working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Open for any sort of non-technical discussion regarding EVs
Post Reply
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by acmotor »

NCOP14 is a set of guidelines and not set in concrete rules.
There are a number of MUSTs used but mostly suggestoins.

Some points are terribly historical, some are born of fear and misunderstanding IMHO. But really most are common sense and there for safety. I hear many interpretations of the guidelines and often can't see any reference in NCOP14 to issues raised.

Perhaps in this topic people might comment on how they comply with some of the guidelines that are giving them trouble or to ask others to clarify what is being asked. I know this topic has been raised before, but here we go again.

I would like to set the ball rolling by asking how people plan to comply with ADR 35 (Braking systems) requirement in NCOP14....

" The vehicle must continue to comply with the design rule requirement that vehicles have a brake-failure warning lamp that can be tested by turning the ignition switch to the 'start' position. "

I undertand the priciple of lamp test and the Christmas tree idea at startup. My vehicle uses a common lamp for 'brake' that indicates handbrake on OR brake fluid level low. The compliance plate states complinace with ADR35a so do I take it that this was acceptable ?
Now how to implement lamp test ? put the hand brake on ?

Thoughts ?

Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !
User avatar
Johny
Senior Member
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon, 23 Jun 2008, 16:26
Real Name: John Wright
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by Johny »

The sentence "The vehicle must continue to comply...". The use of the word "continue" indicates to me that if it did it originally that it still has to do it. If not, well it still doesn't.
Same old stuff. If you vehicle was registered in Australia with certain requirements then so long as THOSE requirements are still met then it's OK. (For instance I don't legally need rear seat belts.)
Other than specific EV wiring, weight and battery safety, assuming the vehicle functions "as registered", does anyone know of any extra requirements that result in vehicle additions?
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by acmotor »

Yes but how do I comply with "ignition" and "start" as these functions don't actually exist anymore. Do I provide a lamp test in place of the "starter" position of the "ignition switch".
BTW the lamp test function of vehicles is linked to the "ignition" NOT "start" position of switch as NCOP14 (wrongly) states. Image

What will ignition switches be called in the future ?

Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !
User avatar
Johny
Senior Member
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon, 23 Jun 2008, 16:26
Real Name: John Wright
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by Johny »

The lights all come on PRIOR to starting the engine in an ICE car - that's what you said right. But NCOP14 has it wrong.

If your vehicle had a light test system prior to starting the engine then you will have to continue that function. How does Suzi do it now? Make 'start' cancel the dash-warning-lamps self-test.
Are you going to use 'start' for the momentary 'run' function on the controller?
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by acmotor »

I have considered that, however it is a bit too 'legacy' for my liking.

I have connected my E.Stops via their N.O. contacts to the VFD inputs(double wired as the N.C.s drop the battery solenoids.)
The idea being that the E.Stops will put the Danfoss in its 'emergency stop lockout' mode before the power drops and cause a triplock for safety.
This means that the 'reset', then 'run' buttons must be pressed on the LCP (local control panel) mounted on the dashboard at the next power up.

I have the option of requiring this sequence at every power up. Seems a lot safer than the pulse start option via ignition key that can be unintentional. In an ICE this needs to be long enough for the motor to actually start. If it were a pulse in an EV then it would need to have a time constant to be certain that is what the driver wanted.

Perhaps I will get the Danfoss to operate the lamp test via one of its aux relay outputs when it is in the stop mode prior to driver pressing run.

Just to note... controller power on, i.e. connect battery pack = ignition on. At this point DC-DC for 12V aux will also be running.
I guess 'engine running' can be defined by ' would the motor turn if the accelerator was pressed'.
An EV (AC) presents a new state of 'on' but not 'running' here.

Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !
User avatar
Richo
Senior Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: Mon, 16 Jun 2008, 00:19
Real Name: Richard
Location: Perth, WA

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by Richo »

acmotor wrote: What will ignition switches be called in the future ?
ON/OFF suits me Image

I had planned to have a seperate circuit that monitors the vac pressure.
So when the car is switched to the "ON" position the brake light comes on.
The vacuum pump starts if vacuum is required.
When either 2 seconds have passed or the vacuum reaches the desired level (which ever is longer) then the brake light turns off.
At any point after this if the vac drops too low the brake light turns brake on 5sec longer than the vac is too low.

Not using a vacuum system might be more complicated.
Maybe monitoring brake resistor temps?

Also I'm suprised that NCOP14 does not have a list of definitions.
A list of definitions should make their wording clear.
So the short answer is NO but the long answer is YES.
Help prevent road rage - get outta my way!
User avatar
Johny
Senior Member
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon, 23 Jun 2008, 16:26
Real Name: John Wright
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by Johny »

Prior to getting the Lenze I thought that VFD (Industrial AC controllers) all had pretty much the same control system. Momentary close for run. momentary close for stop. The Lenze isn't like this. It has Close for forward and Close a different input for reverse - not pulse - they have to stay closed. Both open is stop (ramp down etc.). There is also an 'Enable' where a high puts the drive in coast mode. I'm not sure at all what to do with the 'Start' switch. Maybe it latches ON a couple of N.O. contacts for the forward/reverse inputs.
On this subject. Have you put any protection in for an open bottom connection or open track on the throttle potbox.
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by acmotor »

Danfoss offers an extensive range of start/stop, pulse, latch, holdo-on inputs including fast stops, coasts, emergency stops etc all programable. You actually need at least two setup conditions met to even get the drive to run. The challenge is to use these to meet any regulations and to make operation as safe as possible.

Regarding potbox fault detection...
There seems to be a number of possible fault conditions.
Remember the pot can be 2 or 3 wire external connection.
I describe here 3 wire and Danfoss.

+10V wire ....
open cct drive will target zero RPM/torque
short to 0V drive will report reference fault
short to sense wire as above if foot off accelerator

sense wire ....
open cct drive will target zero RPM/torque
short to 0V drive will target zero RPM/torque unless foot full down on accelerator then drive will report refernce fault.

0V wire ....
open cct drive will apply full power
other fault combinations as above.

In 2 wire the pot pulls the sense line high. In this case the pot going open drops power off, but what if the pot or wires short ? this applies full power.
I don't think there is a combination that makes it bulletproof. It is best to avoid the single point failure and use the microswitch on the pot box to stop the drive. I would say though that fly by wire technology is generally more reliable than pulleys and levers. Probably more likely for the throttle cable to jam than the pot to fail. Sensor should be mounted at accelerator pedal anyway.

When all else fails then use the Australian standard emergency push button stop for the driver that NCOP14 should specify as a MUST.
There is a hole in NCOP14 here. Fortunately many EV conversions have this push button ES. (or put your foot on the brake. Brakes should always outpower the motor)

Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !
antiscab
Senior Member
Posts: 2720
Joined: Mon, 26 Nov 2007, 05:39
Real Name: Matthew Lacey
Location: Perth, WA

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by antiscab »

im surprised pot boxes are still being considered by EV converters.
why not a HEPA?

Matt
Matt
2017 Renault zoe - 25'000km
2007 vectrix - 156'000km
1998 prius - needs Batt
1999 Prius - needs batt
2000 prius - has 200 x headway 38120 cells
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by acmotor »

Hall effect pickups are not at present spec'd for industrial VFDs. I actually use conductive plastic displacement sensors. Reference to pot boxes was for the old school as you quite correctly point out.
None-the-less, the point is still valid and all forms of accelerator pickup (or the wiring to them) can have faults. These should be considered when designing the system.

Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !
TropicalEV
Groupie
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed, 20 Aug 2008, 02:08
Location: Mission Beach

working through compliance issues ADRs , NCOP14

Post by TropicalEV »

I'ts pretty obvious that you guys know far more about this stuff than the people charged with writting NCOP14.
I'm going out on a limb here but I really think it's time for AEVA or a body like them to write their own guidelines for EV conversion. The NCOP14 is pretty ambiguous at best and shows a lack of experience in the field on the part of the group that wrote it. My guess is it was written to encourage the development of new technology.
It's all good now but at some point in the future the spotlight will be shone on homebuilt EV's. I suspect it will be when the first production cars hit the market.
For now the big car makers humour the back-yarders. In a sense it's good for bussiness to have all these cars out there generating interest in EV's. It's a fair bet that when they release their own car the "gloves will be off" They have some real pull with the pollies. All of a sudden home-builts will be deemed unsafe for one reason or annother. The rules will be tightened to the point that it's no longer viable to do it yourself. Can you imagine trying to prove "crash survivability" with your EV conversion? Will the motor break free in a crash and become a lethal missile? Nah of course not...but can you prove it? Car makers can. They can afford to take one out and crash it to prove it.
There is a chance to head this off by adopting a more stringent and more PRACTICAL set of guidelines and treating them as rules. Perhaps even submiting them to be adopted into the NCOP14. Beurocrats love rules. Give them some good ones and it lessens the chance that they will make up their own ridiculous set of nonsense. Done right it could end up that an EV with an AEVA sticker on the window gets an easy ride through compliance checks as it will have been built well. Image

Just my 2 cents worth.....
" I haven't failed..I've just found 10,000 ways that it doesn't work" Thomas Edison while inventing the lightbulb
Post Reply