7 manufacturers support J1772 L3 DC Quick chrgr over CHAdeMO

[scottf200]

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

Thanks Ray for bringing me up to speed some.

I'm still a little confused. So this colition of Japanese automakers and engineering giants including Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Fuji Heavy Industries who teamed up with the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCo) to form CHAdeMO (Charge de Move) were only interested in "L3" Quick charging EVs??

Did they consider L1/L2 charging and create a standard for that too? If not then I'm not quite sure how they determined that EVs would take over full-time ICE cars if people couldn't charge at home. It would seem like a big oversight to me? I must be missing something!

Does Tokyo/TEPCo "own" CHAdeMO?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAdeMO#DC_fast_charging" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tokyo Electric Power Company has developed patented technology and a specification for high-voltage (up to 500 V DC) high-current (125 A) automotive fast charging via a JARI DC fast charge connector.[6] It appears this is the basis for the CHAdeMO protocol.[7] The connector is specified by the JEVS (Japan Electric Vehicle Standard) G105-1993 from the Japan Automobile Research Institute.[8] In addition carrying power the connector also makes a data connection using a protocol called Can-bus[9] this performs functions such as a safety interlock to avoid energizing the connector before it's safe (similar to SAE J1772), transmiting battery parameters to the charging station including when to stop charging, target voltage, and total battery capacity, and while charging how the station should vary its output current.[10]

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

all this discussion is really "here and now" because in 5 years, give or take a few, most public charging will be inductive. GM (ya!! of all companies) has already partnered with a company to develop them and they are expecting efficiencies at greater than 90%.

up to now, efficiencies has been the knock on inductive charging. well, this is non contact inductive charging where you simply park. the charger connects to the car and charges it or doesnt depending on your presets or whether or not you have money on the books...

now, it could be 10 years, but either way, one thing i know for sure...ok, a few things

1) God willing, this will not be my last EV so i am sure, the next one will have something different

2) in 10 years, nothing we have now will be for sale. the technology is too new. we really havent a clue (if THAT is not evident!) as to what direction we are going in.

3) whining about possibly paying for something that may not be as available as some would have led us to believe "might" help but i kinda doubt it

4) it is obvious to me anyway that an announcement about an EV charging standard by a group of manufacturers that will have nothing to sell for another year or more is not something i am going to lose a lot of sleep over.

5) the announcement that Tesla is developing its own QC system independently garnered 10 times more concern which means i care about that a teeny tiny little bit. but at least there is some concern there

 

[smkettner]

Why would any L3 have the SAE connector until car 1 is actually built? Could be a long time.

 

[SanDust]

Why would any L3 have the SAE connector until car 1 is actually built? Could be a long time.

The better question would be how could any QC have an SAE connector when there isn't an SAE standard? The concern, and it's valid, is that in the absence of an SAE standard you're not going to see too many entities willing to do QC installs. Making matters worse you won't find any manufacturers wanting to ramp up production of QCs until there is a standard.

A lot of people here have gotten it wrong, assuming the choice is between QCs with CHAdeMO connectors or QCs with SAE connectors. The choice is more likely between no or very few QCs and QCs with SAE (and maybe CHAdeMO) connectors. The sooner the SAE standard is approved the faster you'll see QCs. Some or all of those QCs may have CHAdeMo connectors or there will be adapters, but until the SAE standard is approved everything is more or less in a waiting mode.

This announcement just makes it more likely we'll see the SAE standard sooner than later.

 

[walterbays]

I do see the logic of a single plug that works for everything

Oh yeah, the SAE plug would be such an improvement! :twisted: The only QC station for miles around, capable of recharging a car every 20-30 minutes, with tens of thousands of dollars of capital invested in it, sitting idle for 5 hours while a Leaf SV recharges at L2, or sitting idle for 12 hours because a Volt has plugged in for a J1772 hook-up in order to pre-cool the cabin 15 minutes before he returns...

As opposed to, say, one J1772 connector attached to the long term parker, and another Chademo connector attached to a succession of Mitsubishis and Leafs.

The one advantage of SAE, and it is a considerable advantage in the 10-year planning horizon Scott would like us to focus on, is that it enables V2G. However V2G will be useful for numerous L2 charging stations, mainly in garages, rather than for a few L3 charging stations. The best way to get there would have been to include V2G in the next upwardly compatible J1772 L2 standard, and stick with Chademo for L3, evolving it upwardly compatibly as needed.

There are two reasons why latecomers may try to impose a completely new standard. One is when the incumbent owners of a proprietary standard attempt to use it to lock out competition or to extract an extortionate license fee from latecomers. The other is when the latecomers hope to freeze or disrupt the market to give them time to catch up.

There are usually a choice of several plausible standards bodies to which a group of companies could take a proposed standard. First movers tend to go to smaller, more nimble, or entirely new organizations that can get the standard done in time to be useful. Latecomers may choose big slow standards organizations, either to get greater worldwide reach when the standard is eventually done, or to slow down the market leaders, or both. SAE, ISO, IEEE, NEMA (and other national equivalents), APPA (and other national equivalents) all seem likely choices.

Many of us kind of assume this must be GM trying to harm the EV market and/or delay it while they catch up, based on some of their past actions, and on the fact that none of the proponents of the SAE connector have any cars on the road or even announced which could use it. But do we know that the Chademo companies are not trying to lock competitors out of the market for quick charging EV's? I.e., would Chademo license the technology to GM for Spark with reasonable and non-discriminatory terms? Would Chademo offer the standard to ISO as the basis for a worldwide L3 charging standard?

 

[walterbays]

in the absence of an SAE standard you're not going to see too many entities willing to do QC installs.

Utility demand fees are the main thing holding back QC in California, not the connector. There are hundreds of Chademo QC units in Japan and Europe, and lots more Chademo QC units outside California than here - including states not exactly known for being anti-oil, like Texas.

If you were going to install a QC unit today and intended to have any customers, you would install a Chademo; no choice. If you installed an SAE unit today, no car in existence could use it, and it would probably be rusted away to the scrap heap before the first SAE capable car rolled of a production line.

 

[smkettner]

Why would any L3 have the SAE connector until car 1 is actually built? Could be a long time.

The better question would be how could any QC have an SAE connector when there isn't an SAE standard? The concern, and it's valid, is that in the absence of an SAE standard you're not going to see too many entities willing to do QC installs. Making matters worse you won't find any manufacturers wanting to ramp up production of QCs until there is a standard.

A lot of people here have gotten it wrong, assuming the choice is between QCs with CHAdeMO connectors or QCs with SAE connectors. The choice is more likely between no or very few QCs and QCs with SAE (and maybe CHAdeMO) connectors. The sooner the SAE standard is approved the faster you'll see QCs. Some or all of those QCs may have CHAdeMo connectors or there will be adapters, but until the SAE standard is approved everything is more or less in a waiting mode.

This announcement just makes it more likely we'll see the SAE standard sooner than later.

Are you saying this group of 7 will start producing QC vehicles with the SAE connector very soon after the standard is approved?
My point is when is car 1 going to roll off any assembly line?

 

[garygid]

Maybe Never.

 

[scottf200]

Are you saying this group of 7 will start producing QC vehicles with the SAE connector very soon after the standard is approved?
My point is when is car 1 going to roll off any assembly line?

Potentially the spark as I showed from the picture of it in another thread:

From another thread I posted in earlier:
J1772 hybrid L3 - preparation

From the big picture here:
http://media.gm.com/content/Pages/n...ner/par/download_0/file.res/Spark_Cutaway.jpg

...doesn't it look like there is a lower flap for the J1772 hybrid L3 vs J1772 L2 ?!?

J1772 hybrid L3:

This is from the picture media.gm url above:
http://spark.chevrolet.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[davewill]

Oh yeah, the SAE plug would be such an improvement! :twisted: The only QC station for miles around, capable of recharging a car every 20-30 minutes, with tens of thousands of dollars of capital invested in it, sitting idle for 5 hours while a Leaf SV recharges at L2, or sitting idle for 12 hours because a Volt has plugged in for a J1772 hook-up in order to pre-cool the cabin 15 minutes before he returns...

I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting the combo connector feature. The purpose of combining them is to have a single connector on the car. I'm pretty sure the SAE QC chargers will NOT be doing L2 through their connectors, indeed the combo plug won't even fit in the existing J1772 receptacle. The scenario you're describing isn't going to happen.

 

[edatoakrun]

I have to wonder, for all the purported “planning for the future” by the SAE, if the combined DC/AC plug might be DOA (whenever that might be).

Isn’t it inherently inefficient to build the charger into the BEV, and lug it around on battery power? Once there is a DC infrastructure, isn’t it logical to assume ALL dedicated charge locations will evolve toward DC, so the charger can be utilized by whatever BEV is plugged in, and the energy of the “waste” heat can be recovered for other uses?

Shouldn't the future we are all looking toward DC public charging, AND DC home charging?

By the time my 2014 Esflow is delivered, why won’t I be able to plug both it and my 2011 Leaf into the same 80 amp wall mount charger, and charge both of them overnight through their CHAdeMo DC receptacles, at near 100% efficiency, as the “waste” inverter heat is pumped into my home's hot water heater tank?

And maybe my 2018 LEAF won’t even have (or need) an AC charger, or the inverter, radiator, coolant pump, etc...

 

[smkettner]

I think the existing on-board charger should just accept 100 to 600 vac 30 amps 50 to 60 Hz through the existing J1772 and call it good.
I am not sure what the obsession is over DC charging facilities.

 

[GPowers]

I think the existing on-board charger should just accept 100 to 600 vac 30 amps 50 to 60 Hz through the existing J1772 and call it good.
I am not sure what the obsession is over DC charging facilities.

+1

and a retractable cord!

 

[Herm]

Imagine what they will charge for a DC charger when you see what they charge for a fancy safety extension cord.. its a fact, most cars spend at least 8 hours overnight at home, next to a 120V socket.

 

[edatoakrun]

Imagine what they will charge for a DC charger when you see what they charge for a fancy safety extension cord.. its a fact, most cars spend at least 8 hours overnight at home.

We already paid for a onboard 16 amp "DC charger" When we bought our cars.

It takes up space, and adds cost, weight and complexity, to our cars.

At some point in the near future, I hope we can leave the charger at home, and won't have to keep buying them, installed on every BEV we drive.

 

[scottf200]

So related to my earlier post about who is behind CHAdeMO (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=143076#p143076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false would the 5 German automobile companies (Audi, BMW, Daimler, Porsche, Volkswagen) and 2 USA companies (Ford, GM) have to pay Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCo) for rights to implement it in their cars??

And do those four Japanese companies (Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Fuji Heavy Industries) get it for free or some other deal since they were part of the localized standard??

From an outside view you could see why then they (7) wanted to use an international standard (http://standards.sae.org/automotive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false that took into account a larger "view".

Perhaps I'm confused on this and likely you guys have discussed this. See my post above.

 

[TEG]

I think the existing on-board charger should just accept 100 to 600 vac 30 amps 50 to 60 Hz through the existing J1772 and call it good. I am not sure what the obsession is over DC charging facilities.

As the power levels go up, the size, weight and cost of the charger become prohibitive to include in the vehicle.
Also, when you go above 240V, the 400V+ sources tend to be 3-phase so you need additional equipment to rectify the 3 phase down. So, it makes sense to me to have the bulky, heavy, expensive 3-phase 50KW+ charger external and feed DC into the car.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I do see the logic of a single plug that works for everything

Oh yeah, the SAE plug would be such an improvement! :twisted: The only QC station for miles around, capable of recharging a car every 20-30 minutes, with tens of thousands of dollars of capital invested in it, sitting idle for 5 hours while a Leaf SV recharges at L2, or sitting idle for 12 hours because a Volt has plugged in for a J1772 hook-up in order to pre-cool the cabin 15 minutes before he returns...

ok, do we really want to cherry pick worst case scenarios? its posts like these that get people on a negative slant to begin with and you make it worse by peppering a few facts with BS.

1) there no NO PLANNED QC stations that do not include standard L2 charging as well, at least not in WA and i think it stupid should it be done anywhere else any other way.

2) allowing timer charge on a system that is supposed to be done with you in 30 minutes is not even something i need to comment on, but uninformed people coming here will not know how non-sensical this suggestion is so i have to say something

3) there will be no perfect solution and even the very good ones we select today will probably not be even a decent idea in 5 years. that is simply how technology usually works. sure, every once in a while, a product comes along that simply transcends time. i doubt if this is one of them

4) the other thing is that WE control standards. CHA is a charging option that is here and now (well, not real near here yet...) and it will either flourish because we will buy Leafs and iMEVs or it will fail because we wont.

 

[walterbays]

ok, do we really want to cherry pick worst case scenarios?

davewill corrected me that it is not the plug that combines L2 and L3, but the car's receptacle. So my worst case scenario won't happen; L2 will be provided via a separate cord with plain old J1772 plug.

I replied to davewill in PM, "I still can't see the point of it though. The car receptacle has a J1772 lobe and an SAE-L3 lobe, separated by a centimeter or so of plastic wall, as opposed to the Nissan Leaf charging port door which has separate receptacles for J1772 and Chademo, separated by two plastic walls with an inch between them. I can't see any significant saving in cost, nor ease of use." and he replied,

The charge door on the LEAF is actually pretty huge. Most manufacturers want that opening to be the size of existing fuel doors.

P.S. I think this exchange would have been appropriate to the thread.

I still don't see the compelling space saving to have 3mm of plastic versus 3mm of plastic, 4cm gap, and another 3mm of plastic. This is after all the industry that gave us the Lincoln Navigator and Nissan Armada I do see why if you were starting from a blank slate, rather than designing in the context of an established standard, you'd design it the more compact way.

I guess that's what the argument is really about. Some say it is a blank slate. Japan, and Europe, and a few thousand of us with Leafs in the US don't really matter in the larger context of worldwide EV sales over the next decade. Others say that by the time the first SAE-L3 capable car hits the streets (3-5 years?) Chademo will be firmly entrenched worldwide.

I still would like to know whether Chademo is on track to become an open standard, or whether the Chademo companies would lock out competitors or extort excessive license fees. If the latter, then they deserve to lose the standards battle, and probably will.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

what it really boils down to is a handful of manufacturers "the 7"; none of which will have an applicable EV (Ford Focus EV has NO QC option) on the market for at least a year more likely to be 18 months.

then we have Mitsubishi and Nissan "M/N" both of which already are selling cars that use CHA. by this time next year we "hope" to have 500 of these QC stations scattered around the country. now if M/N fails then another standard will rise up because EVs are not going away this time.

what we really need to have is at least a half dozen in every major city. that means getting a lot of entities on board. the 7 knows they are way behind and the small handful of Leaf owners so far (US!!) have made quite a bit of noise. we made the NY Times!! (Phil and Gary) ...well, not us exactly but we have made enough of a splash in the charging arena that the masses have taken notice.

this is scaring the 7. so what they are doing now is trying to derail M/N. slow them down. cool their jets. well that is hard to do right now. Nissan flooded the west coast market just enough to get some noise going and now they are spreading the news across the midwest.

what makes it harder is the 7 does not have a product. will not have a product for...a while i guess. of the 7, who is supposed to be coming out with an EV with QC option first and when is that happening?

to be honest with you, i have no idea. i stopped following all of them because they say something and it never turns out so i guess that is one big reason why i am not worried over their announcement on a different standard