ASG compared with the in-vehicle networks it replaces
A like-for-like comparison of ASG against CAN, CAN-FD, LIN, FlexRay, 10BASE-T1S and Automotive Ethernet on topology, determinism, timing, wiring and cost.
Phase 1 — content in progress
This page’s structure and route are final; its written content, diagrams and data are being built out in the content phase of the rebuild.
- ASG vs CAN / CAN-FD CAN is the arbitration-based, event-triggered bus at the centre of most vehicles today; ASG is a synchronous single-ring architecture that removes arbitration and the harness that CAN needs.
- ASG vs LIN LIN is the low-cost single-wire sub-bus for body electronics; ASG carries the same low-speed functions on the vehicle-wide ring without a separate network or master node.
- ASG vs FlexRay FlexRay adds a time-triggered schedule on top of a dual-channel bus; ASG is time-triggered by construction — one global commit per millisecond, no schedule to configure.
- ASG vs Automotive Ethernet Automotive Ethernet brings switched IP networking to the vehicle backbone; ASG is a control architecture, not a transport, delivering deterministic vehicle-wide state without switches or a protocol stack.