SAE vs CHAdeMO

[Bipo]

First Google hit for "CHAdeMO pin layout": http://www.ev-charging-infrastructure.com/media/downloads/inline/takafumi-anegawa-tepco-11-20.1290790915.pdf
Page 8: PIN 1 = Chassis Ground, PIN 9 = Data Ground

I already knew the pin layout, but that tiny pin cannot handle a fault condition current. Is intended for voltage reference only, if it is required to handle several ampères it would melt instantaneously.

The lack of a real ground protection wire is an absolute shame for CHAdeMO, enough to consider it no more as a safe charging standard, IMHO.

 

[Doug_G]

There are different ways to provide safety. One way is grounding. The other is isolation. CHAdeMO uses an isolation transformer, so there's no current path unless you somehow managed to connect to BOTH hot leads. And of course there is GFI.

http://www.ev-charging-infrastructure.com/media/downloads/inline/takafumi-anegawa-tepco-11-20.1290790915.pdf

 

[Bipo]

Yes, isolation does the work indeed... The problem is that there should be one transformer for each CHAdeMO, and that is expensive... Not a good solution IMO.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It appears your whole issue is whether you personally can save a few bucks on an adapter. At least you're honest.

I didn't mention it explicitly, but like greg says, it's not only less expensive, but also likely to be smaller and simpler (making it easier to use and more convenient to carry around). The CHAdeMO adapter rumors say it's going to be a box. In contrast, a J1772 DC adapter is likely to be extremely similar to the current AC version (soda can sized). And I would not underestimate the cost equation either (esp. with a target 100k annual volume). Nissan is making quick charging optional in the Leaf for a reason.

I get there are CHAdeMO stations now, but this is very short term thinking. The numbers right now are not enough to make a huge difference. I'm looking 5 years, 10 years into the future. Would I rather be using a CHAdeMO or J1772 DC adapter? If Tesla decides to adopt one of those standards, which one would I prefer? Those are the questions I'm asking. Just because a standard came first does not mean we have to continue using it.

For myself personally, I'm in the Bay Area, and there are no DC stations within a 20 mile radius of SF (closest one in the south is in Belmont, ironically in VW's headquarters). And for one the most common longer trips I make, SF to Sacramento, there are no DC chargers in between. To say DC infrastructure is in its infant stage is not an exaggeration.

 

[Banahogg]

For myself personally, I'm in the Bay Area, and there are no DC stations within a 20 mile radius of SF (closest one in the south is in Belmont, ironically in VW's headquarters). And for one the most common longer trips I make, SF to Sacramento, there are no DC chargers in between. To say DC infrastructure is in its infant stage is not an exaggeration.

There's on in Vacaville on the SF->Sacramento route, but the reviews/instructions at Bella Vista Road Park & Ride - Vacaville, CA - Recargo sound like an unpleasant experience to put it mildly...

 

[Doug_G]

Yes, isolation does the work indeed... The problem is that there should be one transformer for each CHAdeMO, and that is expensive... Not a good solution IMO.

CHAdeMO is DC fast charge, so there is inherently an AC-to-DC conversion in the charge station. Therefore the transformer is essentially "for free" as it is inherently part of the architecture.

There are some things to complain about with CHAdeMO, such as the awfully large plug, but the basic design is solid and safe.

 

[cwerdna]

To say DC infrastructure is in its infant stage is not an exaggeration.

Vs. Frankenplug which is hardly beyond embryo stage.

From My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - Nissan To Install 500 More Quick Charge Stations that links to a GCR article:

There are now about 160 quick-charge stations, mostly on the West Coast and in Texas; Nissan hopes to add another 500 new stations over the next 18 months...

Nissan at LEAF Owners Celebration - SF BayLEAFs (1st video at ~4:45 mark) mentions 100+ DC fast chargers in the Bay Area in the next couple of years (announcement made in September 2012).

Admittedly, the rollout has been a bit slow but from My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - Nissan To Install 500 More Quick Charge Stations, it looks like So Cal Nissan dealers are getting most of the CHAdeMO love, so far.

 

[TEG]

Yes, isolation does the work indeed... The problem is that there should be one transformer for each CHAdeMO, and that is expensive... Not a good solution IMO.

For the dual output Blink stations they have just one "transformer", but it only feeds one plug at a time. The 2nd plug is in "wait for your turn" mode until the first car is done.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm talking about participating in the market for vehicles that need and use fast charging. That market currently consists of Tesla and Nissan.

And a year before, the only player was Nissan. Half a year later VW will join the game, then BMW and GM shortly after.

That is an assumption with no evidence. Blocking the competitor that is years ahead could just as easily be the only reason.
I assume the big fish control the pond.

That assumption has no evidence either. SAE/IEC could easily have adopted the CHAdeMO standard as their official standard. Previously SAE has no qualms adopting the Japanese Yazaki connector (same company making the CHAdeMO connectors) for J1772 AC.

I have seen no evidence SAE has ever made standards decisions based on politics rather than engineering. One of the commenters on the Leaf forum also claims SAE's "agenda" is to slow EV adoption (again forgetting all their work on the AC standard that they are using in their car) and that it's more suitable to look to IEEE for impartial standards. But IEEE is working with SAE on the PLC communication for V2G using the J1772 DC connector.

Until I see cars in showrooms and resources pushing the car in the entire US market, it is just a compliance car.

So you are going to ignore the whole development stage? So did you consider the Model S compliance car before it reached consumer hands? Companies do not develop a dedicated chassis for a compliance car, they just take an ICE vehicle and convert it (many times using a third party). BMW is building a $100 million carbon fiber plant in the US to make carbon fiber for the dedicated chassis for the i3 and spending $560 million on the i3 plant in Europe. You don't spend that kind of money on a compliance car.

There's on in Vacaville on the SF->Sacramento route, but the reviews/instructions at Bella Vista Road Park & Ride - Vacaville, CA - Recargo sound like an unpleasant experience to put it mildly...

I didn't know they added a charger there, but sounds like it's highly unreliable from the reviews, so until they add few extra ones for redundancy it's still not going to make a SF to Sacramento trip viable for me.

Vs. Frankenplug which hardly beyond embryo stage.

I've said it many times using other words that SAE DC has not even gotten off the ground. But my point is that this doesn't matter! A standard out earlier by 2 years does not make a huge difference in competitiveness, esp. given the 2 years have been relatively disappointing in terms of EV sales (hopefully to pick up this year).


If we look back in history, Magne Charge came out first in 1993 used for the GM Impact (prototypes for the 1996 EV1). AVCON (J1772) came out 4 years later in 1997 with the Honda EV Plus and 1998 Ranger EV. California's policy was to build stations that supported both. AVCON ended up winning when CARB decided to endorse it in 2002 (almost a decade after Magne Charge showed up in the market) and evolved into the conductive standard we have today (using the Yazaki connector). We are seeing a repeat of history with dual connector stations being supported by CARB. I think TEG can attest to this given he owned a Ranger EV from that era.

 

[cwerdna]

And a year before, the only player was Nissan. Half a year later VW will join the game, then BMW and GM shortly after.

Your timeline seems wrong. I'm not sure if the production i-Mievs which began 09 always had CHAdeMO as a choice but CHAdeMO global deployments CHAdeMO Association says

In 2007, the Japanese government decided to encourage eco-vehicles. Since then, in order to boost the use of eco-vehicles, the necessary infrastructure has been developing all over Japan. As many as 800 CHAdeMO fast chargers were installed between 2009 and 2011.

From Mitsubishi i-MiEV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it looks like it was launched in various countries in 2010 and 2011.

So did you consider the Model S compliance car before it reached consumer hands?

The Model S was not and is not a compliance car. Tesla intended it to be sold outside CA and CARB states and had setup showrooms outside CA well before the Model S shipped.

I didn't know they added a charger there, but sounds like it's highly unreliable from the reviews, so until they add few extra ones for redundancy it's still not going to make a SF to Sacramento trip viable for me.

Vacaville CHAdeMO charger has been there for sometime (My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - My first DC Quick Charge) but was AFAIK almost always closed for public access (long story), until it was replaced w/the current one: My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - Vacaville is online with new Eaton QC!!!.

 

[Bipo]

CHAdeMO is DC fast charge, so there is inherently an AC-to-DC conversion in the charge station. Therefore the transformer is essentially "for free" as it is inherently part of the architecture.

There are some things to complain about with CHAdeMO, such as the awfully large plug, but the basic design is solid and safe.

Correct, thanks for telling me.

For the dual output Blink stations they have just one "transformer", but it only feeds one plug at a time. The 2nd plug is in "wait for your turn" mode until the first car is done.

Oh, that sounds ankward... They should do it in other way, like the Superchargers, sharing maximum power output between two plugs.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Previously SAE has no qualms adopting the Japanese Yazaki connector (same company making the CHAdeMO connectors) for J1772 AC.

Come on... you're really just throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks, and you're clearly weak on EV charging history. You personally want the Frankenplug, and more power to you. Good luck. Currently, there is one public Frankenplug near Phoenix. In the SF Bay Area, there are about two DOZEN CHAdeMO chargers right now, and one Frankenplug at VW. Yes, there will be (maybe) 200 Frankenplugs in California in 4 years, and maybe several times that many CHAdeMO stations. That part is all a guess, and 4 years in this business is a long time.

You seem downright confused about CHAdeMO and the vendors who produce components. Yazaki does indeed make a connector for CHAdeMO, as well as J1772. By the way, it wasn't Yazaki, but Sumitomo I believe, who designed the "J1772-2009" that SAE adopted. SAE didn't design this.

Here's yet another picture of yet another CHAdeMO nozzle manufacturer, Dyden, to add to the Fuji connector I pictured a few posts up:

I have seen no evidence SAE has ever made standards decisions based on politics rather than engineering. One of the commenters on the Leaf forum also claims SAE's "agenda" is to slow EV adoption (again forgetting all their work on the AC standard that they are using in their car) and that it's more suitable to look to IEEE for impartial standards. But IEEE is working with SAE on the PLC communication for V2G using the J1772 DC connector.

I'm probably not going to address every clueless thought you have about charging, but:

1. SAE didn't design or engineer J1772-2009; it was done in Japan
2. The adoption of Frankenplug is PURELY business... the business to slow down Nissan. The "politics" is why the largest (by far) player in the EV world is not in the "party".
3. The European standards are largely GERMAN standards, with ZERO Frankenplugs and 650 CHAdeMO chargers in Europe. Pure politics.
4. CHAdeMO already has V2G, and Nissan already has a production unit for the LEAF to provide this. (ya, I know the Frankenplug PR department didn't tell you that)
5. Frankenplug consortium members went out of there way to make sure the Frankenplug was absolutely NOT compatible with the existing world standard, CHAdeMO.

BMW is building a $100 million carbon fiber plant in the US to make carbon fiber for the dedicated chassis for the i3 and spending $560 million on the i3 plant in Europe. You don't spend that kind of money on a compliance car.

Nobody is calling the i3 a CARB compliance car... you're it.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are going to ignore the whole development stage? So did you consider the Model S compliance car before it reached consumer hands? Companies do not develop a dedicated chassis for a compliance car, they just take an ICE vehicle and convert it (many times using a third party).

Just this very question establishes how nutty you are on this issue. The whole concept of "CARB compliance" is so that a manufacturer can sell OIL BURNING CARS in California. How many of those has Tesla ever made???

Tesla would never, ever need to develop a compliance car.

 

[qwk]

If we look back in history, Magne Charge came out first in 1993 used for the GM Impact (prototypes for the 1996 EV1). AVCON (J1772) came out 4 years later in 1997 with the Honda EV Plus and 1998 Ranger EV. California's policy was to build stations that supported both. AVCON ended up winning when CARB decided to endorse it in 2002 (almost a decade after Magne Charge showed up in the market) and evolved into the conductive standard we have today (using the Yazaki connector). We are seeing a repeat of history with dual connector stations being supported by CARB. I think TEG can attest to this given he owned a Ranger EV from that era.

This is completely irrelevant, as the vehicle numbers leased were in the thousands, and as far as I can remember, none were ever sold NEW. A manufacturer that has no interest in selling a product has absolutely no business mandating standards for that product. No sane engineer would prefer the frankenplug over Tesla's plug, and no sane EV buyer would buy an EV that uses a standard that doesn't exist in the wild. Very basic logic.

 

[ZBB]

Currently, there is one public Frankenplug north of Phoenix.

I believe you are referencing the one in Picacho Peak, which is NW of Tucson (~40 miles) and SE of Phoenix (~75 miles)...

 

[TonyWilliams]

I believe you are referencing the one in Picacho Peak, which is NW of Tucson (~40 miles) and SE of Phoenix (~75 miles)...

Yes, that one :tongue:

- - - Updated - - -

The New Chevy Spark Will Offer A.C. or D.C. Charging - NYTimes.com


It seems that you got many of the GM talking points about DC charging. That "Japanese standard" DC charging, called CHAdeMO, is actually the world standard, with 2500 chargers installed around the world, including almost 200 in the USA and 650 in Europe. There are 50,000 cars around the world using that standard. This year will add many, many more of both cars and charging stations.

This new competing standard that GM is introducing with the Spark EV will only be used in the USA. No other USA car manufacturer, Ford, Chrylser/Fiat, nor 100% electric car manufacturer Tesla have any cars planned or announced for this new standard. In the entire USA, there are four of these new standard charging stations at manufacturer's technical centers and exactly one in the public, near Phoenix, Arizona.

Maybe GM can get the government of New York to endorse their competing standard, and the country will split with CHAdeMO on the west coast, and this new one in the east.

Germany will use a different standard, even though they like to call it the same name. Neither of the two "Frankenplug" standards will be used in Japan. CHAdeMO, however, is the same throughout the world.

Two other cars will be arriving in 2014 to the USA from offshore to use the GM promoted standard here, from BMW and VW. None of these cars are expected to sell in large numbers.

The two largest battery electric vehicle manufacturers, Nissan and Tesla, do not use the Frankenplug, nor do they have plans to.

 

[gregincal]

The two largest battery electric vehicle manufacturers, Nissan and Tesla, do not use the Frankenplug, nor do they have plans to.

That's misleading, because Tesla does not use CHAdeMO either. They have no announced plans either way in North America (I could say "Tesla has no plans to support CHAdeMO outside of Japan" and the statement would be just as true). Tesla is a large unknown factor, because they sell enough cars to make a difference and it's unclear what their future strategy will be. At the moment, I don't think they want a distraction from their supercharger message.

 

[renim]

That's misleading, (I could say "Tesla has no plans to support CHAdeMO outside of Japan" and the statement would be just as true).

For Norway, Elon Musk answers that Tesla will be able use CHAdeMO

further summary
Some notes from Norway Event. | Forums | Tesla Motors

 

[richkae]

So you are going to ignore the whole development stage? So did you consider the Model S compliance car before it reached consumer hands? Companies do not develop a dedicated chassis for a compliance car, they just take an ICE vehicle and convert it (many times using a third party). BMW is building a $100 million carbon fiber plant in the US to make carbon fiber for the dedicated chassis for the i3 and spending $560 million on the i3 plant in Europe. You don't spend that kind of money on a compliance car.

Yes I am going to ignore the development stage. Ignore every car that is not in the hands of owners and in showrooms being sold across the country.
I am also going to ignore money being spent on factories that can make parts for any number of cars.
Cars owned by customers count. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

I've said it many times using other words that SAE DC has not even gotten off the ground. But my point is that this doesn't matter! A standard out earlier by 2 years does not make a huge difference in competitiveness, esp. given the 2 years have been relatively disappointing in terms of EV sales (hopefully to pick up this year).

SAE DC is paper and nothing more. I don't care who has agreed to use it for cars they have not yet made. I don't care about the technical differences between the 2 standards. I only care about cars actually being sold to customers. I actually hope SAE DC takes off, because it is more easily compatible with Tesla. ( I would actually prefer that the superior Tesla connector is adopted, but I won't hold my breath for that. ) But no money should be spent - public or private - on a charger with no cars. Yes it would make sense to seed the ground with SAE DC chargers for cars that are coming - but the company actually making cars to use the connector should spend money installing them.
Thats why I prefer tax incentives. If GM or BMW or whoever wants to spend their own money to install charging - which is evidence ( but not proof ) that they actually intend to make cars - then give them tax incentives to do so.
If you believe public money should be directly spent on installing charging - then require cars first, not meaningless paper.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody is calling the i3 a CARB compliance car... you're it.

I lumped the i3 in with compliance cars because it does not yet exist. Existing means being owned by customers, not leased in a trial, not being a show car or prototype or development model. Compliance cars won't matter even after people own them if they are just token limited run cars.

I want one standard to win. The best one that serves the most customers. But if more standards each serve their customers, thats almost as good.
If SAE DC really has 8 companies that all intend to use it and make EVs - then they can massively outspend Nissan on installing chargers and "win".
Dollars define standards. Paper is for bureaucrats.

 

[scottf200]

I didn't mention it explicitly, but like greg says, it's not only less expensive, but also likely to be smaller and simpler (making it easier to use and more convenient to carry around). The CHAdeMO adapter rumors say it's going to be a box. In contrast, a J1772 DC adapter is likely to be extremely similar to the current AC version (soda can sized).

If Tesla makes this CCS (J1772 DC combo) then that may have a pretty good impact on CCS usage. Nice that it will be reasonably sized. I've read some snippets where the Tesla charging system is much closer to the CCS than it is to the CHAdeMO. My searches didn't find much on it. If someone has info/links to post I'd appreciate seeing/reading more about it.

If we look back in history, Magne Charge came out first in 1993 used for the GM Impact (prototypes for the 1996 EV1). AVCON (J1772) came out 4 years later in 1997 with the Honda EV Plus and 1998 Ranger EV. California's policy was to build stations that supported both. AVCON ended up winning when CARB decided to endorse it in 2002 (almost a decade after Magne Charge showed up in the market) and evolved into the conductive standard we have today (using the Yazaki connector). We are seeing a repeat of history with dual connector stations being supported by CARB.

Very interesting analogy and history refresher. Thanks for posting that.
SAE J1772 History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#History
AVcon History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avcon

It'll be interesting when CARB endorses the CCS/SAE J1772 DC combo within a few years just like they endorsed the SAE J1772 (SAE J1772-2009).

 

[stopcrazypp]

Come on... you're really just throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks, and you're clearly weak on EV charging history. By the way, it wasn't Yazaki, but Sumitomo I believe, who designed the "J1772-2009" that SAE adopted. SAE didn't design this.

I'm probably not going to address every clueless thought you have about charging, but:

1. SAE didn't design or engineer J1772-2009; it was done in Japan

The biggest change for J1772-2009 is switching to Yazaki's connector, but the protocol itself is the same one the older US AVCON connector (J1772-2001) used. Evidence of this is TEG with the Ranger EV using a direct adapter between the two. You have to understand that a standard is not solely the connector, it's also the protocol and the power specifications, which were developed by the SAE. One of the most known contributions from Tesla (who was part of the SAE) is the push to raise power to 20kW. To say the entire J1772-2009 standard was done in Japan is completely false.
http://carstations.com/28
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3981&p=93745&hilit=Ranger
http://modularevpower.com/Charging Station/1772.htm

You seem downright confused about CHAdeMO and the vendors who produce components. Yazaki does indeed make a connector for CHAdeMO, as well as J1772.

Yes, I know there's more than one supplier for the connector (just like there are many for the J1772), but who designed the first CHAdeMO connector?
It's Yazaki in 1993!
http://www.chademo.com/wp/pdf/memberspage/world/Yazaki-NAMeeting.pdf
And my point here was that SAE had previously picked a Yazaki connector over the existing US based AVCON version. For J1772 DC they were faced with two proposals: Yazaki (CHAdeMO) and Amphenol (J1772 with two extra pins). They could have easily done the same and picked Yazaki.

2. The adoption of Frankenplug is PURELY business... the business to slow down Nissan. The "politics" is why the largest (by far) player in the EV world is not in the "party".
3. The European standards are largely GERMAN standards, with ZERO Frankenplugs and 650 CHAdeMO chargers in Europe. Pure politics.
4. CHAdeMO already has V2G, and Nissan already has a production unit for the LEAF to provide this. (ya, I know the Frankenplug PR department didn't tell you that)
5. Frankenplug consortium members went out of there way to make sure the Frankenplug was absolutely NOT compatible with the existing world standard, CHAdeMO.

So, because the connector SAE chose is not the one being used by the Leaf it's designed to slow down Nissan?
SAE started working on J1772 DC in 2010, immediately after the AC standard was finalized. In their proposal, they seriously considered adopting CHAdeMO as part of the standard (they set out 4 months to compare the two), so it's a real possibly that they could have chosen CHAdeMO if they deemed it superior. They basically had a choice of CHAdeMO or extending the J1772 AC connector:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/earthobservationsSCC/IEEE_SAE_J1772_Update_10_02_08_Gery_Kissel.pdf
They did not start off by looking at CHAdeMO and then go out of the way to make sure SAE J1772 DC was not compatible! In fact, SAE J1772 DC could have been CHAdeMO! By the very nature of the connector, CHAdeMO would have meant a separate port anyways.

Nobody is calling the i3 a CARB compliance car... you're it.

Just this very question establishes how nutty you are on this issue. The whole concept of "CARB compliance" is so that a manufacturer can sell OIL BURNING CARS in California. How many of those has Tesla ever made???

Tesla would never, ever need to develop a compliance car.

Please see the comment I was responding to. It directly calls the i3 a compliance car. My response is directed to that specifically.