7 manufacturers support J1772 L3 DC Quick chrgr over CHAdeMO

[planet4ever]

But if I can segway back to Chademo, and GM/SAE's involvement,

Segway supports CHAdeMO?

Oh, wait, I guess you meant "segue". :lol:

Ray

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Certainly Nissan and Mitsubishi make most of their profit from oil/gas based vehicles. Let's not kid ourselves.
Let me be perfectly clear. I admire Nissan's guts in all this.

I agree Scott - and imo feel both Mitsu and Nissan quickly grasped that the more EV's they sell (CHEEP ones, so they can sell in higher volumes) ... the more guzzlers they can continue to sell, without having to face CAFE penalties, as Mercedes often does, due to low corporate fuel economy. So, who knows - some of Mitsu/Nissan's motive may be gutsy ... but some of it may be that EV sales have a dirty benefit, in that more expensive technology doesn't have to be invented and installed in higher volume / lower mileage vehicles just to get CAFE mileage up above 30mpg.

i doubt if it was Nissan's goal but studies do show that people come into Nissan showrooms to look at the Leaf but end of buying a gas vehicle. there is an unexplained bump in sales for dealerships that carry the Leaf while other Nissan dealer sales are flat.

but then again, if you look at the availability of Leafs, ya really cant go look at one and buy now can you?

 

[SanDust]

GM, which has invested most heavily in the plug-in hybrid model, which will likely be obsolete once the fast-charge network is available, arguably has the greatest incentive to block DC charging, to try to sell as may Volts as it can and recover it's investment before BEV fast charging closes it's market "window".

You're right that the Volt doesn't need fast chargers, but, given that you can't get people to install DC chargers when you're giving them away, GM probably has at least a 20 year window until it needs to worry about them. All its EREVs and BEVs will no doubt have fast chargers before then.

Plus BEVs aren't very useful for long distance trips even with fast chargers. Nissan is shooting for 280 wh/kg, which means you'd need something like 320 kg of cells, best case, to go 300 miles. Realistically there is no point in dragging all that extra mass around for the few trips a year when you'd need it. BEVs are best suited for local driving.

The other point you're missing is that if the market moves towards BEVs GM doesn't really lose anything. An EREV is vastly more difficult to engineer than a BEV, and once you have a EREV it's trivial to make a BEV out of it. If LG Chem had a battery with a specific energy of 300 wh/kg, GM could get rid of the engine, the planetary gearset, and the second motor generator, add more cells to the battery pack, and viola, you have a BEV with better range than the current Leaf. It could leave the second motor/generator and the planetary gearset and have a vastly more efficient BEV at high speeds. The engineering probably wouldn't take a week. Going from an EREV to a BEV is child's play, it's going the other way which is incredibly difficult. The reason the SAE named the Volt the best engineered vehicle of 2011 is because the engineering required for an EREV is extraordinary.

Finally, if you want to look for companies which are behind in the EV space, you want to be looking at most everybody but GM, including VW, Toyota, and Honda. They're hopelessly behind. The three companies which have the most to gain are those which have the best partnerships and which are furthest ahead. In rank order they would be GM/LG Chem, BMW/SB LiMotive, and Nissan/AESC (Nissan has production but BMW has better battery tech). Those are the serious players in the EV space. Everybody else is too small to count or aren't positioned to do much of anything.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

San; great argument but its the law of diminishing returns.

what we have is perception. its the perception that 80 miles is not enough for the average person. that perception takes 75% of the people out of the current EV market. in reality; more than 60% of households could do it EASILY

but provide Quick Charge and sorry, but about had a heart attack laughing over your 300 mile argument...but anyway

but now you have around 150 miles and now its flipped around. now the perception (reality now moves from 60% to 90%) is 25% can continue to find excuses to deny the inevitable EV march into the mainstream.

now, if we take the Highway Study, 80 miles is waay more than we really need. but that does not provide us the comfort we need and as a Leaf driver you know that the 21 Kw is plenty "most" of the time but we dont like to be driving something that works "most" of the time.

we have all either been there or known someone who was. they had a car. it failed on them a few times and now its total junk. now the example below is the best known because it was one that he talked about incessantly.

i worked with a guy in the past who bought a brand new Dodge Caravan and lived in Gig Harbor which is just on the other side of Puget Sound via the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. this was back before the 2nd parallel bridge was built. to say the least. traffic was Hell on that thing. we were working at intel in Du Pont, WA at the time and he worked the 3 day 12 hour shift thing.

well, twice in his Dodge Caravan, the thing lost power. just died on him. coasted to complete powerless dead stop...but did it on the middle of the bridge, in the middle of rush hour traffic AND on the day that he was the carpool driver.

now, keep in mind. the car was less than a month old. with his 4 days off, he took it in. they said there was nothing wrong with it, they gave him a ton of paperwork on the diagnostics they ran and did stuff like replacing the fuel filter and stuff despite him saying that he found it hard to believe that a fuel filter could cause him to lose power...all power, lights, dash, etc...

remember the first time it happened was less than a month after he bought the car. i think it was the....2nd or 3rd time (it would be too much to believe if it was the first time and i dont really remember) he was the carpool driver.

the 2nd time was about 3 months later, not sure but it was about day more than was allowed by the State Lemon Law...

but after that, they still could not figure out what the problem was. so he bit the bullet, sold it at about a $2500 loss (signficant for 1996 now)

anyway. about 6 months later, he ran into the guy who had bought it and found out it happened to him as well. he took it into the local mechanic because there was no Dodge Dealer in his town and the Mechanic replaced some computer module and had never had a lick of problems since.

but the damage had been done. this guy i have no doubt will never buy another Dodge as long as he lives. no matter how much better Dodge gets, it simply will not matter.

now all businesses know this. its the first impression, the seed of doubt watered. allowed to flourish. does not matter if the soil is good or bad. as long as the thing stays alive. it can be the most pathetic looking plant in the world but someone will still believe and they will pass that belief on with their own distortions and pretty soon it will morph into something completely unrecognizable aka GM integrity

 

[TonyWilliams]

How about this map:

I'm just saying what the current map looked like. No chargers north of Solana Beach (I'm assuming that would be at the train station?) in San Diego County. The map didn't show any chargers in south Orange County either, though that may have been because this area is outside San Diego.

I'm assuming that you were there since your flyer was on my windshield. Did you see something else?

I didn't stay through the entire talk by Andy, so I didn't get the updated information from Ecotality. I believe I heard him say that there might be one QC in San Diego county in November.

 

[walterbays]

I didn't stay through the entire talk by Andy, so I didn't get the updated information from Ecotality. I believe I heard him say that there might be one QC in San Diego county in November.

I think that's right. I added screen shots of a few of Andy's slides to the San Diego Leaf Lovers facebook group.

 

[edatoakrun]

...there is no point in dragging all that extra mass around for the few trips a year when you'd need it...

Good line.

Why don't you post it where it belongs...over on the Chevy Volt thread?

 

[scottf200]

...there is no point in dragging all that extra mass around for the few trips a year when you'd need it...

Good line. Why don't you post it where it belongs...over on the Chevy Volt thread?

Aren't there some Leaf owners who don't need to drive a "100" miles. The could probably get some higher efficencies with a smaller battery.
Lot of CA folks it seems as Leaf owners but are there other places where the daily drives are short where they don't need the range like long CA commutes.

As well Tesla seems to think customers want an option:

Model S comes equipped with the 160-mile range battery pack. The 230-mile range option is priced at about $10,000 more than the base and the 300-mile option at about $20,000 more than the base.

Published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Omnibus Household Survey, or OmniStats data, were based on a household survey of 1000 randomly selected households asked about their driving habits in the previous one month (done in 2003).
The entire report can be read here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/pdf/entire.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[occ]

Aren't there some Leaf owners who don't need to drive a "100" miles. The could probably get some higher efficencies with a smaller battery.
Lot of CA folks it seems as Leaf owners but are there other places where the daily drives are short where they don't need the range like long CA commutes.
...

Published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Omnibus Household Survey, or OmniStats data, were based on a household survey of 1000 randomly selected households asked about their driving habits in the previous one month (done in 2003).
The entire report can be read here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/pdf/entire.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I fall into the 16-20 miles category, but I do wish the LEAF had a 200 miles options. Why? Electric drive is so different, beautiful, clean, quiet, efficient, etc... that I want to use it on the weekends when I'm not commuting too! That makes my needs more like 2/7 of the time I need more than 100 miles. I don't want to be driving an ICE car every weekend if I had a choice. Quick charge is nice, but 200 miles would cover most of my weekends without the inconvenience of a quickcharge (yes, even quick charge is an inconvenience when compared with not having to quick charge). So yeah, QC is great, but I would opt for longer range.

 

[SanDust]

what we have is perception. its the perception that 80 miles is not enough for the average person. that perception takes 75% of the people out of the current EV market. in reality; more than 60% of households could do it EASILY

I completely agree that fast chargers would make people more comfortable. However, what we now know is that even if you give fast chargers away very few entities are willing to install them, and we can surmise that when the government money goes away at the end of this year so will any real chance of getting a meaningful number of fast chargers installed. The result is that EVs will have to roll out without fast charges and that, as more EVs appear, then we'll start seeing the organic growth of fast chargers. This is the way Utah ended up with more NG fueling stations and there isn't any reason to think the same process can't work with EVs and public charging stations.

To be successful new technology has to provide some benefit, and to do that it has to do what it does best. Flash memory didn't become successful by trying to replace hard drives. It started by replacing other types of memory for which its special properties were most valuable. For EVs this principle is that they need to be a second or third vehicle for local driving. In this regard, note that the next generation of Leaf batteries should give people substantially more range. If 120 miles of actual range isn't enough for somebody then that somebody doesn't want or can't use an EV.

FWIW IMO fast chargers would seem to be most important for multi-family buildings where it may be impractical for every unit to have a dedicated outlet for an EV, either as a supplemental or primary way to charge. But this isn't going to happen this year or next year. It's a five to ten year process before we start seeing significant growth. Bringing this back to fast charging standards, my point is that the lack of a standard won't be a major hurdle since we're not going to see fast chargers for many years, and by that time the standards will be sorted.

 

[Nekota]

Let me be perfectly clear. I admire Nissan's guts in all this.

++1

 

[hill]

SHWEET!

Has anyone here suggested it to SCE ? Might be worth considering. In any event . . . I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If we could get a bunch of us Leafers here to clunk down some dough, we could work with a regular ol' filling station in San Clemente to push through an L3.

The utilities in California are prohibited from being in the auto charger business. That's what SDGE is petitioning the CPUC to change now, for "underutilized" areas, which will be everywhere.

So, are you cool with this proposal?

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SAN DIEGO

If you’ve noticed a lack of ChaDeMo quick DC chargers in San Diego, and California in general, you’re not the only one. For Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi iMiev owners with the ChaDeMo port, it appears likely that there may be very few ChaDeMo chargers installed here in the near future.

A group of us are in the exploratory stages . . . . . . . . . . snip . . . . . . . .
We’d love your input.

 

[thankyouOB]

if this stands, how does it affect Leafs with the QC?
will they be useless?

UPDATED--
more precisely, will the Leaf be unable to use the SAE universal charger on either QC or L2 at public stations?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

no. there will just be more charging options. keep in mind, Leafs and iMEVs are already being built, already being driven.

sure, its likely that new charging options will be introduced. whether they become "standards" is yet to be seen. and what is a standard anyway? most industries today have multiple standards. if you dont believe me, check out the adapters thread. a million ways to plug in for power. is all that really necessary?

ok, well electricity might not be a good example since that is mostly to keep the IQ pool average low. but i have to go back to my original intention and that is this announcement has little to do with future product development. its only FUD to slow Nissan and Mitsubishi down

 

[scottf200]

but i have to go back to my original intention and that is this announcement has little to do with future product development. its only FUD to slow Nissan and Mitsubishi down

Using that logic So why is the J1772 L2 standard such a great idea and the LEAF put it on their that car? Isn't that one good for the consumers who buy other BEV/PHEV/etc cars today and in the next several years.

Why didn't they just make up another standard?

Your argument is a "paranoid", biased, does not look far into the future (decade) for the good of all EVs and the adaption. It is just a timing thing and Nissan and Misubishi were ahead of a standard and they went with what they had. Your perspective is way skewed because you are in the forest and you own a LEAF. That is very obvious from others reading on the "outside" and these 7 manufacturers who are planning for the next decade or so and not the next few months or even year. Think decade not year.

Honestly I'm not trying to "rip" you I'm just trying to get you to see it from an outside perspective and timeframe. Peace out.

 

[edatoakrun]

but i have to go back to my original intention and that is this announcement has little to do with future product development. its only FUD to slow Nissan and Mitsubishi down

Using that logic So why is the J1772 L2 standard such a great idea and the LEAF put it on their that car? Isn't that one good for the consumers who buy other BEV/PHEV/etc cars today and in the next several years. Why didn't they just make up another standard? ...

Because SAE developed the AC L1/L2 standards in a timely manner.

The SAE has failed to do so, with DC charging.

You snooze, you lose...

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I do see the logic of a single plug that works for everything but that is something that seems to struggle in every industry.you say I am paranoid I say you are unrealistically optimistic.

I want you to be right...but...

 

[TEG]

more precisely, will the Leaf be unable to use the SAE universal charger on either QC or L2 at public stations?

That is a good question, on the minds of many.
And I don't think you will get a good answer now other than some PR quotes saying things like "conceivably it could be done" or "theoretically an adapter could be made".

Also, we have a new Tesla DC fast charge standard coming with their own infrastructure.

I see a few possible things that could happen:

#1: Disjointed QC chargers - CHAdeMO, SAE & Tesla with no mix/match.
or
#2: Adapters provided for some vehicles so they can charge at a non-native type of QC station.
or
#3: Fast chargers with multiple outputs so they can connect to different kinds of vehicles.
(Even if the plug is different, and some of the signaling is different, there would certainly be a lot of high voltage componentry that could be reused for the different standards.)

There are various self interests at stake in some cases. For instance, the ones specifying their own plug (CHAdeMO, SAE, & Tesla) probably would like to see the alternatives fail and have 'their' standard become dominant.

The vehicle manufacturers, on the other hand, would probably like to see options #2 &/or #3 work out so that they can say to their customers that their vehicle can use all of the existing fast charge infrastructure. They probably would also like to see whatever connector they provided on the car become dominant. For instance, LEAF owners would probably prefer if we saw CHAdeMO everywhere, and none of the alternatives since carrying an adapter is a hassle.

Opinion:
Given the cost of the QC stations, having a multiple cable output might only be an incremental cost. Sortof the way you see a gas station with 3 pump types (regular/mid/premium), you could have QC stations with (CHAdeMO/SAE/Tesla) and just plug in the appropriate one to your car. That would probably provide the best solution assuming that none of the 3 standards will be going away. The number of QC stations will be a small fraction of the number of vehicles, so having the various outputs at the QC station seems preferable to having everyone needing to carry adapters.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i also see adapters galore coming down the pike. now, i am not up on the standards, cost of parts, etc. but have to guess that even cheap versions of adapters will be in the 300-400 range until a company with volume buying clout gets into the picture to lower the price. problem is; its those companies that have no interest in saving us money, only how much they can get away with on their pricing structure

 

[planet4ever]

[It is just a timing thing and Nissan and Misubishi were ahead of a standard and they went with what they had. Your perspective is way skewed because you are in the forest and you own a LEAF. That is very obvious from others reading on the "outside" and these 7 manufacturers who are planning for the next decade or so and not the next few months or even year. Think decade not year.

Honestly I'm not trying to "rip" you I'm just trying to get you to see it from an outside perspective and timeframe. Peace out.

You make some good points though not completely accurate, and I'd like to suggest a different outside perspective: Asia. Nissan and Mitsubishi did not go "ahead of a standard". They used a standard which had been developed in Japan by a group of 5 companies (four manufacturers + TEPCo) and approved there as a standard. Why (from an Asian perspective) should a proposed American-sponsored standard be taken as seriously for long term planning as an existing Japanese standard?

Ray