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

71–80 of 182 posts

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#71

Post by throw0101d »

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.

> Tesla really deserves some kudos for pushing the 48V architecture and the Ethernet-based communication.

For the record, 42V systems were experimented with in the 1990s:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42-volt_electrical_system

In the 2011 German automakers agreed to 48V as the next step after 12V:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48-volt_electrical_system

BMW was the first the first with Ethernet:

* https://www.marvell.com/blogs/the-right-stuff-a-past-and-fut...

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#72

Post by throw0101d »

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?

> What is ethernet bringing to the picture?

More speed and zonal architecture:

* https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/automotive/article/...

* https://www.bosch-mobility.com/en/solutions/control-units/zo...

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#73

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

toss1 wrote: post #44
duskwuff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> Inter-vehicle could be cool as the EV equivalent of jump-start

This exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41975736 But for Lucid, not Teslas. And also more generally as a use of V2L.

> in-the-field recharge for cars that run out before the recharging station

This exists: https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-news/2023/06/30/elec... https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/rac-to-equip-breakdown-van...

> a range-extending spare battery pack

This is a real Tesla Cybertruck accessory: https://insideevs.com/news/706702/tesla-cybertruck-range-ext...

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#74

Post by black6 »

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…

One of my takeaways from my time as a RATELO is the thought put into connector design. Everything in the Army was designed to plug into one thing and one thing only to prevent mistakes.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#75

Post by iknowstuff »

throw0101d wrote: post #71
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.

> Tesla really deserves some kudos for pushing the 48V architecture and the Ethernet-based communication. For the record, 42V systems were experimented with in the 1990s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42-volt_electrical_system In the 2011 German automakers agreed to 48V as the next step after 12V: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48-volt_electrical_system BMW was the first the first with Ethernet: * https://www.marv…

none of them actually shipped a mass market almost exclusively 48V product if you’re trying to imply tesla’s push isnt as massive as it is.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#76

Post by iknowstuff »

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.

lmao are you a bot? this is not about charging connectors, and GB/T (with its two separate connectors for AC and DC) is awful compared to NACS.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#77

Post by Muskyinhere »

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.

[dead]

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#78

Post by saturn8601 »

throwaway19972 wrote: post #68
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...

> 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.

IDK man, when I think of standard connectors I think of clunky junk: CCS which was all engineering and no focus on human centered design with its clunky connector that also wiggles in ports.

all of the USB connectors including USB-C, with it mandate to support so many different edge cases that cause cables to not always be compatible with each other defeating the purpose.

Bluetooth again with so many edge cases that made it terrible until Apple came along and cut a lot of that out in their solution finally made it tolerable.

Hell even a lot of electrical connectors (such as the US outlet) suck: developed in that way due to historical interests, it looks terrible, is not entirely safe (ie. ground does not go in first) and now has stuff bolted on to make up for its shortfalls. (GFCI, in line fuses etc.)

Now there are probably loads of terrible proprietary connectors but it seems like the free market eventually takes care of disposing of the chaff. That itself is a forcing function to get to a better design that users will like. Whereas you have no choice of a standardized connector because some "standards body" made up of opposing interests artificially keeps lousy designs around and forces it upon the population.

Im not arguing for one or the other but its just annoying that standards bodies always seem to get a pass when in my experience they produce a lot of mediocre stuff.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#79

Post by Animats »

themaninthedark wrote: post #61
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.

That's the latch, not a key. Keying prevents putting the wrong plug in a receptacle. Usually that's done with notches on the receptacle and ridges on the plug.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#80

Post by cduzz »

themaninthedark wrote: post #61
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.

I think by keyed it isn't just "can't be plugged in upside down" but also "can't be plugged into the other plug that's basically the same but connects to some other subsystem."

Ideally a system like this would let you select some per-subsystem physical lockout mechanism.

Post reply on HN