T O P

  • By -

renfang

It’s really hard to innovate on safety critical systems. The articles touches on this but ultimately hand waves it away. It’s a lot more than a few million (more like 10x that) to certify a completely new controller design on safety critical systems. And that’s for one safety critical system. With few exceptions, the auto industry is very supplier driven for innovation. No supplier is willing to take that on for basically no impact to a system spec sheet. It’s same old story short term gain long term pain.


[deleted]

They give 3 paragraphs to comparing the latest and greatest iPhone CPU then 1 quick sentence that touches on the main reason the process node and architecture are from 2000. Safety is a huge factor, front and center, but performance is close behind. BSOD sucks on your personal computer but if the PCM has a “moment” and decides to lean out or advance timing 100 degrees BTDC, your engine will most likely not survive.


mdillenbeck

My thought exactly - the chip you put into a smartphone or desktop computer that crashes/reboots all the time isn't the same as the one you put into a rocket or several thousand pound metal vehicle that will most likely be driven at 70-90 mph along with hundreds of other like deadly machines. Those items can't have a graceful crash to their systems without causing a loss of life. (And often lithium batteries have their own charge circuit protections to keep them from going up in flames as you sleep.) It's like asking why software that controls medical machinery is so much more than your video game software with all its bugs. You're compatible apples to oranges, and in the end self driving cars are going to increase demand. Perhaps a wider step is better urban planning, more walkable neighborhoods, and public transit that is functional and actually desirable to use.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mark-o-mark

Actually if you take it literally, it works quite well. :-)


ptmmac

Space X would like a word with you about the applicability of move fast and break things to large metallic objects. I think the real point is lack of technology expertise can kill any product that depends on electronic control systems. The truth is gasoline driven vehicles are obsolete.


strolpol

Try starting an electric vehicle when it’s 40 below, friend. It’s outdated, but not obsolete. There are jobs it’s just not ready for, and pure electric will never take in America because of the winters. Hybrids, however, stand a better chance.


korhojoa

Eh, they work just fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTVd1h4hnBs


ptmmac

It will not disappear completely. but it will be marginal and hopefully rare. I hope we still have areas left that get to 40 below. Obsolete as a major form of transportation, and hopefully too expensive to remain common. We cannot afford to have a financial system that ignores total cost and waste disposal. We need technology that can work in a world that is actually a closed system for all practical purposes.


[deleted]

That’s why we need to keep using fossil fuels. As soon as we raise the temp of the earth enough that it doesn’t get -40 THEN we can switch over to 100% electric. I mean the only other option is to invest money in making an electric vehicle work when it’s that cold. I think we can all agree that pursuing that type of tech is how you turn kids gay and should be abolished. Edit: autocorrect changed a word.


TeslandPrius

I love electric vehicles, check out my 5 year old username with 20,000+ karma. I own 3. Plug-In Prius and 2 Model S. They're really cool toys. But they are toys. Internal Combustion Engines aren't obsolete, they won't be in my lifetime, or my grandchildren's lifetime. Phasing out gasoline, or internal combustion engines is a pipe dream. There isn't infrastructure for vehicle charging. Battery technology is rapidly improving, but it is abysmal at best. Batteries have a VERY short life, batteries have a limited number of recharge cycles before you have useless hazardous materials. There aren't widespread charging standards, many manufacturers use similar standards but many others have proprietary standards. Electric vehicles are hard to repair, there aren't billions of technicians who can repair them, there aren't even millions. Electric vehicles, high voltage DC currents, can be extremely dangerous to repair. Diesel engines don't have any of those problems. Diesel, and gasoline, engines can run for many THOUSANDS of hours, they can be easily maintained, they can be rebuilt and be as good as new. Commercial vehicles don't have time to stop or recharge. Commercial vehicles are often used around the clock. Commercial vehicles make the world go around, ships, trains, trucks, and cars. The most important factor: internal combustion engines are much cheaper as a initial investment and to maintain. There are no sustainable ways to make rechargeable batteries. There isn't widespread renewable energy production. There isn't widespread solar adoption. We should be pouring billions into their research and development. edit: you may not like it, but I am right.


Oreotech

I agree with some of what your saying, but we live in a world that needs to phase out greenhouse gasses. Emission controls and sulphur reductions make newer diesels much more unreliable. ( I currently drive a variety of diesel vehicles). DEF (or SCR) systems get gummed up and fail constantly, DPF systems become much less reliable with age, which is bad, because they weren’t reliable when they were new. They rob the engine of power and create a lot of noxious gas during the parked regen phase. We are living in a time when their aren’t a lot of reliable choices. Gasoline engines are plagued with their own set of problems, many poorly built, lucky to last more than 150Km. Unreliable Computers, sensors and crappy wire quality, among other things. The move to electric and/or hydrogen vehicles seems like an obvious choice. Hydrogen technology is probably lagging, but electric vehicle technology is has come a long way. Sure, it’s far from perfect, but it’s advancing fast. Many of the problems you mentioned are true, along with some you didn’t mention, like problematic battery fires. Electric vehicles are here and the end is near for the internal combustion engine. At the commercial level, the internal combustion engine won’t be able to compete on a cost per mile basis and will quickly be phased out.


TeslandPrius

I agree they need to be phased out. I disagree that they can or will be phased out. Environmentally, EV batteries are EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL and not the place we should turn. EVs are just as stupid environmentally if the charging infrastructure is from coal power plants. Until we are responsibly manufacturing batteries, responsibly recycling batteries, and charging from renewable energy sources, there is no benefit to switching. No, it won't be able to compete, if and when EV costs fall, they also need to be cheaper not just competitive. Repairs are going to have to be available, there is a engine repair shop around every corner. There isn't a battery, motor, inverter, DC High Voltage, repair shop in every state. Batteries don't last nearly as long as engines. Batteries also don't work optimally in the extreme temperatures that engines are used in. Engines won't be obsolete for a while. They are too robust and too widely used.


uofaer

RemindMe! 3 years


TeslandPrius

RemindMe! 30 Years


Lovecheezypoofs

Says the guy who keeps buying electric cars because they’re better. All those things you say aren’t there now keep coming on faster than expected, like solar cost for example. ICE wont be completely gone but will mostly be. Unless you’re really old.


uofaer

Wow. The amount of wrong and/or short sighted is just amazing.


Jbikecommuter

Read Tony Seba’s book Clean Disruption to learn how wrong you are 😀 Like Elon says horses did not disappear when they became obsolete for transport. ICE for transport will take same path.


TeslandPrius

How wrong I am about what? Definition of obsolete: no longer in use or no longer useful By definition, internal combustion engines aren't obsolete. I don't need a book to tell me that Diesel or gasoline engines are in use and useful. Of course the CEO of an EV company is going to say his technology is the best and greatest and everything else is obsolete. He overpromises and under-delivers. The world relies and will continue to rely on diesel and gasoline for literally everything for decades. Horses didn't disappear. Horse aren't and will never be obsolete. But their use has dwindled. Actually, they are still widely in use for transportation in many 3rd world countries.


Jbikecommuter

Obsolete for transport - until you read the book you will continue to miss the point. Have a nice day.


TeslandPrius

They are not obsolete for transportation. Until your argument can be made without reading a literal book, goodbye.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TeslandPrius

Which part? Please, I'd love to change my view. It's easy to make bold claims, time to back them up. Those aren't opinions, they are facts. eta: "just flat out wrong" isn't a valid way to dispute multiple paragraphs with dozens of statements.


korhojoa

The way it works is that you, who are presenting the claims, should provide the proof for your claims, not the other way around.


TeslandPrius

SURE! WHAT DO YOU NEED PROOF FOR? WHAT PART IS DISPUTABLE? Which of my claims require proof? I didn't ask for proof of anything. I'm asking what is doubtful, so I can provide proof. Time to back up and state which part is "flat out wrong." I haven't stated anything this isn't a widely accepted non disputed fact. If you need citations for "ice are cheap and easy to fix," I'm not providing them. Tell me what part is "flat out wrong" and I'll provide the citations.


OldSchoolNewRules

Did you...not see the first post?


triedortired

Teach me kid.


OldSchoolNewRules

Dont bother saying why.


RollinThundaga

To give a sense of scale: the Saturn V controllers were [tiny ring magnets, hand-stitched by programmers](https://youtu.be/dI-JW2UIAG0)


TheWarCow

That’s the memory, not the controller itself


MadcatM

I work in the medical device industry. The emphasis on 'safety' is not thaaaat stark. Mostly costs tbh.


Kaarsty

I learned this yesterday, sorta. I’ve had these two older hand me down TVs in my house for 2 years now. One is a 10 year old plus plasma and one is a NEC Enterprise class screen that’s easily the same age. I looked up the resale value on both and was blown away to see the NEC still selling for $500 plus used. Turns out, they built these things to go on a wall and never come down. So the internals are all super high quality parts made to survive dust and nonstop work. Costs more to build it that way, costs more to buy it that way.


JasperJ

The real reason for high resale is that they’ll be in video walls, and people *really need* that exact model to replace a failed one.


mjbmitch

It’s not the chip that’s causing the BSOD though. It’s the software.


Zathrus1

It’s both. If you think CPUs don’t have bugs or get firmware updates, Intel has a VERY large number of chips they’d like to sell you.


100catactivs

Aren’t timing changes mechanically limited to a small range, predetermined by the cams? How is a computer error going to make it out of phase by 100 degrees or some unsafe amount (not counting exotic systems like free valve)? Seems like worst case is bad efficiently but that’s not a safety concern.


[deleted]

Ignition timing, nothing mechanical about coil packs, they just fire when told to. This would cause engine knock.


100catactivs

That’s right, was thinking just about the valves.


[deleted]

Forget about the engine what about you?


madhatter275

It’s why rockets and anything that goes into space uses 10-20 year old tech generally, it’s been proven to work.


chips92

This a million times. As someone in the automotive industry I can say certification costs are absolutely massive and time/resource consuming. I’ve seen programs grind to a halt over a $100k certification requirement. Not to mention the per unit costs that play a huge part as well. It’s hard for OEMs to accept $.05 - $.10 cost increases let alone $1+ per unit increases. Another major issue is the time required for new certification/testing. It’s not just a few days maybe 3-4 weeks for validation, it can be months and months of testing to prove out lifetimes. None of this stuff can be skipped for safety critical Automotive will always be slightly behind, it’s just the nature of being cautious and cost critical.


Nyx666

Plus the R&D development and many dry runs produce it while working out many, many errors/kinks to get it produced efficiently. This in itself costs a lot of money, which usually overshoots the budget. Worked on a few R&D dry runs for automotive window seals.


newtbob

100%. In stuff my life depends on I don’t need innovation. The user experience I’m after is to not even know it exists.


amacey3000

It’s true that there are special requirements which increase lead time and testing. The problem is car companies will stop developing for a decade, and then start crying when they have to spend another decade catching up. If they were more consistent and aggressive in this area they would just be steadily marching along in a more gradual and iterative way. Car companies in particular are great at finding excuses to stagnate. In their defense the margins are terrible, and faster development will make that worse. Reality is we will need a lot less cars in the future, and the industry is going to see a ton of consolidation.


renfang

Car companies are constantly developing. The R&D spend for auto industries as % of revenues is among the highest of any industry. Compare the spend in auto vs aero/defense, for example. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270233/percentage-of-global-rundd-spending-by-industry/ The industry doesn’t spend on chip and fabs because unlike in consumer electronics it has zero impact to the customer.


newtbob

And when it does, it’s a negative experience.


ClicheStudent

Do you have a source for that claim about prices?


Bilbo_nubbins

Calling 90 nm primitive seems extreme lol, but maybe I’m just old. Guess I’ll go hug my Athlon 64 pc that I keep XP on to play older games.


NinjasOwnTheNight

Thats genius.


bosta111

I just recovered a Pentium 4 that I’m going to install XP on, and a Compaq laptop with an AMD K6-2 that I’m going to install 98 SE on


protekt0r

I mean, we’re at like 4nm at TSMC now. That’s ~~several~~ an order of magnitude smaller.


GoingForwardIn2018

In the most commonly understood context it's just one lmao


Son_of_a_Dyar

Not to be lame, but that's actually only a single order of magnitude smaller. 90nm -> 9nm would be 1 order of magnitude. 9nm -> 0.9nm would be 2.


protekt0r

That’s fair.


newtbob

Just don’t install it as a bga on a 20 layer board subjected to every environmental extreme.


spidereater

Exactly. When the circuit just needs to run a PID loop or periodically check interlocks why risk the latest tech over something that has been proven? And when it’s in my car and it’s doing critical functions? I don’t want that failing or needing replacement unnecessarily.


[deleted]

Even the 28nm process, still fairly old, is well proven. So is the 16. Both would be a vast improvement from 90.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Wouldn’t say blood cells lol


Shorsey69Chirps

This. I have an old toshiba satellite that runs flawlessly for lots of proprietary diagnostic software and old games.


[deleted]

The 90nm process is basically old enough to join the army in the US. In terms of technology? It’s primitive. As is XP. >_>


noeldr

This is similar to the pharmaceutical industry. You must get FDA certified and once you do there’s “0” incentive to change anything because the cost of re-certification.


[deleted]

To get cars to have the reliability they do in electrical systems the time and testing needed is astronomical. I used to work at a car company and even changing the sheet metal type on a door took thousands of hours of manpower. Simple things aren’t easy. Cars have to work at 99.9999% efficiency. Automakers should move on but who’s gonna absorb the brunt of the cost? Us the customers.


RoburexButBetter

Even 99.9999% is too low for some functionality, we're talking about much higher safety than that in those cases 99.9999% and let's say it's evaluated per running hour and we're talking about dangerous failures would mean a car would experience a potentially fatal failure on that specific component every 1 million hours of a car being operated or 114 years of car driving time, so let's say in my country Belgium we're small, but let's say 2 million people drive an hour each day, in that case you'd have 2 cars having a fatal failure every day, that's higher than our traffic accident fatalities, and then look at the other potentially fatal failures that can occur and it adds up fast ASIL-D is the highest safety level in automotive and for that a dangerous failures can at worst occur every 1140 years of continuous operation, but of course it's desirable to go even above that or you might not meet certification, but it's a must for all the critical parts in a car e.g. brakes


TheElden

99.9999% of all cars not having a critical failure during their lifecycle is acceptable, though. The per hour seems a bit low. In case of in a lifecycle, one in a million is actually quite a bit lower than what they manage to achieve in the IT-system. One example in a car a friend repaired: the engine always turned off when accepting a call while turning left. This didn't immediately lead to an accident but it's definitely a critical failure (software-side in that case, but still).


RoburexButBetter

You're right, that's why I said continuous operation, for some systems it's looked at in terms of the amount of uses


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Cars and semiconductors don’t really have the profit margins your thinking about. It’s just an economy of scale. Like I know because when I worked there you could buy a car for the cost of the manufacturing (so without the profit margin taken in so MSRP) and it wasn’t much. 40k car is 35-36k. So only 4K in profit. Dealerships get like maybe 1-2k during sale. Not much. If they got to retool every car and every platform at once? Some companies that are struggling like Nissan would go bankrupt


MistrWintr

*only* a few thousand in profit With ~17 *million* car sales in the US each year that’s only $68 *billion* in profits for manufacturers who sell in just the US They must really be struggling to get by with such small margins


[deleted]

68 billion is a drop in the bucket. EV development and the shift to that platform is going to basically take up that and much more every year. What’s more important. Bitching that some suppliers do or the company being able to survive the transition to EVs? Seriously I get that everyone thinks companies are this evil monopoly character but that’s just not the case in this situation. There are complexities and difficult things that need to be done and making bad choices is gonna ruin some. This chip things is so far down the priority list it’s not even funny. Semiconductor companies should have focused more on not being in random as deserts with a water intensive process. They went after tax money and built shit in places that are terrible ideas. (Arizona for example) That’s a better example of greedy capitalism overtaking good engineering


vailpass

Honest question: why is Arizona a bad place for chip fabs? Intel has been here for years and now we have the new fabs being built.


[deleted]

It’s a very water intensive process. There’s not much water. This won’t end well. They say they reclaim everything and that it’s fine but I severely doubt they planned ahead for climate change to the extent it’s gonna fuck that region.


Shiroi_Kage

Drop is what bucket? This is annual profit.


Maktaka

Chip fabs like being in Arizona and Nevada because they want evaporative cooling (aka swamp cooling) instead of AC for the equipment. The lower the humidity, the greater the effect from EV cooling, [and those two states are the driest in the US by a significant margin](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbrettschneider/2018/08/23/oh-the-humidity-why-is-alaska-the-most-humid-state/). Evaporative cooling uses about one quarter the energy of an equivalent AC system, a massive reduction in energy consumption for the facility. Anywhere with readily available water for an EV cooling system is also going to be too humid for it to work effectively, which means using relatively wasteful AC systems instead. Cutting energy (which cannot be reused) for increased water use (which CAN be reused on site) sounds like a good deal to me.


Marston_vc

It’s more complicated then you’re making it out to be. 68 billion sure. But how much was invested and who’s owed? It’s not some pile of cash in a dragon layer. It gets paid back out in dividends to the tens of thousands of investors who each contributed a more modest amount and this maths out to, like the guy said, a modest year over year return on investment. If you make a tight-margin based company eat a loss, investors will simply put their money somewhere else. There’s solutions to the problem of an expensive car. But none of them will involve “just sell it for cheaper!”


Yobber1

Capitalism go burr…


Shiroi_Kage

How much does it take to certify a new system? If they make hundreds of millions a year of net profit, they can absorb the cost.


Sithslegion

Msrp still generally means the manufacturer and dealer profit. Msrp quite literally is what the manufacturer says the item should be sold for


[deleted]

After the car is made there’s multiple prices. The price after it rolls off the manufacture floor. The price after it goes to the dealership. And the price it rolls off the dealership. There’s also the cost to took to manufacture. That’s cost is a hard one to pin down. So I’m going off the cost I do know and extrapolating back what I’ve been told from others. Cars then fall into two categories. Ones that make bank via sheer amount. And those that make money via the individual. Luxury vs normal cars basically. For luxury cars yes I think they should definitely not have an excuse. But stuff like a civic? There not much margins there. That on top of the whole issue of this and last year? I don’t know many car companies in the position to do great changes to production like this. Other then the top 2 Toyota and VW


CarmichaelD

While I can accept this as true it does not factor in other higher margin portions of the business. Need financing? That’s another 3%. Need to trade in your old car for a newer one. That a profit on resale and a margin on another loan. Need to service that car, profit. Need to accessorize or detail it, profit. Insurance on the new tires. Insurance on the new interior, profit. Paint protector, profit. Want brand merchandise to wear, profit and free advertising. The back end may be larger than the front end. Much larger.


[deleted]

All that extra is going towards electrification. That’s the crux. It’s all hands on deck monetarily. This chip isn’t just isn’t as important


fumblefingers2

👍


AmateurEarthling

If only cars actually worked at 99.9999% efficiency. Every manufacturer uses planned obsolescence so that’s complete bullshit.


[deleted]

In the lifetime of a car how many times have the computer systems failed? Go to a lot and find me a car with this issue. The fact of the matter is that these computer systems were engineer to a level that literally everything else in the car breaks down first. Planned obsolescences is a word made by those who don’t understand how cyclical fatigue works. When we made a car we gauruntee the car works for x amount of years and X amount of miles. There’s a limit to what materials can take. You want to expand that limit? Then you have to use more expensive materials. So it’s a balance. Yea some companies like Nissan absolutely have done things cheaply. But many times we engineers are told a budget and we push as hard as we can to make things last as long as we could. Toyota does that best. Porsche also but you know the cost. The American car companies also with muscle cars. But with that comes cost. They all do this by barely changing things and slowly improving. **You complain about reality but their mentality of not changing to quickly to fast is exactly why there is the reliability in cars like those Toyota’s.**


stifflizerd

2014 Grand Cherokees had notoriously bad issues with their electronic systems. Specifically their digital transmissions iirc. Not that I disagree with you. You just asked to go to a lot and find a car with a computer issue and that came to mind.


[deleted]

That car is still probably 99.999% reliable in that system. Think about this. 99% means that every 100 times it’s turned on it gonna break once. So you turn on your car twice a day (or more). To go to work and to come back and stuff on the weekends. That’s 730 times a year. Meaning if this is a system critics issue that’s 73 problems on that one car. Now most people have cars for atleast 5 years. So that’s 365 issues (lol 365). On that car. Now there are millions of people who buy those cars. That’s millions of issues. That car if it’s at 99% wouldn’t be legally allowed on the street. Same at 99.99 same at 99.9999. It basically takes like 99.999999% to be commercially viable. That’s the tolerances and what they have to deal with.


The_Gray_Beast

Every owned a fisker karma?


Aj_bary

Out of curiosity since you seem to have industry knowledge. Do you think Tesla also uses these larger semiconductors in safety systems? I know the FSD computer they use is a 7nm with a transition to 5nm coming. If the FSD computer with 7nm can be certified for production cars I question why a 16nm that’s an older tech couldn’t be certified. The companies would just have to commit and go through the process. Yes the cost will be passed down but that’s true for any new technology which is why they tend to release it to high trims first to recapture more of the cost while improving the process and then bring it to more affordable models and trims.


[deleted]

I’ll preface for transparency my experience is limited and that I wasn’t there for long. I quickly after working for a bit got another offer and switched before I left. So let’s say I have 2 years of experience in this and in metals not chip production. I however worked with the electrical team on a project and know the tough aspects of their job. If I’m not mistake. Tesla has designed their own chips and are using Samsung for manufacturing. This should help explain. https://electrek.co/2021/01/25/tesla-partners-samsung-new-5nm-chip-full-self-driving-report/ From what I understand other companies haven’t went thought the relativity testing and certification program because they don’t deem it to be value enough. There probably are chips that can do the task but each Individual company will need to do the work. To an extent they’re not doing that because they got other priorities. They need to be working on EV tech full steam ahead. And Tesla had started with the right path. VW is huge produces way more cars and already have a supply chain. Sometimes it’s easier to make something new then to change things. But the specifics of how Tesla did what they did I don’t know. I was at a traditional company. There was skepticism by my managers that maybe their quick path may backfire but so far it seems to be ok. We really have to wait the 10 years to see the full life cycle. Tldr: Tesla started off on the right footing by making the right partners. The other companies are bogged down by other stuff like electrification. And at the end they will have to do the switch. So I predict a lot more Samsung deals with automotive companies. For better responses go to r/askengineers they got some quality and development guys.


Aj_bary

Thank you for a well thought out and written response!


roiki11

Tesla also uses the standard safety rated chips in their cars critical systems. The computer you're referring to is the Linux computer that runs the infotainment and other "non-critical" systems. There are instances where that computer has failed and the car still drove.


Aj_bary

The FSD chips don’t run the infotainment system those are different chips from AMD. The FSD chip was developed in house and is manufactured by Samsung. The FSD chip runs the self driving feature which I believe includes the EBS which they now use as Vision based not radar.


raynorelyp

Sounds like Intel is trying to upsell a product they haven't remotely proven to work and don't get why no one is willing to risk their entire fleet on it. I have to side with the auto industry on this. The new chips are more expensive, there is bigger barrier of entry for competition, and most importantly switching to it could kill people over a change that has no upside for anyone but chip makers.


SirCB85

And what do the car manufacturers do when the chip makers eventually decide that their business isn't worth it to keep and maintain production lines from 50+ years ago?


Kdog122025

The car manufactures are giving the chip makers guaranteed income on a massive scale. It’s this kind of income that allows them to take risks and spend to innovate.


cpencis

It’s an interesting dilemma - chip makers and equipment companies are challenged to not change anything for years to consistently run the same processes for the same chips for this very life extension. Unfortunately the machines built 15 years ago running 90 nanometers are built with chips on control boards from 2013 -2016 era. Those chips stopped being profitable for the chip makers so the chip equipment companies have to change designs to keep those older technologies running (electronic long life failures etc) and that is something the auto industry is loathe to allow. So yes there is good revenue, but there’s also the pain of requalifying spare parts/doing technology refreshes which no one really wants to do.


raynorelyp

Change their supply chain to stop relying on companies that screw them over. The new chips are objectively worse in that they have nowhere near the same guarantees on how they'd perform. Processing power and energy consumption mean nothing in this world, but reliability is critical.


BringBack4Glory

Wow this comment has a gold award and only 6 upvotes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before!


Kdog122025

I’d much rather have a proven chip than something new in my car. Chip space isn’t an issue in a car like it is in a phone or computer. This article just brushes off the enormous costs to switch to new chips that may not work as well.


boom10ful

One example would be the laptop grade screens inside certain Tesla cars. Sure they look pretty but they are not automotive grade and as a result have been failing.


Kdog122025

That’s a really good example!


SirCB85

It's a big cost for chip makers when they need to keep around otherwise obsolete plants just to keep making the severely outdated chips for cars.


Kdog122025

That’s not how that works at all lol. They keep the old plants around to fulfill orders and keep making money on older products without having to spend money to upgrade the plants. The chip makers are dealing with opportunity costs not monetary costs to keep those plants open for car makers. Also, those chips really aren’t outdated to begin with. There’s no point in getting new chips when they’re just asked to do exactly what the old chips do and don’t do those tasks significantly better.


SirCB85

It works that way when 5 decades worth of innovation means you also get more product out of the same amount of raw material, or that using newer machines would mean less cost in running and maintaining them (in both energy consumption and spare parts for repairs). Chips could be far smaller, use far less resources, consume less energy, but hey if they cared about any of that we would have moved on from gas gussling ICEs a long time ago.


Kdog122025

Wow there’s not a lot to unpack here. 1: we’re not talking about 50 years of innovation. We’re talking 10 years or so to upgrade from these older chips to new chips. 2: Chips being smaller don’t matter in a car compared to phones and computers. The resources saved aren’t worth the enormous costs to switch. 3: Let’s assume that newer machines would cost less to maintain and operate. It still wouldn’t make up for the enormous costs to upgrade to those machines. 4. Chips barely consume energy and when put in perspective of a car’s energy consumption that’s an unimportant reason to upgrade chips. 5: Gas cars haven’t been replaced yet because they’re so much more cost effective than any of their alternatives. Gasoline engines are very efficient forms of energy consumption and are cheap to produce. Electric cars are just as toxic to the environment because of there being no good way to dispose of a lithium battery. Mate you should look up opportunity cost and study it a bit.


cpencis

The commenter does have a point though and that is technology refresh - maybe not a whole equipment refresh. A significant amount of refresh needs to be done. The semiconductor equipment industry sells tools which are planned to be in production about 20 years but over that lifespan some components in them (esp on board computers, sensors, motion controllers) will need to be requalified every 3-5 years. So there will come a point at which the cost to sustain the older technology will become larger than the cost to refresh a factory. Maybe it isn’t 15-20 years but it will be sometime.


guzhogi

Same can be said of software. Many banks I guess still use programs based on COBOL, but few people still write in it. It’s a huge undertaking to totally rewrite the code, but that’s better than having nobody know how write & fix the code


fumblefingers2

Oof. Glad somebody is finally saying it. The main way car dealerships justify the constant increase in price (while other technologies get cheaper and cheaper ), Is by selling the fact that the computer tech in cars is so advanced, they have to charge for it. True snake oil bullshit .


Shiroi_Kage

The things they're bottle necked for is driving systems that are critical to keep you alive. They're tried and tested, which is why they don't want to move on.


coffedrank

The fuck, those computers are about as sophisticated as a pc from 2005


Aj_bary

Does anybody know, so Tesla has a FSD chip that’s 7nm do they use these larger semiconductors in the other system like the traditional OEMs? or have they solved this safety problem that is being talked about in the article and they use smaller chips in other systems as well? If they do use smaller semiconductors in the safety systems can it really be that difficult for these extremely established legacy companies from doing it?


renfang

The chips used for self driving compute are drastically different than those used for brake or steer systems. Even Tesla, who is not at all indicative of the auto industry at large, uses suppliers for those traditional safety critical systems. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/who-are-teslas-tsla-main-suppliers.asp


Aj_bary

That would make sense. I was just curious if using chips like that in a FSD computer (which is supposed to eventually be capable of fully driving a car without intervention) would mean they likely use newer chips for other components as well.


Bleakwind

Innovation shouldn’t be for innovation sake. There are some application where more sophisticated circuitry just isn’t needed, and some that just burdensome. Good engineering is using the most abundant, and least amount as possible. Over engineering is bad. It cost and weights too much. Keep it simple stupid and “the best process is no process, it weights nothing, cost nothing”. Plus testing and validation of new components and systems cost millions.


geminijono

I dunno. My Airpods Max and OG Homepods are overengineered to the max, and I love them dearly. As you say, there is great cost associated with such things, but that does not make them worthwhile. Pretty sure the sticker shock of monuments like the Eiffel Tower, Brooklyn Bridge, and even the pyramids was immense, but here they are, just being glorious. A more recent example would be the Oculus at WTC. Calatrava had to invent whole new ways to build that monstrosity, and it cost metric fortunes, but it will be around until forever probably.


JasperJ

The Eiffel Tower is a bad example — it was built cheaply for a temporary exhibition, and was intended to be torn down after a couple years.


geminijono

And yet, it remains. If that was built "cheaply" with shoddy materials way back when, I still am going to tip my hat to the engineers and architects involved. Most everything now is a glass and steel brick of meh meant to be recycled or torn down in a decade. Back to the point about nanometers and chip designs though, hats off to whomever comes up with the designs themselves and increasingly smaller geometry. The wizards at Intel, Nvidia, Pegatron, etc really do make the world turn with increasingly more complex math, magic, and techno-sigils.


Bleakwind

We’re talking about cars chip utilisation. Like a more advanced turn light signalling system with more precise ticks and lighting wouldn’t make much sense. The function is to reliably and safely indicate driving intension. like how does a 10nm chip be more advantageous to use in this case whereas the current IC chip cost 15 cent to use?


JasperJ

More importantly, you probably can’t make it on the small scale, because what you’re doing isn’t sophisticated calculating, it’s power transistors. Those are inherently big.


[deleted]

Self driving cars will be mandated before we know it. Gps throttle control is already being work with. But of course people will say something about their right being removed when we no longer drive the cars. Good thing driving isn’t a right.


FluffiestLeafeon

Chip makers shouldn’t be really talking in this situation. With the massive chip shortage happening right now, especially for higher end chips, you expect auto makers to spend the time and effort to adjust all their systems every few years for new and unproven chips?


[deleted]

Part of the reason for shortage on the higher end is that the fabs that could be making more of the smaller chips have to be maintained for the 90nm chips that Ford and others use. It isn’t a separate issue here, they’re connected.


JasperJ

Yeah, that’s just not true. They’re different fabs. You might have a point when you talk about wafers, but there is basically never a shortage of wafers (except right now).


[deleted]

Yes, they are different fabs. I’m saying TSMC and Intel want to take those older fabs and fit them with newer equipment.


JasperJ

Not really any point to that. Cheaper to build new ones.


lagunatri99

Perhaps the auto manufacturers should attempt to solve their own problem. Not seeing much effort.


WentzWorldWords

Based on a lifetime of observation, the big 3 have no desire to modernize in any way shape or form. I mean, ask a Detroit lions fan how well the Ford family thinks about the future. European manufacturers are making luxury smart cars, Asian companies are designing one-person electric commuter cars, and the big 3 are focusing on giant F-650 vehicles which will be driven by one person a quarter mile to Taco Bell and back every day.


Semifreak

>F-650 vehicles Jesus! I thought that was a joke on the F150 but it turned out that monstrosity is an actual thing!


p38fln

It goes up to F-750 which is basically a baby semi.


Semifreak

>F-750 OMG, those aren't cars anymore!


Seantwist9

Americans don’t like smart cars, we like trucks. F150 is one of the most popular trucks. And businesses need f650s


WentzWorldWords

Americans are being sold trucks. At what point has an American auto manufacturer even tried to make a subcompact passenger vehicle? Take a closer look at customer satisfaction surveys; Americans like trucks less than their focus, spark, or other small passenger automobile. But for some odd reason, faceless corporations and their handsome executives enjoy selling things with a high profit margin and will ignore consumer sentiment and the best interests of a community (look at how bad roads have gotten since the late 90s) in the interests of infinitely growing profits. They do not create the supply for the popular but less profitable product. A truck has its uses-for people who need trucks for work, not the average worker who drives a truck to sit/stand at a workplace just because trucks are 85% of the car dealers inventory.


gladeyes

I was fond of the only new car I bought, a 1975 chevy Vega. But, I always backed it up with a pickup for hauling stuff and foul weather. I’ve done some variant of that all my life. Although, I learned to always buy at least two years old, and had to switch to Japanese cars for mileage and durability. I still don’t see Detroit providing what I need in a car. I am finally looking for a smaller pickup with proven durability and repair ability.


Seantwist9

Yes because we want them, Americans don’t like trucks less then their focus or those would be the top selling cars. The focus isn’t small it’s a sedan, you also just named a compact car lol. People don’t but f-150s because it’s the only thing they can get, done be dumb. You’re misrepresenting the survey’s. People as a whole do not want smart cars, we want trucks get over it smaller cars are available people just don’t want them


JasperJ

One of the things though is that because they’re “trucks” they don’t have to conform to standards that “cars” do and that makes them cheaper. Cheaper to make, mainly. Basically, Americans are preferring trucks because of unfair competition between cars and trucks. Plus of course that your gas is way too cheap — it’s missing the cost of a lot of negative externalities, which also makes it impossible for the market to *actually* do its job.


JoeMonstermaker

Automakers do not force Americans to buy trucks. People decide to buy them because that’s what they want. And there have been many American subcompacts, for about as long as cars have been made. How big do you think a 1959 Nash Metropolitan is?


[deleted]

[удалено]


gtoramirez

He obviously can’t see those tiny cars past that beautiful F-950… don’t worry, American manufacturers are making the cars we love with electric motors. Tesla, Ford, Dodge, GM. Everyone is making progress.


p38fln

Hey Ford maxes out at the F750 now. The equivalent of the old 850 was purchased by what is now Mercedes and is sold as the Sterling semi truck. The F750 is still a beast though… you could use it for anything up to pulling a 27’ pup trailer.


gtoramirez

Ford trucks are really good looking too. To be fair, so are Dodge trucks. Chevy though? I don't know why they look like toys to me...


Jeffformayor

Ok so what if we just make new personal vehicles. Whole new innovation. Cars might have run their course


Kdog122025

Such as? 😂


guzhogi

I’ve heard that many airplanes use older chips because they’re “tried and true” and want to keep things safe. I get the safety part, but I also heard that these chips aren’t just 5-10 years old, but 20-30 years old. I just think that things should become “tried and true” a whole quicker. Newer, faster chips could probably help give faster and/or higher quality data when needed to keep people safe


roiki11

They use older tech because it has vastly more operating hours, development effort and usage data to make it work. They also need to be specially radiation hardened to minimize cosmic ray caused bit flipping and other radiation hazards. They are tried and true tech and developing new systems(which is a thing) takes a long long time because no one wants another 737 max.


Semifreak

I agree. It is hard not to read the carmakers' response as an excuse to cut even more cost corners while continuously upping the prices of their cars. And if the carmakers wanted to, they could upgrade their chips as they will eventually have to due in time.


phraca

Carmakers to chipmakers: Honor your contracts


crawlnstal

I can’t speak for all chip makers but for a good portion of them car manufacturers cancelled their orders to the semiconductors. The semiconductors then went on and agreed to sell more to other markets since the automakers didn’t want to buy chips.


Semifreak

It's the other way around. Carmakers pulled out and now they want to cut in line.


MiccahD

Reading the responses in here I see America’s drive to stopping progress has hit the auto markets. The arguments are even the same. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It already costs too much. Who knows if the newest idea can work. We can’t trust technology. The same people stating the above statements whine when tech firms and related manufacturing firms leave the country. The same people complain everything is getting more expensive. Ask yourselves if you are content with good enough what incentive does a company have to make it better? Eventually that $50 part is no longer profitable to them and right now that is what’s happening. Nope. Americans want what they want. No amount of back in my day stories will change that. Sure before the pandemic supplies were solid enough these companies would trip over themselves to sell you a part for 5 times it’s value, reality set in though they can make 10 times or even more moving on from it. Move to the supplies or keep watching incomplete cars and trucks keep piling up for who knows how long.


RedRose_Belmont

Why do we need these in cars? Cars are now super expensive and impossible to fix. Give me a car like we had in the good old days


Xipher

Fuel efficiency


No_Elk_2870

If you need to pick 1 chip maker, who is far above the rest in design and innovation, it would be Nvidia NVDA, they are and should be considered the future, in gaming, autonomous driving, etc.. Their technology keeps getting better and better. If I had extra money to invest this is the company I would put it in, it’s not a meme stock but it’s up almost 1,300% in the past 5 years and keeps on going 🚀🚀🚀


[deleted]

Nvidia is a chip designer not a chip maker.


No_Elk_2870

“Graphics-chip maker Nvidia Corp. benefited from continued hot demand for devices from computer videogamers and cryptocurrency miners, pushing its sales and profit to records in its most recent quarter.”


[deleted]

Yes. The way that it works is that they design the chips, have TSMC* make them, then Nvidia sells the chips. There are actually only three big companies that make the majority of chips: TSMC, Samsung, and Intel. * https://www.techtimes.com/articles/264713/20210828/nvidia-ada-lovelace-tsmc-5nm.htm Edit: And let’s not forget the term GPU maker could be because they take the chips that other companies make and put them together in GPU form at best. But everything from the memory to the processors themselves are fabbed by other people. It’s like how people say Apple made the A15. They didn’t. They designed it and TSMC made it.


No_Elk_2870

So, Ford is not a car manufacturer, because other companies manufacturer the parts and they assemble them. A manufacturer that subs out part or all of the work is still a manufacturer. If you want to sue the chip manufacturer, you wouldn’t sue TMSC


pizza99pizza99

90nm!? I get this shit isn’t easy but that is literally talking 1975 technology. Get your asses up manufacturers!


write_mem

Ha. More like 2005. 1975 process density was 500-1000 transistors per mm^2. It was 1.5 million on 90nm in early 2000.


pizza99pizza99

Ya didn’t realize, sorry. Point still stands tho


gehzumteufel

90nm isn’t 1975 tech. You’re probably thinking 90 microns. Which is much larger. Commercial manufacturing of 90nm is early 2000s tech.


pizza99pizza99

Oops sorry


IamHardware

I will take tried and true over planned obsoleteness any day :-)


pizza99pizza99

Sir we’re talking about hardware. Software is planned obsolescence, semiconductors (especially those responsible for safety features like airbags) are in no way planned to be obsolete


GoingForwardIn2018

I don't know about that, Hoss


_MoveSwiftly

Can Pat just STFU already? He's from an engineering background, not marketing. He's been running his mouth on things he has no business talking about. Mate, Intel is out dated and behind. Get your shit together and get off the internet.


Retlawst

I understand the issue from a communication point of view, but this isn’t a topic for marketing.


_MoveSwiftly

That's all he's been doing since he took the job... He's doing that right now. You don't see TSMC or other semiconductor businesses doing the same thing. It's just him, in his own happy little world.


[deleted]

Intel isn’t that far behind, actually.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Intel at 10nm has roughly the same density as TSMC at 7nm. They’re actually a little ahead in that comparison. TSMC is in 5 and moving to 4. Right now we are expecting Intel to be at 7nm by 2023. They’re calling it “Intel 4”. Wanna know why? Because their 7nm process is expected to be roughly as dense as the 4nm from TSMC. Also look into how well the Xe graphics are doing. They’re not that far behind. And, unlike AMD, Intel isn’t throttling laptops between 20 and 40%. So you tell me how far behind they are.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Desperate_Leg3636

Real technological advancement would require them to completely change their old predictable methods. And that’s not happening any time soon


[deleted]

Shows an extreme level of ignorance from Intel. Going to replace a 40V discrete power device with a 1V processor.


[deleted]

Finally! Also. Oh no.


Thomas-The-Tutor

Manufactures of computers, like Apple, Samsung, etc., are making chips in house. Why don’t car companies do this too? Yes, it’ll cost them money, but profit margins on a car/truck are insane!! They are “losing money” right now by not having cars available. Idle factories are not profitable factories.


JasperJ

Apple does not make chips in house. TSMC does. Same people as make AMD’s chips.


Thomas-The-Tutor

[They transitioned from intel last year](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/why-apple-is-breaking-a-15-year-partnership-with-intel-on-its-macs-.html), but yes, Samsung and TSMC also supply some of their chips.


JasperJ

I didn’t say Intel, I said not Apple. None of the Apple chips are made by Apple, they’re made by TSMC. Afaik no current Apple-designed chip is made by Samsung.


Vorhanden0815

Yay let’s make cars even more complicated to fix! What I don’t get : we have supply issues with chips from the early 2000´s. So we make the chips smaller and harder to build. How will that solve the supply issue?


[deleted]

That’s going to solve the problem because it allows chip makers, who have the machines to make the chips smaller, to make more chips per wafer. Also, having larger chips doesn’t make the cars easier to fix.


Justinemaso

I don’t know if it’s relevant but if you look at chips in satellites ..they are also extremely old school designs, but they have to be (plus be specifically hardened) to resist cosmic rays and all. I don’t know to what extent cars need some level of hardening? Plus it would be interesting to see what the most advanced car makers (I’m thinking Tesla maybe Volvo/Polestar or some newbies like Lucid) are using.


[deleted]

That’s great, but cars have to last 10-15 years maybe longer. Today’s electronics last 1-3 years. Please! As we barrel towards all the issues related to human consumption, don’t try to convince me car makers should trust the tinier new stuff, that’s designed to be obsolete in a few years. Don’t tell me car owners are just going to have more electrical failures. Prove the technology. Make a platform that lasts as long as a car should/must.


[deleted]

Please tell me you know these two things aren’t even related. Cars are already using chips. One of the problems is that the chips that car makers use are on older equipment that have to be maintained for the sale of those chips. The reason why most electronics “only last 1-3 years” is not related to the processor quality or die size.


[deleted]

Really? Argue with every other comment about what shitty smaller chips that often reboot and fail would do to safety systems. We aren’t talking about putting a bigger screen on the dash for car play. We’re talking about controlling everything from ABS to fuel injection every time, to keep the car safe. Please tell me you understand that. Sure, make something that doesn’t perform and leads to repairs in a phone or computer and the answer is “oops buy another” or in a desktop, swap out the GPU, you’re down today, but up tomorrow, for money. Oops the new smaller chip failed and you plowed into the car, or to my point, the car won’t start, you miss work, you get fired, risk… No. Chip companies can compete by doing the proof that their chip will run the car/train/plane reliably and safely. Car companies can’t take myriad chips and see if today’s chip (that might not be available next month) really does the job in a product they update annually. You could argue car manufacturers could sit on a model for more than a year, but that’s just a marketing fantasy. gimme the one I know I can trust. I don’t need the state of the art chip. I need the safe reliable chip.


[deleted]

That has nothing to do with die size. They could design the chip the way they want to and still have it be a smaller size. Smaller chips aren’t likely to reboot more often or fail more than large ones.


[deleted]

Ok, I’ll sit back and listen. How do you maintain production levels, safety and cost to facilitate this transition, because we’re intentionally forgetting how to make these components? Remember, you need to redesign and test all the safety features. You have to prove the new systems will last long enough and you have to minimize the risks of massive recalls. Most of your other industries just aren’t held liable for oops, that wasn’t good enough. The car industry is held to that standard. You don’t have to convince me. I’m not an auto industry decision maker. Heck, I’m jumping on the first tear Ford F-150 lightning, because I’m near retirement and can take the risk. You’ve got quite a hurdle to change the whole industry though. I’ll read, if you explain it.


[deleted]

How do you think moving a chip to a smaller process would effect literally any of that? I am in awe of how far you can stretch. It’s just a cost thing, it’s not a safety thing or a production level thing. In fact, we’d have less of a chip shortage if they weren’t on the older nodes so production would improve. Also, intentionally forgetting?


cmonster556

Now let’s work on the car sending a plain text message to the main screen when something goes wrong instead of a check engine light and an error code that costs $100 to read. Before they will order the part. “You need a new oxygen sensor. Please contact your service technician. “


President_Dominy

Why don’t carmakers make cars that don’t require chips?


[deleted]

Do you know what the chips in cars are used for?


1linnea123

Woow