Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Auto Makers Teaming Up To Create Standard OS

CNet is reporting that Japanese car manufacturers are teaming up to develop a standard automotive operating system. "Just as computer operating systems [...] allow multiple applications to communicate with one another, an automotive operating system enables different driving systems to work together. The standard automotive operating system from Japan will include everything from fuel injection, brakes and power steering to power windows. Currently, certain mechanical car parts are interchangeable from model to model. Smart car parts that operate off a common software standard would enable that kind of convenience to continue, while allowing them to communicate more easily with other smart components in a car."

17 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. A day late and a dollar short... by RollTissue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to another Yomiuri article, BMW, DaimlerChrysler and other European automakers are jointly developing a next-generation OS and are expected to complete a prototype in 2008. ...a year earlier.

    1. Re:A day late and a dollar short... by nonsequitor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like the Auto Industry is finally catching up to the avionics industry in this regard. The way avionics handled this issue was instead of releasing software, they released a set of requirements for a partitioned operating system. Then the specific vendor has to implement that template.

      Some of the features are a pre-emptable time slicing OS. It defines a number of application slots or partitions which are completely isloated from one another. Each partition then is assigned a quota or multiple quotas of CPU time. For instance 7 ms out of every 200 ms. Each partition is given control of its own resources, a set amount of RAM and Memory, mostly flash based.

      This development model allows multiple vendors to easily work together to provide industrial grade saftey critical systems. The OS and applications are independently certified for their class of application, and the OS would have a max level of certification allowed for it.

      While the automotive industry does not have the same certification issues the avionics industry has, I think this is a long over step towards consolidating all the distributed systems within a car. This makes higher level applications possible which link to the microprocessors controlling the brakes, suspension, all-wheel drive, etc...

      I don't think its out of the question to start seeing 3rd party software add-ons which can be installed on any car running this OS to provide enhanced capabilities like automatic parking like described in the article. It may even become possible to retrofit a car without one of these systems with the necessary sensors and equipment to add these new capabilities after market.

      This is where the boating industry is going at the moment since boats have a much longer life expectancy than cars, but they use a lot of the same microprocessors and communications buses.

      Needless to say, its going to be interesting to see what the hacking community can do with this.

    2. Re:A day late and a dollar short... by BUL2294 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And why do we need this? BMW proved with their 5-Series a few years ago that an automotive OS is a bad idea. Seriously, how much cheaper could power windows (no pun intended) get??? What is wrong with the traditional "push button, complete circuit, window goes up" or "engine provides mechanical energy to run power steering"???

      Personally, I HATE this idea. Imagine having the "automotive OS" go down or a short somewhere in the system results in your brakes, windows, airbags, navigation system, cruise control, steering, fuel pump, automatic transmission, anti-theft system, speed gauges, radio, turn signals, headlights, interior lights and brake lights all failing simultaneously--all while going down the highway doing 70MPH in the middle of the night... Even if you do coast to a stop without killing yourself or someone else, imagine the diagnostic charges! And that assumes your car hasn't been hacked or has a virus!

      Separate systems are much easier to diagnose ("I push the button and the window won't go up...") and aren't prone to malicious activity.

      --
      Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    3. Re:A day late and a dollar short... by red_dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't need to wait for the auto manufacturers -- simply replace the stock ECU with a MegaSquirt ECU, for which source code and schematics are available. You can buy a kit with all of the parts and the pre-programmed EEPROM, or you can buy a pre-assembled and pre-programmed from here -- even plug-and-play wiring harnesses are available.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
    4. Re:A day late and a dollar short... by DarenN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This should make the individual components cheaper allowing them to use cheaper micro-controllers. Cars are increasingly comprised of smart components which communicate electronically, as opposed to analog or mechanical signals. Bing! This is what it's all about. The motor industry is a amorphous blob of highly competitive car makers (called OEM's) who buy from component manufacturers. As cars get more complicated more code is required (and as I work with this a bit, I can tell you it's a LOT of code). But it's on ECU's which have to work together in some odd combinations. Because you can order functionality (or not order it) in many ways per model of car, and most of it is software controlled, the communication between the components gets increasingly complicated. The component manufacturers responded by selling complete systems, which could be tested together and kludged for performance and all sorts of other stuff. The problem now is that these manufacturers have a lot of leverage, because if you want one component from them, you're stuck with a whole system.

      The international version of this is called AUTOSAR and is a 2,000 page specification that details the communication interfaces between ECU's. The ideal is that you could take an AUTOSAR compliant ECU and plug it into an AUTOSAR enabled car, and magically things will just work. It's still at the early stages despite it being around for years, and most of the major manufacturers are involved. They fight like cats and dogs, so this could be a splinter group of OEM's doing their own thing because they're sick of AUTOSAR.
      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    5. Re:A day late and a dollar short... by nonsequitor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The component manufacturers responded by selling complete systems, which could be tested together and kludged for performance and all sorts of other stuff.
      I thought that was why they had standards like J1939 for CAN bus communications.

      The article mentions an OS, but it doesn't clarify how it will be used. It may just be an RTOS with standardized protocol stacks. Or it could be some sort of object engine considering how all those communications standards are object oriented. But if it's a centralized OS capable of hosting 3rd party apps, that would be a solution to an entirely different problem. It would also allow Toyota to have their own Toyota proprietary applications which can be run that utilize these smart components, but not have that IP in the suppliers hands to sell to their competiters. Same with the other car manufacturers. This would ease the stranglehold that their suppliers have on them since any component will be easily swapped for another XYZ certified component, in theory.
  2. Oblig. by spankey51 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them..."

    --
    -ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
  3. Re:Oblig. by CaptainPatent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well to some degree, that's the point. Mercedes has already done testing running cars at 90 MPH just 2 inches apart through a network communication protocol. Part of the goal of this project is to come up with a standard for such a protocol and integrate it into the OS.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  4. car os != desktop os by SolusSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really hope they don't go the "OS for battleships" direction and just take a regular OS and tailor it for cars. An OS that is going to help operate a car should be built using signal logic and work like a low level state machine. Like this: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm or at least build it around a functional lambda calculus based language like haskell or erlang (see wikipedia). The last thing we need is random segfaults while we're driving.

    as an aside-- please don't critize my suggestion without at least first reading up on functional lambda calculus based programming languages and COSA.

  5. Re:Currently? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You think Americans were "good" Germans have the standardization of things down pat.

    It's why HPA motorports was able to create a 500 Hp Beetle using nothing more than common VW Parts.

    With minor work for engine bay space and engine mounts, you can bolt up a brand new Audi TT engine to a '79 Rabbit. I can't even begin to name all the parts that are common between my '98 Jetta and my '86 Jetta. Heck, 10 minutes with the engine blocks and you'll start to see similarities between the 1.8L Gasser and my 1.9 TDI.

    Furthermore, every single part in my VW has a part number. Every one. I'm doing some custom wiring for rear fogs, even a wire has a VW part number. I walked into the dealer and told him I wanted XXX-YYY-ZZZZ and he told me it'd be a few days and $3. If anyone gets a chance to look in ETKA, there is an option to "see what all vehicles this part number fits". It's absolutely mind boggling.

  6. True Volkswagen Baja Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This happened in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Many years ago, when I was in college and poor, I bought a truly beat to death VW Baja for $800. It had tiny little wheels for drag racing for some odd reason, and great big sand wheels up front. The front end and the back end were fiberglass, with all the sheet metal cut off roughly with a torch; the front bumper was, I kid you not, the GAS TANK. I had to buy some new seat belts out of a wrecked beetle to bolt in because the originals had been cut out. The car sounded like a helicopter, you could barely hear yourself think. It had a souped-up 1800cc engine that was the greasiest, ugliest thing I'd ever seen in my life.

    I really liked that car. It was fast as hell and totally terrifying to drive.

    One time, my ex girlfriend tried to make fun of my car by flying past it in her mustang (over Camelback Mountain). I let her get just past me and I stomped on the gas; I flew past her and got the thing up over 100 mph before making the crest of the mountain (this was on the upward side, mind you).

    Even better, one time I was sitting at a stoplight and this creepy ASU kid and his girlfriend were making fun of my car from their convertible. I looked over at them, and when the light turned green, stomped the accelerator and popped the clutch. The damn thing popped a wheelie and I almost had a heart attack. But it was worth it, the kid was so surprised he forgot to go and got cut off by traffic.

    Still... I ended up selling it for the same 800 bucks to another college kid. He took it out in the desert, floored it, shot off the top of a sand dune, and obliterated the car. Amazingly, the kid survived and called me up to ask for his 800 bucks back! I said "what are you, nuts? Consider it a stupidity tax" and hung up.

    Sigh... Poor car...

  7. Re:Currently? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Furthermore, every single part in my VW has a part number.


    That's not unique to VW. Practically every automaker today has a part number for every last component in their cars. Among other things I can find out which components are shared with previous generations of my Honda, other Honda models and even Japanese domestic models by looking at part numbers. The same applies to my father's Buick.

    Secondly, an Audi TT engine isn't just going to "bolt" into a 1979 Rabbit. Today's Rabbit follows a very similar layout to a '79 Rabbit and a TT is essentially a Golf/Rabbit with different body panels. I'll grant you that, but internally the cars are quite different. Nevermind that the chassis has been revised numerous times to meet exceedingly strict safety standards. There are changing emissions regulations which have necessitated the addition of various components and movement of others. Then there's the modernization of a multitude of other components, like the braking system and it's anti-lock brakes. Then there's the ECU and all the electrical wiring the old Rabbit didn't have. And then on the simplest level there's the fact that the '79 engine block and transmission are considerably different from what's used today.

    I know some guys tend to stretch the meaning of "bolt-on" modifications but this is really pushing it. There are guys who do engine swaps between cars based on the same platform and for the same year and even then they can't just drop in the new engine. If any automakers allow for easy swapping of components I'd argue it's the Americans. And that's only because they have the habit of releasing the same exact vehicle under multiple brands with minor cosmetic differences.

    I expect to see a similar outcome from a "standardized" OS. The system may be based on a standard base, but every model and generation will be different to the point that they won't work with anyone else. There's the risk, of course, of this sort of technology locking out the owner from being able to do anything to the car. With a sophisticated system it could check to see if modifications have been made, for example, and perhaps render the vehicle inoperable because it's been deemed a violation of the warranty. On the other hand, these systems may make the car easier to hack and allow the owner more control in adjusting how the car operates.
  8. Re:Currently? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With minor work for engine bay space and engine mounts, you can bolt up a brand new Audi TT engine to a '79 Rabbit. I can't even begin to name all the parts that are common between my '98 Jetta and my '86 Jetta. Heck, 10 minutes with the engine blocks and you'll start to see similarities between the 1.8L Gasser and my 1.9 TDI.

    It's fascinating that you start out raving how 'common' things are, but when you get down to cases... engine mounts need 'minor' work and engine blocks have 'similarities'. Niether of which are characteristics of systems with any significant degree of commonality. Even your the link you provide to a 500HP Beetle with 'standard' parts discusses the amount of work the conversions require.
     
    Which is nothing at all like the situation the OP discusses. (Though he does overstate the case a little.)
  9. Sounds good, but in the real world by Whuffo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    All current passenger vehicles are equipped with a computer system that handles engine management, transmission control, body control, and more. Some of the current implementations are amazing; multiple processors communicating over a high-speed network, etc.

    By law, they have to support OBD2 diagnostics; this spec provides a limited number of diagnostic indicators that (theoretically) can be accessed and interpreted the same on all vehicles. The OBD2 spec is even available - not officially, but Google is your friend.

    So far so good - some standardization, albeit government enforced. But there's more; there's a lot more useful diagnostic information available from the vehicle systems than OBD2 shows. So the manufacturers extend the protocol and define other trouble codes and ways of accessing them. These extensions aren't documented, and they're often designed to be as obscure and impenetrable as possible. Every manufacturer has different proprietary extensions and they change them at whim.

    The dealership service departments have the dedicated computer that talks to that manufacturer's cars; it knows all the codes. But independent service shops don't have those dedicated machines or any information about how to read the extended codes from a vehicle. The manufacturers refuse to provide any information to anyone at any price; you can't even buy the diagnostic machine from them unless you're one of their dealers.

    They've been doing this for years; various lawsuits have come and gone but the manufacturers still won't share the information that mechanics need to service their cars effectively. The manufacturers like it this way; it drives more business to the dealership service departments and prevents third-party parts companies from making less-expensive replacement parts. This is the status quo; even the Japanese manufacturers play the same game.

    So let's consider the possibility of a standardized automotive operating system or architecture. Would the manufacturers use it? If it offered greater reliability or reduced build costs they'd go for it. But before it hit the dealers they'd "fix" it so that their parts and service divisions would continue to enjoy their competitive advantages...

  10. It's not all bad by daBass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For those of us that happen to be happy with the stereo that came with the car, the upside is no more having to take the thing apart and hide it every time you leave the car somewhere and no more smashed windows and some wires hanging out of your dash when you come back to it...

    I, for one, welcome our new fully integrated un-steal-able car stereo overlords!

  11. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Native Japanese speakers have no problems with "L" sounds, particularly a leading li sound as in Linux since it's nearly the same sound as one of letters of the Japanese alphabet. Even when an "L" is within a word such as "flight," it becomes fu-la-i-to. R becomes an L for most Japanese speakers, not the other way around (so "right" would sound a little like "light). English speakers and actors with fake Japanese accents change the L to R, which is why my name is spelled as Akira in English, not Akila (which would still be mispronounced, but it's bit closer). Japanese speakers tend to mangle English words, but not in the way that you typically hear in the movies.

  12. Emission controls imposed for good reason by Goonie · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Do you know just how much health damage the crap that comes out of your car's tailpipe does? Pollution from car exhausts cause considerably more death and injury than car accidents do, and that's with contemporary emission control rules.

    So, I'm sorry, but your desire to tweak your car comes a very distant second to my desire to have safer air.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)