Cariad

Cariad is the Volkswagen Group’s in-house software division . It was founded in 2020, but since then it has had to deal with: reorganizations, setbacks of assorted types, delays, hiring sprees followed by layoff sprees.

I use their software on a weekly basis driving a VW ID. Buzz. However, I am far from a fanboy. It leaves me unimpressed.

VW CEO Herbert Diess (1958 – ) received a doctorate in mechanical engineering and production technologies in 1987. This does not help with the critical issues facing electric vehicle manufacturing in the 2020s. At one point he seemed to be in a bro-manse with Elon Musk. My suspicion then was that VW wanted software help from Tesla. They didn’t get it.

Now VW is in a relationship with Rivian. It is anything but a bro-manse because one participant is providing a needed service (Rivian), and the other participant (VW) is paying for it. It is referred to as a software joint venture, but joint does not refer to any form of equality in the relationship. Volkswagen is investing up to $5 billion into Rivian. To understand why this is happening, one has to return to Dieselgate, when the Volkswagen Group faced an earth-shattering scandal that led it to commit to one day going all-electric.

This electification meant that the VW Group needed, for lack of a better term, a Tesla-like approach to software and digital technology. Historically, the auto industry trivialized software. It was only used for a few things, like engine management, or driver-facing bits like infotainment and navigation. The components using software were made by different suppliers, with different software standards, and there was no need for this software to communicate with other bits of software. A key term here is piecemeal. It was also old-school, compared to the smartphones and tablets that have now become an integral part of human life.

A piecemeal approach doesn’t work in a world where cars need over-the-air software updates. It doesn’t work when companies need revenue from downloadable features. It doesn’t work when effective EV battery management has to be integrated with DC fast charger and slower home charging systems. It doesn’t work when drivers are dependent on advanced automated driving assistance and, one day, fully autonomous cars.

Today’s electric cars need to be computers on wheels, more than anything else. Volkswagen needs to be great at making computers. The alternative it becomes a car body manufacturer, supplying components for tech companies, or sells its plant and equipment to manufacturers who understand the new manufacturing requirements. Many of these will be located in China.

Almost every legacy automaker has struggled with pivoting their 100-year-old businesses to do this stuff well. (Companies like the recently bankrupt Fisker show the startups aren’t automatically better.)

Issues with software have led to negative reviews of early examples of cars like the Volkswagen ID.3 and ID.4. The key problem here has been the lack of physical buttons, and a reliance on screens that require far too much scrolling, and take attention away from the road. Other problems can be classified as delays. This applies to individual models such as the Porsche Macan EV and Audi Q6 E-Tron.

Even worse, it applies to platforms, such as one for Project Trinity, involving: “a newly developed electronics platform with state-of-the-art software, the simplification of the supply structure, and fully networked and intelligent production at the main plant in Wolfsburg.” Yes, those were VW’s own words. I appreciate the fact that Trinity wants autonomous driving in the volume segment possible starting at Level 2+ but technically ready for Level 4. They claim to want a system based on neural networks, but this would require digital competence that is probably unavailable. In other words, it is just hype. Magically, Trinity gives people time and saves them stress. I am uncertain if they can deliver!

As I have been reading in Wolfgang Münchau’s Kaput: The end of the German miracle (2024), Germany lacks a meaningful digital culture. Thus, I doubt whether they have the internal competence to produce artificial intelligence (AI) real-time (RT) products.

Volkswagen Group has been struggling in three major markets. Despite largish sales, it is a follower in Europe, where Volvo, Renault and now Tesla have been leading the way with respect to EVs. VW has been losing ground in China, where any sensible Chinese purchaser will opt for BYD, Nio or some other domestic manufacturer. It has failed to grow in North America, but thinks it may find salvation with a cute Buzz, and a revamped Scout brand.

It now thinks that delaying the transition to EVs will be to its benefit. I disagree. This will only give other OEMs more time to develop better products. I am thinking especially of BYD, but even companies based outside of China, will have an opportunity to make improvements. Yes, I am thinking especially of the Vietnamese Vinfast.

I have previously attempted to explain why hydrogen based vehicles will not be suitable: the cost of producing green hydrogen, will be too expensive. The electricity needed to split H₂O into H₂ and O₂, could be used to power EVs, without an intermediary. Of course, I suspect that hydrogen manufacturers will want to use black hydrogen, based on methane. It is cheaper, but still a fossil fuel.

The investment from VW will allow Rivian to not only improve its automotive production, but will transform Rivian into an automotive software powerhouse, the go-to company for software components.

Rivian is providing an electrical architecture and computer platform that reduces the number of electronic control units (ECUs) used to control a vehicle from 17 to 7. A zonal architecture cuts 2.5 km of wiring from each vehicle, a 20 kg savings. The key to understanding these reductions, is not to regard the reduction in material costs, but in labour costs, because vehicles can be built faster. Rivian’s key innovation is its electrical architecture. This is what allows a company to update software over the air (OtA). Vehicles cannot just import software from Apple, or Microsoft. They need real-time operating systems (RTOS) that manage thermal dynamics, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and safety systems, as well as another layer related to an infotainment system.

Note: Note: Younger people without a meaningful career path, reading this post may want to investigate real-time computing. Often any programming requires adherence to safety standards, such as DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification is a guideline dealing with the safety of safety-critical software used in certain airborne systems. With those skills in place people should be able to find that there are many work opportunities, and little competition. Robotics is another area where real-time computing is used. Training in this field is usually outside the context of normal computer science subjects. With an RTOS, the processing time is measured in tenths of seconds. This system is time-bound and has a fixed deadline. The processing in this type of system must occur within the specified constraints. Otherwise, This will lead to system failure. Examples: airline traffic control and reservation systems, heart pacemakers, multimedia systems (audio and video), robotics.

Solutions do not involve hiring massive number of programmers, because most programmers will not know what they are doing. Most automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) including GM, Ford, Stellantis and VW Group have repeatedly tried to master software, but ultimately failed to do so. Geely (with Lotus, Polestar and Volvo) has been more successful, as have many of the domestic Chinese brands. Toyota is at the other end of the scale, despite its early adoption of hybrids.

My belief is that the leadership of these OEMs have failed to understand that computer systems differ. Someone who is an expert in databases (sorry, Patrick) probably does not have the background needed to understand real-time systems. Very few people with computer backgrounds have worked with these, let alone managed real-time development environments.

Part of the challenge here is that the OEMs look at Tesla, and see a company that has managed to make large numbers of EVs. What remains hidden is the Tesla Roadster. It was in development from 2003 to 2008, with the first prototypes being officially revealed on 2006-07-19, in Santa Monica, California.

Various Think vehicles were built from 1991 to 2011, under various names. Kewet, later Buddy, produced EVs were produced from 1991 to 2013. Other early EVs were vans. The Citroën Berlingo Electrique, was built from 1998.

The Renault–Nissan–Mitsubishi Alliance was established in 1999, originally between Renault of France and Nissan of Japan, but with Mitsubishi Motors of Japan joining in 2017. It has its headquarters in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The Renault Kangoo EV van was introduced as a prototype in 2008, the Nissan Leaf has been in production since 2010, the Mitsubishi MiEV since 2011. These were the first EVs for ordinary people.

Other manufacturers, looking at the early adapters, including Tesla, believed that the auto industry could easily pivot to batteries, motors and software. Unfortunately, transitioning is hard work. Part of the problem is that press releases don’t align with engineering realities. The age of the auto industry can be debated, but some estimate it is approaching 140 years old. Building EVs not only involves using new technology. There is also a lot of tradition that needs to be eradicated. Sometimes getting rid of something is more difficult than adding something.

Closing remarks: I wondered what sort of EV I would be driving for more than a decade. In 2012, I borrowed/ test drove a Nissan N-200 van, and considered buying an Evalia. It did not appeal to my partner. Neither did the new Citroën Berlingo EV. I also wondered if our first EV would be a Renault Kangoo van. It wasn’t. When the next moment came to consider an EV in 2022, the contenders included a vast number of brands, including a Renault Zöe, Migane and Kangoo. I am happy with Buzz, but see the weaknesses in it.