|
|
|
|
 |
TonyEX
 |
|
Blue Tooth? Come on....
Home Link? Gimme a break...
Why not put the electronics budget into a Bosch CAN bus to multiplex the vehicle's electronics instead and offer a universal CAN interface attachement for radios, stereos, plug in phones, etc..... At the very least, the CAN bus would be useful accross the entire Honda car line up and would save mucho bucks on weight, wiring and retooling.
And the money saved could go into an in vehicle 801.11g wireless lan....
No, this Bluetooth business is just a waste of money. Yes, it makes sense to have sometype of interface between the user's phone and the in car system to provide the a hands free system (read: safety) but the technology is not ready for primetime, nevermind being cast into stone in a car.
How easy will it be to swap Bluetooth for whatever technology comes along five years from now? At least, if Honda would work on a CAN bus interface, that could become a simple plug and play interface module.
|
MaxRC
|
|
The Bosche CAN is only one way to manage a vehicle's computerized systems, it is not necessarily better than Honda's current implementation in either performance or cost. And if I remember correctly, it is German automobiles that have significant electrical problems.
801.11g is just now getting on to the market for desktop and mobile computers. Using it would mean vehicle owners will need to learn the basics of network administration. Try explaining sub-net masks, 128-bit strong encryption, firewall, and port blocking to the average car buyer who complains about VCRs being difficult to program.
The irony is that you are recommending a complex technology over Bluetooth, something that is designed for the average consumer, with simple setup and usage. Bluetooth is a mature technology that is steadily growing in adoption. Other than infrared, there is currently no other personal area wireless networking protocol with its ease of usage.
Why the heck do you need 54Mbps 300-ft wireless LAN connectivity inside a frigging car anyway?
And do you really think many people worry about the technology built into their cars after 5 years? Who is going to cry that their car doesn't have some new and emerging techology in 2008? Heck, do car makers add accessory offerings 5 years after their car's release?
One last thing, my parents use HomeLink in their Accord and TL-S daily to open their garage door.
Last edited by MaxRC on 09-02-2003 16:22
|
TonyEX
|
|
Here it comes.... Embedded CS 563
Hmm..... I've used the Bosch CAN in an unmanned helicopter scout vehicle. It is an excellent alternative to the 1553 bus and quite more robust than ethernet. Do not confuse the data communication busses with other parts of the vehicle.
In an automotive environment, there's tons of point to point wiring and lots of vehicle exclusive hardware with the concomitent firmware interfaces. By going to a hardened multiplexing bus with redundant sides (A and B), manufacturers can offset the cost of additional non recurring R&D by weight losses, lower manufacturing expenses and leverage of electronic boxes and embedded software.
Furthermore, but utilizing new best of breed technologies, manufacturers can also provide at real low cost new solutions.
And of course, by going to an industry standard, a manufacturer can get lower costs from it second tier suppliers as well.... Imagine if Honda wanted to use optical interfaces instead of electrical ones.... Now imagine the opposite, if Honda, Toyota and BMW all used the same electrical interface and the same vxWorks automotive RTOS, they could go buy driver and firmware modules in the open market.... -not from Microsoft obviously.
So, yes, you can have you cake and eat it too... vehicles can share instrument panels, ABSs and ECU systems. The wiring accross the entire vehicle can be simplified and additional features such as vehicle stability, head up displays etc can be added at reasonable cost.
Lastly, cabin stuff such as phone and audio interfaces can be provided in simple plug in bridging modules.
Now.... what part of this don't you understand?
You see, I advocate technology in a car that makes sense in a car. 801.11g was a stab at bluetooth. Which btw sucks big time and has lost lots of support in the last few years.
And, when your parents go sell their cars, they better remember to disable their homelinks.... I never program mine because I feel that those cheap $20 remotes can be carried with me from car to car.
Besides, before you quote me ethernet switching and IP port blocking you might want to brush up with Douglas E. Commer's Internetworking with TCP/IP. A book I got on my desk right now. You see, a properly done IP installation using DHCP requires none of that.
The only reason why my 801.11b notepads at home use static IP addresses is because my Cisco Aironet base is set up strictly as an access point into my wired LAN. From there I run my own switches and router. But most people don't run a mini ISP at home like I do.
So, if you still insist in telling me that that ancient bluetooth is a viable alternative to 802.11x in anyting other than COST, I'll go dreg my old Cisco employee options from the bottom of the Marianas Trench and I'll throw them at you.
BTW: 54 mbps in a vehicle? How about video streaming to portable video devices? Such as kids watching video from an on board satellite TV tuner? You need more than 22 mbps if you are trying to do two HDTV channels simultaneously.
MaxRC wrote:
The Bosche CAN is only one way to manage a vehicle's computerized systems, it is not necessarily better than Honda's current implementation in either performance or cost. And if I remember correctly, it is German automobiles that have significant electrical problems.
801.11g is just now getting on to the market for desktop and mobile computers. Using it would mean vehicle owners will need to learn the basics of network administration. Try explaining sub-net masks, 128-bit strong encryption, firewall, and port blocking to the average car buyer who complains about VCRs being difficult to program.
The irony is that you are recommending a complex technology over Bluetooth, something that is designed for the average consumer, with simple setup and usage. Bluetooth is a mature technology that is steadily growing in adoption. Other than infrared, there is currently no other personal area wireless networking protocol with its ease of usage.
Why the heck do you need 54Mbps 300-ft wireless LAN connectivity inside a frigging car anyway?
And do you really think many people worry about the technology built into their cars after 5 years? Who is going to cry that their car doesn't have some new and emerging techology in 2008? Heck, do car makers add accessory offerings 5 years after their car's release?
One last thing, my parents use HomeLink in their Accord and TL-S daily to open their garage door.
|
Last edited by TonyEX on 09-02-2003 17:08
|
Jonavin
|
|
OK, how many 802.11x phones can I buy? How do I set it up so I can walk into the car and have my hands-free ready to go without pressing any buttons or taking my phone out of the briefcase?
Bluetooth is designed for this purpose. Low power, simple setup and low costs. I'm not sure what "has lost a lot of support" means, because there isn't any viable alternatives out there. Do not compare it to 802.11b or g, it's not designed for the same purpose.
|
TonyEX
|
|
When Bluetooth and 802.11x were promulgated about six years ago, both systems were being sold to the same market: wireless computing.
The 802.11x camp has won the war. Now the Bluetooth is saying that they were not in the same running? Give me a break, that's just a spin.
I was in the thick of it at the time, trying to set up a wireless LAN.
Besides, if you read my posts, you'll note that I'm talking about putting technology to count in a car. Not discussing what is the best technology for a cell phone. Hell, in my own area, I just want my phone to WORK, nevermind foo foo stuff like internet access nor wireless connectivity. I can't even call my wife when she's down the store a mile from my house.
I promulgate putting technology to work on the basics first, and not wasting money on unneeded or extranous applications for the sake of it.
So. READ MY POSTS before you go off the xhandle.
Thanks
Jonavin wrote:
OK, how many 802.11x phones can I buy? How do I set it up so I can walk into the car and have my hands-free ready to go without pressing any buttons or taking my phone out of the briefcase?
Bluetooth is designed for this purpose. Low power, simple setup and low costs. I'm not sure what "has lost a lot of support" means, because there isn't any viable alternatives out there. Do not compare it to 802.11b or g, it's not designed for the same purpose.
|
|
MaxRC
|
|
Here it comes.... Embedded CS 563
What's that?
Hmm..... I've used the Bosch CAN in an unmanned helicopter scout vehicle. It is an excellent alternative to the 1553 bus and quite more robust than ethernet. Do not confuse the data communication busses with other parts of the vehicle.
Different and better are different concepts and where one is better than the other depend on usage. I don't think ethernet has the same intended use as 1553 and Bosch CAN.
In an automotive environment, there's tons of point to point wiring and lots of vehicle exclusive hardware with the concomitent firmware interfaces. By going to a hardened multiplexing bus with redundant sides (A and B), manufacturers can offset the cost of additional non recurring R&D by weight losses, lower manufacturing expenses and leverage of electronic boxes and embedded software.
Furthermore, but utilizing new best of breed technologies, manufacturers can also provide at real low cost new solutions.
"New best of breed" and "real low cost" would appear to be contradictory. When it came to my home wireless LAN, for example, "new best of breed" meant 802.11g, but "real low cost" steered me towards 802.11b. Also, car manufacturers, especially Honda, want mature technologies that have gained wide usage so that issues are well known and their risks mititaged. I don't know if Bosch CAN is ir is not such a technology, but "New best of breed" technologies are almost never used for mission critical designs, especially when a suitable tried-and-true solution is available. And how is integration of a Bosch CAN system non-recurrent? There is nothing special about the Bosch CAN that make it inherently non-recurrent, nor is there anything about 1553 that makes it recurrent. Between 1553 and Bosch CAN, reuse depends on modularity of designs used, not the technology itself.
And of course, by going to an industry standard, a manufacturer can get lower costs from it second tier suppliers as well.... Imagine if Honda wanted to use optical interfaces instead of electrical ones....
I have no idea what communications technique Honda uses, and I am not sure if Bosch CAN qualifies as an industry standard either. In the large scheme of things, the communications channel standard used is a rather small part.
Now imagine the opposite, if Honda, Toyota and BMW all used the same electrical interface and the same vxWorks automotive RTOS, they could go buy driver and firmware modules in the open market.... -not from Microsoft obviously.
If on something as simple as headlight bulbs the companies use such vastly different designs, what makes you think they are going to standardize on more complex hardware? Each of these companies make vehicles in sufficient quantities such that they can realize economies of scale on their own, so cost is not an issue. If anything, it makes sense for large automotive manufacturers to resist standardization so as to deny lower volume automakers of cost savings.
So, yes, you can have you cake and eat it too... vehicles can share instrument panels, ABSs and ECU systems. The wiring accross the entire vehicle can be simplified and additional features such as vehicle stability, head up displays etc can be added at reasonable cost.
Outsourcing already happens. If I remember correctly, the instrument cluster in the '98 Accord is made by Ford, or the same company that makes clusters for Ford. I assure you, the mechanical engineering and artistic design setup costs between an Accord cluster and a Ford cluster far dwarves the electrical engineering costs for the communications interface. This applies to other vehicle designs as well. Does the Accord share the same ABS design as the Civic? If not, why?
Lastly, cabin stuff such as phone and audio interfaces can be provided in simple plug in bridging modules.
They currently can't? They don't doesn't mean they can't. And bluetooth is a wireless phone technology that is available for use *TODAY*. What other wireless phone and audio solution is available?
Now.... what part of this don't you understand?
You see, I advocate technology in a car that makes sense in a car. 801.11g was a stab at bluetooth. Which btw sucks big time and has lost lots of support in the last few years.
Yea, especially with all the PDAs, cell phones, wireless headsets, and computer peripherals and what not that were introduced in the last couple of years.
And, when your parents go sell their cars, they better remember to disable their homelinks.... I never program mine because I feel that those cheap $20 remotes can be carried with me from car to car.
Those cheap remotes at worse rattles in the map pockets and at worst take up space that could otherwise be used to hold gum wrappers and leaking ink pens. The HomeLink system never needs a battery change, and offers superior range. Both of their cars have HomeLink so there is no remote to carry around.
Besides, before you quote me ethernet switching and IP port blocking you might want to brush up with Douglas E. Commer's Internetworking with TCP/IP. A book I got on my desk right now. You see, a properly done IP installation using DHCP requires none of that.
The only reason why my 801.11b notepads at home use static IP addresses is because my Cisco Aironet base is set up strictly as an access point into my wired LAN. From there I run my own switches and router. But most people don't run a mini ISP at home like I do.
So, if you still insist in telling me that that ancient bluetooth is a viable alternative to 802.11x in anyting other than COST, I'll go dreg my old Cisco employee options from the bottom of the Marianas Trench and I'll throw them at you.
Who the heck said bluetooth is a viable alternative to 802.11x? Have I not been saying that these are two different things and therefore are not substitutes for each other. It is *YOU* that said 802.11g is a viable substitute for Bluetooth, which is a laughable proposition at best. You still have not addressed the issue of complexity associated with using 802.11x. You and I may be comfortable configuring an 802.11x access point but other people are not. 802.11x was designed to offer a 600-feet diameter bubble of high speed LAN access. Bluetooth, on the otherhand, is a personal area network solution that is far easier to setup and use.
BTW: 54 mbps in a vehicle? How about video streaming to portable video devices? Such as kids watching video from an on board satellite TV tuner? You need more than 22 mbps if you are trying to do two HDTV channels simultaneously.
Show me a portable video device accepting 802.11g video streaming. What purpose would such a device serve outside of the car to necessitate portability? How much is that thing going to cost? And why the heck do you heed HDTV definition on a portable device? Satellite TV in a car sounds like a dream, but it's not going to happen until they put up some really really powerful satellites that wouldn't necessitate a perfectly aimed dish for reception.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
