WetEV
Well-known member
A sh!thole is far easier to manage than a polite library. Paying Nazi's to post hate isn't "free speech".
The library is far more useful.
charging infrastructure supporting NACS
- Thread starter cwerdna
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
A sh!thole is far easier to manage than a polite library. Paying Nazi's to post hate isn't "free speech".
The library is far more useful.
As someone who owns both CCS and Tesla cars, my opinion is that the Tesla plug is wonderful while the the best thing I can say about the ergonomics of CCS1 is that it is better than CHAdeMO, although that is faint praise indeed.
Tesla just implemented AC V2H and V2L on the Cybertruck. What is hard for you may not be hard for them. Ford also has AC V2H , albeit rarely heard about because it is freaking expensive. Both are using the J-1772 pins and protocol so I'm unsure what you are carrying on about, other than FUD fueled by your dislike of Tesla. And to be clear, your anti-Tesla agenda was no less strident back when you were crowing about Tesla's impending BK
As for Musk, he has turned into a quasi-trumper and white supremacist. Not someone I would normally support, but Tesla is far and away superior, and they continue to pursue their mission statement to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. That matters more to me than Musk's Eugenics garbage. Lest people think Musk's ideology is an outlier -- not in Silicon Valley. The difference is he says what he thinks, much to the angst of his company shareholders
Last edited:
salyavin
Well-known member
I too do not trust Tesla or their network but as long as the other networks do not go out of business it should be OK. Don't like gas station chain 1, go to chain 2. That means we need at least 2 DCFC (from different networks) every hundred miles or so. EA has reliability issues and has even done a software upgrade taking the network down for a moment during a busy time. For me Chargepoint has been great. EVGo has some old chargers out there that could use some love. Blink well they are often on the Blink. EV Connect often doesn't. In the end though if we can make it simple so that there is just one connector it is easier. Where I am we have had to even escort timid people to a DCFC with their new EV because they were for some odd reason afraid of CHAdeMO vs CCS but are somehow OK with diesel vs unleaded and you cannot physically connect the wrong connector for an EV.
WetEV
Well-known member
But not on the NACA plug, which can't support it.
Oh, and the NACA plug is no longer the "Tesla plug", as is soon to be the SAE J3400 standard.
As for my anti-Tesla agenda, I suggest you review my old postings. I wasn't always anti-Tesla. Not a fanbouy, of course, but Tesla or Musk wasn't evil. Yet.
For example:
https://mynissanleaf.com/threads/tsla-corporate-outlook.20321/page-40#post-518647
I’ve owned 5 Leafs from 2015-2023 model years. I currently own 2 Tesla Model Ys and now a Ford Lightning. . Tesla NACS makes EV road trips easy.
We really like the Teslas but not the man.
CHAdeMO and CSS is a joke compared to Tesla NACS for simplicity, ease, reliability and availability.
We loved the leafs for local travel. They were nimble, reliable, comfortable and inexpensive to operate. Just not a long distance vehicle due to lack of reliable and available CHAdeMO DC fast charging sites.
The Ford Lightning with the ER 131 kWh battery rides great, it’s comfortable and has a great cruise control and lane keeping. It has quirks but I’d rate it one of the best vehicles I’ve ever owned. The only reason I bought one was after the announcement that they would be using NACS next year. CSS is better than CHAdeMO.
The Teslas are nimble, have comfortable seating, efficient, handle great but have a stiff ride. Road trips are a dream. My 80 year old single woman friend just completed a 2,800 mile round trip from Florida to Chicago and back by herself. She didn’t suffer any range anxiety the whole trip due to availability of Super Charger stations and speed of charging.
We really like the Teslas but not the man.
CHAdeMO and CSS is a joke compared to Tesla NACS for simplicity, ease, reliability and availability.
We loved the leafs for local travel. They were nimble, reliable, comfortable and inexpensive to operate. Just not a long distance vehicle due to lack of reliable and available CHAdeMO DC fast charging sites.
The Ford Lightning with the ER 131 kWh battery rides great, it’s comfortable and has a great cruise control and lane keeping. It has quirks but I’d rate it one of the best vehicles I’ve ever owned. The only reason I bought one was after the announcement that they would be using NACS next year. CSS is better than CHAdeMO.
The Teslas are nimble, have comfortable seating, efficient, handle great but have a stiff ride. Road trips are a dream. My 80 year old single woman friend just completed a 2,800 mile round trip from Florida to Chicago and back by herself. She didn’t suffer any range anxiety the whole trip due to availability of Super Charger stations and speed of charging.
Hmmm... seems our world has taken yet-another step into an era where different blocs of countries have different de-facto standards for EV charging. That'll be rough on consumers in countries such as New Zealand (where I live), because we'll have to deal with several only-vaguely-compatible charging protocols for the EVs we import.
The established automotive firms in Japan and the USA had originally "agreed" to interoperate on CHAdeMO; and SAE gave its seal of approval with J1772.
Europe's automotive industry took a different path: CCS2.
Nobody in Japan or the USA pushed CHAdeMO along very energetically, and SAE's latest version of J1772 was in 2017. China steamed ahead with GB/T.
In recent years, Tesla has pushed -- very successfully! -- for NACS to become the de-facto standard in the USA. SAE has acknowledged this, giving its "seal of approval" in its very-recently-published NACS Electric Vehicle Coupler J3400_202312. I'm guessing that this standard doesn't specify anything more than the physical dimensions and the basic electrical characteristics of a socket and a mating plug. But I'm not going to pay USD195 to SAE merely to be one of the first outside its current membership to know if my guess is correct.
It took about a dozen years to work, by many engineers at many firms, to develop the large family of standards which allow CCS2-interoperability.
A press release from SAE put it this way: "The standardization process is the next step to establish a consensus-based approach for maintaining NACS and validating its ability to meet performance and interoperability criteria."
So, this is a very interesting article. My immediate reaction on seeing the title was disbelief -- having been in enough discussions with Tesla fans / EA haters, pointing out that the CCS1 plug itself wasn't (mostly) the problem -- but it seems like SAE has taken the opportunity of a new standard to make some potentially valuable changes that aren't strictly related to the plug, mainly on the AC (J1772) side. For one:
"The main reason for [list of benefits] is the standard is preserving NACS’ support for 277 volts, as opposed to the 208-240 voltage of J1772. This simple change unlocks a cascade of benefits that should smooth out several charging problems."
Gotta admit, I had no idea Teslas supported 277V AC. This will be something for NACS-to-J1772 adapter-using cars to watch out for, assuming they can't actually support it. Another:
"The NACS standard includes a provision that would enable the installation of chargers in lampposts, something that we’ve seen trials of in London. There have been similar efforts in the US, but those are subpar because the J1772 standard requires a permanently attached cable, which means that streetside cables get dropped, broken, laid around, and otherwise abused.
The new NACS standard instead uses a standardized receptacle – which is, in fact, the same one used in the EU and China – which can be plugged into with a ~$100-200 carry-along cable that EV drivers can keep in their car (and the receptacle does have a locking mechanism)."
And apparently what they mean by this is that they've specified a cable which is NACS on one end, and, of all things, Mennekes (AKA Type 2) on the other. I agree entirely with the rationale here, but it's a weird (and belated) way to see it come about.
bruceha2000
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 61
Who in the USA has 277V coming from their service panel??? How will this affect home chargers/charging?
henrydehoja
Well-known member
This 277V circuit benefit won't affect typical US home charging stations. It will affect public charging stations.
The original article provides info on it:
https://electrek.co/2023/12/15/saes...d-itll-fix-every-ev-charging-problem-at-once/
cwerdna
Well-known member
Haven't read the article yet but the 277 volt issue has been known for ages. The Model 3 didn't support it initially while the S and X did. It also is a possible issue if someone uses a NACS to J1772 adapter on a 277 volt WC but their car doesn't support it.
I've pointed this out for years.
https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/c...destination-chargers.50223/page-3#post-857428https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/charging-while-in-the-southwest-while-traveling.34561/#post-529896https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/277-v-ac-charging.36009/#post-554588
It won't. To clarify, in case it's needed, the 277V represents a new high end to the AC range that a compliant car accepts; it's not a replacement for the whole 208V-240V range of J1772 level 2. That is to say, you should just read it as 208V-277V (although it's not strictly necessary for a car to accept that entire range, but that's probably the easiest way to implement it, anyway).
P.S. While 277V won't affect home charging, the other part -- detachable cables -- probably will. Expect to see EVSEs sold separately from cables. In fact, we might see the same models of EVSE sold in both Europe and North America now, with only the Mennekes port for output. Maybe that will bring economies of scale, too.
Last edited:
Tony 240
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2023
- Messages
- 41
I am a licensed electrician from Canada the 277 volt is probably just 2 wires plus a ground, so in North America we have 240 Volt my way of understanding this is the 277 Volt charger would just take 10% longer to charge.
I don't think that is how it will work. My understanding was the charger can take 277 but the connections weren't rated for it. Now that has changed.
Like the current 6.6Kw charger on the Leaf, if supplied with the correct current at the voltage available it will output 6 Kw.
Currently (pun intended) a 240 volt supply need 27 amps to do that and a 208 needs 32 amps to do the same thing. Both will max out the charger at 6 Kw output. At 277 input the current would be less.
The charger changes input to DC and back to A/C for the step up portion and then back to DC again. This is why it can work on varying input voltages and frequencies.
goldbrick
Well-known member
Are you sure the charger converts AC->DC->AC->DC ? I've always assumed it is just AC->DC. I don't understand the need for the intermediate stages. Even for a 'fixed' voltage (eg 240 VAC) there is a fairly broad range that the utility can provide. Frequency is much more tightly controlled but 50Hz vs 60Hz shouldn't be a major factor in AC->DC conversion. For example, the AC adapter on my laptop will work on 50Hz or 60Hz and any voltage between 100V - 240V, according to the label on it.
Tony 240
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2023
- Messages
- 41
I have worked on many Frequency Drives, (which is a inverter) and I can feed almost any voltage single phase or frequency (within reason) and it puts out what it is programed to do with the correct voltage and frequency or weather it is three phase. So then this would probably put the voltage up to the battery voltage (460 DC I think) to charge it
From the 2015 service manual:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
AC power supply which is externally input is rectified to DC power with rectifier circuit 1.
The power factor of the rectified DC power supply is improved by the PFC circuit, and is boosted at the
same time.
The boosted DC power supply is converted again to AC power supply by the inverter.
The voltage of the AC power supply from the inverter is converted by the insulated transformer, and is rec-
tified to high-voltage DC power by rectifier circuit 2.
The rectified high-voltage DC power is output by the output circuit.
Pictorial view from the manual.
goldbrick
Well-known member
Thanks, very interesting. It's also interesting that it appears that Nissan calls the rectified power 'DC' (second picture). I guess it's not AC but it's not what I usually think of as DC either. I've also never heard of a DC power factor but in this case, if that waveform is DC then I guess you could have a DC power factor. Thanks again for the information.
Looking closely at the pictures, I don't see how the insulation transformer (whatever that is....) converts the AC from the inverter to what is shown in the 5th picture. That stage must be more than a simple transformer since the waveform is rectified and boosted. It also seems funny that to send that waveform through a rectifier. I know the pictures are very basic but it seems like a few of them are just copy/pasted into the wrong position or something.
Looking closely at the pictures, I don't see how the insulation transformer (whatever that is....) converts the AC from the inverter to what is shown in the 5th picture. That stage must be more than a simple transformer since the waveform is rectified and boosted. It also seems funny that to send that waveform through a rectifier. I know the pictures are very basic but it seems like a few of them are just copy/pasted into the wrong position or something.
Last edited:
I'm only guessing, but some of this may be used on Regen braking when the output is AC and has to be converted and isolated before going back into the battery.
I wonder if "insulation transformer" isn't badly translated "isolation transformer" and yes, it would need a rectifier on the outlet.
I haven't read through all the manuals and haven't made any claim to fully understand it all either.
I wonder if "insulation transformer" isn't badly translated "isolation transformer" and yes, it would need a rectifier on the outlet.
I haven't read through all the manuals and haven't made any claim to fully understand it all either.
Similar threads
