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

141–150 of 182 posts

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#141

Post by m463 »

maxerickson wrote: post #124
numpad0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like the real answer. Replacing an automotive standard with Ethernet is going to reduce friction onboarding junior webdevs with MacBooks, and enable a more stable higher turnover labor intensive organization.

CAN to PC adapters are a few hundred dollars, it isn't causing much friction.

With ethernet you can probably run the car software in containers.

I can imagine a container to simulate each hardware unit, a small inter-contaner lan, and develop code that way.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#142

Post by amanaplanacanal »

p_l wrote: post #120
matrix2003 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that for power deliver, or signaling?

-48VDC was standard for powering telephone equipment, and is also common standard for direct current datacenter connections. Signaling on POTS easily hit over 100V, btw.

I remember getting zapped when the phone rang when I was a teenager back in the 70's. Good times.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#143

Post by potato3732842 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #125
cyberax wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starter motor, power steering, heated seats, powerful headlights, power-hungry onboard computers. They _all_ benefit from 48V.

On top of all that, almost all the wiring in the car can be made thinner, because of the greatly reduced losses. This saves a bit of weight, but also a lot of cost because copper is expensive.

There is no free lunch. You need to go to a finer wire strand, better insulation, better loom, better support for the harness etc, if you want that super fine wire to last. Some of those have pretty direct labor cost impacts too. That's gonna kill a lot of your cost savings, especially at lower production volumes where the design cost is harder to amortize. There's no free lunch.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#144

Post by gregoriol »

KK7NIL wrote: post #39
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?

> What is ethernet bringing to the picture? Over 3 orders of magnitude faster datarates. CAN FD: up to 5Mb/s Automotive Ethernet: up to 10 Gb/s

Why would you need 10 Gb/s speeds in a car

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#145

Post by [deleted] »

cyberax wrote: post #90
throw0101d wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This has been a real head-scratcher for me. BMW and other automakers could have vastly improved their cars by switching to 48V a decade ago, but they still keep just plodding along with 12V. I have no explanation for this.

[deleted]

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#146

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

gregoriol wrote: post #144
KK7NIL wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is ethernet bringing to the picture? Over 3 orders of magnitude faster datarates. CAN FD: up to 5Mb/s Automotive Ethernet: up to 10 Gb/s

Why would you need 10 Gb/s speeds in a car

Why would you not? Tesla is sending even the infortainment data stream through that bus. It's incredibly helpful having all data travel on a singular wire because you can tap in at one point and read it all out. Makes the entire system significantly easier to debug, understand and develop against.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#147

Post by soco »

m463 wrote: post #141
maxerickson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAN to PC adapters are a few hundred dollars, it isn't causing much friction.

With ethernet you can probably run the car software in containers. I can imagine a container to simulate each hardware unit, a small inter-contaner lan, and develop code that way.

Reminds me when my Opel resetted itself while driving on the highway. Oh, the adrenaline...

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#148

Post by vardump »

theshrike79 wrote: post #92
cyberax wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been a real head-scratcher for me. BMW and other automakers could have vastly improved their cars by switching to 48V a decade ago, but they still keep just plodding along with 12V. I have no explanation for this.

Tradition, long supply chains etc. Tooling all their shit to 48V is a massive undertaking with pretty much zero advantages.

Less copper in the car is not a "zero advantage". Cheaper and lighter.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#149

Post by vardump »

gregoriol wrote: post #144
KK7NIL wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is ethernet bringing to the picture? Over 3 orders of magnitude faster datarates. CAN FD: up to 5Mb/s Automotive Ethernet: up to 10 Gb/s

Why would you need 10 Gb/s speeds in a car

10 Gb/s is not all that much for cameras. Enough for one 60 Hz 4k 14-bit depth camera transmitting raw bayer data.

60 Hz * 3840 * 2160 * 14bit is 6.96 Gbps.

Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity

#150

Post by taneq »

numpad0 wrote: post #132
taneq wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

I work in this space and 100% agree, in fact I have been on a bit of a crusade to get the mechanical guys to stop designing parts that are rotationally symmetric for this exact reason. Letting a set of three parts be installed 17 different ways isn’t “keeping our options open” it’s “fucking up maintainers.” Each part should fit exactly one obvious place. Each connector should plug in at exactly one obvious place. The only exception is when it doesn’t matter where the part goes, which is approximately never.

That said, sometimes there are cases where an entirely new connector style isn’t warranted, and that’s where you use blanking pins or adjustable keyways or whatever.

Post reply on HN