+1. The cables wear out easily, especially the contacts. Clean it as Peter said.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Thanks for the tips.
After some troubleshooting determined HPWC is ok, problem is in the plug. Couldn't get a good resistance reading between proximity pin and ground until I jiggled the pushbutton on the plug. Looks like there is a loose connection on the switch in the plug. Was able to get car to charge by putting slight pressure on pushbutton. Will see if I can hack the plug, or just get a new cable.
Still disappointed in SC inability to correctly diagnose the problem, especially after I assured them that all voltages on the HPWC were correct. Should have known problem would be in the plug instead of insisting on having an electrician check the HPWC.
Oh well, good lesson learned.
After some troubleshooting determined HPWC is ok, problem is in the plug. Couldn't get a good resistance reading between proximity pin and ground until I jiggled the pushbutton on the plug. Looks like there is a loose connection on the switch in the plug. Was able to get car to charge by putting slight pressure on pushbutton. Will see if I can hack the plug, or just get a new cable.
Still disappointed in SC inability to correctly diagnose the problem, especially after I assured them that all voltages on the HPWC were correct. Should have known problem would be in the plug instead of insisting on having an electrician check the HPWC.
Oh well, good lesson learned.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Just to tie things up from my posts up thread, the electrician was back today to switch my set up to a sub panel, so that I could add a NEMA 14-50 as a backup, in case the HPWC ever does have an issue. Below is a photo of my new setup.
Thanks again to all who helped, advised, etc. I definitely appreciated it!
Thanks again to all who helped, advised, etc. I definitely appreciated it!
New HPWC's are available at lower prices!
24' cable version for $550
Tesla — Wall Connector with 24' Cable
and 8.5' cable version for $500
Tesla — Wall Connector with 8.5' Cable
They have a new "power sharing" feature:
Looking through the installation guide. the mounting bracket is greatly simplified (not as fancy as the old one). Also looks like installation is significantly easier (not as tight getting those cables to turn into the terminal block. For better or worse, you can't come in from the side anymore, so replacing the old with the new might take a bit of reworking of conduit to get the cables to come in through he new holes.
There appears to be two different mounting brackets now depending on if you're coming in from top/button or from the back.
Hopefully someone can do a teardown on these to see what the insides look like.
24' cable version for $550
Tesla — Wall Connector with 24' Cable
and 8.5' cable version for $500
Tesla — Wall Connector with 8.5' Cable
They have a new "power sharing" feature:
- Power sharing feature that allows a single circuit breaker to be connected and shared, servicing up to 4 Wall Connectors - an optimized solution for customers with multiple Tesla vehicles.
Looking through the installation guide. the mounting bracket is greatly simplified (not as fancy as the old one). Also looks like installation is significantly easier (not as tight getting those cables to turn into the terminal block. For better or worse, you can't come in from the side anymore, so replacing the old with the new might take a bit of reworking of conduit to get the cables to come in through he new holes.
There appears to be two different mounting brackets now depending on if you're coming in from top/button or from the back.
Hopefully someone can do a teardown on these to see what the insides look like.
277V officially supported! 22kW charging?
Now recommends 2AWG copper vs 3AWG, which means at least 2 AWG fits in the terminals. Although it would be nice to know if 1AWG would fit, that way SER cable could be used in-wall for cleaner installs.
Yes, if you have a source of 277 (L-N on 480V/277Y).
However, the new chargers used on newer Model X and S will not go to their full 72A at that voltage - they're 17.5 kW max chargers. They dynamically reduce current at higher voltages, so expect to see them max out at 63A @ 277V.
Older cars with dual chargers may end up going to 22 kW.
Well apparently these have been 48A capable chargers for a while, so they should be able to unless software limited. Now will Tesla unlock all those single Gen2 chargers already in Model S's to 48A, that's a good question.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
While this is an interesting feature, and one I'm sure some people will have reason to take advantage of, I think there is an argument to be made for perhaps spending a little more money at installation time, and keeping the chargers independent.
As someone who just literally today (check up thread) spent a bit of money to have a backup charging method, in case my HPWC ever goes on the fritz, I'd be concerned about having multiple HPWCs daisy chained through one, and what might happen if something went wrong with, say, a logic board or something on that one master HPWC.
I'm sure this daisy-chained setup will be good for many people, but I have to think for many others, the sub panel route, or something else that allows multiple, independent chargers, might be a safer way to go. With the setup I have now (100 amps feeding a sub panel with a 50 amp breaker for a NEMA 14-50 and a 100 amp breaker for my HPWC) I could, conceivably, add another 100 amp breaker, and another HPWC, and as long as they were not both charging cumulatively above the 100 amp limit of the sub panel at the same time, I'd be fine. And I'd have a second HPWC, if one should fail.
Of course Tesla may eventually build logic into these, and into the cars that allows for timed sequential charging, so that would be an interesting plus...
From the manual, it seems if the master dies just change the dip switches to make a new one the master, and maybe disconnect the data line from the dead one.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
It's good that Tesla is building in a way to bypass a problematic HPWC, and I'm glad to hear that they've done that. I still think, though, that there are some people who would just freak out if and when the first HPWC in their series stops working, and the others stop as well, and wouldn't know or remember or want to deal with dip switches and data lines, and so for many people perhaps spending a hair more at installation time, to keep the HPWCs completely independent, might make sense. For others it might not. That's all I'm saying.
The cost differential from installing let's say 2+ daisy chained HPWC's and 2+ independent HPWC's could be staggering, let's say if the power company charges you to trench new supply to your house. "What if it fails" well what if your only HPWC fails?
IMHO anyone getting a HPWC should get a NEMA 14-50 as a backup anyway.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
And that's why I didn't come close to saying it was the answer for everyone. I'm pretty sure in every place I mentioned it, I suggested it might be the better choice for some, if the incremental cost at installation time was not significant.
I believe the installation I have now, with a sub panel, would not have cost any more than the installation I had initially, with a fused disconnect box, if it had been done that way initially. So in a situation like that, unless I'm mistaken, the cost to wire a second HPWC independently would really be just the cost of another circuit breaker in the sub panel, and the cost of the cable between the sub panel and the HPWC. Am I wrong in estimating that at somewhere in the range of $50-$100?
Of course there are situations where a second HPWC might double the overall installation cost. I never suggested daisy chaining wasn't the better solution in situations like those.
In a situation like yours (and mine), if one were to add a second 100A breaker in the sub panel and a second HPWC then it is up to the user to make sure the sub-panel breaker doesn't get exceeded. Even then, someone might program both cars to 50A which might also be illegal because it's continuous load and the circuit is not designed to 120% of the continuous current.
I would have a similar problem as I only have 200A main feed. I couldn't add two 100A HPWC and use them without care.
The daisy changed solution doesn't have any manual effort. It may be more restrictive. And It clearly isn't as good as two 100A non-restricted circuits, but I feel like there are many cases it would be the safer overall solution to multi-vehicle charging. Unless lots of houses have 400a and higher main panels. This will really come into play with the more affordable (eventually) model 3.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I actually asked my electrician about this. Granted, the answer he gave me may have been incorrect, but he said that with the sub panel, and 100 amps feeding it, putting two 80 amp chargers on it was fine, because if they exceeded the 100 amps, the breaker in the main panel would flip, as it was designed to do. This answer made sense to me, because it is essentially the same logic as why it is OK to have the HPWC and the NEMA 14-50 on the same 100 amp sub panel. I could not use them both at the same time either, with the HPWC maxed out.
To have added the NEMA 14-50 to the disconnect box I had, but just never using the HPWC and the NEMA 14-50 at the same time, would not have been OK with respect to the code. But doing it this way, with a sub panel, is.
If I had a 100A sub panel and wanted to use two HPWCs, these new ones would be the way to go with the additional data channel. I would install them each with their own 100A breakers and the data channel would enforce the 100A total draw as if they were on the same breaker. Well, technically they are on the same upstream breaker in the main panel. It's a win-win.... unless this is specifically disallowed by the install manual...
Actually, at that point it becomes an illegal installation as the feeder must be sized for the load based on the requirements of article 220.
The multi-WC setup allows you to rely confidently upon the non-coincident load rule (220.62).
This is incorrect unless you're using the protect. Unless it is "unlikely" that both would be used at one time (meaning that you've set scheduled charging to prevent that), you wouldn't be permitted to oversubscribe like that. And even if you did set scheduled charging so that they couldn't possibly overlap, some inspectors still won't let you oversubscribe the feeder that way.
Most inspectors will ask what mechanism is in place to make it highly unlikely they would ever come on at same time.
This would be a legal install, and the feeder sizing would consider this as a single load based on 220.62.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
It does not surprise me at all that my electrician provided the wrong answer.
In any case, the NEMA 14-50 is only there for backup if the HPWC ever fails. And if for some reason I ever did get a second Tesla, I don't know that we'd even need a second HPWC. And if we did, we could either work things out with scheduled charging, or set the dip switches on both such that they couldn't cumulatively exceed the limit.
Thanks for the CORRECT answer!
Similar threads
