[Ovmsdev] OVMS v3
kevin.sharpe at zerocarbonworld.org
Tue Jun 17 02:05:01 HKT 2014
GEVCU 5 BOM is $200 using Mouser list prices but that excludes a GPS/GSM
In production quantities I believe you could hit $200 for an assembled and
tested unit that¹s functionally compatible with the current OVMS but in
waterproof case, with I/O, expanded memory, etc., etc. Adding BT and WiFi
would probably add $50.
Obviously these prices are only justifiable if it adds a lot to the
functionality to the car but given multiple CAN buses, lots memory, and CPU
performance, I could imagine all sorts of navigation and control
enhancements would be possible. The web server in the current GEVCU for
example will revolutionise the way people customise the performance of their
EV in future.
Personally I think functionality is more important than price in this
upgrade market and one of the things holding back OVMS is the lack of
developers working on the project. That¹s why I think GEVCU will be
successful because its Arduino based hardware allows open hardware and
Kevin Sharpe | Founder & Chair Trustees | Zero Carbon World, a UK Registered
From: Matt Beard <matt at beard.tv>
Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>
Date: Monday, 16 June 2014 18:38
To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>
Subject: Re: [Ovmsdev] OVMS v3
My biggest worry would be keeping the end user price similar to what it is
now. Some routes would allow this, but some would put it out of the reach of
lots of potential customers.
What would the likely cost implications of each of the suggested routes be?
On Monday, 16 June 2014, Kevin Sharpe <kevin.sharpe at zerocarbonworld.org>
> Take a look at GEVCU 5;
> I¹d like to produce a GEVCU 6 that adds GPS/GPRS and uses the CINCH waterproof
> enclosure giving us WiFi, BT, GPS, GPRS, isolated I/O, and 80MHz 32bit Arduino
> DUE compatible hardware.
> I¹m prepared to finance the hardware development and even the cost of porting
> the OVMS software if the current developers are interested in this route
> IMO we would all benefit from a single hardware platform and GEVCU already has
> some serious money behind it and some cool libraries that might help OVMS
> Kevin Sharpe | Founder & Chair Trustees | Zero Carbon World, a UK Registered
> From: Mastro Gippo <gipmad at gmail.com
> Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> Date: Monday, 16 June 2014 16:41
> To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> Subject: [Ovmsdev] OVMS v3
> Hi all, I'd like to resurrect an old conversation. As we know, the current PIC
> is quickly running out of resources and maybe it's time to switch to a better
> platform. Two CAN buses are now desirable too. A microSD slot and direct USB
> connectivity wouldn't hurt either.
> I will probably have to design a similar hardware for myself, so I'd like to
> contribute to the OVMS by sharing the HW platform if you want; no strings
> attached of course, if you decide that there's no need for the upgrade, I'll
> keep on working on my project by myself! :)
> That said, I'd like to throw a few ideas to the table.
> - MCU: I'd like to use an STM32 micro. They seem to be emerging as the
> standard choice for diy ARM projects, and this offers a few interesting
> -Programming it in c/c++ with the manufacturer CMSIS standard libraries
> -Programming it with the mbed.org <http://mbed.org> SDK. Unfortunately no
> dev boards are available with dual CAN bus, but it will be easy to move to the
> correct micro of the same series once most of the software is ironed out on a
> dev board like the https://mbed.org/platforms/ST-Nucleo-F302R8/
> -Programming it with an RTOS. NuttX would be my choice, as it's the one used
> in the Ardupilot Pixhawk platform, and I'd like to learn it. This would mean a
> steeper starting curve, but a lot of flexibility later as a lot of stuff is
> handled on the OS level (network stacks, SD card & filesystems,
> multitasking...). FreeRTOS is a nice option too.
> I'd like to use the STM32F405RG as it's the most similar to the one found on
> the Pixhawk, but of course I'm biased because of that, and that micro is quite
> overkill for the task. We can of course use a lower specced part and lose some
> RTOS fuctionality as long as it has 2 CAN buses.
> - MODEM: I have no experience in this field; is the SIM908 still a good choice
> or does anyone think that we should try new platforms?
> I like this, but I don't know if the price puts it out of budget:
> On the bright side, it can be programmed in python, so we can offload some of
> the work to the modem. This *could* allow us to free some space on the PIC,
> and keep that platform without changing MCU..
> - Enclosure: I think that, even with the new MCU, we can still fit the old
> enclosure. Is that ok, or should we think about a more automotive-friendly
> one? Maybe waterproof for the twizy?
> And that's it. I think that the core SW developers should voice their opinion,
> as there is a lot of work to be done on that front. A huge problem will be
> keeping backwards compatibility to add features for the v2 users, so we should
> discuss about this too.
> _______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
_______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hkhttp://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OvmsDev