Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 182 posts

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#41

Post by foxglacier »

taylodl wrote: post #2

> 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.

It's going to be a standard within Tesla, so in that way it's a standard. It sounds like they anticipate benefitting from cost reduction themselves even if nobody else uses it.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#42

Post by dtparr »

FriedPickles wrote: post #12

> LVCS...is available in industry-standard light blue Is this tongue-in-cheek, or is there a reason manufacturers care about the color?

In various industries, colors are used to differentiate between various voltages so it's obvious whether you're working with high voltage, low voltage, etc. so you can determine the necessary precautions for whatever you're dealing with (and some will also make the connectors incompatible so you can't accidentally join high and low voltage sets of wiring). I'm not super familiar with the automotive side, but I believe they use orange for high voltage and light blue for 48v.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#43

Post by moralestapia »

taylodl wrote: post #2

> 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.

If you want to be pedantic,

What is a "standard" then? Does it need to have an ISO seal?

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#44

Post by toss1 »

duskwuff wrote: post #19
Someone1234 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but Inter-vehicle could be cool for several things. First is the EV equivalent of jump-start-and-bring-a-can-of-gasoline, an in-the-field recharge for cars that run out before the recharging station or home charger. It would also be useful as a plug for a range-extending spare battery pack on a small trailer. Seems like other potential uses too.

(But no, I'm not liking that Tesla is taking the typical entitled-ass attitude of avoiding all the standards bodies, doing whatever they want, and expecting others to ratify their standard. If it is that good, it should be readily agreed to by the relevant standards bodies.)

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#45

Post by vaillancourtmax »

duskwuff wrote: post #19
Someone1234 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think they meant "across manufacturers".

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#46

Post by reaperducer »

duskwuff wrote: post #19
Someone1234 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Inter-vehicle power would be pretty weird.

Sounds like jumper cables.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#47

Post by yegle »

electriclove wrote: post #32
taylodl wrote: post #2

> 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.

I’m not sad they didn’t work with a hundred companies and take tens of years and still have nothing to show for it. They are doing what they need done for their business and then inviting others to join. And way earlier than they did with NACS: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...

Huh I noticed this section in the linked NACS post:

> As NACS is now recognized in a SAE recommended practice (RP) under SAE J3400, we have removed the technical specifications and CAD from our website.

So something that was previously freely available now requires a $300 payment to access.

I'm sad to see that.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#48

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

duskwuff wrote: post #19
Someone1234 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Inter-vehicle power would be pretty weird.

That's entirely possible at present. Many electric vehicles can send power out to power appliances. It's called "Vehicle to Load" or "V2L".

And electric vehicles can slow-charge off a wall power socket, so they could get that from V2L. It won't be a common use, but it would work in a pinch to get you enough juice to get to a better charger?

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#49

Post by aeternum »

outworlder wrote: post #22
cyberax wrote: post #18

Tesla 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.

We can simplify the wire mess today by using more CAN bus devices. What is ethernet bringing to the picture?

Bitrate and max devices for CAN are limited.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#50

Post by cyberax »

outworlder wrote: post #22
cyberax wrote: post #18

Tesla 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.

We can simplify the wire mess today by using more CAN bus devices. What is ethernet bringing to the picture?

CAN is slow. At best it's around 1Mbit, but you get into electrical limitations. So you have to run multiple CAN buses in parallel and carefully manage bandwidth limitations.

My Chevy Volt had 4 different CAN buses and one additional LIN bus.

This can all be replaced with just two Ethernet buses: for safety-critical and non-critical uses. And the gigabit speed provides plenty of bandwidth for any reasonable sensor traffic, even including camera feeds.

The current architecture was justified in 90-s when LIN PHYs were an order of magnitude cheaper than even CAN PHYs. Now Gigabit Ethernet PHYs cost less than a dollar.

Post reply on HN