DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
509
Reaction score
528
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
We're going to disagree on a lot of this.
Afraid you are interpreting the spec incorrectly. In CharIn's own words

Does a station rated 400A accommodate the dashed blue line to the right of the 400A line on the chart? No. It does not. Clearly then a charger whose labeling says 400A, 920 V does not "acheive HPC350 Class"
The minimum for HPC350 compliance is actually less than <400A @ 920V, it is 380A (see OP3 on the chart.

• A HPC350 charging station shall support a max. current of 500 A at 500 V at least.
• A HPC350 charging station shall support a max. current of 380 A at 920 V at least.


This is directly from the CharIn specs. Both are required (neither was "taken out")
So a unit that can do both would need to be labeled 920V and 500A?

For the 250:
• A HPC250 charging station shall support a max. current of 500 A at 500 V at least.
• A HPC250 charging station shall support a max. current of 271 A at 920 V at least.

HPC 250 & 350 units are both required to support 500A, as well as 920V.

The label on both the 250 & 350 should read 920V & 500A?

Just because a charger lists that it is capable of 500A @ 500V does not necessarily mean it is not capable of 500A at 700V.
Just because a charger is not capable of 500A at 920V does not mean it is not capable of 500A @ 500V.

The 500V rating is an important part of the spec for those vehicles using "400V" architecture, and knowing how much power it can provide at the lower voltages is important.
CharIn has specific requirements for 500V charging independent of the 920V rating.

As to the (farfetched) idea of a manufacturer selling a CCS vehicle not capable of charging at the majority of current and future CCS DCFC stations, I just don't see that happening. 800V EVs will be able to charge from 400V stations.

BTW, all EVs already have a DC/DC converter. :)
 

azbill

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
251
Reaction score
157
Location
Arizona
First Name
Bill
Vehicles
GMC Sierra, Bolt, Sky
Occupation
Engineer
As to the (farfetched) idea of a manufacturer selling a CCS vehicle not capable of charging at the majority of current and future CCS DCFC stations, I just don't see that happening. 800V EVs will be able to charge from 400V stations.

BTW, all EVs already have a DC/DC converter. :)
The write up on the Taycan indicated it came with the 50KW DC to DC converter as standard to support the 400V chargers. The 150KW was a paid for upgrade, but that did not seem useful, since the 150KW chargers almost all support the higher voltage. The older 400-500 volt units were in the 50-60KW class.

As for the unit where I saw the 400A limit, it was one of the first ones installed in Arizona back in 2018, so it very well is likely an older ABB model. The 150KW units at that same site were rated at 350A, but the same 920V. They are now installing three new urban charger sites in AZ, one has ABB units, one has BTC units and the other has Signet units. But all of those new urban charging sites are limited to 150KW units.
 

zmachine

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
18
Location
Canada
Vehicles
None
Considering all this, would a hypothetical HPC500 be possible if the need arises in the future?
 

azbill

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
251
Reaction score
157
Location
Arizona
First Name
Bill
Vehicles
GMC Sierra, Bolt, Sky
Occupation
Engineer
Considering all this, would a hypothetical HPC500 be possible if the need arises in the future?
Interestingly, the units that I took these photos of are listed as HP C350 CC for the 150KW units, and HP C500 CC LD for the 350KW units. See the attached photos, both indicate 2018 as the manufacturing date. The oddity is that the 150 KW unit has a listed current of 350 and that matches that part number, but the other unit is rated at 400A but part number indicates 500. Maybe it has something to do with the wine they drink in Italy.

ABB150KW.jpg


ABB350KW.jpg
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
988
Reaction score
465
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
We're going to disagree on a lot of this.
To be honest if I thought you had fundamental knowledge of electricity I would be more inclined to try to help you out. It is difficult to explain how some of this stuff works to people who don't have at least some command of the principles involved. I am used to dealing with engineers. But, in the spirit of trying to spread knowledge....

The minimum for HPC350 compliance is actually less than <400A @ 920V, it is 380A (see OP3 on the chart.
Here's an exapmple. Clearly you do not understand that what is required for membership in HPC350 is satisfaction of the blue area in the chart. I have tried to make clear that the boundaries of that are determine the requirements. No where in the HPC350 spec is there any requirement for any particular voltage and current. The requirement is that the power supply must be able to supply any combination of voltage and current that lies within the square. Until you can grasp that you have no hope of understanding CharIn's intent. The current requirement for membership at 920 V is only that the supply be able to deliver at least 380.485 A because that current produced 350 kW at 920 V.


• A HPC350 charging station shall support a max. current of 500 A at 500 V at least.
• A HPC350 charging station shall support a max. current of 380 A at 920 V at least.
The first is in direct conflict with the current spec which indicates, per the chart, that an HPC350 member would have to deliver at least 500A at 500 V. Similarly the second is in direct conflict as an HPC350 member must support a minimum current of 380.485 A at 920 V. Were these statement not plain wrong because of the use of max. where min. is required they woud be redundant given the diagram. One can, of course, express the spec in precise mathematical terms as, for example by:

"On a Voltage vs Current chart construct a constant voltage line at 200V from 5 to 500 A. Connect to it a constant current line at 500 A from 200 V to 700 V. Draw a constant voltage line at 920 V from 5 to 380.485 A. Draw a constant current line at 5 A from 200 V to 920 V. Join the open ends with the curve V = 350000/I between I = 380.485 and I = 500 where V is voltage and I is current. An HPC250 class member is required to be able to supply the voltage and current corresponding to the coordinates of any point within the envelope enclosed by these 5 line segments."



This is directly from the CharIn specs. Both are required (neither was "taken out")
Neither is required. They are INCLUDED in the spec as given by the diagram.



So a unit that can do both would need to be labeled 920V and 500A?
No. A unit that can do both need only be labeled as being compliant with the minimum requirements of Class HPC350.


For the 250:
• A HPC250 charging station shall support a max. current of 500 A at 500 V at least.
• A HPC250 charging station shall support a max. current of 271 A at 920 V at least.
Unnecessary again as these requirements are included in the HPC250 spec. With mathematical precision this is

"On a Voltage vs Current chart construct a constant voltage line at 200V from 5 to 500 A. Connect to it a constant current line at 500 A from 200 V to 500 V. Draw a constant voltage line at 920 V from 5 to 271.739 A. Draw a constant current line at 5 A from 200V to 920 V. Join the open ends with the curve V = 250000/I between I = 271.739 and I = 500 where V is voltage and I is current. An HPC250 class member is required to be able to supply the voltage and current corresponding to the coordinates of any point within the envelope enclosed by these 5 line segments."

The label on both the 250 & 350 should read 920V & 500A?
Nope. The label on an HPC250 class charger should say "Compliant with Class HPC250" and the other "Compliant with Class HPC350" Someone who understands this would, from that, have all the information he needs to understand the specs and fit his proposed vehicle to this.


Just because a charger lists that it is capable of 500A @ 500V does not necessarily mean it is not capable of 500A at 700V.
And that's why they are specified by class, not their maxium voltage and current ratings. HPC150, 250 and 300 all have the same maximum voltage and current specs i.e. 920 V and 500 A. None of them is capable of 480 kW.



The 500V rating is an important part of the spec for those vehicles using "400V" architecture, and knowing how much power it can provide at the lower voltages is important.
I don't need that number in order to be able to tell how much power I can get from a charger, high voltage or low, if I know that the charger is compliant with a particular HPC or FC class or classes. That's the beauty of the system. As that number is useless it is an irrelevant redundancy in the spec which is why I am very skeptical about it's actually being retained in later versions.


CharIn has specific requirements for 500V charging independent of the 920V rating.
They don't actually have any requirement for any particular voltage or current. They have a requirement that a class member must be able to supply any voltage/current combination within the class envelope. Untill you get this you have no hope of understanding how this works.


As to the (farfetched) idea of a manufacturer selling a CCS vehicle not capable of charging at the majority of current and future CCS DCFC stations, I just don't see that happening. 800V EVs will be able to charge from 400V stations.
People that buy their cars will have to pay a premium for a DC/DC converter. The exception, of course, would be Rivian that is a 400 V car which rearranges its battery stack to be able to take advantage of 800 V charging and any other manufacturer that does that. Lucid would not do that.


BTW, all EVs already have a DC/DC converter.
Guessing that the little smiley face means that you are being facetious. Yes, current cars have DC/DC converters but they downconvert 385 V to 13 V at a few amps to charge the 12V battery. The units that would be required to charge a Lucid from an HPC350 would have to upconvert 50A at 400 to 900 V.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
988
Reaction score
465
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Interestingly, the units that I took these photos of are listed as HP C350 CC for the 150KW units, and HP C500 CC LD for the 350KW units. See the attached photos, both indicate 2018 as the manufacturing date. The oddity is that the 150 KW unit has a listed current of 350 and that matches that part number, but the other unit is rated at 400A but part number indicates 500. Maybe it has something to do with the wine they drink in Italy.
Si, certo.

Note that no claim to memberchip in any CharIn class is claimed.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
988
Reaction score
465
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Considering all this, would a hypothetical HPC500 be possible if the need arises in the future?
Absolutely. Look at the picture in No. 76. The blue line is the 500 kW line. You would have to enlarge the HPC150-350 broken line boundary to the point that the 500 kW line passed through it - perhaps to 1100 V by 600 A. This, of course, would require a heftier connector.
 

Babbuino

Well-Known Member
First Name
Manuel
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
419
Reaction score
471
Location
Florida
First Name
Manuel
Vehicles
Audi A3
Occupation
DESIGN engineer
Looks like Rivian will offer their own lvl2 box, or maybe they'll partner with someone...
From Facebook:
"Hey everyone! I was curious and asked Rivian about home charging and what products they will have for us once production starts. Please read the email below, Hey Matthew, Thanks for writing in, we love to hear from our preorder community! Like you, I can't wait to get the R1T on the road! Home charging is really important so we have developed solutions with your convenience in mind. We will be offering a few different options including a standard wall charger, an adapter for a washer and dryer outlet, as well as a level 2 wall box. We look forward to sharing more information around charging as we get closer to production. We hope to make charging easily accessible so you can truly take the R1T on the adventures you want! As far as the camp kitchen, I love that option and am excited for the configurator to launch later this year as it will highlight all available accessories as well as allow you to choose your favorite color, trim, battery, and more. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Stay Adventurous, Hope this is good info for anyone that was interested."
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
988
Reaction score
465
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
My guess is that it will be built by someone else and branded Rivian e.g. its annunciator lights will look like the stadium headlights.
 

zmachine

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
18
Location
Canada
Vehicles
None
My guess is that it will be built by someone else and branded Rivian e.g. its annunciator lights will look like the stadium headlights.
Because home charger are really fancy switches, could there be an advantage to buying a Rivian one?
 

azbill

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
251
Reaction score
157
Location
Arizona
First Name
Bill
Vehicles
GMC Sierra, Bolt, Sky
Occupation
Engineer
Because home charger are really fancy switches, could there be an advantage to buying a Rivian one?
It is just marketing fluff and totally unimportant as far as a part of the configurator. There are many level 2 home and portable chargers on the market to suit the needs of any electric car. Go on Amazon and you will find all kinds of different chargers, they will all work with the Rivian, it is just a matter of how much current you want, 48A will need a 60A circuit and hard wired, 40A or less will use a conventional NEMA plug.

For me the DC fast charging capability away from home is much more of an important issue. The 300KW capability will require a hardware upgrade over the prototype vehicles that support 160KW, and I want to know if the initial production models support that.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
988
Reaction score
465
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Because home charger are really fancy switches, could there be an advantage to buying a Rivian one?
Actually they are not that fancy. Basically they are a contactor and a communications board. It can be pretty fundamental in essence doing nothing but operating the contactor if the car authorizes it to but it can also be equipped with various load sharing, WiFi etc. functions.
 
OP
JeremyMKE

JeremyMKE

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeremy
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
111
Location
Milwaukee, WI
First Name
Jeremy
Vehicles
E39 M5, Silverado SS, Toyota Sienna, 2001 Yamaha Scooter
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #104
By golly, reading this thread has suddenly thrown me into the 400-level electrical engineering course that I never bothered taking in uni.
Same here, that was an elective I skipped ;) I enjoy the enthusiasm and information though.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
988
Reaction score
465
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Considering all this, would a hypothetical HPC500 be possible if the need arises in the future?
Because this is such a good question and in the hopes that it may help those who are having trouble understanding the CharIn method I thought I would "design" a 500 kW class which I call the AJC500 class. Here is its complete spec (with regards to electrical capability)

Class AJC500:
"On a Voltage vs Current chart construct a constant voltage line at 200V from 5 to 600 A. Connect to it a constant current line at 600 A from 200 V to 833.333 V. Draw a constant voltage line at 1100 V from 5 to 454.545 A. Draw a constant current line at 5 A from 200 V to 1100 V. Join the open ends with the curve V = 500000/I between I = 454.545 and I = 600 where V is voltage and I is current. An AJC500 class member is required to be able to supply the voltage and current corresponding to the coordinates of any point within the envelope enclosed by these 5 line segments."

This, of course, simply specifies the envelope depicted in this picture and labeled "AJC500" i.e. that of the straight dotted blue lines (extended back to the origin via the HPC150-350 lines where it would overlap them) and the curved blue 500 kW power curve:
CharInA.jpg


Note that it is not necessary to specify separately what the minimum current requirement is at any particular voltage as the envelope tells us that. It's 600 A up to 833.333 V and follows the current derating curve above that.

We see right away that the Rivian load line extended would reach the 500 kW contour and that, therefore, it would be possible to charge an 800 V battery at a 500 kW rate (if it could withstand it) by pushing 600 A to it. We also see that a 1000 V battery with the same load line slope could be charged at that rate at a bit less than 500 A. Note that I make no assertion that the load line I have labeled "Rivian" is actually Rivian's load line (ther is actually a family based on SoC and temperature). It is intended to be representaive.

So I go back to what I said in #76: It's amazing how much this simple diagram can tell us.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement












 


Advertisement


Top