Integration Untangled: Raptor Streamlines Class 8 HASI Development

In Class 8 autonomous vehicle programs, hardware selection tends to be the easy part. Issues and bottlenecks are much more likely to emerge during system integration when supervisory logic, power domains, safety mechanisms, and distributed vehicle controls must operate as a unified whole.

This was the reality facing a North American heavy-duty truck manufacturer advancing development of a drive-by-wire (DBW) supervisory controller for its Highly Autonomous System Interface (HASI). The program required a production-ready solution capable of meeting ASIL-D functional safety standards, delivering fail-operational performance, and incorporating redundant power supplies.

None of these requirements were negotiable. New Eagle’s engineering team were up for the challenge. We needed to build a compliant controller but with a catch: deliver without slowing the program’s momentum.

HASI Case Study: The Supervisory Brain of Class 8 Autonomy

The HASI serves as a fail-operational supervisory control module responsible for managing arbitration across three critical vehicle operating modes:

Traditional driver-controlled operation
Fully autonomous operation with safety driver override
Fully autonomous operation without human supervision

This supervisory layer enables seamless transitions between operating states while maintaining system integrity during faults or edge-case conditions. As a manufacturer progresses toward removing the safety driver entirely, the reliability and redundancy of this module become even more critical.

At its core, we built the HASI on the Raptor CCM112, engineered around a dual Infineon Aurix 2G microcontroller architecture. This dual MCU design allows for true fail-operational performance to be achieved, while the multicore architecture of each MCU enables high performance and the implementation of safety partitions (i.e. memory protection).

The platform is designed to deliver:

deterministic real-time control,
scalable processing capacity,
safety-compliant redundancy pathways, and
support for complex decision arbitration at the vehicle edge.

Importantly, this is not intended to be a prototype lab controller. The system is being developed to meet production-grade expectations, aligned with ISO 26262 ASIL-D requirements and intended for eventual fleet deployment.

System Integration Gridlock

Even with defined requirements and well-documented interfaces, system integration is where design intent meets real-world variability. In a Class 8 autonomous platform, the HASI does not operate in isolation. It must coordinate with:

Engine control systems
Transmission control
Service brake systems
Park brake modules
Steering systems
Autonomous perception and planning stacks
Distributed power domains

Each subsystem may meet its individual specifications. Yet, when integrated into a live vehicle environment, subtle mismatches can surface, such as timing discrepancies, signal latency issues, arbitration conflicts, or fault-handling edge cases. Issues like these don’t mean the engineering was substandard. They’re the natural byproduct of high-complexity, multi-supplier systems. When integration issues emerge, the workflow can introduce significant delay:

Issue identified during vehicle test or bench validation
Cross-functional root cause analysis initiated
Software revisions scheduled
New build compiled and validated
Firmware flashed and retested

This process can stretch into days or even weeks. For advanced autonomy programs operating under aggressive timelines, delays compound quickly which creates schedule risk and cost pressure, not to mention organizational friction. In next-generation vehicle programs, integration speed can turn out to be the competitive differentiator between getting to market and falling behind.

Restoring Velocity Through Platform Agility

Integration challenges can’t be eliminated. But, what made the difference for our heavy-duty truck manufacturer’s HASI development was the ability to resolve them rapidly. The Raptor CCM112 enabled a dramatically compressed iteration cycle. When supervisory logic issues surfaced, the team could:

isolate the problem within the control stack,
modify arbitration logic or fault-handling strategies,
compile updated firmware,
flash the controller, and
resume testing, often within hours.

Rather than waiting days for revised builds to cycle through traditional processes, engineers maintained forward motion. As one member of the Software Development Team noted:

“HASI with its Raptor architecture is a saving grace for project development. We can identify an issue in the morning, call up the software team to make a change, and resolve the issue in a couple of hours.”

This capability had tangible effects, including:

reduced downtime during integration phases,
faster root cause validation,
tighter feedback loops between hardware and software teams, and
increased confidence during validation events.

Crucially, this speed did not come at the expense of safety compliance. The architecture supports rapid iteration while aligning with ASIL-D safety goals and fail-operational requirements as development progresses.

Safety and Security by Architectural Design

Fail-operational performance in a Class 8 autonomous system is an architectural mandate. The HASI had to maintain safe control authority in the presence of defined fault conditions. That requirement cascades into design decisions involving:

Redundant compute domains
Independent power supply paths
Deterministic fault detection and arbitration
Safety mechanism coverage
Watchdog and diagnostic supervision

The dual Aurix 2G microcontroller architecture provided foundational support for this approach. By enabling functional partitioning and redundant safety domains, the platform allowed the development team to implement robust safety strategies without exhausting processing capacity.

In parallel with functional safety requirements, cybersecurity expectations continue to intensify. Heavy-duty autonomous platforms are increasingly subject to regulatory frameworks, such as UNECE WP.29 and evolving ISO/SAE standards, which require demonstrable resilience against intrusion, tampering, and unauthorized software modification. For supervisory controllers operating at the highest level of vehicle authority, this responsibility is amplified.

The dual Aurix 2G architecture provided more than safety redundancy, also delivering processing headroom to implement layered security mechanisms, according to the J1939-91C standard, without compromising real-time performance. Secure boot verification, hardware-backed key storage, secure in-vehicle communication, and runtime integrity monitoring all introduce computational overhead. In lower-capacity platforms, these protections can compete with control-loop timing and supervisory logic execution, impacting the system’s ability to maintain required performance.

By contrast, the Raptor CCM112 allowed the truck manufacturer’s engineering team to integrate cybersecurity features as first-class design elements rather than late-stage add-ons. This alignment between safety and security is increasingly critical. A fail-operational system must tolerate hardware or software faults, as well as defend against malicious interference that could compromise vehicle control authority.

As regulatory scrutiny expands and connected fleet architectures become more sophisticated, the ability to scale cybersecurity capabilities alongside autonomous functionality will define long-term platform viability.

Scalability for the Autonomous Roadmap

Scalability matters, because autonomous vehicle programs do not stand still once initial validation is complete. Software stacks evolve, perception and planning algorithms grow more sophisticated, and feature sets expand to include enhanced diagnostics, remote operations capabilities, and over-the-air update functionality. Each of these advancements increases computational demand and expands the safety case.

Selecting a supervisory control platform without sufficient processing headroom can constrain future development or force costly mid-cycle redesigns. By contrast, the dual Aurix 2G architecture within the Raptor CCM112 provides the capacity and partitioning flexibility to accommodate expanding functionality while maintaining deterministic control performance and supporting ASIL-D compliance targets.

This forward-aligned platform strategy ensures that as the heavy-duty truck manufacturer advances toward fully unsupervised autonomous operation, the underlying supervisory controller can scale with the program’s technical and regulatory demands without compromising safety integrity or development velocity.

The Broader Lesson: Integration Agility as a Core Competency

What does this case illustrate for the broader OEM and engineering community?

Autonomous and advanced driver systems are fundamentally reshaping vehicle architecture. Software density is increasing. Cross-domain dependencies are multiplying. Safety cases are becoming more rigorous and more visible. Under these conditions, rigid, sequential development models introduce unacceptable risk.

Organizations that thrive in this environment demonstrate three capabilities:

Architectural foresight: Selecting platforms that provide headroom and safety integrity
Integration agility: Resolving cross-system issues rapidly without destabilizing the program
Production discipline: Maintaining compliance, traceability, and validation rigor throughout iteration

The control module isn’t just a component choice. It’s now an integration strategy.

For our North American heavy-duty truck manufacturer, the Raptor CCM112 enabled a workflow that supported real-time problem solving inside a safety-critical development program. As autonomy advances from pilot programs to scaled deployment, this capability will only grow in importance.

Accelerating Class 8 Autonomy Without Compromise

This manufacturer’s HASI development program demonstrates how safety, scalability, and speed can be advanced in parallel during an active development program. By leveraging New Eagle’s Raptor architecture and CCM112, the team:

progressing toward ASIL-D compliance, with development and validation ongoing,
implemented fail-operational supervisory control,
maintained redundant independent power supply,
compressed integration iteration cycles, and
preserved production readiness.

Integration gridlock gave way to sustained momentum. For OEMs navigating the transition toward highly autonomous heavy-duty platforms, there is an important takeaway. The ability to untangle integration challenges quickly can determine whether a program merely progresses—or accelerates.

Accelerate Your Autonomous Development With New Eagle

Advanced vehicle programs demand capable hardware and integration-ready platforms, and across the next-generation autonomous vehicle industry, timelines are tightening and complexity is growing.

Integration facility is foundational to success and requires engineering partners like New Eagle who understand the narrow intersection of safety, cybersecurity, scalability, and speed. Streamlined integration reduces program risk and enables delivery of production-ready supervisory control systems aligned with next-generation autonomy goals.