Tesla to J1772 Adapter?

[FlasherZ]

I have not seen definitive evidence as to how multiple devices operate with regard to state of charge. But it's easy enough to find out. Take a car with 200 miles and another car with 100 miles. Plug the 200 miler in first, wait 10 minutes, then plug the 100 miler in. Observe.

Typically, I get the right scoop. There are times I have been wrong. I was told that it was reconfirmed with engineering that the current goes to the cars based on SOC (higher currents to lower SOC's).

I have seen the new wall adapters in person but don't have them to perform the test myself.

 

[stopcrazypp]

They carefully locked theirs up tight... and Tesla didn't hesitate to make an adapter so that their cars could use Nissan's chargers. But that's cool because we're all on the same team and Tesla owners should be able to use the common infrastructure. Sometimes you guys get too big for your britches around here.

No, Nissan chose to use CHAdeMO, which is a IEC international standard (as is J1772) that multiple manufacturers chose to use and many charging networks adopted (esp. in Japan). It is not in any way "locked up". It used to be a proprietary standard, but Tesla waited until it became an international standard to release the adapter.

 

[FlasherZ]

I remember him saying that was something he had heard from some people, but people who have now gotten them installed and tested them have found that to not be the case.

If you could point me at the post where this is tested (a lower SOC car is connected while a higher SOC car is charging) along with the results (that it doesn't differentiate charging based on SOC), I would appreciate it.

I didn't hear it from "some people", I heard it from Tesla folks responsible for charging. I expressed my own concern that J1772 doesn't communicate SOC and was reassured that indeed it will go by SOC. Now, that said, I've been informed incorrectly previously (the 72A/48A charging fun with Model X), so I'm open to evidence that might contradict it.

As noted just above, I have seen the new connector but haven't seen the sharing with my own eyes quite yet and am awaiting someone's posts here to reflect it. My assumption is that Tesla has designed the HPWC with a more advanced controller that communicates similarly to the way the superchargers do it.

If you look at this post from @sowbug on page 13 of that very same thread, he explains how it actually functions with his two HPWCs hooked together, and it does not seem to do anything related to the state of charge.

Note that he says both cars were at about 50% charge, so it would be expected to have a near-even split. He saw 38A/42A at one point with both charging which means it wasn't entirely even (40/40). Now we just have to wait to see whether it does more differentiation based on it.

 

[Rocky_H]

If you could point me at the post where this is tested (a lower SOC car is connected while a higher SOC car is charging) along with the results (that it doesn't differentiate charging based on SOC), I would appreciate it.

I didn't hear it from "some people", I heard it from Tesla folks responsible for charging. I expressed my own concern that J1772 doesn't communicate SOC and was reassured that indeed it will go by SOC. Now, that said, I've been informed incorrectly previously (the 72A/48A charging fun with Model X), so I'm open to evidence that might contradict it.

As noted just above, I have seen the new connector but haven't seen the sharing with my own eyes quite yet and am awaiting someone's posts here to reflect it. My assumption is that Tesla has designed the HPWC with a more advanced controller that communicates similarly to the way the superchargers do it.



Note that he says both cars were at about 50% charge, so it would be expected to have a near-even split. He saw 38A/42A at one point with both charging which means it wasn't entirely even (40/40). Now we just have to wait to see whether it does more differentiation based on it.

Sorry this is continuing a side conversation that's not quite relevant in this thread. Yes, I normally trust the information you get, @FlasherZ, but since it seemed to conflict with @sowbug's test, that seems more reliable. I was going by this part of his testing report:
"Plug in the second car, and each indicates 40A available."

So that seemed to be saying that from detecting two cars, the pilot signals were telling the cars they could only have a 40A/40A split. I did forget about the following line, where he did say it was later sending 38 and 42, and with both cars near 50% charge, that does seem to confirm what you were saying. Sorry to @MP3Mike as well.

 

[AWDtsla]

No, Nissan chose to use CHAdeMO, which is a IEC international standard (as is J1772) that multiple manufacturers chose to use and many charging networks adopted (esp. in Japan). It is not in any way "locked up". It used to be a proprietary standard, but Tesla waited until it became an international standard to release the adapter.

Funny that CHAdeMO was basically obsolete before it got any real use, which was from Model S's no less, and the amount of power they were drawing was killing the stations because they couldn't actually deliver the spec'd power. If Tesla waited for "standards" to make their cars they'd be out of business by now. Of course you could look at it form the other perspective as well, which is that the standards intentionally suck to make EV's suck. Sort of like fuel cells are always 10 years away, it seems that really good standard public charging is also always always 10 years away. We've had some paper launches like J1772-2009, but good luck finding one of those. I assume CCS is just as bad off, there's probably no real cars pulling the spec'd power and if Tesla ever makes an adapter those stations, we'll find that the actual power is either very low or it breaks the stations.

Any one of the auto behemoths could make a charging network with their "standard" charging that's multiple times the size of Tesla's network, probably only with the amount of money they spend on private jets for their executive teams. They aren't doing it and seem to have no real intention to.

 

[L-P-G]

The only beef I have is at people who think that an adapter should be "illegal" because they somehow are paying for the spots when it's the site owners who pay the bills and own the spots and make the rules. Not you guys and not Tesla. It all started because the OP wanted an adapter to use his own HPWC with his i3. Folks immediately piled on about how nobody would be allowed to make one, which is a bunch of bunk.

For the record, I love my Tesla powered RAV4EV and probably wouldn't bother to buy such an adapter because I don't really ruin into all that many Tesla plugs in my travels. I'd rather let sites know they are missing the boat putting in proprietary plugs, instead.

Also, Nissan has certainly put in public charging, in fact they've sponsored a lot of public DC charging, something that Tesla hasn't done. They carefully locked theirs up tight... and Tesla didn't hesitate to make an adapter so that their cars could use Nissan's chargers. But that's cool because we're all on the same team and Tesla owners should be able to use the common infrastructure. Sometimes you guys get too big for your britches around here.

On one of my previous replies I said that you should be allowed to print whatever you want but how you use what you print is another story, we've stated multiple times that taking part in an infrastructure you didn't help pay for nor are willing to contribute to (you've very conveniently ignored all comments stating that a small charge per use would alleviate non-Tesla owners charging) is a dick move, you're either choosing to only answer those responses that benefit you, you're too thick to understand the argument or you just want the free electrons regardless of what it took to get them to you.

 

[davewill]

On one of my previous replies I said that you should be allowed to print whatever you want but how you use what you print is another story, we've stated multiple times that taking part in an infrastructure you didn't help pay for nor are willing to contribute to (you've very conveniently ignored all comments stating that a small charge per use would alleviate non-Tesla owners charging) is a dick move, you're either choosing to only answer those responses that benefit you, you're too thick to understand the argument or you just want the free electrons regardless of what it took to get them to you.

I understand your argument, I just find it to be a bunch of malarkey. Tesla puts no restraints on the site owners, it's their call who can and cannot use their plugs. The electrons don't come from Tesla or YOU (BTW I'm pretty sure Tesla doesn't care, just you guys). All of this hand-wringing about an adapter commercial or not is silly. If the site owner says no, then I'll listen. I'd even be likely to ask them if it's all right. You guys, not so much.

 

[bonnie]

The only beef I have is at people who think that an adapter should be "illegal" because they somehow are paying for the spots when it's the site owners who pay the bills and own the spots and make the rules. Not you guys and not Tesla.

You don't know what is in the contract between Tesla and the site owner. You might be right, but the fact that there is a contract would indicate that there are some expectations and would lead me to believe you are wrong with this statement.

I get that you want full use of Tesla's infrastructure. I think it's great that Tesla not only has donated a large number of J1772s at destination charging sites, but in many cases, has paid for the installation. How would you feel if you pulled up to one of those sites and found the HPWCs unused and a Model S charging on the J1772? Probably not very happy & understandably so.

Tesla made adapters for the Model S to take advantage of two standardized protocols - J1772 and chademo. Not 'to take advantage of Nissan's chargers'. Many sites are pay for use, and an even larger number are nonoperational. Should we call Nissan about that?

 

[davewill]

...I get that you want full use of Tesla's infrastructure. I think it's great that Tesla not only has donated a large number of J1772s at destination charging sites, but in many cases, has paid for the installation. How would you feel if you pulled up to one of those sites and found the HPWCs unused and a Model S charging on the J1772? Probably not very happy & understandably so.
...

Not really. I just like to point out that the self-appointed gatekeepers here don't know squat. If I ever got an adapter, I'd talk to the site owners...and I bet a hotel I'm staying at is going to say, "Yes, go right ahead and use our Tesla plug" every single time.

The "use the plug that natively fits first" is just common sense and has nothing to do with anything here.

 

[alevek]

...I get that you want full use of Tesla's infrastructure. I think it's great that Tesla not only has donated a large number of J1772s at destination charging sites, but in many cases, has paid for the installation. How would you feel if you pulled up to one of those sites and found the HPWCs unused and a Model S charging on the J1772? Probably not very happy & understandably so.

Why would one be upset? When the second Model S pulled up, The HPWC was busy charging another Model S, so he naturally plugged in to the J1772. The first Model S finished charging and correctly vacated the HPWC.

BTW, I had QCP install an 80 amp J1772 on my HPWC cable so I can charge both the Model S and I3 with the HPWC. Was going to make an adapter box but Tesla wouldn't sell me an inlet charge port, which sort of pissed me off.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I would love a Tesla to J1772 adapter as well so I can share my HPWC with all the i3s, Leafs, and other EVs of the world.

Whether or not that is a violation of Tesla's patents, etc., is not really my concern. Tesla can take care of itself.

 

[bonnie]

Why would one be upset? When the second Model S pulled up, The HPWC was busy charging another Model S, so he naturally plugged in to the J1772. The first Model S finished charging and correctly vacated the HPWC.

I think you lost the story line. We were talking about if there was both an HPWC and also a J1772 EVSE at a location & a Model S was charging on the J1772 ... when the other pulls up in a non-Tesla and cannot charge at either.

I would love a Tesla to J1772 adapter as well so I can share my HPWC with all the i3s, Leafs, and other EVs of the world.

Whether or not that is a violation of Tesla's patents, etc., is not really my concern. Tesla can take care of itself.

What you do at your place is your business. Obviously. We don't know what the agreements are between site owners and Tesla (who donated the charging systems, including J1772 to accommodate other EV owners & in many cases, helped pay for installation).

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Really wish you'd direct your anger at the manufacturer of your EV, for not actively putting in charging spots for the vehicle they sold you. Instead, you're coming off as demanding that Tesla give you those *free electrons*, when your own manufacturer did nothing.

Btw, Tesla has typically donated two HPWCs and also a J1772 at most destination charging spots. To take care of the people who bought a vehicle from a manufacturer who didn't seem to want to invest in the infrastructure.

You're welcome.

I did no know this - Really? HPWC and J1772 installed at most destinations? That is fantastic news.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Since you only have 30A charging, are you talking about UMC (the mobile connector that comes with your car) or the HPWC (the hardwired wall connector)? Quick charge power already has a service to convert a UMC to J1772 for $200 plus shipping:
UMC conversion to J1772 (JESLA)

They don't have anything for the HPWC yet though.

If you do this, you would have to use your J1772 adapter to charge your Model S however.

Or you can get another J1772 EVSE that plugs into your 14-50 socket, for example the 40A Juicebox for $500:
Amazon.com: JuiceBox 40A EV Charger / Home Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Station with 24' Cord: Automotive
Or a Clipper Creek Unit:
Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: 240V EVSE from 12-80 Amp (19.2 kW max) | ClipperCreek

However, if you have only one 14-50 socket, it is not ideal, since the 14-50 socket is not designed for frequent unplugging.

Really? the 14-50 socket is not designed for frequent unplugging? That was going to be my main home connect. Are there various qualities of sockets with frequent/infrequent capabilities? Whats a fellow to do?

 

[bonnie]

I did no know this - Really? HPWC and J1772 installed at most destinations? That is fantastic news.

I know that at the ones I helped move forward, Tesla would donate two HPWCs and one J1772. You can always look on the Plugshare app to see what is available at a location.

For instance, here's a location in my hometown where I talked to the hotel first & then Tesla a few years ago. Tesla donated all three EVSEs, one of which is a J1772. (Screenshot of the Plugshare page.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

Really? the 14-50 socket is not designed for frequent unplugging? That was going to be my main home connect. Are there various qualities of sockets with frequent/infrequent capabilities? Whats a fellow to do?

EV sockets like J1772 are rated for 10k plug/unplug cycles (which would last 27 years in daily unplugging). Typical NEMA sockets are rated for ~1000 (which for daily unplugging will last about 3 years). Most ideal is to have two sockets, but that is expensive and your panel might not have the space.

The other option is to buy a industrial style 14-50 (instead of a cheaper residential style) and hope it has better durability before it becomes loose. However, just be prepared that you might have to replace the socket as it becomes loose in around 3 years.

It helps to try to minimize the amount of times you unplug by scheduling how you do your charging.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

EV sockets like J1772 are rated for 10k plug/unplug cycles (which would last 27 years in daily unplugging). Typical NEMA sockets are rated for ~1000 (which for daily unplugging will last about 3 years). Most ideal is to have two sockets, but that is expensive and your panel might not have the space.

The other option is to buy a industrial style 14-50 (instead of a cheaper residential style) and hope it has better durability before it becomes loose. However, just be prepared that you might have to replace the socket as it becomes loose in around 3 years.

It helps to try to minimize the amount of times you unplug by scheduling how you do your charging.

hmm- a cheap socket at $25 that lasts 3 years (or longer, depending on use/abuse), and gets replaced with another $25 socket...or a $80 socket that lasts "forever".
It just never occurred to me that plugs wear out. I've never changed a household 120 v socket (other than remodeling/painting) but never wear.
Thanks for confirming, and giving me some specs'.

 

[jgs]

Really? the 14-50 socket is not designed for frequent unplugging? That was going to be my main home connect. Are there various qualities of sockets with frequent/infrequent capabilities? Whats a fellow to do?

You mean the UMC (plugged in to a 14-50) was to be your main connect? Unless you have unusual requirements I wouldn't think the duty cycle on the 14-50 would be an issue. Is there any reason you would unplug the UMC daily? (And if so, what is it?)

As a data point, I've had my S a little over a year and my 14-50 has probably had fewer than 10 insert/remove cycles. YMMV obviously, but I don't think I'm an outlier.

 

[davewill]

...
It just never occurred to me that plugs wear out. I've never changed a household 120 v socket (other than remodeling/painting) but never wear.
Thanks for confirming, and giving me some specs'.

I certainly have. If a socket doesn't hold the plug firmly, you definitely want to replace it. It's very inexpensive.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

You mean the UMC (plugged in to a 14-50) was to be your main connect? Unless you have unusual requirements I wouldn't think the duty cycle on the 14-50 would be an issue. Is there any reason you would unplug the UMC daily? (And if so, what is it?)

As a data point, I've had my S a little over a year and my 14-50 has probably had fewer than 10 insert/remove cycles. YMMV obviously, but I don't think I'm an outlier.

I don't yet have a car to plug in, but my plan was to have an electrician install a new panel with a 50 amp breaker. Off that, install a 14-50 socket. Plug the car into that 14-50 socket every night. So, thats about 30 cycles per month?
Perhaps (the light just came on) you unplug the CAR side, and leave the wall side plugged until one declares "road trip". Now 10 plug cycles in a year seems like a lot of road trips.
If the light stays on - are you saying that I should buy another $500 device (Wall Charger) that plugs (hard wires) into the 14-50 breaker and so we never wear out the sockets ?