TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

lack of charging adaptors?

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by Dbitter1, Apr 15, 2015.

  1. Dbitter1

    Dbitter1 Journeyman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    With props to all those that came before me, and wrote so much about charging options and methods... I am proud to announce that I have one of the most extensive 240V FrankenPlug collections in the community. (13 different outlets, if anyone is counting).

    Faced with a dearth of supercharger options to a upcoming VRBO, I am now shuddering at the thought of dealing with 120V charging in case of dire emergency (where "emergency" is defined as the circuit breaker panel is too far from the car to support the adapter and two extension cords and a jury-rigged outlet off the panel).

    To my horror, among the other connectors no longer on the website... now the TT-30 is gone, too! I was going to pipe all the 120V options up to that one! My local SC confirms it is no longer (and also, for those that care, I guess the CHAdeMO adapter is website only at the moment, too).

    I was at least an electrician in a former life, so I'm pretty confident I am not doing anything stupid... but for those less skilled (no offense meant) I could see how this could be a dangerous situation, with no other option than to build your own x 20 or so.!

    Anyone have any idea what Tesla was thinking in removing pretty much every useful adapter from their store?
     
  2. Benjamin Brooks

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    443
    Location:
    San Jose, California, United States
    They never had a TT-30 adapter for Model S. The only 2 plug adapters they used to sell but then discontinued are NEMA 6-50 and NEMA 14-30.

     
  3. Lloyd

    Lloyd Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,883
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    I don't beleive that Tesla ever had a TT-30 adapter. At one time they did have a 30 amp Nema 14-30 adapter.
     
  4. green1

    green1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,105
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    honestly, they probably just weren't selling in a quantity worthy of stocking.

    I highly doubt most buyers ever use anything other than Superchargers, J1772, the HPWC and the 2 adapters that come with the UMC.

    It would however be nice if there were fewer plug types in the wild to make life easier....
     
  5. TexasEV

    TexasEV Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,771
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    The only adapters Tesla sold and then discontinued are the 6-50 and 14-30. I would guess the 10-30 would be next to go when they run out of them. There never was a TT-30 adapter from Tesla, but evseadapters does sell a 14-50R to TT-30P adapter cord made to use with Teslas.
    NEMA 14-50R to TT-30P RV Plug Adapter Cord
    I remember there was a report of a problem with it though-- you may want to search this forum about the adapter before ordering it. If you use it MAKE SURE YOU DIAL DOWN THE AMPS ON THE CHARGING SCREEN BEAUSE THE CAR WILL THINK IT'S A 50A CIRCUIT.
    Have you checked to see if there is a nearby RV park where you could charge with the 14-50 for a while? Ask if they have 50A service-- they may not know what a 14-50 outlet is if you phrase it that way.
     
  6. Dbitter1

    Dbitter1 Journeyman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I swear I saw a TT-30... but maybe not. My bad. Must have confused the diagonals on a 10-30 and my brain morphed the "10" into "TT".

    Anyway... look at the roadster charging options: Tesla Gear Shop Universal Adapters - Available in North America Only ... there are 10 that I count. (hmm... no TT-30).

    Anyway the fascination with this one is assuming that an RV park TT-30 is an adapter worth having (I do think this), since it is (or is tied for) the largest ampacity 120V (120V only) in NA*. Thus, it is an easy, inexpensive, and safe translation from 5-20, L5-20, L5-30, and possibly 5-30 (never seen the latter in my life though, will probably skip that one). I suppose for the sake of not carrying a second set of extension cords, I could do 5-15 as well (adapt 5-15 into TT-30 on a pigtail, then a TT-30 to 14-50 pigtail, then the beefy 14-50 extension cord to the Tesla adapter).

    The thought of having a 240V service RV park is nice... this is just for the times where I know it is not the case, or don't want to bother. I'm hoping someday to park close enough to a boat dock where I get to use the SS2-50 adapter. :rolleyes:

    ---
    * And yes, I know there is a NEMA 5-50 on the books... has anyone actually SEEN one? What the heck do they use that for? Any 120V 50A appliance would be much better suited at 240V or even 3 phase power...
     
  7. FlasherZ

    FlasherZ Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,019
    #7 FlasherZ, Apr 15, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2015
    I have never seen one, nor have I ever seen a 5-30 in practice. I have seen plenty of L5-30's. The only reason you would want to use that is the case where you're serving only a large number of 120V loads to a portable unit, and you're too cheap to run a 4th conductor for a NEMA 14 based connection. That or some strange stage use.

    You're also missing the magical CS series "California" receptacles... CS63-69 and CS82-69 (these are frequently used for non-temporary outdoor shows and stages).

    I would probably argue "safe" is not a word I would use with any of those adapters, either because you violate the "bigger load than circuit rating" rule or the "circuit breaker too big" rules when you do these conversions. But that's already covered in the FAQ. :)
     
  8. Dbitter1

    Dbitter1 Journeyman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #8 Dbitter1, Apr 15, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2015
    I've got a CS6365 in my 240V collection, but I've never heard of the other two. Thanks for the tip!

    Also, personal hats off to you, as your FAQ was one of the aforementioned studies that got me to my collection. :biggrin:
     
  9. FlasherZ

    FlasherZ Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,019
    Sorry, I was giving you the receptacle part #'s. CS6365 is one, CS8265 is the other.
     
  10. Cottonwood

    Cottonwood Roadster#433, Model S#S37

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    5,062
    Location:
    Colorado
    Checking current limits (80% of breaker) and setting the MS correctly with adapters is always good, required practice. However, because older MS's will not charge at more than 20 Amps at 120 Volts and newer MS's will not charge with more than 24 Amps at 120 Volts, you are covered using a TT-30P to 14-50R adapter without needing to change the current limit.

    As others have said, it is essential to get a TT-30 adapter made for EV charging and not one made for RV's. They are wired differently, and neither will work in the other application.
     
  11. Gizmotoy

    Gizmotoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Probably true. I bought a collection of third-party adaptors, including a TT-30, when I bought the car and haven't needed a single one of them. I still take them on trips just in case, but with each passing day the likelihood I'll ever use them decreases.
     
  12. gglockner

    gglockner Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Bellevue WA
    I wish someone would sell additional plugs that are truly compatible with the UMC. I've seen just enough TT-30 plugs that I could put that to use if I had a real TT-30 plug. I'm not really interested in the jerry-rigged TT-30 adapters. The sales volumes may be too low for Tesla, but I suspect someone could make money selling these, if Tesla Motors allowed this.
     
  13. FlasherZ

    FlasherZ Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,019
    There is suspicion that Tesla is working on a new UMC design, and they're pushing the wall connector more. This is in line with the NEC 2014 requirement that EVSE > 120V be securely attached and not just hanging from a receptacle like the UMC. NEC generally gets adopted the year after completion by a lot of jurisdictions, so we'll start to see a lot of municipalities and counties/parishes adopting it this year.

    I really would like to see Tesla open up their designs for partner(s) to produce them, if they won't/can't do it themselves. EVSEadapters is a partner that would probably be willing.
     
  14. Gizmotoy

    Gizmotoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Securely attached to the vehicle or the wall? Presumably the vehicle, otherwise you're essentially describing a removable HPWC? Maybe that's why the CHAdeMO adaptor is the way it is, and they plan something similar for the new UMC.
     
  15. FlasherZ

    FlasherZ Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,019
    #15 FlasherZ, Apr 16, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2015
    My reading is that it requires fastening to a supporting surface... the wording says "fastened in place", and I doubt you can argue that the Tesla02 connector and 18' of cord does anything to fasten it "in place".

    The wording is rather horrible, but this is new language as of NEC 2014 that requires that the EVSE is fastened in place. I'd go on a limb to say that as long as the device is supported in any fashion other than by its plug, it's "fastened" (e.g., perching it on a couple of hooks as some others have done here.)

    There are several practical questions to ask - first, who is going to inspect and point out a failure? Can you consider the UMC part of the appliance (car) outside the scope of the NEC if push came to shove? You'd have less of an argument with fixed EVSE like the wall connector, but one could make the argument that the UMC isn't really EVSE but rather a part of the car.

    Also, an aside: note the code specifically calls out "nonlocking", which rules out adapters for L6-20, L6-30, L14-30, CA-series, etc. Silly wording.
     
  16. Gizmotoy

    Gizmotoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    So essentially no EVs will be able to carry mobile chargers with them? That'd be a huge hit. I don't know that there's any general way to fasten it to the ground, and there certainly isn't a standard way to mount it to the wall near general plugs. You mention hooks, and while that might be feasible in your garage, most plugs are not going to have EVSE hooks.

    It might end charging at campgrounds and such as well, given the wording. Seems like a bummer.
     
  17. FlasherZ

    FlasherZ Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,019
    #17 FlasherZ, Apr 16, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2015
    The UL submitted an emergency request for code update: http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/ProposedTIA%201168_NFPA%2070.pdf
    seeking to clarify 625.44 around the "fastening" requirement, classifying EVSE into "portable" vs. "stationary" vs. "fixed" and dropping the fastening requirement for portable EVSE. Comment period closed in February, and the balloting took place:

    Some details about the votes:

    • Thomas Brown (Intertek) voted "disagree": "Technical merits do not address usage by other than qualified persons in both potentially damp and wet locations."
    • Philip Clark (City of Detroit, rep. Int'l Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors) voted "disagree": "Current code language provides adequate opportunity for portable equipment."
    • Jeffrey Holmes (IBEW) voted "disagree": "The constant plugging and unplugging of 3 phase equipment will only decrease consumer safety. This type of equipment should only be permanently wired and fastened in place."
    • Todd Lottman (Cooper-Bussman, rep. National Electrical Manufacturers' Association) voted disagree with a few paragraphs. It boils down to three points: 250V outlets aren't required to be protected by GFCI, it overstresses high-amperage receptacle contacts by repeatedly plugging/unplugging, and it encourages extension cord use.
    • Duke Schamel (Electrical Service Solutions, Inc., rep. Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.) voted disagree: "The current code language allows for fewer situations that the consumer could be exposed to an electrical supply that is not ground fault protected for personnel."
    • Scott Cline-Chairman (McMurtrey Electric, Inc., rep. National Electrical Contractors Assoc.) voted agree: "People will do this, legal or not...let's make it as safe as possible as soon as possible."

    (To Jeffrey Holmes' comment, I'll add my interpretation of the intention of his self-interested comments representing the union: "...by a union electrical worker." And NEMA wants to force more higher-margin gear, so they're holding out for forcing consumers to purchase $100 50-amp GFCI breakers before allowing portable 50A EVSE.)

    The specific "agree" votes of individual members without comment are not listed on the balloting. They would be Jeff Menig of GM, representing the SAE hybrid committee; James Brown of DTE Electric, representing Electric Light & Power Group/EEI; and John Kovacik of UL, LLC.

    Not voting were Karl Cunningham (Alcoa, Inc., rep. The Aluminum Association, Inc.) and Frank Belio (International Union of Elevator Constructors).

    - - - Updated - - -

    I have a feeling the manufacturers are going to contend it's not infrastructure gear and part of the appliance and is therefore outside of the NEC jurisdiction. The NFPA can't sue manufacturers over the NEC, so it won't be handled centrally; rather, a municipality, county, or state government would have to cite someone, then it could be challenged, and the precedent would only be valid locally. I just don't see that happening. I see the NFPA being forced in the 2017 or 2020 NEC cycle to capitulate and write some realistic rules. Inspectors who handle new branch circuits for EV charging will inspect up to the receptacle and sign off before anything is ever plugged in. Only the power-tripping inspectors will ask whether an EVSE will be used there, and whether it'll be fastened in place - usually because the receptacles are installed before the car is delivered.

    However, the bottom line here is that if you're in an area governed by the 2014 NEC, technically you're supposed to have the UMC portion "fastened in place". From a legal and technical standpoint, you're not supposed to violate that. There may be insurance and liability implications.
     
  18. green1

    green1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,105
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    I suspect the real change would be that the "brick" portion of the UMC would end up eventually integrated in to the car, and the cable would become just a simple cord with different plugs on each end. Of course then anyone who could get their hands on an end can make their own cord....
     
  19. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,399
    Location:
    San Diego
    That ... won't work. One the main advantages of the EVSE is that if you drop the other end (non wall end) into a pool of water, it won't matter since no electricity flows until the EVSE brick determines that it is continually communicating with a vehicle. If you have a dumb cable, then you have live electricity on the cable end that you an drop into a pool of water.

    In Europe, they do have dumb type 2 cables, but those only work between a fixed wall mount or pedestal mount EVSE and the car. Not the same thing.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Well, collectively, the NEC doesn't know what it is talking about regarding portable EVSEs. Until the nirvana day comes when we have ubiquitous wall mounted EVSEs in all apartments, houses, workplaces, etc., we will need portable EVSE equipment. It is ridiculous to think that when people have a car that needs a charge, and there are perfectly safe 240V and 120V plugs everywhere, that portable EVSEs aren't allowed? As one of the commentators said, people are going to bypass stupid rules like this.

    BTW, Flasher (and others) what do you think of Europe's EVSEs that do not have an output cable. They require EV owners to carry their own Type 2 to Type 2 cable. I see several advantages to this European approach as opposed to the American one where all EVSEs have a 20' or so cable attached to a J1772 or Tesla handle.

    In Europe, the public charges are much less susceptible to vandalization or accidental damage since they don't have an output cable. And private EVSEs are cheaper to install since they don't need a $200 cable. The only issue I see is how do you handle beefier current outputs. I suspect Europe doesn't have this problem since they can get high power from a 32A cable since they can have 3 phase power.
     
  20. deonb

    deonb Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,020
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    How's that different than this?

    Computer Power Cord.png
     

Share This Page