5 ms·

> Unlike today’s battery modules, which link up to an on-board management system through a tangle of orange wiring, GM’s system features RF antennas integrated

> Unlike today’s battery modules, which link up to an on-board management system through a tangle of orange wiring, GM’s system features RF antennas integrated on circuit boards. The antennas allow the transfer of data via a 2.4-gigahertz wireless protocol similar to Bluetooth but with lower power. Slave modules report back to an onboard master, sending measurements of cell voltages and other data. That onboard master can also talk through the cloud to GM. I can understand why GM wants batteries to report their health to the cloud, but can anyone explain why they want wireless networking for in-car components? I know Elon Musk bragged for a while about reducing the amount of wiring that was going into the model Y (AFAICT, that didn't end up happening, or it was very poorly communicated) as a sort of manufacturing advantage to decrease labor costs. Perhaps that is the rationale? That just seems like a poor reason to reduce the reliability of component communications in the car.

reitzensteinm 6y ago
The article claims the specific benefits at the end. I'm assuming the main benefit is that eliminating the wiring simplifies manufacturing. They do appear to be taking BEVs seriously. I just wish we could get more detailed information on what they're doing exactly without having to tease it out of a puff piece that bizarrely conflates the vehicle talking to servers over mobile internet with bluetooth like communication between internal parts. "The eco-friendly approach eliminates about a kilogram per vehicle, as well as three meters of wiring. Jettisoning nearly 90 percent of pack wiring ekes out another advantage: Throughout the industry, wired battery connectors demand enough physical clearance for human techs to squeeze two fingers inside. Eliminating the wiring and touchpoints carves out room to stuff more batteries into a given space, with a lower-profile design. Which leaves plenty of room for a thumbs-up. "
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
It's probably just an unrelated research project. The "reason" you'd want it is to save money on wire harness construction and installation. The reason you don't do foolish things like this is poor reliability. How many five year old BMWs and Mercs don't have something wrong with their CAN bus peripheral lighting.
- deelowe 6y ago
  I think that has less to do with the wiring itself and more to do with the amount of things that need to be wired at this point. What protocol and phy is used for connectivity won't change this. At least maybe wireless can be PTP and not deal with the issue CAN has when one of the links in the chain goes offline.
- akira2501 6y ago
  One other possible reason is to severely hamper any third party service or parts market from forming around this part of the car, and in particular, their IP.
taneq 6y ago
There might be a small reliability advantage over wired comms, since you'd only need to run the main battery cables (much larger/sturdier than comms wiring). Overall it sounds more like just something that someone thought sounded cool, though. "Our batteries use nanotech" "Yeah? Well OUR batteries are WIRELESS!"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

reitzensteinm 6y ago

The article claims the specific benefits at the end. I'm assuming the main benefit is that eliminating the wiring simplifies manufacturing. They do appear to be taking BEVs seriously. I just wish we could get more detailed information on what they're doing exactly without having to tease it out of a puff piece that bizarrely conflates the vehicle talking to servers over mobile internet with bluetooth like communication between internal parts. "The eco-friendly approach eliminates about a kilogram per vehicle, as well as three meters of wiring. Jettisoning nearly 90 percent of pack wiring ekes out another advantage: Throughout the industry, wired battery connectors demand enough physical clearance for human techs to squeeze two fingers inside. Eliminating the wiring and touchpoints carves out room to stuff more batteries into a given space, with a lower-profile design. Which leaves plenty of room for a thumbs-up. "

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

It's probably just an unrelated research project. The "reason" you'd want it is to save money on wire harness construction and installation. The reason you don't do foolish things like this is poor reliability. How many five year old BMWs and Mercs don't have something wrong with their CAN bus peripheral lighting.

deelowe 6y ago
I think that has less to do with the wiring itself and more to do with the amount of things that need to be wired at this point. What protocol and phy is used for connectivity won't change this. At least maybe wireless can be PTP and not deal with the issue CAN has when one of the links in the chain goes offline.
akira2501 6y ago
One other possible reason is to severely hamper any third party service or parts market from forming around this part of the car, and in particular, their IP.

taneq 6y ago

There might be a small reliability advantage over wired comms, since you'd only need to run the main battery cables (much larger/sturdier than comms wiring). Overall it sounds more like just something that someone thought sounded cool, though. "Our batteries use nanotech" "Yeah? Well OUR batteries are WIRELESS!"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]