Talk:CAN FD

Logic

I don't think this makes sense:

"... since classic CAN[3] and CAN FD has been estimated to transmit data up to 30 times faster than classic CAN."

--Mortense (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

already resolved Schrauber5 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

solved to that CAN FD can be up to 8 times higher than CAN with 1MBit/s -- Source: https://www.can-cia.org/can-knowledge/can/can-fd/ --GregorSun (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unprecise

According to ISO 11898-1:2015 CAN-FD protocol for arbitration phase can use both base identifiers at 11 Bit and extended identifiers at 29 bits. The statement "CAN FD, the frame/message ID uses the 29-bits format used in the Extended ID version of classic CAN (Standard ID is 11 bits long)" is then not correct.

According this statement, is not clear if the provided formulas for bus load computation refer to 11 bit id or 29 bit IDs.

Also, the section CAN & CAN FD TP Headers is not relevant to the CAN-FD protocol, mixing the information of the two layers adds confusion to the topic. It is relevant to the ISO TP protocol over CAN-FD (ISO 15765-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.177.139.152 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

solved: CAN FD can use 11bit or 28bit identifier: Source: https://www.can-cia.org/can-knowledge/can/can-fd/ --GregorSun (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Overall inconsistencies

I noticed that the article clearly resembles "Analytical and Experimental Performance Evaluations of CAN-FD Bus" to the point of plagiarism, not sure how compatible with a CC license it can be

Additional it creates a lot of confusion, for example, by talking about variable length in one section for 17- and 21-byte CRC and then jumping to 15-bit CRC. Maybe a good refactoring, starting with the ISO as base would be a better idea Sedictious (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)