Talk:SAE J1772

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Non-free content: File:SAE J1772 plug and receptacle.jpg[edit]

It appears that there are now products on the market which use this connector. See the Coulomb Technologies website and their CT 2000 chargers. This non-free image could and should be replaced by a free one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Different Standard IEC62196 in Europe[edit]

See (in German):

Helium4 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How will consumers charge at home?[edit]

Do they make cords with one standard NEMA 1 (Type A) or NEMA 5 (Type B) male on one side and J1772 on the other? (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a NEMA 5 to J1772 cable can be purchased retail. Most PHEVs (Ford Fusion Energi and C-Max Energi for example.) come with them. [1] 313-matt (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)313-matt

No chance ?[edit]

I have reviewed the European plans for an electric vehicle network. It seems that all European utilities have started projects to run a network of charging stations and on a round-table the (German) utilities said that they will only create fast-charge stations - which means 400 V three-phase at 63 A for them. They claim that anything else does not make sense to them as a business model as that they want to quickly sell multiple kWh on their outlets - in fact you can not even register a pedelec to have it connected to their stations in the running pilot projects in Berlin.

traditional wallbox of the existing Park&Charge recharge system
(left to right):
- small Schuko (230V/16A/1ph)
- blue CEE (230V/16A/1ph)
- red CEE (400V/32A/3ph)

Experiences in Berlin with the current pilot projects show that their charging stations are generally equipped with a Mennekes fast-charge connector, and three single-phase connectors (230 V 16 A) being either CEE-form ("Campingstecker") or Schuko. The existing networks (e.g. Park & Charge) are using only CEE-form with an increasing list of fast-charge stations. The London mayor noted that they will take care that 10% of the charging stations will be (three-phase) fast-charge stations - as a minimum. The private initiative of Drehstromnetz (literally "three-phase network")in Germany does already make up for 10% of the privately-owned charging-stations.

I can't tell if three-phase fast-chargers will be the general occurrence outside of central Europe but I see that the EVchargerMaps has a similar rule that they only register 240 V stations in northern america for pretty much the same reason - slow charging is no real option alas in one's own garage. So if the SAE can not come up with a three-phase option then they will not get a real chance to be adopted for fast-chargers in (central) Europe and slow-charging is already done with existing Schuko (or CEE 7/7) and blue Camping-CEEform plugs in existing road-side electricity networks. The Mennekes connector on the other hand can be plugged into red CEE-form three-phase sockets via adapters and vice versa.

Well,.... Guidod (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

list of cars[edit]

The cars like the Nissan Leaf will also be sold in Europe and they will take the local connector as far as I know. The decision seems not to be for the car maker + car model but for the car maker + distribution area. Guidod (talk)


The article says "The connector is designed for single phase electrical systems with 120 V or 240 V such as those used in North America and Japan." I have read elsewhere that 100 volts, rather than 120 volts, is the typical voltage available in Japan. Also, isn't 220 or 240 volts a common single phase voltage in Europe and many other countries, and not just in the US? In the US 240 is the voltage used to supply high power appliances such as ranges (hobs), water heaters, clothes dryers, and larger space heaters. In the UK, for instance, it is the voltage in most outlets. Edison (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Buildings in (central) Europe use 400 Volt three-phase as its high-power outlet. Car charging is - in general - more effective when using the high-power supply and to use the lower voltage only as a fallback when no other current is available. That's what the article says - it is all about the voltage range of 100-120V, 220-240V or 380-400V which is the key difference. Don't overemphasize the numbers ;) Guidod (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

compatible vehicle models[edit]

Tesla has participated in the Electric motor vehicle, but isn't j1772 compatible. should this be highlighted?-- (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In the list of vehicles, I see that the Ford Fusion Energi and Ford C-Max Energi are missing. Can they be added?

Ford example in section 4: Compatible charging stations In North America and Japan, the Chevrolet Volt,[26] Nissan Leaf,[27] Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid, Template:Ford Fusion Energi, Ford C-Max Energi, and Smart electric drive all come with 120 V portable charging leads that couple a 120 V mains plug to the car's J1772 receptacle; 313-matt (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)313-matt


The Open-EVSE (opensource hardware project) at offers additional information as for example in which has a more complete table of PWM max current encodings. Guidod (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

coding resistors[edit]

I work with the SAE j1772 standard from time to time and I am well aware of the coding resistor values from IEC61851 as well. However, I don't think it makes sense to present that table in the 1772 article for a number of reasons.

  • Even though it might be possible to comply to both standards at the same time on the vehicle side, it will not be possible on the infrastructure side. 1772 with the S3 switch on the connector cannot incorporate the 61851 resistor values without overlapping values.
  • The 1772 standard only describes a scenario where the cable is permanently attached to the infrastructure, and hence has no need for a coding resistor. The cable will be selected to match the output of the chargepoint anyway.
  • The coding resistor values are never mentioned in the SAE j1772 standard.

In my oppinion the coding resistor value table should either be removed (just make sure it's available in the 61851 article), or it needs to be clearly stated that it has nothing to do with the 1772 standard but represents another possible usage of the proximity signal interface defined in another standard.

At the moment it's causing confusion.

Best Regards, Bohnell (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bohnell, the reason to include a lengthy section comes from the fact that we do speak often of some "SAE J1772 compatible signaling", and in fact the section is being referenced from other articles on wikipedia as for example the IEC 62196 page. Currently there is no article on IEC 61851 although both SAE J1772 and IEC 62196 make reference to that. So we can not just make a short note here pointing then to another article for more details.
To follow your points, it seems there are two solutions here - either we need to create an article on IEC 61851 with all the details - or we just add a hint that parts of the table come from that other standard.
You had been proposing the latter and it feels the easiest to go with. I would not just like to drop the information as it gives a good impression for the user how that colloquial "SAE J1772 compatible signaling" stuff works for real in a real charging station setup.
I will try to add a hint as proposed - feel free to correct me and thanks for your hints, Guidod (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Charging perspectives[edit]

With regards to the "perspective" in the Charging section that attempts to compare charging time with refueling time, I have a few questions:

  1. Is the level of precision stated at all necessary? By starting with a statement that the vehicle gets 100 miles per 21.726144 kWh is implying that that level of precision exists in the measurements. It certainly does not.
  2. It's not clear where these numbers come from in the first place, and I suspect they don't take into account actual charging profiles which are not constant over time, although real-world data here would basically reduce the effective miles per hour of charging time stated.
  3. While a perspective on miles per hour of charging may be interesting (given actual real-world data stated to an appropriate level of precision), does it make sense to pose a comparison to gasoline fuel charging times in an article about the SAE J1772 spec?

I'll answer the last one myself: I don't believe it does, and besides it's an apples to oranges comparison typically made by people that are stuck in what I call the gas station paradigm. There are plenty of other factors to consider before making a statement that gasoline vehicles have an advantage in fueling time. For example, I can make the statement that it actually only takes me 30 seconds of active time to charge an electric vehicle: 15 seconds to plug in and 15 seconds to plug out. Normally the remainder of the time the car is idle anyway. A trip to fuel a gas vehicle, on the other hand, requires a special trip to a gas station and the vehicle must be attended to during the refueling process. It just feels to me that this is fodder for a debate on gasoline vs. electric vehicles, and it doesn't seem appropriate for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance.pickup (talkcontribs) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ask the author. see his edits here.
By the way, the frac-numbers do not have a reference, so WP:OR may be sufficient for removal. Guidod (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

240 kW for BMW i3???[edit]

The article says "For example, a 240 kW charger that charges a plug-in vehicle, such as the BMW i3..." Since the BMW i3 can take at most 50 kW, namely in DC Combo mode, and can therefore get less than 4 miles of range per minute at its top charging rate, either the 18 mile/minute range should be reduced to 4 miles/minute (which makes the intended comparison with gas refuelling even more dramatically) or a vehicle capable of handling a faster charge, e.g. a Tesla S at 120 kW, should be used when making this comparison. Unless this is done the kWh/km number is meaningless since it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle equipment section[edit]

It says: "... can take advantage of three-phase electric power with higher Volt and Ampere limits even for the same basic electric vehicle model..."

I think that really just means voltage and amperage. Having those as capitalized is slightly confusing, especially with reference to the Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera nearby. Mattack (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Actually three-phase has also a multiplier of √3 but one can skip that in that section. Guidod (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)