Why don’t EVs have standard diagnostic ports—and when will that change? | OBD-II was implemented to monitor emissions, but EVs don’t have tailpipes.::OBD-II was implemented to monitor emissions, but EVs don’t have tailpipes.
The existing standards OBD-II and CAN Bus just aren’t fit for purpose for ICE cars let alone EVs. Too many keyless cars get hacked by the thief hacking into either system and overriding the lack of a key, even if it means cutting a hole in the boot lid to expose the CAN Bus connection as with some Range Rovers.
Its become a significant problem for a lot of cars. It used to be that they would break into your house to steal your key, then steal the car but now they do not need to do that. It can be done in a couple of minutes on some cars that do not properly protect the CAN Bus cable.
What we really need is a proper public/private key pair for the cars so that all comms is only authorised via the physical key fob. This needs to be touch authorised to prevent snoop attacks. Sticking it on the key would then mean right to repair is not blocked, if the main dealer has it then its a big blocker for right to repair.
It’s not that simple. The CAN bus isn’t just about unlocking doors and rolling down windows. It also controls airbags and other systems that are time-sensitive. If you’re rolling down the window at the same time you get in a crash, the airbag message has to override the window rolling message and inflate those bags in right-the-fuck-now time.
Adding encryption to the mix greatly increases the engineering required, even if it’s not used for every kind of message.
Decent encryption can be pretty quick and transparent these days.
Besides, things related to windows, doors, ignition, etc. could be required to be encrypted, while split-second things like air bags could be unencrypted.
This means an attacker who, e.g. bashes your fancy LED headlight to get to the CAN bus within can only do things like trigger your air bags, which isn’t very productive for them.
Yes I am aware of that, however the current way that is being looked at addressing the problem is moving the cabling to further within the car, which is just pathetic, like thieves wont just adapt to that.
Encryption really isnt as big a performance impact if it is done correctly, sure it is not cost neutral but ask Range Rover how much reputational damage they had with their piss poor security. They are still having 1 in a 300 brand new defenders stolen after adding what is pretty a traditional immobiliser and tracker.
As an example: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2006/1/012071
Encryption really isnt as big a performance impact if it is done correctly
“Done correctly” is the trick. This takes careful analysis and design. You don’t just pour on encryption and hope everything will be fine.
My i3 has an OBD-II port, and it’s not the only EV that has one. Bimmercode can change A LOT of vehicle settings through the port, and software like ABRP can use it to read out the battery level and route you to the next charger when needed.
I’m surprised more people don’t realize that OBDII is basically “car USB” at this point… Info can go both ways and a lot more info comes out of the car than it did in 95 when it was introduced AND we’re able to reprogram cars using it!
I think it’s worth noting that the obd-2 protocol required by law is ONLY for emissions related parameters. Knock, air/fuel ratio, throttle position, things like that. A lot of manufacturers can get data that’s not emissions related (like transmission codes) from the obd-2 port, but with a different/extended proprietary protocol that requires a proprietary (very expensive) scanner.
Basically, I think obd-2 should be expanded to include these other systems and ev systems as well. That would standardize ev diagnostics and non-emissions-related ice diagnostics too, which would be a boon for repairability.
It’s ridiculous that we’re only now talking about standards for electric cars (by the way, for this example, legacy manufacturers already use OBDII in their EV so it’s more a “Why Tesla don’t use OBDII like everyone else?” question), that should have been done as soon as they started getting popular. Sit down the manufacturers and the government together and come to an agreement on a standard for diagnostics and to charge the car, don’t wait over a decade to finally do it!
The latest connector for obd2 was standardized around 1997. Gas vehicles existed long before that.
So because we made the mistake once we need to do it again?
That “mistake” is how the world works. Pretending otherwise is ignorant.
Saying something is ridiculous is the same as pretending it’s not how things work?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But most call an ALDL the OBD-II port because it provides everyone from engineers at proving grounds to dealership technicians to shade tree mechanics a connection to the vehicle’s software and diagnostic systems.
Modern onboard diagnostics, or OBD-II, became a standardized and mandatory part of every automobile sold in the United States, starting with the 1996 model year.
The ALDL port originated from General Motors in the early 1980s in its pursuit to produce systems and diagnostics for its cars to meet new government emissions regulations.
By the late '80s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) got involved and mandated that all 1991 model-year or newer cars sold there must include an onboard diagnostics system to manage and control emissions.
But as EVs become more mainstream, they include a variety of sensors and systems to keep everything running optimally, oftentimes more than any internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.
Part of California’s sweeping set of rules for cars sold in the state requires EVs, hydrogen fuel cells, and Plug-in Hybrids to follow a similar diagnostics standard, much like OBD-II did 30 years earlier.
The original article contains 839 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Only one thing will change it: regulation
This will change when will get modular cars and open source versions of common modules. I.e. never.
