Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Tesla Teardown Finds Electronics 6 Years Ahead of Toyota and VW (nikkei.com) 259

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Elon Musk's Tesla technology is far ahead of the industry giants, a new report has concluded. From the report: This is the takeaway from Nikkei Business Publications' teardown of the Model 3, the most affordable car in the U.S. automaker's all-electric lineup, starting at about $33,000. What stands out most is Tesla's integrated central control unit, or "full self-driving computer." Also known as Hardware 3, this little piece of tech is the company's biggest weapon in the burgeoning EV market. It could end the auto industry supply chain as we know it. One stunned engineer from a major Japanese automaker examined the computer and declared, "We cannot do it." The module -- released last spring and found in all new Model 3, Model S and Model X vehicles -- includes two custom, 260-sq.-millimeter AI chips. Tesla developed the chips on its own, along with special software designed to complement the hardware. The computer powers the cars' self-driving capabilities as well as their advanced in-car "infotainment" system.

This kind of electronic platform, with a powerful computer at its core, holds the key to handling heavy data loads in tomorrow's smarter, more autonomous cars. Industry insiders expect such technology to take hold around 2025 at the earliest. That means Tesla beat its rivals by six years. The implications for the broader auto industry are huge and -- for some -- frightening. Tesla built this digital nerve center through a series of upgrades to the original Autopilot system it introduced in 2014. What was also called Hardware 1 was a driver-assistance system that allowed the car to follow others, mostly on highways, and automatically steer in a lane. Every two or three years, the company pushed the envelope further, culminating in the full self-driving computer.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Teardown Finds Electronics 6 Years Ahead of Toyota and VW More

Tesla Teardown Finds Electronics 6 Years Ahead of Toyota and VW

Comments Filter:

  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djp2204 ( 713741 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:31PM (#59736186)

    Building reliable systems depends on having proven technology to ensure reliability, which is the opposite of the "release NOW, then patch, patch, patch, patch, patch, patch, patch, patch" mentality of silicon valley. This is the basis of the Toyota Production System, and it works.

    • Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by deicide ( 195 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:43PM (#59736250)

      The "release, patch, path" thing you are quoting that is used by modern technology companies was *literally* invented by Toyota. "Continuous improvement" is one of principles of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djp2204 ( 713741 )

        I'm not sure how patching buggy sottware on bleeding edge hardware fits the toyota production system. The Taguchi methods abhor the idea of patching - patching is waste that causes high social costs (which Taguchi seeks to minimize), and is an indication of bad design. Well designed systems use proven technology that does not impede performance.

        • Well using the term Buggy Software gives it a negative connotation. It is more of incomplete software, where the software supplied will work fine, however patches will make it run better.

          The problem is we are dealing with increasingly complex systems, and society is demanding perfection. Building a system based on the idea you cannot possible release a fully complete product, on day one, but you can get a working product out then offer improvements that will get you the rest of the way there is often a b

          • The Taguchi methods specifically address the need to control variance.

            Software that might need to be patched is indeed buggy; and that is already known. The variance is not well controlled. Without even measuring the bug rate to quantify the problem, anybody using the Toyota system will reject the acceptance of this as a normative business state. You don't even have the data needed to start an analysis; your production methods are not repeatable.

            Taguchi methods require you to be able to quantify the social

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by lazarus ( 2879 )

          You're thinking of it the wrong way around. A software "patch" is more like iteratively designing waste and problems out of the system. You're getting thrown off by the idea that you can patch something that is already out the door, which the TPS system says is "bad/expensive". It just doesn't apply the same way to software.

          • you can patch something that is already out the door, which the TPS system says is "bad/expensive". It just doesn't apply the same way to software.

            You must work for Steam. Stop supporting the idea that software should be pushed out the door half-baked. It's not a better state of affairs than we had 20+ years ago.

        • Re: So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @03:25PM (#59736748) Journal
          As an owner of Tesla, I can tell you that getting a software update that does not address bugs, but enhances the car, is like getting a new car or even an Xmas gift. You will find few Tesla owners that dislike this.

        • As somebody who has owned almost nothing but Toyotas, this is a bit disingenuous.

          Case in point: My mom bought a 2019 Corolla Hatchback. Right afterwards, Toyota announces Android Auto will be coming to their cars. I've used Android Auto on non-Toyota cars, it's quite nice. Entune fucking sucks. Like really fucking sucks. Its navigation system is so bad that she doesn't even use it, opting for her phone instead. I do the same thing in her car because it literally requires two different apps to be installed o

      • Tech companies forget about the second part though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bobby ( 109046 )

        Yes, excellent point. However IMHO too much development cycle is now outside of sw companies. We've all unwillingly become software beta testers. I don't remember agreeing to being a beta tester the last time I bought software or a computer where the price included me paying for a software / OS license.

        MS/Windows have been compared to motor vehicle production. It would not be acceptable for a car company to produce cars that all needed engine replacements, tires, etc., things failing on every vehicle, e

      • The "release, patch, path" thing you are quoting that is used by modern technology companies was *literally* invented by Toyota. "Continuous improvement" is one of principles of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        No, because they waved their hands in the air three times and chanted Toyota only makes them a type of Cargo Cult, it doesn't mean their cult was founded by Toyota.

        The first problem is that they all claim they improved the system, and they're teaching you their improved system, not Toyota's system. From there, the rest of problems have nothing to do with Toyota.

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:55PM (#59736600)
        Toyota continuously improves the manufacturing process in order to make better products. They don't constantly update software while it's being used in already purchased products. Those are two completely different things. One is good. One is bad.

      • None of the Toyota principles include "push something out there to install and patch patch patch the egregious bugs" but that is the current state of software development.

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:54PM (#59736300) Journal
      Nope. In a lot of cars, these proven reliable bits of electronics are tried and true... and very much separated from each other, because that's how they have always been. Perhaps they are even built and programmed by different suppliers. My own car has one system to handle the basic car and driving part, one part for climate control, entertainment and navigation, and the EV stuff sort of got shoehorned into that somewhere as an afterthought. Each with their own settings menu, I might add. Maybe not a big deal 6 years ago, but the driving experience of a modern car is software for the better part, and the software in many modern cars really sucks; all of it kind of feels like an afterthought. Tesla understand that.

      And yes, they keep patching. Not just because they have to fix past mistakes (I'm sure they have to) but also to continuously add improvements and new features. Where other automakers tell you "sorry, this year's model has that but we won't ever add it to your car", Tesla look ahead a little bit and build for future upgrades. Like the faster charging: all but the oldest models could take advantage of that after a software upgrade.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )

        I own a Tesla but it really scares me that the computer that controls my speed and steering wheel is also connected to Netflix and streaming radio. That means a breach at Netflix (which is after all just streaming videos so does not need military grade security) opens up the attack surface on a computer which can literally be taken over to drive me to death. I am not important in any way and dont have enemies so I am Ok with driving the Tesla but if I was I would want separate computers and systems for the

        • Most cars have two CAN buses. One separate for engine management and the other for accessories. Not sure about Tesla though.

          • Two buses only go so far if they both connect to the same CPU. The real question is whether they are on isolated CPUs too.

        • Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @06:04PM (#59737514)

          But the computer for speed and steering wheel isn't connected to Netflix and streaming radio. If you'd read through to the article it clearly states:

          The Model 3's "full self-driving computer" consists of two boards: one with custom AI chips for autonomous driving, and a media control unit for the "infotainment" system.

          So while they're one "computer" the systems for entertainment and driving are actually two distinct, physically separate boards.

      • In some ways, the traditional auto industry habits of multiple computers communicating on a shared bus seems more reliable and maybe more economically flexible.

        In terms of reliability, a fuckup in the HVAC or Infotainment computer doesn't keep my car from driving right. In terms of economics, I can get a nearly-complete sub-assembly from a parts supplier without having to design all of it from scratch yet still integrate it into the overall vehicle electronic intelligence.

        I can also see, though, where it k

    • There is inherent tension between reliability and innovation, no question about that.

      Japan and Germany have been researching self-driving features for decades and decades, but they would never have got there. Huge established companies are too risk averse to pioneering something like that because they have too much to lose, both in reputation and assets.

    • And yet, Toyota has had a lot more recalls.

  • culminating in the full self-driving computer (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:33PM (#59736198)
    Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of what Tesla is doing, but the "culminating in the full self-driving computer." comments are disingenuous. They may have a really nice system that someday will be able to handle full self driving, but it's not there yet.
    • Yeah, I would have been more interested in an evaluation of whether this type of disparity exists in battery technology (not just chemistry but heat management, charge level management etc).

      Until Tesla has a working self-driving car, it's entirely possible they'll figure out these advanced chips weren't the right thing to be building in after all. Future-proofing tends to not work.

  • I don't care if Keebler elves are making the car drive if it does what it's supposed to dependably.

  • I don’t see any obvious typos (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:44PM (#59736256)

    That’s pretty good for something which was typed one-handed.

  • It's still kinda shit, but I can guarantee you Geohot has spent significantly less money then Tesla developing their driving tech.

  • What are they skipping? (Score:3)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:55PM (#59736308)

    While I haven't had any experience with Tesla directly. My experience with Uber and GE/Northrop (aerospace) makes me think that there is something that got skipped.

    Is this fully ISO26262 certified? Do they have a full V&V test suite from MIL to HIL? Are they doing any sort of lab testing or is this all out in the road testing?

    Is there a more technical teardown of the boards? What are the "AI Chips" a bunch of add accumulates?

  • I just re-checked and the base RWD model starts at $40k with an add'l $7k for the autopilot option (excluding potential gas savings). The one most folks would want, AWD with autopilot, is $56k new. Having recently bought a new car, if the Model 3 really started at $33k I'd have gone that way for sure.

    • The base RWD available on their website is a Standard Range+ (SR+) that includes basic autopilot for $40k. The additional $7k is for full self-driving (FSD), which most people don't get much added benefit (besides Navigate-on-AP, parking assist, and summon) quite yet since the full FSD functionality is still pending release.

      You can still order the off-menu Standard Range (SR) over the phone for $36.2k (up slightly from the original $35k), but that does not include even basic autopilot or traffic-aware cruis

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      if the Model 3 really started at $33k

      It starts. If you want to put it in gear and drive, that will be another $10k.

  • wondered that too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @01:58PM (#59736332) Homepage Journal

    I've been wondering the same.

    I got a new car a year ago, and I test-drove a lot of cars before picking, including many of the newest models.

    I was utterly surprised for what shit they put in as infotainment and onboard computer systems. Slow, laggy, low resolution, terrible response times, crappy touch screens. None of that stuff is more recent then 2010, I'm sure of that.

    On paper, car makers have understood that they're now basically building a frame around a computer. They have the concept cars and all. But the supply chains aren't there, the ecosystem isn't there to deliver on that.

    Tesla did it right, by stepping out of the common car maker supply chain. As a newcomer, your biggest asset is that you're not yet stuck in dependency hell and backwards compatability purgatory.

  • "We cannot do it" because... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:04PM (#59736362)
    It's seems the Japs are afraid of screwing over their suppliers.

    But technological hurdles are not the reason for the delay, according to the Japanese engineer who said "we cannot do it." The real reason for holding off? Automakers worry that computers like Tesla's will render obsolete the parts supply chains they have cultivated over decades, the engineer said.

    If he says so. Can't believe that loyalty to external supply chains holds everywhere else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Well, if you try to do something in house, and your supplier goes under as a result, you've painted yourself into a corner in that you're not going to be able to go back to a supplier like that over night. It's a huge decision to tear up your whole supply change on a gamble that you can do it better. Vertical integration isn't always the best idea. Sometimes, it really is best to do what you do well, and leave the rest to other people.
  • You mean the tech that's killing people?

  • Now look at what full self drive does (Score:3)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:41PM (#59736528)
    It can barely navigate a car park properly. Eventually it might gain some limited ability to stop and start at traffic lights and other comparatively simple tasks. Don't hold your breath expecting full autonomy or anything close to that any time soon.

  • For suppliers that depend on these components, and their employees, this is a matter of life and death.

    So big automakers apparently feel obliged to continue using complicated webs of dozens of ECUs, while we only found a few in the Model 3. Put another way, the supply chains that have helped today's auto giants grow are now beginning to hamper their ability to innovate.

    Tesla will continue to eat the big automaker's lunch until they are willing to break their development silos and take an integrated approach. Tesla is destined to continue its meteoric rise and will become one on the largest, if not the largest, automaker.

  • I don't want cutting edge tech in my car. I don't want constant updates. I want something that has been tested for decades, and works every single time. I'll take a 20 year old Toyota over a brand new Tesla any day.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 )

      I'll take a 20 year old Toyota over a brand new Tesla any day.

      Thanks for polluting our air. We all appreciate it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        Good point. I'll buy an electric car as soon as a responsible company is making them. Elon Musk is a dick, and I don't want a car that has to get nightly software updates. I'm waiting for a Toyota or a Honda EV.

      • Keeping one car running for 20 years (especially if well cared-for) saves on overall emissions and pollution over buying something new. No matter how energy efficient the vehicle is.

        The gap is even smaller if your car is running on coal-generated electric.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        The low hanging fruit of emissions reduction was picked well before 20 years ago. As long as the car is maintained, the difference between a 20 year old car and a new one is nit picking.

  • Who owns it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Monday February 17, 2020 @03:07PM (#59736668) Homepage Journal

    Every two or three years, the company pushed the envelope further, culminating in the full self-driving computer.

    Who owns that computer — and the software running on it?

    In at least one case, Tesla has (remotely) disabled the functionality in a used car, because the new owner didn't pay for the software [jalopnik.com]...

    Supposedly, that was a "miscommunication" — and the feature is now restored [theverge.com], but the question remains: does the owner of the vehicle own the software too, or just the hardware? The term "repossession" just got a new meaning too...

    • Nobody owns software.

      The author of the software, Tesla in this case, owns the copyright for the software. The DMCA ensures that if copyright owners place a work under DRM, then they can grant or remove privileges to that work at any time and for any reason.

      The customer enters into a license agreement with Tesla to access the software. Since much of the car's hardware is useless without the software, the user uses the car only with Tesla's permission.

      So the customer "owns" little more than a brick. They must

      • The customer enters into a license agreement with Tesla to access the software.

        I know licenses — they are a great method to stop people from decompiling and otherwise reverse-engineering the software. Because, if you owned it, you could do it. Fine.

        But any such license ought to be perpetual and transferable — which, in the case of Tesla, it evidently isn't. That Tesla restored the functionality after a public outcry is irrelevant — the fact, they built in the capability to remotely disable

        • But any such license ought to be perpetual and transferable

          If you want that, write your representatives in congress. Good luck.

          But, but those are made by the Evil KKKorporation$ — not the benevolent genius Elon Musk, who's doing it all just to save the world...

          Welcome to the real world, where things are more complex than a single good/bad boolean attribute.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            If you want that, write your representatives in congress. Good luck.

            Thank you for your kind wishes, but I'm not from the Left — that is, I do not seek to make things I dislike illegal .

  • So.. they put an overpowered, centralized computer with custom 'AI' chips into their cars with the hope that they can power software that has not been written yet? These seems like a design decision that could really come back to bite them, esp since I imagine in '6 years', companies will have a better idea of actual software and requirements... then be able to support it via a dedicated module that is specced for the need.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      So.. they put an overpowered, centralized computer with custom 'AI' chips into their cars with the hope that they can power software that has not been written yet?

      Yes and No - Tesla has replaced computer modules before in situations where owners purchased and base model and later wanted autopilot features. Part of the design is to enable them to replace those models easily and cheaply (in terms of labor) in the field; if they need to in order to deliver on the features.

      Compare that to say replaceing the BCM module in your typical 2012-present car; you probably have a lots wiring to do and the ECM, Infotainment, instrument cluster, etc all probably need to at least

  • When engineers and designers are given the task of creating a new thing with zero concern for having to re-use existing tooling, supply chains and out of date institutionalized systems, great things can happen.

    This is also why SpaceX is able to perform so much better than Boeing.

    Tesla is still a buy in my opinion. (But I expect a general market crash/correction soon)

  • Pedestrian anti collision, Toyota vs tesla (Score:4, Informative)

    by ishmaelflood ( 643277 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @03:27PM (#59736756)

    AAA tested collision avoidance

    "Unfortunately, the results of the tests were very much a mixed bag. For the Chevy Malibu, while it detected the adult pedestrian at 20mph (32km/h) an average of 2.1 seconds and 63 feet (19.2m) before impact, in five tests it failed to actually apply the brakes enough to reduce the speed significantly before each collision took place. The Tesla Model 3 managed little better; it also hit the pedestrian dummy in each of five runs.

    On average, the Chevy slowed by 2.8mph (4.5km/h) and alerted the driver on average 1.4 seconds and 41.7 feet (12.7m) before impact. In two runs, there was no braking at all, even though the system detected the pedestrian dummy.

    The Honda Accord performed better. Although it notified the driver much closer to the pedestrian (time-to-collision at 0.7 seconds, distance 32 feet/9.7m), it also prevented the impact from occurring in three of five runs and slowed the car to 0.6mph (1km/h) in a fourth.

    Best of all was the Toyota Camry. It gave a visual notification at 1.2 seconds and 35.5 feet (10.8m) before impact. But the Camry also stopped completely before reaching the dummy in each of five runs."

    So Tesla's 6 year advantage in electronics results in 100% kills. Well done Tesla. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]

    • Re:Pedestrian anti collision, Toyota vs tesla (Score:4, Informative)

      by McGruber ( 1417641 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @03:57PM (#59736888)

      So Tesla's 6 year advantage in electronics results in 100% kills. Well done Tesla.

      Also from the article you selectively quoted from:

      None of the four cars was able to successfully identify two pedestrians standing together in the middle of the roadway; none alerted its driver or mitigated a crash. And when AAA tested each of the four cars at 25mph in low-light conditions—an hour after sunset with no ambient street lighting, but the car's low-beam headlights on—none was able to detect a pedestrian to alert the driver or slow the car to prevent an impact.

  • It's my first and last Toyota

    I can confirm, that Toyota is behind any other car manufacturer in term of electronic for at least 20 years late

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close