-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
AFIK Tesla has never tried to claim their EVSEs are J1772 compliant. They only claim their cars are generally compliant (with an adapter). Even then they don't guarantee you can charge with every J1772 EVSE. And in fact you can't.
Fair enough, but my comment still stands. If the standard was better defined all these compatibility problems would not be present, and Tesla would have absolutely no reason NOT to follow the standard.
I agree with your assessment of the standard being poorly defined. I wasn't questioning that. Even if it was defined better, I'm not sure Tesla agrees with you that they should have followed the standard better. They never had any intention or desire to have their chargers used on other cars except possibly the Roadster, and I think they were too busy to test that until later. They've since taken steps to reconcile the differences.
djp
Model 3 Performance
I remember Elon saying on a conference call that the Model S uses J1772 signaling and debates over the physical connector are misguided since it's easy to build an adapter. Devil is in the details apparently.
His comment only applied to the car (with adapter), not the Model S charging equipment (HPWC and UMC). Now we're trying to use chargers that aren't necessarily compliant with a car that's not necessarily compliant. I think Tesla had good reasons for everything they did, but it means we have a little sorting out to do.
djp
Model 3 Performance
Does this mean the adapter now needs its own active logic and J1772 signal generator, or it is still a passive straight-through connection?
Ever notice that Roadster HPCs always give you 70A, not 69A. Even if hooked up to a Model S (mine has a J1772 cable now so I can charge my S faster on those rare occasions)? And the HPWC gives you 80A, and the UMC 40A, yet every J1772 station I've connected to gives you one amp less?
There have been all kinds of problems with cars that wouldn't charge on certain stations, and stations that wouldn't charge certain cars. It's a pretty big mess. Hopefully J1772 will migrate to digital signalling.
There have been all kinds of problems with cars that wouldn't charge on certain stations, and stations that wouldn't charge certain cars. It's a pretty big mess. Hopefully J1772 will migrate to digital signalling.
It started out with logic but I was able to do it without a microcontroller. Then Tesla came out with a firmware update and a very simple passive filter was all it needed. Now I'm not sure what it will take.
- - - Updated - - -
I always thought that was a Model S thing. I have a DIY charger that produces a 70A pilot and most Model S' display 69A when connected but my Roadster charges at 70A on the same EVSE. Someone told me it's only the display, which rounds down, and that the MS is actually charging at 70A based on the kW reading. I haven't done enough testing to know for sure.
Now the EE in me is curious. I figured Tesla had to overlay some other signalling on top of the J1772 stuff. I guess you had a low pass filter which masked some HF signalling. Is the problem that the car needs to signal back to the EVSE (HPWC or UMC) in some non-trivial way? Has the supercharging protocol has woven its way into the 'normal' charge logic?
Uhm, yeah, that's why my Model S, when hooked up to a CS-90 says 69A max but actually charges with 68A displayed. Maybe it's actually charging at 69, but it ain't at 70!
I've got about a dozen adapters in circulation right now. The success rate is better than 95%. In other words it will charge on at least 95% of the Model S HPWC/UMCs that exist. I'm not sure what to do right now. Should I start shipping them because everyone is tired of waiting, or should I wait until I reach 99% or better? It's possible that it will never work on 5% of HPWCs no matter what.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
No way I'd travel without one, Henry. So if I were one of the folks reading this that didn't have one of the dozen in circulation -- I'd vote for shipping now.
(And the 95% number will improve as more and more HPWCs are installed.)
(And the 95% number will improve as more and more HPWCs are installed.)
Bugeater
Member
djp
Model 3 Performance
I'd vote for ship now. The Roadster isn't compatible with all J1772 stations either (Schneider as an example) so I think a 95% rate is pretty good.
If the failures are limited to a few old HPWCs and the new ones work 100%, then absolutely ship.
If the failures are limited to a few old HPWCs and the new ones work 100%, then absolutely ship.
djp
Model 3 Performance
Model S to Roadster adapter
We can note the non-compatible HPWCs in PlugShare and know to avoid them.
We can note the non-compatible HPWCs in PlugShare and know to avoid them.
I vote for waiting.
I'd resist temptation for at least another month or two. I'd ensure this is not something you overlooked. I know some customers are impatient, but it will be worse if you find a simple fix and they all want a retrofit.
FYI to all the others... I also am a customer and I laid out my money months ago like many of you. I'm in the same frustrating boat, but I think Henry is bound to find a 99% fix if given time and support.
You do what you feel is right without any pressure Henry. That's my vote.
IMHO, others may vary.
Best,
T
Similar threads
