OBD 3?

[Petesvw 0]

Found this on another site! complete bullsh1t? or the future?

BEYOND OBDII

taken from: UNDERSTANDING OBDII: PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE by Larry Carley

http://members.aol.com/carpix256/library/us796obd.txt

OBDII is a very sophisticated and capable system for

detecting emissions problems. But when it comes to getting

motorists to fix emission problems, it's no more effective than

OBDI. Unless there's some means of enforcement, such as checking

the MIL light during a mandatory inspection, OBDII is just

another idiot light.

Currently under development are plans for OBDIII, which would

take OBDII a step further by adding telemetry. Using miniature

radio transponder technology similar to that which is already

being used for automatic electronic toll collection systems, an

OBDIII-equipped vehicle would be able to report emissions

problems directly to a regulatory agency. The transponder would

communicate the vehicle VIN number and any diagnostic codes that

were present. The system could be set up to automatically report

an emissions problem via a cellular or satellite link the instant

the MIL light comes on, or to answer a query from a cellular,

satellite or roadside signal as to its current emissions

performance status.

What makes this approach so attractive to regulators is its

effectiveness and cost savings. Under the current system, the

entire vehicle fleet in an area or state has to be inspected once

every year or two to identify the 30% or so vehicles that have

emissions problems. With remote monitoring via the onboard

telemetry on an OBDIII-equipped vehicle, the need for periodic

inspections could be eliminated because only those vehicles that

reported problems would have to be tested.

On one hand, OBDIII with its telemetry reporting of emission

problems would save consumers the inconvenience and cost of

having to subject their vehicle to an annual or biennial

emissions test. As long as their vehicle reported no emission

problems, there'd be no need to test it. On the other hand,

should an emissions problem be detected, it would be much harder

to avoid having it fixed -- which is the goal of all clean air

programs anyway. By zeroing in on the vehicles that are actually

causing the most pollution, significant gains could be made in

improving our nation's air quality. But as it is now, polluters

may escape detection and repair for up to two years in areas that

have biennial inspections. And in areas that have no inspection

programs, there's no way to identify such vehicles. OBDIII would

change all that.

According to Mark Carlock with California's Air Resources

Board, the technology exists now to make OBDIII possible. "The

idea is to streamline the inspection process by only inspecting

those vehicles that really need it." Carlock says the technology

to do so is "no big deal." But he concedes that it would be the

model year 2000 at the soonest before OBDIII might actually be

required on new vehicles.

A prototype system built by GM Hughes Electronics has already

been evaluated by ARB that uses a roadside transmitter to

interrogate vehicles as they pass by. The system uses ultra low

power 10 milliwatt receiver stations and 1 milliwatt transmitters

(which is about 1,000 times less power than a typical cellular

telephone) with a broadcast frequency of 915 Mhz. The system is

reportedly capable of retrieving information from 8 lanes of

bumper-to-bumper traffic whizzing by at speeds up to 100 mph!

When the vehicle receiver hears the query signal from a

stationary or portable roadside transmitter, it transmits back an

answer in the form of the vehicle's 17-digit VIN number plus an

"okay" signal or any trouble codes that may be present. The

information can then be used to identify vehicles that are in

violation of clean air statutes so a notice can be sent that

repairs and/or smog testing is required. Or, the information

could be used on the spot to identify vehicles for a pullover

roadside emissions check or issuing an emissions citation.

The projected cost of such a system would be $50 per vehicle,

says Carlock, based on similar transponders that are in use for

electronic toll collecting. The transponders are about the size

of a small calculator.

The same basic approach could also be used with existing

cellular phone links (local station networks) and/or satellite

systems. To keep motorists from tampering with or disabling

their telemetry systems, vehicles could be interrogated randomly

or on a scheduled basis to monitor their condition. The OBDIII

telemetry could also be combined with global positioning system

(GPS) technology to document or monitor the whereabouts of

vehicles.

Orbiting 11,000 miles above the earth's surface are 24

military satellites that make up the Navstar global positioning

system. By timing radio signals from these satellites, the

position of a vehicle, boat or plane anywhere on the earth can be

fixed within a few meters. The GPS system is currently used by

many fleets for tracking the whereabouts of their vehicles as

well as by onboard navigation systems for pinpointing a vehicle's

location on an electronic map.

The advantages of using a satellite based telemetry system

for OBDIII rather than a roadside system are:

* Greater coverage of the entire vehicle population for more

accurate surveillance. Vehicles could be monitored and queried

no matter where they were, even while sitting in a garage or

driveway. There'd be no way to avoid the watchful eye of the

emissions police.

* Being able to locate vehicles that are in violation of

clean air statutes, either for "demographic studies" or to track

down and arrest violators.

* Being able to monitor the whereabouts of vehicles for

purposes other than emissions surveillance such as recovering

stolen vehicles (like today's LoJack anti-theft system), keeping

tabs on suspected drug dealers, gang members and other

undesirables.

* Being able to disable vehicles that belong to emission

scofflaws by transmitting a secret code. Law enforcement

officers might also be able to use such a code to disable a

vehicle fleeing from a crime scene or one that belonged to

someone with a backlog of unpaid traffic violations.

The specter of having Big Brother in every engine compartment

and driving a vehicle that rats on itself anytime it pollutes is

not one that would appeal to many motorists. So the merits of

OBDIII would have to be sold to the public based on its cost

savings, convenience and ability to make a real difference in air

quality. Even so, any serious attempt to require OBDIII in the

year 2000 or beyond will run afoul of Fourth Amendment issues

over rights of privacy and protection from government search and

seizure. Does the government have the right to snoop under your

hood anytime it chooses to do so, or to monitor the whereabouts

of your vehicle? These issues will have to be debated and

resolved before OBDIII stands a chance of being accepted. Given

the current political climate, such drastic changes seem

unlikely.

Another change that might come with OBDIII would be even

closer scrutiny of vehicle emissions. The misfire detection

algorithms currently required by OBDII only watch for misfires

during driving conditions that occur during the federal driving

cycle, which covers idle to 55 mph and moderate acceleration. It

does not monitor misfires during wide open throttle acceleration.

Full range misfire detection will be required for 1997 models.

OBDIII could go even further by requiring "fly-by-wire" throttle

controls to reduce the possibility of misfires on the coming

generation of low emission and ultra low emission vehicles.

So until OBDIII winds its way through the regulatory process,

all we have to worry about is diagnosing and repairing

OBDII-equipped vehicles and all the non-OBD vehicles that came

before them.

More on OBD 2 http://www.aa1car.com/library/ic50234.htm

Home page is quite informative too!

http://members.aol.com/carpix256/library/index.html

[mike 6]

i really dont have time to read all that, can you sum it up for me lol

[spindat45 0]

Basically OBD III will help the powers that be keep a closer eye on what we are up and where we are going to in our cars. Big Brother is watching!!!

[mike 6]

lol but if some on nicks it the have no idea where it is?

[mannie 0]

Disconnect the power cable to the "Transponder" .......SORTED !

[Petesvw 0]

Disconnect the power cable to the "Transponder" .......SORTED !

LMAO, why didn't i think of that ; )

[antera309 3]

This seems to be aimed at US States such as California where strict anti-smog regulations are in place due to the atmospheric conditions there.

However, the technology sounds very similar to that which our Government are planning to use for their beloved road pricing system.

With remote monitoring via the onboard telemetry on an OBDIII-equipped vehicle, the need for periodic inspections could be eliminated because only those vehicles that reported problems would have to be tested.......

......"The idea is to streamline the inspection process by only inspecting those vehicles that really need it.".....

is contradicted by:

....To keep motorists from tampering with or disabling their telemetry systems, vehicles could be interrogated randomly or on a scheduled basis to monitor their condition.

i.e. some sort of periodic test would still be required, so where's the benefit?

Cellular bandwidth costs more than diamond-studded gold, dipped in caviar and dusted with cocaine. Who's going to pay for all that airtime? The motorist won't pay unless there's a benefit to him. The Government certainly won't pay - they're only interested in bringing MORE money into the treasury.

Being able to disable vehicles that belong to emission

scofflaws by transmitting a secret code. Law enforcement

officers might also be able to use such a code to disable a

vehicle fleeing from a crime scene or one that belonged to

someone with a backlog of unpaid traffic violations.

This is scary stuff. The potential for accidents caused by such a system is massive. Unless such a system can be made 100% idiot-proof, I can't see vehicle safety bodies like NCAP approving it.