October Orders

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Am I missing something? Several people have written that the need for Nissan's complicated assessment, etc. is that the car plug gets pluged in and out continuously. Why not get a one foot link that is permanently plugged into an electric dryer-like socket on one end with the car plugged into the other end? From time to time, this link would be replaced. The whole thing is simpler than what Nissan now does and is a whole lot cheaper.
 
Desertstraw said:
Am I missing something? Several people have written that the need for Nissan's complicated assessment, etc. is that the car plug gets pluged in and out continuously. Why not get a one foot link that is permanently plugged into an electric dryer-like socket on one end with the car plugged into the other end? From time to time, this link would be replaced. The whole thing is simpler than what Nissan now does and is a whole lot cheaper.
No, you are not missing anything. The whole EVSE garbage comes from a patronizing attitude on the part of Nissan that owners are too bunnyflubbing stupid to plug in a normal RV plug. (Even though RV owners have been doing just that since there have been RVs!)

The EV1 needed a special EVSE because it used inductive charging. The Tesla Roadster has its own EVSE because it uses a 440-volt high-amperage unit to deliver 230 miles worth of charge in a reasonable amount of time. But the slower, lower-power, simpler 220-v. charger in the Leaf is entirely compatible with an RV circuit, which any electrician can install for a fraction of the cost of an EVSE. The only reason the Leaf needs the EVSE for 220-v. charging is because Nissan decided not to install an RV-type connector.
 
garygid said:
Actually, it is the National Electrical Code (NEC) Section 625 that requires an EVSE-like connection for residential EV charging.
smkettner said:
I would like to read that section 625 someday. Anyone have a link?
The problem with laypeople reading such codes is that often the definitions of terms are not the common usages, and often there are amendments elsewhere in the law. A trivial example is people who insist that the income tax is unconstitutional because they have not read the amendments.

As a separate point, if Nissan wanted to, they could probably challenge the code in court, on the grounds that there is no substantive difference between plugging in an RV and plugging in an EV, not to mention that for decades people in cold climates have been plugging in block heaters. If Section 625 really does mean that EVSEs are required, it is clearly discriminatory. Finally, people have been plugging in conversion EVs without an EVSE ever since people have been building EVs. If Gary's interpretation of 625 is correct, then all these people are criminals. Since such codes are written by regulators, rather than by legislators, they are not all that hard to change if one has sufficient clout and backing.
 
I think that Section 625 did not exist much before the EV1, perhaps the late 1990's.

Yes, many do their own wiring additions without pernits or inspections, and some states have not "adopted" the latest versions of the NEC.

Yes, having a cord attached to the car before plugging into the wall would be safer, but our US plugs are essentially DESIGNED to be hazardous.

The EVSE seems to be an atrempt to make a safe "e-pump", where the "hose" is attached to the "pump" and plugged in/out at the car end, like "fueling" a gas car.
 
daniel said:
TimeHorse said:
... Nissan is just following the rules about charging and trying, all be it rather unsuccessfully, to make the EVSE installation as painless as possible for its customers.
Painless? By contracting with a band of baldfaced criminals who charge five times what an installation is worth???

As far as "most people don't have an RV plug," that plug can be installed by any local electrician for less than a tenth of what AV is charging people for an EVSE which serves no real purpose.

And I don't think the "standards" for an EVSE would apply for a car that simply does not use an EVSE. All you really need to do is require the the use of a GFI. And a GFI should be required for any outlet in a garage anyway.

Daniel Daniel Daniel. Yes, you are very smart. And actually, I agree with you in hindsight. Nissan has never made an EV of any substance before and the J1772 standard is fairly new. I don't agree with it; you don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. Yes, Nissan could have fought the industry trade group to which it belongs in court. Sure, they could have quagmired themselves in years of litigation to save us all the trouble of going through all this J1772 compatibility issues, in addition to building up buzz and making sure the engineering is sound for all the other areas of the car beyond its charging. It could have spent a year or 2 trying to get this overturned. And meanwhile, another manufacturer who didn't want to make waves and just accepted the J1772 standard is first to market and steals Nissan's thunder.

As for AV, I am lucky enough never to have dealt with them and because I am a December order I have every intention to have the electrical work done before they even try to contact me to schedule an assessment. Thanks to people like you and this forum I know better than to deal with this company. Now, all we need is a time machine and go back to Nissan when they first were facing the charging issue and signing contracts with AV to explain to them this is a mistake. Yes, there were warning signs even then: military-only contracts with no experience with the consumer market. But here's a company again naïve about the the EV charging issues, just looking for a partner to forestall any disagreement with the industry with respect to charging. Again, look at CHAdeMo. It's a risk. The industry may end up not ratifying it. But sometimes if you want to be first risks need to be taken. Unfortunately, it turns out AV is a crap company when it comes to direct-to-the-consumer sales and now we're stuck with them. Or at least we would be if Nissan didn't set up a waver program, but it did. Short of breaching their contract with AV, I think this is about all they can do. It was a risk Nissan took; it failed; we suffer. Blame Nissan for choosing AV, but remember they didn't then know all that we know now. Personally, though, I with Nissan could break their contract with AV; maybe sign one with Leviton instead. But I also wish I could have ordered my LEAF in August, or September, or October or November but we can't always get what we want, now can we?

And for the record, I personally think the right approach is to standardize on NEMA 6-50P, with interlocking connectors to keep them safe but with some kind of detachment fail-safe to keep the wire from ripping if the car starts to roll away while charging. I like the Pilot signal of the J1772 but yes, it would be a lot easier if we could just plug into a NEMA 6-50P and even better if we could charge at it, instead of about 1/3 of it.

And all that said, it's not just this AV contract that we have to hold Nissan accountable for: there's the opaque RAQ schedule, the problems with eTec, the incredible disappearing Heated Seats and conspicuously absent Cold Weather package. There's the engineering issues of weight and battery capacity and aerodynamics. There's the mysteries of Residual value and leasing options and of course making 36 states wait nearly a year to get the car, especially New Mexico, between to initial states, Pennsylvania just north of a third tier, and Massachusetts just because we don't have enough commonwealths in this roll-out. The number of Nissan flubs is to many for me to even enumerate all of them. Not to mention how greedy AV has turned out to be. But as far as their choice of contracting AV and the J1772, I personally have to cut them some slack. There are a lot of reasons to hate Nissan and AV, but those I just don't think it worth the time.

I just look forward to the day in November when I have my TOU installed, my #6 Gauge wire run and my NEMA 6-50P mounted in my garage thanks to a local contractor with a local service warranty for longer than AV would have ever certified.
 
Regarding the advantages of the EVSE over a NEMA plug, please check my post in this thread:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1520

Also, maybe it would be good to continue the EVSE vs NEMA debate in that thread so this thread is not further derailed.
 
Back to the original topic:

Reservation 4/20

Home Assessment done and considered optimal location

Informed that I am in October group - no email as of Tuesday 10/19

Location: San Francisco Bay Area
 
What seems to be holding up your RAQ-enable?

1. Address, name, or zip code differences between Nissan and AV/EVProject?

2. "Lost" paperwork?

Cheers, one wonders how many other Sep-Orders are "in limbo"?
 
Nissan says it's some sort of technical issue - possibly related to me being in the EV project. I'm not the only one. They assured me that they are working on it and have escalated my account and October orders won't open up until all September people have been taken care of.
 
How hard can it be??? If they had competent people on it three weeks should have been plenty. They're going to have to start production soon if they want to fulfill their promise of delivering the first cars in December. Are they going to postpone production to keep the EV Project people at the head of the line, or are they going to let them slide into limbo and go ahead with the orders they have?
 
Does this mean they've solved the September problems, or that they've decided to let the unresolved September-promised people go by the way?
 
Back
Top