Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does Toyota never learn?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 mrdave

mrdave
  • New Member

  • 21 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 November 2013 - 10:26

http://www.gizmag.co...-concept/29664/

 

Discuss...



Advertisement

#2 clown

clown
  • Member

  • 168 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 November 2013 - 14:06

Actually they are learning. That's the entire point of concepts and design studies.
It's not like they intend to put it into production.

It's a lot like couture fashion and how people dismissively say "who's going to wear that?".
It's not intended to be worn, it's intended to be a showcase of design.



#3 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 November 2013 - 14:48

You lost me. What isn't Toyota learning? 



#4 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 November 2013 - 15:47

A link and the word "discuss" aren't really a topic except in the laziest possible way are they?



#5 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,645 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 November 2013 - 16:46

I think a branding consultant came in and said "It's not that the Segway is uncool, but not cool enough. Here's what you should do..."



#6 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:30

I assume the OP is linking Toyota's recent experiences with DBW to the "autonomous vehicle" component of the linked concept.

 

My take is - autonomous vehicles will one day be the only game in town and automakers ignore this at their peril. Poorly executed autonomous vehicle technology will no doubt be part of the mix just as we have seen with most advances (eg Toyota runaways).



#7 mrdave

mrdave
  • New Member

  • 21 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:06

Sorry for being lazy. i found the article and other articles about this car conjuring up so many questions, problems etc that i just couldnt put it into words.

 

Someone mentioned the segway when they saw this, which is what came to mind to me too. I have never riden a segway before, however i find them a bizare and scary idea. I find it bizzare as i wouldnt know where to use it. From what i understand most countries have banned them purely because they cant catorgrize them. From that i mean that they feel that its not a car so doesnt belong on the road, and its not suitable on pavements as its too quick and would be dangerous to other pedestrians. I find it scary as the concept of using your "weight" to move a vehicle is a really unrealiable (ask Jimi Heselden the segway creator who died on one). to be fair its not your weight that moves the vehicle (from what i understand) its the angle of the handle bars from the base, which a gyroscope measures and provides power to move the segway.i have seen plenty of youtube footage of people being run over by there segway by leening to far back, to the point where they let go and the segway carries on and runs them over.

 

What i see here in the concept is almost a mark 2 segway. i think that they have probably decided to make a go at producing a road-going segway to finally resolve the segway legality issues, and als tried to oresolve some of the previous safety issues that were apparent on the segway. However what i see is a whole different can of worms with other safety issues. 

 

i do relate my topic subject back to the runaway vehicles (hence the title). At present there has been/still is (delete as appropiate) issues with runaway vehicles. If they are unable to rectify these is does beg the question should they be looking at designing vehicles that use a diiferent method of accelerating and braking a vehicle if the are unable to make a previosly tried and tested system that other manufactures can produce with ease, with no known issues.

 

Refering to autonomous vehicles i feel that they are a brilliant idea, however i feel that the technology isnt quite there yet, and im sceptical about its useage with non autonomous vehicles. (How many times is it the nut behind the wheel that causes the accident.....)



#8 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 16:45

Get used to autonomous vehicles. They will be here a lot faster than you think. By 2020 I ma pretty confident you won't be driving unless you have an old car. And I assume if it is old it will be relegated to a certain lane/time of day because it can't "speak" to other cars.

#9 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 16:46

Get used to autonomous vehicles. They will be here a lot faster than you think. By 2020 I am pretty confident you won't be driving unless you have an old car. And I assume if it is old it will be relegated to a certain lane/time of day because it can't "speak" to other cars.

#10 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,382 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 08 November 2013 - 17:39

Get used to autonomous vehicles. They will be here a lot faster than you think. By 2020 I am pretty confident you won't be driving unless you have an old car. And I assume if it is old it will be relegated to a certain lane/time of day because it can't "speak" to other cars.

Really?  By 2020?  That's in 7 years time.  No-one even has a working production or pre-production model yet, just prototypes that may or may not work, after a fashion.  Nor is there any of the infrastructure or legislation to allow them to work in everyday life.  I am pretty confident that they won't have autonomous vehicles by 2020.  Maybe by 2120.



#11 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,645 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 November 2013 - 18:06

We won't have legislation before 2020...



#12 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 18:24

There are working prototypes. It may depend on semantics of what you mean is autonomous and what the car industry consider autonomous. If I get on to an on ramp and let my car drive down the freeway that is autonomous driving. If your definition is plug in an address to your GPS and your car goes there that is autonomous also. So is your definition like mine or is it different?

#13 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 18:53

Get used to autonomous vehicles. They will be here a lot faster than you think. By 2020 I am pretty confident you won't be driving unless you have an old car. And I assume if it is old it will be relegated to a certain lane/time of day because it can't "speak" to other cars.

There's no way it'll move that far that fast. By 2020 hopefully fully autonomous cars ("door-to-door") will be available for purchase, but it will probably be only a few, very expensive, models. I know some other parts of the world have a higher turnover rate than here in the US (ie, average age of cars on the road is lower), but here it'll take 10-15 years after that before even half the cars on the road are autonomous. Restricted lanes for human drivers could eventually happen, but time limits never. You can't pass a law that says "if you can't afford a car newer than x years, you can't drive to work between 7 and 9".

 

Really?  By 2020?  That's in 7 years time.  No-one even has a working production or pre-production model yet, just prototypes that may or may not work, after a fashion.  Nor is there any of the infrastructure or legislation to allow them to work in everyday life.  I am pretty confident that they won't have autonomous vehicles by 2020.  Maybe by 2120.

The prototypes work extremely well and predictions are that they will be in production by 2020. Legislation is a tricky matter, but there are no infrastructure changes needed.



#14 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 November 2013 - 20:41

When autonomous arrives, I expect the OEs who don't have it will be able to buy it third-party.The OEs are gradually losing the ability to do anything on their own. 



#15 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,611 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:11

You have lost me. What the hell does a trike have to do with real transport? And the practicality of the concept leaves me amazed. They might be ok on a smooth road in dry conditions. But bumpy patched and broken roads? Yet alone in heavy rain. Which even most bikers avoid like the plague. Another totally impractical concept in the real world.
How do you carry a family, or your shopping. Yet alone tow a trailer?

#16 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:40

Considering how often I drive without any of those things, I'm not sure those are concerns unless you have only one vehicle.

#17 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:35

The Toyota may be a bizarro-world concept, but that's what concepts are for.

 

Sometimes weird stuff does actually happen. Like the BMW C1, which was actually built and sold

 

BMW-C1-Bond-Street-2000-01.jpg


Edited by indigoid, 09 November 2013 - 04:36.


#18 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:20

A few years back, I worked for a company that designed and built pre-production prototypes and concept cars for the big OEMs like Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, etc.  I recall one concept car project I worked on for Ford. It was an "art car" designed by Ford's chief stylist at the time J. Mays.  It was called the "MOCA" project, because it ended up being hung on the wall of the L.A. Museum Of Contemporary Art.  I was told the budget provided by Ford for the project was almost $2M.  There were even special color coordinated tires made by Michelin for the project.

 

In reality, the car was just a silly art project that only served to satisfy the ego of J. Mays.



#19 mrdave

mrdave
  • New Member

  • 21 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:54

Get used to autonomous vehicles. They will be here a lot faster than you think. By 2020 I am pretty confident you won't be driving unless you have an old car. And I assume if it is old it will be relegated to a certain lane/time of day because it can't "speak" to other cars.

Im sure the will be her very soon . the leaps and bounds that are being mage by the google driverless car http://en.wikipedia...._driverless_car and challenges like this http://en.wikipedia....omous_Challenge Im sure that its only a matter of time.

 

Considering how often I drive without any of those things, I'm not sure those are concerns unless you have only one vehicle.

But most people try to own as few vehicles as possible (unless your Jay Leno), so they purchase a car that covers most of tasks they are likely to need a vehicle for (shopping, comuting etc)

 

The Toyota may be a bizarro-world concept, but that's what concepts are for.

 

Sometimes weird stuff does actually happen. Like the BMW C1, which was actually built and sold

I quite liked this concept vehicle. My understanding is that the main difference between this and any other vehicle is that it has a roof. I believe the reason for this was for safety- in the event over a roll over situation it would better protect the rider. It made so much sense that they made it and i under stand that. I dont mind if a future production car takes influence from a concept vehicle (like the jag c-x75 http://en.wikipedia....ki/Jaguar_C-X75), But when it comes to egotistic works of art i fail to see the point of the time, effort and money consumed in producing them.



Advertisement

#20 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,382 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 09 November 2013 - 18:36

There are working prototypes. It may depend on semantics of what you mean is autonomous and what the car industry consider autonomous. If I get on to an on ramp and let my car drive down the freeway that is autonomous driving. If your definition is plug in an address to your GPS and your car goes there that is autonomous also. So is your definition like mine or is it different?

It doesn't really matter what the exact definition is, we are talking about a car that drives itself in some way.  I do not think that people are ready for that or even want it.  And I doubt if legislators are ready for it either.  Lawyers will be rubbing their hands of course at the prospect of the sort of suits and claims that it will produce, but that's lawyers for you.

 

The technology had existed for some time to have pilotless aircraft, but apart from unmanned drones & cruise missiles, there has been no enthusiasm for this.  Would anyone want to travel on an autonomous airliner?  On the other hand, the Docklands Light Railway in East London has been autonomous and driverless from the outset (as are other metro systems world wide) and have suffered no customer reluctance AFAIK.



#21 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:02

The ideological aversion to autonomously piloted vehicles is wholly irrational assuming they can be made significantly safer overall than the status quo. Not that humans were ever rational.



#22 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:36

The ideological aversion to autonomously piloted vehicles is wholly irrational assuming they can be made significantly safer overall than the status quo. Not that humans were ever rational.

 

Hmm, what a fascinating way to put it.

 

I think people picture robots attempting to drive like humans--that is, in a highly complex and unpatterned manner. I foresee a much more rigid system with a limited rule set. -- like automated forklifts in a warehouse. And they will still get there faster. 



#23 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 November 2013 - 05:13

 But most people try to own as few vehicles as possible (unless your Jay Leno), so they purchase a car that covers most of tasks they imagine they are likely to need a vehicle for (shopping, comuting etc)
 

Fixed that for you.

#24 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,645 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:27

The ideological aversion to autonomously piloted vehicles is wholly irrational assuming they can be made significantly safer overall than the status quo. Not that humans were ever rational.

 

For me it's that I prefer to drive than be driven. A multi-hour drive on the highway is hardly stimulating, but it's even more boring in the passenger seat.



#25 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,994 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 November 2013 - 14:12

I hate concepts with no basis in reality. Like.. who the **** stands up without handle bars and drive.. we have never had that ever. Only place people stand is on boats because those moves around alot. But even there when they get proper sea they buckle up or grab something.

 

Its also completely unsafe. Yes concepts are perhaps just shit trown out to stimulate for other ideas but lets not work on bad ideas to begin with, its just an derailment. The only close thing to this is powered skateboards. I own a skateboard and i feel uncomfortable going above speeds im able to run in. Its primarily a toy and a short distance, low speed transportation replacement for bikes, for a few. Not a suitable transport for the masses.

 

This is longboards.. skateboards made for speeds. much more "stable"


Edited by MatsNorway, 10 November 2013 - 14:35.


#26 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 10 November 2013 - 14:53

For me it's that I prefer to drive than be driven. A multi-hour drive on the highway is hardly stimulating, but it's even more boring in the passenger seat.

 

 I expect that for your lifetime you will usually have that choice. 



#27 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 November 2013 - 15:38

I suspect the majority of daily trips are non multi-hour affairs but the usual trip to work and back home and similar.

#28 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,645 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 November 2013 - 16:43

 I expect that for your lifetime you will usually have that choice. 

 

I concur, even at my age and health level.

 

I don't mind being a passenger, I always liked living in cities with mass transit. But for whatever reason I can't read a paper/nap/whatever in a car with any success.



#29 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 10 November 2013 - 18:47

 Would anyone want to travel on an autonomous airliner? 

 

The average passenger flight has the pilot at the controls for three minutes.

 

http://www.theatlant...getting/309516/

 

And a lot can go wrong in those three minutes, at least anecdotally although passenger crash data are thankfully essentially anecdotal.



#30 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,382 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 10 November 2013 - 19:17

The average passenger flight has the pilot at the controls for three minutes.

I rather hope that there is at least one pilot at the controls for the entire flight, even if they may not be actively manipulating them!

 

And a lot can go wrong in those three minutes, at least anecdotally although passenger crash data are thankfully essentially anecdotal.

Of course most air crashes are pilot error.  But what aren't recorded as assiduously are all the occasions where the flight crew prevent an accident or minimise the situation. Some are recorded - flight US1549 being landed in the Hudson for instance.  No autonomous control system would have managed that miraculous escape, I suspect.  Or flight BA38 at Heathrow.  An autonomous controller would have put that into the Hatton Cross buildings.



#31 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 19:46

@BRG

While human element is a weak link, it does however tend to make a positive difference. However, it will all boil down to how much sweetener (contributions :p) is used for politicians to allow this to happen, i.e., only autonomous vehicles during a certain time of the day. It is easy to do this in certain US cities. Maps are up to date for the most part, GPS works and blah blah blah... so technically speaking it should be feasible very shortly. 2020 sounds plausible to be honest. Will people resist is another matter... it will possibly boil down to how it is sold to you.


Edited by garagetinkerer, 10 November 2013 - 19:46.


#32 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,611 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 21:43

The Toyota may be a bizarro-world concept, but that's what concepts are for.
 
Sometimes weird stuff does actually happen. Like the BMW C1, which was actually built and sold
 
BMW-C1-Bond-Street-2000-01.jpg

That is a top heavy motor scooter. The body work will sometimes trap the rider when it falls over. And with that body work it would be often. Cross winds and oncoming trucks would blow it over.

#33 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,466 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 10 November 2013 - 21:53

Whatever the virtues and vices of the concept, drivel like the following guarantees I'll never read gizmag "Toyota's already bold pursuit of new vistas in the realm of personal transportation took another quantum leap forward today".Big hint supposedly technical guys, a quantum leap is the smallest change in state a quantised system can make.

 

As to the concept itself, a one person trike that takes up a full car lane doesn't tick many boxes, although i suppose it is large enough that the human drivers around it will probably see it and not accidently smash into it. Looks like it would be a hoot to mess around on.

 

As to show cars, they are dull to work on, pointless and expensive and instantly forgettable as engineering achievements (but that is not their purpose, in fact if J Mays car is on permanent display outside of a car museum it has succeeded). The Chevrolet Indy actually had fully functional active suspension, a twin turbo V8, 6 inches of sound insulation (I put that in) and all sorts of gee whiz technology. That 3 car program would have cost millions when millions were real money. I expect you can google a picture of it, but did it really pay for itself in publicity? http://blog.hemmings...-corvette-indy/ turns up oddly enough, written two months ago.



#34 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 11 November 2013 - 21:18

I think you will have to copy and paste but a car insurance survey on autonomous cars embedded in an Autoblog story. I think one thing I ma most excited about is the chance for cars to "talk" with local traffic signals and signs, also the chance to avoid T-bone accidents in intersections if cars are talking to each other in the vicinity of each other. You can read about a large scale test being done in Ann Arbor Michigan right now if you Google it.

http://www.autoblog....-car/#continued

#35 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 November 2013 - 23:14

That is a top heavy motor scooter. The body work will sometimes trap the rider when it falls over. And with that body work it would be often. Cross winds and oncoming trucks would blow it over.

What scooter?



#36 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,611 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 November 2013 - 23:07

What scooter?

I was going to add that the luscious young lady did detract from the sales pitch. Though unfortunately they tend to ride the stupid things dressed like that, or even less. With a helmet ofcourse to destroy the nice hairstyle!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 12 November 2013 - 23:08.


#37 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:52

For me it's that I prefer to drive than be driven. A multi-hour drive on the highway is hardly stimulating, but it's even more boring in the passenger seat.

I expect the seating arrangement to change once autonomous cars take hold, and humans realize that there is no reason to even have someone "ready to take control" of the car.  At that point, there is no reason why people have to sit in cramped confines facing forward, and be limited in what they can comfortably do during a car ride.



#38 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:37

Sleeping or just relaxing with a drink on a long road trip sounds pretty nice to me.



#39 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 November 2013 - 06:40

Yep - and you won't even need to wear a seat belt once all vehicles are autonomous.



Advertisement

#40 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:39

 

As to show cars, they are dull to work on, pointless and expensive and instantly forgettable as engineering achievements (but that is not their purpose, in fact if J Mays car is on permanent display outside of a car museum it has succeeded). The Chevrolet Indy actually had fully functional active suspension, a twin turbo V8, 6 inches of sound insulation (I put that in) and all sorts of gee whiz technology. That 3 car program would have cost millions when millions were real money. I expect you can google a picture of it, but did it really pay for itself in publicity? http://blog.hemmings...-corvette-indy/ turns up oddly enough, written two months ago.

 

So THAT's where the XJ220 designers came from. Interesting



#41 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,645 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:35

Yep - and you won't even need to wear a seat belt once all vehicles are autonomous.

 

I'd like to have the option. I know computers and parts never fail, but I'm conspiracy-level paranoid.



#42 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 November 2013 - 13:37

I'd like to have the option. I know computers and parts never fail, but I'm conspiracy-level paranoid.

 

Any serious conspiracy theorist would use public transport. The Illuminati, Freemasons, etc surely can't target all of you at once...


Edited by indigoid, 13 November 2013 - 13:40.


#43 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,466 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 November 2013 - 21:52

Well I had some fun yesterday. I went to the OpenXC training day. First of all I'd say the google android SDK is pretty damn awesome.

 

Anyway so having written your openXC app on your laptop (easy) tested it on the android emulator (very easy) downloaded it to your android/bluetooth device (at this point my hardware failed as I can't find usb drivers for my generic tablet and it doesn't have bluetooth), then plug the bluetooth dongly thing into the canbus, and then watch as your app picks up all sorts of canbus data.

 

Then we did the secret squirrel bit and learnt how to access the rest of the canbus. Including write mode.

 

So, I can fit a $100 bluetooth dongle to your car and control the throttle from my phone, if I'm in range. I think at this point the tin foil hat boys better start walking, or at least epoxying their canbus sockets up.



#44 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 November 2013 - 23:33

 

Then we did the secret squirrel bit and learnt how to access the rest of the canbus. Including write mode.

 

So, I can fit a $100 bluetooth dongle to your car and control the throttle from my phone, if I'm in range. I think at this point the tin foil hat boys better start walking, or at least epoxying their canbus sockets up.

 

Secret squirrel as in signing NDAs? Sounds interesting, anyway.

 

The manufacturers seem to have their own private standards (OBD-II PIDs?) for diags/control. But there seems to be at least a basic set of standardised items.

 

I will be poking at my bike as soon as I can figure out which of the diag connector pins are CANH/CANL. Non-standard OBD connector, of course. *facepalm*



#45 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 November 2013 - 23:57

 

I quite liked this concept vehicle. My understanding is that the main difference between this and any other vehicle is that it has a roof. I believe the reason for this was for safety- in the event over a roll over situation it would better protect the rider. 

 

Two-wheelers don't tend to roll over much, though, roof or not. The most common case - a lowside - wouldn't benefit from the roof, and indeed as Lee hinted there's a risk of getting limbs trapped under the vehicle that you may not have in a regular two-wheeler

 

And Lee - one sales dot-point of the C1 was that BMW wanted people to be able to choose to ride sans helmet. Not something I feel particularly comfortable with, even with a skinny roof at the top



#46 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,466 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 November 2013 - 00:21

Secret squirrel as in signing NDAs? Sounds interesting, anyway.

 

The manufacturers seem to have their own private standards (OBD-II PIDs?) for diags/control. But there seems to be at least a basic set of standardised items.

 

I will be poking at my bike as soon as I can figure out which of the diag connector pins are CANH/CANL. Non-standard OBD connector, of course. *facepalm*

Well given I work for the people who write the code, no NDA required, it is implicit in everything we do. Almost every page of my internal wiki is stamped either confidential or secret.

 

Yes, it is up to the manufacturer how to use the CANBUS, and it even varies between model years as well as models. So at the moment you have to burn a patch onto the dongle for the specific make and model of the car.

 

Incidentally you might think you can reverse engineer the mapping. It is possible, but each packet is 70 odd bits long, of which one bit may be "park brake engaged", and the rest are headers or junk or boring network stuff.

 

The dongle does some downsampling for the packets of interest, apparently some cars report SWA at 100 hz, which would overwhelm the bluetooth connection. So it isn't really designed for full on car control, I think the bluetooth can handle 40 or 50 signals, some of which might only be updated at 1 Hz. A high priority is adding some sort of state change (ie don't bother telling me the park brake is off every second, tell me as it is engaged or disengaged) to reduce the network load.



#47 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,382 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 14 November 2013 - 19:54

 

And Lee - one sales dot-point of the C1 was that BMW wanted people to be able to choose to ride sans helmet. Not something I feel particularly comfortable with, even with a skinny roof at the top

IIRC the UK position was that if you didn't wear a helmet, you had to have seatbelts instead.



#48 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:32

Well given I work for the people who write the code, no NDA required, it is implicit in everything we do. Almost every page of my internal wiki is stamped either confidential or secret.

Yes, it is up to the manufacturer how to use the CANBUS, and it even varies between model years as well as models. So at the moment you have to burn a patch onto the dongle for the specific make and model of the car.

Incidentally you might think you can reverse engineer the mapping. It is possible, but each packet is 70 odd bits long, of which one bit may be "park brake engaged", and the rest are headers or junk or boring network stuff.

The dongle does some downsampling for the packets of interest, apparently some cars report SWA at 100 hz, which would overwhelm the bluetooth connection. So it isn't really designed for full on car control, I think the bluetooth can handle 40 or 50 signals, some of which might only be updated at 1 Hz. A high priority is adding some sort of state change (ie don't bother telling me the park brake is off every second, tell me as it is engaged or disengaged) to reduce the network load.


This technology, to a larger degree (understanding that we're talking budget aftermarket) is available to the MegaSquirt community now. The Shadow Dash by Phil Tobin of Tuner Studio / EFI Analytics is a brilliant, programmable dash for Android tablets and MSEFI installs. I was thinking I'd like something connected to the ecu that would allow a great dashboard in certain scenarios and there it was.
http://youtu.be/X7JOLBSakIk

#49 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:03

 

The dongle does some downsampling for the packets of interest, apparently some cars report SWA at 100 hz, which would overwhelm the bluetooth connection. So it isn't really designed for full on car control, I think the bluetooth can handle 40 or 50 signals, some of which might only be updated at 1 Hz. A high priority is adding some sort of state change (ie don't bother telling me the park brake is off every second, tell me as it is engaged or disengaged) to reduce the network load.

 

I'm somewhat baffled re: the choice of Bluetooth over WiFi here. Both transports are pretty cheap, hardware-wise, but with WiFi you could do an Apple iOS app without having to join their very expensive MFI developer program. But it is what it is. Bluetooth does seem to be capable, if you implement the right standards, of 3Mbps throughput - enough for a couple of 0.9Mbps CAN busses. Hopefully someone will do this soon and all the complexity (downsampling, vehicle "patches", etc) can then move into a PC or phone/tablet. I don't see the sense in making the vehicle dongle much more complicated than just a blind CAN<=>{USB,WIFI or BT} bridge - except perhaps a big red toggle switch to limit the traffic flow to one direction only.

 

Anyway it sounds like it was a fun and interesting training day. Jealous!



#50 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,466 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 November 2013 - 00:40

I don't know why they chose Bluetooth for the link for the dongle, but it certainly killed any chance of iOS app, by the time it is encrypted to Apple standard a Bluetooth can only transmit about 20 packets a second.

 

I should get my dongle in a couple of weeks, then all I need is limitless spare time. I'll probably give the whole lot to a spotty faced teenager to play with, it's got to be better than the Xbox.