dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I wasn't sure if it was a roo or a young deer mid stride about to hop (or rearing up).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla autopilot HW3
- Thread starter verygreen
- Start date
I wasn't sure if it was a roo or a young deer mid stride about to hop (or rearing up).
If you look at the high res shot on the left side are the redundant power and canbus on the blue and white connectors. This connectors exist on ap 2.0 and ap 2.5. So it would appear that yes, there is full redundancy in the harness for comma and power to the apu.
no redundant power on the blue connector on hw2.0 in the wiring diagrams.
I think not on hw2.5 either but don't have that handy. I know you can power the whole thing (both nodes) from one pin on the blue connector.
Blue is primary power and coms. White is secondary power and coms according to the ap3 high res board shot. Both blue and white connectors exist on ap 2.0 and ap 2.5.
you ar correct that there is secondary power on the white connector. But it's 1/4 the wire thickness, so a lot lower power. I suspect you cannot power the actual compute node at full power usage through it.
The unit works just fine even if you don't supply any power to that pin, so I am not really sure what's the purpose of it.
I'd expect dual power feeds to the module that then get (ideal/ protected)diode ORed to create two dual sourced power feeds to the DC-DC converters that then each feed half the module.
Lose one power wire, full module still works. Get a short on one half, other half stays powered.
As to wire gauge, 72W is only 6 amps (at worst casre 12V), so 18 gauge could work. With the onboard buck converters, a little drop in the harness only hurts efficency. Could be a lower power backup feed though.
Wouldn't backup power have to be the same as primary in case of the "order of magnitude"(TM) less failure rate?
They both need to be capable of supplying the 72W. The larger wire is more power efficient, but the smaller could still be capable. Especially in a fault mode where the car reports loss of power redundancy and you get it serviced soon. No need to design it with both feeds sized for maximum efficiency if it normally runs off one. So maybe primary/ backup versus dual primary.
Isn't the most likely failure the HVDC2DC or the power supply built on the board... and not a wire?
The 12V battery gives backup if the HV DCDC goes out. Wiring damage/ assembly issues are likely more common that circuit failures. Dual/ split feeds are common in critical automotive control module.
In the event of a power supply failure, you may not need to be able to run the full board. At that point it may just need to either get somewhere safe or to it’s destination while only utilizing one node...
Yah, one chip runing dual copies (to maintain redundancy, and since half the cameras are gone) of a limp home mode NN.
milleron
Member
I agree. Elon said that all Teslas built since 2016 were designed as robotaxis, meaning that they all had redundant and emergency power supplies for critical systems as well as redundant steering motors and brake functionality.
Except we know that they were not. HW2.5 in 2017 added additional redundancy in wiring harnesses and maybe some other stuff? Others know the details better than I do. I would be shocked if HW2.0 had redundant power steering and brakes, but maybe somebody with definitive information can speak up.
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
With HW2.5 came:
Efuse
Homelink V
New Autopilot ECU
New side repeater cams
New triple cam
New Park assist ECU
New forward Radar
New B-pillar cams
New steering gear
Efuse
Homelink V
New Autopilot ECU
New side repeater cams
New triple cam
New Park assist ECU
New forward Radar
New B-pillar cams
New steering gear
Holy smokes! Didn't realize so much changed.
Umm, what changed with all of the cameras?
Bet TSLA
Active Member
We know no such thing. You really ought to stop listening to the voices in your head. Just because 2.5 is better than 2.0, that does not mean that 2.0 is inadequate for robotaxi use.
I wonder more about the lack of an internal camera on S & X. Seems necessary to me.
kvandivo
Member
I'll bet that would be a relatively easy retrofit, especially if it is just used for surveillance (and doesn't have to feed into anything for real-time processing).
Similar threads
- Article
