So they have 144 chips in there. The requirement is none of those 144 chips fail during the whole life of the car, okay? There’s also chips, say, somewhere else in the power in the onboard charter, there’s only three chips. So those three chips have the same requirement. They can’t fail in the life of the car. But there’s only three of those versus 144. So by the very nature of that, the onboard charger perception-wise could be burnt in less if you want to “get away with it.” This was a huge topic at the conferences the last two weeks in Europe at the power semiconductor and the Executive Summit on power semiconductors and reliability was a huge discussion and that is what is the reliability requirement of the automotive space. Last week was that Hyundai had a recall of cars.
The cars were 2015 and older, and they had to recall 3.5 million cars because 22 cars had some break leakage event that caused the fire and 22 overheating. That 44 cars out of 3.5 million that had an event and then recalling 3.5 million cars that are over 10 years old, okay? So what is the failure rate okay for an EV that’s going to last 10 years or longer? And if you said, well, 44 out of 1 million is not bad. 44 out of 3.5 million required every one of those cars to be recalled. So we get into this whole discussion, and I get kind of passionate about it, like what’s the right number? You know what, companies don’t all have the same expectations of quality. We get a pretty frontline view. I can tell you, sometimes it upsets me. Not everybody is the same.
Here’s my opinion. I wouldn’t drive a car that had less than 12 to 24 hours of burn-in of the silicon carbide, right? I wouldn’t do it. So it’s important. That’s why we use these numbers. Today, we have set burn-in times on average across the industry are more than 12 hours. And we think over time, they will get down to that. We will see. But it’s going to be the car manufacturers that dictate that and I can tell you, we’ve met with a number of them and we’re meeting with more in the next two weeks. They are very opinionated about what’s needed. I’ve never heard one of them not demand a high level of burn-in for their automotive parts. Now that’s very clear in the automotive space. So enough of my high horse here, Dylan. I’m sorry I let you up like that, but I hope that gives you some clarity.
Dylan Patel: That’s great. And then I kind of wanted to clue in on a question or a statement that you had in the sort of the prepared remarks, which was you’re seeing more electric vehicles with their own specific design for inverters. Are you saying that like XYZ, major auto OEM will want a specific inverter design from their supplier and then that’s going to require a different chip design or different device design than someone else? Or I assume that everyone would have pretty similar designs for the inverters. Would that mean that there’s more sort of XP or sorry, WaferPak aligners or sorry, WaferPak because of this?
Gayn Erickson: Yes. And I know more than I can share, but I still don’t think I know everything in this space around this. But yes, people with seemingly the same power are dictating specific requirements of the chip size. It gets into thermal trade-offs, voltage trade-offs, power trade-offs, acceleration trade-offs, how much power you have on hand, what kind of efficiency you have. And so I’m actually kind of surprised that even the same automotive supplier will dictate multiple different flavors. And then the next automotive guy won’t buy the same ones. So I’m sure it drives our customers crazy because I’m sure they way rather everybody buy one. There’s probably some element where they don’t want to commoditize it either, though.
I mean if they all made exactly the same chip, well, then maybe the customers would commoditize everything faster. But the net is, for us, there is more and more WaferPak designs. And I know I said a specific call automotive, but candidly, a lot of the new industrial designs, there’s a much broader array of those two, and those designs have been increasing, too.
