TSMC Pressured by U.S. Government for More Chips to Automakers

[btarunr]

The United States Department of Commerce is reportedly pressing TSMC to meet chip orders by automobile manufacturers. The ongoing chip shortage threatens to derail production of automobiles by leading car makers, and is a major source of worry for one of America's largest manufacturing industries. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said that the Department has asked TSMC to prioritize orders by U.S. automobile companies in the near-term.

Secretary Raimondo, speaking at the Council of the Americas event on Tuesday, said that critical supply chains of the semiconductor industry required "re-shoring" (return of manufacturing to the US soil). "We're working hard to see if we can get the Taiwanese and TSMC, which is a big company there, to, you know, prioritize the needs of our auto companies since there's so many American jobs on the line," she said, responding to a question by a General Motors executive. Later on Wednesday, TSMC responded, stating "TSMC has been working with all parties to alleviate the automotive chip supply shortage, we understand it is a shared concern of the worldwide automotive industry."



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[lexluthermiester]

Vehicles don't need a lot of microchips. They never have. Automakers need to stop building so many "smart cars". Keep the computers, and the distractions for drivers they create, off the roads.

 

[Caring1]

Vehicle don't need a lot of microchips. They never have. Automakers need to stop building so many "smart cars". Keep the computers, and the distractions for drivers they create, off the roads.

But how are they going to upsell all that useless junk features to consumers then?

 

[lexluthermiester]

But how are they going to upsell all that useless junk features to consumers then?

They don't. Consumers learn to live without what we never had until recently..

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Vehicle don't need a lot of microchips. They never have. Automakers need to stop building so many "smart cars". Keep the computers, and the distractions for drivers they create, off the roads.

What? And miss all that driver / owner data?
I agree with what you said, it's crazy, but there is no let up in the race for info gathering.

 

[Houd.ini]

The idiot legacy automakers ordered less chips when 'Rona hit so they did not have to keep stock, and when they "suddenly" find they need to order more (again, because they are idiots) they have to start at the back of the line. Bu-fucking-hu. Screw them, may they go bankrupt.

 

[Aquinus]

Vehicles don't need a lot of microchips. They never have. Automakers need to stop building so many "smart cars". Keep the computers, and the distractions for drivers they create, off the roads.

I find it fascinating how you think that crash avoidance systems create distractions. Not all chips in a car cause distractions. Even modern GDI engines need fast ECUs to appropriately time injection events and are far more sensitive to when the injection event occurs compared to port injection. There are a lot of reasons for faster chips in cars beyond just upselling features.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I find it fascinating how you think that crash avoidance systems create distractions.

Simple reasoning, they don't work very well. And they distract the driver from actually being alert to the conditions of the road. Drivers become dependent on such systems and become lazy. Then when the system needs them, they aren't ready. I could go on like this, but I won't. Computers need to be taken out of vehicles and drivers taught to be actual drivers instead of distracted fools.

Even modern GDI engines need fast ECUs to appropriately time injection events and are far more sensitive to when the injection event occurs compared to port injection. There are a lot of reasons for faster chips in cars beyond just upselling features.

The kinds of chips that provide these types of functionality do NOT require modern hardware to do an exceptional job and are not the type that are in short supply.

 

[R-T-B]

They don't. Consumers learn to live without what we never had until recently..

Or buy another foreign brand...

The consumer wants what it wants, logic be damned.

 

[Kyaaaaaaaaaa]

I imagine TSMC's reply is 2 words: pay up

 

[Deleted member 205776]

Classic of them to boss everyone around, thinking they're hot shit.

 

[Why_Me]

Classic of them to boss everyone around, thinking they're hot shit.

The US looks out for Taiwan's interest including defense. That cost a lot of money. Time for Taiwan to pay up.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Vehicles don't need a lot of microchips. They never have. Automakers need to stop building so many "smart cars". Keep the computers, and the distractions for drivers they create, off the roads.

Antilock brakes, traction control, CAN-bus, emissions sensors, temperature sensors, flex-fuel (Ethanol) sensor, oxygen sensor (optimize the fuel-air mix that enters the engine), engine timing.

Hell, modern engines require microchips not only for oxygen sensors / fuel-air mixtures... but also to maximize the intake / compression / combustion / exhaust strokes every time the engine cycles. Engines are so much smoother, more powerful, and more efficient because of these microchips. I don't see this going away any time soon.

------

That being said, I HATE this touchscreen crap that modern cars have. Give me back my physical buttons: I wanna control my air conditioning without looking at a screen damn it. I understand the use of microcontrollers to make brakes better (antilock brakes), or traction control, or optimizing the engine. But they're crossing a line when my freaking air-conditioning is too difficult to use.

The kinds of chips that provide these types of functionality do NOT require modern hardware to do an exceptional job and are not the type that are in short supply.

You're wrong. These are exactly the chips that are in short supply. 28nm chips and other ancient-era chips have basically disappeared from the market. We're talking about low-tech STMicro chips, or TSMC's 28nm stuff.

The auto-industry chips (20nm or 28nm) is having a bigger shortage than the high tech 5nm or 7nm stuff right now.

Semiconductor shortage hits Ford Bronco SUV, Ranger pickup production

The downtime will not impact the Ford's plan to begin delivering the vehicles to dealers this summer, according to a company spokeswoman.

www.cnbc.com

Ford trucks stack up around Louisville amid chip shortage

A Ford spokeswoman confirmed the parked trucks are being stored while the company works to procure computer chips to install modules and deliver finished vehicles to dealers.

www.wdrb.com

More Plants At GM Go Dark As Chip Shortage Continues To Bite

Ford, Stellantis, and now GM again: Auto makers continue to close plants as they reel from a shortage of chips that poses a critical challenge for the sector.

www.npr.org

Ford Bronco, and F-Series Truck production lines are being idled currently. These aren't cars with "high tech" shit in them, we're talking about the "normal" car chips used for "normal" stuff. Not high-tech infotainment screens.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Antilock brakes, traction control, CAN-bus, emissions sensors, temperature sensors, flex-fuel (Ethanol) sensor, oxygen sensor (optimize the fuel-air mix that enters the engine), engine timing.

All of those things have been around for decades and have used much older tech to work perfectly. Thank You for illustrating perfectly my point.

That being said, I HATE this touchscreen crap that modern cars have. Give me back my physical buttons: I wanna control my air conditioning without looking at a screen damn it.

You're wrong. These are exactly the chips that are in short supply. 28nm chips and other ancient-era chips have basically disappeared from the market. We're talking about low-tech STMicro chips, or TSMC's 28nm stuff.

No, I'm not. None of what you described above is made using modern chip tech. There are still fabs that make older chip tech in healthy supply. The chips that TSMC, Intel, Samsung and Global Foundries make are for the touch-screen crap you mentioned.

The auto-industry chips (20nm or 28nm) is having a bigger shortage than the high tech 5nm or 7nm stuff right now.

Semiconductor shortage hits Ford Bronco SUV, Ranger pickup production

The downtime will not impact the Ford's plan to begin delivering the vehicles to dealers this summer, according to a company spokeswoman.

www.cnbc.com

Ford trucks stack up around Louisville amid chip shortage

A Ford spokeswoman confirmed the parked trucks are being stored while the company works to procure computer chips to install modules and deliver finished vehicles to dealers.

www.wdrb.com

More Plants At GM Go Dark As Chip Shortage Continues To Bite

Ford, Stellantis, and now GM again: Auto makers continue to close plants as they reel from a shortage of chips that poses a critical challenge for the sector.

www.npr.org

Ford Bronco, and F-Series Truck production lines are being idled currently. These aren't cars with "high tech" shit in them, we're talking about the "normal" car chips used for "normal" stuff. Not high-tech infotainment screens.

Ford knows damned well they could buy from other suppliers for the chips they need for driving critical components. But the vehicles in question are not being finished because Ford refuses to retrofit.

 

[dragontamer5788]

No, I'm not. None of what you described above is made using modern chip tech. There are still fabs that make older chip tech in healthy supply. The chips that TSMC, Intel, Samsung and Global Foundries make are for the touch-screen crap you mentioned.

TSMC has 90nm, 65nm, 40nm, 28nm nodes still operational in 1Q2021.

These old nodes are for automotive parts. Low-tech. TSMC caters to both high-tech (5nm / 7nm chips) and low-tech (28nm, 40nm, 65nm, 90nm chips)

Yeah, those 15-year old 90nm chip designs? Those are the ones in short supply right now. Well, and everything else too. But especially automotive-grade and older chips on older process nodes.

 

[lexluthermiester]

View attachment 199515

TSMC has 90nm, 65nm, 40nm, 28nm nodes still operational in 1Q2021.

These old nodes are for automotive parts. Low-tech. TSMC caters to both high-tech (5nm / 7nm chips) and low-tech (28nm, 40nm, 65nm, 90nm chips)

Yeah, those 15-year old 90nm chip designs? Those are the ones in short supply right now. Well, and everything else too. But especially automotive-grade and older chips on older process nodes.

TSMC is not the only maker of older tech. From the info I've read, tech above 32nm is not in short supply... It's the chip supply 32nm and below that is in short supply and this is the tech that controls UI features in vehicles.

 

[dragontamer5788]

TSMC is not the only maker of older tech.

But if the antilock brakes chip / CAN-bus controller is made on TSMC 28nm process node, good luck asking GloFo to make it on their 28nm node. I'm not even sure if safety regulators would allow the two chips to be used in the same safety-critical part (ex: Airbags or whatever).

There's a degree of fungibility here. (Ex: ATMega328p is largely compatible with the newer ATMega328pb). But when it comes to safety critical car parts, if your car has a "ATMega328p" in it, you cannot order a "ATMega328pb" and declare it the same (even if those chips are nearly identical). At least, that's my understanding of how the automotive industry works. You have to keep ordering the older ATMega328p, just as a hypothetical example.

There's also TI, which probably have their own CAN-bus controller, but you'd have to rewrite all of your software if you wanted to use TI's chip instead. So its not like you can just switch chip companies immediately.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So its not like you can just switch chip companies immediately.

True! But they can rework their vehicles to have physical/push-button controls instead of on-screen digital types. I have a 2004 Acura TSX and I refuse to get a new car because I do NOT want any of the new tech crap in my vehicle. I live by the old idiom: K.I.S.S.( Keep It Simple Student ). Vehicles do NOT need internet connectivity, nor touch-screen interfaces. What they need is controls that the drivers do not need to look down from the road to control. When I want to turn on the heater or the AC, I have no need to look away from the road because I know where all the controls are and set them by "feel". I can operate every control in my car without taking my eyes of the road. That is the correct and safe method of making a vehicle. Touch-screens and the computers that control them do NOT belong in a vehicle and those are the computers in vehicles whose chips are in short supply.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Yeah, I definitely agree that the older physical buttons are better: air conditioning, fans, headlights, wiper, gearbox, etc. etc. Keep those physical.

EDIT: Look at this "future" crap. Uggghhhhh

I recognize that this is where "car fashion" is going. But I really don't like it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

But I really don't like it.

Right there with you!! I will never buy a car like that, nor even ride in one. As cool and stylish as it looks, it is inherently and unacceptably unsafe. No fraking thank you Mercedes...

 

[Caring1]

Yeah, I definitely agree that the older physical buttons are better: air conditioning, fans, headlights, wiper, gearbox, etc. etc. Keep those physical.

EDIT: Look at this "future" crap. Uggghhhhh

View attachment 199522

I recognize that this is where "car fashion" is going. But I really don't like it.

It's a Johnny Cab.
p.s. they can't even get the steering wheel on the right side

 

[Hemmingstamp]

The US looks out for Taiwan's interest including defense. That cost a lot of money. Time for Taiwan to pay up.

Now only if those ships came back to port full of GPU's

 

[Deleted member 205776]

The US looks out for Taiwan's interest including defense. That cost a lot of money. Time for Taiwan to pay up.

Lol, maybe don't spend so much on military to pick on the small guys (third world countries) so they submit to you and your oil companies. The US interests are anything but defense. Looks more like a police force to keep Taiwan in check and if they do anything that doesn't abide by "freedom and democracy" they'll have to submit to the yankee bluejeans. Seriously can't wait for that country to inevitably destabilize and die out.

Now only if those ships came back to port full of GPU's

Oh they will, heading straight to miners.

 

[Why_Me]

Lol, maybe don't spend so much on military to pick on the small guys (third world countries) so they submit to you and your oil companies. The US interests are anything but defense. Looks more like a police force to keep Taiwan in check and if they do anything that doesn't abide by "freedom and democracy" they'll have to submit to the yankee bluejeans. Seriously can't wait for that country to inevitably destabilize and die out.


Oh they will, heading straight to miners.

Just be thankful that we didn't hand Austria over to the Soviets or else Vienna could have very well had its own version of Prague Spring.

 

[Deleted member 205776]

Just be thankful that we didn't hand Austria over to the Soviets or else Vienna could have very well had its own version of Prague Spring.

Classic American ego showing right here. You people are a parody of yourselves. And then you wonder why the rest of the world looks down on you?

Only reason why Vienna would have that is because of CIA intervention since God forbid there is a country on this Earth not following your exploitative and destructive economic system. I'm originally not from Austria, but from an ex-socialist country, so watch what you tell me because your words hold no weight to me, nor does your propaganda. I'll be the one talking back once capitalism causes the inevitable downfall of your country, and looking at how things are like in the US at the moment, it's not too far off. Cuba survived despite your multitude of sanctions, let's sanction you instead and see how your system fares...

On another note I'm pretty much done here before a moderator blitzkriegs me for being political and for not licking yankee boots. Goodbye, unwatching thread, and have fun discussing the topic at hand.