Can I use the SAE J1772 EVSE I have with Leaf?

[garygid]

Thanks.
With the DCQ there already, then an L2, 120, and 240 would be useful categories.

The "access fee" (maybe min-max) would also be helpful.
I see this one is $7 at night, perhaps more in the daytime.

Maybe Private, Locked, CC (charge card required), etc. should also be included.

In December and January, substantial numbers of "new" EV drivers will be appearing on the road.

 

[Spies]

and here ("news story"). ( In the news story, ignore the "Woodside" it's a typo. )

Egads! A response from the article "I wonder how long it will be before some enterprising and knowledgeable DIYer cuts off the cord for use at home."

I certainly hope no one cuts of the cord and suspects me of using it for my project!

 

[garygid]

MTTCO (mean time to cut off) a "public" J1772 e-fuel cord: 2 to 4 weeks?

 

[AndyH]

Can anybody tell us how the "old" pilot signal was different?

I do not (yet) have a copy of the old J1772 standard, not to be confused with the new J1772 standard!

If something is marked as meeting the "new" J1772 standard, how is it marked, to distinguish it from the "old" certification?

It's outlined in the current J1772 standard. There are a number of links on this forum to a PDF copy of the Jan 2010 J1772 spec. All your answers are there.

 

[AndyH]

The (probably) first "new" J1772 installation in Woodland, CA.

See http://www.evchargernews.com/regions/95776_1.htm (not yet updated),

and here (updated with comments),

and here ("news story"). ( In the news story, ignore the "Woodside" it's a typo. )

This was covered on this site back in May.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=3231#p3231

 

[LEAFer]

This was covered on this site back in May.

Naturally, you are correct ... 10 days before I joined (boy was that a "hassle" trying to come up to speed on all the useful info on this site)

 

[AndyH]

We covered a lot of ground quickly early on. I just wish it was easier to find. I start feeling senile when I think something was posted here then can't find it. :lol:

 

[LEAFer]

I start feeling senile when I think something was posted here then can't find it. :lol:

No, it's not "senility" ... you do eventually find it, or think of it ... or remember it ..., and that's why I call it "delayed intelligence" ! :lol:

 

[AndyH]

... and that's why I call it "delayed intelligence" ! :lol:

Thanks! I like that a LOT better! :lol:

 

[garygid]

Looking through the Jan 2010 J1772 "standard",
I see no indication that the old-standard "Pilot" signal was different.

Maybe I missed it?
Maybe I need a copy of the "old" standard?

The "proximity" signal might be new?

Please, where (what page) is any significant difference in the Pilot signals indicated?

Thanks, Gary

 

[AndyH]

Looking through the Jan 2010 J1772 "standard",
I see no indication that the old-standard "Pilot" signal was different.

Maybe I missed it?
Maybe I need a copy of the "old" standard?

The "proximity" signal might be new?

Please, where (what page) is any significant difference in the Pilot signals indicated?

Thanks, Gary

Start on page 31:
"Appendix A - History EVSE EVSE/Vehicle Interface"

 

[garygid]

Yes, the "old specs" in Appendix A (starting page 31) seem to be basically compatible with the "new" control pilot specs. The old specs are in voltage ranges, and the new specs are in resistance values, but the target voltages and nominal values appear to be the same.

Although an old and new vehicle system might possibly be incompatible, that seems unlikely.

The old and new EVSE pilot signal level specifications appear to be the same (+/- 12v, 1000 ohms).

I found no mention of a change in the pilot duty-cycle definition.

There might possibly be a subtle difference in handshake states or error states, and I will have to read the new handshake "sequence" (state table) more carefully.

Thanks

 

[AndyH]

Paragraph 2 on page 33 seems important:

These voltage ranges are no longer part of the SAE 1772 Specification.

 

[garygid]

Right, the new standard specifies the same target (nominal) voltage values (12, 9, 6, and 3 volts), but does not specify "voltage ranges". Instead, it specifies Resistance ranges, which essentially give equivalent results.

Voltage values are the result of resistances on both the car and EVSE sides of the J1772 connector. So, there was no way a car designer could "meet" the old specs for "just any" EVSE. But, the car maker CAN meet the new resistance value specs, independant of any EVSE. Of course, the car still depends upon a "compatible" EVSE to achieve working voltages sufficiently close to the "nominal" voltages.

Most likely, that is why Nissan says they require a "compatible" EVSE (for charging to work properly).

 

[AndyH]

The voltage ranges are how the vehicle and EVSE report Vehicle states. I disagree with your 'resistance' theory as page 14 table 3 appears to be working in discrete voltages not in resistance values. Table A2 on page 33 lists the 'original' voltage ranges while Table 1A on page 32 lists the current ranges. They're different.

This isn't about the pilot signal, though.

I don't have all the answers, and haven't used an earlier J1772 EVSE. What I do know, which is accurate only for me, is that there appear to be enough differences that I won't use an earlier EVSE until I either get clearance (with or without modifications) from the manufacturer (putting the responsibility on their shoulders), or check every aspect of operation to make sure it's 100% compatible (and put the responsibility for any damage on my shoulders).

Andy

 

[evnow]

I find it somewhat "penny wise - pound foolish" to not get a certified EVSE for $800 - after spending $26K on the car. Mainly because this is V1 and not many things are known. A year or so down the road - would be a different matter.

 

[garygid]

About Table A1, the first sentence of section A.1.3 says:

"Table A1 is not intended to imply that ... voltages must remain within the minimum and maximum voltages shown."

In any case, you are correct, it is BEST to get the equipment verified or "certified" that it meets the "new" (Jan 2010) standard.

 

[cleanauto]

We are also former EV Plus owners with an EVI MS100-3 EVSE (installed in April 1997). We've upgraded it to J1772 thanks to help from the folks at Clipper Creek. We just tested the unit this afternoon, and everything works great. The EVSE switches as it should, and the pilot signal is just what a J1772 vehicle would be expecting (double checking on a scope). Now we just need the car.

Try contacting Dave Packard at Clipper Creek ( [email protected] ) to ask about buying a new cable and J1772 connector assembly. It's nice to know that our old friend the MS100 can keep working with our next EV.

Tim
near Sacramento, CA

 

[LEAFer]

Welcome, Tim !
And thanks for that info! Great "reuse" of existing resources :!:

 

[Spies]

We are also former EV Plus owners with an EVI MS100-3 EVSE (installed in April 1997). We've upgraded it to J1772 thanks to help from the folks at Clipper Creek. We just tested the unit this afternoon, and everything works great. The EVSE switches as it should, and the pilot signal is just what a J1772 vehicle would be expecting (double checking on a scope). Now we just need the car.

Try contacting Dave Packard at Clipper Creek ( [email protected] ) to ask about buying a new cable and J1772 connector assembly. It's nice to know that our old friend the MS100 can keep working with our next EV.

Tim
near Sacramento, CA

Freaking sweet! Happy dance! Thanks for the info Tim. I used the [email protected] email address from the Clipper Creek web site and had not heard back yet so thank you for the contact information. Sending the email now.

Would you be so kind to tell us what the total cost of the retrofit was? Did the pilot signal module need to be modified?