http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/ Autoblog Comments for iDrive via IP? - BMW uses Internet Protocol underhood http://www.autoblog.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.autoblog.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
I wish I could still order a car with roll up windows, manual locks, no A/C, no sun roof, no radio, no nothing.
Ordering it that way would reduce weight (which will help performance and fuel economy), it would cost less, it would make for a very reliable vehicle, and it would help to keep the driver focused on the road (instead of on their nav system/radio/phone/climate control/ect).

I mean, do we really need half the stuff we can get in cars now, especially if getting rid of some features would offer a significant increase in all-around performance? Most people I know can't figure out all of the features available in their car anyway, never mind use them all on a regular basis.

I'm not saying don't offer luxury features, I'm just saying we need to bring back the stripped out models too. Not just on a little roadster like the Honda S2K-CR either.]]>Dec 1st 2007 5:36PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 6:03PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 10:01PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 3rd 2007 12:11PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 5:56PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 11:30PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 3rd 2007 3:50AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 3rd 2007 4:01AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 6:02PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 6:11PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 6:39PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
Isn't there already a simpler protocol called CAN that is already in use in many cars? Seems like CAN would already be dirt-cheap. It's fault-tolerant, can run at 1 Mbps, and supports multiple-device arbitration with >100 devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_Area_Network
and http://hem.bredband.net/stafni/developer/CAN.htm

]]>Dec 1st 2007 9:26PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
Using IP as the network layer protocol would be a great idea, IMHO, it would save on weight and cost as wiring could be made simpler. Additionally, it would conceivably make adding and integrating new features to cars easier.

My question is though, would availability to stuff like the engine/trans management computers be available (as it is via OBDII/VAG-COM)?]]>Dec 2nd 2007 5:53PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 10:58PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/Dec 1st 2007 11:16PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
*Someone* finally thought - hey, why don't we just use a relatively open, already proven reliable method of inter-systems communications that's always under scrutiny by many people rather than spending thousands of dollars and lots of man-hours trying to develop our own reliable system?

Sounds good to me! Anything to make the complex dance that is making complex systems talk to each other effectively more standard and more reliable. In critical areas like certain car systems, failure is actually not an option. ]]>Dec 1st 2007 11:42PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
Now tell me, why is this necessary in car?]]>Dec 2nd 2007 1:05AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
And how is IPv6 so much better than IPv4 for this application? The big thing with IPv6 is that we are running out of public IP addresses, so with IPv6 the address space has been expanded from ~4.3x10^9 to 3.4x10^38. Sure there are other advantages but none of these will be of benefit here. Even the addressing is bunk in this case unless all the components of your car-net are connecting to the public Internet.

]]>Dec 2nd 2007 1:38AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
IP is hardware independent and have standardized software support, so it is cheap to develop for large compatibility. However, it is not a physical or even media access layer protocol so you still need something underneath to work. It adds overhead that cost money, well, may not be much for a $40k car, but still, there are more things that can go wrong but nothing in terms of benefit for real time system. It is simply overkill for low bandwidth, low latency, real time system that has single connection or low/no routing.

You still need to run it over a CAN bus, which is fault tolerant and collision prove. Unless they want to route entertainment between the front and back, or to provide in car wifi, there is no point.

It would not be safe to use it to connect ECU and other controllers, CAN is still needed.]]>Dec 2nd 2007 2:04AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/01/idrive-via-ip-bmw-uses-internet-protocol-underhood/
whatever happened to simple = better? cars from the 70s are still being driven and older cars are easy to get running again. These Ipods and intarwebs on wheels won't be around in 20 years much less have any chance of being restored (not that anyone would want to restore one).

though I guess it proves to keep the market competitive, but I see no other need for this kind of complexity.]]>Dec 2nd 2007 5:48AM