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

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#51

Post by MichaelZuo »

yegle wrote: post #47
electriclove wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think the SAE has the authority to remove anything from the public domain?

It likely is still freely shareable for existing copies.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#52

Post by bryanlarsen »

matrix2003 wrote: post #35
hmottestad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48v is probably more common than 96v in general, so more components available already.

As mentioned in another comment, it’s also close to the safety limit for low voltage systems. IMO solar pioneered (in recent history) 48V DC systems, which is an easy multiple of 12V to stay below the 50V “high voltage” safety threshold. It allowed people to use smaller gauge wire and chain together multiple 12V batteries that are readily available.

Telephony has been using -48V as a line voltage for a very long time, probably > 100 years.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#53

Post by themaninthedark »

duskwuff wrote: post #17
sitkack wrote: post #11

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.

For that matter: who's going to be manufacturing and supplying these connectors? Tesla? I don't think so.

Generally a connector manufacturer would make these, Amphenol, Aptiv (formerly Delphi), Cinch, JAE, JST, Molex, TE Connectivity, Yazaki. See Mouser for some examples(https://www.mouser.com/c/connectors/automotive-connectors/#)

Usually they create their own design so maybe having an open standard would allow you to do contract orders with any plastic injector that has the molds.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#54

Post by hardikgupta »

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.

That's fair. Should have said "Tesla proposes new standard electrical connector".

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#55

Post by Animats »

Those look much like AMP automotive connectors.

Using one kind of unkeyed connector in a car may be a bad idea. Things can be plugged in wrong during repairs. There's a lot to be said for making connectors not fit where they shouldn't. Especially in automotive, where many connectors are plugged in blind, by feel. This simplifies manufacturing at the cost of repair.

If it can be plugged in wrong, it will be plugged in wrong. AAA put a battery in backwards in my Jeep once, and most of the vehicle electronics had to be replaced.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#56

Post by _ea1k »

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.

Don't think of it as a standard as-in SAE, but a standard as in "molex", "AT", or "ATX". Yeah, they aren't really "standards", but they aren't exactly proprietary either and they also are clearly useful.

The goal seems to be to promote reuse of a good-enough design in as many places as possible. Noone's forced to use it, but it'd make things simpler for everyone if there is as much commonality as possible.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#57

Post by duskwuff »

reaperducer wrote: post #46
duskwuff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: intra -vehicle. Inter-vehicle power would be pretty weird.

Inter-vehicle power would be pretty weird. Sounds like jumper cables.

You know what? You're right. That's literally jumper cables.

But no, I don't think Tesla is doing those.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#58

Post by _ea1k »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #48
duskwuff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lucid supports this directly too: https://lucidmotors.com/stories/introducing-rangexchange

<10kw, so not super fast, but I bet most people are really close to the charging station when they run out.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#59

Post by riskable »

Aloisius wrote: post #37

How is this better than all the other 48V connectors out there (MX150, MCON, PP, etc.)? Surely it isn't just that they reduced the number of connectors since one could have just standardized on a subset of mass-produced connectors by molex, te, etc. instead.

I'd like to know this too. Their website claims "cost" but doesn't actually list the costs of the new connectors compared to existing ones.

At least give us some comparisons!

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#60

Post by zaxomi »

8note wrote: post #21
hmottestad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48v is probably more common than 96v in general, so more components available already.

For which - why standardize around this connector and not XLR, which is the first thing that comes to mind for 48V? Too big/bulky?

The phantom power at 48 volts used with XLR connectors only have a current at about 10 milliampere. Enough to supply power to a little microphone.

The connector is bulky and of metal, and designed to be used inside. It's also expensive compared to other connectors. There are a lot of cheaper, more suitable connectors, designed to carry power.

Post reply on HN