Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Morning,

Background is I had a PHEV and had a Rolec 32amp fitted using the Gov Grant in 2014.

Done the normal and changed the Rolec breaker etc but 2 years ago went back to ICE (don't ask!) and the charger has remained dormant.

I am now taking the leap into full electric and the car is coming next month.

I will start by saying I know nothing about electrics hence asking the question and having a friendly electrician.

The Rolec is logistically in the wrong place so am thinking as the new car will be drawing 32amp for a long time I will leave the Rolec for emergency and fit a new 'charger' on a wall that's in the right place.

I used the grant in 2014 so will not be able to use the grant for a second box so am thinking of just having a QUBEV - EV 32 Amp/7.2 kW fitted by my friendly electrician.

I don't need an all singing and dancing charger as am on Octopus GO and can time the charging on the car.

My question is on the QUBEV 18th Edition unit, does it need a O Pen device? I'm not up for an earthing rod really but 18th edition shows a box that looks like the O Pen device Rolec do!

Obviously the original Rolec has no earthing rod. Both of these boxes will be within 3-4 meters of the incoming supply and consumer unit.

Thanks in anticipation of any advice you can give me.

Ian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
960 Posts
18th edition unit adds DC leakage protection, but still needs a separate earth or protection device. So yes, you do need the additional device if you're not going to install an earth rod.

The other issue you'll run into is that of total load. If you have two 32A units fitted, the electrician will either have to satisfy him/herself that the total load can't exceed the rated input to your property, or install current sensing clamps and a second unit that can load regulate if required (reduce charge rate when there's high demand from the rest of your property). The QubEV can't do this, as far as I know. It's not about saying "I'll never use them both at once", it's what might happen ... so you can't really get round this unless the rest of your house load is very light and you have a suitable input fuse rating.
 

·
Registered
Tesla M3 SR+ In a whiter shade of pale
Joined
·
398 Posts
18th edition unit adds DC leakage protection, but still needs a separate earth or protection device. So yes, you do need the additional device if you're not going to install an earth rod.

The other issue you'll run into is that of total load. If you have two 32A units fitted, the electrician will either have to satisfy him/herself that the total load can't exceed the rated input to your property, or install current sensing clamps and a second unit that can load regulate if required (reduce charge rate when there's high demand from the rest of your property). The QubEV can't do this, as far as I know. It's not about saying "I'll never use them both at once", it's what might happen ... so you can't really get round this unless the rest of your house load is very light and you have a suitable input fuse rating.
Would a suitably rated rotary selector switch not be a way round this as that would only ever allow one or other of the EVSE to be charging at any one time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
18th edition unit adds DC leakage protection, but still needs a separate earth or protection device. So yes, you do need the additional device if you're not going to install an earth rod.

The other issue you'll run into is that of total load. If you have two 32A units fitted, the electrician will either have to satisfy him/herself that the total load can't exceed the rated input to your property, or install current sensing clamps and a second unit that can load regulate if required (reduce charge rate when there's high demand from the rest of your property). The QubEV can't do this, as far as I know. It's not about saying "I'll never use them both at once", it's what might happen ... so you can't really get round this unless the rest of your house load is very light and you have a suitable input fuse rating.
Thanks very much for your reply, Western Power fitted an 80amp fuse last week.

Does anyone recommend an O Pen device that could be fitted? Failing that a charger with the technology built in?

The only main draw in the house is an electric oven, everything else in way of hob and heating is gas. Although dishwasher and washing machine will be on early hours when the car is charging.
 

·
Registered
Tesla M3 SR+ In a whiter shade of pale
Joined
·
398 Posts
[QUOTE="The Badger, post: 3038405, member: 610

Does anyone recommend an O Pen device that could be fitted? Failing that a charger with the technology built in?

[/QUOTE]

Veridian (Eco Harmony) built a unit for me with PEN fault and DC protection all contained in one of their classic aluminium enclosures.
All using standard off the shelf electrical components, no proprietary printed circuit boards to bother about!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
960 Posts
Would a suitably rated rotary selector switch not be a way round this as that would only ever allow one or other of the EVSE to be charging at any one time?
Yep, that would work, providing you never wanted to use both at the same time!

I need which case, OP could always just move the Rolec...that would be a lot cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
Yep, that would work, providing you never wanted to use both at the same time!

I need which case, OP could always just move the Rolec...that would be a lot cheaper.
If the original Rolec was a tethered device, it would probably be a type 1 for a PHEV back then. (I'm guessing Outlander), and pretty much every newish EV these days in Europe is a type 2 inlet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
[QUOTE="The Badger, post: 3038405, member: 610

Does anyone recommend an O Pen device that could be fitted? Failing that a charger with the technology built in?
Veridian (Eco Harmony) built a unit for me with PEN fault and DC protection all contained in one of their classic aluminium enclosures.
All using standard off the shelf electrical components, no proprietary printed circuit boards to bother about!
[/QUOTE]
Was that bespoke or do they offer it as an 'off the shelf' product?
 

·
Registered
Tesla M3 SR+ In a whiter shade of pale
Joined
·
398 Posts
Veridian (Eco Harmony) built a unit for me with PEN fault and DC protection all contained in one of their classic aluminium enclosures.
All using standard off the shelf electrical components, no proprietary printed circuit boards to bother about!
Was that bespoke or do they offer it as an 'off the shelf' product?

[/QUOTE]
I told them what I wanted, (standard off the shelf EVSE plus PEN fault and DC protection on one enclosure,) they quoted, I gave them go ahead.
I don’t consider it was really bespoke, as all components were standard off the shelf items, time from order to completion just a few days.
It’s a good way of getting a decent quality EVSE that does not require an earth rod and meets latest requirements AND uses standard components available from many electrical factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
Veridian (Eco Harmony) built a unit for me with PEN fault and DC protection all contained in one of their classic aluminium enclosures.
All using standard off the shelf electrical components, no proprietary printed circuit boards to bother about!
Was that bespoke or do they offer it as an 'off the shelf' product?
[/QUOTE]


They offer an off-the-shelf product range that includes both DC tolerant earth leakage and open PEN fault protection. I used their off-the-shelf EVSE controller with these functions built-in when putting together a charge point last year. I very much like the way that Viridian have tacked open PEN fault detection, too, as it's much better (IMHO) than the slightly dubious voltage detection method used by matt-e and some others. I remain unconvinced by the safety of only detecting an out of range voltage between line and neutral, as this does not reliably detect an open PEN condition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Morning,

Background is I had a PHEV and had a Rolec 32amp fitted using the Gov Grant in 2014.

Done the normal and changed the Rolec breaker etc but 2 years ago went back to ICE (don't ask!) and the charger has remained dormant.

I am now taking the leap into full electric and the car is coming next month.

I will start by saying I know nothing about electrics hence asking the question and having a friendly electrician.

The Rolec is logistically in the wrong place so am thinking as the new car will be drawing 32amp for a long time I will leave the Rolec for emergency and fit a new 'charger' on a wall that's in the right place.

I used the grant in 2014 so will not be able to use the grant for a second box so am thinking of just having a QUBEV - EV 32 Amp/7.2 kW fitted by my friendly electrician.

I don't need an all singing and dancing charger as am on Octopus GO and can time the charging on the car.

My question is on the QUBEV 18th Edition unit, does it need a O Pen device? I'm not up for an earthing rod really but 18th edition shows a box that looks like the O Pen device Rolec do!

Obviously the original Rolec has no earthing rod. Both of these boxes will be within 3-4 meters of the incoming supply and consumer unit.

Thanks in anticipation of any advice you can give me.

Ian
I would;

1) Get an electrician to check if the original Rolec has DC leakage installed. Im not 100% sure but a 7kw unit should do, but get the sparks to check via a DC ramp test (should de-energise an internal contactor before 6mA DC).
2) Then install a matt:e SP-EVCP-TC inline with the exisitng Rolec. This will need to go next to the consumer unit (space permitting!) set to your incoming fuse size (60, 80, 100). This will disconnect the supply to the Rolec upon an open neutral or if your loads exceed the rating of your incoming fuse. I think they cost around £150?
3) install new EVCP.. the qubev will require additonal earth arrangments... again id get another matt:e with load limiting.. the rolec open CU i believe has a long lead time atm? And it will not limit loads... looks like you can only downrate the charge at the qubev and charge slower.. rather then adapt the load or isolate..

I havent installed the qubev so cannot comment on build quality etc...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
I'd be very cautious about using a matt-e for pseudo open PEN protection, as it only measures line to neutral voltage and that does not reliably detect a PEN fault, and can still lead to the PE at the car floating up to the level that will cause a serious electric shock risk. The Viridian unit does a much better job, IMHO (I have no connection with them at all) as it measures both line to neutral voltage and additionally any small fault current flowing through the CPC that is connected to the car. Still not as good as a properly installed and maintained earth electrode, but pretty close and probably the best alternative as an add-on open PEN fault device.

My experience has been that every single Rolec installation I've looked at has been non-compliant. Loads were installed under the original grant scheme (before the 18th) and all these should have been fitted with Type B/Type F/Type EV RCDs, but I haven't seen one that was (this was effectively a condition of getting the grant back then).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Was that bespoke or do they offer it as an 'off the shelf' product?

They offer an off-the-shelf product range that includes both DC tolerant earth leakage and open PEN fault protection. I used their off-the-shelf EVSE controller with these functions built-in when putting together a charge point last year. I very much like the way that Viridian have tacked open PEN fault detection, too, as it's much better (IMHO) than the slightly dubious voltage detection method used by matt-e and some others. I remain unconvinced by the safety of only detecting an out of range voltage between line and neutral, as this does not reliably detect an open PEN condition.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting, will look into viridian, have seen them mentioned a few times on this forum.

I cant fault matt:e, their customer service is flawless.

This brings up the question i have made with my NIC inspector.. how do we test the function of these devices in the field without making things really dangerous!!? The answer he gave is we dont, and have to rely on the manufacturers FAT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
I'd be very cautious about using a matt-e for pseudo open PEN protection, as it only measures line to neutral voltage and that does not reliably detect a PEN fault, and can still lead to the PE at the car floating up to the level that will cause a serious electric shock risk. The Viridian unit does a much better job, IMHO (I have no connection with them at all) as it measures both line to neutral voltage and additionally any small fault current flowing through the CPC that is connected to the car. Still not as good as a properly installed and maintained earth electrode, but pretty close and probably the best alternative as an add-on open PEN fault device.

My experience has been that every single Rolec installation I've looked at has been non-compliant. Loads were installed under the original grant scheme (before the 18th) and all these should have been fitted with Type B/Type F/Type EV RCDs, but I haven't seen one that was (this was effectively a condition of getting the grant back then).
Yes, i can see the monitoring from the wiring diagram and agree that this is only N-L...

However on a true PME system, this would surely only be relevant with an open CPC from the EVCP to CU? An open CPC would get picked up during initial verification, if it didnt, the person installing the EVCP should probably not be installing it, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
Yes, i can see the monitoring from the wiring diagram and agree that this is only N-L...

However on a true PME system, this would surely only be relevant with an open CPC from the EVCP to CU? An open CPC would get picked up during initial verification, if it didnt, the person installing the EVCP should probably not be installing it, no?

I thought the same at first, but a member here (who I've not seen for a while) pointed out that just monitoring the potential between L and N isn't reliable. Efixx did a video on this a while ago, albeit a bit of a promotional stuff from the Zappi guy, but the test rig shown does clearly illustrate why this method is bit flawed:

 

·
Registered
ID.4 1st edition (previously Mitsubishi outlander PHEV)
Joined
·
494 Posts
@The Badger there is a lot of advice going around and I am not sure how much you understand as you said you know nothing about electrics.

1. you thread said second charge point but I assume you mean relacement. If you had two chargpe points installed together, then you need to get the load checked as per electricdriver's post.
2. Like you I had a rolec and a mitsubishi. I threw the rolec in the bin and replaced it because a. it was type 1 and b. it had no protection. I swapped it for a zappi which meant it was an easy swap had had all the latest protection as required by 18th edition (electrical regulations)
3.whilst I understand jerremy's concern over MATTE device, the MATTE solution is now becoming quite common for installers. There are a few other designs which are similar and do same thing.
HOWEVER the important thing i noticed was that the QUBEV charge point has nothing in terms of electrical safety. so there is all sorts of extras to add ie rcbo, dc protection, pen fault detection etc. so you might actually be better to invest a little more on a better spec'ed charger point, than cut costs on the charge point and add loads of other things.
4. timer functions in the charger (to help with octopus) can be on the car or the charge point. Personally I prefer the charge point so I can charge a public chargers without having to turn the timer off.
So any 'smart' charger will have an app and you will be able to connect with either bluetooth or wifi. Then the app will have charge times available. Or the car will have charge times somewhere in the infotainment system.
5. octpus go,,, good choice... 4 hours charge at 5p is a godsend. you are down to below 2p per mile in EVs and possibly closer to 1p.
6. total aside, you said the location wasnt great, but its about a 30min job to replace the rolec with a zappi and be up to the latest regs in safety. Whereas a full install to a new location might be a lot of time and money with new cables etc. Just double check the current locations suitability and if you had a tethered version you get 6m (I think) not 5m as with the rolec.

Oh and as I wrote that i realised, we all assumed your rolec was tethered! maybe it wasnt. in which case there is a different path but I wouldnt recommend it because I had loads of problems with the rolec in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
I thought the same at first, but a member here (who I've not seen for a while) pointed out that just monitoring the potential between L and N isn't reliable. Efixx did a video on this a while ago, albeit a bit of a promotional stuff from the Zappi guy, but the test rig shown does clearly illustrate why this method is bit flawed:

Ok, so the extra protection as described is something monitoring the CPC for current and is only going to open conductors once; somebody touches the metal work of the car during an open PEN fault, the conclusive fault reults in a certain mA (resistances) and the voltage has to be at a very certain range from a cutely imbalanced system...

Theres a lot of variables to get to this point and I can see why the regs have only recommended the monitoring between L-N. The risk is negligible. In realitiy, your device will open conductors first from the voltage between L-N. If the system is imbalanced, it would have to be soo cute for it not to trip (his setup gets it down to 210V on 2 phases to get the cpc-true earth to 70V.... should trip at 207V?).

I dont think I will loose any sleep with the Matt:E devices ive installed, especially as the resilliance/functional tests are carried out by the manufacturer, whom state that this fulfils the requirement of 722.411.4.1(iv).

To conclude it seems a bit of a marketing point to additionally monitor the CPC, pointing to that its another reason why you should buy from them..

Thank you for sharing, i generally didnt know anything about this and assumed the devices worked the same.

Bit off topic now ;)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
The key issue is really as highlighted in that video, that just monitoring the L to N voltage may only reduce the open PEN fault risk by 33%, whereas monitoring both the voltage and the current in the CPC reduces the risk by 100%. Depends if you are lucky enough to be on one of the three phases that happens to have a big enough voltage change. If you're not, then the box isn't doing anything useful. The other point is a very valid one about nuisance tripping, and one that I know can cause the matt-e to shut down (someone on the Tesla Motors forum had exactly this problem). Having the supply voltage get over the ESQCR upper limit isn't that unusual (earlier this year ours got over 260 VAC, for example). When this happens with the matt-e, or other voltage sensing devices, they trip out, even though there's no open PEN fault

As the Viridian open PEN fault device, that uses the same sensing technique as the Zappi, is a similar price to the matt-e it seems a bit of a no brainer to choose that, IMHO. The only downside with the Viridian box is that space is a bit tight inside when connecting it up, not a major problem as long as access to the front of the box is OK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
The key issue is really as highlighted in that video, that just monitoring the L to N voltage may only reduce the open PEN fault risk by 33%, whereas monitoring both the voltage and the current in the CPC reduces the risk by 100%. Depends if you are lucky enough to be on one of the three phases that happens to have a big enough voltage change. If you're not, then the box isn't doing anything useful. The other point is a very valid one about nuisance tripping, and one that I know can cause the matt-e to shut down (someone on the Tesla Motors forum had exactly this problem). Having the supply voltage get over the ESQCR upper limit isn't that unusual (earlier this year ours got over 260 VAC, for example). When this happens with the matt-e, or other voltage sensing devices, they trip out, even though there's no open PEN fault

As the Viridian open PEN fault device, that uses the same sensing technique as the Zappi, is a similar price to the matt-e it seems a bit of a no brainer to choose that, IMHO. The only downside with the Viridian box is that space is a bit tight inside when connecting it up, not a major problem as long as access to the front of the box is OK.
The imbalance to get to the dangerous touch voltage of 70V only required another 3V on that test to trip a Matt:E.. in the real world the voltage will fluctuate, especially with an imbalanced system. So again, the risk is negligible.

Yes i get your point if costs are not much more and think i will deffo check the virdian out jeremy (y)
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top