Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Manzanita]

The identity and behavior of the charger itself does not seem to be relevant to cell balancing, but the BMS performs the balancing itself by applying currents to the interconnects that go into the battery at every point in the cell series stack, so this really means that whatever charger is used to perform this has to go through the bike's onboard charger interface.

Brian, re-reading this, I am confused... "the charger itself does not seem to be relevant to cell balancing" ... but "whatever charger is used to perform this has to go through the bike's onboard charger interface"... so you're not sure whether an external charger can also do cell balancing?

I am still considering buying the external Elcon... so an external charger should be okay, probably? maybe? Or just no.

I guess if no one is sure I should probably hold off on buying an external charger and fix or replace my onboard charger. No sense damaging my batteries because I am so damn cheap! 

[dukecola]

I did remember/realize, though, that cel balancing is performed at the direction of the BMS specifically through the onboard charger signaling interface.

So does this mean if you run an external charger only, cell balancing is not done? What is the impact of this?

The identity and behavior of the charger itself does not seem to be relevant to cell balancing, but the BMS performs the balancing itself by applying currents to the interconnects that go into the battery at every point in the cell series stack, so this really means that whatever charger is used to perform this has to go through the bike's onboard charger interface.

Your pack capacity will degrade eventually without regular cell balancing. Presumably, regular charging at slow rates does some normalization, but it won't be ideal. I have no idea what the degradation rate might be like, but we've seen stories of riders with bikes cutting back power early, particularly with the 2014 cells which are somehow more vulnerable to cells discharging unevenly (probably by cell construction which seems to be the major change over the last few years from Farasis).

Will the onboard's charger interface still work if that part of the onboard is not what failed, e.g, the charging portion failed not the electronics? Also, I recall reading how folks removed the onboards totally after they failed. What's  up with that? Also, what does this statement in an aftermarket charger's description mean? " Ability to select 10 different Amp Hour or Cell Count settings. Equipped with CAN communication interface to realize real-time communication with BMS."

[Shadow]

Does there exist any way to know when BMS balancing is in progress or has been completed recently:
With a bluetooth data connection?
With an ODB dongle?
On visual inspection of the ZF pack window lights?

[Electric Cowboy]

The SCv2 does taper off for full charge and cell balancing. It's designed to work with the zero

Also, if you are not using the onboard, as was mentioned just start charging with the bike on and once the green charging light flashes you can turn the bike off and take your key with you while you go about your business.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[MajorMajor]

I thought I saw that after a while the contactor will disengage if the onboard charger isn't in use.
Is that not the case?

[Lenny]

I though I saw that after a while the contactor will disengage if the onboard charger isn't in use.
Is that not the case?

I thought the same. Or do you archive this behaviour using the additional pin on the aux charging port?

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

I though I saw that after a while the contactor will disengage if the onboard charger isn't in use.
Is that not the case?

I thought the same. Or do you achieve this behavior using the additional pin on the aux charging port?

The Charge Tank, Supercharger, and Quiq Chargers all use the accessory charging port signal pins to keep the bike in charging mode after keyed off.

But their presence won't trigger the BMS to enter charging mode from scratch.

[grmarks]

Looking at the new diginow chargers, they are so small it begs the question that could one of these be streached out (like rolling dough with a rolling pin)  to fit in the place of the onboard charger? Having 3.3 kw/h charger always with you would be fantastic. The current power plug if in use could signal the charger to only produce 1.3 kw/h for 110V and 2.5 (or what ever) for 240V. Then a J1772 plug would give you the full 3.3kw/h.

[Manzanita]

Zero has decided to pay for my failed charger despite the bike being over 1 year out-of-warranty! Yay! 

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Looking at the new diginow chargers, they are so small it begs the question that could one of these be streached out (like rolling dough with a rolling pin)  to fit in the place of the onboard charger? Having 3.3 kw/h charger always with you would be fantastic. The current power plug if in use could signal the charger to only produce 1.3 kw/h for 110V and 2.5 (or what ever) for 240V. Then a J1772 plug would give you the full 3.3kw/h.

This has been discussed. The charger can be programmed to deal with CANbus messages like the Calex.

The depth of the charger does exceed the belly pan, though. Not by much, but it's something.

I'm more inclined to try that BMW boxer hack with them. Given enough waterproofing around the cable inlets.

[anton]

Looking at the new diginow chargers, they are so small it begs the question that could one of these be streached out (like rolling dough with a rolling pin)  to fit in the place of the onboard charger? Having 3.3 kw/h charger always with you would be fantastic. The current power plug if in use could signal the charger to only produce 1.3 kw/h for 110V and 2.5 (or what ever) for 240V. Then a J1772 plug would give you the full 3.3kw/h.

Why not both? If you can install it in tank area you will actually have 4.6 kW always with you and you're can pick and choose between 1.3 kW (onboard only) / ~2.6 kW (onboard + SCv2 plugged into separate 110V circuit) / 4.7 kW (J1772 engaging both or any of the RV adapters available). Weight is barely noticeable. Of course this only work if you don't mind using your tank area for this kind of setup, but after using this for a while, it makes a night and day kind of difference.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Looking at the new diginow chargers, they are so small it begs the question that could one of these be streached out (like rolling dough with a rolling pin)  to fit in the place of the onboard charger? Having 3.3 kw/h charger always with you would be fantastic. The current power plug if in use could signal the charger to only produce 1.3 kw/h for 110V and 2.5 (or what ever) for 240V. Then a J1772 plug would give you the full 3.3kw/h.

Why not both? If you can install it in tank area you will actually have 4.6 kW always with you and you're can pick and choose between 1.3 kW (onboard only) / ~2.6 kW (onboard + SCv2 plugged into separate 110V circuit) / 4.7 kW (J1772 engaging both or any of the RV adapters available). Weight is barely noticeable. Of course this only work if you don't mind using your tank area for this kind of setup, but after using this for a while, it makes a night and day kind of difference.

Both would be preferable for now, but the SCv2 AKA Elcon UHF 3.3 is lighter than the onboard charger. The only question is reliability which might be a toss up, but at least Calex/GWP is "the devil you know" and warranty-supported.

I have to admit, this new Elcon charger looks really well designed and incorporates a lot of quality lessons. It's hard to say for sure without lots of hours in the field on Zeros and forklifts, though...

[grmarks]

Looking at the new diginow chargers, they are so small it begs the question that could one of these be streached out (like rolling dough with a rolling pin)  to fit in the place of the onboard charger? Having 3.3 kw/h charger always with you would be fantastic. The current power plug if in use could signal the charger to only produce 1.3 kw/h for 110V and 2.5 (or what ever) for 240V. Then a J1772 plug would give you the full 3.3kw/h.

Why not both? If you can install it in tank area you will actually have 4.6 kW always with you and you're can pick and choose between 1.3 kW (onboard only) / ~2.6 kW (onboard + SCv2 plugged into separate 110V circuit) / 4.7 kW (J1772 engaging both or any of the RV adapters available). Weight is barely noticeable. Of course this only work if you don't mind using your tank area for this kind of setup, but after using this for a while, it makes a night and day kind of difference.

No, don't want to give up my tank space, I love the fact that it is storage space.
My comment was more to Zero to talk to Elkon (or whatever there name is) about producing the charger in the different form factor.

[Electric Cowboy]

Once the 1C tank mounting bracket is being machined, I will begin designing the belly mount. I already have ideas on this, but it may take a bit as there will be some significant software involved.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk