Slashdot Log In
Microsoft to Supply Electronics to Formula 1
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:13 PM
from the blue-car-of-death dept.
from the blue-car-of-death dept.
Yooden_Vranx writes "speedtv.com reports that beginning in 2008, Microsoft will be the sole supplier of Engine Control Units to Formula 1. Apparently, moving to a single supplier is part of the FIA's (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) attempts to cut costs.
The article does not clarify whether this cost reduction is enabled by cutting back on tech support, what percentage of the engine's power will be required to run all the 'features' embedded in the device, or whether 'crash' will now refer primarily to software behavior rather than driving incidents."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
engine clippy (Score:5, Funny)
Engine Control Unit: Pressure is rising abnormally in main engine block. Would you like Windows to attempt to fix the problem?
Driver: *OK*
Engine Control Unit:This feature requires the latest service pack from windowsupdate.com. Would you like to download and install?"
Driver: shit.
Will the driver have to press "Start"... (Score:5, Funny)
or, be prompted with dialogs along the lines of "Applying the brakes will cause temporary loss of your vehicle's speed. Are you sure, Y/N?"
Re:Will the driver have to press "Start"... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Windows Genuine Advantage (Score:5, Funny)
You may be a victim of software counterfeiting. This copy of Windows is not genuine and is not eligible to receive all updates and product support from Microsoft.
Click Get Genuine now to get more information and resolve this issue.
Well, there's one good thing (Score:5, Funny)
WGA, anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm telling you... I was entering turn 3, off the throttle for just a 1/1000th of a second, and when I tried to bring the revs back up, the damn car just stopped.
Ok, Mr. Schumacher, please sit tight and give us a moment to check the logs....
We think we've located the issue, Sir. Since you crashed the A car during practice, you're in the backup car. We cloned the race configuration from the computer off the A car to the B car, but we neglected to refresh the hardware/software credentials.
Yes....and...
And...you want we should kick Massa out of his ride so you can finish the qualifying session?
Actually....no. I think I'll just sit here and block the track so nobody else can get in a run
Unfair bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfair bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a little more than usual. In this case, this article was just an excuse to put the words "Microsoft" and "Racing" together so people can dust off their crash and driver jokes they've been preparing since 95. I tend to think of it as a sale. You know, something for the moderators to spend their mod points on.
Parent
Siemens/MES (Score:5, Informative)
FIA boneheads strike again. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FIA boneheads strike again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now imagine everyone is running ECU-OS 1.0 (ignoring all MS jokes for the time being)... The "OS" is exactly the same (i.e. it checksums to the same value) for all, only the various configuration parameters (held in RAM?) vary. Now the scrutineering effort becomes: hook up to ECU ROM, download code (or do a boundary scan), perform checksum. If the checksum isn't right - bang - you're disqualified.
To a lesser extent it will also save the teams some money. Rich teams might currently have 200 engine parameters that they can tweak. Poorer teams might have only been able to afford to develop 50. If everyone gets 100 parameters, it comes down to engineering quality rather than quantity to work out what works best.
Maybe...
Parent
WinCE is impressive in automotive (Score:5, Informative)
So if you think they just jumped into it, well no. They've been there for a long time now. And seem to be doing quite well. This will buy them lots of publicity.
And anyway, safety on F1 cars are multiple times redundant and even if the software fails there is a mechanical framework protecting the driver. The software largely handles monitoring tasks, warnings and such.
Entertainment...not engine control (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has been active in the Automotive sector for quite some time now, and is one of the biggest players in the market. They have a full fledged Automotive Division, and some of their systems based on CE go into Fiat, Volvo and others I dont know. So if you think they just jumped into it, well no.
Far as I can see, Microsoft's only products are "entertainment units" and software for managing the manufacturing end. This wasn't a jump; it was a leap into an empty swimming pool, naked, in the dark, off the high board. This is what I used to refer to as a "Greens Deal"- ie, two honchos on the golf course shake hands on a deal that doesn't make the slightest sense (sample: conglomerate I worked for was not allowed to purchase any LCD panels except HP LCD panels- and we didn't get a very good discount, either.) Someone at F1 shook hands with someone at MS on the golf course, a suitcase of money went to F1 (Bernie Ecclestone NEVER met a dollar he didn't like, despite having billions of them) and as a result, F1 engine technology just took a massive step backwards.
They're not even remotely qualified to make real-time software, much less real-time hardware. When you have an engine with 8-12 cylinders that revs to over 15,000 RPMs and pushes the absolute limit of performance, timing is beyond critical. Race cars are torture on electronics; vibration, temperature, and TONS of electrical interference. MS has never worked on something like this. Ever.
Prediction: MS will try to use all sorts of DSPs and such to do signal processing instead of discreet circuits. The cars will run very poorly- and it will be nearly impossible for the team race engineers to figure out why. That's if the electronics themselves even survive the environment.
Hilarity will ensue, like MS engineers telling teams, "well, why don't you just shield all the wiring and run more grounds?" "Because that would add 50 pounds of weight." "So?" Or..."what do you mean, there's no chassis ground?" "Which part of CARBON FIBER IS NOT CONDUCTIVE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!" I would pay good money to hear tape recordings from Northampton, Maranello, etc...I'd learn all sorts of new swear words.
Two companies that are infinitely more qualified come to mind immediately- Bosch and MOTEC (Magneti Marelli is a little too tied to Ferrari, I think.) 3/4 of the world's auto racing engineers cut their teeth and/or use MOTEC ECUs. Companies like Bosch and MOTEC have engineers that have the necessary signal processing down pat, and they've been doing this stuff for decades. I don't see fresh grads having the skills, nor do I see seasoned engineers as being willing to take a big risk with MS...and F1 isn't the kind of place where you can grab a bunch of programmers and EEs, hand them books about racing electronics, and expect results. Where is MS going to get the talent for this?
Parent
I can hear it now... (Score:5, Funny)
I've tuned race cars. (Score:5, Informative)
Those Engine Control Units need to be bulletproof. And by bulletproof, I mean being able to handle being short circuited, reverse polarity applied, handle vibration, lots of heat, have weird settings applied, and generally being totally mistreated.
There are so many things that can go wrong on an engine, that to troubleshoot a problem you need to have 100% faith in the ECU. I don't mean 99.999%, I really do mean 100%! If there's a tiny little nagging doubt in your mind that the ECU might be at fault, then it throws your faultfinding completely out the window. Most of the time when there's a problem you need to fix it RIGHT NOW, normally this is at the start of a practice session, and the engineers want to get some tuning data for the suspension, the driver wants to practice the track, and every second of downtime means lots of stress for everyone in the team, including the manager and sponsorship guys. If you haven't worked in motorsport you have no idea what stress is all about. It's hardcore.
Why didn't they go with an established manufacturer such as MoTeC or Magneti Marelli? Those guys really know what's what when it comes to making an ECU.
I don't care how much experience or money Microsoft has, making a realtime OS for an ECU is no trivial matter. It's extremely difficult! You can't just whack a desktop OS like Windows CE or linux onto a small computer, things really and truly don't work like that. It will only take a couple of bugs before the engineers in F1 will be tearing their hair out, going on strike, and trying to retrofit their old ECUs into the cars. I really don't think that this idea will fly.
Restart the vehicle, does it crash this time? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Couldn't resist... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Couldn't resist... (Score:5, Informative)
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/ref/scrutiny.html [autosport.com]
Safety is everything for Forumula One. Anything Microsoft writes will get inspected with fine tooth combs, then inspected again just to be sure.
The secondary reason behind their strict protocols is that it heads off cheating. No buried/hidden code that only activates in certain situations.
Parent
Re:What does Microsoft use for embedded systems? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course WinCE (it's their only embedded OS, not counting the XBOX OS and WinXP embedded). The real point of this exercise is to get Microsoft software in *production* automobiles. Technology developed or refined in F1 and other racing leagues often makes its way down to consumer vehicles (antilock brakes, stability control systems, variable valve timing, hydraulic clutch,
Having worked with WinCE, this is a very scary proposition. I'd be terrified of putting it on any device that doesn't have a RESET button (hmm, why do all WinCE phones have reset buttons but Symbian ones don't?). One can only imagine how much they paid the F1 people to "standardize" on a software platform that is individually and independently developed by each team/manufacturer.
Parent
Re:What does Microsoft use for embedded systems? (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, I guess that means it's not their only embedded OS, then, does it?
Even a Republican like me can figure that out...
Parent
Re:Typical Microsoft Behaviour (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, most would be using Open Source drivers etc and the actual application would be closed source (which is GPL-OK).
Even having open source engine management would not be that limiting. It's generally the configurations that are proprietary, rather than the actual control mechanisms.
WinCE (the likely MS choice) only works on a few CPUs and only in certain modes (eg. little endian only). Most F1 engine management are likely using things like MPC5200s running in big endian mode.
This all smells of hoax.
Parent
Re:I just wanna know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But will it use their OS? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is undoubtedly paying a lot of money to do this, probably in the tens of millions plus the engineering time. Formula one is the most expensive sponsorship platform there is.
The benefit to the sport is partly cost but mostly to ensure that the teams own software can be kept within limits. In particular Microsoft can use their trusted computing environment to ensure that the teams only run the homologated code they have submitted to FISA for signing. So after the race there can be no questions as to whether they used driver aids like traction control or remote engine management.
Contrary to assertions an F1 car does need an O/S. It is not like a street car. The engine itself is not the issue, it is the wireless link, the telemetry, the fuel management and so on that is critical.
I could see Microsoft using a stock Windows kernel as a start but I suspect that most of this is going to be about custom coding the system to develop a new breed of O/S.
Parent
The blue screen of death... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent