Chademo killed my new 2018 Leaf

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.
Mike04 said:
Service guy says there was no change to the CHAdeMO port, it is the same hardware and software as earlier models. So hopefully this was a one in a million fluke, the stars and moon alligned just right, and not an issue with the new Leaf.
I find that a bit hard to swallow. Then again I find a lot that I hear from Nissan service guys hard to swallow.
 
RegGuheert said:
Mike04 said:
Service guy says there was no change to the CHAdeMO port, it is the same hardware and software as earlier models. So hopefully this was a one in a million fluke, the stars and moon alligned just right, and not an issue with the new Leaf.
I find that a bit hard to swallow. Then again I find a lot that I hear from Nissan service guys hard to swallow.
Yeah, your prbably right about that. I don't think he would know if something changed.
 
I'm inclined to think it is an EVSE issue and not an Leaf issue.

1 - That EVSE had just previously reported a ground fault error message.
2 - What can the car realistically do back to the EVSE that it wouldn't be designed to handle and would be able to do so if it was working properly? The fact that unit died and smoked means the issue is in that unit. The car's systems likely just got in the way of a nasty spike from an improperly grounded and malfunctioning EVSE.

Of course, I'm not an engineer. Any of you have counter points on the above logic?

Of past issues with the Leaf and AV units, etc., were those issues of the car not charging from them? Or were those issues of the unit dying and killing the car too? I would think the former as that could reasonably easily be fixed with a Leaf firmware update. But the later would be more of an EVSE issue. So I think this must be different than that issue.
 
Either way, you should be getting either a replacement car from Nissan or a check from the EVSE. I'm afraid it could be a while before the correct party owns up to the responsibility and might require legal action to get.

Have you contacted your insurance company? If you have comprehensive coverage, this might fit under that policy. If so, your best bet might be to collect on the claim and let them collect from either Nissan or the EVSE company.
 
DarthPuppy said:
I'm inclined to think it is an EVSE issue and not an Leaf issue.

1 - That EVSE had just previously reported a ground fault error message.
2 - What can the car realistically do back to the EVSE that it wouldn't be designed to handle and would be able to do so if it was working properly? The fact that unit died and smoked means the issue is in that unit. The car's systems likely just got in the way of a nasty spike from an improperly grounded and malfunctioning EVSE.

Of course, I'm not an engineer. Any of you have counter points on the above logic?

Of past issues with the Leaf and AV units, etc., were those issues of the car not charging from them? Or were those issues of the unit dying and killing the car too? I would think the former as that could reasonably easily be fixed with a Leaf firmware update. But the later would be more of an EVSE issue. So I think this must be different than that issue.
The thread is about a CHAdeMO unit, which means this is not an EVSE, but rather we are talking about a charger. IMO, the potential for damage is much higher with a charger since the power levels of the sources on both sides of the connection are so much higher. As such, any violation of the handshaking which occurs with CHAdeMO can be catastrophic. With an EVSE, typically it is only the on-board charger and the AC wiring to it which are at risk.
 
DarthPuppy said:
I'm inclined to think it is an EVSE issue and not an Leaf issue.

1 - That EVSE had just previously reported a ground fault error message.
2 - What can the car realistically do back to the EVSE that it wouldn't be designed to handle and would be able to do so if it was working properly? The fact that unit died and smoked means the issue is in that unit. The car's systems likely just got in the way of a nasty spike from an improperly grounded and malfunctioning EVSE.

Of course, I'm not an engineer. Any of you have counter points on the above logic?

Of past issues with the Leaf and AV units, etc., were those issues of the car not charging from them? Or were those issues of the unit dying and killing the car too? I would think the former as that could reasonably easily be fixed with a Leaf firmware update. But the later would be more of an EVSE issue. So I think this must be different than that issue.

Because it's a charger and not an EVSE, it connects directly to the HV bus of the car. The car could close the contactor on the pack when the voltage from the charger was not close to the voltage of the pack, which could cause a large current to flow.
 
RegGuheert said:
DarthPuppy said:
I'm inclined to think it is an EVSE issue and not an Leaf issue.

1 - That EVSE had just previously reported a ground fault error message.
2 - What can the car realistically do back to the EVSE that it wouldn't be designed to handle and would be able to do so if it was working properly? The fact that unit died and smoked means the issue is in that unit. The car's systems likely just got in the way of a nasty spike from an improperly grounded and malfunctioning EVSE.

Of course, I'm not an engineer. Any of you have counter points on the above logic?

Of past issues with the Leaf and AV units, etc., were those issues of the car not charging from them? Or were those issues of the unit dying and killing the car too? I would think the former as that could reasonably easily be fixed with a Leaf firmware update. But the later would be more of an EVSE issue. So I think this must be different than that issue.
The thread is about a CHAdeMO unit, which means this is not an EVSE, but rather we are talking about a charger. IMO, the potential for damage is much higher with a charger since the power levels of the sources on both sides of the connection are so much higher. As such, any violation of the handshaking which occurs with CHAdeMO can be catastrophic. With an EVSE, typically it is only the on-board charger and the AC wiring to it which are at risk.

This is what they are telling me. It seems it is not so straightforward to determine which is at fault. They sent someome to look at the car this week and I am told he wass not able to determine. A team from the factory in Tennesee is scheduled to come out on Tuesday to look further.

Meanwhile Greenlots has been talking to Nissan and says they are waiting for instructions from Nissan. Nissan tells me my case is going to their committee to decide if I should get a new car from Nissan and they tell me I should hear from them within 15 days.

So I wait.
 
RegGuheert said:
DarthPuppy said:
I'm inclined to think it is an EVSE issue and not an Leaf issue.

1 - That EVSE had just previously reported a ground fault error message.

...
But the later would be more of an EVSE issue. So I think this must be different than that issue.
The thread is about a CHAdeMO unit, which means this is not an EVSE, but rather we are talking about a charger. IMO, the potential for damage is much higher with a charger since the power levels of the sources on both sides of the connection are so much higher. As such, any violation of the handshaking which occurs with CHAdeMO can be catastrophic. With an EVSE, typically it is only the on-board charger and the AC wiring to it which are at risk.
FWIW, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054618/http://www.sae.org/smartgrid/chargingspeeds.pdf considers DC chargers to be "EVSE includes an off-board charger".
 
cwerdna said:
FWIW, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054618/http://www.sae.org/smartgrid/chargingspeeds.pdf considers DC chargers to be "EVSE includes an off-board charger".
Interesting. Thanks for the correction. Makes sense, but I've never heard them referred to as an EVSE before.
 
RegGuheert said:
cwerdna said:
FWIW, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054618/http://www.sae.org/smartgrid/chargingspeeds.pdf considers DC chargers to be "EVSE includes an off-board charger".
Interesting. Thanks for the correction. Makes sense, but I've never heard them referred to as an EVSE before.


Looks like a Category with weakly defined sub categories.... :roll:
 
By virtue of the wording "EV Supply Equipment", this term would logically be the catch all which is how I intended it. On this forum, one would think it is the politically correct term since usually if someone says "charger" they get chastised for not using EVSE.

In this particular case, I see the benefit of differentiating. So the DC units are truly chargers and therefore there is more inter-dependency and vulnerability between the charger and the car? That creates a lot of finger pointing opportunity! I didn't realize that each time I go for a level 3, I was taking that much risk.
 
On this forum, one would think it is the politically correct term since usually if someone says "charger" they get chastised for not using EVSE.

People often come here looking for technical help. Calling one device by the name of another, different device isn't a good way to ensure that this help is effective. I know that in recent years the language in general has been tossed into the toilet, but if people can't be bothered to use the actual names for their car's major components, maybe they should just let the dealers rob them instead.

As phones get smarter, people get dumber.
 
LeftieBiker said:
On this forum, one would think it is the politically correct term since usually if someone says "charger" they get chastised for not using EVSE.

People often come here looking for technical help. Calling one device by the name of another, different device isn't a good way to ensure that this help is effective. I know that in recent years the language in general has been tossed into the toilet, but if people can't be bothered to use the actual names for their car's major components, maybe they should just let the dealers rob them instead.
Amen.
 
DarthPuppy said:
By virtue of the wording "EV Supply Equipment", this term would logically be the catch all which is how I intended it. On this forum, one would think it is the politically correct term since usually if someone says "charger" they get chastised for not using EVSE.

In this particular case, I see the benefit of differentiating. So the DC units are truly chargers and therefore there is more inter-dependency and vulnerability between the charger and the car? That creates a lot of finger pointing opportunity! I didn't realize that each time I go for a level 3, I was taking that much risk.

"charger" is a fairly idiotic term too. The component is an AC to DC rectifier.
 
SageBrush said:
"charger" is a fairly idiotic term too. The component is an AC to DC rectifier.

Err... No.

AC to DC rectifying after filtering produces a DC voltage near the peak voltage. 120VAC is 120V RMS, and about 170V peak. The battery pack needs near 400 V, and also needs the current controlled. This is what a charger does.

V(line) => rectifier => filter capacitors => charger => V(battery)

I built my first charger for rechargeable batteries (Ni-cad) back in 1975. Have you ever built a battery charger?
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
"charger" is a fairly idiotic term too. The component is an AC to DC rectifier.

Err... No.

I forgot about the step up in voltage. So a rectifier and converter if AC ->DC is the first step,
or a transformer followed by rectification if the voltage change is first.
 
DarthPuppy said:
By virtue of the wording "EV Supply Equipment", this term would logically be the catch all which is how I intended it. On this forum, one would think it is the politically correct term since usually if someone says "charger" they get chastised for not using EVSE.

In this particular case, I see the benefit of differentiating. So the DC units are truly chargers and therefore there is more inter-dependency and vulnerability between the charger and the car? That creates a lot of finger pointing opportunity! I didn't realize that each time I go for a level 3, I was taking that much risk.
IIRC 'EVSE' stands for 'Electric Vehicle Safety Equipment.'
So the term is meant to emphasize the handshake, logic and switches. The power is not modified as it passes through the EVSE.

A ChaDemo station performs EVSE type functions with the car and in most instances AC to DC as well as a voltage change before sending the power to the car. If you use 'charger' to mean rectification and/or converter/transformer duties, then the station is a combination EVSE and charger.
 
LOL. I had originally put EV Service Equipment but decided to look up the correct translation before I posted. It is Supply Equipment.
 
PgTzsa9.gif
 
Back
Top