In recent posts we examined why a technology from the 1980s is still the backbone of automotive electronics in 2024. In this post we address CAN from the perspective of a micro mobility paradigm shift.
Paradigm shift:
Paradigm shift refers to a fundamental change in the underlying assumptions or methodologies within a particular field or system. Coined by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it describes moments when prevailing frameworks or “paradigms” are replaced by new ones, due to anomalies the old paradigm cannot address.
While the CAN bus is widely used in automotive and industrial applications, its suitability for micro-mobility, connected technologies and smart networks is limited:
1. Cost and Complexity
- Micro-mobility devices like e-scooters and e-bikes are designed to be cost-effective, lightweight, and straightforward. The cost of implementing a CAN bus system, including the hardware (controllers, transceivers) and software development, does not align with the constraints of micro-mobility manufacturers.
- Simpler communication protocols such as UART, I²C, or even proprietary protocols, are cheaper to implement
I²C (Inter-Integrated Circuit): a synchronous, multi-master, multi-slave communication protocol for short-distance communication between integrated circuits.
UART (Universal Asynchronous Receiver-Transmitter): Simple serial communication protocol used for asynchronous data transmission between two devices, such as microcontrollers, sensors, or computers.
2. Bandwidth Limitations
- The standard CAN bus has a maximum bandwidth of 1 Mbps, which is sufficient for traditional vehicles with low to moderate data requirements. However, micro-mobility devices increasingly feature advanced telemetry, GPS tracking, IoT modules, and other sensors that require higher-speed data transfers.
- Alternatives like CAN FD (Flexible Data-Rate) or wireless communication protocols like BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) are often preferred for these applications.
3. Power Consumption
- CAN systems typically consume more power than lightweight alternatives. Since micro-mobility devices prioritize battery efficiency for longer operational times, protocols with lower power consumption are preferred.
4. Device Scale
- Micro-mobility systems involve fewer ECUs compared to automobiles. For example, an e-scooter may only need to manage motor control, battery monitoring, and a basic display. Such minimalistic systems don’t benefit significantly from the multi-node communication advantages of CAN.
5. Legacy and Integration Challenges
- Most micro-mobility devices are built around compact, modular designs that integrate easily with off-the-shelf IoT solutions.
- CAN networks designed for automobiles and larger systems are not optimized for smaller platforms.
6. Alternatives Offer Better Fit
- Protocols like BLE, Zigbee, SPE (automotive ethernet) or even Wi-Fi-based solutions often replace CAN in micro-mobility because they offer:
- Wireless communication for IoT-based fleet management.
- Flexibility for cloud integration and analytics.
- Scalability for integrating with smart city infrastructure.
Future Trends
As micro-mobility evolves, the trend leans toward adopting simpler, more energy-efficient, secure, wireless communication. This trend will accelerate until it is adopted by larger manufacturers, at scale.
