The Open Source, Modular Approach

[architect]

The following is a fine study of the open source, modular approach. While the target product is not an automobile, the principles and methodology used are applicable to the Tsikot PhUV project. Moreover, as we increasingly consider adding IT components (such as (RFID or zigbee, ECU-interfaced diagnostics, etc.), the software modules required can obviously be developed using this approach.

From http://buglabs.net/about

What is Bug Labs?

Bug Labs is developing BUG: An open source, web-enabled, modular software + hardware platform.

Bug Labs is a new kind of technology company, enabling a new generation of engineers to tap their creativity and build any type of device they want, without having to solder, learn solid state electronics, or go to China. Bug Labs envisions a future where CE stands for Community Electronics, the term "mashups" applies equally to hardware as it does to Web services, and entrepreneurs can appeal to numerous markets by inventing "The Long Tail" of devices.

The Story


Bug Labs didn't just start with a dream or a vision. As kids, we were more likely to take apart new toys than actually play with them, just to see what was inside. As teenagers, personal computers were still new and as much a challenge to tinker with as they were to operate.
With BUG, we want people to recapture and share this excitement again, and we want them to apply this to their everyday device. We believe everybody is an inventor at heart, so we've developed a platform for users to create and forever modify their favorite gadget, allowing for ultimate customization and use.


Inspiration

There are so many great gadget ideas that haven't been thought of yet. With BUG, we want to unlock and inspire the discovery and creation of as many of these devices as possible.
Products

BUG is a collection of easy-to-use, open source hardware modules, each capable of producing one or more Web services. These modules snap together physically and the services connect together logically to enable users to easily build, program and share innovative devices and applications. With BUG, we don't define the final products - you do.

BUGbase - shipping Q4, 2007

BUGbase is the foundation of your BUG device. It's a fully programmable and "hackable" Linux computer, equipped with a fast CPU, 128MB RAM, built-in WiFi, rechargeable battery, USB, Ethernet, and a small LCD with button controls. It also has a tripod mount because, well, why not? Each BUGbase houses four connectors for users to combine any assortment of BUGmodules to create their ultimate gadget.



Technical Specifications

• ARM1136JF-S-based microprocessor
• 1 USB 2.0 HS host interface/4 hub port connections
• 1 USB OTG HS interface
• 4 UART serial links
• 4 channel SPI interface
• I2C (400 kbits) interface/4 channels
• I2S interface/2 channels
• Smart LCD interface
• Camera sensor interface
• Micro memory card interface
• MPEG4 hardware encoding/decoding
• Hardware graphic acceleration
• 10/100 Ethernet MAC
• 802.11b/g

• Base unit LCD module interface
• Base unit onboard memory (FLASH/DDR SDRAM)
• JTAG/ICE support
• Serial debug port
• Power system
• AC operation
• Battery operation/up to 4 external batteries
• Fast battery charging/simultaneous of internal and external batteries
• Smart power management support
• Battery-backed real-time clock
• Audio out via onboard piezo speaker

BUGmodules

BUGmodules are the functional components used to add capabilities to your BUG device. Each module connects to the BUGbase, and installing and swapping modules is literally a snap. Each additional module exponentially increases the overall function of your BUG, and every combination unlocks virtually unlimited new potential devices.



Software

BUG is built entirely with open source software. BMI, the BUG Module Interface, attaches devices to the BUG. Device-based services and applications are dynamically available based on which modules are connected to the BUG. Higher up the stack is Java, which hosts a service-oriented component runtime called OSGi. Java and OSGi make creating new BUG applications simple and intuitive, as BUG applications are essentially one or more bundles. In addition, each BUG module launches an OSGi bundle which in turn creates services for other components to consume. BUG applications are created using the BUG SDK (internally named Dragonfly), and are shared with other developers and users through BUGnet, our online community.

Screenshots of SDK

• 
• 

[jaredpogi]

Interesting post you have here. In fact, I myself is an advocate of Open Source development in fact I spearheaded several open source projects such as The Patriot which is an implementation of JSR-212 specifications for Server API for Messaging (SAMS) used to standardize server-side SMS/MMS applications. And I do it on my free time. Currently, I'm spending time in Eclipse RCP (Rich-Client Platform) a new breed of client/server technology which by the way is an Open Source project led by IBM.

But there will be some issues if we will apply this approach to designing a vehicle. Like licensing the derivative or the product, will it be GPL, BSD, ASF or Creative Commons? Definitely we can't patent it and nobody owns the copyright. But this is a good start specially for a third-world country like Philippines. But beware as well that most Open Source projects has lousy documentations and mediocre User Interfaces which is akin to the looks of our "owner jeeps", anfras, harabas and the edgy locally assembled AUVs.

We need brilliant design teams from top to bottom, inside and out to do with the design which is not really a simple task. A good inspiration will be Bruno Sacco (The 80's Mercedes-Benz designer) which maintains some simple rules that proven its worth until now; it has to be fresh and it has to be reliable. Put a 1989 W124 beside a 1999 Honda Accord for instance, which car is still a looker? The point here is if we are to built a car in a modular and open source approach, it has to be the best, not another eye-sore rolling out in our highways, it has to get a threatening attention of the Germans and the Italians, not just designing something that brings us from Point A to Point B because it's just a waste of time. And since it's open source, control on the input has to be in place just like contributing to the Linux Kernel source, not all programmers can commit codes in there. It has to be a selection of the best in the country.

Just my 2 cents

[architect]

Hi jaredpogi,

Thanks for your insightful post. The issues you raised manifest your appreciation of the open source concept and are very valid. In fact, they have been the subject of various long discussions among the members of the Tsikot design core group.

…But there will be some issues if we will apply this approach to designing a vehicle. Like licensing the derivative or the product, will it be GPL, BSD, ASF or Creative Commons? Definitely we can't patent it and nobody owns the copyright. But this is a good start specially for a third-world country like Philippines.

Very true. Even as we go into the scale model phase, we have not yet settled this. Some members are inclined to deviate from the open-source model and apply for design patents but allow for free usage to certified applicants. Others insist it should be basically GPL-compliant.

For all the discussions and debates that we had have, we need to be constantly reminded that there are some intrinsic differences between our project and software development, the latter obviously being essentially digital and virtual. With software, making perfect copies is straightforward and simple. Obviously this is not the case for automobiles. Moreover, with software, “fatal” syntax bugs often result in system crashes, with a reboot being the solution. While with automobiles, “fatal” flaws can mean “fatal.”

So obviously an implementation of any of the open source concepts will have to be tempered by the limitations, or restrictions, that a physical product would be subject to, including potential consequences. Anything less will result in a chaotic and disastrous implementation. In addition, there are other factors we need to consider, though I am more inclined to discuss these offline.

Thus, we do need to consider patents, if applicable, not so much as to restrict but to regulate usage. Is it still open source? Maybe not. But I would argue that it still adheres to the essence of open source in that the group shares the fundamental objectives of the open source movement. It is similar to Bug Labs’ approach as well.

But beware as well that most Open Source projects has lousy documentations and mediocre User Interfaces which is akin to the looks of our "owner jeeps", anfras, harabas and the edgy locally assembled AUVs.

Very, very true. That is why we have been recruiting members from all disciplines to fill in the gaps in the expertise required.

As for UIs and design styles, there are several architects, aside from a professional automotive designer and several advanced hobbyist designers in the group, who are well versed in fundamental design.

We have in fact dissected the design grammar of the original jeep and those of its derivatives – Land Rover, Range Rover, Hummer, FJ Cruiser, and of course, our own OTJs and jeepneys – and analyzed the respective vocabularies to better understand, in a design philosophical way, why the first group are much more appealing than the latter group.

We need brilliant design teams from top to bottom, inside and out to do with the design which is not really a simple task.

The most complex design problem can always be articulated into a series of manageable small steps. This is our approach. And where needed, the group is not opposed to recruiting like-minded individuals who can bring something additional to the table.

A good inspiration will be Bruno Sacco (The 80's Mercedes-Benz designer) which maintains some simple rules that proven its worth until now; it has to be fresh and it has to be reliable. Put a 1989 W124 beside a 1999 Honda Accord for instance, which car is still a looker?

Yes, Sacco is indeed a good model. His W201 (I believe you have one. J) and W124 designs look amazingly contemporary today as they did back in the 80s.

Giorgetto Giugiaro is another good example. While his designs vary greatly in price, from Bugattis, BMWs, DeLorean, Lambos, to Hyundais and Daewoos, you can see a lot of similarities in the lines across the range. In studying his design style, it helps that Giugiaro is extremely prolific, since some of his designs were not as successful as his notable ones. By comparing these, you can determine the undesirable design elements and avoid using them. (Actually one of my UCLA masteral classmate did an analysis on him. Unfortunately I have forgotten his name and can’t in touch with him to get a copy of that paper.)

The point here is if we are to built a car in a modular and open source approach, it has to be the best, not another eye-sore rolling out in our highways, it has to get a threatening attention of the Germans and the Italians, not just designing something that brings us from Point A to Point B because it's just a waste of time.

Just curious – when you say “get a threatening attention” what do you mean? Would you say the Tata Nano succeeded in doing that?

In designing and producing our own car, the group often ask ourselves – what is our objective? Is it to impress the world? Or is to address the lack of affordable, reliable private transportation?

And since it's open source, control on the input has to be in place just like contributing to the Linux Kernel source, not all programmers can commit codes in there. It has to be a selection of the best in the country.

Exactly. That is why there has to be some sort of restrictions.

BTW, the group, sometimes sub-group, meet very often. Perhaps you may want to join us?

[jaredpogi]

Thus, we do need to consider patents, if applicable, not so much as to restrict but to regulate usage. Is it still open source? Maybe not. But I would argue that it still adheres to the essence of open source in that the group shares the fundamental objectives of the open source movement. It is similar to Bug Labs’ approach as well.

I remember we had an open source project before but we can't decide which open source license to use, instead we wrote our own that fits our needs and protects in the way we wanted. Writing/Chartering your own license is nothing new. That's the beauty of Open Source.

We have in fact dissected the design grammar of the original jeep and those of its derivatives – Land Rover, Range Rover, Hummer, FJ Cruiser, and of course, our own OTJs and jeepneys – and analyzed the respective vocabularies to better understand, in a design philosophical way, why the first group are much more appealing than the latter group.

It will also help if the will understand the design culture of, say what is the culture behind the Mercedes-Benz design? How did they came up with such notable designs? Questions like how come the Germans and Italians can build great cars for decades and Filipinos can't even improve Jeepney designs for decades? Should be explicitly answered. Our materials and techniques are not far from each other but we lack what is called "state-of-the-art". Again, this shortcoming will be blamed on lack of funding, lack of support etc. But we have to throw ourselves a big question; What is the Value Proposition of this Great Car of ours? Which brings me to respond to your curiousity

Just curious – when you say “get a threatening attention” what do you mean? Would you say the Tata Nano succeeded in doing that?

The Value of our Proposition can only be determined by how serious the Germans, The Italians or other Automotive authorities will treat and respect our undertaking. Tata in it's own way has its vision of bringing car to every household (the meaning of "Volkswagen"). If the "value" of this project is compelling enough, it will not be difficult to get funding or even material support from these people(the Germans and the Italians).

In designing and producing our own car, the group often ask ourselves – what is our objective? Is it to impress the world? Or is to address the lack of affordable, reliable private transportation?

We don't lack affordable, reliable private transportation. If you can only see the traffic jam today The government is even trying to find ways to control its volume. Honestly, the objective should be to bring back pleasure in driving just like the old days hehehe. To impress the world is another story and I may not call it a vague objective. Because if the world was indeed impressed all your efforts are not put in vain and if the world is impressed, who knows, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche etc. will be knocking in our doors not to setup factories but R&D centers which is more profitable and healthier to our environment. This is just thinking beyond who will use our cars. But who will build them. Imagine why Europe is prosperous without going to war for oil. :D

BTW, the group, sometimes sub-group, meet very often. Perhaps you may want to join us?

If time permits, I can join. Thanks!

[architect]

It will also help if they will understand the design culture of, say what is the culture behind the Mercedes-Benz design? How did they came up with such notable designs? Questions like how come the Germans and Italians can build great cars for decades and Filipinos can't even improve Jeepney designs for decades? Should be explicitly answered. Our materials and techniques are not far from each other but we lack what is called "state-of-the-art". Again, this shortcoming will be blamed on lack of funding, lack of support etc.

Of course. That’s part and parcel of our study and analysis. It is not so much as lack of funding or support but rather having a different mindset, one that is detrimental to achieving progress in terms of design. Of course, various factors, such as economics, play significant roles.

Also, our focus is not so much as to pinpoint faults or accuse certain parties of sins of omission or lack of support but more of identifying what aspects need to be improved and how to improve such.

]But we have to throw ourselves a big question; What is the Value Proposition of this Great Car of ours? Which brings me to respond to your curiosity

Well, first of all, we have never discussed developing a “Great” car. Our objective is to design, develop, and deploy an affordable, reliable car that is cost-effective in performance and servicing while inherently embodying Filipino characteristics. Clearly, we are not talking about cutting-edge technology or high-level performance, though a sub-group has discussed designing a Pinoy sports car.

The Value of our Proposition can only be determined by how serious the Germans, The Italians or other Automotive authorities will treat and respect our undertaking. Tata in its own way has its vision of bringing car to every household (the meaning of "Volkswagen"). If the "value" of this project is compelling enough, it will not be difficult to get funding or even material support from these people (the Germans and the Italians).

With all due respect to the Germans, Italians et al, we are not designing for them. If you study how Tata approached the Nano (nee One Lakh) project, its emphasis was on local components, although admittedly some core technology are foreign. It is the same with the Chinese (Geely, Chery, etc.). While we and most of the rest of the world sneer at their approach, they have nevertheless steadily marched on with their progress.

We don't lack affordable, reliable private transportation. If you can only see the traffic jam today [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/KHO/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]The government is even trying to find ways to control its volume.

I beg to disagree. The traffic jams you see today are basically caused by buses, jeepneys, and tricycles – all public utility vehicles.

Honestly, the objective should be to bring back pleasure in driving just like the old days hehehe.

This is where we significantly differ from Pinoy car aficionados, of which there are a lot here in tsikot. Early on, we recognize that our target market is not car aficionados but people who regard affordable automobiles as enabling mobility.

We are fully aware that we will most likely disappoint a lot of tsikoteers if and when we come out with our car(s). For sure, you won’t see any cutting-edge technology or high-level performance in our designs. Our approach is to go back to basics – use what is proven, time-tested, and cost-effective. Our priority is simply to achieve our stated objective.

To impress the world is another story and I may not call it a vague objective. Because if the world was indeed impressed all your efforts are not put in vain and if the world is impressed, who knows, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche etc. will be knocking in our doors not to setup factories but R&D centers which is more profitable and healthier to our environment. This is just thinking beyond who will use our cars. But who will build them. Imagine why Europe is prosperous without going to war for oil.

Again, we are not out to impress others. More than just designing and producing cars, our objective is to build the foundation for future generations. Honestly, I doubt if the Philippines will achieve international stature at par with say even the Indians in the next five or ten years. But that is not to say it is impossible for us to achieve that in 20 years or so. By laying the foundation, we are hoping that we will make it easier for those who will follow us to build on past efforts so that they can bring the country to greater heights. And that, my friend, is the essence of our little endeavor here.


PS. If you are serious about joining us, kindly pm your contact details to Dprox. He is the moderator for the group. Thanks.

[jaredpogi]

Well, first of all, we have never discussed developing a “Great” car. Our objective is to design, develop, and deploy an affordable, reliable car that is cost-effective in performance and servicing while inherently embodying Filipino characteristics. Clearly, we are not talking about cutting-edge technology or high-level performance, though a sub-group has discussed designing a Pinoy sports car.

Ok, when we discuss "state-of-the-art", we don't assume it's a sports car, it's an engineering term that connotes highest -level of technique or design or development, if that is not part or embodiment of Filipino charateristic then I don't know what is. State-of-the-art is not about cutting-edge hence cutting-edge means unproven technology, state-of-the-art is a near perfect level.

With all due respect to the Germans, Italians et al, we are not designing for them. If you study how Tata approached the Nano (nee One Lakh) project, its emphasis was on local components, although admittedly some core technology are foreign. It is the same with the Chinese (Geely, Chery, etc.). While we and most of the rest of the world sneer at their approach, they have nevertheless steadily marched on with their progress.

Nobody sneered at them, in fact, it was a great undertaking and probably with a help of a foreign investment (funding etc.). Of course you're not primarily designing for the Germans and the Italians but definitely you'll appreciate all the help you can get from them. The way Tata approached Nano in terms of local components and whatever technical undertakings are just tip of the iceberg that made the design "successful". Again, they were able to express the Value Proposition of this Nano to the stakeholders in a way that everyone appreciates(read: less questions asked and more funds flowing). Because you got to ask yourself, what is the value of your project? What is it worth? Is it really worth pursuing? What difference does a not-so-great-car from Philippines make from others? Will Juan Dela Cruz buy an unproven Philippine car even if it's affordable?

I beg to disagree. The traffic jams you see today are basically caused by buses, jeepneys, and tricycles – all public utility vehicles.

Sorry, but that would be an irrational assumption without statistical basis. I'm sure you don't want to embarrass yourself one day when buses, jeepneys and tricycles are suddenly removed from the streets and you still see traffic jams. You must not take out the fact that the volume of private vehicles in the street alone does not decrease every year. That's why we don't lack affordable private transporation, this one alone cuts off from the Value Proposition.

This is where we significantly differ from Pinoy car aficionados, of which there are a lot here in tsikot. Early on, we recognize that our target market is not car aficionados but people who regard affordable automobiles as enabling mobility.

Sorry again, by mean of driving pleasure. Please don't assume car aficianados. It's not about that. You got to ask yourself, how much stress do you take when driving in a traffic jam? Plus adding an "affordable" car to an already congested road? If these conditions are fine with you, remember there are more people who are definitely not happy about this and would rather see fewer cars on the road. And when you say "target market" you got to have a business plan to present to your stakeholders to justify what are you wasting your time for. Please don't take this personally, I've been doing technical presentations to different VCs (Venture Capitalists) here and abroad and the two magic words that you must have a very clear answer for is "Value Proposition". Without value, whatever you're doing is useless. Without value, your direction is gray. Without value, the only end is mediocrity.

I'm not trying to discourage on what you're doing, actually you got to keep it up. And once you're progressing you'll be invited to present what you got in different audiences and you'll have to be ready with non-technical answers without zealotry specially when you're pitching for aid. Mine is just a litmus test. Good luck!

[architect]

Ok, when we discuss "state-of-the-art", we don't assume it's a sports car, it's an engineering term that connotes highest -level of technique or design or development, if that is not part or embodiment of Filipino charateristic then I don't know what is. State-of-the-art is not about cutting-edge hence cutting-edge means unproven technology, state-of-the-art is a near perfect level.

Yes, I am aware of that. And as I said previously, we are not trying to use state-of-the-art technology here. As for embodying Filipino characteristics/traits – there are several aspects here. I was merely defining it from a design standpoint.

Nobody sneered at them, in fact, it was a great undertaking and probably with a help of a foreign investment (funding etc.). Of course you're not primarily designing for the Germans and the Italians but definitely you'll appreciate all the help you can get from them. The way Tata approached Nano in terms of local components and whatever technical undertakings are just tip of the iceberg that made the design "successful". Again, they were able to express the Value Proposition of this Nano to the stakeholders in a way that everyone appreciates(read: less questions asked and more funds flowing).

Sorry for the miscommunication. I meant they sneered at the Chinese’s penchant for copying and cutting corners. I wasn’t referring to Tata.

Of course, we will appreciate any sincere help we can get. In fact, we plan to get help.

Because you got to ask yourself, what is the value of your project? What is it worth? Is it really worth pursuing? What difference does a not-so-great-car from Philippines make from others? Will Juan Dela Cruz buy an unproven Philippine car even if it's affordable?

Those are good questions and which we have tackled over and over again. To better appreciate the philosophy of our approach, it is best you attend one of the EBs, where you can meet the guys and get the answers.

Sorry, but that would be an irrational assumption without statistical basis. I'm sure you don't want to embarrass yourself one day when buses, jeepneys and tricycles are suddenly removed from the streets and you still see traffic jams. You must not take out the fact that the volume of private vehicles in the street alone does not decrease every year. That's why we don't lack affordable private transporation, this one alone cuts off from the Value Proposition.

It is not an irrational assumption. Neither is it without basis. All pertinent statistics are easily obtainable from MMDA, LTRFB, and LTO. There are also several studies published by various agencies that are available on the net.

An ocular inspection of EDSA alone can tell you traffic jams occur where you have bus terminals/stops. You do not even need sophisticated equipment. Just watch the morning or evening news when they show you the traffic flow on EDSA.

Sorry again, by mean of driving pleasure. Please don't assume car aficianados. It's not about that. You got to ask yourself, how much stress do you take when driving in a traffic jam? Plus adding an "affordable" car to an already congested road? If these conditions are fine with you, remember there are more people who are definitely not happy about this and would rather see fewer cars on the road.

What you say is very true of MetroManila. But our target market is not exactly MetroManila but the provinces where the congestion problem is not as bad, although it is comparable in some places. But, of course, we won’t stop people in MetroManila from buying our vehicle if they choose to.

As for satisfying everyone, that is quite difficult to achieve. Having said that, we are aware that, oftentimes, when a solution is introduced, new problems will appear. We are still in the process of addressing such potential problems.

And when you say "target market" you got to have a business plan to present to your stakeholders to justify what are you wasting your time for. Please don't take this personally, I've been doing technical presentations to different VCs (Venture Capitalists) here and abroad and the two magic words that you must have a very clear answer for is "Value Proposition". Without value, whatever you're doing is useless. Without value, your direction is gray. Without value, the only end is mediocrity.

Oh don’t worry. I usually don't take things personally especially when discussing projects. Of course, value proposition is often considered especially when negotiating with Sand Hill Road type VCs, as is the SWOT of the project. But this project is not exactly your 1 minute elevator type in search of VC funding.

Suffice to say, I have been on both sides of the table – both as the investor and as the project proponent.

The stakeholders here are far removed from the financial world. The environment in which we are working here has a whole set of different models. It will take forever to explain our approach here. That is why I would like you to join our EB. I am sure we can learn a thing or two from you as well.

I'm not trying to discourage on what you're doing, actually you got to keep it up. And once you're progressing you'll be invited to present what you got in different audiences and you'll have to be ready with non-technical answers without zealotry specially when you're pitching for aid. Mine is just a litmus test. Good luck!

I fully understand you and appreciate your insights. But keep in mind I am but just one of several in the group. We each have our roles. While I can obviously answer your questions, I am actually not the one responsible for applying for grants. We have someone far more experienced and qualified to do that. Thanks!

[jaredpogi]

Oh don’t worry. I usually don't take things personally especially when discussing projects. Of course, value proposition is often considered especially when negotiating with Sand Hill Road type VCs, as is the SWOT of the project. But this project is not exactly your 1 minute elevator type in search of VC funding.

Actually 1 minute pitch is already too long, we normally gun for 45 seconds well, that is just allegorically speaking But it will normally start with "Would you like to find out how are we going to build a car that is less than $3000?". Of course, after 45 seconds, the rest is history as they say.

The stakeholders here are far removed from the financial world. The environment in which we are working here has a whole set of different models. It will take forever to explain our approach here. That is why I would like you to join our EB. I am sure we can learn a thing or two from you as well.

I'm more keen in the use Open Source approach in this car design. Because if that is deemed successful, that alone is already a pioneering milestone not only in the Philippine Automotive Industry but the rest of the car-making world as well. We'll see. Keep in touch! Thanks!