Chip-starved automakers shudder at Renesas plant's 1-month halt
asia.nikkei.com
asia.nikkei.com
If it really matters, you can't rely on a car that requires a computer to start or to drive. You want something purely mechanical.
That said, old Toyota cars are still treasury, because they just don't fail. But they're quite costly.
An assertion famously tested on Top Gear: https://topgear.fandom.com/wiki/Toyota_Hilux
Now these times are long past, and few Chinese today even remember that.
Some mechanical parts are just like electronic ones - you need a massive factory to produce them.
You might argue that ball bearing balls are standard parts so easy to get anywhere, but the same is true of electronic components - a 10uf capacitor is probably within 3 feet of you right now.
All that's missing are the skills to be able to diagnose issues down to a single component rather than saying "the control board is bad, we need to order a new one".
Saw the same with a cost estimate to repair a DeLonghi automatic coffee machine (quote was to replace both broken heater elements, the broken pump and renew seals for 270€) when in fact none of that was broken but the firmware had a bug in one of its stats counters (overrun integer brew counter) that was fixed by a fw upgrade.
Your ability to fix a broken car will depend on:
1) What and how it broke
2) Your preparation -- access to spares, tools, materials
3) Your knowledge and resourcefulness
There is a lot of critical mechanical parts on a car that are unrepairable, even at a car shop. Most of critical mechanical stuff on a car can only be fixed with a spare. Even changing your tire is just an act of using a spare. Ever broke anything within engine or transmission? Good luck fixing it with basic tools in wilderness.
When car mechanic says he's repaired something, there is good probability he means he has replaced the part that was faulty.
If you go across Africa, take spares for what is needed and tools to diagnose / repair. If you worry your computer may break, carry a spare. Carry a multimeter, some spare tools and materials to fix common electrical issues.
Electronic spares and tools do not take that much space and if you are worried about electronics there is no excuse not to take them.
People complain they can't repair electronics on a car but that's only because they never applied themselves the same way they applied to learn and fix mechanics.
My father specializes in repairing car / truck / bus etc. electronics. He uses simple tools and his experience to repair things.
He has been flown to from Poland to South Africa to fix a large crane that Volvo could not fix themselves. All with basic tools.
There is nothing inherently more difficult about fixing electronics on a car.
---
As a side note, I would prefer older car to drive over Africa but not because of lack of electronics but rather because of more margins, higher clearances and resistance to wear tear.
As to repairing in the wild they are easier to repair because they are SIMPLER, and the parts are more accessible (as in easier to reach them), not because they don't have electronics.
I am not expert mechanic therefore I will have better chance repairing simple car.
I am not expert electronics engineer therefore I will have better chance repairing car with simple electronics. Does that make sense?
And only official ones can get them and a high cost.
Diagnostics is nice because it gives you readout in one place, but the output is what the computer sees, not what actually happens.
Also, where is your licensed computer to diagnose mechanic problems? There isn't any? What a shame... how can you fix a mechanical problem without car telling you which part broke...
The computer diagnostics is a response to mechanics having no knowledge of electronics (also because it kinda make sense if you already put computer in).
Crank position sensors, cam position sensors, EGR, Fuel system pressure, per-cylinder electrical failures, etc, etc., etc.. can all be guessed at by a shade-tree mechanic. But good luck fixing it quickly and without buying a bunch of parts. My 2010 Mercedes van require parts to be electronically "mated" to eachother, so even if I know the right part, I need the Mercedes software to tell the computer to hook up with the new part.
I've been a "shade-tree" mechanic for most of my life. I would say '98 is roughly correct when full fuel injection became pretty standard. Once you have that, you need a half dozen or so other sensors to make the system work. And you need precise fuel pressure. It just gets more complicated from there.
> "but to cost and time effectively fix the car you absolutely need the diagnostic software."
> "etc, etc., etc.. can all be guessed at by a shade-tree mechanic. But good luck fixing it quickly and without buying a bunch of parts."
That was exactly my point. Car CAN be fixed without the software.
It just takes more time (and knowledge).
If you are an owner of a repair shop then that is probably deal breaker. You can't hire actual engineers to fix cars, the cost would be prohibitive.
But nothing is stopping you to fix the car (except if manufacturer like John Deere makes it their mission to stop you from repairing it).
If electronics is broken your mission is to find the broken part and replace it, not reprogram it, which is basically the same as with mechanical faults.
On my Toyotas, I would need to jumper a couple pins in a connector under the hood with a paper clip, labeled T1 and E1, I recall. On my BMW, I had to turn the key to ON and then stomp the gas pedal 5 times in a few seconds. After counting the blinks, the meaning of the codes could be found in manuals. IMHO this was a great system and every bit as useful as what you get with basic OBD2 scanners, just without the scanner investment. I needed no tools to be told my catalytic converter or primary o2 sensor failed, etc.
Eg. Sometimes you can fix the issue, but you still need a computer to reset the "error light" on your dashboard.
In general, the direction is clear. While you can still have some manufacturers that aren't requiring it now. It will be in the future.
Source: a family member has a "non-brand" garage shop with specialization in one brand and now he can work better on cars, because he bought the computer when an official shop went bankrupt ( that was ~2 years ago).
Last time I saw him ( 1 week ago), there was a big similarity to Jhon Deere and the Ukranian developers that have unofficial software to work on the machine)
It all depends on how much effort you’re willing to invest
US Sherman tanks were not very good tanks. But there were a lot of them, and they were crewed by kids who grew up on farms. Those kids likely spend a fair amount of time keeping the tractor running.
Two big things going for them. 1, a ready supply of spare parts, from other tanks that didn't make it. 2, some understanding of the system, allowing people to macgyver solutions out of bubblegum and bailing wire.
As to your side note, I agree. I'd want something dirt simple, partly because, even though I might be able to pull off an amazing feat of engineering, I'd rather have the solution be obvious.
Since we're wishing, I'd also like everyone in a 1000 mile radius to have the same car, so I can find a dead one to strip if I need parts. (but that's not realistic given the implicit remoteness of the situation described).
And fixing a Sherman is far more complex than a tractor but a hell of a lot less of a PITA than a German tank.
Of course if you had a major malfunction you said "oh dear my tank/jeep/rifel is buggered" get me a new one.
There is the secondary q of should they have up gunned the US Sherman's quicker and had more hot ammo.
The main person's opinion[1] has been debunked by multiple authors. It was a very good tank and fulfilled the American objectives. Particularly when you take into account the US Army's belief "tanks shouldn’t take on other tanks". The later gun upgrade even took care the of late war tank-on-tank battles.
1) ‘Death Traps’ by Belton Cooper
The Axle, drive line, brakes, etc, have been used for at least a decade on my model of pickup, and Cummins engine parts are the same across trucks, generators, marine engines, and easy to find my size.
I just worry about the 'cost' of finding a working computer module in 2030, for my 2015 pickup, if it fails. At $2500 now, I'm not going to buy a spare.
We could also try to, hm, make electronics easier to repair by providing an fn manual and not being so anti-repair as an industry. But how are we ever going to be as rich as Apple and Tesla if we started selling actual products and not just onboarding to a crappy service?
This place needs a name change, VC news - definitely more representative of its readership.
I bought a 1961 Mack B61 (year and model #'s coincidental) to restore (slowly) and its a 100% mechanical turbo diesel (ENDT673B). It so dumb that the "ignition" key is just a two position on-off switch which enables the electrics allowing the starter to run when the start button is pushed. To stop the engine, you pull a stop knob which operates a lever on the injection pump pushing the fuel rack to the full-off position. I once let it sit two years without touching it; started up with fresh batteries after checking oil and coolant. That truck will still run and be serviceable in the next 50 years. Maybe parts will be hard to find, but most can be fab'd in a simple machine shop by a single person.
If you’re right - which I don’t think you are - we’re going from a world in which maybe 2% of vehicles are collectible to one in which none are. Not really much of a difference from an environmental perspective, especially when you consider the large efficiency and emissions benefits of computer controlled engines.
Is that enough to offset the entire environmental cost of the cars short life span from manufacturing to the scrap heap? Today it feels as if cars are not meant to last much past 5-10 years.
Just think of that Tesla tablet screen who's flash memory failed after a bug in their software wore it out. Will you still own that Tesla in 10-15-20 years? Of course not. It will be impossible to service by then. The same will apply to VW, GM, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, MB, etc. They're as disposable as smart phones because they are smart phones.
We can still have that old school stupidity if we: A. Start buying practical cars with as little gadgets as possible (e.g. the base model). Luxury and convenience is how they lure you into walled gardens. Those extra tidbits increase the likelihood of electronic failure decreasing the longevity of the vehicle and increase operating cost. They fully know humans are lazy and exploit that trait. Don't fall for it.
B. Force manufactures to implement 100% open protocols at all level of interconnect. e.g. I should be able to hook into and diagnose the the CAN/LIN/etc network between my cars switch module and the heated/illuminated/dimming/motorized side view mirrors or tail light module. I should also be able to fabricate or buy a 3rd party device that can replace the functionality should the OEM gadget fail (e.g. tail lamp module).
C. decouple car function from ancillary function, e.g. removing or replacing the infotainment/navigation/radio from the vehicle should not interfere with the cars ability to function. Likewise the HVAC has no business displaying its status on the radio. These should all be discreet systems with the option to interconnect via above mentioned protocols.
The spirit of your comment has truth to it, but it's unclear what exactly is so desirable about your friend's SUV in Africa. In your own words it's "tricked out", how do you know it's not just his modifications that have everyone making offers?
In choosing vehicles for such purposes, the criteria is more nuanced than "no computers". There are factors like fuel type, compression ratio (lower the better, runs fine on shit gas), non-interference design (in case timing belt fails, non-fatal), fewer moving parts in general (so you probably want to avoid an entire decade of non-computer, post-smog vehicles, which tend to have miles of vacuum lines and dozens of solenoids to leak and fail).
The 90s are kind of a sweet spot for computer-controlled post-smog simplicity, where vehicles likely still have throttle cables and no ABS. But you have to go much further back for no computers at all and no insane pre-computer emissions controls, basically pre-75.
(*restricted to straight down-hill roads)
I can't be the only software dev that dislikes gadgets. I work with computers all day but don't particularly like them and don't want more of them in my house.
With that said I'm not against computers in ICE vehicles, the emissions improvements and yes reliability improvements they've brought are amazing.
Too expensive and complex now in the name of "safety". Most additions to required car safety features beyond airbags has been minimal in actual gains compared to the added cost and long term repair complexity induced.
I think entry level cars should be able to be much cheaper and barebones. The recent requirement for backup cameras is one example of too much for too little. I just want a car that gets me from A to B reliably. I don't even care if it has good radio/speakers, power windows, etc.
On the flipside, I hate driving in general. I'll happily pay for a self-driving (or nearly self driving, at least) car with all the gizmos needed to make it work. However I will only "buy" such a car (in the sense of legal ownership) if it has a lifetime warranty or reasonable trade-in guarantees. Otherwise it'd be lease or long term rent only as the repair and upkeep costs on so much proprietary tech would be insane past X years, if its even possible.
Cars are a tool, not a fashion / status symbol for me.
A modern engine wouldn't work without chips.
LEDs won't work without chips.
Automatic AC won't work without chips.
ABS, ESP, etc. are all based on microcontrollers as well.
Not even the speedometer needle is actually analog anymore, it's all digital now.
I tried to parse this for way too long. The ESP32 and ESP8266 are chips themselves.
I need to raise my head out the weeds.
And that's a petty.
At least with a digital speedometer almost every failure mode is going to be obvious and not some subtle accuracy degradation. Part of the supposed rationale for police almost always not enforcing the speed limit until a good margin over is because of the historic inaccuracies of speedometers. Nowadays assuming someone hasn't modified some gear ratio or fitted the wrong size tires you can more or less be assured that the speedometer will be quite accurate.
What makes you think that? Bit flips aren't always obvious.
People have different preferences, but I think many, like me, would prefer a simple heater on/off and a linear stronger/weaker selection over a full climate control that auto-selects whether to run a heater or an AC and how much. My 2c.
Though I don't think that chips are root of all evil. You can easily have analog systems failing. I think that engine chips just should be very reliable, may be even duplicated. We have vehicles on Mars, surely we could get reliable vehicles on Earth.
And, of course, I don't care about reliability of those second-class systems. They're not essential and car works without them. They could be made with chip or whatever, it does not really matter.
Modern engines heavily utilize chips. Solenoid valves everywhere. Also your steering, brakes would need some sort of chip.
If you can access them, I certainly imagine the efi profiles are much more tuneable.
So it's certainly possible to use a few standard electronic parts, with 2nd,3rd sources to implement most of the electronics, and be easily protected from supply disruptions.
Automakers should make cars that are still usable when non-critical components fail. Chips aren't the problem; too many points of failure is the problem.
Now on top of that you have emissions regulations which force you to run an engine with 100% functional emission systems. To ensure it, the automakers are limiting the engine performance to force the user to repair, which is a major source of annoyance for the user. Moreover regulations require ABS and ESP on every vehicle.
So even if automakers would do such a car, it would not pass the homologation phase due to these regulations which can only be achieved with chips.
Africa needs an African carmaker, or import from Russia or other non regulated markets
I suspect that you don't want fewer chips in those aspects, but would prefer a more analog user interface.
Is there a single driver?
Or is it just a confluence of events: The US-China tech war (preventing expansion of Chinese factories, causing stock-piling from companies fearful of sanctions), factory shutdowns due to the pandemic, unforseen demand in certain areas (work from home equipment, TVs, GPUs for cryptomining), random accidents like this one.
That means nobody has a global view of future demand (since today most contracts are secret) and cannot invest in capacity accordingly.
My intuition is also that there is less pressure in the "let's buy the latest phone game" than there used to be. (For example I am using a 3 year old iPhone X and have no inkling to buy a new one).
For example, a company who needs their chips manufacturered at Facility A or B, but cannot use facility C would buy a futures contract letting them do that.
Or maybe I just don't know the jargon complete commodity.
just like you buy another system from another vendor for your data centre, if your usual supplier happens to have production issues.
this would also simplify computer power performance updates, to dunno go from level 2 to level 3 autonomy (assuming sensors are there already).
the vehicle part of the vehicle easily lasts 10-15 years. such standardized vehicle computer infrastructure would not only make automotive vendors more independent from board and soc fluctuations, it would keep the car fresh for a longer period of time, and allow for performance software after-market sales.
why not? what am I missing?
This is certainly not a "one month outage"
There are 2 cleanrooms. The 2nd story one is undamaged but needs the 1st story one to be repaired (I assume it's a structural thing?). So I'm curious how, from 1 picture, your comment can be informed?
Also from the article, the fire damaged 5% of the first cleanroom and 11 machines. Maybe they're able to get the other 95% back up and running without having the damaged 600sqft fully functional?
Maybe repairing the first floor will generate too much vibrations and additional dust on the external environment.
I did
> There are 2 cleanrooms. The 2nd story one is undamaged but needs the 1st story one to be repaired (I assume it's a structural thing?).
I don't believe they have multiple clean floors.
Fabs are usually done with space below the clean floor being where machinery for supply of liquids/gasses is, and space above being used for air handling equipment.
Some have a storage floor, but that's usually it, especially for a smaller fab.
edit: btw, almost all fabs I have seen have multiple clean floors. Even the sub fabs doing only plumbing work would maintain a clean environment. I'm guessing because thats cheaper than maintaining the interface which goes from clean to unclean environments.
We weren't able to buy the _150_ micro-controllers we needed for a tiny series production, I'm currently waiting for a literal handful of crimp terminals to be shipped, the 220Vto12V AC/DC converter I normally use is unobtainium.
No PS5. No graphics cards. No Vaccines. 6 month wait for bicycles. The biggest LSD producer in Europe got caught, so no LSD either.
It's like in communism, but you still have to pay rent.