SAE is developing charging reliability (and other EV) standards and training.

[SpaceEVDriver]

I love a good standards initiative.

• Public EV charging sessions fail as much as 25% to 30% of the time, according to a group of industry stakeholders convened by SAE, and the reasons are not particularly well known.
• Currently, there is no industry-wide standard to categorize, log, report or analyze charging errors and common causes of failure.
• SAE, the oldest and largest technical society for engineers in the automotive field, is working to develop standards for EV charging error codes, and helping to build a curriculum to train the technicians to repair and maintain equipment.

I have been far luckier than the 25%-30% failure rate discussed here...Or perhaps the failures I've encountered have been minor to my mind. The most common for me is the payment communications timeout. I tried the wallet apps in stores a while ago and stopped using them because of their unreliable nature, and now I am often forced to use them, or other, less secure apps, instead of just using my credit card.

https://chargedevs.com/features/developing-standards-for-ev-charging-reliability/

Sponsored

 

[Jimrpa]

I rarely use public chargers (I know, I need to get out more ?), but I recently stayed at a “lodge” in Hershey, PA (big mistake. Story for another day.) this “lodge” was very large and features two FREE ChargePoint Chargers (6.2 kw - whoohoo ?), anyway. The lever/switch on one of the couplers was broken. Fortunately, someone had figured out how to “jam” the lever using a coin so a charge session would initiate and posted instructions on PlugShare. Also, some kind soul had left a coin and it hadn’t been stolen ?
This is why I didn’t waste two hours watching that guy’s ChargePoint video. If ChargePoint is really serious about “fixing” their infrastructure, a quick hit is to simply monitor “social” charging apps, such as PlugShare and roll a truck when an issue is reported. They could subcontract out simple stuff to local electricians that they certify to work on their equipment.
This is not difficult ?

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I rarely use public chargers (I know, I need to get out more ?), but I recently stayed at a “lodge” in Hershey, PA (big mistake. Story for another day.) this “lodge” was very large and features two FREE ChargePoint Chargers (6.2 kw - whoohoo ?), anyway. The lever/switch on one of the couplers was broken. Fortunately, someone had figured out how to “jam” the lever using a coin so a charge session would initiate and posted instructions on PlugShare. Also, some kind soul had left a coin and it hadn’t been stolen ?
This is why I didn’t waste two hours watching that guy’s ChargePoint video. If ChargePoint is really serious about “fixing” their infrastructure, a quick hit is to simply monitor “social” charging apps, such as PlugShare and roll a truck when an issue is reported. They could subcontract out simple stuff to local electricians that they certify to work on their equipment.
This is not difficult ?

That's a new one to me. Haha!

Part of what the SAE is doing is creating a certification so pretty much anyone who wants to get certified in charger station service can do so. This would greatly increase the number of repair professionals and would reduce downtime.

The report identifies a pile of issues from payment failures to uncertainty if the charger is working to disconnections and more. Part of the problem and difficulty is that currently there's no standard way of informing the responsible party of what's actually wrong with the charger, so sending someone to fix electrical when it's a communications problem is unlikely to be successful. So the SAE is helping to standardize the error codes so (ideally) everyone knows what's wrong with the charger before they arrive to fix it.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I find the list of people in the Technical Working Group to be interesting.
Note the absence of two major players in the charging infrastructure landscape. :/

 

[generaltso]

If ChargePoint is really serious about “fixing” their infrastructure, a quick hit is to simply monitor “social” charging apps, such as PlugShare and roll a truck when an issue is reported. They could subcontract out simple stuff to local electricians that they certify to work on their equipment.
This is not difficult ?

That's not ChargePoint's business model. They sell the chargers, but they don't own them. It would be up to the station owner (likely the lodge in this case) to call an electrician and have it fixed.

 

[AhardFSU]

That's not ChargePoint's business model. They sell the chargers, but they don't own them. It would be up to the station owner (likely the lodge in this case) to call an electrician and have it fixed.

Correct. A business can either purchase the Chargepoint equipment from Chargepoint(CP) without a service agreement or they can enter into a service agreement with CP. I think Tom Moloughney of State of Charge mentioned that most of the businesses that purchase the CP chargers don't enter into a service agreement with CP. That would explain why a good number of the CP chargers at businesses go unrepaired.

 

[AhardFSU]

I find the list of people in the Technical Working Group to be interesting.
Note the absence of two major players in the charging infrastructure landscape. :/

I'm noticing that Telsa, EA nor EvGo is on that list. It's fine if Telsa isn't on the committee bc they apparently don't use the hardware that all of the other companies use; and their chargers are the most reliable.

It disappointing that the some of the largest vendors of charging equipment aren't on the committee. It would be good to have representation from Signet, ABB, and Delta. How can you standardize on common codes for unsuccessful payments, temperature sensor malfunction, etc if the companies that make the most widely used chargers don't have any representatives? Hopefully, that will change as the committee starts to produce work product.

 

[Jimrpa]

That's not ChargePoint's business model. They sell the chargers, but they don't own them. It would be up to the station owner (likely the lodge in this case) to call an electrician and have it fixed.

Ok, I get that and it’s an unacceptable answer (not from you, from ChargePoint). Consider:

• ChargePoint’s brand is on the devices with their contact information displayed. It doesn’t look good for the brand. When I go to MacDonalds, I don’t care about the franchisee. When I go to a gas station, I don’t care about the owner. I care about Sunoco. It’s in charge point’s best interest to be proactive about protecting their brand.
• if ChargePoint IS abandoning all responsibility for the stations once they’re sold, then a mandatory part of station setup should be to insert the contact details for the station owner and the station should display those details, not the ChargePoint contact information.

 

[HuntingPudel]

I'm noticing that Telsa, EA nor EvGo is on that list. It's fine if Telsa isn't on the committee bc they apparently don't use the hardware that all of the other companies use; and their chargers are the most reliable.

It disappointing that the some of the largest vendors of charging equipment aren't on the committee. It would be good to have representation from Signet, ABB, and Delta. How can you standardize on common codes for unsuccessful payments, temperature sensor malfunction, etc if the companies that make the most widely used chargers don't have any representatives? Hopefully, that will change as the committee starts to produce work product.

I fully agree that the manufacturers of the equipment need representation on the committee. I disagree that it’s OK for Brand T to not have representation since they are now beginning to roll out CCS compatibility in their chargers. Since their network is the most reliable, I think that their voice might help the industry as a whole, unless they come across some weird CCS issues, whereupon they might benefit themselves from having others on the committee that may have run across the same thing. ?‍?

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

Ok, I get that and it’s an unacceptable answer (not from you, from ChargePoint). Consider:

• ChargePoint’s brand is on the devices with their contact information displayed. It doesn’t look good for the brand. When I go to MacDonalds, I don’t care about the franchisee. When I go to a gas station, I don’t care about the owner. I care about Sunoco. It’s in charge point’s best interest to be proactive about protecting their brand.
• if ChargePoint IS abandoning all responsibility for the stations once they’re sold, then a mandatory part of station setup should be to insert the contact details for the station owner and the station should display those details, not the ChargePoint contact information.

Not disagreeing with you Jim, but at least ChargePoint has someone on the working group!

 

[generaltso]

• ChargePoint’s brand is on the devices with their contact information displayed. It doesn’t look good for the brand.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that that's how they operate. You can report a problem with the charger through the app or by calling ChargePoint, but all they do is pass along the info to the station owner. It's up to that owner to decide if they care enough to fix it.

Sponsored