ADAS Naming Convention - AAA Study - SCRS Article
The Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) recently published an article highlighting an AAA study on Advanced Driver Assistance naming conventions and calls for standardization primarily because of the confusion they introduce. IMO, yes, these names introduce lots of confusion not only for service but for the consumer as well. It’s clear to me that most of these system names appear to be driven by the marketing department rather than engineering.
What has been your experience with the various system/suite names regarding service?
I think standardizing the names of the systems would be detrimental to drivers as well as service technicians. ADAS systems do not all operate in the same manner between manufacturers and even between models. Name standardization would also imply operation standardization. I would love this article directed at component name standardization. Interchangeable terms like radar vs. distance
Hi Mike: It's hard to disagree with your comments. Also, Consumer Reports and AAA were all for R2R. Funny, there is nary a word mentioning to RTFM. Guido
I absolutely agree Mike. It is time not to attempt to "dumb down" terminology, but to adapt and train to ensure capability of servicing modern vehicle technologies. There is little commonality between many of these systems and fooling around with simple naming conventions won't serve any real use.
Thanks for the input Mike but really think we would all be better off with some standards in general. Look at the aviation industry and how they describe Autopilot. There are various grades of this feature based upon what its capabilities are. Why wouldn’t our industry want to follow this pattern? As we both know, we‘re entering interesting times due to the influx of these technologies. I’m
Hi Scott: Is Autopilot the hill that you really want to die on? nytimes.com…wor… The information was IN the manual. The pilot did what he always did because that's what he always did. Granted, training on the system should've been done. But it was Autopilot, right? What's the difference? Two thoughts come to mind. 1: When you dumb things down, you're teaching someone
Hi Guido, My thoughts on this are: - Complacency — The pilots weren't aggressive with their cross checking/validation. (These pilots got "behind" in the flight) - I'm in no way advocating a "dumbing down" initiative!
Hi Scott: But doesn't commonality (routine) allow complacency to occur? If you know that something is different, you'll tend to treat it differently. If you act like it as the same, it's real easy to treat it that way. We all live in a microcosm though my microcosm is larger than many peoples', 4 states. In my l'il neck o'the woods, the body shops don't have much standing. Why? Because they
Back to the airline industry, checklists are used to help the folks that want to do it right avoid an oversight that complacency would typically promote. On the repair side of that industry, checklists are used as well along with documentation and ultimately an inspection authorization. Additionally, on the repair side they have service bulletins called Airworthiness Directives (AD) and in most
Scott, I can't speak on the aviation industry but as far as the ADAS systems in the automotive industry are concerned I don't think we could successfully categorize them even if we wanted to. I agree it might be helpful on the surface but ultimately I see it being detrimental. Let me explain why from a service perspective. First, no two systems operate in the exact same manner. Take a look
Mike, Thanks for putting out the words I couldn't quite put together. "Where I do see a need for terminology to be implemented would be in the operational description." Much appreciated.
Hi Scott: The OEM service information needs to be your friend. If you recall looking up a GM truck in eSI by VIN then you remember having a choice between 4 different vehicles. Think it mattered which one you picked? Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. But as the punchline to the old Thermos joke goes "but how does it know?" The same generic sounding system can have different names based upon the
Hi Guido, I agree SI is your friend. However, what frustrates me the most is that even with the OE as in your example, the VIN Decode couldn’t define the vehicle down the the build sheet. Parts ordering and service would be a heck of a lot better if we were all able to stay on the same page. System or Suite names may be unique among manufacturers, however, the functions they perform could use
Hi Scott. FWIW, GM GDS 2 VIN decoding is connected with an embedded link to the Vehicle Build sheet RPO list. Here is an example of a 2018 Yukon Denali RPO list generated accurately using the automatic VIN decoding feature in GDS 2.
Thanks Martin, I’ve noticed that sometimes when you’re running a health check with GDS2, the system will prompt the tech to ID which system exists on the vehicle. Now this wasn’t in a 2018, is that still the case on later model years?
yYou've connected the MDI and the VIN has been decoded the vehicle or vehicle information has been manually entered on a few models. The next screen has a smaller window that requires the user to identify the engine RPO, transmission type and even a system such as the headlamp options. It was explained to us this way. The first time that a vehicle is decoded in the system, it may require us to
Hi Marty: The RPO tab works for the Aftermarket. I showed it Wednesday on a Korean pregnant roller skate (2015 Spark, IIRC). We also had to manually make 2 or 3 selections. (Ive had to make almost a dozen selections on some vehicles.) It should be needless to say, it's not good mojo to guess. HTH, Guido
HI Guido. Thanks. That is good to know. So GDS 2 is clearly linking to what we view under the Investigate Vehicle History App, to pull the RPOs for the vehicle. FWIW, in the past we have had the same issues with some of the Korean assembled vehicles such as the Orlando (most everywhere but USA model). The VIN didn't decode automatically, so building the vehicle was the only way in and then the
I like this topic and maybe it would fit into a thread of it's own. I often run into a screen asking me the software number for the SDM. I sent these photos to a dealer buddy who has never seen those prompts so my assumption is that that info auto populates on their side. Maybe this is something we should be sending to NASTF to see if GM can offer us up an easier solution?
Hi Mike. He's either not encountered it, or he's "blowing smoke up...." Here's a few screen shots of mine for you that will look familiar and confirm that I also see these from time to time. I encounter this as a GM technician and trainer and other dealership technicians do too. The prompt screens below for ECM , Transmission and SDM are to confirm how the vehicle is equipped. While we do
That is frustrating. Where are you finding info to these non-RPO related questions? I had one today that asked me if the vehicle had something like a rear diff clutch module. I just can't picture dealer techs crawling under the vehicle to check for a rear diff in order to connect the scan tool! Thanks for the information!
HI Mike. I didn't have an MDI handy last night, so I simply navigated without the device. That's why they are tagged "non-RPO", but the same happens at times when navigating with the MDI 1 or 2, after the VIN has been decoded. I did that to show that these screens are not aftermarket only. Again, it's just insurance that the vehicle is equipped correctly when entering into diagnostics…
Scott, That disclaimer is interesting in that it points out that these "driver assist" systems are really only reliable in ideal conditions. You know, the conditions where you are least likely to need "assistance". Unless of course you're in the habit of not paying good attention while driving in the first place.
Hi Scott. I'm with Mike and Guido on this. ADAS are extremely complex in technologies, calibration and adjustment requirements. Those involved in servicing/diagnosing/repairing and calibration, need to be able to access very specific information and procedures for each manufacturer and further isolate model specifics. Being involved in vehicle diagnostics on current technology vehicles
Hi Martin, I appreciate your perspective, insight, and wealth of knowledge you bring to the industry. Can you share with us any increased emphasis being placed upon the service liabilities related to these systems from your OEM?
Thanks Scott. We have heard nothing at all so far. These systems are "smart" and able to calibrate over time when the proper installation and set up has been followed. I have found no reference to date of any extensive requirements for targets when replacing ADAS components, when looking for related information on a number of vehicles in SI. Once repairs have been made and any required SPS
Thanks for the intel Martin, I recently read a white paper from 3M on the efforts going on with lane markings. The contrast level for white lines on concrete or less-black roads can be a problem for cameras. Shortly after reading that article, I was in stop and go traffic and noticed some of the these new lines. While some of these are less than perfect, I saw some others and thought, there is a
Thanks Scott. I had not seen the 3M lane markings. This will surely increase the cost of highway lane markings to be sure of accurate placement! I wonder how wear resistant and what the adhesive quality is of the 3M lane markings. I live in an older subdivision with overhead power lines, cable and phone lines etc. Quite a number of years ago, the cable boxes and various junctions were all
I don‘t know if it’s wise or not to standardize the terminology. What I find challenging is fielding phone calls from our collison repair centers and making sure we are on the same page as to what they are asking me to do (I’m an Indie shop owner). Everything started out as a “camera” calibration, but I ask plenty of questions to make sure I know exactly what they’ve done to the vehicle and what
Different systems have different names because they are different systems. An adaptive cruise control system which can only maintain a set distance from the vehicle in front within a certain speed range via throttle control should NOT be named the same as one that can handle following at a variable distance at any speed as well as start/stop driving via throttle and brake control. A system
I agree Christopher "ADAS" is as close as it needs to be. There is no way to group differently operating systems under "blanket" system titles.
I think I understand the general notion as to standardized terminology. I'm thinking ABS, which in it's earliest days went under various names such as Chrysler's "Sure Brake", Ford's "Sure Track", GM's "Track Master". They were all based off of the same principle with slight operating characteristics or implementation, and eventually standardized to the ABS name. Then they began to be used in