How accessible are the vehicle control systems?

[CustomCar]

The idea of complete vehicle customization obviously appeals to a lot of us. Vehicles are becoming less customizable as vehicles become more electronic, with those electronics being a "black box" that end users aren't able to modify. It doesn't have to be this way.
In industry it is common that once you buy an industrial machine you own it. Performing a controls upgrade adds years of life to older industrial equipment. Machines are frequently modified to add new features. Something as routine as adding a new part number is often handled through a simple software modification. These systems are all accessible to the end user, and the end user assumes liability for their use.
As in industry, the end user is responsible for safe operation and assumes liability of a vehicle. If I have a classic car and I want to upgrade it to 4-wheel disc brakes, I can do that, even though the ability to stop is obviously a safety system. If I do the upgrade incorrectly and the brakes fail, I am liable. If a driver decides to drive their vehicle onto a crowded sidewalk, the operator is responsible. The liability is on the operator and is handled through our existing legal system. The legal framework already exists to allow people to modify and operate their vehicles, even when it affects safety systems.
Will Slate owners be able to modify the vehicle control systems? If I wanted to install a system where I could set my cruise control saved speed using a voice command, and engage that speed using the existing "resume" button on the steering wheel, could I do that? Slate assumes and encourages users to add smart devices to their vehicles, which bring a ton of sensors and potential inputs into the vehicle - there's a ton of potential for people to add functionality to their vehicles.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The idea of complete vehicle customization obviously appeals to a lot of us. Vehicles are becoming less customizable as vehicles become more electronic, with those electronics being a "black box" that end users aren't able to modify. It doesn't have to be this way.
In industry it is common that once you buy an industrial machine you own it. Performing a controls upgrade adds years of life to older industrial equipment. Machines are frequently modified to add new features. Something as routine as adding a new part number is often handled through a simple software modification. These systems are all accessible to the end user, and the end user assumes liability for their use.
As in industry, the end user is responsible for safe operation and assumes liability of a vehicle. If I have a classic car and I want to upgrade it to 4-wheel disc brakes, I can do that, even though the ability to stop is obviously a safety system. If I do the upgrade incorrectly and the brakes fail, I am liable. If a driver decides to drive their vehicle onto a crowded sidewalk, the operator is responsible. The liability is on the operator and is handled through our existing legal system. The legal framework already exists to allow people to modify and operate their vehicles, even when it affects safety systems.
Will Slate owners be able to modify the vehicle control systems? If I wanted to install a system where I could set my cruise control saved speed using a voice command, and engage that speed using the existing "resume" button on the steering wheel, could I do that? Slate assumes and encourages users to add smart devices to their vehicles, which bring a ton of sensors and potential inputs into the vehicle - there's a ton of potential for people to add functionality to their vehicles.

There just might possibly be an answer to your question once (if?) the Slate makes it to production. Until then, and until there's some official word from Slate on the matter, everything is speculation.

 

[IanNubbit]

Short answer is yeah, that example you could totally do, just maybe not how you think. Vehicles run on a can-bus system, as stated during an interview they are using a bog standard industry normal can-bus system on the vehilcle. With the simplicity, i expect the vehicle to only have a handful of modules, likely all on 2 network, maybe 2 for safety. ABS, Charging module, Vehicle Control unit (PCM/EVCU), cluster, something for lights, hvac, something for phone connectivity, restraint systems, battery pack, and maybe another module added if you run the bluetooth built in audio. With that, most manufacturers run 2 networks, one for needed systems (brakes, evcu, orc, etc) and a second for everything else (lights, audio, etc). They seperate the 2 so if one goes down, the other still does something.

to do what you are asking, basically all you need is your one module, that connects to the can-bus network (likely there will be a location to plug in for this, see SGW bypass modules on CDJR vehicles, or the commander modules seen for Tesla use), then your custom module will “create” the same signal as the network sees for cruise control input/output and send that signal. You would design the device and have to de-code the can-bus message yourself but this is also pretty standard stuff in automotive industry, especially on a country per country basis.

tons of stuff already does this, even as simple as modern cars radio upgrades. A little box plugs into the can-bus network inline with the new radio, And this allows for the HVAC controls, vehicle settings, read vehicle data etc.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

as stated during an interview they are using a bog standard industry normal can-bus system on the vehilcle.

Do you have a link to this? It's not surprising that Slate would use Canbus, but where & when was this officially announced?

 

[IanNubbit]

Do you have a link to this? It's not surprising that Slate would use Canbus, but where & when was this officially announced?

If you know anything about canbus, you will know why they use it. The EVCU is the same unit used in multiple other manufacturers today, same with the ABS module. To use a different network would mean they would have to translate these “off the shelf” computers to their different non-standard architecture which increases cost and decreases reliability.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you know anything about canbus, you will know why they use it. The EVCU is the same unit used in multiple other manufacturers today, same with the ABS module. To use a different network would mean they would have to translate these “off the shelf” computers to their different non-standard architecture which increases cost and decreases reliability.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying this. It will still be interesting to see what the final production configuration will look like, in the sense that Slate emphasizes again and again that things are still being worked on and "we'll know more as things get closer to production".

In going through the video you shared in the other thread, I didn't catch any reference to Slate using the same EVCU and ABS module as multiple other manufacturers. Maybe I missed it... Where was this posted?

Here the video starts at the point where Chris discusses the vehicle controllers & communication protocol used:

 

[IanNubbit]

Interesting, thanks for clarifying this. It will still be interesting to see what the final production configuration will look like, in the sense that Slate emphasizes again and again that things are still being worked on and "we'll know more as things get closer to production".

In going through the video you shared in the other thread, I didn't catch any reference to Slate using the same EVCU and ABS module as multiple other manufacturers. Maybe I missed it... Where was this posted?

Here the video starts at the point where Chris discusses the vehicle controllers & communication protocol used:

If you watch this video
The underhood shots show the ABS and EVCU, I can visualy see the EVCU is the exact same one we use in our newer vehicles for Stellantis. This is normal practice across the industry. Bosh and Magna are two powerhouses on design and manufacturing of the auto industry, basically every manufacturer uses components from them to build their vehicle. It’s not cost effective to build modules from the ground up by each manufacturer. ORC, ABS, EVCU/PCM, even transmissions in modern cars are outsourced from companies like bosh, Magna, and ZF and then vehicle manufacturers adapt their networks to communicate with them. This is just how the industry works. If you look at and work on enough cars this becomes very clear.

Also, I’m not 100% sure, but that rear drive unit looks like an off the shelf Magna unit which 100% what they should be doing. All of the modules, computers, and powertrain components (even some suspension components) should all be off the shelf for this vehicle. That keeps cost low, and repairs cheap, and parts easily available

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The underhood shots show the ABS and EVCU, I can visualy see the EVCU is the exact same one we use in our newer vehicles for Stellantis. This is normal practice across the industry. Bosh and Magna are two powerhouses on design and manufacturing of the auto industry, basically every manufacturer uses components from them to build their vehicle. It’s not cost effective to build modules from the ground up by each manufacturer. ORC, ABS, EVCU/PCM, even transmissions in modern cars are outsourced from companies like bosh, Magna, and ZF and then vehicle manufacturers adapt their networks to communicate with them. This is just how the industry works. If you look at and work on enough cars this becomes very clear.

Also, I’m not 100% sure, but that rear drive unit looks like an off the shelf Magna unit which 100% what they should be doing. All of the modules, computers, and powertrain components (even some suspension components) should all be off the shelf for this vehicle. That keeps cost low, and repairs cheap, and parts easily available

Slate announced they signed an agreement with Jing Jin Electric to provide the electric motor powertrain.

 

[IanNubbit]

Slate announced they signed an agreement with Jing Jin Electric to provide the electric motor powertrain.

Oh sweet Michigan’s based. Appears to be the SD220 or SD180. Both look very simple and robust

looking closer it seems it’s the same motor I’m already working on in the Wagoneer S and possibly the Charger Daytona. While the Slate is probably using the 180 at full tit (150hp) for lower cost. Build looks identical to the 220 in those Stellantis prodects. This is actually great news becauss they are Extremely easy to work on, and only failures we have been seeing with drive units is the seperate module on top of the motor, not the motor itself (I also solely blame Stellantis for those issues, not the manufacturer, they have found a way to cause issues on bullet proof parts like ZF trans)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh sweet Michigan’s based.

Isn’t JJE based in China?

 

[IanNubbit]

Isn’t JJE based in China?

They have Michigan manufacturing

 

[danielt1263]

One thing that may interest you. During the CEO-Q&A event I asked if the truck would provide a published API so that developers like myself could write apps interfacing with it.

On Jan 8th, they said:

We don't have details announced yet on whether there will be a publicly available API for third-party app development. There will be a Slate app, but we haven't finalized the specifics on its features, functionality, or whether it will support third-party integration through an API. That said, third-party integration would align well with Slate's DIY and customization philosophy. We'll have more information on the app and developer access as we get closer to production.

 

[KevinRS]

One thing that may interest you. During the CEO-Q&A event I asked if the truck would provide a published API so that developers like myself could write apps interfacing with it.

On Jan 8th, they said:

Yeah, on something like that I don't expect an answer until they actually announce it to the world first. Either they are planning on it or not, and those plans may change, but either way, they won't say until a lot closer to launch, when they would actually have the API ready for release.

 

[IamSpotted]

One thing that may interest you. During the CEO-Q&A event I asked if the truck would provide a published API so that developers like myself could write apps interfacing with it.

On Jan 8th, they said:

Even if they do have an API that the general public has access to, it will also likely be limited in what you can access from the API. If they gave us that access, my guess is that the API we would get would be informational only and not allow you to set cruise control (for example). Not saying people won't find a way to do it, but it also won't be officially supported.

 

[IanNubbit]

I think the best use of an API would be less for vehicle controls, and more for monitors. Think an app for a commercial customer, an app that tracks where they drove that day, each stop tracked, with time stamps and mileage, all accessible without the need for a dongle unit (units like HUM by Verizon, or many insurance one etc.).

This probably just gave a developer a great idea now that I think about it and could make good money on commercial customers lol.

Consumers I could see this being useful for data logging, and phenomenal for diagnosis for repairs. Anything that allows the info of the vehicle to be more easily viewed is always a plus.

I see inputs through an API a slippery slop though, takes very little to create a dangerous scenario being able to lock brakes, apply accelerator pedal, etc. from just one bad actor to create a lawsuit and recalls