NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Technical discussion on converting internal combustion to electric
Richo
Senior Member
Posts: 3602
Joined: Mon, 16 Jun 2008, 00:19
Real Name: Richard
Location: Perth, WA

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by Richo » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 06:33

acmotor wrote:Item 4.
Mechanical isolator.
The ES should break the battery pack up by location using contactors to max 72V modules.


Is that 72V the nominal voltage or 72V in peak charged state?
It would also be quite irritating if you broke the pack into 72V max only to have odd cells out by themselves just for the sake of adhering to exactly 72V.
I would prefer 72V+/-5% of the nominal rated voltage for the cell.
acmotor wrote: I can't find the driver operated mechanical switch in a prius. (other than the ignition switch)Image

But that would confuse the drivers?
Remember the 5th element when the Main villan sold the guns to the dumb hench men?
"Any intelligent buyer would have asked what the red button does".
Next minute - kaboom.
acmotor wrote:9. "Approval in priciple" please expand on how this section makes things safer.
Oh it doesn't.
It is there to make sure each dept gets thier fair share of money allocation.
And the engineers...
acmotor wrote: 10. Orange wires to remain a suggestion only. Orange conduits to be considered equally suitable for all traction system wiring.


Agreed
Help prevent road rage - get outta my way! Blasphemy is a swear word. Magnetic North is a south Pole.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 07:29

72V is a throw in number that I know to be safe for handling after years of experience and as I recently demonstrated at a meeting. There is also some (telecommunications at least) industry suggestion of this sort of number. I think if we can demonstrate 72V is OK in EV case then run with that. It is not as safe as 12V but a lot safer than 200V.

32, 48 and 60 could be considered. (well perhaps not 32 or 48 -- just too low) US have set 60V precedent I think. But don't follow blindly follow them.
72V 'nominal' or at rest voltage would be OK in my mind. OK at times it is higher e.g. end of charge, but typically not for long and by much. So TS are 3.2V, LA 12V would be OK. The main push here is to have 100, 200 or 300V packs broken up to safe numbers. It would be a brave person to argue againt this safety move, particularly for the converting public !
Image
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

Lowly
Noobie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu, 04 Sep 2008, 05:08
Real Name: Greg Heins
Location: Melbourne, Aust

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by Lowly » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 16:02

My first impressions of this list for review is the lack of focus on electrical issues. It seems to have most of the mechanical bases covered, however point (4) is really the only one that deals with electrical issues. This was also my impression on seeing NCOP14 for the first time.

Modifying cars mechanically has been done for a long time - questions of ADR compliance, weight distribution, anchor point strength and crumple zones are hardly just ev issues.

I see the fact that high voltage wiring does not need to be done by an electrician unless it is connected to the grid as a bit of a "loophole" (that is what I have been told - correct me if I am wrong). Those of us who are not electricians probably need more guidance on electrical issues than is in the present NCOP14.


Other than the lack of electrical focus, I agree with the points under review.

I take acmotor's point about an indirectly operated mechanical safety switch potentially useless in the event of a crash, however the automotive industry is generally very hesitant of going to control "by wire". We now have electronic throttles, but while the technology for "steer by wire" and "brake by wire" has been around for a while we are only starting to see in come in now. I think the wish for mechanical connections is an automotive industry thing (as opposed to the aviation industry for example)

Cheers

Greg

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 18:38

Lowly, I try to raise electrical issues, however there seems to be a lot less electrical understanding than mechanical understanding around ! I do take your point though.
For people in the electrical industry, requiring that EVs meet accepted electrical standards says a lot already, but perhaps not EV specific. I agree though that more of the applicable points should be spelt out in a doc like NCOP14. (or at least AEVA's supplimentary guidelines !)

I would say that an electrician who works with AC mains, whilst probably having a better understanding than most of installation standards, has insufficent 'electricity' experience with DC and the specific requirements of an EV. They are potentially more adaptable to the EV environment than the average joe, however there are so many differences in technique and components that to suggest they are already up to speed is (in most cases) blind faith.

We should consider an auto electrician as equally adaptable to the EV world as a mains sparky, as long as we remember that neither have all the pre-requisits, they just start (possibly) closer to the show.
And then there is the auto mechanic, I am certain they can come up to speed. And then there is joe bloggs. Why can't he (she) learn, research and produce ?

I am of the belief that the correct move is to empower would be EV converters with the knowedge they require, then have it inspected rather than pretend that you have to wear particular colour overalls (i.e. be a licenced installer).

The world is better and better educated today and there is amazing access to information. Think education and acceptable standards with lots of info and guidelines rather than closed shop (out of fear ?).

Image
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

Rob M
Groupie
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu, 17 May 2007, 16:40
Real Name: Robert Mason
Location: Australia
Contact:

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by Rob M » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 19:04

I can elaborate a bit on some of the points mentioned above:
1. Indication that the vehicle is electric would be mainly for emergency situations. I am not convinced that a 25mm triangle on the number plate would be noticed. The red emergency stop switch, labelled as such would be more obvious but maybe still inadequate by itself. Remember they are not requiring every home converter adopt similar standards as Toyota, but still maintain sensible safety levels. The department is aware that it needs to set financially achievable standards so as not to kill the home converter concept.
The home converter would be accessing battery packs more often than a non converter who might still own an EV. It has been suggested that it be made illegal for anyone other than a home converter to tamper with the electrical system on other than their own EV. A commercial converter would require a license without exception.
The home converter should already be aware of and be stringently adopting safety procedures.
Control by wire still has potential for failure, especially in a crash. Also there is no guarantee that a crash victim would remember to turn "off" the key and an emergency person is more likely to respond to a red emergency stop button.
The inertia switch is a good idea I think but should not replace the red switch. The emergency stop can also perform the fuction of breaking packs using contactors if necessary.
As for a short or similar fault to the chassis, this would be dangerous in the event that someone touched a battery terminal or live connection as well as being electrically in contact with the chassis. Short circuits, two terminals contacting the chassis, can only be avoided to a degree in a crash situation. Fusing packs over 60 or 70 volts would help here.
On the issue of weight distribution I dont think it needs to be as stringent as maintaining the original distribution but common sense would prevail I think (and hope).
The reason for approval in principle is current "law" and probably applies to hot rodders more than EV converters. The idea was to save modifiers getting a refusal after spending large sums of money on modifications. Might still be relevant to EV converters though.
Trying to install too many batteries and exceeding GVM is an example.
Crumple zones are designed around an ICE being present in the front or rear of a vehicle. This design might be compromised by a conversion.
Orange wires better indicate dangerous voltage. A black wire is usually considered either neutral (grid AC) or earth in automotive so might be misleading.
MSDS's, say for a new type of battery, would need to be made available to emergency personnel, not necessarily carried in the vehicle where it probably would go unnoticed.
keep the comments coming!
Cheers
Rob

zeva
Senior Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat, 15 Dec 2007, 05:09
Real Name: Ian Hooper
Location: Australia
MSN: sigmunky@hotmail.com
Contact:

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by zeva » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 19:18

Speaking of emergency stop switches, I'm increasingly a fan of Tuarn's method of emergency shutdown for the traction circuit, using "little" stop buttons to drop out the contactor(s).

The big advantage I see is that you can have all your safety devices in series (e.g multiple manual kill switches, crash sensor, leakage sensor, ignition key) so if any of them go open circuit, the contactor(s) will open.

You also get some redundancy having multiple contactors, i.e if one is damaged/welded shut but the other(s) open, the system still shuts down. And of course, if you have a split battery pack, a big red button can only break the circuit at one point so can't prevent all possible short circuits.

I'd like to rewire my MX5 along these lines.. so it would be great if NCOP allowed it! Image
Ian Hooper
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world." - Margaret Mead
http://www.zeva.com.au

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 19:50

Rob,
Better indication of EV, I agree (just don't imply any more danger than ICE) What do you propose ?

Control by wire --- welcome to the 21st century. Safety can be in multiples with redundancy (double wired / double switched)and automation and intelligence included. You can't fight it.
My police friend says they turn ignition switch off at an accident, not look for red button. If an EV's system is any good, it shut down long ago automatically anyway. Can you enquire of emergency services what their position is ?

Chassis issues - aren't all your electrical terminals insulated already ? If battery pack was broken up into lower voltages as well then I just can't follow the thinking.

Weight distribution front / back - the two cases tare and gross should be considered. A sedan will(?) differ less than a tray back. But should be there as a point (not exclusive to EV as you say).

At some stage you will need to collate these points and kill off point scoring debate ! Image
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 20:10

Re: orange wires.
A pink and purle pokadot wire inside an ORANGE conduit.
I am getting frustrated here. Image
At least I'll know it is not the same potential as all the other orange wires. Image
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

a4x4kiwi
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu, 03 Jan 2008, 19:04
Real Name: Malcolm Faed
Location: Australia
Contact:

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by a4x4kiwi » Fri, 26 Sep 2008, 00:57

Re, emergency stop, I am with Ian (Zeva) on this one.

I will have several switches all in series that need to be closed in order for the contractors to close.

Ignition key (+12v)
Relay from 240v charge input
circuit breaker microswitch
Crash Sensor (common to ground)
Emergency button.

All these will be in series connected to a relay to activate the contactors.

My circuit breaker will also be activated by the NO contact on the crash sensor and the emergency button.

If any of these are open, the battery pack will be disconnected and broken into 48v blocks.

My main contactor will be able to be disconnected by a cable pull in the cab. (I saw this on a recently registered DC vehicle). As my system is AC, the failure mode of the controller is to stop the motor so I believe the technical requirement for a direct acting 'mushroom' switch is somewhat reduced. In a DC system the failure mode could be 'full speed ahead'

I see routing the HV and high current battery cables into the cabin for the mushroom button as a hazard, and should be avoided except for DC systems due to the failure mode.

Regards, Mal.
Last edited by a4x4kiwi on Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 15:35, edited 1 time in total.
Silicon is just sand with attitude.

Blog: http://malfunction.faed.name

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Fri, 26 Sep 2008, 06:52

Rob, Just working through NCOP14 again....
Section 2.3 Venting of Battery Compartments.

If you have this vent system then it must be monitored to be functional. If not then shut down charging etc. Perhaps gas detector of flow detector.
The single point failure must be removed if it is to be a safety system.

2.5 Power Unit
"The design of any ancillary equipment supply should be such that satisfactory operation of all equipment, particularly brakes and headlights, is available throughout the discharge cycle of the traction batteries."
This includes operation of the ancillary equipment at design voltage of 13.8 (+ - 0.5V at the fuse box) and not 10 or 11V with dull lights as would occur with a non float charged Aux battery. Operating time with traction system fault at least 1 hour (hazards) or 15 Minutes (headlights)

2.6 Controls
"The master switch must isolate all electrical connections to the power source."
Single pole switches are not suitable. Must be 2 pole or battery breakup system.

2.7 Electrical Installations Standards
"All wiring must be effectively secured to the chassis at regular intervals of not more than 600mm, unless supported by a conduit or other rigid protective housing. The wiring should be kept away from moving and hot parts and be protected from chafing against sharp edges."

Just had a look at wires on my EV, make it 300mm more like it to be secure in a vehicle.

"All electrical control apparatus for the traction circuit should be designed on fail-safe principles; i.e. the failure of any individual component within the traction circuit should stop the motor."

This includes an insulation failure. Yes or No ?
Electrically Isolated traction systems do not comply with this. Perhaps the inclusion of a leakage detector could address this shortfall.
Image

Mal. Tell me details of your main contactor ?
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

John
Noobie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 17:16
Real Name: John Cooper
Location: Perth WA

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by John » Fri, 26 Sep 2008, 20:18

I am in the midst of modifying and tidying up the wiring on the Mitsubishi Ute and have noticed that there may be an issue with colour conventions.
Typically in the automotive industry red and black are used for +12/24 VDC and -12/24VDC. I have noticed that red has also been used for the high voltage from the chargers whilst orange has been used for traction pack and motor cables.
Is there an appropriate convention?
If not how about use red and black for low voltage +/- and reserve orange and blue for high voltage DC? I have checked and the 75 and 95mm cables are also available with blue double insulation.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Fri, 26 Sep 2008, 22:53

Interesting,
There are no plain red or black wires in the suzuki's original wiring harness other than the black cable to the starter motor. +12V is white with blue stripe.

So to claim an "automotive industry standard" of red and black (whilst logical and I would not seek to change it) seems not to be the reality.

The +12V lead from battery to starter motor is normally black so that throws the whole theory out.

But yes, maybe the red/black for less than 32V as NCOP14 suggests is a good place to start. But let us not kid ourselves, it is not an automotive standard for manufacturers at least.

The issue of meaningful colours is more the point !!!

At present NCOP14 SUGGESTS orange wire for all voltages >32V.
A reasonable starting point only, to offer visual indication of dangerous voltage. It could be argued that any electrically floating wiring should be orange as it has potential to be live wrt chassis without warning.
I for one am not happy with a single colour orange when there are + and - voltages or alternate ends of a battery pack.
Perhaps it should be striped or banded or labelled at its point of termination ?
Or, throw it all in an orange flexible conduit or heatshrink or spiralwrap to warn users and mechanically protect while inside use a meaningful colour to the ELECTRICAL installation.

I actually use blue wires for all the interbattery connections, red and black for +ve and -ve and all inside orange conduit. At least I know which wire is which. General public only see 'orange'.

Any 'standard' would be an EV conversions standard and needs to be better than just orange wire alone. I am not aware of anything more than is in NCOP14.
There are centre zero volt with + - polarity systems as well to consider along with the traditional DC systems.

So yes John, I'm with you re blue.
But I would say that RED is also a colour wire I would treat with respect if colours are going to be visual warnings.
In that light, blue is possibly not a good choice --- we need more colours in the rainbow !
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

User avatar
DVR
Groupie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun, 22 Jun 2008, 23:01
Real Name: Shane
Location: Adelaide

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by DVR » Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 00:48

I dont see why we need to have item 1. LPG type labeling should be sufficient, emergency personnel are trained to look for them. Other labeling should be a matter of choice.
With item 2, the legislators set the rules that we must comply to. as long as we do comply then we shouldn't have to explain anything. Again emergency personnel are, or should be trained. Modern cars have drive by wire tech in them and I don't see any "big red buttons' or easy to read labels in case of WOT issues. They just have ignition keys in the "usual" spot.
Item 3.....hmmmm I'm not entirely sold on that either, unless the battery chemical is unusual/particularly nasty.
Item 9 I,ve never understood!! Why do I need "permission" to modify MY car?? It's MY car, If I want to mess with it that,s my choice. If I'm dopey enough to do it without finding out if it will pass, that's my problem. It's just more "red tape"

If we go on record as telling the legislators that we "should have" things like Big red buttons, BIG noticeable warnings on the car that it's an EV and MSDS', I worry that we, as THE EV community, may "encourage" the mis-conception that EV's are more dangerous than they are and give ammunition to the anti EV lobby.
Last edited by DVR on Fri, 26 Sep 2008, 15:09, edited 1 time in total.


So long and thanks for all the fish.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 02:16

Solid stance there DVR.
You have my vote. Image

We may need to grovel a bit with DPI and not push the EV community demands too much ! Common ground ?

Just picking up on one point....
Material Safety Data Sheets... I'm thinking about the batteries here.
MSDS is not a big issue.
The differing battery chemistries and potentially large volumes of fluids or problem with toxins in a fire can potentially be an issue. I can see Rob's point of looking at MSDS as it is better if the 'EV community' is seen to be pro-active on safety. The MSDS dec. for each battery type is just a page of data - you know the sort of thing. A copy in your glovebox is not a silly idea, and not much trouble.
A list(copy) of MSDS declarations can be sent to emergency people for different battery types (if they don't already have them) and a label somewhere on the EV to say which one (chemistry) is used. No big effort. It just looks better if we are covering the safety bases.
This is no worse than the MSDS for petrol etc. and I do take your point of not making EVs look (any more) dangerous.

www.msds.com.au
Image
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

a4x4kiwi
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu, 03 Jan 2008, 19:04
Real Name: Malcolm Faed
Location: Australia
Contact:

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by a4x4kiwi » Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 18:14

Tuarn, here is a picture of the circuit breaker if that is what you are referring to http://a4x4kiwi.blogspot.com/2008/01/ci ... rgers.html

the instant the CB trips the contactors will also drop out due to the internal microswitch being connected to the contactor control circuit.

The pack is of course broken up by contactors into 12 x 48v blocks and one 24v block. These are https://www.zeva.com.au/store.php?product=46 They are double pole so there are 7 of them. Mal.
Silicon is just sand with attitude.

Blog: http://malfunction.faed.name

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by acmotor » Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 22:54

This is good.

Mal, did you choose the double pole contactors on the basis of price or total coil current ? Was there a reason for not using single pole ?
I will not be popular, I guess, by showing concern that the contactors are not single pole, as bringing the adjacent two 48V modules together at a double pole connector defeates one of the aims of breaking the battery pack up in the first place ! (if I read your intention correctly)

Just thinking this through technically. The CB on its own has insufficient voltage rating to break under fault conditions (250VDC c.f. 600VDC). By including the 12/13/14 other contactors in the breakup by way of the microswitch in the CB does though mean that the breaking voltage capacity would in theory be in the several kV range. More than suitable.
The argument that may arise is that the mechanical CB ( to satisfy NCOP14) is not suitable for the purpose with-out the other series solenoids operating. NCOP14 requires a mechanically operated ES and that electrically operated is not acceptable.
I would consider your system that offers combined battery pack breakup superior, however you may have some convincing to do.
If your system is accepted then so should totally electrical ES. (I support this)

We both know that under normal operation the CB will have an easy life as there is no voltage across its contacts at the pont of openning when using the AC controller with its large capacitor bank.
BTW I saw somewhere that someone using an AC controller had removed the capacitor bank to save space and weight. I would be disinclined to do any such thing !
iMiEV MY12     105,131km in pure Electric and loving it !

User avatar
Johny
Senior Member
Posts: 3729
Joined: Mon, 23 Jun 2008, 16:26
Real Name: John Wright
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by Johny » Fri, 17 Oct 2008, 18:51

Does anyone know of a VASS (VEHICLE ASSESSMENT SIGNATORY SCHEME) person who has already done a BEV in Victoria. I have the list of VASS's but don't want to ring each of them to find one. It is difficult to get the right information from Vic Roads on the phone. I will go in person if I have to but thought I'd ask here first.

Sparky Brother
Groupie
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun, 30 Mar 2008, 05:20
Real Name: Angel T.
Location: Melbourne

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by Sparky Brother » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 13:29

Here is a quotation of the response from a VASS Engineer I received the other day Re. my intention to get my conversion started;

"Angel, Based on discussions with Vicroads, there are concerns that we will
not be able to demonstrate compliance with ADR69 (frontal impact) after
modication. A crash test is the only way to do this with sureity & I am sure
this is not appropriate in your case. They are awaiting with interest which
VASS engineer is going to proviide the first report to cover such
modifications.
Regards .........."

Discouraging eh? I am purposely hiding out the name becose I am generally a person of a good nature and just like most people some times when I don`t have my confidence in a matter I am giving similar answers too. I do believe with the time VASS Engs. will build up their confidence on the EV conversions issue than it will be easier for every consequent one. So relax but don`t stop digging this is who I am.

User avatar
lithbattboss
Groupie
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu, 03 Apr 2008, 21:50
Location: Sydney

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by lithbattboss » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 18:25

Guys I will throw my 2 cents worth in. There are some great comments and suggestions above. Before I became the National Distributor for what are currently the world's most technologically advanced LiFePO4 batteries and diagnostics monitoring systems I was the senior electrical engineer for one of the worlds largest critical power backup/UPS systems companies. I have plenty of experience with what goes on in industry regarding high voltage DC installations (and the conventions used)and have personally been responsible for the initial commissioning and ongoing maintenance of many lead acid battery installations which generally operate in the region of 432VDC. This voltage is supplied to the input of the 3 phase inverters which can be rated as high as 400kVA. I have personally been responsible for the installaion and maintenance of batteries for companies such as IBM,General Electric,Coca-Cola,McDonalds,Orica and government department such as the Dept. of Defence, the ATO and several major hospitals.

Now for my EV related comments-
In these high voltage UPS installations in 99% of battery banks the wiring is all black. It is ALWAYS double insulated. Only the lug/terminal ends of the cables are identified with red or black heatshrink to show whether ground potential or HV battery potential is present at the connection point. All connecting harware (nuts, bolts and washers) is stainless steel without exception. While orange wiring/conduit looks good and is easy to see/identify, orange is the standard for identifying wiring underground or otherwise buried. I am not sure orange would be accepted for EV's as a standard because we would have conflicting industry electrical standards. More confusion in the electrical industry is the last thing that is needed.

Many quality EV LiFePO4 batteries (mine being only one example) cannot be split or broken down into 72 volt "sections" since the battery is available in a single, 96V, 108V 0r 144V battery block.

It is up to individual EV constructors to decide for themslves if they are willing to take the risk/consequences of undertaking any wiring which is designed at 120V and above as outlined in the definitions for voltage levels (and who is allowed to install this wiring)as outlined in the relevant Austraian Standards. Under the law at present all wiring for 120VDC and above must be carried out by the holder of a current electrical licence (or signed off by such an authoried person). As with everthing while it is working there is no problem but lets just say for example that an EV was invoved in a car accident. Even if the EV was not ant fault and the ICE vechicle owner was definitely at fault, any insurance would be considered null and void and all liability would be on the EV owner if it went to court and the EV owner could not show the all wiring in his conversion was carried out by an authorised/licenced person.
It will take just one accident of such nature and the whole DIY EV industry will be shut down by government regulations while it is still in its infancy. I am sure none of us want this!!!
It has been said above essentially that "it is my EV so I will do as I like". It is one thing to do your own 240V electrical wiring in your home (which technically is illegal). If someone gets a shock or a fire results it will be yourself/your family who will suffer the consequences and no one else. It is a whole different story on the road when you are interacting with the general public.
In some things you are required to show that you have an adequate level of safety, proficiency and competence (and you are then granted a licence to prove this). Electrical work is one such example and hence the need to hold an electrical licence.

I am also a licenced pilot and I would love to be able to perform many aspects of servicing an aircraft myself such as simply changing spark plugs and the like. But I am not allowed because even though I am certain I could do this safely myself I am not a qualified aircraft maintenance engineer.
So what is different in EV's?
I would be intereted to hear if anyone disagrees with anything I have said above and the reasons why???

Perhaps I put in 5 cents rather than 2!


User avatar
woody
Senior Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat, 21 Jun 2008, 02:03
Real Name: Anthony Wood
Location: Mt Colah

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by woody » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 20:33

lithbattboss wrote: In these high voltage UPS installations in 99% of battery banks the wiring is all black. It is ALWAYS double insulated. Only the lug/terminal ends of the cables are identified with red or black heatshrink to show whether ground potential or HV battery potential is present at the connection point. All connecting harware (nuts, bolts and washers) is stainless steel without exception. While orange wiring/conduit looks good and is easy to see/identify, orange is the standard for identifying wiring underground or otherwise buried. I am not sure orange would be accepted for EV's as a standard because we would have conflicting industry electrical standards. More confusion in the electrical industry is the last thing that is needed.
Nothings says danger like Orange, Red, or Yellow, except maybe flashing orange, red, or yellow. I think Orange is a suitable colour. (Although Purple would be cool)

I see the EV situation as being different to the UPS situation, as the EV's are out on the road, and likely to be crashed into by a (insert bad driving stereotype). The UPS is sitting in a locked cabinet on a wall or inside a building, and the keys to that are locked in their own cabinet. And the guy with the keys to the cabinet with the keys likes paperwork.

Why the stainless steel?
lithbattboss wrote:
Many quality EV LiFePO4 batteries (mine being only one example) cannot be split or broken down into 72 volt "sections" since the battery is available in a single, 96V, 108V 0r 144V battery block.
It would be a simple feature to add to split the pack in half/thirds. Or perhaps the smart batteries have equivalent / better safety features.
lithbattboss wrote:
It is up to individual EV constructors to decide for themslves if they are willing to take the risk/consequences of undertaking any wiring which is designed at 120V and above as outlined in the definitions for voltage levels (and who is allowed to install this wiring)as outlined in the relevant Austraian Standards. Under the law at present all wiring for 120VDC and above must be carried out by the holder of a current electrical licence (or signed off by such an authoried person).
I see the AEVA's role as promoting EV adoption. Part of this is heading off EV fatalities. If the car is for road use, the safety of emergency personnel and other citizens is important, and if AEVA gets the regulations changed which forces vendors and DIYers to make a few changes, that's OK with me.

But getting the right balance between safety and practicality is important.
lithbattboss wrote:
As with everthing while it is working there is no problem but lets just say for example that an EV was invoved in a car accident. Even if the EV was not ant fault and the ICE vechicle owner was definitely at fault, any insurance would be considered null and void and all liability would be on the EV owner if it went to court and the EV owner could not show the all wiring in his conversion was carried out by an authorised/licenced person.
It will take just one accident of such nature and the whole DIY EV industry will be shut down by government regulations while it is still in its infancy. I am sure none of us want this!!!
Valid point, any EV sparkies around?
lithbattboss wrote:
It has been said above essentially that "it is my EV so I will do as I like". It is one thing to do your own 240V electrical wiring in your home (which technically is illegal). If someone gets a shock or a fire results it will be yourself/your family who will suffer the consequences and no one else. It is a whole different story on the road when you are interacting with the general public.
In some things you are required to show that you have an adequate level of safety, proficiency and competence (and you are then granted a licence to prove this). Electrical work is one such example and hence the need to hold an electrical licence.
It's your EV, but "The road is there to share". If you're building a farm vehicle or something to run about on your own land, fair enough, but on the road, play by the rules.
lithbattboss wrote:
I am also a licenced pilot and I would love to be able to perform many aspects of servicing an aircraft myself such as simply changing spark plugs and the like. But I am not allowed because even though I am certain I could do this safely myself I am not a qualified aircraft maintenance engineer.
So what is different in EV's?
Well to start, when your propellor stops mid-air, you're in real trouble, and you'll probably do some damage to other people or property when gravity takes its natural course.

In a road vehicle, in a breakdown you roll to a stop. Brake systems are redundant since forever (footbrake + handbrake) triple redundant since the 70s (dual system footbrake + handbrake). Stuck throttle is counter-acted by ignition switch.

EV's need to meet or exceed the safety of their ICE counterparts.

It makes a lot of sense to me the earlier discussion above about emergency procedures and working in with them. Whilst we're the main people interacting with our EVs, in the case of an accident, there are lots of other people interacting with it.

I have heard when Holden brought out its electronic ignition (VK ~ 1985) that a few roadside servicemen (NRMA + the like) got seriously injured or killed by them. I don't know if they're true, but I certainly don't want those stories doing the rounds about EVs either.

cheers,
Woody
Planned EV: '63 Cortina using AC and LiFePO4 Battery Pack

User avatar
lithbattboss
Groupie
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu, 03 Apr 2008, 21:50
Location: Sydney

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by lithbattboss » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 21:47

Stainless steel nuts/bolts/washers are supplied by the manufacturers of SLA/AGM UPS batteries as standard now which is great. The old steel bolts were always coated in silicone grease to prevent corrosion from acid coming up through the terminal post seals. It makes a mess and a severly corroded bolt is a hazard to remove when you need to bash on a spanner to loosen it. With the SS bolts no silicone grease is required so there is no corrosion even if exposed to acid electrolyte.

It is not possible to split a high voltage pack into halfs/thirds. There is 144 volts between the gold plated battery terminals which are only about 30cm apart (it is a single high voltage EV battery I am talking about here).
Email me directly and I will send you some pics so you can see what I mean.

Woody I agree with your other comments. If you do something dodgy on your own land or farm etc. then it doesn't affect anyone else and only you will suffer any consequences if there should be a problem (much like my comments about doing electrical work in your own home). On a public road with other road users it is an entirely different kettle of fish however.
Last edited by lithbattboss on Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 10:49, edited 1 time in total.
Where power matters.
XPS Power cells 25C discharge for high performance applicatiopns.
www.lifetechlithium.com

User avatar
DVR
Groupie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun, 22 Jun 2008, 23:01
Real Name: Shane
Location: Adelaide

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by DVR » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 22:48

lithbattboss wrote: It has been said above essentially that "it is my EV so I will do as I like". It is one thing to do your own 240V electrical wiring in your home (which technically is illegal). If someone gets a shock or a fire results it will be yourself/your family who will suffer the consequences and no one else. It is a whole different story on the road when you are interacting with the general public.


I think your referring to me Image
DVR wrote:
Item 9 I,ve never understood!! Why do I need "permission" to modify MY car?? It's MY car, If I want to mess with it that,s my choice. If I'm dopey enough to do it without finding out if it will pass, that's my problem. It's just more "red tape"


Let me make it clear what I meant.
I was referring to the Stupid requirement to have to pay a fee and make an application to have permission to make a modification to my vehicle. I agree 100% with having to get my vehicle to a standard set by the authorities in order to use it legally on the roads. I guess I even agree with having to pay for the inspection to make sure I did do it correctly. What I don't like is having to pay for the right to do the modifications. When the relative authorities actually cough up some cash and help me buy my car, THEN they will have the right to decide whether or not I may do it because they would then own a % of it. As it is that's not the case and I have 100% ownership of my car. I pay for registration and that gives me the right to use that car on public roads. If I choose to modify my car I then have to pay for an inspection to prove that it is still safe. Now, like I said in my above post, if I'm dopey enough to do it without finding out if what I'm doing will pass that inspection, that's my problem and I can't complain when it fails.

Paying for permission to begin does NOTHING to ensure that my work will be up to scratch anyway!!

It's just pointless "red tape" and govt fund raising.

If I'm missing something tell me what it is.


So long and thanks for all the fish.

User avatar
DVR
Groupie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun, 22 Jun 2008, 23:01
Real Name: Shane
Location: Adelaide

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by DVR » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 23:02

lithbattboss wrote:I am also a licenced pilot and I would love to be able to perform many aspects of servicing an aircraft myself such as simply changing spark plugs and the like. But I am not allowed because even though I am certain I could do this safely myself I am not a qualified aircraft maintenance engineer.
So what is different in EV's?
That requirement is enforced only on "G/A" aircraft.
The home builder of ultralight aircraft actually fabricates the thing himself and then gets it inspected (just like an EV!!) What's more he then can do ALL his own maintenance.
(hate that term "ultralight" some of them are anything but light and are quite hot performers.)
Last edited by DVR on Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 12:04, edited 1 time in total.


So long and thanks for all the fish.

User avatar
tdean
Groupie
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue, 26 Aug 2008, 20:07
Real Name: Terry Dean
Location: South Australia
Contact:

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by tdean » Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 23:50

I think we should all be working VERY hard to comply with ALL regulations, especially safety related ones when it comes to EV conversions. Safety should never be a compromise. Having worked on public transport vehicles and repaired buses that had been involved in accidents where passengers were injured, I can vouch that government officialdom will step in and go over the accident scene in great detail.

My experience is that the buck always stops with the tradesperson(s) directly responsible for the dodgey repair, or cost cutting measure that led to a potentially unsafe vehicle. Even working as a lowly Automotive Electrician, I still had the authority to keep a vehicle off the road until I was totally satisfied that it met all electrical safety conditions. Not even the chief engineer would over rule me if I was working on a vehicle that I thought was unsafe. No-one in their right mind will accept responsibility for work they cannot observe.

Just because a vehicle passes an inspection one day, doesn't guarantee that vehicle is actually "safe" or "compliant" either.

I believe we in the EV community should embrace all safety regulations and pool our collective knowledge to make EVs even safer. I may know something about the automotive and heavy vehicle industry which is useful but my lack of experience with high voltage AC motors puts me at at a disadvantage and potentially in an unsafe position if I do work in that area. What do others think?
Last edited by tdean on Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 13:00, edited 1 time in total.
"We only have one future, and it will be made of our dreams, if we have the courage to challenge convention." - Soichiro Honda

User avatar
lithbattboss
Groupie
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu, 03 Apr 2008, 21:50
Location: Sydney

NCOP14 regulations, safety and revision

Post by lithbattboss » Thu, 23 Oct 2008, 00:21

DVR wrote:
lithbattboss wrote: It has been said above essentially that "it is my EV so I will do as I like". It is one thing to do your own 240V electrical wiring in your home (which technically is illegal). If someone gets a shock or a fire results it will be yourself/your family who will suffer the consequences and no one else. It is a whole different story on the road when you are interacting with the general public.


I think your referring to me Image
DVR wrote:
Item 9 I,ve never understood!! Why do I need "permission" to modify MY car?? It's MY car, If I want to mess with it that,s my choice. If I'm dopey enough to do it without finding out if it will pass, that's my problem. It's just more "red tape"


Let me make it clear what I meant.
I was referring to the Stupid requirement to have to pay a fee and make an application to have permission to make a modification to my vehicle. I agree 100% with having to get my vehicle to a standard set by the authorities in order to use it legally on the roads. I guess I even agree with having to pay for the inspection to make sure I did do it correctly. What I don't like is having to pay for the right to do the modifications. When the relative authorities actually cough up some cash and help me buy my car, THEN they will have the right to decide whether or not I may do it because they would then own a % of it. As it is that's not the case and I have 100% ownership of my car. I pay for registration and that gives me the right to use that car on public roads. If I choose to modify my car I then have to pay for an inspection to prove that it is still safe. Now, like I said in my above post, if I'm dopey enough to do it without finding out if what I'm doing will pass that inspection, that's my problem and I can't complain when it fails.

Paying for permission to begin does NOTHING to ensure that my work will be up to scratch anyway!!

It's just pointless "red tape" and govt fund raising.

If I'm missing something tell me what it is.
I agree with you DVR. I couldn't of said it better myself.
I just found another example of "government fundraising" today. Virtually all of the onboard battery chargers which are fitted to EV conversions are not approved for use in Australia. This includes the quality Zivan chargers out there. All 240V appliances must have the C-tick symbol and an approval number for the appliance to be legally used in Australia. Most of these chargers such as Zivan chargers have the CE european certification which I was told by an AEVA member was equivalent to having an Australian electrical approval number. I finally was able to separate fact from fiction after speaking to one of the testing officers from the Department of Fair Trading today. I was clearly told that the CE mark is not acceptable in Australia and each electrical appliance must be submitted for approval. Of course for the approval to be granted the equipment supplier must pay the prescribed fee of at least $700.
What could be more of a rip off fund raisng exercise than this by governments! In my opinion if the appliance has international certification from a modern industrialised country such as Germany, Italy, etc, then these appliances should be automatically recognised as safe for use in Oz withought having to pay the rip off approval fees. We are not talking about some suspect electrical product from Bangladesh or India but from modern first world european countries!
How does everyone else feel about this knowing their battery chargers in most cases are not legal to use?
Where power matters.
XPS Power cells 25C discharge for high performance applicatiopns.
www.lifetechlithium.com

Post Reply