Level 3 technology will accentuate current reliance on electronic hardware
As we continue on our transition towards Level 3 technology and beyond, the number of in-vehicle sensors and processing power requirements will increase, carrying additional risk of electronic hardware failure. The proportion of automotive warranty failures connected to electronics already stands between 30-40%, with ADAS accounting for an ever-growing portion of this. Advanced safety is a rapidly growing segment of automotive electronics . Taking this into account, carmakers may well be forced to increase their warranty provisions unless they can develop a more robust methodology for identifying the best materials to use for these systems. Materials are the bedrock of ADAS , and when these are compromised, this places vehicle hardware at risk.
Managing cost will always be important but should be balanced against a more holistic evaluation of the reliability and performance benefits of opting for a superior, yet more costly, alternative choice of material.
The coin experiment
On a rational level, we know that spending more upfront on better materials will reap major benefits, and yet, this does not always translate into real-world actions. The reason has to do with the loss aversion bias, a phenomenon identified by behavioral economists whereby humans are more afraid to lose what they already have than they are keen on getting more.
In a famous experiment, people were asked if they would accept a bet based on the flip of a coin. If the coin came up tails the person would lose $100, and if it came up heads, they would win $200. The results of the experiment showed that on average people needed to gain about twice as much as they were willing to lose in order to proceed with the bet.
Long-term thinking for long-term results
To give a practical example of this, let us assume the cost of a radar sensor is $50. The amount of conventional solder paste on this sensor would cost about $0.07 compared with an enhanced reliability solder paste with a unit cost of $0.14. An engineer who was influenced by the loss aversion bias would opt for the cheaper alternative to halve their cost outlay, discarding the fact that the $0.14 option has a life expectancy that is 40% superior. By selecting the cheaper material, you are increasing your exposure to material failure and additional warranty costs. When viewed in relation to a mounting $40 billion warranty cost for the entire automotive industry, suddenly a $0.07 unit saving is much less appealing!
Recognizing how the loss aversion bias and a short-term fixation on reducing unit costs might be a step in reducing warranty related costs. Developing a scientific methodology for comparing material choices, in a way that factors in the additional performance and reliability benefits, will help to inform better decisions that will reduce OEM exposure to excessive warranty costs and reputational damage.
As we progress towards advanced vehicle autonomy, advanced safety features become the brain of the car and should be prioritized as such. Doing so will ensure the safety of vehicle users, as well as the OEMs brand, while helping to minimize costly systems failures and performance issues. Unlike the coin experiment, the stakes of choosing the wrong ADAS materials are way too high to leave to chance.
Download our ADAS eBook to learn how OEMs can adapt to a new era in automotive.