Ford CEO: Why legacy automakers struggle with OTA updates

[Shel_B]

I found the article informative ...

Ford CEO: Why legacy automakers struggle with OTA updates

Ford CEO Jim Farley discusses why electric architectures and relying on suppliers poses new big problems in the electric age.

www.greencarreports.com

 

[UncleDave]

This is why unified control is such a big deal.

People have actually been under the impression that Ford and GM and others not only build the car but actually make it all work, when in fact they dont make it all work.

Something like a 150 disparate controls systems all made by third party vendors bid against one another are slapped together by the manufacturer to make it all work and as Jim says - they dont talk to one another.

 

[JeffKeryk]

For many years, manufacturing subscribed to outsourcing sub-assemblies while focusing on what you do best. It makes sense, and still does. The difference with Tesla is, it is software based; they code their own firmware. So an outsourced part uses code from Tesla, by design specification. That's vertical integration and enables far more control.

 

[HangFire]

This is why unified control is such a big deal.

People have actually been under the impression that Ford and GM and others not only build the car but actually make it all work, when in fact they dont make it all work.

Something like a 150 disparate controls systems all made by third party vendors bid against one another are slapped together by the manufacturer to make it all work and as Jim says - they dont talk to one another.

They don't all talk to each other. Usually there is the minimal effort required to talk to the next thing, either by CANBUS or direct signalling (to something on CANBUS), but that's it.

Most self-driving software is based on the 4DRCS architecture, which requires significant communication between major modules... which is why Ford et al are so far away from catching up with Tesla there.

But it's OK, people will do anything to buy an F150... don't know why, but there it is.

 

[SC Maintenance]

So I read the article a totally different way. It says "We have farmed out all the core competencies required to build a modern car - to people like Bosch or whomever is the lowest bidder. Hence we no longer have the competency to build a modern car. Sincerely, ford CEO."

I guess Ford has devolved to a contract assembly house?

 

[mk378]

That is nothing new. Important parts of cars have always been sourced from third party specialists who retain the engineering know-how in the part. The difference now is that the interaction between the parts is much more complicated than bolting on something like a carburetor, radiator, or braking system.

Tesla still doesn't have a truck, at all. Their proposal was nothing like a F150.

 

[cptbarkey]

Mr. Farley is explaining this chart in a vapid way perhaps.

 

[JeffKeryk]

So I read the article a totally different way. It says "We have farmed out all the core competencies required to build a modern car - to people like Bosch or whomever is the lowest bidder. Hence we no longer have the competency to build a modern car. Sincerely, ford CEO."

I guess Ford has devolved to a contract assembly house?

There was no need to integrate; sub-assemblies were farmed out to multiple suppliers. Manufacturing is entering a new phase. "Digital manufacturing" is the future. I recently attended a huge "Industry 5.0" convention at the Moscone in SF.

 

[tmorris1]

I don't think it's as much that they don't talk to each other it is just that they don't own the source code to make changes, so it takes longer to make changes.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I don't think it's as much that they don't talk to each other it is just that they don't own the source code to make changes, so it takes longer to make changes.

Yes, and that is changing. The benefits are compelling.

 

[SC Maintenance]

There was no need to integrate; sub-assemblies were farmed out to multiple suppliers. Manufacturing is entering a new phase. "Digital manufacturing" is the future. I recently attended a huge "Industry 5.0" convention at the Moscone in SF.

Yes, but long before Industry 5.0, or Industry 4.0 (which previously was called SCADA and there was no standard) - manufacturing controllers still worked together, you might have a PLC from Rockwell, a Drive from Bosch, instrumentation from whomever and those manufacturers could do updates via the network decades ago when I started in the industry. The 5.0/4.0 etc just sets a standard to get the actual data to a database that can be used for optimization - it has nothing to do with firmware updates - those are still the purview of the individual manufacturers.

The PC I am typing on this has a CPU from someplace, a graphics card from another, a MB from somewhere else, a LAN and wireless card, etc. They somehow get updated over the network automatically also.

Sounds like the legacy automotives just got complacent.

 

[eljefino]

Yes, and that is changing. The benefits are compelling.

My cell phone updates itself until its memory is full, then it bricks.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I'll add another thought to the mix. I realize its much simpler than what were talking about, but my Toyota has done several updates to TSS 2.0 (Camera based steering and emergency breaking system). There has never been an issue. My guess is most of the Electronics are made by Denso - which is owned by Toyota, so it seems to not be much of a problem.

Back in the day Ford owned a excellent electronics company called Visteon. They loaded it up with a bunch of their debt and non performing factories and spun it off, after which it didn't take long for it to become bankrupt. They closed a bunch of plants, shed a bunch of workers, and re-organized as a shell of itself.

Perhaps if Ford owned a functional Automotive electronic supplier things would work better?

 

[tmorris1]

It sounds like maybe when farming out work that they should have made common requirements for updating firmware. Reading between the lines and knowing a little about firmware development it sounds like many of the modules have their own unique method of updating firmware and it maybe doesn't easily lend itself to using Fords OTA update methods. There in lies the problem of getting all the firmware changed so it is compatible.

 

[JeffKeryk]

It sounds like maybe when farming out work that they should have made common requirements for updating firmware. Reading between the lines and knowing a little about firmware development it sounds like many of the modules have their own unique method of updating firmware and it maybe doesn't easily lend itself to using Fords OTA update methods. There in lies the problem of getting all the firmware changed so it is compatible.

They didn’t have to, because software based cars with OTA updates didn’t exist. It’s a new world. Everything changes; tech has only accelerated the rate of change.

 

[GMBoy]

This is why unified control is such a big deal.

People have actually been under the impression that Ford and GM and others not only build the car but actually make it all work, when in fact they dont make it all work.

Something like a 150 disparate controls systems all made by third party vendors bid against one another are slapped together by the manufacturer to make it all work and as Jim says - they dont talk to one another

You are correct - several vendors make the parts and even do the engineering to certain extent.....but The automaker is ultimately responsible because they set the specs and how it all works. I spent several years in GM engineering and it was very clear that we "own" the entire car but at the same time we held suppliers accountable for their work if it did not meet the spec we made. You are correct that all the different suppliers do not talk to each other - the are all building to a spec and design the automaker gave them. The automaker has to validate that everything works together as designed....and that does not always turn out the best as you can tell by recalls and TSB's and such.

 

[bdcardinal]

It sounds like maybe when farming out work that they should have made common requirements for updating firmware. Reading between the lines and knowing a little about firmware development it sounds like many of the modules have their own unique method of updating firmware and it maybe doesn't easily lend itself to using Fords OTA update methods. There in lies the problem of getting all the firmware changed so it is compatible.

Ford's new FDRS diag system that replaced the IDS can brick modules without even trying to do an update. We have had techs take 8+ hours to update a module only to have the system brick the module. Of course the techs don't get to flag all of that lost time. At least on a Saturday the system is slightly faster since less dealers are open.