Portable charging leads

[ducabi]

Any socket used for EV charging needs to have type-A RCD protection and PEN-fault mitigation.

If your house is TT then the PEN-fault is already mitigated. Otherwise the simplest solution is an earth rod just for the socket.

Indeed. Type-A RCD is provided by the ohme go charger (although it probably doesn't meet regs being provided in the charger) but no earth-rod/PEN yet. I'm still trying to figure out which one is better on my tight neighborhood, I'm leaning towards earth rod but by watching YT I'm not sure it will become TT with so many houses so close to my house.

Anyway, my thinking is that the current setup is not worse than a granny charger.

[sharpener]

Any socket used for EV charging needs to have type-A RCD protection and PEN-fault mitigation.

If your house is TT then the PEN-fault is already mitigated. Otherwise the simplest solution is an earth rod just for the socket.

Found your posting on the speakEV forum @stinsy. It seems there are many points of view about all this.

Strictly much of the stuff in Amdmt 1 here https://electrical.theiet.org/media/233 ... _final.pdf only applies to "a charging point located outdoors or that might reasonably be expected to be used to charge a vehicle located outdoors".

Fortunately in my case the socket would be installed inside and the car charged inside a garage which opens directly onto a street with double yellow lines so it doesn't apply. Also I have got genuine TN-S earthing via an old lead-sheathed incoming cable.

But it seems from the below that 32A outlets are definitely required to be interlocked. I am not sure why sockets used for EVs are especially hazazrdous. To whom? why? The live contacts are well recessed from the front face, IMHO bayonet lampholders are a much more serious electrocution risk and would never be allowed now as a new product.

722.55.101.0.201.1 Each AC charging point shall incorporate:
(i) one socket-outlet complying with BS 1363-2 marked ‘EV’ on its rear and, except where there is no possibility
of confusion, a label shall be provided on the front face or adjacent to the socket-outlet or its enclosure
stating: ‘suitable for electric vehicle charging’, or
(ii) one socket-outlet or connector complying with BS EN 60309-2 which is interlocked and classified to clause
6.1.5 of BS EN 60309-1 to prevent the socket contacts being live when accessible, or
(iii) one socket-outlet or connector complying with BS EN 60309-2 which is part of an interlocked self-contained
product complying with BS EN 60309-4 and classified to clauses 6.1.101 and 6.1.102 to prevent the socket
contacts being live when accessible...

[Stinsy]

Any socket used for EV charging needs to have type-A RCD protection and PEN-fault mitigation.

If your house is TT then the PEN-fault is already mitigated. Otherwise the simplest solution is an earth rod just for the socket.

Found your posting on the speakEV forum @stinsy. It seems there are many points of view about all this.

Strictly much of the stuff in Amdmt 1 here https://electrical.theiet.org/media/233 ... _final.pdf only applies to "a charging point located outdoors or that might reasonably be expected to be used to charge a vehicle located outdoors".

Fortunately in my case the socket would be installed inside and the car charged inside a garage which opens directly onto a street with double yellow lines so it doesn't apply. Also I have got genuine TN-S earthing via an old lead-sheathed incoming cable.

But it seems from the below that 32A outlets are definitely required to be interlocked. I am not sure why sockets used for EVs are especially hazazrdous. To whom? why? The live contacts are well recessed from the front face, IMHO bayonet lampholders are a much more serious electrocution risk and would never be allowed now as a new product.

722.55.101.0.201.1 Each AC charging point shall incorporate:
(i) one socket-outlet complying with BS 1363-2 marked ‘EV’ on its rear and, except where there is no possibility
of confusion, a label shall be provided on the front face or adjacent to the socket-outlet or its enclosure
stating: ‘suitable for electric vehicle charging’, or
(ii) one socket-outlet or connector complying with BS EN 60309-2 which is interlocked and classified to clause
6.1.5 of BS EN 60309-1 to prevent the socket contacts being live when accessible, or
(iii) one socket-outlet or connector complying with BS EN 60309-2 which is part of an interlocked self-contained
product complying with BS EN 60309-4 and classified to clauses 6.1.101 and 6.1.102 to prevent the socket
contacts being live when accessible...

As with a lot of the regs you can interpret them to try and find an excuse to ignore an inconvenience. And the regs are vague enough, with enough contradictions, that you’ll likely find something.

The truth is that any socket intended for BEV charging must have PEN-fault mitigation, type-A RCD, etc.

Sure, lots of sockets exist without these features, and it is allowed (if not advised) to charge from them. But if you know a socket is to be used for EV charging you should ensure the sensible safety precautions proscribed in the regs are observed and implemented.

Commando sockets are intended for industrial environments. The regs are very unenthusiastic about them being used in domestic environments but don’t go as far as to prohibit them completely and do require it to be an interlinked model.

[sharpener]

As with a lot of the regs you can interpret them to try and find an excuse to ignore an inconvenience. And the regs are vague enough, with enough contradictions, that you’ll likely find something.

The truth is that any socket intended for BEV charging must have PEN-fault mitigation, type-A RCD, etc.

I am not looking for "excuses" but you have repeated something [my emphasis] that is simply not true, those requirements only apply to sockets and/or cars that are or could reasonably be outside which is not what I am proposing to do.

[Stinsy]

As with a lot of the regs you can interpret them to try and find an excuse to ignore an inconvenience. And the regs are vague enough, with enough contradictions, that you’ll likely find something.

The truth is that any socket intended for BEV charging must have PEN-fault mitigation, type-A RCD, etc.

I am not looking for "excuses" but you have repeated something [my emphasis] that is simply not true, those requirements only apply to sockets and/or cars that are or could reasonably be outside which is not what I am proposing to do.

This is about the “equipotential zone”. Inside your house you are protected from PEN-faults because everything is bonded. The situation you describe doesn’t count as “inside” IMO because the garage door could be open and someone standing in a puddle could touch the bodywork of your car.

[ducabi]

This is about the “equipotential zone”. Inside your house you are protected from PEN-faults because everything is bonded. The situation you describe doesn’t count as “inside” IMO because the garage door could be open and someone standing in a puddle could touch the bodywork of your car.

Silly question I know, but does it mean I should use a PEN-protected socket when vacuuming my car plugged into a socket inside house?

[sharpener]

This is about the “equipotential zone”. Inside your house you are protected from PEN-faults because everything is bonded. The situation you describe doesn’t count as “inside” IMO because the garage door could be open and someone standing in a puddle could touch the bodywork of your car.

But that is not a circumstance covered by the regs; as drafted it is where the charger/car are situated that counts.

In any case I think with a TN-S supply the likelihood of a PEN fault is pretty low.

Meanwhile Third Rock have sent me the data sheet which confirms it has 30mA AC and 6mA DC leakage protection, I will be happy with that (even though it does not protect specifically against PEN faults).

[Stinsy]

This is about the “equipotential zone”. Inside your house you are protected from PEN-faults because everything is bonded. The situation you describe doesn’t count as “inside” IMO because the garage door could be open and someone standing in a puddle could touch the bodywork of your car.

Silly question I know, but does it mean I should use a PEN-protected socket when vacuuming my car plugged into a socket inside house?

A vacuum cleaner is double-insulated so no-need. Lawnmower: same.

[Stinsy]

This is about the “equipotential zone”. Inside your house you are protected from PEN-faults because everything is bonded. The situation you describe doesn’t count as “inside” IMO because the garage door could be open and someone standing in a puddle could touch the bodywork of your car.

But that is not a circumstance covered by the regs; as drafted it is where the charger/car are situated that counts.

In any case I think with a TN-S supply the likelihood of a PEN fault is pretty low.

Meanwhile Third Rock have sent me the data sheet which confirms it has 30mA AC and 6mA DC leakage protection, I will be happy with that (even though it does not protect specifically against PEN faults).

You can never assume a “TN-S” supply really is. Any repair on the supply cable will render it TN-C-S either now or in future.

You have to understand why “outside” is treated differently from “inside” and this is because of the equipotential zone. In the event of a PEN-fault the car’s bodywork would raise to grid voltage and a passing child could touch the car while in contact with Earth. There is no protection provided by the equipotential zone so it is “outside” as far as the reason why that reg exists.

All this is solved by fitting a Zappi or similar.

The regs exist to keep you and others safe, trying to get around them will always lead to a dangerous situation no-matter how you contrive things in your own mind.

[sharpener]

So why is this risk any worse than using the granny lead plugged into any of the 5 general purpose 13A sockets in the garage, which AIUI is perfectly legit?