Worldwide Plans for Harmonization of Automotive Radars ......Vehicular radar frequencies – the key performance indicators 24GHz NB 24/26 GHz UWB 77GHz ACC band 79GHz band Available

C/AGT CoC RFA Mr | 02.05.2011 | FRI045110516 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2011. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, auch bzgl. jeder Verfügung,

Verwertung, Reproduktion, Bearbeitung, Weitergabe sowie für den Fall von Schutzrechtsanmeldungen.

Worldwide Plans for Harmonization of Automotive

Radars (Short-Range and Medium-Range) at

77-81 GHz, and Compatibility with

Incumbent Users

1



Automotive Radar Motivation

Motivation and Background

information for the need of

radar sensors

2



Predictive Emergency Braking System

1%

20%

11%

45%

5%2%

10%

6%

Accidents with Fatalities

n = 38,588

vehicle moving ahead or waiting

parked vehicle

vehicle moving laterally in same direction

oncoming vehicle

vehicle which turns into or crosses a road

pedestrian

fixed object or vehicle leaving carriageway

accident of another kind (unknown, not fixed object, animal …)

Collision with ...

*sources:

NHTSA/NCSA 2006

2%

32%

3%

23% 28%

4%

4%

4%

Accidents with Injuries

n = 1,784,588 Accidents

Predictive Emergency

Braking Systems

could avoid

or mitigate

Accidents

Electronic

Stability Control

and

Lane Departure

Warning Systems

resp. could avoid

or mitigate

Scope of Safety Functions – US Accident Data*

3




PEBS Functions Examined in Benefit Analysis

Forward Collision Warning* FCW

• acoustic/optical warning only at fixed point

in time

• limited to good weather and to minimum

vehicle speed

Predictive Collision Warning PCW

• warning strategy including brake jerk

• driver monitoring to optimize warning strategy

• adapted system reaction for stationary objects

Emergency Braking Assist EBA

• includes PCW

• target braking for optimized brake support

to avoid collision

Automatic Emergency Braking AEB

• includes EBA

• automatic partial braking

• automatic full braking when collision

unavoidable

*Remark: For the following investigation an FCW

realization is used that would just fulfill the requirements

of the NHTSA FCW Confirmation Test.

EBA

Emergency

Brake

Assist

AEB

Automatic

Emergency

Braking

PCW

Predictive

Collision Warning

common industry view

4

http://www.nhtsa.gov/



Vehicle Deceleration prior to Rear End Crashes1

.

31%

2%4%

11%

32%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0% < 25%


26- 50% 51-75% > 75% ~100%

Sh

are

of

ac

cid

en

ts

Ratio of actual braking compared to maximum possible deceleration2

2 Maximum possible deceleration was determined

based on weather and road condition

1 Evaluation based on 1103 rear end crashes in GIDAS.

Source: Bosch Analysis of GIDAS Database (2001-2005)

No Braking Partial Braking Full Braking

5




The PEBS function – A detailed view

Brake

Jerk

Acoustic

Alert

Brake

Pre-fill

driver braking

without EBA

braking

assist

automatic

partial braking

automatic

emergency braking

EBA

AEB

Driver

Brakes

Increasing risk

Crash avoidable

Crash imminent

Crash

UnavoidableCrash

Gray

zone

Brake jerk was evaluated to be the most effective driver alert

6

02.05.2011 | FRI045110516 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2011. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, auch bzgl. jeder Verfügung, Verwertung, Reproduktion,

Bearbeitung, Weitergabe sowie für den Fall von Schutzrechtsanmeldungen.


Translation to US Boundary Conditions

63%

10%

10%

5%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

7%

54%

9%

19%

6%

1% 2%

2%

1% 3

% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

21 25 29 22 26 30 23 27 31 11

GIDAS

GES

Collision with ...

parked vehicle

turn left

slower vehicle

intending to…

go straight

turn right

turn left

stopped vehicle

intending to…

go straight

turn right

(22)

(21)

(23)

(11)

(26)

(25)

(27)

Occu

rre

nce

with

in s

co

pe

of P

EB

S

Accident

type

<1

%

<1

%

<1

%

sources: StBA, GIDAS, NHTSA, Year 2006

327,984 crashes with injuries/fatalities, 12% within scope of PEBS*

1,784,588 crashes with injuries/fatalities, 27% within scope of PEBS*

* rear-crash accidents caused by passenger cars only, no trucks

turn left

decelerating vehicle

intending to…

go straight

turn right

(30)

(29)

(31)

Main Assumption: Driver Behavior

basically identical in U.S. and Germany

GIDAS (German In-Depth Accident Study), http://www.gidas.org/

7




0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Source: Bosch Analysis of GIDAS Database (2001-2005), modeled under idealized conditions

FCW Forward Collision Warning*

• acoustic/optical warning only

at fixed point in time

• limited to good weather and to

minimum vehicle speed

PCW Predictive Collision Warning

• warning cascade including brake jerk

• driver monitoring to optimize

warning strategy

EBA Emergency Braking Assist

• includes PCW

• target braking for optimized

brake support to avoid collision

AEB Automatic Emergency Braking

• includes EBA



unavoidable

PCW EBA AEBFCW

39% 58% 74%22%

* Remark: For this investigation an FCW realization was used that would just fulfill the requirements of the

NHTSA FCW Conformance Test.

Fraction of Avoided Rear-End Crashes with Injuries/Fatalities

avo

ide

d re

ar-

en

d c

rash

es

with

in

juri

es/fata

litie

s

8




0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FCW Forward Collision Warning*

• acoustic/optical warning only

at fixed point in time

• limited to good weather and to

minimum vehicle speed

PCW Predictive Collision Warning

• warning cascade including brake jerk

• driver monitoring to optimize

warning strategy

EBA Emergency Braking Assist

• includes PCW

• target braking for optimized

brake support to avoid collision

AEB Automatic Emergency Braking

• includes EBA



unavoidable

21% 28% 47%12%

PCW EBA AEBFCW

Source: Bosch Analysis of GIDAS Database (2001-2005), modeled under idealized conditions

* Remark: For this investigation an FCW realization was used that would just fulfill the requirements of the

NHTSA FCW Conformance Test.

Average reduction of collision speed

(for unavoided accidents)

sp

ee

d re

du

ctio

n fo

r re

ar-

en

d c

rash

es

with

in

juri

es/fata

litie

s

9



Status quo;

What regulation

already exists?

10



Current frequency allocation for 24 GHz Narrowband

Pro

Worldwide frequency allocation

Con

Only 200 MHz bandwidth minimum resolution = 1m

ISM band no protection from interference from other services

MOSARIM (European funded ) project

11



Current frequency allocation for 24/26 GHz UWB

Pro

Large bandwidth ( good separation) and only few incumbent frequency users

Con

No allocation in Korea and China, sunset date in Europe („2018+4“, new

ECC and EC decision April 2011)

Low power (-41.3dBm / MHz) limited range (10-20m)

12



Current frequency allocation status for 79 GHz UWB

Pro

Large bandwidth ( good separation) and marginal incumbent frequency users

Con

Allocation currently only in Europe, Australia and Singapore

new European funded project to clarify all open issues / world wide regulation (CSA 79 GHz)

77.5-78.0 GHz is not yet allocated to „radiolocation“ on ITU level

77-81 GHz so far „not compatible with RAS “

13



Worldwide Regulatory Situation - 77 GHz LRR

US: in part 15.253 (reduced EIRP

while in standstill with +23.5 dBm)

EU: European Commission

Not an ISM band, but available incl.

CEPT countries

Australia: in LIPD Class Licence 2000

Canada: in RSS 210

Japan: ARIB STD 48 limited to 500

MHz!!

Russia: again available after some comp.

studies

Brazil: Recommendation 365

China: MRE Category G (XIV)

77 GHz "ACC / Long range radar band" from 76 GHz to 77 GHz is

nearly worldwide available with a few national restrictions in

operational parameters (e.g. bandwidth, output power)

14



Worldwide Regulatory Situation - 79 GHz UWB

US: first negotiations started

EU: allowed since 2004 in

decision 2004/545/EC

Australia: variation to LIPD

2000 in draft version available

Singapore: allowed since 2007

in IAD TS UWB

Canada: n.a.

Japan: HR Radar working

group

Russia: positive study result!

Brazil: n.a.

79 GHz "UWB SRR band" from 77 GHz to 81 GHz is actually available in

EU countries, Australia, New Zealand and in Singapore. Lobbying work

in some important countries started!

15



Current frequency allocation status - summary

77 GHz 79 GHz

24 GHz NB 24/26 GHz UWB

Cut off Date in EC

„2018 + 4“

16



ITU-R Organization for ITS – Study period 2008 - 12

17




18




WRC input Japan

19



Technical situation

assessment;

the key performance

indicators

20



Vehicular radar frequencies –

the key performance indicators

24GHz NB 24/26 GHz UWB 77GHz ACC

band

79GHz band

Available Bandwidth < 200MHz

typ. 100 MHz

5 to 7 GHz

typ. 0.5 to 2

GHz

1GHz

typ. 200 MHz

4GHz

typ. 2 to 3 GHz

target separation

capability

150cm 10cm 75 cm 7.5cm

max. power e.i.r.p. in

EU/CEPT

20dBm* peak 0dBm/50MHz

(peak)

-41dBm/MHz

(RMS)

55dBm*

50/23.5dBm*

55dBm*

-3

(91)dBm/MHz

(RMS)

S/N ratio gained# up to 46dB 0dB ≈ 22…42dB1 ≈ 10…42dB2

* measured over the entire bandwidth# compared to 24GHz UWB1 measured outside the vehicle2 depending on applied modulation and noise figure of system

Vehicular radar frequencies – the key performance indicators

21



Feasibility overview –

what applications are possible?

Applications 24GHz NB 24/26 GHz UWB 77GHz ACC band 79GHz band

ACC low cost ACC

possible

not possible due to

range limitation

yes no, special ACC

band available

ACC with Stop & Go limited due to

separation

performance

yes yes yes

Precrash and

Pedestrian

protection

no, not enough

precision

yes no, not enough

precision and field of

view

yes

Blind Spot

Monitoring

limited performance,

often in combination

with LCA

yes no yes

Emergency brake no, not enough

precision

yes, in combination

with ACC radar

yes, in combination

with UWB SRR

yes, in combination

with ACC radar

Lane Change Assist yes no yes yes

Parking aid not possible due to

weak object

separation

yes not appropriate due

to high power

yes

Feasibility overview – what applications are possible?

22



Current frequency usage by applications

Current frequency usage by applications

23



Safety concepts evolution by next generation

frequency usage

77 GHz LRR

24 GHz SRR

todays safety

system concept

24 GHz NB

79 GHz MRR

next generation

safety system layout

79 GHz MRR

79 GHz SRR

77 GHz LRR 77 GHz LRR

76 77 81 GHz

polarization a

polarization b

24 77 GHz

Safety concepts evolution by next generation frequency usage

heterogenic approach with different radar

systems having different performance,

interference risk and application portfolio

a common radar sensor source from 76 to

81 GHz that covers all applications,

Interference free operation (shown

partition is only one possible example)

24



The 79 GHz band

PROs & CONs

25



79 GHz Automotive Radar Systems

Mutual interference of Automotive Radars

Automotive radar

frequency band

bottleneck consequence

24 GHz narrowband

(24.05 to 24.25 GHz)

bandwidth all radars operate with high power in the

same, small frequency range

=> very high interference risk

26 GHz UWB SRR

(24.25 to 29 GHz)

low emission

power

very low emission power => low

interference risk

77 GHz ACC high power,

no standard

no standard regarding interference

mitigation installed or planned

79 GHz SRR none De-facto standard possible because no

products in the market and interference

free design still possible

Goal / Topic of the MOSARIM project to clarify this issue

26

t.b.d.



Approach: Application based band segments

Possible approach: application based band segments

Draft proposal, subject to discussions between

stakeholders

27

Interference Risks from other services



79 GHz Automotive Radar Systems

Automotive radar

frequency band

# of other

inband users

consequence

24 GHz narrowband

(24.05 to 24.25 GHz)

very high ISM, no control of the band possible, high

interference potential, no protection at all

26 GHz UWB SRR

(24.25 to 29 GHz)

medium primary and co-primary services, with very

tough interference protection requirements

that limit SRR capability

77 GHz ACC only few actually very low usage of the band,

very high vehicular radar emission power

allowed, low interference risk by others

79 GHz SRR only few very low interference risk by others due to

mainly passive service usage only

Goal / Topic of the MOSARIM project to clarify the interference issues

28



Requirements for Radar Sensors

29



High-Resolution technology by 7X-Radar system

2) Investigation for new wide-band

radar systems

- Measurement / Characterization

of transmission

- Countermeasures for potential

interference

*Interference should be a problem

to achieve higher attachment rate

=Goal=

Detect objects with

<20cm resolution at x10m

(5x higher resolution)

*existing radar systems with 100-200MHz

can„t have such high isolation capability

1) Investigation for new wide-band radar concept

- Higher Resolution / Isolation capability

- More precise Distance / Angle detection capability

- Required frequency range / band

30



Motivation for higher frequencies

31

• small antennas most suitable for car integration

• high absolute bandwidth available enabling high separation in distance

High bandwidth for robust and precise radar measurements

31



Advantages 76 / 79 GHz Automotive Radar Systems

∆

∆R

∆24 GHzNarrow-Band

BW 200MHz max

∆R

24/26 GHzUWB 5 GHz BW

∆R

∆77 GHz1 GHz BW

∆V

∆79 GHz4 GHz BW

Legend:

Doppler resolution of object distance is RF frequency dependant

Higher RF frequency enables better Doppler resolution

For a given aperture, the resolution increases with frequency.

Angular resolution depends on antenna aperture.

∆V : Velocity Axis

: Angle Axis

: Range Axis

The smaller the cubic the better the radar performance

Sensor Performance

∆V ∆V ∆V

∆R

∆

∆R

Advantages 76 / 79 GHz Radar Sensors

The smaller the cubic, the better is the overall performance

79 GHz outperforms all other frequency operation ranges !!!

32




Sensor Technology Comparison

SHORT-

RANGE

RADAR

(24 GH2 UWB)

LONG-

RANGE

RADAR

(77 GHz)

LIDAR ULTRASONIC VIDEO

RANGE MEASUREMENT <2 m ++ - 0 ++ -

RANGE MEASUREMENT 2 to 30 m ++ ++ ++ - -

RANGE MEASUREMENT 30 to 100 m - ++ + -- -

ANGLE MEASUREMENT <10 DEGREES + + ++ - ++

ANGLE MEASUREMENT >30 DEGREES 0 - ++ 0 ++

ANGULAR RESOLUTION 0 0 ++ - ++

DIRECT VELOCITY MEASUREMENT ++ ++ -- 0 --

OPERATION in RAIN ++ + - 0 0

OPERATION in FOG or SNOW ++ ++ - + -

BLOCKAGE (DIRT on SENSOR) ++ ++ 0 + --

OPERATION at NIGHT ++ ++ ++ ++ --

++

+

0

-

--

IDEALLY SUITED

GOOD PERFORMANCE

POSSIBLE, MODEST PERFORMANCE

FEASIBLE, ONLY WITH LARGE EFFORT

IMPOSSIBLE

Next generation solutions

33




34

79 GHz is most likely the long-term solution for automotive due to:

high range

high spatial resolution

high angular resolution

higher doppler shift

34




UWB- Improvements for object tracking

Only a high resolution system is

capable of reliable object tracking, i.e.

predict the further path of the obstacle.

This is essential to forecast a crash.

A low resolution system does not

allow a reliable judgement whether

an object will crash into the car or not.

Predictability even deteriorates

with multiple objects in field of view.

35




Bandwidth and spatial resolution

Situation: „small obstacle in front of a big obstacle“.

A system with low resolution will not see an object in front of a wall

Wideband, high

resolution

Narrowband, low

resolution

36




Spatial Resolution and the effects on Pre-Crash functions

Close obstacle pass-by Crash on test objects

Only high resolution radar can distinguish between close

obstacle pass-by and collision with low false alarm rate.


37





High separation is required to analyse the complex car

environment and to distinguish between different objects

Precise object trajectory and location is needed for prediction of

further object movement and correct interpretation of the road

scenario

A low resolution will result in unreliable forecasts and false alarms

Low resolution systems will miss small objects in front of a big one

High separation is physically linked to high bandwidth

High separation is essential for more sophisticated safety

applications

38




Target separation capability

B = 250 MHz B = 1250 MHz

Typ. Long Range Radar Bandwidth Typ. Short Range Radar Bandwidth

39



Comparison: 77 GHz vs. 24 GHz Mid Range Radar

Size comparison: 77 GHz (BOSCH) vs. 24 GHz (Hella)

77 GHz MRR70x60x30 mm (160m, 45°)

Hella 24 GHz MRR105x90x30 mm (120m, 40°)

77 GHz MRR - 1/3 size of a “typical” 24 GHz sensor at comparable field of view

40



Summary: Advantages of 76 / 79 GHz Radar Sensors

Factor 5 times better object separation by distance compared to 24 GHz

narrow band solutions

due to higher useable bandwidth of 1000 MHz -4000MHz vs. typical available

bandwidth of 200 MHz for 24 GHz ISM sensors

Separation capability ~ occupied bandwidth

Factor 3 times better accuracy in measurement of relative velocity

compared

to 24 GHz solutions

due to better Doppler resolution at higher carrier frequency (fdoppler ~ fcarrier)

Factor 1/3 smaller size of antenna structure compared to 24GHz

for equal field of view (sensor opening angle / detection range)

due to direct coupling of wavelength to antenna dimensions!

76 GHz and 79 GHz Automotive Radar Systems

41



Disadvantages 76 / 79 GHz

Bumper loss at 79 GHz

Radar sensor

bumper material

coating and paint

42



Disadvantages 76 / 79 GHz

Semiconductor technology – are 79 GHz MMICs more expensive?

There are two key cost drivers in the RF front-

end:

1) Availability and cost of the MMICs

2) Assembly and manufacturing process

The “scaling” factors:

1) Die size ~ 1/frequency (only 1/3

ofmaterial)

2) GaAs -> SiGe -> RFCMOS roadmap

The economic factors:

1) Worldwide market -> large volume

2) Large volume -> cheaper

Global 79 GHz rulemaking can

solve the chicken-egg challenge !

43



Technical information

44

Status:

SOP in 05/2009

Performance data (compared to second generation)

Field of View: 30° (16°)

Range: 0.5…250m (1.5 …200m)

Object separation

By distance: <0.75m (2m)

By velocity: 0.6m/s (1.2 m/s)

By angle: ~4° (none)

Technology:

76 GHz Silicon Germanium MMIC (world‟s first)

Flexray communication (optional)

Package advantages (one of the smallest)

Lead free technology



Technical info

3rd Gen. Bosch Long Range Radar Sensor (LRR3)

74 x 77 x 58 mm

(L x W x H)

45



Technical info

µC

SiGe-MMICs:

Flash

RAM

130MHz

Floatingpoint

CAN

Controller

Flexray

Controller

System-

ASIC

Power

Supplies

Heater

Switch

CAN

Driver

Safety

Controller

Flexray

Driver

(optional)

Connecto

r

WAU

VBatt

GND

Lens/Radom

CAN1-H

CAN1-L

CAN2-H

CAN2-L

Radar - ASIC

AMP PLL

ADC CTRL

19 GHz

DRO

77 GHz

VCO/Mixer

integrated to

one chip

ECU-PCBRF-module

Block – Diagram LRR3

Power consumption: < 4W

46



Technical info

Mechanical Assembly LRR3

47



Technical info

Lens / heating

RF Module

ECU-PCB

Metal carrier

Backside metal cover

Car connector

20,4°C

163,2°C

50

100

150

145,9

160,6

48

Top

Bottom

4 Patch Antennas

Radar-ASIC

CF630

SiGe MMIC

(Monolithic Microwave

Integrated Circuit)

Board to board

connector

Technical info



RF-Frontend

49



Technical info

SiGe – technology inside LRR3

7.8 sqmm

1.2 sqmm

50



Technical info

SiGe Technology Roadmap

Generic

Infineon

51

Sensor Platform



LRR3 (standard)

Double-LRR

WVR (Wide View Radar)

SiGe MMIC

Mixer

modification

Lens

modification

distance 0.5 … 250 m

FoV 30° @ 30 m

Technical info


FoV 60° @ 30 m


FoV 50° @ 30 m

52

77/79 GHz Mid Range Radar



Comparison: 77 GHz vs. 24 GHz Mid Range Radar

53



Technical info

Top Level Diagram of a Radar Unit:

Pla

na

r An

ten

na

Arra

y

Radar Transceiver

RXTX

ECU

• Power Supply

• Modulation Control

• Baseband Amplifier

• ADC / DAC

• Microcontroller/DSP/FPGA

• Monitoring

• CAN / FlexRay –COM

• EMC circuitry (ESD, Rev.

Voltage,..)

Vbatt

Housing: Thermal management,

electromagnetic/environmental shielding

CAN

54



Technical info

Mid Range Radar MRR

Technical Concept

Based on three generations of well proven automotive radar know-how

High level of synergy with BOSCH 3rd generation of Long Range Radar

- same frequency band 76-77GHz, same bandwidth 500MHz

- FMCW modulation

- SiGe MMIC technology but: with cost effective packaging

- re-use of proven LRR3 submodules and ASICs

Radome

RF-PCB with planar antenna on board

Base with integrated connector

Dimensions:

Length: 70 mm

Width: 60 mm

Depth: 30 mm

All abbreviations within this presentation

used for simplification purpose

Heat Sink and shielding

Power-PCB

55



Technical info

Radome

RF-PCB with planar antenna on board

Base with integrated connector

Heat Sink and shielding

Power-PCB

56



Technical info

Range:

~120m

FOV: 75°

Mid Range Radar – front / rear variants

MRRrear

MRRfront

Range:

~160m

FOV:

45° (70°)

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

Lateral Distance in m

Dis

tan

ce

in

m

Field of View

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 600

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Lateral Distance in m

Dis

tan

ce

in

m

57



Situation assessment

Who is doing what?

59



Who is doing what?

Competitors 24GHz "narrow band"

24GHz UWB 77GHz ACC band

79GHz SRR band

Autoliv no yes no no

Continental yes yes yes yes

Bosch no no yes yes

Valeo(Raytheon) yes no no no

Delphi no yes yes no

TRW(Autocruise) yes no yes yes

Hella (SMS/InnoSent)

yes no no no

Activities of Tier 1 suppliers in the different frequency ranges

60



Who is doing what?

Activities of OEMs in the different frequency ranges

Manufacturer 24GHz NB 24GHz UWB 77GHz ACC band 79GHz SRR band

Audi yes (Q7) no support yes ?

BMW yes (PL6) yes yes support

Daimler no yes (S/E class) yes support

Fiat ? ? yes ?

Ford in favor Backup in US yes ?

Honda ? ? yes ?

Mazda yes yes no ?

Nissan ? ? yes (also Lidar) ?

Opel/GM some US support no (Lidar ?) ?

PSA yes (ARTIV) no support no support

Renault in favor no support no support

Toyota ? ? yes ?

Volvo/Jaguar yes (LCA) ? yes ?

VW in favor no support yes ?

61



Who is doing what?

Lexus IS

SOP 2005

Mercedes GL Class

SOP 2006

Ford Mondeo

SOP 2007

Cadillac STS

SOP 2005

Lexus GS

SOP 2005

VW Passat

SOP 2005

Ford Galaxy

SOP 2007

Ford S-Max

SOP 2007

Volvo S80

SOP 2006

2005 2006200320011999

Mercedes S Class

SOP 1999

Mercedes SL

SOP 2001

2002

Maybach

SOP 2002

VW Phaeton

SOP 2002

Jaguar S-Type

SOP 2003 Lexus LS

SOP 2005

BMW 7

Series

SOP 2000

2000Cadillac XLR

SOP 2005Audi A8

SOP 2003

2004 2007

Fiat Stilo

SOP 2004

Mercedes CL

SOP 2000

Mercedes E Class

SOP 2002

Jaguar XJ

SOP 2004

BMW 5

Series

SOP 2004

Lancia Thesis

SOP 2004

BMW 3 Series

SOP 2005

Audi A6

SOP 2005

Jaguar XK

SOP 2006

Mercedes R Class

SOP 2006

Volvo V70

SOP 2007

MB M Class

SOP 2006

VW Touareg

SOP 2006

Range Rover Sport

SOP 2006

Audi Q7

SOP 2006

Honda CRV

SOP 2007

Honda Legend

SOP 2006

Renault VelSatis

SOP 2003

Mercedes CLK

Class

SOP 2002

Nissan Primera

SOP 2001

Jaguar XKR

Audi A4

SOP 2007

BMW 6 Series

SOP 2004

ACC sensor inside a car (EU)

Audi A5

SOP 2007

2008

Audi Q5

* Only 1st Model/Platform SOP; follower models not included

Chrysler 300C

Volvo XC60

Toyota Avensis

62

http://www.auto-motor.at/Auto/Autos-Neuwagen/Automarken-Automodelle-Neuigkeiten/Mercedes-News/Mercedes-SL/Mercedes-SL-Klasse-vorne_high.jpg

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.volkswagen.com.cn/CarshowOnline/carshow_2004/collection/images/Phaeton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.motor-talk.de/news/die-neue-mercedes-benz-cl-klasse-t1152685.html%3Fpage%3D1&start=3&h=768&w=1024&sz=168&tbnid=pMg8DP8DFW1xqM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPhaeton%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.einfach-autos.de/bildergalerie/volvo/s80/volvo-s80-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.einfach-autos.de/bildergalerie/volvo/s80/&start=3&h=307&w=460&sz=16&tbnid=WSeez1LcKDG-BM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=128&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DVolvo%2BS80%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde

http://www.auto-motor.at/Auto/Autos-Neuwagen/Automarken-Automodelle-Neuigkeiten/Lexus-News/Lexus-LS-600h-LED-Abblendlicht/Lexus-LS-600_high.jpg

http://www.audiworld.com/news/03/112503/a8l_60_1l.jpg

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carpw.com/pictures/cadillac/XLR-V_2006_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.carpw.com/de/cadillac%2Bautos/xlr/v%2B(2006)%2B307/&start=5&h=768&w=1024&sz=105&tbnid=TlMzQIakOZzBKM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCadillac%2BXLR%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde

http://www.auto-motor.at/Auto/Autos-Neuwagen/Automarken-Automodelle-Neuigkeiten/Ford-News/Ford-S-MAX/Ford-S-MAX-vorne_high.jpg

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tuningblogger.de/uploaded_images/Mercedes_2006_CL_AMG_Paket_silber_1&imgrefurl=http://www.tuningblogger.de/2006/08/mercedes-cl-coup-amg-paket.html&start=11&h=758&w=1024&sz=98&tbnid=b9CS7M6IV11n6M:&tbnh=111&tbnw=150&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMercedes%2BCL%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde

http://www.kabeleins.de/auto/galerien/artikel/04694/index_2.php

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.motor-talk.de/images/News/2004-08/14686pix1hires.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.motor-talk.de/news/bmw-5er-mit-m-sportpaket-t396111.html&start=4&h=744&w=1024&sz=105&tbnid=dc78TDIJI-ebbM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=150&hl=de&um=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBMW%2B5er%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN

http://www.tuningblogger.de/uploaded_images/Lexus_GS_450h_silber_1

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://emotors.pl/xnews/images/cadillac_sts.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.emotors.pl/&start=1&h=315&w=500&sz=31&tbnid=ulcJgsruCHJySM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=130&hl=de&um=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCadillac%2BSTS%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.auto-motor.at/Auto/Autos-Neuwagen/Automarken-Automodelle-Neuigkeiten/Lexus-News/Lexus-IS-F-Detroit/Lexus-IS-F-vorne_high.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.auto-motor.at/Auto/Autos-Neuwagen/Automarken-Automodelle-Neuigkeiten/Lexus-News/Lexus-IS-F-Detroit.html&start=2&h=399&w=600&sz=16&tbnid=CcnnA_6KxnDVMM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLexus%2BIS%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DG

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ami-leipzig.de/premieren/att/volvo_v70.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ami-leipzig.de/LeMMon/ami_web_ger.nsf/(premieren)/CCBB8ED8C7F50C69C12572960041B5D7%3FOpenDocument&start=2&h=1200&w=1920&sz=1264&tbnid=PulvLcXqwhtVNM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=150&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DVolvo%2BV70%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2006/09/2007-Volkswagen-Touareg.jpg

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://l.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/autonews/20050331/15/3305243269.jpg&imgrefurl=http://de.search.cars.yahoo.com/bin/search/photos_gallery_de/cars/%3Fp%3Deventnames:(cars_magazin%2Bcars05_photos)%2Brenault%26b%3D1400&start=10&h=300&w=450&sz=21&tbnid=2U47BBn-AFL45M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=127&hl=de&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRenault%2BVel%2BSatis%26gbv%3D1%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DG

http://www.autohaus-vizent.com/Nissan Primera2,2TD Kombi.JPG

http://auto-presse.de/newssys/galerie/7666/7666_report_w486.jpg

http://www.tuningblogger.de/uploaded_images/Audi_2006_A4_Limousine_2.0_TFSI

http://www.autobischof.ch/images-2007-audi/2007-autobischof-04-audi-a5-quattro.jpg

http://www.auto-a-holic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/audi_q5_main.jpg

http://www.dieselstation.com/wallpapers/Chrysler-300C/Chrysler-300C-002.jpg

http://automobil-blog.de/wp-content/uploads/Autos/Volvo/Volvo_XC_60_Fahrt.jpg

http://www.motoradictos.com/images/2008/04/toyota_avensis.jpg



Dr.-Ing. Michael Mahler

Robert Bosch GmbH

External Affairs, Governmental and Political Relations

Frequency Affairs (C/AGT)

Postfach 10 60 50

70049 Stuttgart

GERMANY

www.bosch.com

+49 (0)711 811 47863

+49 (0)151 14290544

[email protected]

63

http://www.bosch.com/

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Worldwide Plans for Harmonization of Automotive Radars ......Vehicular radar frequencies – the key performance indicators 24GHz NB 24/26 GHz UWB 77GHz ACC band 79GHz band Available