There’s an old joke in engineering that standards are written by people who’ve already survived the problem. After decades working in automotive EMC, I’d add another line: The best standards are written by people who are willing to get on airplanes.
My career has unfolded alongside the evolution of international automotive EMC standards—CISPR 25, ISO 11452, SAE J1113, and UNECE Regulation No. 10. I’ve watched them grow thicker, more detailed, and more globally influential. What hasn’t changed is how real progress happens: people gathered in a room, working out difficult technical tradeoffs face-to-face.
Capital, Complexity, and the Cost of Getting It Wrong
When Sergio Marchionne delivered his now‑famous ‘Confessions of a Capital Junkie’ in 2015, his argument was about discipline: the industry was duplicating non‑differentiating work and quietly burning capital as a result. That message resonated with me because the same dynamic exists in standards. Every unnecessary regional EMC difference carries real cost—extra tests, extra redesigns, extra delays.
Before Consensus Was a Given
Fred Bauer understood this decades ago. In a 1973 SAE paper, he described a world where national approaches to radiated emissions were incompatible. Measurement methods differed. Frequency bands differed. Even the idea of what ‘acceptable’ interference meant was contested. Harmonization happened because people kept showing up, making technical arguments, and compromising without giving away engineering integrity. I liken these global meetings to the Solvay Conferences in the early 1900s of where Einstein met others for the first time, which ultimately led to shaping modern physics as we know it today.
A Little More History (and Why It Matters)
- 1933–1960s: CISPR forms and early radio‑interference work begins; ignition systems dominate emissions; SAE J551 emerges in the U.S.
- 1995: CISPR 25 Edition 1.0 codifies component and vehicle emissions for on‑board receiver protection, introducing the absorber‑lined shielded enclosure (ALSE) methodology.
- 2008–2016: Editions 3.0 and 4.0 expand frequency coverage and refine setups, detectors, and reporting.
- 2021: Edition 5.0 extends coverage to modern radios and adds explicit measurement‑uncertainty guidance, reflecting decades of inter‑lab round robins.
- UNECE UN R10 evolves in parallel, translating these technical methods into type‑approval law under WP.29’s mutual‑recognition framework.
This timeline isn’t trivia; it’s the story of how repeatability, fairness, and global market access were engineered into the process, one paragraph at a time.
Tech Explainer: ALSE at a Glance
CISPR 25’s ALSE method is deceptively simple: a conductive ground plane, defined harness routing and height, calibrated antennas, artificial networks (LISNs), and a compliant receiver (with peak/quasi‑peak/average detectors). The catch is that each small choice—harness support, antenna substitution factor, LISN termination, receiver bandwidth—can swing results by decibels. The reason today’s wording feels precise is that engineers argued over these details for years until the text produced repeatable answers across labs.
Emissions, Immunity, and the EV Effect
Emissions (CISPR 25) and immunity (ISO 11452/7637) are two halves of a system problem. ISO 11452‑2 (ALSE radiated immunity) and 11452‑4 (BCI) check that electronics remain functional when bathed in fields or injected with RF on the harness; ISO 7637 pulses check transient robustness on supply lines. Electrification sharpened these needs: high‑frequency switching, fast di/dt in inverters, and high‑current charging add new coupling paths. UN R10’s provisions for REESS charging mode acknowledge that the EMC picture changes when a vehicle is tethered to infrastructure.
Why Face‑to‑Face Still Wins
The most important standards conversations rarely happen on the agenda slide. They happen next to test chambers, on scratch paper, or over a quiet discussion about why one lab keeps seeing six decibels more margin than another. Those moments are hard to replicate virtually. Trust, built in person, is the lubricant for technical compromise. It’s also the fastest way to turn a good idea into text that laboratories and regulators can actually use. Finally, one cannot overlook the human aspect of all this. Over the years these colleagues that we see one to two times per year become personal friends; we ask about each other’s families; we know each other’s hobbies; we remember unfinished conversations from the last meeting; and most importantly we are on each other’s speed dial (or e-mail, text, social media) regularly when we have a question or need support…..in the end that is one of the most, if not the most valuable aspect of these global collaborations that take place in person.
Standards as Capital Discipline
Looking back, the connection between Marchionne’s capital argument and Bauer’s standards legacy is clear. Both recognized that alignment—not brute force—is what creates durable value. When CISPR, ISO, and UNECE converge, programs move faster, suppliers test less, and engineers can spend time on features customers notice rather than chasing compliance noise.
Still Worth the Flight
Electrification, autonomy, and connectivity have turned EMC into a system‑level requirement. The need for clear, harmonized standards has never been greater. From my perspective, the lesson is simple: showing up still matters. The standards that truly work are built by engineers willing to invest presence, trust, and time.
References
- Sergio Marchionne, “Confessions of a Capital Junkie,” Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Investor Presentation, April 29, 2015.
- Bauer, “International Efforts to Control Radio Spectrum Pollution from Motor Vehicles,” SAE Technical Paper 730058, February 1973.
