7 manufacturers support J1772 L3 DC Quick chrgr over CHAdeMO

[SanDust]

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.

The Volt charger door is something like a 6" circle. The Leaf charger door is more like 17" X 9" X 12". That's so large that it can only go in the front, which isn't optimal placement if you want to avoid replacements due to small collisions.

You might be able to combine a CHAdeMO socket with the other combined connector but, given that the existing CHAdeMO ports won't work with the new connector, what advantage would be gained by using a proprietary connector in conjunction with a open standard connector rather than using two open standard connectors, especially when the proprietary connector is lower wattage?

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.

this is scaring the 7. so what they are doing now is trying to derail M/N. slow them down. cool their jets.

Nissan and Mitsubishi are not exactly flooding the market with millions of CHAdeMO equipped EVs. Nissan has delivered how many Leafs? Mitsubishi has delivered how many i-Mievs? The numbers are just very small.

At this point even getting 100 QCs installed doesn't seem likely. Ever uber-optimistc Nissan marketing suggests there will be 400, http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/chargingMap/index#/leaf-electric-car/chargingMap/index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, but, given what Ecotality is saying about the number which will be installed in 2012, more realistically there might be 50 QCs installed by the end of 2013. Ecotality is saying that it can't place QCs when the federal government is paying for 80% of the cost of the charger and 80% of the cost of the installation. If it can't essentially give the things away, it's not likely we'll see an uptick in installations when the subsidy goes away, which will happen in two months. (Even the 50 QCs assumes that Ecotality can use the federal grant money for QCs and installs after the grant expires in January).

The notion that the seven manufacturers have rejected CHAdeMO because they want to slow Nissan down doesn't seem supported by any known facts. The US group and BMW were instrumental in getting J1772 approved despite the fact that none of them had an EV on the road or, if they did, they had one that didn't need 240V charging. If these companies were truly interested in slowing Nissan down they could have slow rolled J1771. Given that they didn't, it seems that Nissan isn't a primary motivation. Standards always involve corporate politics, but let's not forget that standards are alos rejected simply because they're not very good or because they're proprietary.

 

[Spies]

One thing I want to make clear is that J1772 L1/L2 AC has been around for years and is a very simple protocol since all the the actual charging is handled by the on board charger. My 1998 Honda EV Plus even had J1772 L1/L2 AC on it. Really the main thing that changed for J1772 L1/L2 recently was going from the Avcon connector to the Yazaki connector with the promise that the Yazaki connector could handle more current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If J1772 had offered a complete L3 DC option before I am sure Nissan would be using it now but they did not. Its not like the SAE did not know the cars were coming.

 

[jkirkebo]

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.

The Volt charger door is something like a 6" circle. The Leaf charger door is more like 17" X 9" X 12". That's so large that it can only go in the front, which isn't optimal placement if you want to avoid replacements due to small collisions.

So do what Mitsubishi does. One charger door on each side, J1772 in one and CHAdeMO in the other. They're both the size of regular fuel doors.

 

[scottf200]

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.

The Volt charger door is something like a 6" circle. The Leaf charger door is more like 17" X 9" X 12". That's so large that it can only go in the front, which isn't optimal placement if you want to avoid replacements due to small collisions.

So do what Mitsubishi does. One charger door on each side, J1772 in one and CHAdeMO in the other. They're both the size of regular fuel doors.

Would appear to be one on each side:
Pictures of both ports here:
http://highspeedcharging.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/mitsubishi-i-miev/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Google images using: Mitsubishi electric car j1772 imiev

 

[garygid]

The BIG issue us NOT the PHYSICAL shape of the proposed connector(s).

The BIG problem is the (apparently) totally incompatible communications and control in the two systems:
In addition to two high-current pins and a safety/signal ground ...

1. ChaDEmo uses 6 control pins: 2 CAN bus, Proximity, 2 Relay Control, and "Ready".

2. The L3 probably re-uses the L2 Proximity (and probably the Control Pilot), and apparently it attempts to do communication control over the (potentially) very noisy DC High-Voltage lines. Apparently this is to save adding 2 more CAN-type control lines.

Without knowing the DETAILS of both, it is difficult/impossible to make a good technical judgement about which is a "better" (more reliable, in real world circumstances) control system.

But, would you want to trust your expensive Battery Pack and Electronics to a system that was 99.5% reliable?

Or, to a system that has NEVER been deployed before?

We believe that hundreds of ChaDEmo systems have been deployed, and are working daily.

As far as I know (I do not know much), there is not even ONE single real L3 EV or L3 Charger operating in public anywhere.

Also, it IS POSSIBLE that there are factions in this country (and worldwide) that would like to see the Nissan EV project fail, or at least be delayed 20 years.

Food for thought, I believe.

 

[tps]

1. ChaDEmo uses 6 control pins: 2 CAN bus, Proximity, 2 Relay Control, and "Ready".

2. The L3 probably re-uses the L2 Proximity (and probably the Control Pilot), and apparently it attempts to do communication control over the (potentially) very noisy DC High-Voltage lines. Apparently this is to save adding 2 more CAN-type control lines.

CAN is an appropriate physical layer for automotive applications. It has been used for many years in the automotive industry and is well understood and tested, and protocols above the physical layer can be easily extended in the directions required by battery management and charging systems. Doing it a different way just to save pins on the connector is madness!

IMHO, your statement stopped too soon: Apparently this is to save adding 2 more CAN-type control lines and to make it incompatible with existing the CHAdeMO infrastructure. If they had wanted to, they could have found a way to fit the CAN buss pins into the proposed connector...

 

[evnow]

How many of you are using the ISO 7 layer networking protocol instead of TCP/IP ?

 

[N952JL]

How many of you are using the ISO 7 layer networking protocol instead of TCP/IP ?

The ISO 7 layer model is a model of what needs to be done it was not and is not a protocol, just a model. TCP/IP fits into the ISO 7 layer model. For example right now I'm using Foxpro at layer 7 to enter this response, and 100baseT at layer 1 (physical). I believe my IP maps into Layer 2 &3 with TCP mapping into 4 and 5. Before the internet was opened to the public, my old company (Data General) used X.25 at layer 3 and RS232C at layer one.

All of those protocols fit nicely into the ISO seven layer model.

 

[walterbays]

Here is some information which supports my contention that the main purpose of SAE-L3 is to undercut the EV market leaders rather than to charge non-existent cars - and also some information which refutes my contention: charging ports and collisions, Chademo bylaws, and SAE EV program.

The Volt charger door is something like a 6" circle. The Leaf charger door is more like 17" X 9" X 12". That's so large that it can only go in the front, which isn't optimal placement if you want to avoid replacements due to small collisions.

Just from observations of dented cars around town I would have expected that side swipe collisions were more frequent than front-end collisions. But Wikipedia, citing a British Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre study, says 65% were frontal versus only 10% side collisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone So you're right.

However the size of the Leaf charger door is beside the point. Having chosen to place it in front where they had plenty of room, of course Nissan would make it as large as was most convenient, and in their view most stylish. The only difference between the two connectors on a Leaf and the two lobes on an SAE-L3 connector is a centimeter or so of plastic rim. They could have packed the two connectors almost as close together as the lobes of an SAE-L3 connector. Of course the human factors engineers may have decreed that if there were to be separate connectors then they must put them farther apart with different sizes and different color snap covers.

Charging port size aside, I much prefer the Leaf's front location than the left side location on the Volt and the forthcoming Ford Focus EV. In my garage my EVSE just happens to be on the left wall, so in fact a Volt would be marginally easier to plug in. I'd have to unwind only one loop of cord from the holder instead of two, so it would take me only 10 seconds to "refill" my car rather than the 15 seconds it takes with my Leaf. Well, I'm willing to pay that extra 5 seconds, day after day. Because if my EVSE had to be located on the right wall of my garage, the Leaf's front port would still be equally convenient. But with a Volt I'd have to either unwind the whole cord to pull it around the front tires, or I'd have to drape it across the hood. And unless you sweep your garage floor every day, you do not want a cord draped across the hood dragging little bits of grit across your paint.

For public charging also, the Leaf's location is better. So far all the public EVSE's I've seen in person or in photos have been in front of a parking space. This is not bad for a Volt since its charging port is on the front left side. But of course it's even better for a Leaf. Now look to the future. What will you do when public EVSE's begin to be installed at parallel parking spaces? With a Leaf it's not bad, reaching from curb to middle front. With a Volt, again you have to pull the cord all the way around the front of the car - if the cord is long enough to reach - or you have to drag the cord across your beautiful shiny hood. In either case you have to stand in the traffic lane to plug in. If a charging port is going to be on the side, at least it should be on the right front side.

So the Leaf's front location wins on convenience. Now if that location raises the repair costs enough that insurance companies charge a significantly higher rate to insure a car with front charging port, then one might weigh whether or not the convenience is worth the cost.

Chademo Bylaws

I've been wondering whether the companies in SAE were forced to re-invent the wheel because the Chademo companies would not license their standard at a reasonable fee. So far that appears not to be the case. The specifications are available to any member. Membership is open at a nominal fee. Members are not prohibited from also using competing charging standards. http://www.chademo.com/

SAE EV Program

SAE has a lot of activities around EV's, http://ev.sae.org/. Take a look at the February issue of their magazine, a cover story on the Nissan Leaf. This certainly does not look like an organization which is out to kill the electric car again, nor even to delay it.

 

[scottf200]

Charging port size aside, I much prefer the Leaf's front location than the left side location on the Volt and the forthcoming Ford Focus EV. In my garage my EVSE just happens to be on the left wall, so in fact a Volt would be marginally easier to plug in. I'd have to unwind only one loop of cord from the holder instead of two, so it would take me only 10 seconds to "refill" my car rather than the 15 seconds it takes with my Leaf. Well, I'm willing to pay that extra 5 seconds, day after day. Because if my EVSE had to be located on the right wall of my garage, the Leaf's front port would still be equally convenient. But with a Volt I'd have to either unwind the whole cord to pull it around the front tires, or I'd have to drape it across the hood. And unless you sweep your garage floor every day, you do not want a cord draped across the hood dragging little bits of grit across your paint.

For public charging also, the Leaf's location is better. So far all the public EVSE's I've seen in person or in photos have been in front of a parking space. This is not bad for a Volt since its charging port is on the front left side. But of course it's even better for a Leaf. Now look to the future. What will you do when public EVSE's begin to be installed at parallel parking spaces? With a Leaf it's not bad, reaching from curb to middle front. With a Volt, again you have to pull the cord all the way around the front of the car - if the cord is long enough to reach - or you have to drag the cord across your beautiful shiny hood. In either case you have to stand in the traffic lane to plug in. If a charging port is going to be on the side, at least it should be on the right front side.

FYI from Prius Plug-In tweaked following Euro trials at http://ev.sae.org/article/10252" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a result of the trial, the charging point on the car has been moved from the left to the right side of the vehicle.

I think the idea of it being on left of the Volt is when charging at home (9X% of the time)

• * that the driver would see it when exiting their car and thus not likely to forget to plug it in and be close since they are on that side of the car already.
  * that when they go to get in the car it would be handy since they are on that side of the car already to get in

 

[amtoro]

ECOtality just installed their first CHAdeMO charging station in Portland, OR. and judging by the picture, the cable seems to be very short; still practical for a LEAF but not necessarily convenient for a Mitsubishi i if the parking spaces are parallel.

http://www.ecotality.com/newsletter/20111024_DC_Fast_Charger_Oregon.html

 

[evnow]

The ISO 7 layer model is a model of what needs to be done it was not and is not a protocol, just a model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_protocol_suite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nowadays, this protocol/model is only a history. The theory may look good, but failed in the implementation. Both its model and the protocols are actually flawed. Some critics also said that the choice of seven layers was more political than technical, and two of the layers (session and presentation) are nearly empty, whereas two other ones (data link and network) are overfull.[1]

 

[evnow]

ECOtality just installed their first CHAdeMO charging station in Portland, OR. and judging by the picture, the cable seems to be very short; still practical for a LEAF but not necessarily convenient for a Mitsubishi i if the parking spaces are parallel.

http://www.ecotality.com/newsletter/20111024_DC_Fast_Charger_Oregon.html

You may be able to pull the cable out.

 

[amtoro]

True... maybe someone in Portland could go and check it out for the rest of us...

 

[garygid]

The Electrical reason to place the High-Current port at the front is likely to minimize the cable length to the HV bus relays in the Inverter, which is very near the Battery Pack connection.

The front-located Charging-access is optimal for front-in charging spaces (and most all hone garages and home parking configurations), AND for the (much less common) parallel parking charging spaces, where the "charging machine" and its cord would usually be located at the head of the parking spot (like parking meters, to not interfere with passenger door openings). Further, it is suitable for both Left-Hand and Right-Hand vehicles, thus a suitable WORLD standard, not a myopic USA-Only approach.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The Electrical reason to place the High-Current port at the front is likely to minimize the cable length to the HV bus relays in the Inverter, which is very near the Battery Pack connection.

I'm told that there is an addition "big box" that goes with the Blink DC charger that you see. Anybody know what this is?

 

[Herm]

I'm told that there is an addition "big box" that goes with the Blink DC charger that you see. Anybody know what this is?

The one posted in the TN Cracker Barrel L3 charger installation post was a transformer, a big one.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i always thought the "best" place for the charger port was exactly where Nissan put it. the other thing i thought strange it having 2 EV parking spaces next to each other... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/blog.php?u=291&b=110" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

when port is in the front a single charging unit centered between 2 parking spaces could easily service both. i still cant understand why current multi station locations put their chargers in adjacent spaces. this makes no sense

 

[mwalsh]

i still cant understand why current multi station locations put their chargers in adjacent spaces. this makes no sense

But on the plus side, Chargepoint is outfitting theirs with J1772 cables long enough to service the spots on either side as well.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i still cant understand why current multi station locations put their chargers in adjacent spaces. this makes no sense

But on the plus side, Chargepoint is outfitting theirs with J1772 cables long enough to service the spots on either side as well.

the Blink complex at Olympic Gateway Park has cables long enough to reach two spaces. the Station is set for "other" cars as the unit sits to the front left of the space. in fact, i will swing by there to see if the position might allow two Volts to charge. the cable is pretty long. in fact, i thought it a bit inconvenient how the cable is held and what it took to roll it back on its holder