A129 DUO Interfering with car electronics,

[jdct]

The main reason i brought up car makers, is that they of any have the best chance of rendering this issue obsolete.
And i mean if you load your car up with 4-5 people and they all pack a phone, you are sort of turning your car into a microwave oven.

And just look at the poor wifi junkies, if you live in a major town you are pretty much guaranteed to not be getting the speeds you could get as the 2.4 and 5 GHZ spectrums are just saturated with traffic.
And i am very interested to see what the 5G networks will do, they all say it will be no problem, but most that say that are all people with a interest in seeing 5G everywhere.

Kamkar1, I was addressing a very specific issue of stray emissions from dashcams potentially negatively affecting the safety systems in our newest generations of automobiles.
I believe that to broaden the issue to include cell phones and wifi and 5g, and the sun hurling ejected coronal masses towards the earth potentially affecting us all negatively only distracts from the original issue of EMI interference created by some dashcams. It's almost as if you are trying to say that EMI is everywhere, so why should we even bother to care if our dashcam is causing issues in with the safety systems in our cars -- because if they didn't then something else would.

 

[jdct]

If your car becomes dangerous to you because it can't safely cope with a bit of EMI then it is also danger to me and I want your car off the road!

By that reasoning all cars would have to be taken off the road. And that means yours too.

Clearly that is not a real solution.

 

[SawMaster]

So we should demand that they all pay attention to electromagnetic interference issues while designing and building these dashcams

Here in the US other than wifi, all dashcams have to meet Part 15 rules of the FCC which essentially state that in using them you must accept any interference they receive and that they meet certain standards of EM radiation they may emit, which as far as I know they all do, and that you must accept that too even if it interferes with something else. In the case of the device causing interference it is up to the user to mitigate that even if it means not using the device. Due to the vast numbers of Part 15 devices being introduced here the FCC simply cannot test them all so they accept the testing certification of independent labs that do these tests for the manufacturer. They do test some devices at random, mostly to check that the lab did it's certification work correctly. It would take several thousand more high-tech qualified Federal employees to do otherwise, and the populace will not support that with raised taxes. So by US law, if your dashcam interferes with a car safety system you are required to do whatever it takes to mitigate that so that the car safety system functions correctly. It's NOT up to the dashcam manufacturer to do more than certify it's cams in a lab. Rules and laws will vary elsewhere.

Now that we've got that sorted out lets consider the cars. If a car's safety system can malfunction due to nearby EMI/RFI, it would be quantified as a poor system when assessed by usual engineering safety standards. What if a nearby car emits EMI/RFI which does not affect it but does affect your car? Or instead of a car, say an electronic billboard or other device? How about a phone doing the damage? In all this it's clear that the one element which is consistent is the car which is being interfered with. so that's where you go to fix the problem instead of trying to fix a thousand other things. And let's not get side-tracked with planes, many of which have crashed due to faulty sensors, and sometimes because of improper responses to those situations. That is an entirely different matter with no connection to this one.

I do agree that dashcam manufacturers should do better with shielding and EMI/RFI mitigation if significant gains can be made at a reasonable cost. But if the cost becomes significant too then I might not agree because I want to be able to afford a dashcam and I'm willing to work with it until any problems it gives me are resolved adequately. I understand that the only resolution may be to try another cam even if none can be made to work as I desire. I can and do accept that possibility and I cannot expect a cam seller or manufacturer to guarantee against it guiven there are so many different cars and different systems out here.

This is just the "tip of the iceberg" so to speak. EMI/RFI is going to become huge and affect everything electronic in time because we insist on having so many wireless things when they may not really be necessary. In another decade we're going to be discovering all kinds of EMI/RFI problems which are going to vary from inconvenient to deadly and the real blame then as now will be on those of us who clamor for the convenience of wireless everything and expect perfection from it.

By that reasoning all cars would have to be taken off the road. And that means yours too.

Nope- my old iron doesn't have any of that unnecessary stuff on it. It's up to me to operate it safely and I do. There's something to be found in that if you look deeply enough, but instead the people who design cars aren't on that page because of how it would affect them.

Phil

 

[kamkar]

Thats just my mind walking off in a random direction, i often do that, hence i have been nominated champion of off topic several times,,,,,, im sorry about that, but trust me it could be much worse.
And me beeing a dedicated wifi and smartphone hater, probably have a say too,,,,,, but i assure you i am not wearing a tin foil hat.

We can easy agree dashcam makers and others should do better than just the bare minimum requirements. and we consumers should ask for the bar to be put higher, there are plenty of race to the bottom or settling in the world.

 

[jdct]

I merely highlighted a straight 50/50 possibility.

If I wanted a good laugh, I'd ask you to explain this statement.

 

[Paul Iddon]

50/50

Have one or don't have one. It's not rocket science. It's not meant to be funny either of course.

 

[jdct]

50/50

Have one or don't have one. It's not rocket science. It's not meant to be funny either of course.

Again you fail to see the point. Maybe someone else will explain it to you.

 

[jdct]

I loved my old car too, but eventually it became the smarter choice to take it off the road, and replace it with a new one.

I loathe some of the requirements the government forces upon us in the US, such mandatory rear view cameras in every car. My neck and rear window work just fine, and I believe they're just going to be responsible for creating a new generation of irresponsible drivers who do not look in the direction in which they are moving their car.

I am fairly well versed in dealing with electromagnetic interference issues, and I can easily counter them when they're manageable enough. But most dashcam customers cannot. Even the OP jomanjee had his TPMS sensors changed out twice, possibly at his own expense, and the dealer was completely confused because of the EMI being created by the Viofo A129 Duo. And jomanee seems to understand much more than the average dashcam customer but he still had his time and money wasted.

Perhaps more importantly, when I buy a product, I expect that work to have been done for me by the manufacturer -- and not to have to perform it myself.

I would suspect that if the FCC randomly chose the Viofo A129 for verification of the "independent" testing lab's results, they might find something more than expected.
After all, independent testing companies are more likely to get return corporate customers if they do not find problems in the products which they are testing. The scope of testing can strictly limited, and various techniques can be employed to stay within the letter of the requirements, but not the spirit. And then there is outright lying for profit. There is an abundance of that which exists in the world too.

I'm done here. Good luck all.

 

[Paul Iddon]

And as harsh as this statement might sound, I don't really care if your dashcam ends up harming you or your family. But I do care about me and mine.

Bizarrely - I would feel some regret, should anyone on here post news that they or their relatives had been harmed in an accident. Even your good self.

No matter who it may be, it would cause me to feel some sorrow, even if I didn't actually know the person, except via (an impersonal) forum board.

 

[Paul Iddon]

Thats just my mind walking off in a random direction, i often do that

You often cheer up my day, keep posting randomness, lol..

 

[joe384]

I loathe some of the requirements the government forces upon us in the US, such mandatory rear view cameras in every car. My neck and rear window work just fine, and I believe they're just going to be responsible for creating a new generation of irresponsible drivers who do not look in the direction in which they are moving their car.

I don't want to take this off topic, but it's interesting this is a rule in the US.
In the UK there is no requirement to have either rear windows or rear side quarter windows, so some vehicles have almost zero rearwards visibility.

 

[Nigel]

I don't want to take this off topic, but it's interesting this is a rule in the US.
In the UK there is no requirement to have either rear windows or rear side quarter windows, so some vehicles have almost zero rearwards visibility.

I don't think we have a driving problem that justifies making electronic mirrors mandatory, while the USA do have a problem with people reversing over children, I don't understand why they can't use normal mirrors or rotate their heads but they do seem to have a problem. Could be due to the design of their cars, they do tend to be considerably bigger than us.

We do have a requirement for 1 normal mirror, either internal or on the nearside, and I think we will be allowed electronic mirrors as soon as sensors and displays have enough dynamic range to never obscure objects by over/under exposure.

 

[jomanjee]

So, because the problem exists in lots of dashcams, it's ok that the A129 Duo does it too?

By that same reasoning, this too should also have been just fine:
(And no, this is not anti-Chinese -- if anything I suppose it's anti-homosapien)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
Ozone hole mystery: China insulating chemical said to be source of rise

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/world/asia/china-ozone-cfc.html
In a High-Stakes Environmental Whodunit, Many Clues Point to China

Here is the very short version: A couple dozen home insulation producers exist in the same local region, all competing with one another. One begins using CFC-11 to produce its foam insulation product, mainly because it is cheaper, but that CFC-11 is well known to destroy the ozone layer and is illegal everywhere. Because the other producers struggle to compete by following the rules of not using the banned chlorofluorocarbons, they all (except one or two) switch over to CFC-11 to compete on price and stay in business. And they nearly all justify their behavior as acceptable because the others were doing it too. And sufficed to say, we all need that ozone layer in order to live. (Ironically, they were selling a home insulation and simultaneously destroying the Earth's insulation from the ultraviolet radiation.)

Now you may rightly ask, what does this have to do with dashcams? In many cars, the traction control system needs to know how much air is in the tires, so it can properly counter forces and conditions in order to keep the car on the road in extreme circumstances. When electromagnetic interference from the dashcam prevents the tire pressure monitoring system from functioning, many traction control systems will go offline because they cannot operate without proper tire pressure data. In that case, the faulty dashcam product which is supposed to help prove that we did not cause a car accident, could actually be contributing to the cause of that accident, when the car's traction control system self-disables because the dashcam is spewing out that all that electromagnetic interference, interrupting communications of the tire pressure monitoring systems.

So we should demand that they all pay attention to electromagnetic interference issues while designing and building these dashcams, instead of simply going with whatever is the cheapest option -- which may very well ultimately affect the life, health, and well being of some of its customers. Are we willing to risk that the EMI spewing dashcams won't prevent our other automotive safety systems from operating properly when we most need them too? How much would it cost to produce properly shielded non-interfering circuitry and/or power supply for the Viofo A129 Duo? A dollar per unit? Maybe two? (When we have the benefit of hindsight, will we see that these dashcams in similar ironic fashion, contributed to some the accidents that they ultimately recorded?)

I was wondering the same thing, shouldnt the cables be shielded, luckly i didnt have the traction control disengage but the dilema of TPMS disabling and over 7 visits to the dealer drove both of us crazy !! he also didnt know why the keyfob wasnt responding but i pointed it out for him (or at least hinted) its due to the rear camera, man it was a NIGHTMARE !.

Viofo recommends one at each end if you are having issues, both ends are 5mm diameter cable.

you mean one chock at the front camera cable end and the other at the rear camera end ? simply doing that and possible using emi tape will fix this issue ?!... any sizes of those CHOCKS ? also it will still look LAME and rather non professional job to have these dangling around in my car and looking at it in the rear view mirror and, will really look crappy as he!!

 

[jomanjee]

But they are not needed in most vehicles, which suggests that the problem is mainly caused elsewhere. Maybe there is another device in the car causing far more RFI and adding a small amount from the camera pushes it over the limit. Or maybe the tire pressure sensor receiver is not working correctly and just a small amount of extra RFI means that it can't receive any more.

If the tire pressure sensors are that important to the car then maybe they should have receivers at each wheel instead of a single one in the cabin that has a lot of metal blocking signals thus making it susceptible to interference, the wheel rotation sensors will certainly have receivers at each wheel since they are very important to safety. My car seems to work perfectly well without tire pressure sensors, I'm not convinced a lack of signal should have any significant effect on other safety features, and it should be easy enough to use wheel speed as a backup, if one tire goes flat then that wheel will turn faster than the others due to reduced circumference, and the wheel rotation sensors will see that.

Like Kamkar said, if the camera really was producing unacceptable levels of RFI then lots of owners would be having trouble with tire pressure sensors, but the numbers actually seem to be very small, far more common is DAB radio interference, but everyone should have that when they drive into very low DAB signal areas.

ya but again i tink with little effort from the manufacturer such as proper design or better shielded cables or better chip none of that would happen and thus this thread ! i dont hate china, am not american, also i was recommended to get the viofo HERE on the forums so i got it, what i can say live and learn Viofo !

 

[Nigel]

you mean one chock at the front camera cable end and the other at the rear camera end ? simply doing that and possible using emi tape will fix this issue ?!... any sizes of those CHOCKS ? also it will still look LAME and rather non professional job to have these dangling around in my car and looking at it in the rear view mirror and, will really look crappy as he!!

They don't need to go at the very end, you can hide them in the roof space near to the end.

It is possible you need to re-route the cable away from the keyfob antenna, maybe the same antenna is used by the TPMS.

i tink with little effort from the manufacturer such as proper design or better shielded cable

People already complain that the cable is too thick, and since it works fine with most vehicles...

 

[Gooffeyguy]

I would just route the cable down the opposite side

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[EGS]

I wonder if the rear camera cable is shielded and properly grounded at all. However, I can’t sacrifice mine to find out.

 

[CaptureYourAction]

I wonder if the rear camera cable is shielded and properly grounded at all. However, I can’t sacrifice mine to find out.

They are double shielded.

 

[EGS]

They are double shielded.

That is good to know...