Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation Technology

GM Can Manage an EV's Batteries Wirelessly -- and Remotely (ieee.org) 72

An anonymous reader quotes a report: IEEE Spectrum got an exclusive look at General Motors' wireless battery management system. It's a first in any EV anywhere (not even Tesla has one). The wireless technology, created with Analog Devices, Inc., will be standard on a full range of GM EVs, with the company aiming for at least 1 million global sales by mid-decade. Those vehicles will be powered by GM's proprietary Ultium batteries, produced at a new US $2.3 billion plant in Ohio, in partnership with South Korea's LG Chem. 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.

The upshot is cradle-to-grave monitoring of battery health and operation, including real-time data from drivers in wildly different climates or usage cases. That all-seeing capability includes vast inventories of batteries -- even before workers install them in cars on assembly lines. GM can essentially plug-and-play battery modules for a vast range of EVs, including heavy-duty trucks and sleek performance cars, without having to redesign wiring harnesses or communications systems for each. That can help the company speed models to market and ensure the profitability that has eluded most EV makers. GM engineers and executives said they've driven the cost of Ultium batteries, with their nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum chemistry, below the $100 per kilowatt-hour mark -- long a Holy Grail for battery development. And GM has vowed that it will turn a profit on every Ultium-powered car it makes.
The system features end-to-end encryption and the software and battery nodes can be reprogrammed over-the-air.

"Repurposing partially spent batteries also gets easier because there's no need to overhaul the management system or fiddle with hard-to-recycle wiring," the report adds. "Wireless packs can go straight into their new roles, typically as load-balancing workhorses for the grid."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM Can Manage an EV's Batteries Wirelessly -- and Remotely

Comments Filter:
  • I think you meant to say ALLOW modules.

  • by GregMmm ( 5115215 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @05:09PM (#60493848)

    I liked some of the ideas until it says it can talk to through the cloud to GM. No thanks. In 5 years, when the car is out of warranty and the encryption is crap my car will be hacked.

    Another observation: 2.4gigahertz? Hopefully your microwave and wireless router are far enough away from the garage...

    By the way, no way I was buying a GM product in the first place..

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @05:48PM (#60493968) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, this screams "failure waiting to happen" to me. There's a reason nobody uses wireless communication between car parts. It isn't reliable. And barreling down the highway, the last thing you want is for it to start getting grumpy because it is getting responses from the battery in the next car over, even if the crypto does cause it to fail to communicate.

      I seems to me that a more sane way to do this would be to eliminate the "tangle of wires" by using the power rails themselves for low-bandwidth superimposed signaling. I doubt the batteries would care if there's a multi-GHz millivolt-level signal on the wires in addition to the voltage. And the various subpack charge controllers could use random backoff in the same way that a shared 10BASE2 Ethernet bus does to ensure that communication from the battery to the car's main computer eventually reaches the car's main computer.

      • I seems to me that a more sane way to do this would be to eliminate the "tangle of wires" by using the power rails themselves for low-bandwidth superimposed signaling.

        There won't be a "tangle of wires", that's just GM dick waving, trying to sell this crap.

        As noted: Batteries need power rails, all comms and management will be built into the same connectors.

        And as also noted: This is a hack waiting to happen, even if it's just signal jamming "pranks".

      • It doesn't make sense to put noise on your existing wires, even if you think it will have no effects, when you're dealing with new vehicle construction. It could only ever make sense in a retrofit, and even then it would be silly at best.

        If we want to reduce the "tangle of wires" (I don't know about you, but most of the automotive wiring I've seen has been fairly well-managed, not found in "tangles") then the best way to do that is with a distributed network in the vehicle. Everything which absolutely must

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          It doesn't make sense to put noise on your existing wires, even if you think it will have no effects, when you're dealing with new vehicle construction. It could only ever make sense in a retrofit, and even then it would be silly at best.

          Depends on how many wires we're talking about. If you're talking about saving three or four few wires, yes. If you're talking about a voltage monitor on every group of a dozen batteries in a pack with... say 7,000 batteries, the number of extra wires adds up pretty quickly, so I wouldn't dismiss the idea so quickly. I can definitely understand why the temptation to use wireless communication is very strong in the context of these mega-packs.

          If we want to reduce the "tangle of wires" (I don't know about you, but most of the automotive wiring I've seen has been fairly well-managed, not found in "tangles") then the best way to do that is with a distributed network in the vehicle. Everything which absolutely must work correctly should be hardwired like it is today, the signals and the wipers and so on, and everything else should be networked with a 1- or 2-wire communications protocol.

          That's basically what most newer cars do these days. Historical

          • "At some point, you still have to branch off into three wires for the switch, three wires for the door lock actuator, and so on, but the goal should definitely be to move that as close as practical to the endpoint."

            If switch and actuator each have their own micro then they don't need those other wires either :)

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The encryption is more likely to prevent you maintaining the car yourself. You won't just be able to swap parts in or out, they will need to be paired with the battery, like keys need to be paired to the car.

  • Anonymous* corporate sponsor explains exactly how and why their continuous monitoring of your travel will benefit everyone with super exciting** and very real benefits that simply can't be had any other way***.

    *Anonymous to you, Slashdot cashes their checks so they aren't really "anonymous."
    **Making money excites us
    ***We could do it some other way, but then we couldn't sell your travel data to insurance companies.

    • It reads like any of the usual Telsa hype except its about a major car company, not a major stock investment company.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Also sell the ability to cut power at any time for any reason. Will not be touching one, no way, no how. I want my car to be fully controlled from my car, zero remote connections to anything I do not specifically allow and that will not impact car function either way. GM are dead to me.

      • There are already a lot of cars on the road that have remote-disable or remote-degrade capability.

        This is sometimes sold as a theft deterrent.

      • Then I guess you won't be buying any new car in the future. Almost all new cars have permanent wireless-based telematics on board. The only exceptions are the super-expensive niche vehicles, like Icon or Ariel.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Some of it is mandatory now, like wireless tyre pressure sensors. In the EU emergency crash detection will be a requirement eventually, i.e. the car must have a modem that reports when the airbags deploy or when the user presses a button to the emergency services, along with GPS location data.

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @05:15PM (#60493876)

    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.

    ... now someone can screw with your car / battery using a radio jammer.

    Also waiting for someone to discover there's no encryption / security in 3... 2... 1...

    That onboard master can also talk through the cloud to GM.

    Ya, no.

    Thankfully, for me, most "American" cars are various degrees of crap, so I won't ever be buying one from GM.

    • GM has cleared it with Legal. The car will come with prominent warning saying the the wireless reporting of modules to its on board master is a private server, anyone interferring with it would be violating the DMCA (year 2000). Also interferring with wireless communications is also a crime according to Wireless Act (1922). So GM is on the clear, any thing done by the hackers will be classified as "act of crime". Thus GM will not incur any liability.

      eh, what?

      "What about the customer with a dead car?"?

      Th

    • It's gonna be a hard-wired static key.

      It's gonna be easily found. Maybe even with a replay attack.

      I'd bet money on it.

  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @05:25PM (#60493906)

    Hang on, why is the management interface the main thing keeping the batteries from being used in a variety of vehicles? Seems like you'd have to design the power connection interface to be completely standardized as well and if you've done that, why not standardize the connection for communication?

    • GM plans to be producing modules for a lot of companies. See, for instance, their recent "alliance" with Honda. But I would imagine at their factory that, yes, they may produce different-sized modules, but the packaging between them (post types/sizes/spacing/#cells per package, for instance) will stay the same. Meaning it should be easy to reuse them, as the article says, after their suitability for automotive service is used up.

      As someone who has tried to repurpose some subpacks with existing OEM BMS's, th

      • I can buy a PSU and motherboard from any company I want and be assured that I can plug the one into the other thanks to the ATA standard. I'm sure the auto industry can develop a common standard for battery pack connections, if they haven't already. Hell, GM can force one on everyone else. Honda can manage.

        Certainly cheaper than having to jam a wireless SoC into every battery pack.

    • I have no idea! It seems so obvious and cost-effective, I can't fathom why GM would waste time and money on this. Well, not an honest one.
  • >"Unlike today's battery modules, which link up to an on-board management system through a tangle of orange wiring,"

    What are they even talking about? It is a battery pack in a car. It HAS to be connected via wires (perhaps orange) to, I don't know, PASS THE POWER TO AND FROM THE CAR. So what if there is a tiny 2/6/whatever pin cable to also allow communication with the car? What is the need for the car to wirelessly connect to the battery pack? That is just more complexity, risk, and cost.

    • So what if there is a tiny 2/6/whatever pin cable to also allow communication with the car? What is the need for the car to wirelessly connect to the battery pack? That is just more complexity, risk, and cost.

      The wiring costs (material, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, diagnostic) are probably higher than the radio/antenna costs. Like with the shift from ignition keys to key-less ignition (which I don't have on my current cars, but hate the idea for my next car) it's about saving the manufacturer money. Even a little bit across many vehicles adds up, especially as I'm sure any savings will NOT be passed along to the consumer.

      In any case, not sure this adds any real value.

    • Wait until they "wirelessly" charge and discharge that thing too! ;)

    • I think the plan is to be able to monitor each pack within the battery as a separate entity so if one pack goes bad, its easy to find and repair/replace.
  • location data streaming up
  • by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @05:41PM (#60493948)

    Why do new cars need so much tracking? They don't. Manufacturers need more revenue, so pervasive tracking is a way to do that. They want to sell your data, your location, etc. They want to charge your insurance company for access, so you can get 'the best rate'. Its all bullshit to make more money from you. Fuck GM. Fuck cars that are tracked by the manufacturer.

  • Yay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @06:27PM (#60494070)
    In other words, this can both interfere with 2.4GHz wifi networks and could potentially add remote vulnerabilities to you car for no good reason.
  • You can have my old-school non-connected-to-anything car when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers.

    • by mspohr ( 589790 )

      Do you have a cell phone?

      • by marcle ( 1575627 )

        I agree with Ludite, even if he (she?) can't spell very well. Yes I have a cell phone. No I don't want every damn machine I own to track me, report back to the mothership, and try to use that information to manipulate me and further drain my bank account. I don't want the damn "services" they offer which are usually nothing more than further sales pitches. I want my car to get me from point A to point B in a safe and reliable fashion, and maybe even be a bit of fun to drive. That's it. Period.

      • Re:Ludite here (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ZombieCatInABox ( 5665338 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @07:39PM (#60494318)

        Yes, I have a cell phone. And a handheld GPS, PLB and satphone that I carry on my expeditions, and a tablet, and three computers. And I've worked in IT since a decade before the PC was even a thing. I saw the birth of bulletin boards, and online services, and the public Internet. And CP/M, DOS, Mac OS, Windows, and Linux.

        What I don't have is a smart TV, or an always-connected car, and certainly not fucking smart lightbulbs. When I want to turn a light on or off, I get off my ass and flip a fucking switch.

        Simpletons always seem to think that technology is either all good or all bad, and that everyone should think like that.

        But people who know better know that technology can be good, bad, everything in between, and even good in some circumstances and not in others.

        If it has to be explained to you why a 2000 pounds chunk of metal that can go at 100+ miles per hour, that can be remotely and wirelessly accessed and controlled by basically anyone, is a fucking bad idea, then I guess you're in the first category.

        • Interesting choices.

        • "Simpletons always seem to think that technology is either all good or all bad, and that everyone should think like that." - does that include modern cars?
        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Well, it's not clear just what feature of the car this "wireless capability" will be able to control. Currently often the entertainment modules can't talk to the control modules. So this may be more for tracking than for control.

  • Yes, I just poked Murphy with a stick. So sue me.

    This is a bad, bad, BAD idea.
    Depending on how deep the integrated management of each battery goes, some external hacker could literally turn your EV battery packs into firebombs.
    No way in Hell I'd even be a passenger in an EV that used these.

    At the rate things are going I'll be buying older and older cars and just keep repairing/rebuilding them. The auto industry keeps doing things like this that should scare the hell out of you.
  • That you can interfere with the system with an assortment of wireless jammers.

  • M'Corporation, *tips black hat*

    Horton Andrews Cker

  • Hell, everything else in our daily lives you have to pay rent on. You don't really own anything anymore. Pretty soon, you'll be paying a monthly fee to GM to be allowed to drive your car.

    • Hell, everything else in our daily lives you have to pay rent on. You don't really own anything anymore. Pretty soon, you'll be paying a monthly fee to GM to be allowed to drive your car.

      Yep, that's the ticket. Recurring revenue stream for eternity.

  • “The system features end-to-end encryption and the software and battery nodes can be reprogrammed over-the-air. “

  • I misread TFA and thought they were planning on charging via wireless. Man, that'd be an extreme case of "Don't watch the food cook", or "Don't cross the beam!". Guess I'd have to make the garage a screen cage...

    Like others have mentioned, I've already got several massive friggin' wires running between the charger and the vehicle. Nearly any amount of data could piggyback on the wires, especially for the few feet/meters of cable length.

    Yet another thing that complicates cars, and expands the defensive secur

  • This is important for GM because of the right to repair loophole for Wireless technologies.
  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Thursday September 10, 2020 @10:54PM (#60494690)
    it had forbidden words in it. Also, batteries are a colonial technology and automobiles are racist on account of klansmen drive them.
    • by OFnow ( 1098151 )

      Aside from the idiocy of the posting here , note that many sources are now speaking directly about the distinctly negative connotations (for non-white readers) of many terms used in computing and electronics. master, slave are just two such, and there are plenty of usable alternatives with no connection to 400+ years of slavery in the USA. Lets all agree to start changing our vocabulary. It's no joke to those whose families were slaves.

      • No. Go back in time far enough and a whole lot of people's families were slaves or serfs or whatever else. If the words offend you, you need a thicker skin. You may not reach into my brain and demand that I surrender clarity of language (the absolute most important thing in scientific and technical communication) to assuage your feelings. You and I know full well that the moment I concede, you'll move on to demanding I abandon the entire concept of master-slave relationships in software and electronics, not
  • There is no reason for a tangle of wires. One can signal over the B+ wire, or string together a network with 1 wire.
    • When I look at the wiring between my computer's PSU and the motherboard, I don't see a tangle of wires, I see a single cable with a big, fat MOLEX on the end for the individual wire pairs. Power and data move across it with no need to also pay for a low power bluetooth radio.

      And the best part is that when I look at the wiring in my 15 year old car, I see the same damn thing!

  • Hard to get power from a battery to a motor without wires, right? So why waste money on a radio when you have to plug it into whatever you want to power anyhow?

    Seriously, I can't think of any reasonable answer other than the profoundly unlikely one that somehow a wireless controller is cheaper than adding a wire pair to a harness you need anyhow.

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Working...