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

131–140 of 182 posts

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#131

Post by theamk »

themaninthedark wrote: post #88
cduzz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That level of keying would be done at the harness/electrical engineer level. You shouldn't put two same plug ends at one termination site. You really couldn't control it at plug or part level.

It has to be both.

The plug manufacturer has to provide many, many keying options (say for a 2-pin plug, one might have variants 2A, 2B, etc... which explicitly cannot mate with each other)

An engineer designing the car has to ensure all plugs with same keying options are interchangeable (2A is for power supply; 2B for door switch; etc...)

If the plug manufacturer does not provide enough keying options, this will be pretty hard to during design time.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#132

Post by numpad0 »

taneq wrote: post #87
cduzz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have they said there isn’t a mechanism for individually keying connectors? There might be something optional, even if it’s just blanking pins.

Connectors with distinct shapes and sizes are usually used. If it feels like it could go in then it's the right one, and if it goes in it easily seats fully and never comes out without a tool. Wrong connectors don't even feel like they could go into wrong locations.

Cars using whole bunch of different connectors relying on whole bunch of suppliers is feature-not-bug situation. It is optimal for large scale volume production; work will be more distributed, SPoF will be more localized, etc. Standardized connectors with trivial visual differences and/or field configurable keying is a suboptimal solution for car problem. Usually.

...is it a local minima for small scale production? Are they having issues with scale outs, and therefore seeking downward scalability?

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#133

Post by kortilla »

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.

Most useful standards did not originate from standards bodies. The standards bodies just formalized what already had buy-in from the significant players.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#134

Post by kortilla »

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.

Name the “wildly successful” standards you are thinking of and then look into the history of them. You’ll find one or maybe two major players that pushed it initially.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#135

Post by throwaway19972 »

kortilla wrote: post #134
throwaway19972 wrote: post #68

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

Name the “wildly successful” standards you are thinking of and then look into the history of them. You’ll find one or maybe two major players that pushed it initially.

Ok? I'd rather trust DARPA than private enterprise.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#136

Post by Animats »

maxerickson wrote: post #123
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…

At least reverse battery protection is pretty standard these days. Doesn't make things work when they are plugged into the wrong connector, but they should still work once the connections are straightened out.

There's no excuse for that any more, especially since the invention of the ideal diode.[1]

[1] https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slvae57b/slvae57b.pdf

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#137

Post by elcritch »

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…

Actually there’s two paths: first the traditional path of different unique wiring harnesses and various signals with unique connectors, or second a common power and coms bus design.

If the Cybertrucks electrical ethos is followed by others there’s only 48V and Ethernet. Ethernet doesn’t care or fry if plugged into a wrong port. Any complex wiring can be done inside a part or component as needed, but the interface is one of a few options.

Let’s say the window motor is plugged into the power and not the switched motor plug. As long as it’s a 48V motor it’ll just turn but not fry. You just unplug it and reconnect it.

IMHO industrial everything should become 48V Ethernet. Just like for gadgets usb-c rules the roost.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#138

Post by elcritch »

rcxdude wrote: post #113
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central bus instead of many point to point connections. Look at how much fewer cabling the cybertruck has.

CAN is also a bus, that's not really a point in favor of ethernet.

Ethernet can do both bus and switched. High speed switches enables a lot of architecture not easily enabled by CAN.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#139

Post by elcritch »

bsder wrote: post #94
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?

Larger packets and bandwidths. Bandwidth: you can't ship backup camera video or entertainment system audio over CAN, for example. CAN was meant for short, real-time packets. 8 bytes in initial configuration. CAN FD allows 64 byte packets. You spend a LOT of protocol doing packet fragmentation and assembly using CAN--which then negates a lot of the real-time guarantees. CAN should be used for the short safety critical…

Ethernet can handle real time now even in bus configurations!

10BASE-T1S is a new standard geared for automotive. It uses physical layer collision avoidance instead of classic Ethernet exponential backoff. This provides deterministic maximum latency.

Though you can get max latency guarantees with switched Ethernet and the appropriate switch QoS and hardware.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#140

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #70
reaperducer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it that when describing EV technology, HN people have a tendency to frame it as "imagine if it could, that would be amazing if"

While describing stuff that exists in some form, and usually has existed for years already now.

It's not evenly distributed new tech for sure (1). But maybe it's the false assumption that "if it was anywhere, I'd be among the ones to see it early".

1) See William Gibson: "The Future is Already Here, it's Just Not Very Evenly Distributed."

Post reply on HN