Replacement Electronics & Nav Package - Considerations?

[Helmsman]

Anybody here know what a CanBus does? I have done a couple of quick searches and not found anything that helps me understand it’s use. I noticed it mentioned again in the yachtd link. Thanks.

 

[wkearney99]

The CAN bus protocol is essentially what the NMEA-2000 network uses for signaling. N2K takes it and packages it with connectors and cabling specifications. CAN as used in vehicles and factories often uses whatever wiring scheme is best suited to the setup, typically just a pair of wires carrying the CAN-HI and CAN-LO signals as a voltage differential.

I plan on trying a YachtD bridge to bring my MicroAir HVAC thermostats into the N2K network, so I can monitor/control them from the rest of the network.

 

[Helmsman]

The CAN bus protocol is essentially what the NMEA-2000 network uses for signaling. N2K takes it and packages it with connectors and cabling specifications. CAN as used in vehicles and factories often uses whatever wiring scheme is best suited to the setup, typically just a pair of wires carrying the CAN-HI and CAN-LO signals as a voltage differential.

I plan on trying a YachtD bridge to bring my MicroAir HVAC thermostats into the N2K network, so I can monitor/control them from the rest of the network.

Thanks. So is it safe to assume every N2K network has a CanBus? Or just complex installs?

 

[wkearney99]

Thanks. So is it safe to assume every N2K network has a CanBus? Or just complex installs?

Not really. An N2K network has it's own set of requirements that differ, in some ways, from what a CAN bus might entail.

Complexity of the install doesn't really have anything to do with it. A simple CAN bus is found running from an engine to a helm-station engine management screen. A simple N2K network could be a GPS puck antenna and chart plotter. To get from that engine CAN bus into the N2K network you'd have to use a bridge. One to make the physical communication requirements, two to make the necessary protocol changes.

If anything the kind of CAN bus you'd find on a boat would be quite a lot less complicated than an N2K network. But that's only because you wouldn't have a lot of CAN-only devices in a boat, but could have quite a few N2K devices like depth, weather, compass, gps, vhf, tanks, pressures, etc.

That and CAN networks are often isolated from others to avoid there being excessive traffic on them that might interfere with their basic purpose. Your engine CAN bus going between the engines and possibly the synchronizer and throttles doesn't need any other N2K data on it. Thus the bridge to pass the CAN data outbound only from the engine CAN to the N2K.

 

[Helmsman]

Not really. An N2K network has it's own set of requirements that differ, in some ways, from what a CAN bus might entail.

Complexity of the install doesn't really have anything to do with it. A simple CAN bus is found running from an engine to a helm-station engine management screen. A simple N2K network could be a GPS puck antenna and chart plotter. To get from that engine CAN bus into the N2K network you'd have to use a bridge. One to make the physical communication requirements, two to make the necessary protocol changes.

If anything the kind of CAN bus you'd find on a boat would be quite a lot less complicated than an N2K network. But that's only because you wouldn't have a lot of CAN-only devices in a boat, but could have quite a few N2K devices like depth, weather, compass, gps, vhf, tanks, pressures, etc.

That and CAN networks are often isolated from others to avoid there being excessive traffic on them that might interfere with their basic purpose. Your engine CAN bus going between the engines and possibly the synchronizer and throttles doesn't need any other N2K data on it. Thus the bridge to pass the CAN data outbound only from the engine CAN to the N2K.

Ok. That makes a lot of sense. I am taking a couple of NMEA and electronics courses later this year (for learning only..I am retired) and the CanBus was confusing me some, both in posts on TF and in the presentations sent to me to prepare for the courses. Thank you for taking the time to “get me over the hump”.

 

[Jeff F]

Not really. An N2K network has it's own set of requirements that differ, in some ways, from what a CAN bus might entail.

I'm having a terminology difficulty. CAN is a network protocol, right? So isnt any N2K network, no matter how simple, a CAN bus?

 

[twistedtree]

At the heart of N2K is a Canbus. Canbus is both an electrical specification, and a datalink layer which is the basic mechanism for sending messages around. The electrical specification that Canbus is built on is RS-485.

J1939 is a standard set of messages that can be sent via a Canbus, and is universally used in modern Diesel engines.

Another standard built on Canbus is Devicenet. Devicenet spells out a physical cabling standard for Canbus.

N2K is based on, and builds on these standards. The cabling is from Devicenet, and the messages are built on J1939. A bunch of the N2K messages ARE J1939 messages. But N2K has an addition block of message types (PGNs) that are specific to N2K.

 

[Jeff F]

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[rsn48]

Here is a 2017 Vancouver Boat Show video I have linked here often when discussions like yours appear. Jeff Cote is well respected, presents often at the Vancouver and Seattle boat shows, has written many articles for Pacific Yachting magazine, and now runs an electronics and electric vlog. Don't let the 2017 date throw you, nothing has really changed since then.

I did a total upgrade on my boat and I went Garmin for the reasons Jeff mentions in the video - simplicity:

 

[MYTraveler]

I forgot to say that I would stay with one brand. If you buy multiple brands and try to interface them and have any problems the vendors will always say it is the other equipment causing the problem. With only one vendor, it is their problem...

Any chartplotter will work with any AP, which will work with any radio, because the data they share is very minimal and can be shared by an N2K, or N0183 network. But, if you start to add stuff like radar or fishfinder, sharing becomes difficult, so those peripherals should be from the same mfg as your mfd. FWIW, most of my stuff is Furuno, but I have a Simrad AP and Icom radios (and a Tayio RDF, another brand for security systems, Raymarine for man overboard, older Furuno (not networked) for scanning sonar, FLIR (display, but without ability to control it from within the MFD), etc.

 

[Nepidae]

While the N2K does provide some interoperability most manufacturers hold close certain aspects of communication and benefits so multi-manufacturer products may not get you the best performance where having the same manufacture will.

For example, we have a remote which is for our Garmin AP. The Garmin CP allows for autoroute courses to be set in the CP and executed by the Garmin AP. With the remote, I sit on the bridge and can control the AP moving right or left to avoid obstacles in the water. With multiple vendors, I don't think the remote would work.

Plus, from a support standpoint who would you contact for an issue if all of your parts are different. IF as was said you have a Furno AP and a Garmin CP and your course isn't being held steady, which is the manufacturer that you'd contact. Either could say it was the other guy and probably would be justified to do so.

In my mind, you lose the support of one manufacture when you have multi-vendor products plus other benefits that a single vendor can supply.

We are a Garmin boat and I find Garmin support, 2nd to none. The other benefits are worth having a single vendor. The pennies you might save with a multi-vendor setup, just aren't worth it to me.

Any specific questions I can answer, PM me.

 

[wkearney99]

While the N2K does provide some interoperability most manufacturers hold close certain aspects of communication and benefits so multi-manufacturer products may not get you the best performance where having the same manufacture will.

For example, we have a remote which is for our Garmin AP. The Garmin CP allows for autoroute courses to be set in the CP and executed by the Garmin AP. With the remote, I sit on the bridge and can control the AP moving right or left to avoid obstacles in the water. With multiple vendors, I don't think the remote would work.

An autopilot remote is tied to the autopilot unit. I have one from Furuno that does the same thing. The remotes are not usually N2K, but RF wireless (often bluetooth). The remote never speaks to the chart plotter, it's the autopilot head that handles that interaction.

Meanwhile all other gear works quite nicely over N2K, regardless of vendor. Besides, Airmar makes just about everyone's depth sensors and fish finding transducers, and wind/weather units. With a mix of various N2K cabling suppliers (Maretron, Ancor, Simrad and Garmin).

The two key places where vendor matching is critical is radar and DSC radio calling. Though if you want to use a PC, tablet or other system I believe Furuno's radar has more compatibility across those. That and radar is not carried over N2K anyway (usually Ethernet or a direct proprietary connection).

DSC calling for VHF is pretty much a stillborn effort, as no two vendors seem to support it the same way, sad to say.

A single vendor solution is certainly an option to consider. Though not necessary by any stretch.

Personally, the deliberate obsoleting of units by Garmin and abandoning of some mapping products are reasons I've sought to avoid their offerings. That and Garmin making proprietary grabs for market share is not an effort I feel will be helpful to the marine market over time. No good comes from one vendor gobbling up or locking out others.

I'm glad you've found a solution that works for you, but claiming it's better because it's the narrow path you've chosen to trod doesn't make it so.

 

[Nepidae]

As is usually the case there will always be those who can't take someone's PERSONAL comments, "In my mind" or "I don't think" as meaning it is a personal opinion.

People have a stilted opinion of a company doing what it needs to do to offer better products and stay ahead of the technology curve.

IT is also my understanding that a remote does work with the AP, "we have a remote which is for our Garmin AP" but it is also my understanding that the CP has the course that it sends to the AP. IF I'm wrong, I apologize but interoperability between any vendor is what they want it to be by the definition of N2K guidelines (that's guidelines).

TO ME, support is the most important thing in electronics or any other item I buy for my boat. I buy Raritan because of their support. I buy Standard Horizon, because of their support. I buy Garmin because of their support. I suggest that before you buy a product you call support nd see how easy it is to get thru to them. Sales will probably be easy, support, not so much.

It was said, "Personally, the deliberate obsoleting of units by Garmin and abandoning of some mapping products are reasons I've sought to avoid their offerings. That and Garmin making proprietary grabs for market share is not an effort I feel will be helpful to the marine market over time. No good comes from one vendor gobbling up or locking out others".

Obsolete is not non-functioning. IF you want to use your older CP to provide a course, it will do it. Will it accept newer chart updates, well that is another story. CP are computers and Apple has been a proponent of IMPROVING their product line to the exclusion of all other part makers since its inception. Does anyone who uses an Apple product complain? As a matter of fact, Apple seems to fit the above description to a tee.

The advantage of a controlled product can be seen as the ability to control the quality of the product. Why would a company spend millions of $$ developing the product not to offer the best and keep it proprietary to improve support.

SEEMS to me that everything that was expressed as a negative for 1 purchaser is a positive to other purchasers. It is to me.

Everyone should do their own due diligence and make their own decisions.

ME, I'll support Garmin to keep them on top.

 

[twistedtree]

While the N2K does provide some interoperability most manufacturers hold close certain aspects of communication and benefits so multi-manufacturer products may not get you the best performance where having the same manufacture will.

For example, we have a remote which is for our Garmin AP. The Garmin CP allows for autoroute courses to be set in the CP and executed by the Garmin AP. With the remote, I sit on the bridge and can control the AP moving right or left to avoid obstacles in the water. With multiple vendors, I don't think the remote would work.

Plus, from a support standpoint who would you contact for an issue if all of your parts are different. IF as was said you have a Furno AP and a Garmin CP and your course isn't being held steady, which is the manufacturer that you'd contact. Either could say it was the other guy and probably would be justified to do so.

In my mind, you lose the support of one manufacture when you have multi-vendor products plus other benefits that a single vendor can supply.

We are a Garmin boat and I find Garmin support, 2nd to none. The other benefits are worth having a single vendor. The pennies you might save with a multi-vendor setup, just aren't worth it to me.

Any specific questions I can answer, PM me.

Well, I'd say the vendor's strategy of using a "standard" to lock you into their proprietary system has been a smashing success.


The down side to a single vendor is that you are limited to the single vendor. If others make a better part of the system, you can't use it. And each vendor has stuff they do well, and stuff they don't do so well, or don't have at all. But I get that for many people it's a safe and successful strategy.

 

[KarenG]

rsn48, thank you so much for posting the video of Jeff Cote; it’s exactly what we needed to see at this time and really helpful!

 

[Nepidae]

Do any of the people who think Garmin has locked up a 'standard' for a proprietary system own any apple products?

IF so, as I said, it's the same thing, but I guess because it is apple, it's OK?

 

[wkearney99]

Do any of the people who think Garmin has locked up a 'standard' for a proprietary system own any apple products?

IF so, as I said, it's the same thing, but I guess because it is apple, it's OK?

Bingo. I actively choose to avoid both because of that.

 

[rsn48]

Here is Jeff Cote's video on Garmin products, by the way he sells all the major brand systems.

 

[BandB]

Well, I'd say the vendor's strategy of using a "standard" to lock you into their proprietary system has been a smashing success.


The down side to a single vendor is that you are limited to the single vendor. If others make a better part of the system, you can't use it. And each vendor has stuff they do well, and stuff they don't do so well, or don't have at all. But I get that for many people it's a safe and successful strategy.

I would add this. You and wkearney are sophisticated systems users. You're both very capable of putting together combinations of products and fully understanding what you end up with. For you, a combination with the best of each makes sense.

For the average user I don't think it does. I think the best single vendor solution makes sense for them.

I'm not as technically strong as the two of you but decently so. I also have the advantage of others to maintain my systems. Even so, I had an all Garmin system on a Sunseeker that I was very happy with. Choosing components I would have gone with a Furuno radar and a Simrad autopilot perhaps, but in reality, would not have had a noticeably better system.

Yes, others will jump ahead on specific components, but the major suppliers will work hard to catch up and then pass them back. You'll never have all the latest and greatest and coming close will be costly. We've upgraded our systems on boats purchased new in both 2012 and 2014 and now on a new boat we use it's systems and start thinking we need more upgrades on the others. The point is that whatever you have, there will be something better in six months.

Trying to always have the best is an impossible task. A more reasonable goal is to have a very good system, low maintenance, and excellent support.

I'll relate this to phones for a moment. We have customers who buy new phones every time Apple or Samsung release one. Great customers to have. Now my wife and I get the new versions simply to test and know what we do and because we're in the business. After using them, I can't for the life of me understand why people feel they must upgrade though. If it was time to do so, I would, but to run or stand in line or spend large dollars, the advantage isn't enough for what most of us use phones for. Before I was in the business, I'd upgrade every two to three years at the most frequent. I'd say most marine electronics has a solid 7 year useful life.

 

[GoneDiving]

As with all my electronic gadgets, I use less than 10% of their total capability so in depth features mean very little to me beyond bragging rights. Show me where I am (going) when I turn it on and I'm happy.

Much more important to me is long term reliability and parts/tech support where I will be using them. Not a lot of point in buying Brand X if the local rep is useless and doesn't stock any replacement parts.

I'd agree that buying from one supplier simplifies installation, use and maintenance. Many will also give a price break for larger orders.

 

[twistedtree]

I would add this. You and wkearney are sophisticated systems users. You're both very capable of putting together combinations of products and fully understanding what you end up with. For you, a combination with the best of each makes sense.

For the average user I don't think it does. I think the best single vendor solution makes sense for them.

I'm not as technically strong as the two of you but decently so. I also have the advantage of others to maintain my systems. Even so, I had an all Garmin system on a Sunseeker that I was very happy with. Choosing components I would have gone with a Furuno radar and a Simrad autopilot perhaps, but in reality, would not have had a noticeably better system.

Yes, others will jump ahead on specific components, but the major suppliers will work hard to catch up and then pass them back. You'll never have all the latest and greatest and coming close will be costly. We've upgraded our systems on boats purchased new in both 2012 and 2014 and now on a new boat we use it's systems and start thinking we need more upgrades on the others. The point is that whatever you have, there will be something better in six months.

Trying to always have the best is an impossible task. A more reasonable goal is to have a very good system, low maintenance, and excellent support.

I'll relate this to phones for a moment. We have customers who buy new phones every time Apple or Samsung release one. Great customers to have. Now my wife and I get the new versions simply to test and know what we do and because we're in the business. After using them, I can't for the life of me understand why people feel they must upgrade though. If it was time to do so, I would, but to run or stand in line or spend large dollars, the advantage isn't enough for what most of us use phones for. Before I was in the business, I'd upgrade every two to three years at the most frequent. I'd say most marine electronics has a solid 7 year useful life.

All good points. I think most people look to their installer/dealer to have the knowledge to put together a system that suits their needs. Interestingly, I think this further magnifies the motivation to stick to one vendor. A dealer wants to put together a system that will plug together, work, and keep working with a minimum of time and effort. That keeps the cost down down and the satisfaction level up for the customer, and maximizes profits for the dealer/installer. These subtle incompatibilities cost dealers time and money to work through, so they are likely to avoid them.


As for having the latest and greatest. that's a very individual thing. I spent my whole career in tech designing and building leading edge stuff. But as a consumer, I want tried and true. And most glitzy features I have no interest in. I want stuff that saves me time, not stuff that consumes my time. My iPhone 6, for example, works just fine. My desire to use different vendors is because I want stuff that works, and works reliably. I have very little patience for flaky or crappy products. So I'm looking for quality, not latest and greatest, and am willing to put in some extra work to get it. But that's just me. Others will have different priorities.

 

[Codger2]

My iPhone 6, for example, works just fine.

WHat! And all this time I thought you were a real tech junky!

 

[twistedtree]

WHat! And all this time I thought you were a real tech junky!

My generation of techies made data networking and computers pervasive. They are tools, and today's techies are using them to build other things, all powered by the underlying stuff we built.


But I have to say there are days when I think "oh my god, what have we done". People have become slaves to it, fiddling with this and fiddling with that trying to get this or that working. Update this, download that, create and account here. In so many ways it has improved things, but in almost as many ways it just wastes our time. So I have a very low tolerance for anything that doesn't clearly help me.


Everyone wants me to install their app or give then my cell number so they can "stay connected" and "have a relationship with me". No, they want to track and catalog my activities so they can sell me crap. Go away. And if you want to have a "relationship" with me, present me with a human, not a machine. Here's a tip... having a relationship with a machine is NOT normal. I know, it's a surprise. So Alexa and Siri, go drown yourselves.

 

[OldDan1943]

AIS modification
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58027363

I'm surprised they had the AIS turned on.

I suspect we all have a 2 position switch for our AIS "normal" and "passive."