I just returned from the Auto Testing Expo in Novi, Michigan. After three days of traversing the aisles, I realized that there are a lot of choices in platforms for Automotive Test – of course, the phrase “Automotive Test” is an extremely broad term, suggesting that there is no one solution. Looking at the exhibitors, of course they are all after your business… but they solve the applications problems in many different ways.
Depending on your perspective in this industry, testing may go down to the component, be it an engine controller or a wheel bearing. But it also goes up to verifying the entire vehicle as it maneuvers a test track or heads down the assembly line. So a test system may be several racks of instruments, or it could be a suitcase-size portable system.
Not only is the size of the system different in each application, but there is a broad range of platforms as well. It looks like a war of the instrument busses, with each one winning a particular battle.
Of course, PXI was on the show floor (my favorite bus, by the way). At least four companies showed PXI products. PXI applications seemed to be available in most every aspect of automotive test, from the factory to the lab, and on the test track.
One company even showed off a new spin on a PXI-based system. Aeroflex showed off their model 5800 multi-configuration multi-functional test system. This is a 6U, PXI based system that is very reminiscent of a product developed by a company I used to work for – Aeroflex utilized the connectors in the 6U space to create a unique switching system and analog bus. At first glance, it looks like a better implementation of the product I refer to. I wish them well and hope they succeed. 6U PXI needs more support.
Of course, the other industry standard platforms were there. Companies like Agilent, UEI, and VXI Technology showed solutions for various applications based on PCI, VXI, GPIB, and the new LXI platforms.
But everywhere on the show floor, especially in the area of mobile data acquisition, there were test products of all shapes, sizes, and architectures available to address various applications. Companies like HBM, Iotech, and Pacific Instruments had solutions that performed similar tests, but could not connect to one another. The only things in common were usually the front panel plugs and possibly the hardware interface to the PC. This was either a USB port or an Ethernet connection. In many cases, the communication protocol over these mediums was specific to one company.
Now granted, mobile data acquisition is not the same market as electronic production test, which is a subject I have written about for many years. The issues of test time and program development are not the norm here. Obviously, accuracy and repeatability still apply, and perhaps more so. But why do I not see more PXI, PCI, VXI, or LXI based systems here? After all, standards are good for all, right?
In my very unscientific study, I found several reasons. In some cases, the basic test system design has been in place for many years – in some instances as long or longer that the bus standards I mentioned earlier. So there was little impetus to change.
Size was also an issue in remote applications. If it is going in the car, it has to be as small and light as possible so as to minimize any possibility that the weight of the test system could affect the performance of the automobile – they also have to leave for room for the driver, of course!
But I wonder if it’s also a method of protecting their respective markets for some companies? After all, if your software only works with your hardware, it limits the customer’s ability to change. If I’m right, then the automotive data acquisition industry is in a similar situation to where electronics testing manufacturers were when modular test first got a foot hold. It could mean more opportunity for standards based platforms in the near future. Are all you instrument manufacturers listening out there?
So what is the answer in this Bus War? Are standard hardware platforms too expensive, too large, inadequate, etc.? Can the manufacturers of the bus standards I mentioned learn from this, and change their product to fit other applications? Time will tell.
