Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Cars have had chips in them since the 1960s, so if they start making Rambler's again, I'm in.

What car had ICs in the 1960s? An Apollo moon buggy?!

According to this [idgconnect.com], all sorts of cars starting in the late 60s. [chipsetc.com] It was for things like automatic transmissions and fuel injection.

1968, Volkswagon with their D-Jetronic, which was an electronically controlled fuel injection system.

Note that a "computer" doesn't necessarily use chips. I only see discrete transistors in the D-Jetronic:

https://www.thesamba.com/vw/ga... [thesamba.com]

From the article: "Volkswagen introduces the first consumer vehicle available with a computer - a transistorized, electronically-controlled, fuel injection system."

It sounds like a classic "Well, actchewally" kind of argument, but there are massive differences between a discrete transistor and an IC.

China, a larger car market than the US, is losing FEWER vehicles due to this shortage. Even though the same vehicles are made in the same way in both countries.

China, a larger car market than the US, is losing FEWER vehicles due to this shortage. Even though the same vehicles are made in the same way in both countries.

Incorrect. American car companies did this to themselves. When covid-19 hit, they shutdown production and cancelled their orders for chips because they don't warehouse parts. However, when they opened up again and reordered their chips, they were at the back of the queue. To make things worse, TSMC started moving away from large fab processes because they aren't as profitable. This caused a bit of a panic and everything getting bought up. The result is a long lead time to get the part they need while most warehouses have been cleared out. They could get around this by modifying their designs but the only car company that seemed to do this was Tesla. I don't know what Chinese companies did but American car companies only have themselves to blame for have zero preparation for supply chain interruptions.

Just-In-Time manufacturing is cost efficient when it works and very expensive when it fails.

I believe there is some kind of industry-wide list of "approved" chips or something where the big car makers like GM and Ford and whatever the hell Chrysler is called these days wont use chips outside of that list and its difficult to get the newer more available chips on that list.

As I understand it, it isn't so much that there's an approved chip list, it's that they don't do the programming for most of their own car's functionality, outsourcing that to a few contracting companies. Kind of like Bosch, Denso, and such.

Given their requirements, said contracting companies don't upgrade their parts, to include the computer chips, all that often. Plus, the old chips were known to work, met durability requirements(not that new chips can't, but it has to be tested), and were cheap.

there is, with about 4 months of validation with that approved part in a unique circuit

They could get around this by modifying their designs but the only car company that seemed to do this was Tesla.

They could get around this by modifying their designs but the only car company that seemed to do this was Tesla.

As I understand it, Tesla never cut production(or purchasing) by all that much, and were using newer chips in the first place. Plus, because they have extensive in-house programming abilities, basically programming their own cars from the ground up themselves, they were indeed able to "make things work" for what chips they couldn't get.

Just-In-Time manufacturing is cost efficient when it works and very expensive when it fails.

Just-In-Time manufacturing is cost efficient when it works and very expensive when it fails.

JIT manufacturing is fine, but the problem is that the American car companies took the JIT idea that Toyota pioneered, and implemented it wrong: they made it "completely inventory-less manufacturing." The proper implementation includes inventory for things like chips that have huge lead times on orders, or take time to switch manufacturers.

What a wonderful way to reduce the supply of cars so that Americans can be weaned from their dependence on them.

What a wonderful way to reduce the supply of cars so that Americans can be weaned from their dependence on them.

What a wonderful way to reduce the supply of cars so that Americans can be weaned from their dependence on them.

More likely they will just drive older cars for now.

are Infineon Aurix (TriCore) chips. These are mostly 20+ year old technology for vehicles with electrical systems based on the AUTOSAR stack. The automotive industry has collectively refused to move beyond this stack despite its inability to scale effectively for the demands of modern cars. There really isn't anything these chips are doing that cannot be done with ASIL certified lockstep ARM chips, but the investment in AUTOSAR makes it a huge pain for these companies to rework their development methods and electrical architectures. They also don't have the right kind of software engineers to handle such a transition.

AUTOSAR - ugh. It's a terribly over-complicated morass of expensive middleware, with thousands of pages of specifications. I know why OEMS like it - the box claims to make things super drop-in compatible.

The reality is you spend as much time "configuring" the AUTOSAR components as you would have spent writing custom code that is more efficient and actually does what you want instead of almost doing what you want and being forced to work around the accidental complexity.

That said - is it really the Infineo

Infineon recently made a process change and realized they fouled six months worth of production.

From what I've heard it's a wide range of chips, particularly the older models built with larger feature sizes.

Apparently when the fabs lost a bunch of orders at the beginning of the pandemic several of them decided to take the opportunity to upgrade their assembly lines to newer, more profitable technology (=smaller feature sizes). Technology that can't actually make the older chips, which would have to be redesigned to deliver the same robustness with smaller features (car electrical systems are hideousl

we are experiencing things like resistor and capacitor shortages, let alone simple things like pic 16 series micro's .... let alone anything more complicated than the 90's

If the issue is that the process technology used to produce these old chips is disappearing as manufacturers focus on newer nodes, why not produce new chips that are compatible with the old chips (same pin-out, same functionality, same instruction set/software) but are built on process nodes that companies will actually fab?

There has certainly been talk about building additional 45nm or even 65nm capacity. The cost of such a fab would probably be comparable with one or two EUV patterning machines. But margins on these older chips are razor thin so it's difficult to see how any such build would be profitable once the current backlog has been cleared. The new fab would be competing with producers who have no capital depreciation and have spent a decade optimising their process to squeeze every last die from their equipment.

In that case you should buy an EV. They are far more resilient, orders of magnitude less complex, but do cost more.

EVs use twice as many semiconductors as ICEs.

That seems very unlikely. With an EV you can throw out the complex ICE management system, plus all the sensors to ensure that the component parts are working properly.

IIRC the shortage is more about two things. 1) The auto makers cancelled standing orders and are now in the back of the line for capacity reservations. 2) The chips the auto makers use are old tech and the chip makers want them to upgrade to newer tech.

https://www.motortrend.com/new... [motortrend.com]

EVs use twice as many semiconductors as ICEs.

EVs use twice as many semiconductors as ICEs.

And? Out of all the parts in an ICE car, the semiconductors are the most reliable components. Semiconductors are really amazing things because even consumer grade semiconductors can function continuously for decades before some of them begin to fail. Automotive qualified semiconductors are built to withstand some of the harshest environmental conditions that humans live in.

They do have twice as many semis on average but that's because of all the other bullshit lumped in there, so it's misleading. Every EV has all the shiny shit. Many ICEVs are still offered with only little bits of it. Electric motor control is way simpler than modern ICE control.

I would be surprised if the 80-90s cars had more complex engine control units than a modern EV, but the modern ones have a much harder job. They've got to monitor and react to a whole shedload of sensors, and make a guess at what's h

which they won't make. You could always import a 25yo Kei car/truck. [mitsuicoltd.com]

If we used modern metallurgy with older design ethics to produce a wet sleeved straight six unit injected diesel with a six speed, double overdrive gearbox, you could likely meet emissions regs, get decent mileage, and have reasonably smooth operation with a fully mechanically regulated system. If you wanted to, you could literally design it to continue to run and even still shift if it's an automatic even if the electrical system failed completely. But it would be seriously expensive to build it to last. Y

Pretty sure cars have had AC since the 40's.

A very few cars had AC in the 40s. My parents had a car in the 50s that had no air conditioning. I bought a car in the 80s that had no air conditioning. And if you count the car for which the air conditioning failed, which I basically only drove 2 miles each way to the train station and back, I had a car in the 2000s without air conditioning.

Cars started using chips in the 70s. You want to go back to that era? I think your memory is clouded by age or nostalgia. Simpler, maybe. More resilient? No way. Engines and transmissions didn't last nearly as long and those are really expensive to replace. Cars from the 70s lasted about 100k miles. They started rusting at 60k miles or before, so I hope you like replacing body panels. They had no ABS. No traction control. They weighed a ton and got awful gas mileage. Hope you like sucking in the lead from that gas. Airbags? Nope. Chances of dying in a wreck? Way higher. Regular tuneups and lube jobs are gonna cost you extra. No backup cameras. Forget anything beyond a standard FM radio.

Cars started using chips in the 70s. You want to go back to that era? I think your memory is clouded by age or nostalgia.

Simpler, maybe. More resilient? No way. Engines and transmissions didn't last nearly as long and those are really expensive to replace. Cars from the 70s lasted about 100k miles. They started rusting at 60k miles or before, so I hope you like replacing body panels. They had no ABS. No traction control. They weighed a ton and got awful gas mileage. Hope you like sucking in the lead from that gas. Airbags? Nope. Chances of dying in a wreck? Way higher. Regular tuneups and lube jobs are gonna cost you extra. No backup cameras. Forget anything beyond a standard FM radio.

There's not a huge amount of that list that requires on-board chips. The big one is probably ABS. Traction control and backup cameras are luxury items for 99% of drivers. And the radio is not what we're talking about, but a plain FM radio sounds fine to me.

There's not a huge amount of that list that requires on-board chips.

The world of chips brought in digital engine management computers. In the 70s, they were basic things, but even then they were far better than the old distributor and carburettor systems. Then it ushered in electronic fuel injection, and then you got both a stupid increase in power and fuel economy.

If you want to see what "the past" was like, go get a flight in a light GA aircraft like a Cessna or Piper. It may be a brand new plane right o

Traction control and backup cameras are luxury items for 99% of drivers

Backup cameras have been required equipment in the U.S. since 2018. Traction control is about much more than maximum launch acceleration (or, perversely, getting some sick peel-out). It is a safety feature like ABS that drastically improves handling during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, mud). There are lots of reasons that vehicle deaths per miles traveled [google.com] has steadily decreased over the decades. (It's about 1/3 what it was before the advent of complicated electronics in cars in the 1970s.) It sure as hell isn't because drivers have gotten better.

Traction control and backup cameras are luxury items for 99% of drivers Backup cameras have been required equipment in the U.S. since 2018.

Traction control and backup cameras are luxury items for 99% of drivers

Backup cameras have been required equipment in the U.S. since 2018.

Traction control is about much more than maximum launch acceleration (or, perversely, getting some sick peel-out). It is a safety feature like ABS that drastically improves handling during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, mud).

Traction control is about much more than maximum launch acceleration (or, perversely, getting some sick peel-out). It is a safety feature like ABS that drastically improves handling during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, mud).

I didn't think of the acceleration thing; I thought it was just for poor conditions.

But I'm still not seeing how chips stop panels rusting or make my (manual) gearbox more reliable.

Traction control and backup cameras are luxury items for 99% of drivers Backup cameras have been required equipment in the U.S. since 2018. Really? How bizarre.

Traction control and backup cameras are luxury items for 99% of drivers

Backup cameras have been required equipment in the U.S. since 2018.

They stopped many incidents of kids getting run over since they are generally shorter than the trunk lids on your normal car, and don't have the wisdom to not run out behind a backing car.

Traction control is about much more than maximum launch acceleration (or, perversely, getting some sick peel-out). It is a safety feature like ABS that drastically improves handling during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, mud). I didn't think of the acceleration thing; I thought it was just for poor conditions.

Traction control is about much more than maximum launch acceleration (or, perversely, getting some sick peel-out). It is a safety feature like ABS that drastically improves handling during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, mud).

I didn't think of the acceleration thing; I thought it was just for poor conditions.

Traction control also helps in emergency steering conditions, even on dry pavement, as it keeps your back end from skidding out when you hard steer.

make my (manual) gearbox more reliable.

make my (manual) gearbox more reliable.

Unfortunately, it is near impossible to get those in the US, there are a few still made, but they are extremely rare, and mostly sporty cars.

make my (manual) gearbox more reliable. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to get those in the US, there are a few still made, but they are extremely rare, and mostly sporty cars.

make my (manual) gearbox more reliable.

make my (manual) gearbox more reliable.

Unfortunately, it is near impossible to get those in the US, there are a few still made, but they are extremely rare, and mostly sporty cars.

They're still the norm in the UK, although automatics are becoming more popular.

And the radio is not what we're talking about, but a plain FM radio sounds fine to me.

FM radio is about the only thing I listen to in my car.

Don't forget carburetors! Flooding, icing, poor winter performance, etc. No one really wants to go back to them.

You got one thing dead wrong, though. Cars in the 70s and 80s were at least a couple thousand pounds lighter than cars today (fewer impact protection structures), and by the 80s during the oil crisis they got fantastic mileage, even a little better than today with our modern heavy cars. Crash test standards have made our cars much heavier now, and despite more fuel-efficient engines, our mileag

Well, fair is fair, gpp stated: They weighed a ton, and nowadays they regularly weigh 2 tons and up. I did think it somewhat strange that there'd be complaints about the older cars being too light, but here we are...

Great point. I misread the OP! Sorry about that.

I for one am grateful for the added safety and comfort the extra ton gives me. Probably worth it. Motorcycles get fantastic mileage but not much protection!

Cars from the 70s lasted about 100k miles. They started rusting at 60k miles or before, so I hope you like replacing body panels.

Cars from the 70s lasted about 100k miles. They started rusting at 60k miles or before, so I hope you like replacing body panels.

Only American vehicles were that bad. I saw a Datsun B210 on the road just a couple years ago. It was not a restored vehicle, it was genuine.

Using chips did not improve the manufacturing standards. Electronic Fuel Injection, aka EFI does "require" "chips" and EFI made it so that "tune ups" were not really needed anymore. But again, American manufacturers still produced completely unreliable cars even when EFI was added. It was so bad, that Chrysler went bankrupt in the 80s.

While foreign manufacturers are st

It doesn't rain in California either? I guess that explains all the droughts.

Traction control harms snow performance, it however helps in rainy weather.

One of the first things you do around here when the road is snowy is turn off the traction control, as it will, if it is working properly, prevent your car from moving and overheat your brakes.

It doesn't rain in California either?

It doesn't rain in California either?

It rains a few times in the winter out here, but I'm not sure that extra few percent of traction three days a year is worth the added cost+complexity. But that's just me/.

I'ts like getting air-conditioned seats in Alaska

Indeed. I would pay more money for a car that was simpler and more resilient.

Indeed. I would pay more money for a car that was simpler and more resilient.

Imagine having to use a metal key and go 'round all the doors using it every time you park.

Yeah, we know - you always leave yours unlocked, right? News: Those old cars were easy to hotwire so your "simpler and more resilient" car would be a target for thieves.

It wouldn't be more resilient anyway. Mechanically-tuned engines were a pain in the ass, didn't last as long, and needed constant attention.

Nostalgia isn't what you think it is.

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything.

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything.

Never going to happen. How are you going to make a backup camera and display without chips? Backup camera systems are mandated by gov't regulations ever since 2018.

Similarly, how are you going to make electric vehicles without chips? Not gonna happen. With gas being super high and rabid climate change believers pushing everybody around, I fully expect the coming "solution" to the chip shortage will be halting production of internal combustion engine vehicles in favor of saving the chips for EV's.

Similarly, how are you going to make electric vehicles without chips?

Similarly, how are you going to make electric vehicles without chips?

The original EVs date from before 1908. I'm pretty sure we could make them without chips. Though as Tesla shows, if you don't depend upon dinosaur(relative) chip types, you can still get the chips necessary for full operation.

You have trouble with the last sentence, don't you?

And no, a chipless EV is still possible without concerning the firefighters too much, you just have to get creative with the charge regulator. Given the voltages and amperages involved in regulating such a large battery, I'm sure a lot of the components are the opposite of "micro".

Chip is cheap and easy, not the only way.

The original EVs date from before 1908. I'm pretty sure we could make them without chips.

The original EVs date from before 1908. I'm pretty sure we could make them without chips.

This was your statement. And it's a really, really stupid one. The bit about Tesla is interesting, but if you are expecting to excuse your first statement with it, well, no. You said "I'm pretty sure we could make them without chips." So let's look at that. You have to monitor and control battery temp, cell balancing, charging curves (you can't just shove power into them from 0% to 100%), monitor and control discharge rates, monitor and adjust charging and range for battery wear, oh, and report rate of cha

This was your statement. And it's a really, really stupid one.

This was your statement. And it's a really, really stupid one.

Still having trouble seeing the last sentence, aren't you? Given that that was what I referred to, but you avoided quoting it.

You have to monitor and control battery temp, cell balancing, charging curves (you can't just shove power into them from 0% to 100%), monitor and control discharge rates, monitor and adjust charging and range for battery wear, oh, and report rate of charge, discharge, and estimated range back to the driver.

You have to monitor and control battery temp, cell balancing, charging curves (you can't just shove power into them from 0% to 100%), monitor and control discharge rates, monitor and adjust charging and range for battery wear, oh, and report rate of charge, discharge, and estimated range back to the driver.

None of which actually requires microchips, though I'll say that microchips are the easy and fast way to do it these days. For example, instead of estimated range, output estimated battery remaining, and let the driver figure out range using that. Like how gas tank levels were reported long before you got estimates like 253 miles remaining.

And while it would definitely be larger t

You can make an EV without chips. It can even do regen, series hybrid, whatever. But all of that depends on highly resilient batteries that can take abuse. Read: NOT LITHIUM CELLS. So yeah, you could make a really dumb EV today, but it would also be really shitty.

On the other hand, your average hobby motor speed control does regenerative braking and traction control, so the minimum complexity is not very high.

I have to point out that it isn't charge controller chips that we're having a shortage of. Even lithium cells aren't that difficult to regulate.

Hell, I've watched some videos of the various EV and even a sort of hybrid car from Leno's Garage. Turn of the 20th century(IE 1900's), and it's a sort of hybrid car. Caveats abound, of course. It works like a diesel-electric locomotive - the engine ran a generator that provided power to an electric motor that ran the drive shaft. It even had regenerative braki

I haven't got any information on how acceleration and regen were controlled but the couple-gear trucks [wikimedia.org] had 4WD, 4WS, regen, and could be outfitted with a generator or not. I remember reading about one case where such a truck was used to bring freight down a hill, and did about 50% of the trip back up on its regen charge. They used hub motors, too (next to the hub anyway, with a gear reduction built in - the pinion is on the motor, and the spur gear is built into the wheel.)

There's apparently a modern EV dump truck out there where the duty cycle is "go to top of hill, pick up heavy load, go down hill, unload, repeat".

They never need to charge it, since the regenerative braking from controlling the load going down is more than enough to get it back up the hill when empty.

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything.

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything.

You will also have to go back to headlights with incandescent bulbs, a coil and manual points for the ignition, break out your timing light for setting your ignition timing, worry about the dwell time for your points, and manually gap your spark plugs because all those things won't be handled by your electronic ignition anymore.

Forget Oxygen sensors, fuel injection, pre-tightening seat belts, air bags, and onboard diagnostics. Get ready for manual emissions checks again.

Nope, too many features, both vital

Just as importantly, a modern fossil fuel car could never meet emissions standards without chips in it to control the engine.

Eight valves in the engine, and eight in the radio.

Eight valves in the engine, and eight in the radio.

Eight valves in the engine, and eight in the radio.

In the USA we call them "tubes". Ironically, most of the factories still making vacuum tubes are in Russia, which presents its own set of problems at the moment.

Besides, if we were going to go back to using discrete components, there's always the slightly-less-old-school transistor [youtube.com].

In the USA we call them "tubes".

In the USA we call them "tubes".

Ah! So that's what Al Gore was talking about.

In the USA we call them "tubes".

In the USA we call them "tubes".

Partially correct. They were called "tubes" when you referred to the package design, but were still knows as "valves" when you looked at schematics. Similar to calling something an IC chip for the package, but a full-wave rectifier when you refer to what it does.

Here is a schematic from Popular Electronics 1955 where they discuss how to build your own Theremin. They talk about the five "tubes" in the design, but the schematic lists them as V1 - V5. https://www.antiqueradio.org/p... [antiqueradio.org]

Here is an early explanation of the differences between valves and early transistors. [onlinesciencenotes.com]

It should be possible as long as you don't mind a less efficient engine or need safety features like airbags or anti lock brakes.

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips.

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips.

They would be unable to meet efficiency standards. Also, completely redesigning the cars to not use any chips is idiotic. All they need to do is redesign the part to use a different chip.

Your suggestion is asinine at best.

You cannot eliminate chips. That's genuinely one step from saying we need to go back to horse-and-buggy days.

However, manufacturers could certainly rationalize and simplify their designs. Just as a small example: One option on a new car we are buying is to have a camera-and-screen combination in place of each of the side mirrors. The camera is in the position of the mirror (outside the car), and the screen is just inside the car. What possible benefit does this bring? Instead of your mirror icing up, it w

There are already many places making carburetors all over the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carburetor_manufacturers [wikipedia.org]

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything. Newer models require them, so maybe return to making some older "heritage" (to use a buzzword for old) models for folks who like to listen to "heritage" music. Do you like music from the 70's? Now you can drive a car from then too!

Tooling up a vehicle manufacturing line costs on-the-order-of a Billion Dollars. That's roughly equivalent to what

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything. Newer models require them, so maybe return to making some older "heritage" (to use a buzzword for old) models for folks who like to listen to "heritage" music. Do you like music from the 70's? Now you can drive a car from then too!

Don't rely on chips. Bring back older models that were decently efficient but which didn't need chips. I would rather that my car NOT rely on a chip for anything. Newer models require them, so maybe return to making some older "heritage" (to use a buzzword for old) models for folks who like to listen to "heritage" music. Do you like music from the 70's? Now you can drive a car from then too!

That would take years. No one makes ECU-less engines in that kind of volume. Or anything, any more. It would probably be 10 years before we could ramp up and re-tool the production of parts to make analog cars again, and that energy would be better spent actually solving the chip problem.

Well, that would mean to go back to 1960's models.

Aircooled engines had emissions issues. It wasn't until the mid-70s that VW introduced a fuel injection system that could mitigate most of the emissions issues that were being regulated at the time. CAFE wasn't the issue, it was things like NOX and unburned hydrocarbons that were the big problem. If you were to compare a VW bug from 1977 to 1970 it was astonishing what they put on the car to keep it legal. During those years there was a lot of creative engineering manifesting into things like air pumps, th

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

VR Is As Good As Psychedelics At Helping People Reach Transcendence

Climate Change Can Make Most Human Diseases Worse

"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982