Cost Effective Updating of Software in Cars From IVIs, TCUs and Domain Controllers to the Entire Vehicle White Paper
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Cost Effective Updating of Software in Cars From IVIs, TCUs and Domain Controllers to the Entire Vehicle White Paper Published February 2015
Copyright© 1999-2015 Redbend. All Rights Reserved. This Software is the property of Red Bend® Ltd. and contains trade secrets, know-how, confidential information and other intellectual property of Red Bend Ltd. Red Bend®, Redbend™, and other Redbend names, as well as the Redbend Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Red Bend® Ltd. All other names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. The Products contain components owned by third parties. Copyright notices and terms under which such components are licensed can be found at the following URL, and are hereby incorporated by reference: www2.redbend.com/legal_notices.pdf Patents: www2.redbend.com/patents.pdf
White Paper
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4
2 Warranty Claims and Recalls .............................................................................................. 4
3 Technology Considerations to Cut Costs.............................................................................. 5
4 Getting the Smallest Update File Possible – Delta vs. Compression ...................................... 7
5 Real-life Delta vs. Compression Test ................................................................................... 7
6 Delta vs. Delta.................................................................................................................... 8
7 Conclusion and What’s Next? ............................................................................................. 9
© 2015 Redbend [3 of 9] ConfidentialWhite Paper
1 Introduction
The dramatic increase in the amount of software in cars is creating a sea change in the automotive
industry that will bring more connectivity to the driver’s finger tips and offer new ways for OEMs
and Tier 1s to increase user satisfaction, while at the same time saving money.
As we all know, time equals money. This is especially true in the automotive industry where much
of success criteria are measured in financial terms. Two cost-structures in the automotive market
that are interesting to explore are the financials around warranty claims and recalls and how OTA
software updates can minimize these costs. Today, a software update is used mainly for in-vehicle
infotainment systems (IVIs) and map content. Moving forward, with the advancements being
made in automotive software management, OEMs will soon be able to update all models of a
vehicle in its entirety – from bumper to bumper – with one reliable and efficient software update
campaign. The efficient management of this software allows OEMs to quickly respond to recall
problems and decrease overall warranty costs.
2 Warranty Claims and Recalls
Warranty claims and related costs can impact OEM margins and the overall bottom line. Stout
Risius Ross (SRR), Inc., a premier global advisory firm, analyzed the impact of the warranty claims
on the OEM earnings based on quarterly reports.
The earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for OEMs are
approximately 10 percent, with warranty claims making up almost 2 percent of that – costing
OEMs a significant amount of money. This led SRR to conclude that “Warranty claims represent a
significant component of OEM cost structures and can be significant in relation to vehicle
margins.” This depends of course on the number of cars that are affected by a warranty.
The second major financial burden on the automotive ecosystem is recalls. The National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) database includes information about recalls from all of
the OEMs in the U.S. 2014 showed a record increase in the number of cars affected by recalls with
a whopping 56 million.
© 2015 Redbend [4 of 9] ConfidentialWhite Paper
Cars effected by recalls (in millions)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
There are many reasons for the increase in recalls. The majority of recalls are related to the
complexity of new cars, using one platform for many models and the fact that a single Tier 1
provider can supply the same defective product to many OEMs – like in the case of airbags.
Furthermore, when investigating the root cause of the problems, analysts estimate that about 50
percent of recalls are associated with the growing amount of software in cars.
Relating back to warranty costs – minimizing the amount of recalls can also minimize the warranty
payouts. So, for the OEM, minimizing recalls saves money both with the recall itself and with
associated warranty costs.
3 Technology Considerations to Cut Costs
The potential to save money associated with recalls is much easier to realize if the recall issue is
based in software and not hardware. A software fix can be delivered in one of two ways. The most
common way is for the consumer to bring the car to the dealer for an update. The second way is to
perform the update over the air while the car sits in the driveway, parking lot or wherever it may
be.
There are saving potentials with both options. To save money at the dealer, the time it takes to do
the update needs to be minimized. Currently the OEM pays the dealer in increments of six to 10
minutes for how long the car is in the service bay including time for set-up and post-update
testing. Alternatively, a pure over-the-air update has greater savings potential for the OEM
because the cost to the dealer is taken out of the equation. Furthermore, with an OTA update, the
user experience is greatly heightened because the trip to the dealer and the wait time for the
update are eliminated.
If the update is being done at the dealer, there are still ways OEMs can leverage software
management solutions to cut costs. One factor to consider is the duration of the re-flash process.
This process consists of two main tasks: downloading the new software version from the re-flash
tool to the ECU, IVI, TCU or domain controller, and performing the re-flash activity in the memory.
Both tasks are heavily influenced by the size of the update file. It is clear that the smaller the new
software version file, the shorter the update time and less money the OEM pays the dealer.
The need for the smallest file possible becomes even more crucial realizing that currently the
majority of the ECUs, and other modules in the car, are connected via a CAN bus, a 20-year-old,
field-proven and trusted technology that exists today in every car. Although trusted, this standard
comes with sluggish data rates when the bus is loaded. Below is a table provided by Vector that
summarizes bus rates.
© 2015 Redbend [5 of 9] ConfidentialWhite Paper
The potential to save money associated with recalls is much easier to realize if the recall issue is
based in software and not hardware. A software fix can be delivered in one of two ways. The most
common way is for the consumer to bring the car to the dealer for an update. The second way is to
perform the update over the air while the car sits in the driveway, parking lot or wherever it may
be.
There are saving potentials with both options. To save money at the dealer, the time it takes to do
the update needs to be minimized. Currently the OEM pays the dealer in increments of six to 10
minutes for how long the car is in the service bay including time for set-up and post-update
testing. Alternatively, a pure over-the-air update has greater savings potential for the OEM
because the cost to the dealer is taken out of the equation. Furthermore, with an OTA update, the
user experience is greatly heightened because the trip to the dealer and the wait time for the
update are eliminated.
If the update is being done at the dealer, there are still ways OEMs can leverage software
management solutions to cut costs. One factor to consider is the duration of the re-flash process.
This process consists of two main tasks: downloading the new software version from the re-flash
tool to the ECU, IVI, TCU or domain controller, and performing the re-flash activity in the memory.
Both tasks are heavily influenced by the size of the update file. It is clear that the smaller the new
software version file, the shorter the update time and less money the OEM pays the dealer.
The need for the smallest file possible becomes even more crucial realizing that currently the
majority of the ECUs, and other modules in the car, are connected via a CAN bus, a 20-year-old,
field-proven and trusted technology that exists today in every car. Although trusted, this standard
comes with sluggish data rates when the bus is loaded. Below is a table provided by Vector that
summarizes bus rates.
When sending a large file over the CAN bus in order to re-flash an ECU, TCU or other module, it
takes several minutes to arrive at the module before the re-flash process begins.
© 2015 Redbend [6 of 9] ConfidentialWhite Paper
4 Getting the Smallest Update File Possible –
Delta vs. Compression
There are several methods to reduce the update file size, but the two most notable are
compression and delta (differential) updates. Compression technology eliminates redundant or
unnecessary bytes. Delta technology only sends code that is different between the original version
and the new version. With both technologies the goal is to reduce the number of bytes that are
being delivered to the module, therefore reducing the time for the update and the cost to the
OEM.
5 Real-life Delta vs. Compression Test
Vector, the leading embedded company, worked with Redbend on a proof-of-concept (POC)
testing the efficiency of the delta technology. Vector chose an NXP chipset, which is common in
ECUs – such as the powertrain – and connected it to vFlash via CAN bus. The vFlash functions as
the off-board tester for managing the re-flash process. Vector ran an ECU re-flash three times –
one with a software full image, one with an L277-compressed image and the third using delta
technology combined with Vector’s bootloader.
The efficiency of the delta technology was much greater than the compression technology.
Obviously, in the full image test, the file size did not change and stayed at 4.1MB. Using
compression, the file went from 4.1MB to 2.5MB. Using delta technology, the file went down from
4.1MB 128KB.
The difference in total programming time was also considered. The full download took 215
seconds to program. Compression combined with pipeline – a way to flash and download at the
same time – took 124 seconds. And, using delta technology, the programming time was only 63
seconds.
Further evidence that supports the efficiency of delta technology comes from Dr. Ralf Schmidgall,
who wrote a thesis called “Automotive embedded systems software reprogramming.” In it, he
analyzed the methods of reducing the size of the version when doing software updates. In the
below table Dr. Schmidgall summarized the results of a theoretical case study.
© 2015 Redbend [7 of 9] ConfidentialWhite Paper
It is obvious that the delta technology results in a much smaller file than any method of
compression, and the impact on the update time is dramatic. Even when the speed (0.1 sec Versus
4127 sec) of the CAN bus is increased to 1000Kbit/sec, advantages of delta technology are clear.
In his summary Dr. Schmidgall wrote: “Differential file update provides the best theoretical results
of all researched approaches. If the increase of ECU software sizes continues in future, this
approach might be the only sustainable one to solve the problem of increasing reprogramming
times.”
6 Delta vs. Delta
Now that the overwhelming benefits of delta technology have been demonstrated, the next step is
to compare available delta solutions.
Several leading OEMs are offering homegrown over-the-air, delta technology-based updates direct
to consumers. One OEM that uses an open-source based delta solution did an internal test of its
own solution versus Redbend’s Smart Delta technology. As noted earlier, the size of the update is
important to minimize the cost of delivery, and in this case, the OEM is paying for the bandwidth
needed to deliver the update, which puts great emphasis on the desire to send the smallest
update file possible, minimizing the OEM’s OPEX.
After comparing the OEM’s homegrown delta technology and Redbend’s Smart Delta technology,
the Redbend solution delivered a delta ten times smaller than the open source solution. Since the
completion of this test, the OEM has replaced its homegrown solution with Redbend’s Smart Delta
technology.
For future OTA update project planning, the following business case may prove useful. It was built
with an OEM, and the following assumptions were made:
• The OEM:
Produces approximately 1 million cars per year.
On average, conducts 4 million software updates per year. Updates take 30 minutes.
• The Dealer:
Charges $100 per hour.
Measures time in 6-minute increments.
Can make a conservative estimate that Redbend’s delta update will reduce update
time by 50 percent.
Should note the number of updates required is increasing five percent per year due
to more recalls, and
© 2015 Redbend [8 of 9] ConfidentialWhite Paper
An average update time is increasing five percent per year due to the increasing
amount of software.
7 Conclusion and What’s Next?
Delta technology is a proven, safe, and cost-effective method for car manufacturers to manage the
car software evolution, and it’s much better than any compression method or other delta
technologies such as open source solutions. Redbend’s Smart Delta technology provides the best
results with up to 95 percent reduction in the file size, together with easy integration and without
interfering with the development process.
Now that the superiority of delta technology has been demonstrated, it is important to look into
the future to see where this will take us. As mentioned previously in this paper, today mostly IVIs
and maps are being updated. It is expected that the cars coming off the production line in 2018
will have a much more comprehensive software management architect, and all software code on
all of the modules in a vehicle will be able to be updated.
The expectation is that automotive OEMs will soon be updating all models of a vehicle in entirety
with one reliable and efficient software update campaign. As software becomes an even more
crucial element of automobiles, so does the ability to model, view and manage all of the software
in the car.
For the first time, all the components in vehicles needing an update, including those with
infotainment systems (IVI), electronic control units (ECUs) and telematics control units (TCUs)
running dissimilar OSs, with different levels of resources, from different suppliers and connected
via different network types (WiFi, cellular, USB, ODB2 and in-vehicle busses), can be updated with
one campaign.
© 2015 Redbend [9 of 9] ConfidentialYou can also read
