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

61–70 of 182 posts

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#61

Post by themaninthedark »

Animats wrote: post #55

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…

These looked keyed to me. Aside from the bulge on the top of the connector where the lock attaches to it's mate there is a middle vane that extends 2/3 way down with a little bit of a J hook on it.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#62

Post by BrianGragg »

nimbius wrote: post #31

why not use the Chinese standard, GB/T? china has the most electric cars, the largest manufacturers, and the most advanced battery production on the planet. their experience with electric vehicles and charging would be a valuable leap forward.

The GB/T is for charging and not in car connections. Tesla already has an arguably better connector NACS or J3400 now.

As for China having the most electric cars on the planet. I don't feel that makes them the experts. China tends to steal / copy technology from other countries and has little innovation them self from my view point. They have the most EV's from heavy government subsidies. Tons of cars in graveyards over there.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#64

Post by atonse »

HPsquared wrote: post #26
xyst wrote: post #23

> Today a single vehicle typically requires over 200 connections—and the number of electrical I initially thought this was referring to the connector between the charge port on the EV and the charger base station. Had to think for a second and realized it’s the electrical connections between the various components in an EV. Glad to know I don’t have to carry 200+ dongles in case I buy an EV.

That must be only the high voltage connections, right?

These are talking about 48V, so my guess is it's for all the little bits (window motors, wipers, all the internal electronics, switches, turn signal lights, etc etc)

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#65

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

duskwuff wrote: post #57
reaperducer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tesla vehicles do not currently support V2L or V2G, although many other EV makes do.

But it does seem that Tesla is planning to do those some time:

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/19/tesla-plans-to-adopt-bi...

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/06/teslas-take-on-v2g-controlli...

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#66

Post by eschneider »

cyberax wrote: post #50
outworlder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

It's unlikely that the multiple CAN buses are being used to increase speed by, say multiplexing them. In general, vehicles use multiple CAN buses for enhanced security. For example: things like diagnostic ports are often on their own CAN buses so data can't be directly injected into onboard systems.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#67

Post by Ajedi32 »

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...

Yeah, there are advantages to the "just do it" approach to standardization vs design by committee. A lot of web technologies started out that way (arguably most of them actually). Both approaches are valid.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#68

Post by throwaway19972 »

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...

> 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.

what a ridiculous counterfactual. We have plenty of wildly successful standards that weren't just thrown at consumers and called a standard.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#69

Post by hatsunearu »

there is utility in this.

the motorsports world generally has converged to exactly two connectors:

DT series connectors and AS series connectors. The former is made of plastic and very robust. The latter is made of metal and is extremely robust.

It's nice having to just have a bunch of DT parts and just be good to put it in everything.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#70

Post by Pet_Ant »

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.

Honestly that would be awesome. I still dream of autonomous vehicles auto-convoy and link up for efficiency. Just quietly become a train as needed.
Post reply on HN