Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

While I'll be the first to be critical of Tesla in a lot of cases, It's
likely the supercharger rates are set to cover the demand fees that are
charged by most utilities.  It can easily be tens of thousands of dollars a
day for a supercharger site with 250kW capability.

The rates they charge definitely vary quite a bit over the network.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 8:39 PM EV List Lackey via EV 
wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2023 at 21:11, Jay Summet via EV wrote:
>
> > Ignoring the hybrid fuel cost red hearing (as the hybrid won't get
> > 43mgh on the freeway,
>
> Sportage Hybrid: EPA rating: 42 city, 44 highway, 43 combined.
>
> I used the EPA ratings for the EV6, too.
>
> I don't see or smell any herrings here, either red or blue.
>
> >  0.12c per mile vs 0.14c per mile is so close that most American's
> > won't care about the difference.
>
> Again, it's not 12 (actually almost 13) cents vs 14 cents, it's 8 cents vs
> 14 cents.  That's a much larger difference.
>
> > it's not polluting at the tailpipe
>
> Believe it or not, this isn't a high priority for the average vehicle
> owner.
> I wish it were, but it just isn't.
>
> Look, our Kia  buyer has already paid 75% more for the EV6 than he would
> have for a similar Sportage hybrid ($51,400 vs $28,815).  So now he should
> also pay 75%  more for his fuel on a road trip?:  Really?
>
> > still seems like a reasonable price for the public good.
>
> Some folks will pay more for the sake of the public good.  That's
> altruism.
> I like it.  But a lot won't.  Those latter people need a little nudge to
> do
> the right thing. Basically, you have to bribe them.
>
> I don't see any such nudges coming from Tesla, that's for sure.  Not at
> those kind of charging costs.
>
> Obviously Musk has seen the other kind of green and decided that he likes
> that kind better.  Nothing wrong with him making a profit, but I'd like to
> see him cut with the "we're saving the world with EVs" hypocrisy already.
>
> Google at least had the decency to bury "don't be evil" when they went
> over
> to the dark side.  How about Tesla?
>
> David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey
>
> To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my
> offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>  I distrust people who know well what God wants them to do, because
>  I notice that it always coincides with their own desires.
>
>  -- Susan B Anthony
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/832c74ac/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[EV List Lackey via EV]

On 21 Jun 2023 at 21:11, Jay Summet via EV wrote:

> Ignoring the hybrid fuel cost red hearing (as the hybrid won't get
> 43mgh on the freeway, 

Sportage Hybrid: EPA rating: 42 city, 44 highway, 43 combined.   

I used the EPA ratings for the EV6, too.   

I don't see or smell any herrings here, either red or blue.  

>  0.12c per mile vs 0.14c per mile is so close that most American's
> won't care about the difference. 

Again, it's not 12 (actually almost 13) cents vs 14 cents, it's 8 cents vs 
14 cents.  That's a much larger difference.  

> it's not polluting at the tailpipe 

Believe it or not, this isn't a high priority for the average vehicle owner. 
I wish it were, but it just isn't.  

Look, our Kia  buyer has already paid 75% more for the EV6 than he would 
have for a similar Sportage hybrid ($51,400 vs $28,815).  So now he should 
also pay 75%  more for his fuel on a road trip?:  Really?   

> still seems like a reasonable price for the public good. 

Some folks will pay more for the sake of the public good.  That's altruism. 
I like it.  But a lot won't.  Those latter people need a little nudge to do 
the right thing. Basically, you have to bribe them.  

I don't see any such nudges coming from Tesla, that's for sure.  Not at 
those kind of charging costs.  

Obviously Musk has seen the other kind of green and decided that he likes 
that kind better.  Nothing wrong with him making a profit, but I'd like to 
see him cut with the "we're saving the world with EVs" hypocrisy already.  

Google at least had the decency to bury "don't be evil" when they went over 
to the dark side.  How about Tesla?  

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 I distrust people who know well what God wants them to do, because 
 I notice that it always coincides with their own desires.

 -- Susan B Anthony

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[Jay Summet via EV]

On 6/21/23 18:50, EV List Lackey via EV wrote:


At 28mpg (Kia Sportage ICEV), fuel cost per mile = $0.128

At 43mpg (Kia Sportage Hybrid), fuel cost per mile = $0.083

At 29kWh / 100mi  (Kia EV6), electricity cost per mile = $0.142



Ignoring the hybrid fuel cost red hearing (as the hybrid won't get 43mgh 
on the freeway, and if you are not doing a road trip, you'd charge at 
home), 0.12c per mile vs 0.14c per mile is so close that most American's 
won't care about the difference.


Plus, it's not polluting at the tailpipe. And, if you charge at home 
it's a lot cheaper, so you'd really only charge at a supercharger for 
road trips...and if the price is close to that of gas for road 
tripsstill seems like a reasonable price for the public good.


Jay
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Tires

[EV List Lackey via EV]

On 21 Jun 2023 at 18:05, Lee Hart via EV wrote:

> I'm finding it difficult to find any 13" tires

You might try here:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/sizes/results.jsp?diameter=13

I see Vredestein 145/13s and Kumho 155/13s.  No clue about their rolling 
resistance.

Don't bother with the homepage.  It's been dumbed down and thinks that it 
knows better than you what you need. 

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 Imagine if workers hired consultants and "compensation 
 committees," consisting of their peers at other companies, 
 to recommend how much they should be paid. The result would be 
 -- well, we know what it would be, because that's what CEOs do.
 
-- Matthew Stewart
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

[EVDL] Tires

[Lee Hart via EV]

A recent comment reminded me: I need new tires for my Lectric Leopard 
(Renault LeCar) EV. Stock size is 145/80R13, but 155/80R13 also fit. The 
rims are 4.5" wide, so a wide profile tire isn't a good fit.


I'm finding it difficult to find any 13" tires, let alone low rolling 
resistance ones. Yet I know there are small EVs and other cars that have 
used them. Does anyone know of any sources?


Lee

--
Whatever the problem, be part of the solution. Don’t just sit
around raising questions and pointing out obstacles. -- Tina Fey
--
Lee Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, www.sunrise-ev.com

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[EV List Lackey via EV]

On 21 Jun 2023 at 14:41, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:

> the experience at a Tesla supercharger with Magic dock ... 

"Most are $0.49/kWh ... Idle fees, which are charged if the car is left 
alone at the charger after being fully charged, are $1.00/minute."

The Kia EV6, tested in the article, is similar in size to their Sportage. 

Tesla has said for years that they're promoting EV use as a public good.  
Are they?

Current US average gasoline price $3.58/gallon

At 28mpg (Kia Sportage ICEV), fuel cost per mile = $0.128

At 43mpg (Kia Sportage Hybrid), fuel cost per mile = $0.083

At 29kWh / 100mi  (Kia EV6), electricity cost per mile = $0.142

Hmmm.

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 Research (noun): Searching the internet until you find a source 
 that agrees with what you already believed.

-- Anonymous
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

Looks like the list is throwing away any most my posts with HTML, here's a
retry:

This was a good read and they had a video.  It shows how the experience at
a Tesla supercharger with Magic dock is about is good, or maybe even worse
(parking problems) than using another public CCS station:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/ev-chargers/how-well-do-tesla-superchargers-work-for-non-tesla-evs-a4713673565/

Particularly note the pic of the Lucid charging that needed to block 3
stalls.

You can see there's really no way Tesla is going to OK using existing
short-cabled V3 pedestals for 3rd party use widespread.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:00 PM John Lussmyer via EV 
wrote:

> So, it's NOT a technical problem - it's a business/licensing issue.
> If Ford (or GM) offers enough money, it could happen. (remember,
> Standards aren't)
>
> On 6/21/2023 12:47 PM, (-Phil-) wrote:
> > No.  If you read the Official NACS document I linked to a few posts
> > ago, the ONLY communications protocol supported is PLC (DIN 70121),
> > they do not list the single-wire CAN legacy supercharger protocol in
> > any of these released documents because they absolutely will not
> > support 3rd party use of it.
> >
> > >
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/ac881aa4/attachment.htm
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/f4b8a943/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

This was a good read and they had a video.  It shows how the experience at
a Tesla supercharger with Magic dock is about is good, or maybe even worse
(parking problems) than using another public CCS station:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/ev-chargers/how-well-do-tesla-superchargers-work-for-non-tesla-evs-a4713673565/

Photo, Lucid needed to block 3 stalls:

Link:
https://article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/w_652,f_auto,q_auto/v1678891331/prod/content/dam/CRO-Images-2023/03March/Cars/CR-Cars-Inline-Supercharger-Lucid-Side-3-23

You can see there's really no way Tesla is going to OK using existing
short-cabled V3 pedestals for 3rd party use widespread.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:00 PM John Lussmyer via EV 
wrote:

> So, it's NOT a technical problem - it's a business/licensing issue.
> If Ford (or GM) offers enough money, it could happen. (remember,
> Standards aren't)
>
> On 6/21/2023 12:47 PM, (-Phil-) wrote:
> > No.  If you read the Official NACS document I linked to a few posts
> > ago, the ONLY communications protocol supported is PLC (DIN 70121),
> > they do not list the single-wire CAN legacy supercharger protocol in
> > any of these released documents because they absolutely will not
> > support 3rd party use of it.
> >
> > >
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/ac881aa4/attachment.htm
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/71ea8398/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[John Lussmyer via EV]

So, it's NOT a technical problem - it's a business/licensing issue.
If Ford (or GM) offers enough money, it could happen. (remember, 
Standards aren't)


On 6/21/2023 12:47 PM, (-Phil-) wrote:
No.  If you read the Official NACS document I linked to a few posts 
ago, the ONLY communications protocol supported is PLC (DIN 70121), 
they do not list the single-wire CAN legacy supercharger protocol in 
any of these released documents because they absolutely will not 
support 3rd party use of it.


>


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/ac881aa4/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] [GGEVA] Magic Dock

[(-Phil-) via EV]

121 natively, so it can speak to other EVs.  The only adapter needed
> will be passive (no protocol conversion electronics), as the supercharger
> will speak both Supercharger protocol and PLC native.   Tesla will probably
> not want 3rd party adapters of dubious quality to be used on their sites,
> so I doubt they will authorize this.
>
>
> If the adapter is passive, how will Tesla prevent 3rd-party adapters?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:10 PM Lawrence Rhodes <
> primobass...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> https://evadept.com/tesla-supercharger-to-ccs-adapter-guide/ Sorry for
>> the confusion. Here is what is designed to work at Superchargers for CCS
>> vehicles. Lawrence Rhodes
>>
>> _._,_._,_
> --
> Groups.io Links:
>
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#2231) <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/message/2231> | Reply
> To Group
>  | Reply
> To Sender
> 
> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/99683310/2384446> | New Topic
> <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/post>
> Your Subscription <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/editsub/2384446> | Contact
> Group Owner  | Unsubscribe
> <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/leave/4855485/2384446/1451429038/xyzzy> [
> p...@ingineerix.com]
> _._,_._,_
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/d7f926cb/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[Jay Summet via EV]

On 6/21/23 15:40, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:

I agree about the invasive logging, which is why I offer the service to
disconnect a Tesla from Tesla's back end.   This can be done in degrees, so
no communication, only needed communication, or just no logging/telemetry
(software updates still possible).

But Tesla isn't the only one, pretty much all automakers, EV or not, now
have fully connected infotainment.   Just like a smartphone, your car is
now in constant communication with their back-end.   In fact, GM was one of
the first into this with OnStar in 2011.  Since then the amount of data
collected has only increased.



If the Nissan Leaf experience is any indication, older cars will start 
to lose communications with the factory after their warranty expires. In 
the case of the Leaf, the 2G cellular modems they used stopped working 
completely as various telecommunications companies upgraded to 3G/4G and 
shut down their 2G networks. If you wanted to retain telematics, you had 
to take proactive action and pay to have the modem upgraded to 3G.


[Also, cellular data plans cost money, as soon as the manufacturer stops 
paying for them, you would be limited to wifi, etc...]


So I expect that in a few years on the used market, you'll start finding 
that it costs money if you want to keep telemetries services (remote 
climate, unlock, charge monitoring, etc...)



Jay
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

There are a lot of paths that "could be made to work".  I have
reverse-engineered the legacy supercharger protocol, so I could make an
adapter that would allow charging a non-Tesla EV at a supercharger, and
in-fact, I did this in 2017 for a client, and the owner promptly received a
cease-and-desist from Tesla.   (Which they abided by)

Over the years I have also been hired as an independent consultant for
several companies, including one of the top-tier charging equipment
manufacturers to help them investigate adapting Tesla compatibility well
before any of the NACS announcements of late.

It's not a technology limitation, it's more business and politics.  Tesla
wants in on the government cheese, so they will do what they need to do to
qualify for grant and incentive money.  They are already having trouble
keeping up with supercharger build-outs just for Tesla owners.   They do
not want to jeopardize one of the primary selling points of Tesla ownership
by suddenly making it difficult for their customers to use the
supercharging network.  They will do this slowly and on their terms, by
rolling out sites with upgraded superchargers that will support 3rd party
EVs, and they will try to get public money to do so.  They don't really
have any motivation to trip all over themselves to clog the existing
supercharging network with a bunch of 3rd part EVs blocking multiple stalls.


On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:50 PM Ron via EV  wrote:

> Just spitballing here...
>
> What about VIN equivalents in the adapter itself or manufacturers building
> their charge ports and in-vehicle networking to Tesla specs?
>
> All of this stuff is well over my head, but having written Palm Pilot
> programs that interface with mainframe systems, it strikes me that there
> are usually ways to effectively and reliably extend systems without
> breaking them.
>
> But, as I said, all of this is well over my head. :)
> --
> Ron
>
> On June 21, 2023 11:23:40 a.m. CST, "(-Phil-) via EV" 
> wrote:
> >No, but there is no way to bill it.  Tesla handles billing on SWCAN
> >supercharger protocol by VIN, the car controls the supercharger, there is
> >no back-end auth.   So the only technical way to build such an adapter
> >would be to spoof a Tesla, and "steal" the power, which is theft of
> >service, and probably access device fraud (I am not an attorney), which
> >carries a 10 year sentence.
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:16 AM John Lussmyer via EV 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> So, you are saying that it's technically impossible to build a CCS
> >> adapter that can translate the CCS standard communications to whatever
> >> the current Tesla super chargers have.  i.e. Ford Lied about it.
> >> it is physically impossible, even if you have the Ford app that will
> >> work with Tesla superchargers, and it tells the system that using a
> >> special Ford Custom CCS adapter is ok, that it can't ever work.
> >>
> >> On 6/21/2023 8:51 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
> >> > The broken record continues:
> >> >
> >> > Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4) or the
> >> > two (so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be used by
> >> > 3rd party EVs, adapter or not!
> >> >
> >> > It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document:
> >> >
> >>
> https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
> >> > <
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/71e026fd/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[Ron via EV]

Just spitballing here...

What about VIN equivalents in the adapter itself or manufacturers building 
their charge ports and in-vehicle networking to Tesla specs?

All of this stuff is well over my head, but having written Palm Pilot programs 
that interface with mainframe systems, it strikes me that there are usually 
ways to effectively and reliably extend systems without breaking them.

But, as I said, all of this is well over my head. :)
--
Ron

On June 21, 2023 11:23:40 a.m. CST, "(-Phil-) via EV"  wrote:
>No, but there is no way to bill it.  Tesla handles billing on SWCAN
>supercharger protocol by VIN, the car controls the supercharger, there is
>no back-end auth.   So the only technical way to build such an adapter
>would be to spoof a Tesla, and "steal" the power, which is theft of
>service, and probably access device fraud (I am not an attorney), which
>carries a 10 year sentence.
>
>On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:16 AM John Lussmyer via EV 
>wrote:
>
>> So, you are saying that it's technically impossible to build a CCS
>> adapter that can translate the CCS standard communications to whatever
>> the current Tesla super chargers have.  i.e. Ford Lied about it.
>> it is physically impossible, even if you have the Ford app that will
>> work with Tesla superchargers, and it tells the system that using a
>> special Ford Custom CCS adapter is ok, that it can't ever work.
>>
>> On 6/21/2023 8:51 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
>> > The broken record continues:
>> >
>> > Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4) or the
>> > two (so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be used by
>> > 3rd party EVs, adapter or not!
>> >
>> > It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document:
>> >
>> https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
>> > <
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

No.  If you read the Official NACS document I linked to a few posts ago,
the ONLY communications protocol supported is PLC (DIN 70121), they do not
list the single-wire CAN legacy supercharger protocol in any of these
released documents because they absolutely will not support 3rd party use
of it.

This documentation means that all 3rd party use of NACS will be effectively
CCS just using Tesla's NACS connector, it will authenticate the same, and
require working back-end communications for a 3rd party EV using the Tesla
app, another manufacturer's app, or plug-and-charge (ISO 15118).  All of
these will require back-end auth.   This will also have the side-effect of
drastically reducing the reliability of the superchargers for 3rd party
EVs.  Mark my words.


On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:41 PM John Lussmyer 
wrote:

> So, Ford, with the Tesla API, can have their newer vehicles control the
> Tesla charger.
> AND if the existing Ford vehicle has some smarts, and a "smart" adapter,
> it could also control the Tesla charger.
> Again, I'm talking a major car manufacturer, with a API agreement with
> Tesla, making the adapter.
> Ford isn't about to miss a chance to bill it's car users for a new service.
> Even if the car doesn't have cell comms, I'd bet it can connect to a
> phone that does.
>
> On 6/21/2023 11:37 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
> > No using the existing supercharging protocol that Tesla uses on all
> > it's existing fleet, the CAR CONTROLS THE SUPERCHARGER, not the other
> > way around.  All authentication/billing is handled on the CAR SIDE.
> > The literally is ZERO AUTHENTICATION on the supercharger.
> >
> > If you don't pay your bill, the CAR is what refuses to let you
> > charge.  There is no VIN list, there is no back-end comms needed, and
> > this is one of the main reasons the superchargers have been so
> > reliable.  Most do have a cell connection to a back end for
> > logging/status, and this is in-turn sent to the cars so you can see
> > stall availability at each site, but it's not always working.  Some
> > superchargers in remote locations do not have cell, and thus do not
> > show up with status on your in-car supercharging map.
> >
> > The car can also log data from the supercharger and cache it for later
> > upload when the car gets back into cell range.
> >
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/5486b4ca/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[John Lussmyer via EV]

So, Ford, with the Tesla API, can have their newer vehicles control the 
Tesla charger.
AND if the existing Ford vehicle has some smarts, and a "smart" adapter, 
it could also control the Tesla charger.
Again, I'm talking a major car manufacturer, with a API agreement with 
Tesla, making the adapter.

Ford isn't about to miss a chance to bill it's car users for a new service.
Even if the car doesn't have cell comms, I'd bet it can connect to a 
phone that does.


On 6/21/2023 11:37 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
No using the existing supercharging protocol that Tesla uses on all 
it's existing fleet, the CAR CONTROLS THE SUPERCHARGER, not the other 
way around.  All authentication/billing is handled on the CAR SIDE.  
The literally is ZERO AUTHENTICATION on the supercharger.


If you don't pay your bill, the CAR is what refuses to let you 
charge.  There is no VIN list, there is no back-end comms needed, and 
this is one of the main reasons the superchargers have been so 
reliable.  Most do have a cell connection to a back end for 
logging/status, and this is in-turn sent to the cars so you can see 
stall availability at each site, but it's not always working.  Some 
superchargers in remote locations do not have cell, and thus do not 
show up with status on your in-car supercharging map.


The car can also log data from the supercharger and cache it for later 
upload when the car gets back into cell range.



___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

I agree about the invasive logging, which is why I offer the service to
disconnect a Tesla from Tesla's back end.   This can be done in degrees, so
no communication, only needed communication, or just no logging/telemetry
(software updates still possible).

But Tesla isn't the only one, pretty much all automakers, EV or not, now
have fully connected infotainment.   Just like a smartphone, your car is
now in constant communication with their back-end.   In fact, GM was one of
the first into this with OnStar in 2011.  Since then the amount of data
collected has only increased.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:23 PM EV List Lackey via EV 
wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2023 at 11:37, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:
>
> > The car can also log data from the supercharger and cache it for later
> > upload when the car gets back into cell range.
>
> This is what I find unsettling about Teslas.  Actually all cars do
> something
> similar now but it could be said that Tesla was a leader in making
> vehicles
> that set fire to your privacy.
>
> Back when the Model S was new the New York Time (I think it was) published
> a
> hit piece on it.  Using the car's spy computer, Musk revealed that the
> tester / writer had driven in circles in a parking lot to deliberately
> drain
> the battery.
>
> A lot of folks on this list were jubilant.  I found it seriously
> unsettling
> that a Tesla would log that much information about where the driver was,
> when, how he drove, and much more.
>
> More recently it emerged that Tesla employees were passing round images
> taken by Tesla cameras:
>
> https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-
> recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/
> <https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/>
>
> or https://v.gd/l23Ra9
>
> You can't call that anything  but voyeurism.
>
> Your car knows a LOT about you, and it rats you out to the company that
> made
> it.
>
> This has been used to prosecute people.
>
> The case that sticks in my mind (though it's not an EV) took place a few
> years ago in the UK.  A person was convicted of murder on the evidence
> from
> his car's computer.  He had parked the car in the area where a body was
> found.  The car had logged - and told the server - that he'd also opened
> and
> closed the boot (trunk).
>
> Now you might say "Well, sure.  He was a bad guy.  He should have been
> busted."  And that might be true, though the car log is purely
> circumstantial evidence.  But there are many less legitimate things that
> people with authority can do with such data.  I don't know about you, but
> I
> don't trust them to not abuse it.
>
> Maybe you're also thinking, "They can look at everything I do; I don't
> care.
> My life is boring.  I have nothing to hide."
>
> Edward Snowden once said, "Arguing that you don't care about the right to
> privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying that
> you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
>
> Sorry for the somewhat off topic rant.
>
> David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey
>
> To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my
> offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>  I see a set of solutions but I don't know what problems they exist
>  to solve other than "How can we use these to absorb all this spare
>  money that's washing around?"
>
> -- Brian Eno on Cryptocurrency and NFTs
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/65b4cb8b/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] [GGEVA] Magic Dock

[(-Phil-) via EV]

All they are discussing is Magic Dock and some clunky adapter they are
accepting pre-orders on.  They do not have a working prototype, because it
won't work!

Other than the few Magic Dock sites which use retrofitted V3 chargers, none
of the other sites can work for 3rd party vehicles.  They do not show up on
the Tesla app, thus there is no way to authorize them.  One of the main
reasons Tesla will not support this, is because of the cable length issue.
The Tesla whip is only about 5 feet in total and the pedestal is positioned
so that it will reach the right rear quarter of all Tesla vehicles where
the charge port is located.  I'm not aware of any other vehicles with this
port location, thus they won't reach without parking gymnastics (blocking
multiple stalls), so Tesla doesn't want a Chevy Bolt charging at 45kW for
an hour to block multiple stalls on a busy site thus preventing their
customers from using them.

Tesla figured this out pretty fast, and designed the new V4 supercharger
with a much longer cable and more central pedestal location, so it will
easily reach other EVs.   V4 will also have CCS PLC (Power Line
Communication) which is covered by DIN 70121 natively, so it can speak to
other EVs.  The only adapter needed will be passive (no protocol conversion
electronics), as the supercharger will speak both Supercharger protocol and
PLC native.   Tesla will probably not want 3rd party adapters of dubious
quality to be used on their sites, so I doubt they will authorize this.
There is a lot that could go wrong, and they don't want any more EV fires
to be associated with them.

Search for "Tesla V4 Supercharger" on the web if you want to see the design
differences.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:10 PM Lawrence Rhodes 
wrote:

> https://evadept.com/tesla-supercharger-to-ccs-adapter-guide/ Sorry for
> the confusion. Here is what is designed to work at Superchargers for CCS
> vehicles. Lawrence Rhodes
> _._,_._,_
> --
> Groups.io Links:
>
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#2229) <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/message/2229> | Reply
> To Group  | Reply
> To Sender
> 
> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/99683310/2384446> | New Topic
> <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/post>
> Your Subscription <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/editsub/2384446> | Contact
> Group Owner  | Unsubscribe
> <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/leave/4855485/2384446/1451429038/xyzzy> [
> p...@ingineerix.com]
> _._,_._,_
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/f23d7894/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Hyper 9 low-end performance problem

[Rick Beebe via EV]

Dan was helpful enough to send me his clone file (it's the controller 
configuration). I compared it page-by-page and only found one 
significance difference. There's a "vehicle information" section that 
has end gear ratio and tire size. In mine the gear ratio was 7:09 and 
tire size 589mm. On Dan's, because he's driving a propeller, it was 1 
and 100mm. So I set mine to those numbers and my low-end performance 
improved dramatically. It still struggles going up my driveway but now I 
feel it's a gearing problem and not a limited current problem. Also, it 
can now back up the driveway. No idea if that change impacts anything 
else, though.


So thank you very much Dan!

My next step will be to swap out the 3.73 gears in the diff for 4.10. I 
think that will give me better low-end torque without limiting my 
top-end very much. As it is, right now, I'm software limiting it to 
about 80mph. 70 will do me fine.


--Rick

On 6/19/2023 8:53 PM, Rick Beebe via EV wrote:

That’s what I wanna see!  The problem is that I don’t know what screens would 
be useful and there are many!

I wonder if I load your clone file…

--Rick


On Jun 19, 2023, at 6:46 PM, Dan Baker via EV  wrote:

Hey Rick
I have a hyper-9 on my 20' pontoon boat and it certainly delivers full
torque off the line.  I am running a "boat" controller file from hyper9 and
it is their stock HV 144v controller that can with it.  I'm running it also
at 160v nominal from a split chevy volt pack.  I have a whole other hyper9
HV kit going in an MGA, interesting to see how it works in a car and hoping
I don't have issues as you describe.
I know the software that comes to setup the hyper9 has quite a few options
so I could try and capture some screens if needed.

Video of my 'toon's holeshot to 20mph.  Full 2 seconds quicker than a 150hp
four stroke on same boat:https://youtu.be/_VqtA0Yoksw

Cheers
Dan



On Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 6:45 p.m. John Lussmyer via EV
wrote:

One thing to realize is that the DC motor would happily take full power
from the controller, and give you WAY over spec torque at the low end.


On 6/19/2023 6:15 AM, Rick Beebe via EV wrote:
Hey all. I recently reconverted my Ford Ranger. It had an ADC 9"
series motor connected to the stock transmission, Raptor controller
and 144v pack. Now it has a Hyper 9 HV and controller, and a 160v
pack. The Hyper 9 is connected to a TorqueTrends single-speed gearbox

___
Address messages t...@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP:http://www.evdl.org/help/


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/746a3f81/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[EV List Lackey via EV]

On 21 Jun 2023 at 11:37, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:

> The car can also log data from the supercharger and cache it for later
> upload when the car gets back into cell range.

This is what I find unsettling about Teslas.  Actually all cars do something 
similar now but it could be said that Tesla was a leader in making vehicles 
that set fire to your privacy.

Back when the Model S was new the New York Time (I think it was) published a 
hit piece on it.  Using the car's spy computer, Musk revealed that the 
tester / writer had driven in circles in a parking lot to deliberately drain 
the battery. 

A lot of folks on this list were jubilant.  I found it seriously unsettling 
that a Tesla would log that much information about where the driver was, 
when, how he drove, and much more.  

More recently it emerged that Tesla employees were passing round images 
taken by Tesla cameras:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-
recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/

or https://v.gd/l23Ra9

You can't call that anything  but voyeurism.

Your car knows a LOT about you, and it rats you out to the company that made 
it.  

This has been used to prosecute people.  

The case that sticks in my mind (though it's not an EV) took place a few 
years ago in the UK.  A person was convicted of murder on the evidence from 
his car's computer.  He had parked the car in the area where a body was 
found.  The car had logged - and told the server - that he'd also opened and 
closed the boot (trunk).

Now you might say "Well, sure.  He was a bad guy.  He should have been 
busted."  And that might be true, though the car log is purely 
circumstantial evidence.  But there are many less legitimate things that 
people with authority can do with such data.  I don't know about you, but I 
don't trust them to not abuse it.

Maybe you're also thinking, "They can look at everything I do; I don't care. 
My life is boring.  I have nothing to hide."  

Edward Snowden once said, "Arguing that you don't care about the right to 
privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying that 
you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

Sorry for the somewhat off topic rant.

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 I see a set of solutions but I don't know what problems they exist 
 to solve other than "How can we use these to absorb all this spare 
 money that's washing around?"

-- Brian Eno on Cryptocurrency and NFTs

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

[EVDL] Magic Dock

[Lawrence Rhodes via EV]

 https://evadept.com/tesla-supercharger-to-ccs-adapter-guide/ Sorry for the 
confusion. Here is what is designed to work at Superchargers for CCS vehicles. 
Lawrence Rhodes 
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/5f4db00b/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

 any other EV
>> > without it blocking multiple parking spots.
>> >
>> ___
>> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
>> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
>> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>>
>>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/6aa8691e/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[John Lussmyer via EV]

Note that I was talking in terms of a Ford supplied adapter, with a Ford 
supplied phone app.
I sincerely doubt that each SuperCharger has an up to date list of every 
VIN that Tesla ever produced.  So, they MUST talk back to the Tesla 
servers to validate the VIN. This means that Ford - who is going to be 
using the Tesla Supercharger API with their system, is likely to be able 
to make this work.  Even if the existing CCS communications doesn't 
include a VIN (or equivalent ID), the fact it's being used with a Ford 
supplied adapter and phone app, means that the specific car owner can be 
identified for billing.


I did NOT say that any random person on the street can make their own 
CCS adapter to make it work.


On 6/21/2023 10:23 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
No, but there is no way to bill it.  Tesla handles billing on SWCAN 
supercharger protocol by VIN, the car controls the supercharger, there 
is no back-end auth.   So the only technical way to build such an 
adapter would be to spoof a Tesla, and "steal" the power, which is 
theft of service, and probably access device fraud (I am not an 
attorney), which carries a 10 year sentence.


On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:16 AM John Lussmyer via EV 
 wrote:


So, you are saying that it's technically impossible to build a CCS
adapter that can translate the CCS standard communications to
whatever
the current Tesla super chargers have.  i.e. Ford Lied about it.
it is physically impossible, even if you have the Ford app that will
work with Tesla superchargers, and it tells the system that using a
special Ford Custom CCS adapter is ok, that it can't ever work.

On 6/21/2023 8:51 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
> The broken record continues:
>
> Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4)
or the
> two (so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be
used by
> 3rd party EVs, adapter or not!
>
> It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document:
>

https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22

<https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22>

>

<https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22

<https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22>>
>
> It's the first link; "Technical Specification" on this page:
> https://www.tesla.com/support/charging-product-guides#NACS-resources
>
> It specifies "For DC charging, communication between the EV and
EVSE
> shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as
> depicted in DIN 70121.", which is NOT supported by current V1,
V2, and
> V3 superchargers all over North America.   In addition, the
location
> and length of Tesla's whips are not able to reach almost any
other EV
> without it blocking multiple parking spots.
>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/e57c1e51/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

Here's a video I made about a year ago on how Tesla charging works.  I need
to do another one with updates.
https://youtu.be/0lxxOsLcNQQ

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:23 AM (-Phil-)  wrote:

> No, but there is no way to bill it.  Tesla handles billing on SWCAN
> supercharger protocol by VIN, the car controls the supercharger, there is
> no back-end auth.   So the only technical way to build such an adapter
> would be to spoof a Tesla, and "steal" the power, which is theft of
> service, and probably access device fraud (I am not an attorney), which
> carries a 10 year sentence.
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:16 AM John Lussmyer via EV 
> wrote:
>
>> So, you are saying that it's technically impossible to build a CCS
>> adapter that can translate the CCS standard communications to whatever
>> the current Tesla super chargers have.  i.e. Ford Lied about it.
>> it is physically impossible, even if you have the Ford app that will
>> work with Tesla superchargers, and it tells the system that using a
>> special Ford Custom CCS adapter is ok, that it can't ever work.
>>
>> On 6/21/2023 8:51 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
>> > The broken record continues:
>> >
>> > Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4) or the
>> > two (so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be used by
>> > 3rd party EVs, adapter or not!
>> >
>> > It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document:
>> >
>> https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
>> > <
>> https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
>> >
>> >
>> > It's the first link; "Technical Specification" on this page:
>> > https://www.tesla.com/support/charging-product-guides#NACS-resources
>> >
>> > It specifies "For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE
>> > shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as
>> > depicted in DIN 70121.", which is NOT supported by current V1, V2, and
>> > V3 superchargers all over North America.   In addition, the location
>> > and length of Tesla's whips are not able to reach almost any other EV
>> > without it blocking multiple parking spots.
>> >
>> ___
>> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
>> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
>> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>>
>>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/5b5b5bfb/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

No, but there is no way to bill it.  Tesla handles billing on SWCAN
supercharger protocol by VIN, the car controls the supercharger, there is
no back-end auth.   So the only technical way to build such an adapter
would be to spoof a Tesla, and "steal" the power, which is theft of
service, and probably access device fraud (I am not an attorney), which
carries a 10 year sentence.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:16 AM John Lussmyer via EV 
wrote:

> So, you are saying that it's technically impossible to build a CCS
> adapter that can translate the CCS standard communications to whatever
> the current Tesla super chargers have.  i.e. Ford Lied about it.
> it is physically impossible, even if you have the Ford app that will
> work with Tesla superchargers, and it tells the system that using a
> special Ford Custom CCS adapter is ok, that it can't ever work.
>
> On 6/21/2023 8:51 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:
> > The broken record continues:
> >
> > Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4) or the
> > two (so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be used by
> > 3rd party EVs, adapter or not!
> >
> > It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document:
> >
> https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
> > <
> https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
> >
> >
> > It's the first link; "Technical Specification" on this page:
> > https://www.tesla.com/support/charging-product-guides#NACS-resources
> >
> > It specifies "For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE
> > shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as
> > depicted in DIN 70121.", which is NOT supported by current V1, V2, and
> > V3 superchargers all over North America.   In addition, the location
> > and length of Tesla's whips are not able to reach almost any other EV
> > without it blocking multiple parking spots.
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/13f97241/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[John Lussmyer via EV]

So, you are saying that it's technically impossible to build a CCS 
adapter that can translate the CCS standard communications to whatever 
the current Tesla super chargers have.  i.e. Ford Lied about it.
it is physically impossible, even if you have the Ford app that will 
work with Tesla superchargers, and it tells the system that using a 
special Ford Custom CCS adapter is ok, that it can't ever work.


On 6/21/2023 8:51 AM, (-Phil-) wrote:

The broken record continues:

Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4) or the 
two (so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be used by 
3rd party EVs, adapter or not!


It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document: 
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22 



It's the first link; "Technical Specification" on this page: 
https://www.tesla.com/support/charging-product-guides#NACS-resources


It specifies "For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE 
shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as 
depicted in DIN 70121.", which is NOT supported by current V1, V2, and 
V3 superchargers all over North America.   In addition, the location 
and length of Tesla's whips are not able to reach almost any other EV 
without it blocking multiple parking spots.



___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] White House welcomes Tesla to take advantage of federal dollars for chargers

[EV List Lackey via EV]

On 21 Jun 2023 at 10:37, Lee Hart via EV wrote:

> There won't be a "true" standard until someone gains monopoly control
> and drives out everyone else. 

GM tried that with Magne Charge inductive 30 years ago.  Tesla seems to be 
angling for it now, at least in the US.

> there is no enforcement mechanism. 

That's often the case in the US.  Let the sacred "free market" sort it out!

However, standards can be "adopted" and granted the force of law.

This has long been the case with the NEC, which is almost always 
incorporated by reference in local US building codes.

As for J1772, I'm pretty sure that CARB required compliance on all EVs sold 
in California.  This would have been from the mid-2000s.  In any case the 
requirement was in place in time for the Mitsubishi Imiev and Nissan Leaf to 
go on sale.

I guess that even Tesla complied, though it was through an adapter, so 
perhaps grudgingly. :-\

> The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose 
> from. (anonymous)

:-)



To give credit where due, I think that Andrew S Tanenbaum originated that 
gem.  At any rate, the Unix Fortune database attributed it to him by the mid 
1980s.  

It's from Computer Networks.  You'll find it on page 702 of the fifth 
edition, in a discussion of audio compression.  

What he actually wrote was "Is that clear now?  The nice thing about 
standards is that there are so many to choose from.  And if you do not like 
any of them, just wait a year or two."  

In the same volume we also find, attributed to Paul Mockapetris: 

Q:  What do you get when you cross a mobster with an international standard?

A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand.

One last word on standards: 

https://xkcd.com/927/



David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 The metaverse as envisioned by the tech giants is not some 
 promising new frontier for humanity. It's just another place 
 to spend money on things.

 --Keza MacDonald

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[(-Phil-) via EV]

The broken record continues:

Only the superchargers that support CCS signalling native (V4) or the two
(so far) V3 retrofitted with Magic dock will be able to be used by 3rd
party EVs, adapter or not!

It's all right there at 4.5.1 in the "official" Tesla document:
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo==inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22

It's the first link; "Technical Specification" on this page:
https://www.tesla.com/support/charging-product-guides#NACS-resources

It specifies "For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE shall
be power line communication over the control pilot line as depicted in DIN
70121.", which is NOT supported by current V1, V2, and V3 superchargers all
over North America.   In addition, the location and length of Tesla's whips
are not able to reach almost any other EV without it blocking multiple
parking spots.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 7:20 AM John Lussmyer via EV 
wrote:

> If there isn't one now, there will be soon.  Ford has said that their
> existing vehicles will be able to use the Tesla stations with an adapter.
>
> On 6/21/2023 1:22 AM, Matt Lacey via EV wrote:
> > That adapter is the wrong direction (incidentally the only direction
> > that will work)
> >
> > going from CCS2 charge station to US Tesla Car is possible, and what
> > that adapter is
> >
> > Going from US Tesla charge station to CCS2 is not, without Tesla
> > allowing for a legacy mode to be CCS2 compatible
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/91029f2a/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] White House welcomes Tesla to take advantage of federal dollars for chargers

[Lee Hart via EV]

Jay Summet wrote:

So I would expect the SAE and other national standards groups to have
more influence than any single company, as they typically represent a
broad swath of the industry.


Marco Gaxiola wrote:

The interesting part here is that 'the broad swath of the industry' now, in
the US and NA is Tesla, Ford, GM, Rivian, Aptera and most of EVSE companies
[are] moving into NACS.

So who the broad swath of the industry is (or moving towards to be very
soon) and who should the government support now?


In the US, standards are generally set by industry; not government. SAE 
standards (like the one that gave us J1772) was created by an auto 
industry coalition. Likewise, the NEC gave us the Article 625, which 
sets standards for EV charging.


Since they are voluntary standards (not laws), there is no enforcement 
mechanism. An automaker may agree to parts of the standard, but is free 
to violate other parts as they see fit. They can also ignore the 
standard entirely and create a new one when they feel it's in their best 
interest (i.e. more profitable).


In such an environment, EV charging is going to constantly keep 
changing, as the various companies vie for control. There won't be a 
"true" standard until someone gains monopoly control and drives out 
everyone else.


Lee
--
The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose 
from. (anonymous)

--
Lee Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, www.sunrise-ev.com

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[John Lussmyer via EV]

If there isn't one now, there will be soon.  Ford has said that their 
existing vehicles will be able to use the Tesla stations with an adapter.


On 6/21/2023 1:22 AM, Matt Lacey via EV wrote:
That adapter is the wrong direction (incidentally the only direction 
that will work)


going from CCS2 charge station to US Tesla Car is possible, and what 
that adapter is


Going from US Tesla charge station to CCS2 is not, without Tesla 
allowing for a legacy mode to be CCS2 compatible



___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[paul dove via EV]

He said supercharger. 
Guess he’s saying the charger checks the Vin #.
Would work on home Tesla chargers 


Sent from AT Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 3:10 AM, Lawrence Rhodes via EV 
 wrote:


Chargerman CCS Combo 2 to US Tesla Dual(DC+AC) Adapter - Black
Last item available

Condition:NewNewQuantity:Last One / 4 soldPrice:US $229.00They are lying? LR
    On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 06:33:31 PM PDT, (-Phil-) 
 wrote:  
 
 No, there is no adapter that will allow existing superchargers to charge a CCS 
car, and if there ever was it would be illegal and shutdown instantly by Tesla 
legal as it would have to be spoofing a Tesla VIN and thus not paying for the 
charge.
I feel like a broken record at this point, as I've said it several times 
already, but my predictions are: 1. Tesla will only allow access for other 
vehicles on V4 superchargers.  2. The network will become substantially less 
reliable for non-Tesla cars.  3. The rollout will be slow, it's  not going to 
be overnight all superchargers with just an adapter.
I've already explained the technical reasons I am asserting this.
I've also warned about using Tesla destination chargers, as some are hooked to 
1 leg of 480 3-phase wye, which is 277V nominal which most EVs will not 
tolerate.   For example, a Leaf will blow it's on-board charger.   Teslas are 
rated up to 300VAC.  Most others top out at 264VAC.  There is no good way to 
tell before you plug your non-Tesla EV in and there's smoke and you are stuck!


( Pic: http://ingineerix.com/pic/?tesla-wc-277v )

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:53 PM Lawrence Rhodes via EV  
wrote:

 It seems to me if there is an adapter available for purchase, that would 
qualify Tesla Superchargers. I bought a Tesla Tap to take advantage of Tesla 
destination EVSE. CCS drivers could buy this and have ac or dc charging. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/35483570?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20201210111314%26meid%3Dc1ad667158b04eb79d33fda7ba7b28ee%26pid%3D101195%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D354835758942%26itm%3D35483570%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv11WebTrimmedV3MskuWithLambda85KnnRecallV1V4V6ItemNrtInQueryAndCassiniVisualRankerAndBertRecall&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851=cksum%3A35483570c1ad667158b04eb79d33fda7ba7b28ee%7Cenc%3AAQAIAAABQA2rugFlOq3qu1cLac%252F%252Fk6Vp0Oa0HaJIqoXKeIiOR%252BTUgsSvHaeyPxKYu6UqHqq7GaGyKVqHQnjeiiXcQpMGw2t3aB%252BssGfjtIWOBj8wExc7oYYP7xGMyQCrHDyDaSaWjB1CueI3A94n0yxXX5dx5gAU%252FT8Fo%252BhA4uBFp%252BOwvsmjMx9svf4%252B372fK2%252Fh1O6bxu3XXlcPikVngfjzVkKfN1lwJYO4DTP0c6sUG2XIHT8T1ZF%252FFEudHDvVkzR0g73ogbAWksoGWUYhm1zt%252F0G2dL4hl8V2wSq543sodOojwXnCYuf2c0C%252BJa530Edy9yIdIlvH1BMdtvgdl0yCCGVp1bdez1hD%252B03XGIvFqhUw2JkLeMVSMa7keDCDqXE%252Fwk3cmo52x29a4WsrQlzr%252Bcj8UmaXoa3muZU2BSJ5pn%252BqeS9u%7Campid%3APL_CLK%7Cclp%3A2047675
 LR


  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/97f273e5/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/7b1aa38e/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[Jay Summet via EV]

On 6/20/23 22:51, EV@TucsonEV via EV wrote:


AC Level 2  208 to 240 V AC, 1-phase? 80 A
Per NEC 625



"240 volt" power really has an acceptable range of voltage from 228 
volts to 252.  (My home regularly sits at 245 volts).


But yes, pulling from one leg of a 3 phase at 277 volts is too much for 
a "240" volt circuit, although a lot of hardware will "work" at slightly 
higher voltages...until it doesn't.


Since the Tesla destination chargers are designed to only work with 
Teslas, which are presumably all designed to work at higher voltages 
when charging, the problem appears to be people selling and marketing 
NCAS -> J1772 adapters that do not detect this over voltage condition 
and refuse to pass through the over-voltage or at least have a warning 
light of some sort and educate the user about what it means so they can 
determine if their vehicle can handle the extra voltage.


[I assume the NCAS standard allows 277 volt AC charging...since the 
installation manual shows it being set up that way]


Jay

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[EV@TucsonEV via EV]

The J1772 SAE Specifications state -

5.1 Electrical Ratings
Table 9 - AC charging electrical ratings (North America)
Charge Method   Nominal Supply Voltage  Max Current Branch  Circuit
Breaker
(V) (Amps-continuous)
rating (Amps)
AC Level 1  120 V AC, 1-phase   12 A
15 A (min)
120 V AC, 1-phase   16 A
20 A
AC Level 2  208 to 240 V AC, 1-phase? 80 A
Per NEC 625

So if in fact there are EVSE's with 277VAC, then they are out of spec with the
J1772 Specifications.

Best regards,

Rush Dougherty
TucsonEV
www.TucsonEV.com




> -Original Message-
> From: EV  On Behalf Of John Lussmyer via EV
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 7:23 PM
> To: (-Phil-) via EV 
> Cc: John Lussmyer 
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17
>
> I've run into some J1772 stations that are 277V. (at least, that's what my
voltage
> monitor said.)
>
> On 6/20/2023 6:32 PM, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:
> > I've also warned about using Tesla destination chargers, as some are
> > hooked to 1 leg of 480 3-phase wye, which is 277V nominal which most EVs
will not
> > tolerate.   For example, a Leaf will blow it's on-board charger.   Teslas
> > are rated up to 300VAC.  Most others top out at 264VAC.  There is no
> > good way to tell before you plug your non-Tesla EV in and there's
> > smoke and you are stuck!
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com



___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[Matt Lacey via EV]

That adapter is the wrong direction (incidentally the only direction 
that will work)


going from CCS2 charge station to US Tesla Car is possible, and what 
that adapter is


Going from US Tesla charge station to CCS2 is not, without Tesla 
allowing for a legacy mode to be CCS2 compatible


On 21/06/2023 4:07 pm, Lawrence Rhodes via EV wrote:
  
Chargerman CCS Combo 2 to US Tesla Dual(DC+AC) Adapter - Black

Last item available

Condition:NewNewQuantity:Last One / 4 soldPrice:US $229.00They are lying? LR
 On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 06:33:31 PM PDT, (-Phil-) 
 wrote:
  
  No, there is no adapter that will allow existing superchargers to charge a CCS car, and if there ever was it would be illegal and shutdown instantly by Tesla legal as it would have to be spoofing a Tesla VIN and thus not paying for the charge.

I feel like a broken record at this point, as I've said it several times 
already, but my predictions are: 1. Tesla will only allow access for other 
vehicles on V4 superchargers.  2. The network will become substantially less 
reliable for non-Tesla cars.  3. The rollout will be slow, it's  not going to 
be overnight all superchargers with just an adapter.
I've already explained the technical reasons I am asserting this.
I've also warned about using Tesla destination chargers, as some are hooked to 
1 leg of 480 3-phase wye, which is 277V nominal which most EVs will not 
tolerate.   For example, a Leaf will blow it's on-board charger.   Teslas are 
rated up to 300VAC.  Most others top out at 264VAC.  There is no good way to 
tell before you plug your non-Tesla EV in and there's smoke and you are stuck!


( Pic: http://ingineerix.com/pic/?tesla-wc-277v )

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:53 PM Lawrence Rhodes via EV  
wrote:

  It seems to me if there is an adapter available for purchase, that would qualify 
Tesla Superchargers. I bought a Tesla Tap to take advantage of Tesla destination EVSE. 
CCS drivers could buy this and have ac or dc charging. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/35483570?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20201210111314%26meid%3Dc1ad667158b04eb79d33fda7ba7b28ee%26pid%3D101195%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D354835758942%26itm%3D35483570%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv11WebTrimmedV3MskuWithLambda85KnnRecallV1V4V6ItemNrtInQueryAndCassiniVisualRankerAndBertRecall&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851=cksum%3A35483570c1ad667158b04eb79d33fda7ba7b28ee%7Cenc%3AAQAIAAABQA2rugFlOq3qu1cLac%252F%252Fk6Vp0Oa0HaJIqoXKeIiOR%252BTUgsSvHaeyPxKYu6UqHqq7GaGyKVqHQnjeiiXcQpMGw2t3aB%252BssGfjtIWOBj8wExc7oYYP7xGMyQCrHDyDaSaWjB1CueI3A94n0yxXX5dx5gAU%252FT8Fo%252BhA4uBFp%252BOwvsmjMx9svf4%252B372fK2%252Fh1O6bxu3XXlcPikVngfjzVkKfN1lwJYO4DTP0c6sUG2XIHT8T1ZF%252FFEudHDvVkzR0g73ogbAWksoGWUYhm1zt%252F0G2dL4hl8V2wSq543sodOojwXnCYuf2c0C%252BJa530Edy9yIdIlvH1BMdtvgdl0yCCGVp1bdez1hD%252B03XGIvFqhUw2JkLeMVSMa7keDCDqXE%252Fwk3cmo52x29a4WsrQlzr%252Bcj8UmaXoa3muZU2BSJ5pn%252BqeS9u%7Campid%3APL_CLK%7Cclp%3A2047675
 LR


   
-- next part --

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/97f273e5/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/


___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] EV Digest, Vol 128, Issue 17

[Lawrence Rhodes via EV]

 
Chargerman CCS Combo 2 to US Tesla Dual(DC+AC) Adapter - Black
Last item available

Condition:NewNewQuantity:Last One / 4 soldPrice:US $229.00They are lying? LR
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 06:33:31 PM PDT, (-Phil-) 
 wrote:  
 
 No, there is no adapter that will allow existing superchargers to charge a CCS 
car, and if there ever was it would be illegal and shutdown instantly by Tesla 
legal as it would have to be spoofing a Tesla VIN and thus not paying for the 
charge.
I feel like a broken record at this point, as I've said it several times 
already, but my predictions are: 1. Tesla will only allow access for other 
vehicles on V4 superchargers.  2. The network will become substantially less 
reliable for non-Tesla cars.  3. The rollout will be slow, it's  not going to 
be overnight all superchargers with just an adapter.
I've already explained the technical reasons I am asserting this.
I've also warned about using Tesla destination chargers, as some are hooked to 
1 leg of 480 3-phase wye, which is 277V nominal which most EVs will not 
tolerate.   For example, a Leaf will blow it's on-board charger.   Teslas are 
rated up to 300VAC.  Most others top out at 264VAC.  There is no good way to 
tell before you plug your non-Tesla EV in and there's smoke and you are stuck!


( Pic: http://ingineerix.com/pic/?tesla-wc-277v )

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:53 PM Lawrence Rhodes via EV  
wrote:

 It seems to me if there is an adapter available for purchase, that would 
qualify Tesla Superchargers. I bought a Tesla Tap to take advantage of Tesla 
destination EVSE. CCS drivers could buy this and have ac or dc charging. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/35483570?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20201210111314%26meid%3Dc1ad667158b04eb79d33fda7ba7b28ee%26pid%3D101195%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D354835758942%26itm%3D35483570%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv11WebTrimmedV3MskuWithLambda85KnnRecallV1V4V6ItemNrtInQueryAndCassiniVisualRankerAndBertRecall&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851=cksum%3A35483570c1ad667158b04eb79d33fda7ba7b28ee%7Cenc%3AAQAIAAABQA2rugFlOq3qu1cLac%252F%252Fk6Vp0Oa0HaJIqoXKeIiOR%252BTUgsSvHaeyPxKYu6UqHqq7GaGyKVqHQnjeiiXcQpMGw2t3aB%252BssGfjtIWOBj8wExc7oYYP7xGMyQCrHDyDaSaWjB1CueI3A94n0yxXX5dx5gAU%252FT8Fo%252BhA4uBFp%252BOwvsmjMx9svf4%252B372fK2%252Fh1O6bxu3XXlcPikVngfjzVkKfN1lwJYO4DTP0c6sUG2XIHT8T1ZF%252FFEudHDvVkzR0g73ogbAWksoGWUYhm1zt%252F0G2dL4hl8V2wSq543sodOojwXnCYuf2c0C%252BJa530Edy9yIdIlvH1BMdtvgdl0yCCGVp1bdez1hD%252B03XGIvFqhUw2JkLeMVSMa7keDCDqXE%252Fwk3cmo52x29a4WsrQlzr%252Bcj8UmaXoa3muZU2BSJ5pn%252BqeS9u%7Campid%3APL_CLK%7Cclp%3A2047675
 LR


  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/97f273e5/attachment.htm>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] need new home ESVE

[EV@TucsonEV via EV]

I agree that it is nowhere in the manual, but none the less the title of the 
pdf refers to it as the Gen2_UMC_Manual. Weather it is legacy or not is a mute 
point, Tesla identifies it as Gen2 UMC.

 

Best regards,

 

Rush Dougherty

TucsonEV

  www.TucsonEV.com

 

 

 

 

From: (-Phil-)  
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 6:21 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List 
Cc: EV@TucsonEV 
Subject: Re: [EVDL] need new home ESVE

 

Tesla refers to it everywhere publicly as a "mobile connector".  Minor change, 
but that's what they did.  Note that the term "UMC" or "Universal Mobile 
Connector" is seen nowhere in the manual text at all, nor is it anywhere in 
their documentation.  The URL doesn't matter, it could just be legacy.

 

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 1:51 AM EV@TucsonEV via EV mailto:ev@lists.evdl.org> > wrote:

You'll note the Tesla link "gen 2 umc".
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/charging_docs/gen_2_umc/Gen2_UMC_Manual_en_US.pdf
So Tesla does keep  the name Gen 2 UMC

Best regards,

Rush Dougherty
TucsonEV
www.TucsonEV.com  




> -Original Message-
> From: EV mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org> > On 
> Behalf Of (-Phil-) via EV
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 9:53 PM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List   >
> Cc: (-Phil-) mailto:p...@ingineerix.com> >
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] need new home ESVE
>
> No, the EU mobile connector (no longer called a UMC) is different for EU.
> The US one is only single-phase, our inlets are also only single-phase.
> The PCS is similar, except all 3 of the modules are connected in parallel to 
> the 
> single-
> phase on the inlet.  So on the older 20kW cars, it would be pumping 80A @ 
> 240V.
> (Would also accept up to 300V for ~22kW)
>
> The 3/Y and 2021+ S/X are all PCS, so that's got 2 or 3 modules capable of 
> 16A 
> each
> depending on model, with the hi-spec config being 48A @ 240V.
>
> In the US it's pretty common for a house built in the last 20 years to have 
> 200A 
> single-
> phase service.  Residential power in the US almost never has anything other 
> than
> single-phase, and it's split with the neutral being the center tap, so 3 
> wires 
> come in, 2
> are the 240V "hots" and one is neutral, so we can connect our 120V loads to 
> neutral
> and one of the "hots".
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:50?PM Evan Tuer via EV   > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 11:59?PM EV@TucsonEV via EV
> > mailto:ev@lists.evdl.org> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Lawrence - the current Tesla Mobile Connector (UMC GEN 2)
> > >
> > https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/mobile-connec
> > tor
> > > Is only 32A capable. Scroll down to where "Charge rates for optional
> > > adapters"
> > > starts and you'll see -
> > >
> > > "NEMA 6-50
> > > 240 volt / 50 amp breaker
> > > Maximum 32 amp output
> > > Buy adapter for Gen 2 Mobile Connector"
> > >
> >
> > 32A / 7.2kW is the maximum single phase charge rate in Europe, so I
> > wonder if they've standardised the EVSE box... however my UMC can also
> > take 16A 3 phase for 11kW.
> > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was
> > scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> > http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230619/d89
> > 1dbe5/attachment.htm
> > >
> > ___
> > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org  
> > No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> > HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
> >
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  evdl.org/attachments/20230619/1f43f059/attachment.htm 
>  >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org  
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com  



___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org  
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

 


 

 

Virus-free. 

 www.avg.com

 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD2035.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: