Adas systems

Adrean from Bakersfield Diagnostician Posted   Latest  
Question
Safety

what am I looking at as far as cost to be able to recalibrate these systems ? anyone Out there In the aftermarket care to share tips on the tooling They are using 

0

Brandon from Bristol

 

Diagnostician
 

Adrean, I don't know much about ADAS yet, however… I have seen something recently put out by Autel. It appears to be fairly impressive and costs in the neighborhood of $15,000. USD If you'd like, I will gladly put you in touch with the gentleman who I've learned information from.

-2

Rick from The Woodlands

 

Diagnostician
 

We are using only OE tools which is a much more expensive route to go but at this point we are doing from a both liability and reliability standpoint. If a system is calibrated and the vehicle is involved in an accident where the ADAS systems can be blamed then the next logical step for an attorney is to go after everyone involved with the prior repair.

Additionally I believe that unless an aftermarket system is approved by a manufacturer we have no way to know if the system is properly setup as many of these systems will not give a code to let us know that the system was not aligned correctly.

HTH

+8

Rick from The Woodlands

 

Diagnostician
 

Here is a vehicle I saw yesterday with ADAS systems. The truck next to it is one of mine....a 1 ton Dodge that isn't small. Look at the cars around it. This vehicle has 24 inch wheels on it which has raised the vehicle 10 inches. Who do you think will be liable when it has an ADAS related accident? The owner reports that the lane keeping is much more sensitive (which she likes) working way harder to keep the vehicle centered in the lane. You have to wonder what is going to happen when an accident occurs that could have been avoided by ADAS. Vehicle is a 2015 Honda Crosstour. When I spoke with the owner they had never even considered the effects raising the would have on the ADAS system. 

+5

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

I think that you should start by reading this goo.gl/f4bQSy

They lost because OE procedures were not followed. In today society, we need to be concerned with liability. If you do an ADAS cal and there is a collision after, you will most likely be sued. Like the John Eagle case, if you have not followed OE procedures, you have no defense. I would suggest using OE tooling and SI

+6

Brandon from Bristol

 

Diagnostician
 

Bob, thank you for the response. I don't work on a DAS systems as of yet. And I couldn't agree with you more, about having OE tooling and proper service information available. I was just simply sharing some information I had heard the other day in a class but didn't realize that it was not a valid substitute. I didn't mean to miss lead anyone

0

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

I too would not suggest using aftermarket tools until the industry catches up and the OE's approve aftermarket tools. 

There are several OE tools that look very similar to each other and can produce a passing result but this should also be avoided for the same reason Bob mentioned as well as not being exactly the same as the OE calls for.

Although I believe these systems do a better job of producing distracted drivers then preventing collisions they need to be handled very carefully.

+2

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

Paul, The idea that no aftermarket tools have been approved by the OEM is 100% false. The OEM specifies aftermarket tools from OTC, Kent Moore, Hunter and probably many more. The OTC "aftermarket" tool that I mentioned earlier is actually technically the OEM tool for Honda, Chrysler, and possibly Nissan (can't confirm Nissan at the moment). You can't honestly tell me that you would buy one of each of these for each manufacturer in order to perform calibrations. moparessentialtools.com/item-detail.as… honda.snapon.com/HondaAcura/Ite… freedomracing.com/adaptive-speed…

As far as my research has taken me I found one forward facing radar unit that I suspect may be the same part number across three car lines that is calibrated three different ways. The first (Honda) uses a static calibration with a tool similar to the one I posted earlier, the other two use the OTC tool I listed above to level the unit but one (Chrysler) uses a dynamic calibration while the other (Nissan) uses a Hunter branded target board. That means a tech or shop could purchase the OTC tool listed above and use a capable scan tool to complete the dynamic calibration on a Jeep. That same tool could also be used on a Nissan in conjunction with a target board: rotunda.service-solutions.com/en-US/Pages/It… to complete the Nissan calibration. To my knowledge the dynamic calibration procedure for the Jeeps (which is a scan tool procedure) is loaded in the Snap On scan tool. I would be willing to bet anyone who says that that procedure should not be carried out with an aftermarket tool is the same tech that would perform an SDM/BCM setup on a GM with a Snap On tool rather than a Tech 2 because its quicker. Is that not the same as far as liability? I doubt that anyone ACTUALLY thinks that 1. if the aftermarket scan tool procedure says it completed and passed on a dynamic calibration that it is not calibrated correctly and 2. that if that same vehicle was calibrated with an aftermarket tool, completed and passed, and was later involved in an accident in which the scan tool was found to have caused the collision that the calibrator would be sued rather than the tool manufacturer. But Back to the Nissan tool did you notice that it is for sale on the Rotunda website? Bizarre right? Zoom in on the photo of the Nissan tool listed on a Ford Rotunda website and you will see a Hunter branded wheel clamp. Who do we sue now? The glass industry is already owned by a few large corporations throughout the US who have begun to train and implement LDW calibrations and procedures and have working models right now. Meanwhile the aftermarket auto repair side has yet to get it together because we are not unified. Even when put in a collective to encourage and help each other we choose discouragement. What do we have to gain by telling each other that reaching for success is not a good choice? Aftermarket tools ARE approved by the OEMs. Many if these tools CAN be used across multiple car lines. So let's help each other learn and conquer this new challenge together!

-3

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

Hi Mike,

Sorry you have misunderstood what I and others mean by Aftermarket.

In general the OE's do not make their own tools. They use companies like Kent Moore, OTC, Hunter, etc and have for decades. 

When I say OE tool I mean the tool listed in the OE's service information regardless of who the OE uses to make it.

When I say aftermarket I mean companies that make tools that may look like and or act like the OE tools but are NOT listed as approved devices by the Automotive Manufacture.

+6

Mike from Mount Pleasant

   

Mobile Technician
   

Has anyone gotten their hands on what's available from Autel yet? I have been buying only oem because that's all I can get my hands on. I would like to point out the precision (or lack there of) in these Honda radar targets. I have no doubt that I could create a version of these just as precise in my garage. I would assume in a courtroom my handmade tool would be measured against a handful of OEM tools and an expert would be called to testify to prove that my tool caused the accident. So who is to say Autel can't make a tool capable of performing the procedures correctly? And I don't think the calibrator would be at fault for using an Autel tool had it not been sufficient. Nissan specifies Hunter tooling for many of their radar calibrations and a handful of manufacturers use this tool made by OTC. freedomracing​.​com/adaptive-speed… The liability as far as a calibrator is concerned is most certainly in following the OE procedure. However what nobody is telling anyone is that most of this calibrations will not allow you to calibrate them incorrectly i.e. having a target in the incorrect position. Yes, there is a liability risk in calibrating these systems but there is the same risk in tires. At some point maybe I will start a post sharing the limited knowledge on which tools are needed for which carlines which is something I have been struggling with/working on. I am currently trying to figure out if the Ford 360 view target which is a Kent Moore tool is the same as the GM if anyone has any insight on that?

-4

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

*However what nobody is telling anyone is that most of this calibrations will not allow you to calibrate them

0

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

*However what nobody is telling everyone is that most of these calibrations will not allow you to calibrate them INcorrectly. Scott, it seems using the greater than and less than characters cuts a post off which I think may be an important function as when being used to express a voltage greater than 5v. Also, the ability to edit post would be great so that I can hide the fact that I am grammatically inept!

-5

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

Hi Mike,

I have to disagree, many of these systems will allow you to show that the calibration has been successful yet the calibration is not correct. I have played with this on a few cars that will produce a passing result but are not correct and would be very dangerous. (of course this was for learning only) 

+10

Jim from Frederick

 

Curriculum Developer
 

Hi Paul,

Could you expand on the specific systems alluded to here? Also, how would they be dangerous? What were the driving behaviors post manipulation? 

The ramifications of errors in specific systems may expand this conversation in a helpful direction it would seem. 

Jim

+2

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

Hi Jim,

I took Randy Briggs ADAS class at Vision. He had a case study by Andrew Gibson where the bracket was bent and the vehicle would activate braking due to on coming traffic. I would call that dangerous.

+5

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

Paul, I have heard of this being done on a LDW system but I would be curious to know how you got it to pass. Assuming you had the targets positioned incorrectly how far off were they and what exactly was the symptom? Most of what I have seen will fail but I have no doubt it can be done wrong. When I was trying to learn these I watched this video of calibrating a lanewatch camera with a smaller printed version. youtube.com/watch?v=UUKKNB… I have tried this and got it to work. Essentially it is using a smaller target placed closer to the camera in order to calibrate it. I'm sure this could be done with a LDW camera as well but I feel like it would be difficult to get it to pass? On a forward facing radar I would assume that the target would have to be moved a significant distance from spec in order to cause a concern? I believe the Nissan/Hunter setup gives a pretty big window of how far the target board can be placed from the radar unit. What I would love to do is be able to pick the brains of the engineers of these systems to understand what measurements are crucial and how they affect the systems. Hopefully that is something that comes out of this network.

0

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

HiYa Mike,

Of the ones I have purposely set up WRONG (for testing) were some Toyota systems, one Mazda and a few Honda's as well - The Toyota I have done both side object and front ACC. Honda's Side object detection as well as messing around with wrong positions of Lane Watch camera. The Mazda was side object detection. 

Most of the inaccuracy's that I can get to complete as passed have to do with the height of the targets, since you set these a good distance from the car height seems to be pretty critical. I have been able to set the height high enough to have smaller cars not detected until your right on them. The side object systems don't seem to be nearly as affected by these "mistakes" but you can get them off enough that someone like yourself will know they are wrong when you drive it (as in the car isn't detected right in the normal blind spot area - too late, too early etc).

It would be fun to take a weekend with a few others, do more testing, But I have determined for myself that it is very important to be as accurate as possible. Peoples lives are at stake and lawyers will eat you up in court if you did it wrong. Pretty easy to prove your wrong when you start it off with the wrong tools. 

One thing I would love to see would be manufactures allow for, or mention more about floor slopes. Many shops I do work for have limited "open" level area's but most seem to have a clear open area right in the middle of the shop which seems rather tempting to try but!!! Of course this is right on top of the floors drains. I would love to be able to park dead center over the drain (so the drain goes length ways down the center of the car) {see attached picture} then compensate the target height for the two floors slope but I know that will never happen. 

If your not visualizing this very well the target for ACC is placed on the center line of a car many are about 10 feet in front of it. If you were to straddle a floor drain the floor in the center would be a lot lower then it would be if the car was on perfectly flat ground. It would not be hard to calculate the height adjustment you would need to make but I think they do not trust us to make these calculations and there is always a possibility that there is more going on in the calibration then we are aware of. This is another reason that even with how difficult it can be to find an ideal spot in these shops we need to make sure they are done as the manufactures want them done. 

Once you start thinking about shop floor slopes towards drains, doors, etc you start to think more and more about critical the actual height of the targets is no matter the style system your working on.

People put WAY too much faith in these systems so we need to do everything we can to get them right.

Hope this helps others think about the exact method, tools, and location that they are using to calibrate these systems.

+6

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

When I was very unfamiliar with ADAS systems reading things like you have posted would scare me away from attempting to perform these calibrations. I could assume that if I had my targets off by a millimeter that I am going to cause a collision that could end people's lives. I absolutely agree that care must be taken and the procedures be performed correctly but in my experience the target positioning must be pretty significantly off to cause an issue. It sounds like you have played around with this more than I have. In your opinion, how much of a mistake do you need to make to calibrate these systems correctly. Are we talking millimeters, inches, or feet? My point is the procedures are written so that a middle school educated dealership technician can perform the procedure and calibrate the vehicle safely. If you take a step back and read this thread pretending that you are unfamiliar with ADAS systems you are likely to run away from them and be afraid.

-3

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

Hi Mike,

With the height it only takes a few inches before you can see an issue, closer to a foot with floor location on SOD but ACC only takes a few inches as well. Anytime I have gotten over a foot or so out they wont even pick up the target unless the mounting surface is not properly placed (another mess that I know you are very familiar with).

This may be a good time to ask others that do this if they have had a hard time with Mazda side object detection systems failing to complete? I have a a few that have been a bit of a battle. Then all the sudden they go for no apparent reason.

+4

Randy from Raleigh

 

Curriculum Developer
 

Paul,

I totally agree that accuracy of target placement is key. Can you elaborate how you determined the degree of inaccuracy and how it manifested in system operation? Was it DTC, warning message or symptom driven?

+2

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

Not DTC's no - all were symptom issues. Some systems may eventually code but those that I was playing with did not during the time I was experimenting. There are however systems that will eventually code when the module(s) determine there is a calibration issue. 

+5

Jim from Frederick

 

Curriculum Developer
 

If I am reading this correctly..... You were able to do it wrong with the manufacturer recommended tools, right? 

0

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

Yes, Keep in mind I was trying to get a passing result and have the system appear to be working properly yet not actually work correctly while using the OE tools. This was to prove to myself how important it is to do these calibrations 100% by the book. 

This was for testing only. The cars were then properly relearned.

+6

Jim from Frederick

 

Curriculum Developer
 

I get it completely. I do think it puts the conversation about tools behind the conversation about process.

I see it much like alignments in that regard. 

Understand the system and the why. The most important tool is still the tech. 

+3

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

You may be right as far as getting a passing result but having the proper approved OE tool has to be the start of doing it correctly. If not then when it goes wrong a lawyer, judge and jury will eat you alive.

+6

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

Thought it might be interesting for some to see a few OE targets so I lined some up and took a picture - these are all OE tools, you can see many are very similar and as you suspect one could substitute another manufactures tool for another and get a passing result. What do you think a court would say if you did though? 

from left to right

Subaru - Hyundai/Kia - Toyota/Lexus - Acura/Honda - Mazda

+7

Jim from Frederick

 

Curriculum Developer
 

Could you give the group the technical variations between the two, seemingly identical radar targets and what rate of error would be induced by using a, vs b? What radar system is used on the vehicles?

0

Paul from Salt Lake City

 

Mobile Technician
 

No not really. The critical point is that when someone dies and you are sued will you be able to show you followed the OE manufactures procedure and used the OE tools? or will you say it doesn't matter what tool I used? 

I have a hard time believing you will walk away without penalty in the later situation. 

And how about simple piece of mind that you did not contribute to the death of anyone.

+7

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

But in your honest opinion from what you have seen the calibration will not be correct when substituting these tools? I get the whole liability credibility portion but it would seem to me irrelevant what took brand you are using as long as the purposeful part of the took is correct. 

You can't really think that because you used the dealer branded took that you are covered under some sort of umbrella. If the calibration is wrong the OEM would likely bus drive you claiming you performed the procedure incorrectly long before an aftermarket company who stands more to lose would wouldn't you agree?

But if you truly think that the calibration would be incorrect than that's another issue. I would love to get my hands on all of those like you have and play around like you have. 

In my opinion the glass shops that are dangling cameras and not recalibrating them and the body shops removing radars and not calibrating them are the obvious ones that may get sued and be liable for injuries in an ADAS failure. 

When many of these calibrations are performed dynamically with a scan tool calibration that can be performed with an Autel or Snap on tool that a shop already owns it seems like a no brainer.

-12

Matt from Jordan

 

Mobile Technician
 

I'm not sure why you arguing this point. The OEM si states to use a specific tool part number and specific scantool. Why screw around and use the wrong tool? If your business model does not support using the correct tooling than you should not be doing the jobs. Someone's life is in your hands. That's all that matters. We as professionals need to be the best at what we do and not cut corners

+12

Mike from Mount Pleasant

   

Mobile Technician
   

When we used an aftermarket tool to load the SDM key into a BCM was there not a potential for something to go wrong and the airbags be disabled which could put someone's life in our hands?

It is frustrating to me that the general consensus is that we can't trust the aftermarket tools. The same tools that most of the mobile techs on here trusted to perform occupancy detection sensor relearns right up until they purchased OEM tooling are now garbage.

And the original question was what is the investment required to perform calibrations. No one here has contested my claim that an aftermarket tool can perform dynamic calibrations successfully. Yet I am the only one here pointing out that many times depending on the vehicle and the tooling a shop already has the investment could be $0.

Most of the mobile techs in this group know very well that a good percentage of the calls they get to perform ADAS calibrations are dynamic relearns that are loaded into scan tools that those body or glass shops currently own. In many instances these radar units can be calibrated with a bubble level and a capable scan tool.

As for cutting corners, if the OTC tool is the same across multiple carlines, that is a corner I'm willing to cut. If it were to come to court and I had to prove I used the correct tool I could do that because I did use the correct tool. Are you telling me I should buy the same tool 3 times over to prevent cutting corners? As far as the radar targets go I will not argue that the OEM tool is the best choice. From looking at the similarities between the few I've seen in person I would be confident using a 1 size fits multiple makes tool sold by an aftermarket company. Just like I have always put faith in the aftermarket engineers that have supported our industry.

-10

Kirk from College Station

 

Manager
 

Hi Mike

To answer your question, the GM EL… Calibration matts and the Ford … Calibration matts are not the same or similar.

I share in the opinion that that referencing OE service information and using the OE specific tooling listed in SI is the professional way to perform ADAS calibrations.

I also strongly encourage photo documentation.

Nobody “wants" to buy all the OE targets. But until the OE's approve of anything else , the liability is too great to chance it.

I don’t believe the other comments are discouraging others to invest in ADAS calibrations. But instead encouraging everyone to perform them in the most professional manner possible.

In my opinion when discussing ADAS calibrations, cutting corners and one size fits all recommendations don’t belong in a professional forum. 

I have added photos of the Ford 501-411 matt being used and an additional photo of the GM 51372 matt circled in red for reference.

+11

Eric from Peoria, IL

 

Mobile Technician
 

Thanks Kirk, thanks for posting the documentation of the mats. You and your company are a great example of how a smaller company in a smaller market can accel though specialization in areas like ADAS. You have always given sage advice to others on this topic. As to the comment of uplifting and helping one another, I have NEVER met such a more professional person you was more giving of their precious time and knowledge to share with mobile industry professional peers as you! I don't buy into the argument that suggesting a OE SI and tooling approach is "circling the wagons" and being standoffish. Quite the contrary. You and others are promoting professionalism and safety with an obvious concern for liability. Sure there are shortcuts or workarounds one could take in ADAS- but where does it end? Just because a triangle target could be fashioned from a piece of sheet metal and a chinese clone tool used for a calibration, would you also use a house mirror for mom's hallway and a protractor to calibrate an ICC of $65,000 Infinti?

+7

Scott from Claremont

 

Manager
 

Hi Mike, 

I just happened to stumble on your comment. I'm trying to duplicate this and let's see if this works.

Is this <5.0v or >4.9v?

0

Jim from Frederick

 

Curriculum Developer
 

This is a test of a problem that could be > we imagine or < an issue.......... Only a test. It let me get this far. Now to....

+1

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

Yes I will give it a shot. I am not using the correct browser though. I'm using Microsoft Edge.

<5.0v or >4.9v

0

Mike from Mount Pleasant

 

Mobile Technician
 

Seems to be working now! Earlier it cut everything I had typed after the (<) off which I assumed was a coding issue.

+1

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

So if I was a lawyer asking you if you followed OE procedures, do you think I could remove all your credibility since homemade or aftermarket targets are not part of the procedure?

We all assume risk. I think using OE tools and SI limit the risk best as possible. As to printed targets, were they printed from OE or an AM SI supplier? I just think these are the questions that will or could come up if and when a person or business is taken to court.

+2

Mike from Mount Pleasant

   

Mobile Technician
   

My last class on law was 13 years ago so I may be misinformed (maybe we need some attorneys added to the Diag Network!) but let's say I have a homemade tool that was made identical to the Honda radar targets. I calibrate a vehicle which is later involved in an accident. Now the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff not to prove my credibility or that I did not use the OEM tool but to prove that not using the OEM tool or not following the procedure correctly caused the calibration not to be correct. I feel like these scare tactics are being used, specifically by a remote programming company, to keep people from learning what they are trying to corner the market on because most independent shops can not or think they can not afford access to these things. As much as they throw around the John Eagle case it really doesn't relate to ADAS calibrations in any way. The same techs that may read that irrelevant lawsuit story and be scared away from learning this stuff could be the techs that are more likely to perform the procedures correctly. Probably more so than many of the dealer techs. Isn't the point of this group to help each other succeed? The bottom line is that if you're not willing to take the time to perform the calibrations correctly than it doesn't matter if you perform the procedure with a Honda tool or a banana. That being said with the few that I have played around with the tool is not as important as the measurements. If you can operate a tape measure or a plumb bob than you should not be scared to perform ADAS calibrations. I am sure Autel has a legal team that is well aware of the liability. Wouldn't you assume that they would sell a tool that if used correctly would allow these systems to be calibrated correctly? I will agree that from what I have seen the Autel system seems to use overcomplicated procedures and I also think it is overpriced. So are the OEM tools. When you purchase this stand for $143 bernardiparts​.​com/Honda-STAND__0…​.​aspx you will be disappointed when it arrives to find that you just paid nearly $150 for a pvc pipe stand that you could have built on your own for $17. I refuse to believe that I could be sued for millions because my pvc pipe doesn't have a Honda part number. But than again I'm no attorney!

-1

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

I disagree with the John Eagle case not relating to ADAS. The case was lost because OE procedures were not followed, not because the repair didn't work or was faulty. Given that, I can't see how it is not relatable.

I've performed a few ADAS calibrations. A a company, I think we've done as many as 10 in a day, my number could be low.

I've attended a couple ADAS classes and read numerous articles. The common factor I've found in all of them is misinformation. 

I would love for the OE to sign off in writing that the AM target setups were ok to use. You made a comment to Paul that manufacturers have said AM tools are ok and gave some links. I would not agree with your statement. The OE in your example is not saying AM is ok, they are saying to use the supplier they have contracted to make the tool.

+4

Mike from Mount Pleasant

   

Mobile Technician
   

But what you are telling people is that they must buy the OE tool and not use aftermarket. That is not correct. The OTC ACC alignment tool can be purchased as a Snap On branded tool from Snap On, an aftermarket company. I would assume the tool comes in the Autel kit as well. OTC, Snap On, etc. these companies are all aftermarket. None of the OEs comissioned Snap On to build the tool so you're telling me that I can't but it from them? (in case I wanted to pay more for in ;) ) Just because they have different part numbers does not mean they are not the same tool or not capable of performing the same procedures. What type of misinformation have you seen? Are improper procedures being published somewhere? If anything I think there is a lack of information. Simply put as far as I know none of the OE manufacturers specify a brand of torque wrench to be used. Let's say a wheel comes loose on a vehicle after a shop has removed and installed the tire. In order for a judgment to be made against the shop there needs to be proof that the collision was directly caused by not following OE service info like you said. Let's say the shop was able to show that they used service info from Alldata that corresponds with the same torque specifications listed in OE service info. Do you think that the shop will lose a judgement over that? The brand of torque wrench is irrelevant. If the torque wrench is calibrated correctly and it can be proved that that torque wrench is capable of doing the job correctly.

What would be in question was if the wheels were actually torqued correctly or not and if they weren't, was that the direct cause of the loss. In the case of John Eagle the repair was simply not done correctly. If you actually read about that case it wasn't a matter of whether the correct SI was used but rather that "a conscious decision to deviate from Honda's repair specifications. The ONLY way I can see that relevant to ADAS is when shops refuse to calibrate these systems post collision. This is a whole discussion in and of itself as many of the glass companies are dangling cameras when replacing windshields because they have learned that unplugging them causes a light to set indicating a calibration must be performed.

-5

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

I'm not telling anyone they MUST use or buy OE. I'm saying that in the litigious society that we live in should make one think about what kind of liability they are willing to undertake.

As far as you torque lug nuts, I think you are reaching. I've never come across OE SI that states to use X torque wrench. I have seen ADAS calibrations say to use X target and Y scan tool.

+6

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

I forgot to answer your question on misinformation. One class said that Bosch was the OE. and that multiple OE's had signed off on the Bosch target system. As we all know Bosch is a contracted manufacturer, not the OE. To date, nobody at Bosch has been able to supply me with any OE sign off. Another class the instructor said that the BSM indicators in the mirrors only turned on if you used the turn signal. There were some other things but I can't remember right now.

+2

Mike from Mount Pleasant

   

Mobile Technician
   

Bob If you're company was performing 10+ calibrations per day, and you were using OE tooling and service procedures than I can promise you that you would have been using Bosch tools. Take a close look at this ACC calibration tools label. It says Bosch (which owns OTC) right on the label and was purchased directly from Honda as an "approved" tool. I wouldn't suggest holding my breath waiting for Honda to mail a letter addressed to Bob stating the tool is approved you're just going to have to trust me on this one. Bosch does not make ALL of the sensors (radar, camera units, modules, etc. used in ADAS systems however they do make a good portion. You will also see other manufacturers such as Delphi and Continental. During a lanewatch calibration on, if I remember correctly an Escalade, the scan tool will ask if the vehicle has a Continental or another brand camera. This must obviously be because the calibration requirements are different for each unit right? Wouldn't that mean that the calibration tools are likely more proprietary to the original equipment manufacturer of the unit rather than vehicle i.e. Bosch? This also brings up another interesting thought. With companies like SMP creating their own ADAS units can they sell and supply their own proprietary tools? There are some manufacturers that seem to use different calibration procedures for similar units however I can not determine if those are the same part number or not. The short version is that yes Bosch is in fact OE. But it goes beyond that. Remember when VW had the diesel emissions scandal? Do you know who wrote that software? It was Bosch. With that knowledge I could make a strong assumption that most of the ADAS software is written by Bosch as most of the other players in these systems seem to be focused on hardware rather than software. Talk to a technician who uses some of the OEM scan tools and ask them who writes most of that software. Spoiler alert it is also Bosch. They will tell you that the Honda, Ford and Mazda interfaces are almost identical and it is obvious that Bosch has written the software as they put their name all over it as well as the hardware. Where do you think that scan tool was purchased from? Yup Bosch. Very few vehicle manufacturers sell their own scan tools. So if Bosch designed the unit, wrote the software for the unit, wrote the calibration software within the scan tool for the unit, designed the calibration tool for the unit and sold the calibration and scan tool how could you possibly believe that Bosch tools are not OE?

-5

Randy from Raleigh

 

Curriculum Developer
 

One other example is a 2017 Nissan Maxima with LDW. The light in the door near the mirror will glow if there is an object in the blind spot area and the turn signal is not on. When the turn signal is on and there is an object detected the light will flash and the audible chime will alert. In all, there are too many variations among OEs to make a blanket statement and I have since modified the class content to reflect that.

Thank you for your comments....

+8

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

Randy,

I would assume the class is always evolving. I was not trying to throw you under the bus. I was more pointing out that not all information is correct and we need to ask questions and challenge what is being presented.

+5

Randy from Raleigh

 

Curriculum Developer
 

No worries Bob. It's all good. I always feel that if class content is not worth challenging it's not much of a class. 

Thanks for your comments...

+8

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

So if you could stop and read what I wrote, you'd see I said "Target System" when I said OE's have not signed off. If you're not aware, Bosch has a setup that incorporates all the targets. I'm guessing similar to what Autel is putting out.

I believe the OE is the provider of how the component or system functions. The vendor then produces a product to fit the need. While Bosch produces many systems, you will notice that they can operate differently or calibrations alter from manufacturer to manufacturer. Given this, Bosch is the vendor not the OE. If they were the OE, they would set the rules.

I believe the discussion has been revolving around Factory ADAS. I think if a vehicle owner wants to install an ADAS system, then that supplier sets the rules.

Since you were in the class, you know that the instructor didn't stop but was asked for clarification and then was challenged on what he said.

+7

Mike from Mount Pleasant

   

Mobile Technician
   

You're stating that the Bosch "target system" is not approved by the manufacturers I guess? My comment about aftermarket ADAS units referred to replacement units from specifically from SMP. They have already hit the market and while I haven't seen one in person as of yet I'm sure it will be soon. You're going to refuse to calibrate them because they are not OE and liability liability, liability. Is there a liability, absolutely. However, these systems are designed so that a competent technician can successfully calibrate them. Should you be intimidated with the cost of tooling? Absolutely not. For example the OTC static alignment tool can be purchased for under $500 and covers three carlines. Use that with a capable scan tool that you probably already have and you can calibrate just about every Jeep forward facing radar unit using a dynamic calibration.

-8

Bob from West Chicago

 

Mobile Technician
 

Mike, I apologize. I was giving information that myself and others have found concerning. You obviously know more and have done way more calibrations than myself, the company I work for and all the mobile guys I network with. At this point we are going to sit back and allow you to educate us with case studies and Youtube videos.

+8

Rick from The Woodlands

 

Diagnostician
 

I agree with Bob on this. One of my employees is a EE who worked in Laser and Radar for over 20 years. 

Here is a link to a paper talking about static millimeter wave radar calibrations that you may find interesting. Although this is for different wav.elengths than automobiles use, the examples are above and below our wavelengths which typically fall between 71 and 81 GHZ.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0207/d05b1d502….pdf

As of yet I have not seen any spherical targets used in the automotive sector and this kind of shows why. I found it interesting about the differences in backscatter and how much difference the manufacture of the target makes. Note on page 2 that a 1 degree error in the triangle reflector manufacture will cause in excess of 5db loss of backscatter for calibration. To me that could be enough to incorrectly calibrate the system but I am not an expert in this area.

+9

Jim from Frederick

 

Curriculum Developer
 

Not every answer is correct for every make of vehicle it appears. At least one of the tools has more setup confirmation/verification than the method written in service procedure by the manufacturer. The method in service procedure has the shop printing targets and mounting them. The positioning is carried out using trigonometry. The aftermarket system has levels, lasers and rulers to position pre-made targets on fabricated holders mounted to a measuring system. Proof of accomplishing the technical set up competently will be key. This is a far cry from gluing a roof on as opposed to welding it. Failure to setup the trigonometry properly will result in a failure during setup and warnings to the driver. (in my experience so far)

This is a rapidly developing area yet body shops and glass shops will be the early adopters beyond dealers, it would appear. Replacing glass in a vehicle with a camera or two will no longer be a parking lot service as most manufacturers have specific environmental conditions to control the contrast the camera sees for accuracy. I was in a class showing a system used and approved in Europe that is not available in the US yet. The procedures for setup were well covered. Comparing it to another system, one can see the similarities in how the equipment is used to do the math. It is a lot of technology to avoid a calculator. There is nothing wrong with that, I just found it notable. 

Look up the procedure for locating and setting up targets for camera calibration on a Toyota system. It is basically bisecting the vehicle. Plotting two points ahead of the center line and using them to draw two arcs. Where the arcs intersect to each side are the locations of the side targets, now properly distanced and spaced. Tools are a plumb bob, chalk line, string and laser measure with printed targets and cardboard backers. Or you can use a jig, lasers, rulers, mirrors, knobs, a stand with a backer and holders for specific targets.............

+3

Adrean from Bakersfield

 

Diagnostician
 

Thanks for the Input . Brandon I had seen that adas autel setup but for the cost to avoid liability I would go oem then , since no aftermarkets are approved oem as of yet .

+4

Eric from Peoria, IL

 

Mobile Technician
 

Hi Brandon and all,

Thanks for the add Scott.

I would echo what other mobile professionals specializing in collision center support have stated here, OEM tools and SI are my company's choice. Liability and professionalism is a large part of this decision for me. So much so that we photo document the procedure and store a copy. Respectfully I don't see people who reference the "John Eagle" case as "using it" for self promotion rather for educating others of the risks and liabilities involved. The court's rewarding the plaintiff with a settlement that high could cripple a small company like mine.

+7

Eric from Peoria, IL

 

Mobile Technician
 

I often think of a great quote from a great trainer, Dave Scaler.... " It all depends on your tolerance for pain... " Liablity exposure when performing ADAS calibrations is a test of ones pain tolerance..... in which case i have low tolerance. Others using non OE remedies may have a higher tolerance than mine....and greater exposure to liablity. No one on the OE side is arguing that cannot be done non OE, It is just a matter of exposure. You can be mobile guy and lack Commercial insurance, however, if you protect yourself against liability, you have it! I guess we all have choices and different levels of pain tolerance

+8

Matt from Red Wing

 

Diagnostician
 

As Bob, Rick and many others have already stated, you really need to consider the liability and your acceptance of liability and the probability(ies) of its manifestation(s).

My concern with AM calibration systems, namely targets, is either of two things:

1) You calibrate a system using AM tools, the system performs the calibration improperly and ends up resulting in a collision where people are hurt/killed.

2) You calibrate s system using AM tools, the system performs the calibration PROPERLY and the vehicle ends up in a collision related to, or even not related to ADAS, resulting people getting hurt/killed. 

How do you defend yourself? Are the AM tools manufacturers coming to your aid? Will they assume liability if their system failed to properly calibrate the system? Will they come to your aid if their system was not the issue at all, and they did perform the calibration properly?

This is also purposely avoiding the conversation that with any of the tools, OE or AM, that the tech performing the calibrations is at all competent, and demonstrably so (maybe time to better embrace ASE????). At least with the OE tooling you have that in your corner.

Later,

Matt.

+9