Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
1–10 of 182 posts
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#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.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#3> 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.
Relevant xkcd, though one imagines that successful standards form despite the lack of choice in how standards are formed
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#4> 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 agree. Is this some kind of free licensing for these connector standards or are they still behind the "you can use this but if we rip off any of your IP and you sue us we'll revoke your license and sue you" license?
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#5NACS is finally standardized as SAE J3400 with other vendors shipping those cars in the United States next year, and now they're introducing a new connector with no clear advantage?
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#6> The 48V architecture is the optimal long-term choice, requiring ¼ of the current to deliver the same amount of power.
Is there a reason why 48V is better long term than going higher like 96V?
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#7NACS is finally standardized as SAE J3400 with other vendors shipping those cars in the United States next year, and now they're introducing a new connector with no clear advantage?
If you clicked the link/read the article, you'd realize this is an internal vehicle 48v connector.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#8> The 48V architecture is the optimal long-term choice, requiring ¼ of the current to deliver the same amount of power. Is there a reason why 48V is better long term than going higher like 96V?
I believe 50V is a safety limit.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#9> The 48V architecture is the optimal long-term choice, requiring ¼ of the current to deliver the same amount of power. Is there a reason why 48V is better long term than going higher like 96V?
48v is probably more common than 96v in general, so more components available already.
Re: Standardizing Automotive Connectivity
#10NACS is finally standardized as SAE J3400 with other vendors shipping those cars in the United States next year, and now they're introducing a new connector with no clear advantage?
If you clicked the link/read the article, you'd realize this is an internal vehicle 48v connector.
Ahh thanks, I read it but In was confused why it was talking about 48v as if that couldn't be done by the other standards.