MikeD said:
Neither Phil nor you proved what caused the failure -- apparently neither of you tested or even examined the Blink's melted connector really closely. You all are only speculating based on testing another Blink connector -- and even that testing did not reveal any out-of-spec conditions so far as has been documented.
We didn't look at the connector "closely"? Really? Speculating? The Blink / Rav4 connection got hot enough to melt it. It could have ultimately burnt my house down. That's not speculation.
Your assertion that my situation is not "out-of-spec" is blatantly incorrect; a failure IS out of spec. So, for logical and methodical folks like Phil, he tested another Blink connector... Same problem, one hotter pin. Then tested a different non-Blink device to isolate the issue... viola, works fine.
Then, a careful examination revealed a faulty pin. I'm not sure what your background is, but your criticism reminds me of the Phoenix range test critics. I've actually professionally built aircraft wiring harnesses and troubleshot failed "terminations". It's not rocket science. Just looking at the Blink pin in Phil's pictures, I would have rejected that termination without even measuring resistance, etc.
"Keep in mind, these are only 30 amp Blinks and the Rav4 can take 40 amps." -- especially in the context of the rest of your post I read this as strongly implying that because the Rav4 on-board charger can draw as much as 40 amps the 30 amp Blink is even more likely to melt down -- which I'm pretty sure you would agree is incorrect. Any 30 amp rated Blink should never have a charger that it is connected to draw more than 30 amps (including the one in your Rav4).
The Blink did not exceed 30 amps. I posted the actual measurements. My sentence reflects that the Rav4 can take more than the Blink can deliver, yet there was still a problem.
Tony, please clarify this portion of your post if my reading of it is not what you meant to say. Isn't it important that you be as accurate and as fair as possible? You don't want people to get an erroneous understanding of important issues, do you?
I think the J1772 standard is marginal for mass public consumption at 30-80 amps. It's even silly that that the standard doesn't include over temp protection, that CHAdeMO wisely included, and at least one car has (Honda Fit). The Rav4 should have this, too. I should be getting my components soon to make Phil's modification to my car.
did they add some kind of protection to your Rav4 while it was repaired?
We will know if Toyota "blames" the Blink product if they retract approval of these. Currently, it is on the approved list. Nothing was added, nor would I expect them to "experiment" on my car, particularly without my knowledge.