[ggalanis]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

I have to say I don't see the point of an 80A charging station. It cuts charging time, but at the end of the day as long as the charger can charge overnight, you are good. You never drain the battery, so typically you might plug in when your range dips below 100 miles. So your adding 250 miles of range. At 48A that's 6.9 hours and at 80A it's 5.2 hours. That difference isn't really material for something you do once a week overnight.

It is useful if you have a huge battery pack and a very inefficient vehicle (i.e. something like a hummer EV) where you might need to charge 100kWh or more regularly overnight and would need the extra speed.

If ever more mainstream EVs move towards having bigger battery packs, it could be useful, but I don't believe that will happen. Ford might be betting on new EV trucks needing to use bigger packs.

[TechCTU]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

I have to say I don't see the point of an 80A charging station. It cuts charging time, but at the end of the day as long as the charger can charge overnight, you are good. You never drain the battery, so typically you might plug in when your range dips below 100 miles. So your adding 250 miles of range. At 48A that's 6.9 hours and at 80A it's 5.2 hours. That difference isn't really material for something you do once a week overnight.

I think it's based on size of battery. A lot of the new EV trucks are using 130kw or larger batteries and they will need to charge faster than cars based on work function. The ford lightning has dual onboard chargers that can take the 80 amps and charge 30% faster than 48 amp.

For cars like the iX, there is no real benefit for the additional amps. Even if the iX could charge faster than 48 amps it get's expensive for small gain.

If I had a 400 amp service at my house and my car could take the additional amperage, why not. But it is not worth the extra expense to upgrade.

[Bird~Dawg]

Originally Posted by TechCTU

I think it's based on size of battery. A lot of the new EV trucks are using 130kw or larger batteries and they will need to charge faster than cars based on work function. The ford lightning has dual onboard chargers that can take the 80 amps and charge 30% faster than 48 amp.

For cars like the iX, there is no real benefit for the additional amps. Even if the iX could charge faster than 48 amps it get's expensive for small gain.

If I had a 400 amp service at my house and my car could take the additional amperage, why not. But it is not worth the extra expense to upgrade.

I have 200A to the house and a 100A sub panel in the garage. I could theoretically go higher, but opted for a 50A circuit with max charging of 40A and a convenient plug-in EVSE. Our cheap rate power is 7:00pm to 7:00am weekdays plus all weekend so this is perfectly adequate for my use case. I'd actually be fine at 32A. I also have free charging at my office. I'll be charging to 80% most of the time and my normal daily needs are relatively modest. For longer road trips I'll charge to 100%, but I won't need to do so at warp speeds. I can see the use case, though, for faster charging for a 130+ kwh battery in a work truck that could be drained during the day hauling, powering site equipment, etc.

[BMWXaM]

Originally Posted by Paladin1

You can use a longer plug cord, but 12" is the longest cord allowed according to the NEC (National Electric Code, Art 625) in the US. Anything longer would not be UL certified, and is a potential overheating/fire hazard. That's why the plug orientation for a particular wall unit plug is important prior to outlet installation - ground up or ground down (the Wallbox Pulsar plug, for example, is ground down, where the ChargePoint Home Flex is ground up) - because the majority of plug cords are rather stiff and inflexible, and putting a "U" bend in one is usually impractical and also potentially hazardous. And just for terminology clarity, although we universally call them "chargers" (guilty) the wall units discussed are actually just filtered power supplies, and the actual "chargers" that intelligently feed the batteries are integral to the cars.

Then kindly explain how Enel X Juicebox maintains its UL certification...

[VirtualGuitars]

I love this guy’s videos; however, just like a Kevin Costner movie…. They’re always about four times longer than they need to be…

[Paladin1]

Originally Posted by BMWXaM

Then kindly explain how Enel X Juicebox maintains its UL certification...

The short answer is I have no idea, but this is the code:

625.17 Cords and Cables.

(A) Power Supply Cord. The cable for cord-connected equipment shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Be any of the types specified in (B)(1) or Hard Service Cord, Junior Hard Service Cord and Portable Power Cable types in accordance with Table 400.4. Hard Service Cord, Junior Hard Service Cord and Portable Power Cable types shall be listed, as applicable, for exposure to oil
and damp and wet locations. Exception: A power supply cord that is listed as a part of the electric vehicle supply equipment or electric vehicle charging system.

(2) Have an ampacity as specified in Table 400.5(A)(1) or, for 8 AWG and larger, in the 60 C columns of Table 400.5(A)(2).

(3) Have an overall length as specified in (a) or (b):

(a) When the interrupting device of the personnel protection system specified in 625.22 is located within the enclosure of the supply equipment or charging system, the power supply cord shall be no more than 300 mm (12 in.) long,

(b) When the interrupting device of the personnel protection system specified in 625.22 is located at the attachment plug, or within the first 300 mm (12 in.) of the power supply cord, the overall cord length shall be a minimum of 1.8 m (6 ft) and shall be no greater than 4.6 m (15 ft).

So perhaps the GFCI is located in the plug, or somewhere in the cord, in which case it still falls outside code (minimum of 6 ft). So beats me.

* Edit - I do have a question in to Tom Moloughney to see if he has any insight, but as an aside, most installations now recommend hard wiring:

[LuisBoston]

PSA:

On a road trip? Starting your charge at as low a state of charge as feasible is in your best interest!

Results from an experiment over the weekend proves that starting your charge at a lower state of charge better use of your time.

Day 1: start charge at 23% SoC, charge for 30 minutes

Result: 62 kWh gain, 74% SoC.

Day 2: start charge at 12% SoC, charge for 30 minutes

Result: 71 kWh gain, 72% SoC

When you plug in at a lower SoC, you will spend more time in the meat of the charging curve, gaining more joules in the same amount of time.

[NomoTesla]

Yes, it's always better to pull into a charging stop with as little charge as possible so that you can charge as fast as possible. However, I was once forced to find a different EA charge stop after the one I went to was not working. Because of that experience, I try not to pull into a charging stop with less than 20% in case I need to reroute to a different location.

[LuisBoston]

Originally Posted by NomoTesla

Yes, it's always better to pull into a charging stop with as little charge as possible so that you can charge as fast as possible. However, I was once forced to find a different EA charge stop after the one I went to was not working. Because of that experience, I try not to pull into a charging stop with less than 20% in case I need to reroute to a different location.

Good idea to always check the status of chargers when plotting your trip, either via EA app or PlugShare. But EA is getting much better - I’ve had no problems with chargers themselves in more than a year. It’s Niro drivers charging to 100% I find problems with.

[ggalanis]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

Good idea to always check the status of chargers when plotting your trip, either via EA app or PlugShare. But EA is getting much better - I’ve had no problems with chargers themselves in more than a year. It’s Niro drivers charging to 100% I find problems with.

Did you know that Kia doesn't suggest using a lower charging limit?

A friend of mine just got a Niro EV yesterday (against my advice, I suggested a ioniq5 or ev6 as a better alternative for him but whatever, he had his reasons) and we were talking about the daily/normal charging limit and their user manual does not make a recommendation for it. I was expecting a 80% or 90% but there is nothing.... In fact the only recommendation they so have says that they should charge to 100% at least once a month if not more often. Weird AF since i don't think they use an LFP battery, do they?

[NomoTesla]

LFP would be the only reason to do that, as the LFP voltage is rather flat over most of the battery's capacity and more frequent 100% charge cycles are needed to keep the capacity algorithm properly calibrated.

[ggalanis]

Originally Posted by NomoTesla

LFP would be the only reason to do that, as the LFP voltage is rather flat over most of the battery's capacity and more frequent 100% charge cycles are needed to keep the capacity algorithm properly calibrated.

Yes but i remember searching for this info and seeing that they don't use a LFP pack...