime after the snow melts, I dug around in the archives and was impressed by what Freescale had to say.
Freescale emphasized its Virtual Architect (VA) tool suite and RAppID ToolBox. Time marches on and product lines evolve, so what I dug up may be classed as archaeology, but it sounds pretty useful.
As car companies add more electronic features, they are becoming system integrators, contending with system complexity and product complexity. Various domains (sensors, wiring harnesses, communications buses, electronic control units, etc.) operate semi-autonomously, so a change in the design of a component in one domain requires coordination among engineers of different domains.
The VA tool suite lets system engineers specify vehicle electrical and electronic performance requirements, communicate and collaborate with other EE engineering design domains, and conduct performance requirement validations. The result – synchronization of design specifications (harness, network and ECU), reducing development time and costs and the likelihood of errors. Chrysler was an early adopter. It used two tools in the VA suite – VA-Harness and VA-Complexity Management – to help ensure that every orderable vehicle has the required set of wire harnesses.
Freescale said its Garage tools offer single-point access to all essential electrical and electronics information and enable evaluation of cost/performance tradeoffs for alternative designs.
RAppID ToolBox was/is rapid prototyping software designed to help engineers migrate from application modeling environments to production implementations. Engineers can use it to determine how their applications will perform on target MCUs early in the development cycle and then work on optimization at the model level rather than at the code level.
Mentor says the Virtual Garage tools complement its own CHS software. If Freescale delivered on the promise, Mentor has a lot to work with.
Tags: CHS software, Freescale Semiconductor, Mentor Graphics, RAppID ToolBox, VA-Complexity Management, VA-Harness, Virtual Architect, Virtual Garage
The other kind of automotive networking
One telling sign of the automotive electrical and electronics industry slowdown last year was a steep drop in marketing efforts by component, software and system suppliers. Companies that sponsored major events for customers and press or were otherwise highly visible two years ago had relatively little to say in 2009. That didn’t mean the companies were idle, of course; only that corporate belts needed tightening.
Now that the automotive industry is slowly starting to recover (knock on wood), there may be more company-sponsored, market-related events along the lines of Mentor Graphics’ Integrated Electrical Solutions Forum (IESF), a free event on Thursday, March 18, at the Hyatt Dearborn hotel in Dearborn, Michigan (register at www.mentor.com/go/iesf).
No matter how thoroughly our gadgets keep us connected, there’s still tremendous value in face-to-face contact. Gatherings like IESF typically include keynote sessions, technical problem-solving seminars, and the chance to see old friends or make new contacts during networking breaks where corporate partners have set up exhibits.
One of the high points of IESF for me will be a presentation by Paul Hansen, founder and editor of The Hansen Report on Automotive Electronics, the leading analyst publication in the automotive EE industry. I’m also looking forward to hearing John Antilla, operations program manager, systems & components, at Chrysler. He’ll provide an OEM perspective on the challenges of automotive electrical complexity.
A decade or so from now we’ll look back on this period in automotive history as a time of transition – from pistons and gears to electronics and software. Ian Wright, founder of a Silicon Valley startup called Wrightspeed, will tackle that topic. Wright’s firm has built an electric car said to be able to go from 0 to 60 in three seconds.
If you’re involved in automotive application development and are anywhere near Dearborn on March 18, don’t miss IESF.
Tags: Chrysler, Hyatt Dearborn, Ian Wright, Integrated Electrical Solutions Forum (IESF), John Antilla, Mentor Graphics, Paul Hansen, Silicon Valley, The Hansen Report on Automotive Eelctronics, Wrightspeed
The Toyota story unfolds
Remember a year or so ago when GM and Chrysler were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and debate raged – as it still does – over federal involvement in the filings? Would either have survived without the government’s help, or would they have been liquidated? And if one or both had ceased to exist, where would the automotive industry (not to mention the U.S. economy) be now? How many suppliers would have followed GM or Chrysler down the tubes?
Now add Toyota’s troubles to the mix. I hope Toyota can pinpoint their reliability issues accurately, fix them quickly, and begin to restore consumer confidence. I hate to see them take such a hit, just as the industry is starting to recover, but things could have been a lot worse if Toyota’s troubles had followed the demise of a major U.S. OEM.
The Toyota story is unfolding as we speak, but lessons are already apparent. A big one concerns crisis management – don’t try to hide – and it looks like Honda, with its airbag recall, has been taking notes. Then there’s the axiom that it’s way cheaper to fix a problem during development than it is once the product is in the field.
So, what can be said or learned about the way automakers build cars? Toyota is a strong proponent of model-based development. Should its tools and procedures have been able to uncover any and all potential problems in the lab prior to manufacturing? As much as we’d like to think so, that’s probably not realistic; at least not yet. Engineering depends upon deep scientific knowledge, but also upon human ingenuity. Let’s not pass judgment until we know more about Toyota fixes, but let’s also pay close attention to the quality of the system modeling and application development tools we give our engineers. Lives depend on them.
Tags: airbag recall, Cyrysler, GM, Honda, Toyota
Driving the connected car
I want lots of connectivity in my next car and have every reason to expect it (and, of course, to use it responsibly). We’re talking-cutting edge technology of the kind increasingly available to mid-range buyers; features like Internet access, voice recognition, full-color touch-screen displays, diagnostics, and various forms of infotainment.
I was a bit surprised to learn that all of that and more was packed into the Network Car concept developed by Delphi, IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Netscape, and displayed at COMDEX (does anyone remember COMDEX?) – back in 1997.
What’s happened since then, according to Bob Schumacher, who heads Advanced Product and Business Development at Delphi, is that the key enabling technologies have matured, become more reliable, and are now available at lower cost.
Connectivity requires a platform, and four platforms are currently available, from Microsoft, QNX, the Genivi Consortium, and Google’s (Android). The latter two are both based on open source Linux. Connectivity requires methods of transporting data, and Schumacher sees Bluetooth, USB, Wi-Fi, and 3G (or 4G) cellular as the four current favorites for connecting portable devices. Sirius/XM, DVB-T, and DVB-SH are among the options for broadcast data, and DSRC is favored for wireless communication between cars and the roadside infrastructure.
Powerful 32-bit microcontrollers are available and affordable, flash memory has come down in price, and so have display. “Right now most of the displays in cars are active matrix LCD, but we’ll be moving into organic LEDs (OLEDs), which are being used in smartphones,” Schumacher notes.
Enabling technology makes the connected car possible, but smartphones and smartphone apps are making the connected car compelling. “Consumers have discovered that mobile devices make life more convenient, productive, and entertaining, and they want those advantages 24 hours a day, no matter where they are,” Schumacher says.
Tags: 3G cellular, Android, Bluetooth, Bob Schumacher, COMDEX, Delphi, DSRC, DVB-SH, DVB-T, Genivi Consortium, Google, IBM, infotainment, Internet access, LCD, Linux, Microsoft, Netscape, Network Car, OLED displays, QNX, Sirius/XM, smartphones, Sun Microsystems, touch-screen displays, USB, voice recognitiion, Wi-Fi
Anticipating AUTOSAR
I don’t hear a lot about AUTOSAR (Automotive Open System Architecture) technology in production vehicles, but I’m inclined to think that will change sooner than later. It’s not just the number of major players in the consortium, but also the compelling need for less complexity in application development, lower development costs, and faster time-to-market. Standard (AUTOSAR-compliant) software and hardware components would seem to have great potential for achieving those benefits.
In December, when the AUTOSAR development partnership published Release 4.0 specifications, AUTOSAR spokesperson Simon Fürst said the new version “provides all of the features ECUs will need for the next generation of cars,” including support for functional safety, multi-core microcontrollers, LIN 2.1, FlexRay 3.0, and a timing model. AUTOSAR now has well over 500 Application Interfaces for body and comfort, powertrain, chassis, occupant/pedestrian safety, and human machine interface domains.
If AUTOSAR software components can run on any AUTOSAR-compliant electronic control unit (ECU), and some ECUs have bandwidth to spare, electrical and electronic system designers may be able to reduce the number of different kinds of ECUs in a vehicle and perhaps even reduce the total number of ECUs, all things being equal. That is a big cost saving.
But all things are seldom equal, and cost is not the only consideration. As applications expand in number and complexity, designers have an increasing number of variables to take into account, such as performance and reliability, and engineering expertise really matters.
Someday a designer might be enough to simply push a button and let some sophisticated software tool instantly evaluate the consequences of thousands of possible combinations of elements and yield the optimal solution.
AUTOSAR tools are available and becoming more sophisticated. It’s likely they will continue to get better as AUTOSAR becomes more popular. Which comes first? Is there a reason to wait for better tools, or are the advantages of standardized hardware and software components sufficient by themselves?
Tags: Automotive Open System Architecture, AUTOSAR, AUTOSAR Development Partnership, AUTOSAR-compliant, ECUs, electronic control units, FlexRay 3.0, LIN 2.1, Simon Fürst
About John Day
News and commentary on automotive EE trends and topics
Latest Posts
- Choosing sides
- Credit where credit is due
- Audi, then Ford
- Finding the telematics business case
- Attention deficit disorder
- Rummaging through the Virtual Garage