Jun 3, 2011
slcasner An update on the Model S charge connector based on a short conversation with Elon at the end of the first annual shareholders' meeting yesterday morning.
I asked Elon if the Model S would have a J1772 connector. He said it would not because J1772 can't handle high enough power. I agreed that it would not handle the high-power DC charging, but it would handle 70A level 2+, and that I assumed the DC charging would be a separate connector. Elon replied that the Model S would have one connector for both modes. I guess this means yet another proprietary connector. Sigh...�
Jun 3, 2011
doug Help me Jeebus...
I don't suppose you thought to ask about support for 3 phase. This was imagined to be promised to a certain someone by a certain Tesla CTO during a dream, European Tesla store opening, and/or spirit walk.
Well if not J1772, one can only hope it would be this.�
Jun 3, 2011
dpeilow Without taking this off down the line of another thread...
J1772's proposed DC Level 3 / AC Level 2 connector surely fits the bill. What words did Elon use exactly, because using this wouldn't contradict the last sentence.�
Jun 3, 2011
Eberhard The only connector who can handle both is the Mennekes?�
Jun 3, 2011
dsm363 I don't understand why they can't just say at this point what the connector will be. It has to be finalized by this point. Not having a J1772 charger on there is a mistake I think. Especially in the eyes of the general public.�
Jun 3, 2011
emq Mennekes can handle both.
The Mennekes Combo plug isnt provided for HighLevel DC Charge, 63A AC, 70A DC. The S is 45 Minutes QuickCharge. If i asume the S has 75kWh Accus, that means 100kW power for 45minutes chargetime. At 3x400V thats 144Amps AC.
70A DC x 375V = 26kW > 3h Charge time.
The only connecter now, can handle 45 min. charge is CHADEMO Standard (supported by about 300 companys worldwide, based on TEPCO Tokyo) on DC 50kW, 100kW, 200kW.
BYD has a propietary solution.
Teslamotors may be has not dicided or communicated there solution.
The good info for quick charge: The primary connection to the grid will be fix installation, can be different according the local grid archtecture, for instance 3ph in EU, 1ph in US, J, Italy ec.
The Output is alwas the same, according the car interface.
emq: Power Quality / EV charging solutions�
Jun 3, 2011
Eberhard Mennekes can handle 3x63A = 44kW output or 1x70A AC or 2x 70A 500V DC = 70kW output means 80% of 80kW = 64kWH in 55min. Both is fine for me, but i don't need/want DC�
Jun 3, 2011
Doug_G Aw crap. Apparently Tesla sees plugs as their main profit center.�
Jun 3, 2011
richkae Possibilities for not announcing:
1) They have not finalized their decision/design.
2) They think they have something better than everyone else and they don't want to be copied.
3) They think they have something better than everyone else but believe it will face criticism until they can demonstrate it and prove that.
Technical possiblities:
1) Much higher power than anyone is currently thinking about. What if they are thinking about 100kW? or 150kW? Maybe they believe they can convince the world that 60-70kW isn't sufficient and the Model S will be ready to handle much more power whenever those are available?
If you buy a fleet of Model S cars, a couple of 100kW-150kW chargers may be a small piece of the pie.�
Jun 3, 2011
TEG Lets hope you are right that the reason is that they have something better. But keeping it proprietary would be a shame as a shared charging infrastructure can help more broad acceptance of EVs. One thing going for gas stations is you know the nozzle will fit your gas car no matter which station you happen to use. As it is now with EV charging, we have small paddle, Avcon, J1772, Tesla connectors, CHAdeMO, and such spread around. I have already seen some Leaf's pull up to the local Fry's electronics having found a charge spot on their map only to realize there are small paddle and Avcon there and no J1772. I have seen Teslas parked in small paddle spots that are marked "EV only" thus denying a Rav4EV a chance to charge. I really think we need to get standardized on one plug for everyone. If Tesla were to offer charging stations with > 20kW what socket would they use? CHAdeMO? New SAE? IEC 3phase? And to add to the above we have different vendors trying to introduce RFID card controls on their EVSEs, so there doesn't appear to be a standard there either. I will need to have a Chargpoint account and RFID card, as well as a Blink account/card, and who knows what else in future to be able to use the different charging locations.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110601/OEM01/110609983/1179Is that a suggestion that they plan to have company operated charging locations? Would they allow non Tesla cars to charge there too? Hopefully charging infrastructure is viewed as an industry wide effort, not something proprietary to each company.�
Jun 3, 2011
emq Sorry to correct you: 2x70A DC means 70A x 500V DC = 35kW The S might have max 400V x 70A =28kW 80kWh/28kW ca. 3h
emq�
Jun 3, 2011
richkae Like I said before in another thread, there will have to be a J1772 adapter on top of any proprietary connector on the car.
If they make that adapter 1) lock to the car, 2) capable of being left attached to the car with the charge door closed so it is just like a native J1772 connector - then I dont care.
The Roadster dangly 3 foot wire thing is a horrible disaster of a solution.�
Jun 3, 2011
TEG That is fine for Tesla vehicles (e.g. Model S) that want to do opportunistic charging at non-Tesla "public" infrastructure, but what about non-Tesla cars that want to use Tesla EVSEs? Will we have another Tesla proprietary connector on some new charge stations? We have already seen how that can work with public HPCs that are only for Roadsters.�
Jun 3, 2011
Eberhard no 2x70A X 500V DC = 70kW on mennekes instead AC 3-phase + Neutral (4 lines), DC with 2 lines plus(+) and 2 lines minus(-).�
Jun 3, 2011
richkae There is no reason why a fast DC charge station cant have multiple cords hanging off it.
It could have a CHAdeMO cord, a J1772+DC cord, a Mennekes cord and some other cord.
You swipe your card and you enter what type of car you have ( or it knows from your card ) or which cord you want - and the machine unlocks the appropriate cord.
If the box is $25000, each additional cord and plug option is probably only $500�
Jun 3, 2011
qwk Yikes, I guess it's good that the model S will have a front trunk, because it will need it for all of the adapters. This decision definately isn't helping with the negative EV perception by average people. Looks like more ammo for big oil. sigh...�
Jun 3, 2011
GSP I cannot believe Tesla will not include a J1772 connector on the Model S. They are too smart to make such a huge blunder. I certainly will require a J1772 connector for any future car purchase.
I expect that this report is just a mis-understanding, and the Model S will indeed have a J1772 connector. Tesla is likely keeping the connector secret to enable a last minute decision about CHAdeMO vs. J1772DC for the fast charge connector. Will J1772DC be ready in time? Which one will be the de-facto standard for fast chargers in the US?
Also, how will Tesla support 3-phase? Probably by using the Mennekes connector on European cars, but maybe Tesla has different solution that they don't want to announce yet.
GSP�
Jun 3, 2011
vfx Stupid
Stupid.
Stupid!�
Jun 3, 2011
Eberhard instead of a single one-phase charger with 90A they can do 3 single phase charger at 32A then it does not matter how it is configured. The efficiency is even higher at lower rates, when only one charger will be used.�
Jun 3, 2011
qwk I wouldn't count chickens until they hatch. There may NOT even be 3-phase support.�
Oct 4, 2011
donauker Probably all true but the computer is really just a few tiny chips nestled in the corner of the connector box. Not unlike the RFMC I use all the time.�
Oct 4, 2011
dpeilow For computer read PIC controller costing pennies.
What might be more of a problem is the insertion force of the CHAdeMO into and exertion out of a small box or adapter. And live 50kW plugs on the ground.�
Oct 4, 2011
Kevin Sharpe you'd be waiting for hours to charge a Model S using this power level.... I just don't see a family doing this after traveling just ~200 miles�
Oct 4, 2011
donauker I am visualizing a box with a padded back and an appropriately shaped coated hook to slip into those spokes of the back wheel...�
Oct 4, 2011
Doug_G That is very wise, in my experience. Most people can't imagine how they would use a new product, and give bogus answers based on past experience that isn't applicable.
Well one would hope they would not blindly follow the data, either. You can't assume the data will remain the same if you change some of the input variables!
My Model S will be used much like my Roadster, only I would take more road trips with it. That's a bias. I would take more road trips with it because it has more trunk capacity, more comfort, more passenger capacity, more range. Also charging infrastructure is currently nonexistent here, and I expect it will get better (fast DC chargers on the 401!).
The data from my Roadster shows that I charge at 40A most of the time. What it won't show is why. It won't show how much I wish I had 70A available (or better) when on road trips. It kinda becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy when the lack of high power charging infrastructure on the road limits the number of high-power charges I do.
As valuable as the Roadster data is, you have to take it with a grain of salt, too. You need to understand why those patterns currently exist, and understand how they will change with a different product.
They're also extremely busy, and most of them aren't driving an EV daily. It certainly doesn't hurt to express your views.�
Oct 4, 2011
TEG Yes, but customized code to speak CHAdeMO costs how much R&D $ ?�
Oct 4, 2011
donauker I suspect this could be handled by some of the owner community. The problem I see is, will the high power Tesla connector be available without buying a $40,000 HPDC charger or will it be possible to upgrade the connector of the UMC to handle 50 kW?�
Oct 4, 2011
doug Good points.
Two years ago I saw JB give this talk during which he showed this slide:
Concluding that most the time spent charging was using the MC120 (now called the spare connector) and thus 120V, 12A was good enough for most folks. Can anyone remember why this data might be biased?�
Oct 4, 2011
TEG Whereas a company might be OK to let various EVSEs plug into their vehicle (for instance "who knows what" could be on the other side of a J1772 adapter), I am thinking they might not be so flexible about external DC chargers going to their pack. With AC, their own charger will handle turning AC into appropriate DC and charging the batteries "safely". If someone manages to "Macguiver" some random off-board DC charger to their charge port, they might be at risk of battery damage if the external charger doesn't behave their same as their own "factory authorized" charger.�
Oct 4, 2011
TEG Was there a conclusion before that we are supposed to remember?
Right now I can think of some reasons it might be biased:
#1: Stuck charging off of 120V because the customer was waiting for a MC240 to become available...
#2: Stuck charging off of 120V because the customer was waiting for permits to get an HPC installed...
#3: Stuck charging off of 120V because there were no public HPCs nor J1772s with adapters until very recently.
(I bet the [email�protected] has gone up these days from people using the J1772 cable at public J1772 stations.)�
Oct 4, 2011
doug Basically #1. Also the HPC which was previously supposed to come with the car got turned into an expensive option.
Would like to see an updated histogram.�
Oct 4, 2011
Doug_G I suspect a new histogram would be somewhat different. It was almost a year before I even took the cable tie off the spare connnector.�
Oct 4, 2011
SByer My thoughts:
- CHAdeMO is insufficient for real long term targets (600Mi range, 340Wh/mi for an SUV, target a 30min 80% charge).
- The current connector standards aren't optimal - J1772 really kind of sucks, or at least the plastic-y crap we see now does (and the combo looks just plain stupid), and connecting an adapter cable is nearly no extra work.
- Getting a standard protocol robust enough and cross-tested enough to use the same pins for AC and DC across mfrs. has a snowball's chance in hell.
- Things are still very fluid.
I look at that and say "gee, it'd be nice to have one standard, but it wouldn't let my battery/connector/recharge time stand out".
If you believed that you could always get an adapter down to 1/2 brick sized, and support it and the connector off the side of the car, why wouldn't you go with a new connector as long as things were this fluid?
And, don't forget, the WAF of the Roadster connector is pretty close to zero. CHAdeMO is pretty close to that, J1772 not far behind that. Mennenkes is quite a bit better, but still not really in the same ballpark as that sleek, light Model S connector.
And what if you think that, in 3 years, you could get the cost of an external DC charger down to that of the high-powered on-board AC converters. And the size down to a shoebox. But you can't quite bet on that completely, yet.
I think that Tesla has made a valid, not easily dismissible bet. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.�
Oct 4, 2011
Norbert Yes, given the amazing Tesla connector as an alternative, the reason to use CHAdeMO would be the future network built with Nissan's support, which seem to become a 50 kW network. And while I'm happy for Leaf owners about that, it won't really be the network which Model S and Bluestar owners will want, and I'll just assume that Bluestar will also have a 90 kW ability. That's a major selling point. 50 kW and 90 kW is a significant difference. Since Tesla has already recognized the need to start building the network (at least initially), we at least won't have to wait for others to discover the business model. And with Tesla's larger range, it won't need as many stations, and not necessarily in the same locations.
While CHAdeMO is theoretically capable of more than 50 kW, it seems that would happen only far in the future if at all. (And even if there were select stations with more than 50 kW, they might be frequently occupied by Leafs using them at 50 kW). So the alternative would be SAE DC combo (or Mennekes DC combo), but that's probably still more than a year away from being even agreed upon, and there still aren't any plans announced to actually implement either that or anything else at 90 kW, by the "big three" in Detroit (or any european manufacturer). Of those, Ford is apparently closest to building a pure EV, but we wouldn't know the DC rate it might support, if any, and whether Ford would be willing to support a DC network (one which would be useful to Tesla owners). And after seeing the Tesla connector, I just wouldn't be happy having to use those big combo connectors. One could even argue that if Tesla wants 90 kW (as in: more than 50 kW), which is certainly what I want as a future customer, using some other connector might be helping the future competition more than anyone else, and make things only more difficult (and more expensive) for Tesla, still being a small company.�
Oct 4, 2011
Eberhard If tesla would offer an external 3-phase 30kW charger for the triple price of the 10kW extra onboard charger option, i will do that.�
Oct 5, 2011
jkirkebo So why not offer CHADeMO as an additional option ? It would not need to be externally accessible, a connector inside the frunk would be fine with me. I'd happily pay $2k for such an option.
Without it I can't see getting a Model S. I seriously doubt Tesla will install a hundred DC chargers in Norway, and without them I'd be limited to 16A charging. No way we go on a road trip and wait 24 hours for a recharge. So it seems the Leaf will eventually be replaced with a Leaf "2.0" and not a Model S
�
Oct 5, 2011
Kevin Sharpe I think this is where Tesla have dropped the ball.... the reality in Europe is that a CHAdeMO network is being built and we will have thousands of Tesla competitor cars driving around and using it. I'd much rather work with my Leaf friends on building a mutually beneficial network than try to build a proprietary one for Tesla.
I think Tesla have excluded a very large number of potential customers in Europe by removing access to the CHAdeMO fast charge network. For me the Model S would be an ICE replacement and I cannot use it if I can only drive 200 miles with the family and then wait for hours to recharge.�
Oct 5, 2011
Norbert Why do you think there won't be such an option? I was referring to the primary connector. I'd expect that DC doesn't require a conversion, only a translation of signaling, which would require not much more than a small micro-controller, if it can't be done in software, although I wouldn't know what it takes to make CHAdeMO's extra pins happy. It seems to me that the door on the port would allow an additional mechanical connection which would hold a box just large enough for a CHAdeMO plug, and that could be locked to the car.
100 chargers would be $2.5 million at $25,000 each. Not exactly an astronomical sum, however if using $500 per car, it would require selling 5000 Model S or Bluestars, so I wouldn't expect it to happen very quickly. However, on the major highways, it might give you a number of 90 kW chargers sooner than anything else.�
Oct 5, 2011
Kevin Sharpe I agree that CHAdeMO is not the Network that Tesla customers want BUT it will be the network that is actually on the ground in Europe and Tesla should use that to accelerate sales.
I do not believe that Tesla will be able to finance a practicable fast charge network in Europe (probably true of the US as well). I also doubt that many third party sites will spend thousands installing a proprietary solution when for the same (less?) money they will be able to install CHAdeMO that supports thousands (millions?) of cars.�
Oct 5, 2011
Norbert A 90 kW charger has the advantage that it can serve more cars in the same time. 50 kW is just a bit slow for long trips, though not impossible. I do agree it would be nice to have a CHAdeMO adapter box, as I wrote above. But with the range of the Model S, and 90 kW chargers on main routes, not many will have to use it very often.�
Oct 5, 2011
jkirkebo 50kW is ~200mph charge speed. For us that would mean 2 hour drive and 30 min recharge or 4 hour drive and 1 hour recharge. Fine by me, we take such breaks anyway.�
Oct 5, 2011
vfx Any chance at all that Tesla has devised a way of doing this with less pins? Something really clever?�
Oct 5, 2011
doug They may drag their feet on it, but I'm sure Tesla will make some sort of CHAdeMO adapter. I don't think it will be that hard to translate the signaling, and the PLD or whatever they use can probably fit inside a compact adapter. Though, they'd better reinforce the inlet on the car side to make it robust enough to hold that huge connector (as they should for J1772 and the Roadster connector as well).
Anyone find out how Tesla is doing the signaling for DC charging? Are they reusing the proximity or control pilot pins?�
Oct 5, 2011
TEG I asked... They wouldn't say...�
Oct 5, 2011
doug Tesla's 2012 Model S Charging Equipment. Redesign For Redesign's Sake?�
Oct 5, 2011
widodh I like that article!
It's about the same as everybody here has been saying, they might have based it on this topic?�
Oct 6, 2011
VolkerP Article states that the Model S DC charging protocol is compatible with CHAdeMO. Anybody heard this, too? From which source?�
Oct 6, 2011
Norbert Going at 50 mph? At highway speeds, 50 kW is more like 150 mph charging speed, which would be about 1 hour 10 min drive at 30 min recharge, or 2 hour 20 min at 1 hour recharge. Which can be done once in a while, but isn't how the mainstream would want to travel.�
Oct 6, 2011
Fuzzylogic I think they use the control pilot signal, as the J1722 spec already has a duty cycle of 5% reserved for digital communication:
from the spec:
A duty cycle of 5% indicates that digital communication is required and must be established between the EVSE and
vehicle before charging. This is required for DC charging. Digital communication is optional at any valid control pilot duty
cycle for AC Level 1 & 2 charging.�
Oct 6, 2011
Kevin Sharpe you have to factor in the fact that you'll be driving past all of the 50kW DC and 44kW AC Charging Stations to find the mythical Tesla 90kW charger.... we should deal with the reality on the ground and use the existing infrastructure while we wait for Tesla (or more likely the drivers) to supply the chargers.
When the Model S is delivered in the UK there will be a lot of fast DC and AC installed... none of which the Model S will be able to use if Tesla stick to their current plans. So effectively you'll have a 200 mile range car (fully loaded at highway speeds) and then face a charge of many hours at 10kW... that is not how the mainstream want to travel.�
Oct 6, 2011
dpeilow I seriously do doubt it's the same. CHAdeMO has 2 CAN pins, 4 analogue pins and ground, in addition to the power pins. They could drop the redundant analogue part but it's not clear if the charger would still operate.
But perhaps they've kept the CAN and spoof the rest in the adapter.
From CHAdeMO Technology
Incidentally, CHAdeMO allows for 200 A connectors which would be 100 kW on the usual 500 V charger voltage, so many of these rapid chargers being deployed are underpowered.�
Oct 6, 2011
Kevin Sharpe I asked Nikki on twitter and she replied "At the press briefing and event at Tesla, thought engineers said Mechanically incompatible, but electrically okay"�
Oct 6, 2011
doug Well, Nikki's not an engineer, so maybe she misunderstood. Certainly something can be adapted electrically as well as mechanically. The charging engineer I spoke with (and I kinda gave him a hard time) was quite clear that the signaling was not CAN based like CHAdeMO, though he wouldn't specify what scheme they were using. A CHAdeMO adapter would be possible but you'd need to translate the signaling. It, however, does have the same signaling as J1772 for Level 1,2 charging, just like the Roadster.�
Oct 6, 2011
doug A control pilot duty cycle of 5% indicates that digital communication is required, but does it then use that same pin for digital?�
Oct 6, 2011
widodh Not even EVSE for AC charging!?
That is really disappointing on top of everything we've seen! That would mean you can't charge at a J1772 or "Mennekes" charging station without some kind of hardware doing translation of the signal.�
Oct 6, 2011
doug No no.. reread what I said (and you quoted). "It, however, does have the same signaling as J1772 for Level 1,2 charging, just like the Roadster." Single phase Mennekes should be fine (though lets hope they have a 3-phase solution by the time that becomes an issue).�
Oct 6, 2011
vfx The battery guy (with JB standing there) said they have looked at the Roadster charging data (+10,000,000 miles worth) and saw the 40Amps was where by-far most people are charging. So that makes sense from the perspective of what most EV owners need but as we all know, there is a lot of public that don't drive EVs that think they need charge boxes everywhere and the faster the better. They have picked a battle that requires educating the public. Not an easy task.�
Oct 6, 2011
jkirkebo Our average speed on road trips turns out to be around 45mph, according to the trip computer in our VW Touran. Many roads over here have 43mph speed limits, most of the rest have 50mph. A few have 56mph or 62mph.�
Oct 6, 2011
jkirkebo No car exists yet than can use more than 125A so no wonder they don't yet deploy faster chargers. 125A on the Leaf is about 45kW (battery voltage 360V).�
Oct 6, 2011
rsquared99 VFX - I don't understand. You mean all of those 5 to 6 hour charging sessions I spent at RV sites charging at 40 amps is interpreted as all I "need?" It's all that's available. Now, if they're just talking about what people are doing at home where they are deciding how quickly to complete a charge, then I guess that makes sense.�
Oct 6, 2011
widodh Sometimes I need to read better...
It really depends, since I guess that 40A is the max available, not the max people want.
If you look to Europe, you'll find that 16A or 32A is the most common, since we are simply not able to use more�
Oct 6, 2011
doug It's possible they haven't worked out the details yet.
Looks like maybe the Betas are still doing DC charging through the trunk using a separate connector.
(Note the cables in that rear left pocket. Pics from Tesla Model S test ride - Engadget Galleries.)
Alpha:
(TEG's photo)�
Oct 6, 2011
vfx It's just the middle of the bell curve. Of course there are exceptions. I too have done the crazy cross country non stop 18 hour drives in an ICE and charged my EV in crazy places i wish would fill my batteries faster. Those stories are the minority. No one car can fill up everyone's needs.�
Oct 6, 2011
Eberhard JB Straubel told me, that the 10kW charger (40A) fills even the biggest pack through the night and consider this as being enough. For quicker charge, there is a second 10kW charger as option, but you need a wallbox.
For long distance rides, tesla will setup a charging network using 9x 10kW charger in a external DC setting, charging within 45min to 80% SOC�
Oct 6, 2011
strider I guess that's a question I have, if you opt for the second charger, will there be a second charge port on the other side and you'll use 2 L2 EVSE's or will they simply push more current through the main connector? If there will be two plugs then that could be an option for those who want the charge port on the right side.�
Oct 6, 2011
Eberhard The powertrain architekt told me, that both charger are tied together charging from one port. i would prefer to charge from different phases (3-ph) without a wallbox.�
Oct 6, 2011
Norbert I haven't heard of a plan *not* to have adapters. On the contrary, I've heard there *will* be adapters. They just don't have anything to announce yet, and it seems they are still working on things.�
Oct 6, 2011
Norbert The best would be if there is a port on both sides (perhaps optional), but you only need one even for 2*10 KW AC...�
Oct 6, 2011
vfx Aaagh.
As it is I can never remember which side my ICE car's gas hole is.�
Oct 6, 2011
widodh Yeah, the DC story is clear.
But you know, 10 kW AC in europe is not possible without 3 phase support�
Oct 6, 2011
Kevin Sharpe so, you were told that they will have an adapter for CHAdeMO?�
Oct 6, 2011
Eberhard with 2x10kW = 2x7,2kW with 32A = 14,4kW�
Oct 6, 2011
Norbert As far as I know, there was only the general statement, no specific ones, not even a definite one for J1772 AC, it was only pointed out that there is electrical compatibility.�
Oct 6, 2011
widodh Only true in Europe if both chargers are connected to a different phase�
Oct 6, 2011
TEG Yeah, I was also told that one port would feeds both charger boxes. Yes, having two ports so you could run two cables (one to each charger) would offer some charging options not available with only one. Remember the old Jaguars with the gas filler holes on both sides?![[?IMG]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uCSzn8CiPRYeT5shTjDHGtMFYSpFlqAaqgKtAmlfwp6gbcLhqUZ8ZgRDNpg4SkHs2aOLIaN1MFXUD2ziSKmCgSr_FooSEU_pxNXzSbbv5Z=s0-d)
�
Oct 6, 2011
Kevin Sharpe OK, thats what I understood.... and I think that rules out the Model S for many in the UK until we get support for CHAdeMO or an extensive fast charge Tesla network.�
Oct 6, 2011
Norbert Because specific adapters haven't been announced yet? It will take some time until Model S will be sold in the UK, and while in the US there aren't any fast chargers yet (except maybe a handful), a CHAdeMO adapter will likely be asked for in the US as well. (It will also still take a while until Nissan brings the less expensive $10k charger to Europe and the US, since they want to start in Japan.)�
Oct 6, 2011
dpeilow They are bringing the less expensive one here in January.�
Oct 6, 2011
Norbert Good for the Leaf. I don't think that is a competitive problem for Tesla.�
Oct 6, 2011
VolkerP This assumes you have two charge ports and you can feed the on board chargers with different phases. I don't think they can work independent of each other, so you are limited to one phase.
Latest residential electric installations in Germany are 3phase 240V with 3x50Amps fuse ("Hausanschlusssicherung"). The cabling is rated for 63 amps and you can upgrade to 63amp fuses but they charge you for that. All legacy installations (back to WW2) have 3x63 amps without extra charge (so, utilities found a new way to generate money for nothing).
Basic thing is, you will blow one of that fuses if your house is using one of them and at the same time you max it out charging your EV. To get on the safe side, I would draw 34 amps at most from the 50 amp installation, and 47 amps at most from the 63 amp installation. This gives 8.2kW/11.3kW for the AC charger and a remaining max power of 3.6kW (tea water boiler) for that phase. AND it is in violation of electric code that limits single phase load to 32A/7.7kW.
So you may come close to that 10kW of the on board charger or even use a little bit of the optional second one, but it is illegal and you are prone to black out your house.
Call that a customer friendly solution based on charging data? For a car that will cost >55k Euro ($74k) and is promoted to be the best sedan in its class, beating every ICE?
Viable solutions I see:
- a connector capable of 3 phase, 32A and an on board 22kW charger, or
- a wall box with 3phase 240Vx326A input and 22kW DC output (with Tesla plug & DC charger protocol) for home charging, or
- a similar mobile device, perhaps limited to 11kW for reasonable weight and size, or
- a really quick roll out (mid-2013) of the Tesla fast DC charger network.
sorry long post.�
Oct 6, 2011
GSP I bet they are using the new SAE DC charging protocol. It doesn't require extra pins like ChadeMo.
GSP
Edit: Info on SAE DC charging protocol:
http://ev.sae.org/article/10128
"SAE J1772 goes further still by uniquely defining communications between an EV/PHEV, off-board charger, and the smart grid. Power Line Communications (PLC) is defined in SAE J1772 as the technology for enabling these vehicle-to-grid communications, without requiring changes such as the addition of another pin to the coupler architecture.
That's where IEEE comes in. PLC implementations from both the HD-PLC Alliance and HomePlug Powerline Alliance are based on IEEE 1901-2010, the world's most mature, robust, and advanced Broadband over Powerline standard. And the IEEE 1901 Inter-System Protocol prevents interference when the different PLC implementations are operated within close proximity of one another."�
Oct 6, 2011
doug You know, I think you're right. In a slightly different context that same charging engineer mentioned PLC. So maybe they're waiting for the details of the SAE protocol to be worked out. That would explain a lot. When I asked to see the 90kW charger the guys I spoke to implied it was held together with bailing wire and duct tape. So for the Beta event they had nine 10kW chargers rigged together and likely plugged it in through the trunk with the cabling seen here.�
Oct 6, 2011
Kevin Sharpe I'm primarily interested in the UK, with secondary interest in mainland Europe. The US has very different requirements which I understand and respect. The real question is whether Tesla are interested in European customers for the Model S... if they are then they need to solve the 3-Phase and CHAdeMO problems before they launch the car.�
Oct 7, 2011
jcstp i guess when they want to sell in Japan it would be advised!
Japan has a chademo nearly at every corner of a street ;-)�
Oct 7, 2011
dpeilow
That's not my point. There will be lots of these cheap chargers on the ground by the time the S arrives. Don't forget that Nissan are working with Siemens to do this, so they will likely not even be Nissan branded and certainly will not be at Nissan locations.
Also as CHAdeMO can support 200A at >500V it would make sense if Tesla pushed the consortium to make the chargers take full advantage of the specification.�
Oct 7, 2011
doug I think Tesla is still working out the details of their DC charging, but will likely have an adapter for CHAdeMO. You know the Europeans are also working on a combo version of the Mennekes connector which will probably have the same signaling as the SAE J1772 combo. So if the EU goes that way they'll also need a CHAdeMO adapter, unless the CHAdeMOs get changed over.
I'd be more concerned on the AC side, since the otherwise awesome connector Tesla has shown is incapable of delivering 3-phase.�
Oct 7, 2011
Norbert I know, I have already said that I'm in favor of a CHAdeMo adapter, and like Doug I consider it likely.
Or ask Nissan to use the Tesla connector.
Fast chargers and their connectors don't have to look like gas-pump wannabes.�
Oct 7, 2011
widodh I hope so
Why another new connector? If we want the adoption of EV's to speed up we do not need even more standards! I already feel stupid when I have to tell people a 100 k Roadster cant do fast charging like the Leaf...
Again, the Mennekes connector does everything we want. AC with 70 A single phase and also 63 A 3 phase, but also DC for fast charging.
Standards, OPEN standards, th�t is what we need!�
Oct 7, 2011
tomsax Depending on when the data was collected, it may have only included the first 200 owners, which I'm sure would skew the data because all of those Roadsters included an HPC, and I'll bet that group has different demographics than the larger owner community. I'm a little surprised there isn't a bigger spike at 40A for all the Roadster owners who saved half the cost of an HPC by getting an MC240 or UMC for charging in their garage and on the road. That does make it look like the data is exclusively or mostly from the very early Roadster owners.
Regardless, the data has very limited utility. Data doesn't lie, but people can easily draw wrong conclusions from it.
The chart tells us nothing about how any individual owner charges their car. It also only shows how people charge given what the Roadster allows, the cost of the various charging units, the state of public charging infrastructure, and how those together limit what's practical and convenient.
From the chart, it's easy to conclude that about half of Roadster charging is done with a 70A HPC with the car set to take all 70A. Does that mean people need 70A charging in their garage? Definitely not, that's just what happens if you buy an HPC, throw it on the wall and plug the car in without thinking about any possible benefits of charging at a lower current setting. However, some of the 70A charging is happening on longer road trips where 70A is critical. That chart doesn't give us any idea how often owners would benefit from even faster charging. It also doesn't tell us how often the Roadster gets left in the garage because of a lack of available public charging at sufficient rates to not be a huge pain.
The chart shows a big chunk of charging at 120V/12A. How many owners were satisfied with 120V charging? What portion of that is because people were pissed that Tesla changed the HPC from included in the base price to a $3,000 add-on? How many owners were waiting for the MC240 or UMC be become available? What portion is due to owners not having access to 240V where they park their car? What portion of that is people going on road trips and getting by just fine on 120V charging?
We got our LEAF two weeks ago and just got our J1772 charging station installed and inspected today. We've been charging on 120V and it's been totally adequate. It would be even easier with the Roadster where I could do my normal 20-to-40 mile daily driving and get charged overnight. If I do a long 150-mile drive, I can still add 40 to 50 miles of charge overnight and have plenty for typical drives until I build back up to a full charge over the next several days. Does that mean 120V would work for every Roadster owner? Definitely not.
To be clear, I'm really disappointed that the LEAF has an anemic 3.3 kW on-board charger. I think it's stupid they didn't max it out at the full 19.2 kW that the J1772 standard supports. With that, you could charge a LEAF faster than a Roadster from just a simple, cheap Level 2 station.
I think it's much more interesting to look at the charging behavior of a single owner, so how about me? To create the following chart, I used the new data aggregation feature added by my log parser that RichKae is using to collect data for his battery longevity study.
The above chart shows the number of hours spent charging at different current levels, with 120V showing at half the amperage, including time spent with the current tapering off near the top of a charge, over a period of 2 years and 19,000 miles. If you want to play along, look at the chart and see what you can tell about how we charge our Roadster. Below, I'll tell you what the chart means and what it doesn't say.
We used to charge at 40A at home because that was more than fast enough for overnight charging while staying away from low current levels that are less efficient, and it reduced the load on our panel. We've owned a RAV4-EV since 2008, and we generally set timers so we don't charge both at the same time, but lowering the Roadster's current level to 40A means we're using less than 70A even if the Roadster and RAV are charging at the same time.
After I did my analysis of charge rates and efficiency, I concluded that charging at 32A had nearly the same efficiency as higher current levels, was still plenty fast, and further reduced the load on our panel, and was maybe a tiny bit nicer to the battery pack.
In all this time, I've only charged our Roadster at home at 70A once, for the charging efficiency study. (We have used it to charge the Roadsters of friends passing through town on long trips, our quiet contribution to charging infrastructure, but that's not reflected on the chart.) So basically, the 70A charging is all on road trips.
But the spike at 70A only tells part of the road trip story.
Some of the 40A charging is on the road, some of which was fine at 40A getting us charged while we did something fun, some of it was painful, killing time at an RV park.
The 70A spike doesn't tell you that driving from Seattle to Portland used to be painful, requiring staying in the right lane to do 55-60 mph while dodging the big trucks. That drive got so much more pleasant when we got an HPC installed at the midpoint of the drive at the Burgerville in Centralia. Now we can blast down the road at whatever speed is appropriate, pop into Burgerville for a quick bite and 20 minutes of charging, then cruise the rest of the way to Portland with no SOC stress. With a bit longer stay, we could even do the drive comfortably with a standard mode charge.
The charts says nothing about how adding a 70A HPC in Ellensburg made the 310-mile drive from Seattle to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, very doable with just a long lunch break partway through the drive. It would be even better with another charging opportunity between Ellensburg and Spokane.
The charts also says nothing about all of the road trips we just don't even consider in the Roadster because of charging stations we don't have. If we want to do a drive like that, we need to rent gas-burner. Tesla seems to think the range on the Roadster is so large that no one needs to charge away from home. That's true for most people's daily driving, but it's just not true if you want an electric car to completely replace a gas car.
The Roadster is not a great car for long drives. The ride is rough and noisy. The passenger doesn't benefit from the fun driving factor, making the car less suitable for long drives with someone else. I assume the Model S will be much better as a car, especially for the passengers, so road trips will be even more constrained by charging infrastructure. Tesla has to get this right, and they won't get it if they just look at aggregate Roadster data and ignore what Roadster owners tell them we want.
I think the 10 kW on-board charger option is dumb. Although most everyone will be totally happy with 10 kW at home, especially with the big battery pack that can handle occasional long drives and still be fine for the next drive even if not fully charged the first night back home. The Model S seems like it will be a great road trip car, even with base 160-mile battery. You only get the advantage of the big battery once per day, after that it's all about charge rate. Tesla will not be able to cover the whole country with quick chargers along the route to every small isolated community where people have friends and relatives they want to visit. For those trips, owners will want the maximum charge rate possible and it will always be easier to fund maxed out Level 2 chargers than DC fast chargers at strategic spots. It'll just make owners mad if they get the 10 kW on-board charger and then want to drive somewhere not covered by Tesla's promised fast charge network.�
Oct 7, 2011
richkae I totally agree with Tom.
One concept I believe is important is something I call "plug-hours" ( or plug-minutes ). Any given plug has 24 plug hours in a day. An individual user may have 4 hours to spend charging and need 24 kW and is happy to charge at 6kW for those 4 hours, it makes no difference to him if he charges at 12kW for 2 hours instead. However they have used 4 plug hours, when they could have used 2. Someone else has been frozen out of that spot for all of those 4 hours and it wasn't necessary.
Slow level 2 chargers suck, slow charging cars in a fast level 2 charger suck even more.
Even if a network of level 3 chargers blankets the country every 100 miles or so on the interstate, there will always be a place for fast level 2 charging.
A 70-80 amp level 2 charger is really only a couple hundred dollars worth of wire, circuit breaker and connector, they will always be at least an order of magnitude cheaper than a level 3 charger.
For small fleets, private networks/businesses, they are the cheap way to extend the network.
If I am on a long trip and I can choose between a 1.5 hour level 2 charge in the parking lot of a restaurant where I want to eat, and a 30 minute level 3 charge in a rest stop where there is nothing to do - I will choose the level 2 charge. The goal is that you charge when you need to stop, not stop when you need to charge.
If by the time my Model S is ready there are level 3 chargers every 100 miles where I think I want to go - I may still want 20 kW of level 2 charging available in my car.�
Oct 7, 2011
Lloyd I agree with both Tom and Rich,
The problem will be as I have shown in other threads, that nobody will produce a higher power EVSE'S if there are not cars that will accept them. In my letters to Eaton, it was apparent that they had at least some prior knowledge to stop their planned production of 70 amp EVSE'S . The only manufacturer of high power level2 EVSE'S is Clipper Creek.
Expansion of the 70 amp EVSE'S will require;
1. People to order cars that require or can utilize their potential
2. Manufacturers to produce and deploy high power level2 EVSE'S
3. The DCPower level3 charging network to not be deployed adequately
4 Owners to drive their cars farther than their home charging range
I believe that Tesla is looking at the level3 network as an income stream. I don't expect level 3charging to be free!�
Oct 7, 2011
richkae I think they will have a hard time generating income with it.
If I do a 1-2 week long road trip from Seattle to SoCal, I'll need to use the level3 chargers about 6 times round trip.
If I do that twice a year, thats a total of 12 times. I don't anticipate needing fast charging for any weekend getaway - not with 320 miles range.
If they bill too much for the charge, then the lamestream media will be all over them saying that electric isn't cheaper than gas.
I think the government is going to screw up the "public charging network" so badly that there will be room for private charging networks - and they should consider a membership fee and a really low per charge cost.�
Oct 7, 2011
Norbert A while ago Elon said in the beginning they will be free, and later, should they get extensive use, they will add a card reader to them. So they won't expect to pay for the fast chargers by the fees (at least not initially), but by having an extended market to sell to.�
Oct 7, 2011
Lloyd At $40000 each, and 10 cents to 28 cents per KWh plus instalation, maintenance and ground lease. I don't expect them to be free for long.
How about a poll....... What would you expect to pay to fully charge your 90 KW battery in the S assuming the above?�
Oct 7, 2011
Norbert $25k for an installation, is the number given so far by Elon. I'd expect them to become cheaper over time. (Nissan is talking about $3k to $4k for a 50 kW charger, hardware only, in a few years, and that probably won't the end of it.)�
Oct 7, 2011
Lloyd Still, someone is paying!�
Oct 7, 2011
richkae One hundred installations could probably support 100,000 Model S/X vehicles and give good coverage in most of the U.S.
Thats 1 per 1000 cars.�
Oct 7, 2011
Doug_G For the occasional road trip, I don't mind paying a premium. Here in Ontario an 80% charge would be $10 of electricity. I'd happily pay $20, because gas would have cost twice that. I'd tolerate $30 but I'd wonder about it. $40 would definitely be gouging; at that point I might as well bring an ICE instead.
On the topic of subscriptions, I am vehemently opposed to the concept. Look what is happening in the UK. You sign onto one network and pay a monthly subscription, and you still can't travel around efficiently because the networks are too sparse and you can only access a small fraction of the chargers out there because they're all on different networks. You don't want to pay three, four, five subscriptions! Plus why would I want to pay by subscription when on a daily basis I simply don't need charging infrastructure. I charge in my garage. What I need is charging infrastructure on highways, to facilitate road trips and completely eliminate the need for owning an ICE vehicle.�
Oct 7, 2011
richkae I agree that the subscription model is offensive.
I just dont see a good business model in fast charging at all, I think it has to operate as a loss leader - at least for a long time because of the chicken and egg problem.
There are only 2 groups that are interested in operating fast charging:
#1 is the government and they will screw it up. They are either incompetent ( hello 30amp level 2 charging ), or they are being sabotaged by the ICE interests. I think both.
#2 are the EV manufacturers themselves. Tesla and Nissan.
A fast charging network helps them sell cars. They can try to save their own money and hope the government does it and not screw it up - but that is a dangerous game. Unfortunately it is a much more dangerous game for Tesla than Nissan. They have much much more to lose.
Luckily, 100 chargers at $20,000 each is only $2 million. They need willing hosts to shoulder the costs of individual installations.�
Oct 7, 2011
Born 2 Skydive Why don't we start with wireless charging and forget about wires and connetors. Found an interesting website, Delphi Wireless Charging System�
Oct 8, 2011
Kevin Sharpe I have no doubt that most subscription based services here in the UK are doomed. The only pay for use service that has any hope is Quick Charging at service stations that are located on major trunk routes. That is why we are working to educate the owners of these business's that only 50kW CHAdeMO and 44kW "mennekes" are worth installing. All other charging will be at home/work and range extension when parked for several hours (including overnight stays away from home).
Within a few years every UK Hotel, B&B, Pub, Restaurant, and Activity centre, will have multiple 32A (~7kW) AC Charging Stations installed. I believe that in most cases they will be free to use or covered by a simple parking charge.
32A AC Charging Stations are incredibly cheap to purchase and install - the 32A "mennekes" Charging Station that ZCW donates has a expected retail price of �250 ($390) when it enters mass production during Q1.�
Oct 8, 2011
Kevin Sharpe I cannot see many hosts paying to install a Tesla fast charger for the occasional 45 minute visit by a Model S. However, I can see lots of hosts paying to install a 'free' CHAdeMO fast charger because of the sheer number of Leaf's and other cars on the road that can use it.�
Oct 8, 2011
dsm363 Maybe if Tesla paid them to host the charger but that'd drive up installation costs. Tesla put it on themselves to build out a charging network (unless this someone becomes a standard) so they need to do it right. Just covering a few routes on the east and west coasts of the US won't cover all of their owners.
This has turned into a discussion about the Tesla charging network. Maybe a new thread is worth it.
I created the thread Tesla DC charging network for discussion about Tesla's future charging network.�
Oct 9, 2011
Leafer UMC 2.0 vs Chadmo
Does the Chadmo have any technical engineering advantage over the Tesla UMC 2.0?
If not, then Nissan ought to get on the Tesla bandwagon (or maybe Toyota?).
I just can't see petite women holding that monstrous Chadmo connector.�
Oct 9, 2011
TEG We don't know enough about the specs of the Tesla solution to say yet.
Maybe CHAdeMO could be more robust with that heavier/bigger plug/socket?
The only thing they showed so far is the UMC2.0 with thin wire for low(ish) current.
It will be interesting to see how a fatter cable (for 90kW DC) fits into that little plug.
I don't know why CHAdeMO decided they need such a big connector, nor how Tesla thinks their little one is acceptable. It seems like it is a big difference. Is Tesla's is as reliable and safe as CHAdeMO then 'nice job' making things more user friendly like that.
CHAdeMO can charge multiple types of vehicles (LEAF, iMiEV, etc.), so one can only hope that the Tesla DC fast is flexible enough to be compatible with anything that might interface to it.
But Tesla might try to keep it only for charging Tesla vehicles...�
Oct 10, 2011
doug To be clear, the UMC (Ultra Mobile Connector) 2.0, like the RFMC (Roadster Foundry Mobile Connector) or the UMC (1.0?) for the Roadster, is a strictly AC device. UMC refers to an entire unit which includes an interchangeable wall plug, an inline lump of electronics (which generates the control pilot signal to tell the car how much current it can draw), and the Tesla connector.
You seem to be referring to this new Tesla connector. We never had a proper name for the previous Tesla connector, but I suppose we could now call them the "Roaster connector" and the "Model S connector" for the old and new, respectively.
So to try to address your question, "Does the CHAdeMO have any technical engineering advantage over this new Model S connector?" I think it's too early to say. The Model S charging connector Tesla has shown is certainly more compact and Tesla is claiming 90kW which is more than most CHAdeMO installations are expected to offer in the near future. But the details of how this new Model S connector is to handle DC have yet to be disclosed by Tesla.
As to other car companies getting on the band wagon, that would require Tesla making their Model S connector readily available. Something they never made easy for the Roadster connector.�
Oct 10, 2011
mpt Level 2 charging is free today; the benchmark has been set... The cat is out of the bag. I think it's just a matter of time before the whole membership card thing is over.�
Oct 10, 2011
mpt I wonder how that connector's going to look when it's rigged for 90KW operation? At 500V that's 180A so 00AWG or even 000AWG wire; that's chunky. If I understand the table correctly, that'll be almost �" across for each conductor.
American wire gauge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia�
Oct 10, 2011
widodh I thought this thread was the best to reply to your post: Umc 2.0
I also had my doubts when I saw the connector Tesla designed. How the hell are they going get 90kW through that connector/cable!?
The standards in Europe are tight. For 125A you need a cable with a diameter of 35mm2, that is thick and heavy! To me the connector doesn't seem capable for that.
The CHaDemo connector is bulky, but it seems much better equipped for handling the 50kW (or 100kW).
I have my doubts if Tesla can get the connector certified in Europe for 90kW.�
Oct 10, 2011
TEG The only cable we saw was for UMC2 9.6kW.
I suspect that the HPC2 cable would be fatter, and the 90kW DC fatter still.
But, yeah, it is amazing if that little plug/socket can handle the same (or more) than the big CHAdeMO or other DC fast charge plugs which are MUCH larger.
I also suspect that they may be doing DC charging through a different plug/socket on the prototypes, and may not have fast DC through that new little plug/socket ready yet.
They did say the "little guy" was for both AC + DC, right?!
If for some reason the 90kW DC didn't work out they have the other flap on the other side of the car they could use for a dedicated DC socket...�
Oct 10, 2011
TEG Yeah, I am wondering that too. The cable could be almost as large around as the whole plug end...�
Oct 10, 2011
widodh True, the cable we saw was for 9.6kW max. But, the connector was not, it was "the real thing".
Psst, they were swapping batteries during the event, not quick charging them
Correct, I was told "the little guy" was for AC and DC, over the same pins.
They might indeed use another socket for the real 90kW, since I don't see 90kW going over that connector.�
Oct 10, 2011
Doug_G Yes, they definitely did.�
Oct 10, 2011
Norbert That was my question as well, and the reply was that for 90 kW, the cable would be thicker. (And maybe a hint that the connector would look different as a consequence, but still the same interface.)
If you look at the SAE or Mennekes combo plugs, the DC thingys themselves aren't that large either, it's the whole "combo" arrangement, and the surrounding handle, which turns those things into monsters.
For us engineers or enthusiasts, these monsters might be acceptable since we enjoy technology, but for the average customer they will be scary, and the small elegant (and light) Tesla connector, will be an assurance that they can handle fast-charging with ease. In this discussion, I think there is a good amount of ignorance about what a significant advantage it will be to have such an "easy" connector in order to get the technology accepted by the mainstream. They'll think "Well, if that's all it takes... maybe fast-charging is a feasible solution after all". And that's what it is.�
Oct 10, 2011
Doug_G Worse, the table is for solid wire; you have to adjust for total copper area, which means a stranded cable will be larger.
On the other hand, they could use higher temperature insulation, such as PTFE. I assume the insulation ratings are based on a generous safety margin, so the cable isn't going to be "boiling hot".
I would assume the connector would have solid copper inside. The maximum current carrying capacity of copper is 4000A/sq-in, so they can funnel the current through the smaller diameter connector pins as long as they make sure they won't overheat. Pretty easy to do when they're attached to a big block of copper.
Still, the DC cable is going to make the Roadster cable look like a spaghetti noodle.�
Oct 10, 2011
Doug_G The thin cable is for home use, and it will overcome day-to-day concerns about handling big heavy cables. On the other hand, the DC fast charge cable will be a beast, but since you'll only use it once in a while it shouldn't be a barrier to acceptance. People will gladly struggle with a monster cable once in a while to get a 45 minute charge on a road trip.�
Oct 10, 2011
TEG Will the new small plug/socket be physically strong enough for the bulk of a heavy gauge fast charge cable hanging off of it?
Part of CHAdeMO and SAE/Mennekes combo is physical robustness to handle the torque of the cable weight.
I think I saw some charger prototypes with a spool that holds some of the cable weight in the air. Similar to some gas pumps.
By the way, what's up with this cable handle on this CHAdeMO? :
Physical weight of the cable starts to become a usability concern for the fastest quick charging.�
Oct 10, 2011
TEG Somebody (other Doug?) I think said it was silver inside. Perhaps just a silver coating?
Silver is awesome for conductivity, (right?), so it could support a smaller connector?
But isn't silver an expensive way to go? And isn't it subject to tarnish / corrosion?
(Why not make it gold?!)
Anyways, I think Tesla may be trying to win the "smaller plug/socket" game by virtue of superior materials where possible.�
Oct 10, 2011
Doug_G Silver is slightly (~7%) better than annealed copper for electrical conductivity. In comparison the difference between copper and aluminum is huge. It would help modestly, albeit at a cost. I don't think a coating would help; it would have to be solid.
Gold is worse than copper for electrical conductivity. It's used for coatings in electronics because of its corrosion resistance.�
Oct 10, 2011
Mycroft My understanding is that Tesla is using solid unobtainium for their cables. :tongue:�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét