They would have to 100% open this up and give it to standards bodies, otherwise it isn't a standard. The conformity tests and testing equipment designs and protocols should be freely available.
Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
11–20 of 182 posts
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#12> LVCS...is available in industry-standard light blue
Is this tongue-in-cheek, or is there a reason manufacturers care about the color?
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#13> Tesla invites all device suppliers and vehicle manufacturers to join us in this initiative. This is not a standard in the sense that engineers use the term. Tesla is hoping it will be adopted as a standard and since Tesla doesn't appear to want to involve any standards bodies, Tesla appears to only be interested in making these connectors a de-facto standard. In any case, that is not a standard.
Relevant xkcd, though one imagines that successful standards form despite the lack of choice in how standards are formed https://xkcd.com/927/
The XKCD doesn't really apply here, since intra-vehicle 48v is kind of unexplored, so there aren't multiple competing standards for that in particular. I do agree that this isn't a real open and free standard however.
edit: Inter to Intra.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#14> The 48V architecture is the optimal long-term choice, requiring ¼ of the current to deliver the same amount of power. Is there a reason why 48V is better long term than going higher like 96V?
At some point, safety.
A short/failure at 100V is much more dangerous than at 50V. Both from a fire-safety perspective as well as an electrocution risk perspective.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#15> The 48V architecture is the optimal long-term choice, requiring ¼ of the current to deliver the same amount of power. Is there a reason why 48V is better long term than going higher like 96V?
I believe 50V is a safety limit.
Below 50v is considered "low voltage". Higher voltage would require different safety considerations.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#16NACS is finally standardized as SAE J3400 with other vendors shipping those cars in the United States next year, and now they're introducing a new connector with no clear advantage?
If you clicked the link/read the article, you'd realize this is an internal vehicle 48v connector.
[flagged]
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#17They would have to 100% open this up and give it to standards bodies, otherwise it isn't a standard. The conformity tests and testing equipment designs and protocols should be freely available.
For that matter: who's going to be manufacturing and supplying these connectors? Tesla? I don't think so.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#18Tesla really deserves some kudos for pushing the 48V architecture and the Ethernet-based communication. It drastically simplifies the wiring mess that is in a typical car.
And it's not even close. Just watch the teardown of Cybertruck and compare its wiring to something like F150.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant xkcd, though one imagines that successful standards form despite the lack of choice in how standards are formed https://xkcd.com/927/
The XKCD doesn't really apply here, since intra-vehicle 48v is kind of unexplored, so there aren't multiple competing standards for that in particular. I do agree that this isn't a real open and free standard however. edit: Inter to Intra.
Nitpick: intra-vehicle. Inter-vehicle power would be pretty weird.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#20With the appropriate grain of salt due to the source, standardizing those power connections would probably be a good thing.
Also, speeding up the adoption of 48V, the industry has been talking about it for so long!