You want to talk Chips?

[mackinaw]

Did you know that the new Lightning BEV has 1,700 computer chips?  I find this to be a staggering amount.  This compares to about 200 in the current F-series.

 

Here's the link to Autoline Daily.  Go to the 1:10 mark.  

 

http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?p=81383

[rperez817]

This is one reason that Jim Farley said Ford needs "totally different talent". It's not just the number of computer chips that's relevant to building BEV profitably, but the ability to do system integration and software development at a level that incumbent automakers especially Ford have never even imagined in the past.

Edited April 30, 2022 by rperez817

[92merc]

Yeah, that is one thing Sandy Munro dinged Ford on when he looked at the MachE vs Model 3.  He noted a lot less chips in the Tesla.  I'm sure with the shortage, Ford will be doing a lot more to reduce that.

 

But also, every battery module has a battery management board on them.  So a bunch of chips for just the battery packs.

[jpd80]

It should be a complete embarrassment to an automaker to need 200 chips to complete a build on a modern vehicle. My god, how did this get to such unwieldy numbers of critical components. Find another way already….

[tbone]

12 hours ago, mackinaw said:

Did you know that the new Lightning BEV has 1,700 computer chips?  I find this to be a staggering amount.  This compares to about 200 in the current F-series.

 

Here's the link to Autoline Daily.  Go to the 1:10 mark.  

 

http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?p=81383

So this might be part of the reason I still haven’t received the 22 Raptor I ordered in October.  

[rmc523]

16 hours ago, 92merc said:

Yeah, that is one thing Sandy Munro dinged Ford on when he looked at the MachE vs Model 3.  He noted a lot less chips in the Tesla.  I'm sure with the shortage, Ford will be doing a lot more to reduce that.

 

But also, every battery module has a battery management board on them.  So a bunch of chips for just the battery packs.

 

It's also their first EV effort using off the shelf parts/trying to reuse existing Ford parts.  Ditto for Lightning, if 2nd gen/purpose-built EV products don't improve then further criticism is warranted.

[fuzzymoomoo]

10 hours ago, jpd80 said:

It should be a complete embarrassment to an automaker to need 200 chips to complete a build on a modern vehicle. My god, how did this get to such unwieldy numbers of critical components. Find another way already….

Thats why legacy automakers struggle to keep profits up. There's a nasty habit of doing things the way they've always been done. Ford is trying to change that internally but it will take time.

 

For instance: there's no reason why for one touch automatic windows there needs to be one module ON EACH DOOR for that.  

Edited May 1, 2022 by fuzzymoomoo

[akirby]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Thats why legacy automakers struggle to keep profits up. There's a nasty habit of doing things the way they've always been done. Ford is trying to change that internally but it will take time.

 

For instance: there's no reason why for one touch automatic windows there needs to be one module ON EACH DOOR for that.  

In the case of Mach-e and Lightning Ford didn’t really know how popular they would be, so it makes sense they would take the most economical and fastest approach on those.  Now they see that the bigger investment is warranted.

 

As for the chips I think a big problem was trying to keep costs down with low power processors so you have to offload to other modules.  I think the next Gen BEVs will have massively powerful processors allowing more centralized control and easier upgrades.

[mackinaw]

Interesting article on "how many computer chips a new car has".  Makes me appreciate my 1994 F-150 that much more:

 

https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2022/01/04/how-many-semiconductor-chips-are-there-in-a-car/

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

In the case of Mach-e and Lightning Ford didn’t really know how popular they would be, so it makes sense they would take the most economical and fastest approach on those.  Now they see that the bigger investment is warranted.

 

As for the chips I think a big problem was trying to keep costs down with low power processors so you have to offload to other modules.  I think the next Gen BEVs will have massively powerful processors allowing more centralized control and easier upgrades.

You’re probably right, they’ll take a beating on chip supply now but work on systems that eliminate that vulnerability, especially to suppliers that don’t want to continue making old redundant chips. It’s the perfect storm that will force change.

[rmc523]

4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Thats why legacy automakers struggle to keep profits up. There's a nasty habit of doing things the way they've always been done. Ford is trying to change that internally but it will take time.

 

For instance: there's no reason why for one touch automatic windows there needs to be one module ON EACH DOOR for that.  

 

What do you mean one module on each door for the one touch windows?

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

What do you mean one module on each door for the one touch windows?

There's an electronic module that connects to the window regulator in each door for every window that has one-touch open. If it's only the driver's window it's only on the drivers door. If it's both front windows, both front doors. You should get the picture by now. There should be no reason that can't all be done with a single module. 

[rperez817]

On 5/1/2022 at 11:38 AM, akirby said:

As for the chips I think a big problem was trying to keep costs down with low power processors

 

This is in fact the biggest problem in the relationship between incumbent automakers and semiconductor device companies. The CEO of Intel last year said that automakers need to get out of the semiconductor "stone age". https://fortune.com/2021/09/17/chip-makers-carmakers-time-get-out-semiconductor-stone-age/

 

When it comes to the electronic circuits that power our everyday lives, the automobile is simultaneously the world’s most expensive consumer good and the one that runs on the cheapest possible semiconductor chips.

Moore’s law of ever-increasing miniaturization seemingly never reached the automotive industry. Dozens of chips found in everything from electronic brake systems to airbag control units tend to rely on obsolete technology often well over a decade old. These employ comparatively simple transistors that can be anywhere from 45 nanometers to as much as 90 nanometers in size, far too large—and too primitive—to be suitable for today’s smartphones.

“I’ll make them as many Intel 16 [nanometer] chips as they want,” Intel chief executive Pat Gelsinger told Fortune last week during his visit to an auto industry trade show in Germany.

Carmakers have bombarded him with requests to invest in brand-new production capacity for semiconductors featuring designs that, at best, were state of the art when the first Apple iPhone launched.  

“It just makes no economic or strategic sense,” said Gelsinger, who came to the auto show to convince carmakers they need to let go of the distant past. “Rather than spending billions on new ‘old’ fabs, let’s spend millions to help migrate designs to modern ones.”

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

“It just makes no economic or strategic sense,” said Gelsinger, who came to the auto show to convince carmakers they need to let go of the distant past. “Rather than spending billions on new ‘old’ fabs, let’s spend millions to help migrate designs to modern ones.”

 

What it boils down is that it just "works"-there is no pressing need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to car based systems for the past 30-40 years. 

 

Hell the systems the DOD uses are still based on tech from the 1970/80s...if not older then that. 

 

The driving force behind smaller nanometer chips (for those who don't know) is performance and price improvements. That is a big deal when your making a CPU or GPU that increased performance to meet requirements/needs in a PC, not a car. Not to mention the additional power and heat requirements that brings.

 

A chip that controls HVAC and displays the temp on a dial doesn't need to be on 16nm process. Simple is better

 

The other issue I see is hey we have X amount of chips that control x,y,z, a company like Intel is going to say, hey lets combine them into a single chip and put it on a smaller process, which leaves you with a single point of failure. 

 

[mackinaw]

51 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

What it boils down is that it just "works"-there is no pressing need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to car based systems for the past 30-40 years.  Hell the systems the DOD uses are still based on tech from the 1970/80s...if not older then that. 

 

Exactly.  Perseverance, the Mars rover that's currently exploring the Jezero Crater, is powered by the lowly PowerPC computer chip that was widely used in Apple products in the last century.  NASA doesn't need the latest and best, they need something that just works.  Ditto for computer chips used in modern vehicles.