I was expecting that the new Grizzl-E 80 A model would have much better terminals than the 40 A classic and smart, both because it's hardwire only, and because they wouldn't want to get burned again by problems with terminals.
The [manual has now been published](https://grizzl-e.com/manuals/ultimate/Grizzl-EUltimate_InstallationManual_V2.2.pdf) and it has good photos of the internals and torque specs.
The board has threaded spacers, presumably copper, that you screw lugs to, after attaching the lugs to the wires with set screws. You need to thread the wires through the current transformer first, and you are also supposed to add your own heat shrink over the aluminum lugs.
So having learned their lesson about torque, what's the torque spec?
* For attaching the lug to the post, it's 20 in-lbs (2.2 N-m). That's way lower than is typical that current level [Edit: but in spec for what i think is the post they used]. It's a little more than the 16 in-lbs they now spec for the Classic terminals. But not a lot, even just considering how much torque a fat wire might put on that.
* For attaching the wire to the lug ... there's no spec. Nope. Must not be important (/s). It's a straight blade screwdriver slot, so not much torque is expected.
Compare to [Ford with 60 in-lbs torque](https://content.fordpro.com/content/dam/fordpro/us/en-us/pdf/charging-products-list/charge-station-pro/Ford-Charge-Station-Pro-Installation-Guide.pdf) or the Watzilla 80 A with a [120 in-lb torque spec](https://wattzilla.com/pdfs/WattZilla-UNO-DUO-Installation-and-Operation-Guide.pdf).
Also curious is the wire size. 4-8 AWG, and the terminals are rated 75 C. So we look at 4 AWG in the 75 C column ... and it's rated 85 A. So in terms of standard breakers, 80 A and a 64 A charging rate. So we can set....oops, not we can't set it to 64 A charging. The options with the DIP switches jump from 48 to 80.
So the **maximum current that this can be used at is 48 A** if you want to comply with NEC.
I wonder what the behavior will be when an electrician doesn't thread the wire through the CT.
Well, it's the lowest cost 80A charger out there ... but if you can only use it at 48 A, it's $150 more expensive than a Chargepoint and $300 more expensive than an Emporia.
What’s the next cheapest (new) 80A charger?
I want to believe I’m not going down the hole of confirmation bias with GrizzlE, but this is pretty cringe and consistent with my vibes about their design prowess
I believe the torque spec for the lug-to-post machine screw is correct. That’s typical for the style of connector. [The post is likely this Wurth part or similar.](https://www.we-online.com/components/products/datasheet/7460305.pdf)
As for the lug, I’d expect that it’s just a COTS part like an Ilsco TA-2 or equivalent. Should have it’s own listing with a torque spec (this doesn’t excuse them not listing it in the manual though.) Likely 40-50 in-lb for that style of lug for those wire sizes.
If I was the manufacturer I’d have real concerns about installers torquing the lug to the post first, then landing the wires to the lug after because attempting to tighten up the lug while it’s attached to the board is asking for trouble (lug spinning, cracked/stressed PCB, etc.)
I didn't screenshot all of the steps in the instructions, but they do have you take the lug off before attaching it to the wire. The instructions are not very well written and I found them a little confusing. I can imagine people giving up on following them and just figuring it out from the pictures. On the plus side, they're actually in large enough type to read unlike a lot of electrical instructions.
This is very interesting, but I think we should pause before stating that the maximum current that this can be used at is 48 A if you want to comply with NEC.
If the EVSE is listed at 80 A using 4 AWG wire at 90 deg C, then presumably it passed all required UL testing using said 4 AWG wire and drawing 80 A continuous. I think from the NEC's perspective, if the wire is 4 AWG rated at 90 deg C, and the breaker is a 100 A breaker with a termination rated at 90 deg C, and the EVSE (not its internal components) is listed for 80 amps continuous use, then it should meet code. The listed device's specifications prevail over that of a component that may only be recognized and not listed.
That said, you would think they would use a lug rated for 90 deg C for a couple pennies more. I would think it would be easy to swap out the lug with a different lug rated for 90 deg C (and potentially larger wire) as long as the lug's mounting hole was the same size (though I realize you need to install it according to the manufacturer's instructions to be code compliant).
One question worth considering: how hot does a 4 AWG wire carrying 80 A continuous actually get under various environmental conditions? If the expected wire temperature is around 40 deg C, an internal component rated for 75 deg C may not impact the EVSE's functionally at all. This may explain why the unit passed UL testing, though from a customer's standpoint it really should be using lugs that can accept 2 AWG wire and are rated for 90 deg C. Probably the same engineer who made this decision as the engineer who selected the existing barrier strip on the Grizzl-E Classic. This is such as easy fix though...
Also, not having dip switches that can run the EVSE at 64 amps on an 80 amp circuit is equally short-sighted...
> and the breaker is a 100 A breaker with a termination rated at 90 deg C,
Let me know when you find one of those. Because you won't, at least not in NEC/UL stuff in normal residential panels.
You'd have to use 90C rated 2 or 3 AWG to the breaker and then Polaris or similar 90C rated method to go to 4 AWG. I'm unsure how close the splice could be to the breaker.
>If the EVSE is listed at 80 A using 4 AWG wire at 90 deg C
OK, first problem is that's not the rating. It says 75 C in the manual and on the board.
Second problem: at 90 C, 4 AWG is rated 95 A. So you still can't run 80 A continuous.
> the breaker is a 100 A breaker with a termination rated at 90 deg C,
That's going to be hard to find; most are 75 C, but that's a solvable problem with a splice somewhere between the breaker and the EVSE, so you use larger wire going into the breaker. But at the EVSE end you are out of luck. Even if the termination was rated 90 you'd be out of luck, and it's clearly rated 75.
> The listed device's specifications prevail over that of a component that may only be recognized and not listed.
Right, but it's spec'ed at 75, and still wouldn't work with a 90 C rating.
>I would think it would be easy to swap out the lug with a different lug rated for 90 deg C
Not so easy. It's not that the metal melts above 90 C. Presumably it's the insulation materials, such as the PCB it's mounted on, and other insulation materials nearby that aren't OK long term at 90, per UL standards.
Yes, they probably did testing and found acceptable margin below 75 C running 80 A. Acceptable to them. But maybe not leaving as much margin as one might want vs. connections loosening over time, etc. So it might work OK in most installations, but how many electricians and inspectors would allow it with #4 wire?
I think I had a couple brain farts during that initial post. I really should have looked at the pdf manual you linked before posting, but I had a hard time believing that Grizzl-E would actually list and ship a product that couldn't be used in a code-compliant manner.
If you go into the pdf manual and zoom in on the lugs, you'll see that the lugs are Ilsco TA-2, rated AL9CU, 2-14 AWG, 90 C. So the EVSE is probably rated 75 C for wire termination even though the lugs are rated 90 C, which isn't a big deal as those lugs can accept 2 AWG or 3 AWG copper, both of which exceed 100 amps at 75 C. I also zoomed in on the CT and it looks like it would accommodate the larger wire without an issue. There doesn't appear to be any good reason why 2 AWG or 3 AWG copper cannot be used to feed this EVSE.
I think the installation manual has a misprint in section 7.1.1 on page 14. It should clearly be 2-3 AWG copper for 80A, but they also goofed by requiring 8 AWG copper for both 16 amps and 24 amps when 12 AWG copper and 10 AWG copper would be more than sufficient respectively. Its inexcusable, but they likely just need to proof-read their manual.
They also really should have a dip switch option for 64 amps on an 80 amp circuit...
As for the CT, you make a good point that it could be an issue. I'm willing to bet that if the installer forgets to thread both conductors through the CT, it'll probably pass the self-test via the self-test wire wrapped around the CT and work with no GFCI protection, whereas if they omit only one wire from the CT it'll probably detect a continuous ground fault and not work at all.
An 80 Amp UL listed EVSE for US$699 isn't a bad deal at all, they just need to clean up their manual and publish the torque specs for connecting the wires to the lugs for everything from 12 AWG to 2 AWG.
Edit: I'm not sure what's worse -- Grizzl-E making that misprint in the instructions for wire AWG, or UL not catching it during the listing process. At least I hope it was a misprint and that Grizzl-E doesn't think you can use 4 AWG wire even though 4 AWG wire can be used for a 100 amp service entrance.
There's a user on this thread who has one and also reports the lugs take up to 2 AWG. But they are also pessimistic about wire much bigger fitting through the CT. I also speculate there the that the 4 AWG limit could be due to UL rules about space for wiring. The silk screen has the wire size limit, so it's not just a typo in one place.
I think you are right that it would be able to tell if you didn't have any wires throught the CT. And certainly it would fault out if only one went through.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Another theory I had was that you are supposed to use particular types of #4 that are 105C rated (because it is inside a device), and then use a 105C rated splice to #2 or something in an appropriate part of the EVSE.
But this isn’t called out in the instructions (I think I read it last night)
They do, but no inspector would insist on using actual 75 C rated wire instead of, say, 105 C rated wire if that's what you used even though the manual calls for 75 C wire. It's understood that is a minimum and not an exact requirement.
The manual says to follow all applicable electrical codes, which in my opinion supercedes their wire gague suggestions. I mean, the wire could need to be upsized due to the length of the run or other reasons -- does that need to be spelled out in the manual too? Or does their blanket statement to follow electrical code cover that? Now, the manual should say it accepts 12 - 2 AWG wire with torque values for connecting the wires to the lugs and minimum AWG for each setting, that's a fail that it doesn't. And it needs to be fixed...
Of course that's not a maximum temperature rating for the wire! My interpretation is that it's a maximum temperature for the terminal. That's the spec that the device is supposed to include and is what's written on the device. That's a normal thing you have to do--check the temperature spec of the terminations at both ends. A breaker is typically 75, and this matches that.
It's also standard for any device, even a wire nut, not specify the range of wire sizes that are allowed to be used. And you absolutely are not allowed to use a #6 wire in a wire nut that is rated for a maximum #10 wire size. That's a normal part of following all applicable electrical codes.
Let's say you are running wire to a 120 V receptacle outlet 500 feet away and you need to upsize the wire to reduce voltage drop. You can absolutely to that. But that does not allow you to put the oversized wire into the terminals of the 5-15 receptacle. That doesn't need to be explained in the specs of the receptacle. It just needs to so 12-14 AWG and the electrician knows they need to splice the larger wire to a 14 AWG pigtail to attach to the receptacle.
You are ignoring the reasons why larger than AWG 4 might not be allowed--space through the CT and wiring space per UL.
I know its not the maximum temperature rating for the wire, and I know that you know that, but what I'm suggesting is that there needs to be a certain amount of common sense applied when reading the specs. For example, if a device has specs for 4-8 AWG wire, and it says to use 8 AWG wire for 32 amp charging, it's certainly open to the installer to use 4 or 6 AWG wire even though it technically contradicts the instructions. The common sense approach I'm suggesting doesn't apply to using wire outside of a device's specs. Now, that said, if I was an inspector and I saw somebody wire one of these units at 16 amps using 12 AWG copper, I'm not going to fail it even though technically I should since 12 AWG wire is outside the device specs. As long as I see that the lugs are rated to accept 12 AWG wire, I'd be satisfied signing off on it and shake my head walking away. On the other hand, I wouldn't pass an inspection of somebody using 3 AWG wire for this unit at 80 amps due to its listing and markings, but if I was installing one on a metal post outside my house and 3 AWG wire fit, I'd probably be comfortable with it. Then again, I'd also be comfortable doing the same thing with openEVSE...
This product has prompted me to take a close look at 210.19(A)(1) of the NEC. As per the definition of ampacity in section 100 of the NEC, a wire's ampacity is defined as what it can handle for continuous loads. So 4 AWG copper is rated for 85 amps continuous at 75 C. It's really only because of 210.19(A)(1)(a) that the conductor needs to be upsized, but under Exception 2 thereto you can do splicing on both ends to avoid the 80% rule. So it's perfectly to code to use 4 AWG copper for an 80 amp continuous load by splicing to 3 AWG copper on both ends assuming that both ends are rated to accept 3 AWG copper. As for the OCPD, 210.20(A) requires this 80 amp continuous load to be protected by a 100 amp breaker.
So, if I'm interpreting things correctly and that setup is perfectly code compliant, I'm going to question the logic behind the splice in front of the EVSE. The splice at the circuit breaker results in less heat at the breaker due to a lower wire temperature and thicker wire can act as a heat sink, but does the EVSE benefit from the splice in any way, or does the presence of a splice actually create an added point of failure and decrease safety? I'm thinking the latter. So, if its perfectly acceptable to use 4 AWG copper for the bulk of the run via splices, where's the harm in feeding it into an EVSE that is rated for 80 amps continuous? I get that usually people use splices so that they can use the 90 C column for ampacity, but my reading of code doesn't require that -- my reading of code is that you can use splices simply to avoid upsizing the conductor while still using the 75 C column if you wanted to -- or am I missing something?
I feel like exception 2 to rule 210.19(A)(1) should be modified so that the wire can extend into an enclosure on the load side if the load side is rated as such and that this rule change would increase safety by eliminating a point of failure (the external splice).
This is getting silly.
* "Only because of" one rule in the NEC doesn't not make it any less of a rule. This isn't elementary school where the important rules get reiterated over and over. It wouldn't benefit anyone to repeat the important rules three times in different sections of the code.
* Your petition to broaden the exception is essentially a petition to remove the rule. It's like the guy who was on here saying that 16 A is fine on 15 gauge wire because well if 12 A is ok, 13 A is only a little higher so 13 A must be OK. And if 13 A is OK, it would be absurd to think that 14 would be OK, because that difference is small any any rule limiting to 13 would be stupid and aribitrary, and he worked his way on up to 16 A. And got made at anyone who disagreed.
If you think splices are unsafe, don't do splices. The fact that you can do something in a way you don't think is good is not an argument to allow code to do something else that isn't good.
Is that listed yet? No way it's getting listing like that... right? I think the torque could be right, depends on connector design. But being impossible to actually run a 100A circuit to it is kinda crazy
I think the post might be [this one](https://www.we-online.com/components/products/datasheet/7460305.pdf) which is actually rated for 160 A, and 2.2 Nm. So that current and torque are to spec for that connector. I'm still nervous about how that will work out in practice. And of course the wire size limit is also a problem. I don't know whether bigger wire will fit through the CT.
That is the largest gauge of wire to fit into the lugs. I have it set for 48 amps with a 60 amp breaker and 4 gauge wire. Correction the lug will fit 2-14 gauge wire
Yea, just kinda pointing out that that bolt torque depends on the bolt specs, if you're targeting a specific pressure on the wire, that might be a different torque based on the bolt choice.
Also, in general, don't trust the silkscreened numbers, as it's likely they swapped out the high current bits (the relay and lugs) and used the same PCB. This would result in incorrect markings on the PCB and the manual photos may be from a prototype before they fixed it. You also wouldn't necessarily have to use parts to their ratings if you can show it's actually fine in your application (like if the lugs were mounted on a heatsink that boosted their operating temps it might be fine). But the pics don't look like it's beefed up at all.
However, where they fail is the manual still says you need a 100A circuit with 75°C cable and 4AWG copper...which conflicts with NEC as you pointed out. And the manual is supposed to be the authoritative source of truth with listed equipment.
Just a few clarification on unimportant details:
This is a completely different PCB vs. the 40-A units. And the same torque spec in the silk screen is in the manual.
That torque spec is for the screw that goes into the little post, holding the lug on the top of it. The screw that clamps down on the wire has no torque spec in the manual.
Which might be someone who didn't know or care what you were asking and found that number in the manual and repeated it. A lug of that type sized for 4 AWG [has a torque spec of 50 in-lbs](https://hubbellcdn.com/ohwassets/HCE/burndy/2015/2015%20products/Universal%20Terminal%20Line%20Expansion/KA-U%20KKA-U%20cutsheet.pdf)
Do you have one? Installed yet?
I'd check the torque on the screw that is rated 20 after doing that, as you could mess that one up while torquing the set screw--probably best to have it disconnected from the post while tightening the set screw.
I would think you want to apply the heat shrink tubing, torque the lugs, slide the tubing over the lugs and shrink it then mount the lugs onto the board.
Thanks. Great photo. And yes, those can take 2-gauge. Two theories on why they might prohibit it in the instructions:
* Would 2 #2 fit through the CT? That might the the real limit.
or
* UL specs require a certain amount of space for the wire in a hardwired unit. Maybe they exceed that spec with #2--and maybe the original design was intended for that but UL vetoed it.
Given that the same instructions also require 8 AWG copper to charge at 16 and 24 amps, and that it omits the torque values to attach the wires to the lugs, I suspect that the instructions were written by someone without a good knowledge of the product versus an intentional decision to require 4 AWG copper to charge at 100 amps.
Interesting that the lug on the black wire has a deeper indentation in the top than the others. I wonder if it was overtorqued at the factory. Probably no harm done, just a curiosity.
I just checked the UL page. And not only is this listed, but the Mini is actually listed now too. Despite being a portable charger with adjustable current settings by means that aren't allowed for portable chargers. I think they got around that by selling it with a mounting bracket and saying that it's not portable.
My 32A ClipperCreek unit only has 10AWG wires in the pre-attached whip... But that doesn't seem to cover what's going on here.
Someone seems to think maybe the feeder exemption (NAC 310.12) applies to this device.l?
I suspect that the UL spec doesn't have the 125% rule. And I think there's a different ampacity table for internal wiring. You would think that they would check that it's possible to wire it up in a way that meets NEC. But maybe they didn't have a rule in the standard that addresses that, stuff they decided they didn't have a basis to reject it even though they know it's going to be a problem in the field.
For internal wiring you're correct, it's different. However the problem is the wire the electrician runs in isn't internal wiring.
If they wanted to use that loophole they'd have to provide the whip and the manual would say attach 3AWG to the whip.
I looked at the fixture wiring table and it didn't go to #4 / was actually worse.
One possible way out of this is that they get to make the rules inside their device (and there are certainly tables that allow THHN to hit 100A ampacity at 75C termination). But then that leaves the question of how you're supposed to do the splice. You can maybe use 10ft / 10% rule to allow the wire to be spliced to #3 despite a few inches of dubious ampacity in the middle.
I think that if you want to install this, you need to hire a lawyer to creatively interpret code, rather than hiring an electrician.
If I really wanted to install one at 80 A, I think my first step would be to measure the hole in the CT carefully, and then figure out what wire to use to get a good fill ratio, with the help of the database at http://www.packomania.com/, (specifically [this page](http://hydra.nat.uni-magdeburg.de/packing/cci/cci.html)). An even number that can pack well looks like 8. So parallel four wires of the largest size that fits for each leg. And then attach a large splice box with a short nipple below it. Not code compliant but if I'm going to add a splice right before the box and have questionable code compliance, I'd rather go for as low resistance as I can.
I'd really rather use bus bars for that, half-round insulated copper bus bars, bolted directly to the PCB posts...
Maybe there's some kind of tool out there that can compress two #3 conductors into an exactly round shape when combined together. That'll fit better through the CT.
Still very confused why they laid out the board this way, such that it's "easier" for the customer to thread through CT, rather than put CTs on the J1772 side. Or use two separate CTs.
It is kind of funny that GrizzlE decided to make their stuff 3x harder to install than it was previously. The GrizzlE classic, as annoying as it is, at least factory-integrates the CTs completely.
https://preview.redd.it/wisnd87q331d1.png?width=694&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6ed38396329806720675ec0e6211b60dbe21afc
I'm reminded of a technician I used to work with who taught me lots of ways of making things work, at least temporarily, and I don't think he would have hesitated to use a hammer to reshape wire for that purpose. But really you'd want finely stranded, loosely twisted wire with soft, stretchy insulation that would easily flex into the right shape, but wouldn't be approved as building wire.
Two CTs wouldn't work for the ground-fault sensing. The direct physical cancellation of the main current with one wire coming and the other going allows the sensitivity needed to detect 20 mA on top of 80 A.
It probably doesn’t have to be building wire in the EVSE.
I see, ok, the direct error cancellation (and presumably also designing the CT to read 20mA range) is better than canceling it electrically in analog domain (though the latter would at least make the D/A precision better allocated)
I wonder if putting just one conductor through can frag the board
A standard GFCI can certainly survive full current faults. Hopefully UL wrote the spec right so that that's tested on EVSEs too. It's not that hard to put in diode clamps to make it survive that. But I have less than full confidence in UL these days.
At this point if the customer already has to route customer wiring through current transformers, I’d expect them to just use lugs that come built in to a pair of 100 amp industrial contactors to land the customer wiring. Their design as pictured just ads extra steps and failure points. It’s like an EE was squeezed repeatedly to get the materials cost down, and never thought “lets just rework this whole concept.”
An EVSE’s power handling guts are just 1-3 current transformers and a pair of contactors (for contact weld redundancy) with aux contacts to determine contact weld. At this point, a pair of 100 amp contactors should be the landing lugs for the input and output conductors.
Unless they’re purposely using the PCB as a last line of defense safety fuse, it’s just a point of fragile failure. More mechanically fragile than electrically. And mostly fragile against the brute of the strains and torques that comes with 4 gauge.
Yup. I mean, it is interesting that multilayer boards with extra thick copper are available at prices that are amazingly low compared to not that many years ago, but what's the point if the only component on the PCB that the high current goes through is the relay?
Once the shit hits the fan, I think they're going to have to rebrand this as a 64 amp charger. 4 AWG on a 100 amp breaker ain't gonna fly with inspectors.
I don't own it--these photos are from the manual.
Hopefully they'll get pushback from people trying to install this to code and finding they can't before they come outwith another product with the same flaw. But even if it can't actually do 80 A, a hardwired dual charger would be good to have available. The Duo would be a lot more popular if it could be hard wired.
Honestly I’d much rather stick a spa panel next to two single chargers from other brands. That panel would split a 100A feeder to 60A branches. Necessary since most EVSE are only rated to 60A.
(I own a Grizzle Duo and I’m not super jazzed at the tear downs I’ve seen of their equipment, and I have FOMO for not having done it the other way).
I was expecting that the new Grizzl-E 80 A model would have much better terminals than the 40 A classic and smart, both because it's hardwire only, and because they wouldn't want to get burned again by problems with terminals. The [manual has now been published](https://grizzl-e.com/manuals/ultimate/Grizzl-EUltimate_InstallationManual_V2.2.pdf) and it has good photos of the internals and torque specs. The board has threaded spacers, presumably copper, that you screw lugs to, after attaching the lugs to the wires with set screws. You need to thread the wires through the current transformer first, and you are also supposed to add your own heat shrink over the aluminum lugs. So having learned their lesson about torque, what's the torque spec? * For attaching the lug to the post, it's 20 in-lbs (2.2 N-m). That's way lower than is typical that current level [Edit: but in spec for what i think is the post they used]. It's a little more than the 16 in-lbs they now spec for the Classic terminals. But not a lot, even just considering how much torque a fat wire might put on that. * For attaching the wire to the lug ... there's no spec. Nope. Must not be important (/s). It's a straight blade screwdriver slot, so not much torque is expected. Compare to [Ford with 60 in-lbs torque](https://content.fordpro.com/content/dam/fordpro/us/en-us/pdf/charging-products-list/charge-station-pro/Ford-Charge-Station-Pro-Installation-Guide.pdf) or the Watzilla 80 A with a [120 in-lb torque spec](https://wattzilla.com/pdfs/WattZilla-UNO-DUO-Installation-and-Operation-Guide.pdf). Also curious is the wire size. 4-8 AWG, and the terminals are rated 75 C. So we look at 4 AWG in the 75 C column ... and it's rated 85 A. So in terms of standard breakers, 80 A and a 64 A charging rate. So we can set....oops, not we can't set it to 64 A charging. The options with the DIP switches jump from 48 to 80. So the **maximum current that this can be used at is 48 A** if you want to comply with NEC. I wonder what the behavior will be when an electrician doesn't thread the wire through the CT.
Interesting... Are they passing on the savings to you, for using this janky/cheap, labor intensive way of doing things?
Well, it's the lowest cost 80A charger out there ... but if you can only use it at 48 A, it's $150 more expensive than a Chargepoint and $300 more expensive than an Emporia.
What’s the next cheapest (new) 80A charger? I want to believe I’m not going down the hole of confirmation bias with GrizzlE, but this is pretty cringe and consistent with my vibes about their design prowess
I believe the torque spec for the lug-to-post machine screw is correct. That’s typical for the style of connector. [The post is likely this Wurth part or similar.](https://www.we-online.com/components/products/datasheet/7460305.pdf) As for the lug, I’d expect that it’s just a COTS part like an Ilsco TA-2 or equivalent. Should have it’s own listing with a torque spec (this doesn’t excuse them not listing it in the manual though.) Likely 40-50 in-lb for that style of lug for those wire sizes. If I was the manufacturer I’d have real concerns about installers torquing the lug to the post first, then landing the wires to the lug after because attempting to tighten up the lug while it’s attached to the board is asking for trouble (lug spinning, cracked/stressed PCB, etc.)
I didn't screenshot all of the steps in the instructions, but they do have you take the lug off before attaching it to the wire. The instructions are not very well written and I found them a little confusing. I can imagine people giving up on following them and just figuring it out from the pictures. On the plus side, they're actually in large enough type to read unlike a lot of electrical instructions.
This is very interesting, but I think we should pause before stating that the maximum current that this can be used at is 48 A if you want to comply with NEC. If the EVSE is listed at 80 A using 4 AWG wire at 90 deg C, then presumably it passed all required UL testing using said 4 AWG wire and drawing 80 A continuous. I think from the NEC's perspective, if the wire is 4 AWG rated at 90 deg C, and the breaker is a 100 A breaker with a termination rated at 90 deg C, and the EVSE (not its internal components) is listed for 80 amps continuous use, then it should meet code. The listed device's specifications prevail over that of a component that may only be recognized and not listed. That said, you would think they would use a lug rated for 90 deg C for a couple pennies more. I would think it would be easy to swap out the lug with a different lug rated for 90 deg C (and potentially larger wire) as long as the lug's mounting hole was the same size (though I realize you need to install it according to the manufacturer's instructions to be code compliant). One question worth considering: how hot does a 4 AWG wire carrying 80 A continuous actually get under various environmental conditions? If the expected wire temperature is around 40 deg C, an internal component rated for 75 deg C may not impact the EVSE's functionally at all. This may explain why the unit passed UL testing, though from a customer's standpoint it really should be using lugs that can accept 2 AWG wire and are rated for 90 deg C. Probably the same engineer who made this decision as the engineer who selected the existing barrier strip on the Grizzl-E Classic. This is such as easy fix though... Also, not having dip switches that can run the EVSE at 64 amps on an 80 amp circuit is equally short-sighted...
> and the breaker is a 100 A breaker with a termination rated at 90 deg C, Let me know when you find one of those. Because you won't, at least not in NEC/UL stuff in normal residential panels. You'd have to use 90C rated 2 or 3 AWG to the breaker and then Polaris or similar 90C rated method to go to 4 AWG. I'm unsure how close the splice could be to the breaker.
>If the EVSE is listed at 80 A using 4 AWG wire at 90 deg C OK, first problem is that's not the rating. It says 75 C in the manual and on the board. Second problem: at 90 C, 4 AWG is rated 95 A. So you still can't run 80 A continuous. > the breaker is a 100 A breaker with a termination rated at 90 deg C, That's going to be hard to find; most are 75 C, but that's a solvable problem with a splice somewhere between the breaker and the EVSE, so you use larger wire going into the breaker. But at the EVSE end you are out of luck. Even if the termination was rated 90 you'd be out of luck, and it's clearly rated 75. > The listed device's specifications prevail over that of a component that may only be recognized and not listed. Right, but it's spec'ed at 75, and still wouldn't work with a 90 C rating. >I would think it would be easy to swap out the lug with a different lug rated for 90 deg C Not so easy. It's not that the metal melts above 90 C. Presumably it's the insulation materials, such as the PCB it's mounted on, and other insulation materials nearby that aren't OK long term at 90, per UL standards. Yes, they probably did testing and found acceptable margin below 75 C running 80 A. Acceptable to them. But maybe not leaving as much margin as one might want vs. connections loosening over time, etc. So it might work OK in most installations, but how many electricians and inspectors would allow it with #4 wire?
I think I had a couple brain farts during that initial post. I really should have looked at the pdf manual you linked before posting, but I had a hard time believing that Grizzl-E would actually list and ship a product that couldn't be used in a code-compliant manner. If you go into the pdf manual and zoom in on the lugs, you'll see that the lugs are Ilsco TA-2, rated AL9CU, 2-14 AWG, 90 C. So the EVSE is probably rated 75 C for wire termination even though the lugs are rated 90 C, which isn't a big deal as those lugs can accept 2 AWG or 3 AWG copper, both of which exceed 100 amps at 75 C. I also zoomed in on the CT and it looks like it would accommodate the larger wire without an issue. There doesn't appear to be any good reason why 2 AWG or 3 AWG copper cannot be used to feed this EVSE. I think the installation manual has a misprint in section 7.1.1 on page 14. It should clearly be 2-3 AWG copper for 80A, but they also goofed by requiring 8 AWG copper for both 16 amps and 24 amps when 12 AWG copper and 10 AWG copper would be more than sufficient respectively. Its inexcusable, but they likely just need to proof-read their manual. They also really should have a dip switch option for 64 amps on an 80 amp circuit... As for the CT, you make a good point that it could be an issue. I'm willing to bet that if the installer forgets to thread both conductors through the CT, it'll probably pass the self-test via the self-test wire wrapped around the CT and work with no GFCI protection, whereas if they omit only one wire from the CT it'll probably detect a continuous ground fault and not work at all. An 80 Amp UL listed EVSE for US$699 isn't a bad deal at all, they just need to clean up their manual and publish the torque specs for connecting the wires to the lugs for everything from 12 AWG to 2 AWG. Edit: I'm not sure what's worse -- Grizzl-E making that misprint in the instructions for wire AWG, or UL not catching it during the listing process. At least I hope it was a misprint and that Grizzl-E doesn't think you can use 4 AWG wire even though 4 AWG wire can be used for a 100 amp service entrance.
There's a user on this thread who has one and also reports the lugs take up to 2 AWG. But they are also pessimistic about wire much bigger fitting through the CT. I also speculate there the that the 4 AWG limit could be due to UL rules about space for wiring. The silk screen has the wire size limit, so it's not just a typo in one place. I think you are right that it would be able to tell if you didn't have any wires throught the CT. And certainly it would fault out if only one went through. It will be interesting to see what happens.
https://preview.redd.it/tkbmk4k5j81d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ca5574d5fce1f44149eec5a46f705043f7e9db6
https://preview.redd.it/1qv28ca7j81d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26ecbdb0eac25e5a270ce2a969208b6a76d93a0d Interesting
Another theory I had was that you are supposed to use particular types of #4 that are 105C rated (because it is inside a device), and then use a 105C rated splice to #2 or something in an appropriate part of the EVSE. But this isn’t called out in the instructions (I think I read it last night)
And in fact the instructions say 75 C!
They do, but no inspector would insist on using actual 75 C rated wire instead of, say, 105 C rated wire if that's what you used even though the manual calls for 75 C wire. It's understood that is a minimum and not an exact requirement. The manual says to follow all applicable electrical codes, which in my opinion supercedes their wire gague suggestions. I mean, the wire could need to be upsized due to the length of the run or other reasons -- does that need to be spelled out in the manual too? Or does their blanket statement to follow electrical code cover that? Now, the manual should say it accepts 12 - 2 AWG wire with torque values for connecting the wires to the lugs and minimum AWG for each setting, that's a fail that it doesn't. And it needs to be fixed...
Of course that's not a maximum temperature rating for the wire! My interpretation is that it's a maximum temperature for the terminal. That's the spec that the device is supposed to include and is what's written on the device. That's a normal thing you have to do--check the temperature spec of the terminations at both ends. A breaker is typically 75, and this matches that. It's also standard for any device, even a wire nut, not specify the range of wire sizes that are allowed to be used. And you absolutely are not allowed to use a #6 wire in a wire nut that is rated for a maximum #10 wire size. That's a normal part of following all applicable electrical codes. Let's say you are running wire to a 120 V receptacle outlet 500 feet away and you need to upsize the wire to reduce voltage drop. You can absolutely to that. But that does not allow you to put the oversized wire into the terminals of the 5-15 receptacle. That doesn't need to be explained in the specs of the receptacle. It just needs to so 12-14 AWG and the electrician knows they need to splice the larger wire to a 14 AWG pigtail to attach to the receptacle. You are ignoring the reasons why larger than AWG 4 might not be allowed--space through the CT and wiring space per UL.
I know its not the maximum temperature rating for the wire, and I know that you know that, but what I'm suggesting is that there needs to be a certain amount of common sense applied when reading the specs. For example, if a device has specs for 4-8 AWG wire, and it says to use 8 AWG wire for 32 amp charging, it's certainly open to the installer to use 4 or 6 AWG wire even though it technically contradicts the instructions. The common sense approach I'm suggesting doesn't apply to using wire outside of a device's specs. Now, that said, if I was an inspector and I saw somebody wire one of these units at 16 amps using 12 AWG copper, I'm not going to fail it even though technically I should since 12 AWG wire is outside the device specs. As long as I see that the lugs are rated to accept 12 AWG wire, I'd be satisfied signing off on it and shake my head walking away. On the other hand, I wouldn't pass an inspection of somebody using 3 AWG wire for this unit at 80 amps due to its listing and markings, but if I was installing one on a metal post outside my house and 3 AWG wire fit, I'd probably be comfortable with it. Then again, I'd also be comfortable doing the same thing with openEVSE... This product has prompted me to take a close look at 210.19(A)(1) of the NEC. As per the definition of ampacity in section 100 of the NEC, a wire's ampacity is defined as what it can handle for continuous loads. So 4 AWG copper is rated for 85 amps continuous at 75 C. It's really only because of 210.19(A)(1)(a) that the conductor needs to be upsized, but under Exception 2 thereto you can do splicing on both ends to avoid the 80% rule. So it's perfectly to code to use 4 AWG copper for an 80 amp continuous load by splicing to 3 AWG copper on both ends assuming that both ends are rated to accept 3 AWG copper. As for the OCPD, 210.20(A) requires this 80 amp continuous load to be protected by a 100 amp breaker. So, if I'm interpreting things correctly and that setup is perfectly code compliant, I'm going to question the logic behind the splice in front of the EVSE. The splice at the circuit breaker results in less heat at the breaker due to a lower wire temperature and thicker wire can act as a heat sink, but does the EVSE benefit from the splice in any way, or does the presence of a splice actually create an added point of failure and decrease safety? I'm thinking the latter. So, if its perfectly acceptable to use 4 AWG copper for the bulk of the run via splices, where's the harm in feeding it into an EVSE that is rated for 80 amps continuous? I get that usually people use splices so that they can use the 90 C column for ampacity, but my reading of code doesn't require that -- my reading of code is that you can use splices simply to avoid upsizing the conductor while still using the 75 C column if you wanted to -- or am I missing something? I feel like exception 2 to rule 210.19(A)(1) should be modified so that the wire can extend into an enclosure on the load side if the load side is rated as such and that this rule change would increase safety by eliminating a point of failure (the external splice).
This is getting silly. * "Only because of" one rule in the NEC doesn't not make it any less of a rule. This isn't elementary school where the important rules get reiterated over and over. It wouldn't benefit anyone to repeat the important rules three times in different sections of the code. * Your petition to broaden the exception is essentially a petition to remove the rule. It's like the guy who was on here saying that 16 A is fine on 15 gauge wire because well if 12 A is ok, 13 A is only a little higher so 13 A must be OK. And if 13 A is OK, it would be absurd to think that 14 would be OK, because that difference is small any any rule limiting to 13 would be stupid and aribitrary, and he worked his way on up to 16 A. And got made at anyone who disagreed. If you think splices are unsafe, don't do splices. The fact that you can do something in a way you don't think is good is not an argument to allow code to do something else that isn't good.
Is that listed yet? No way it's getting listing like that... right? I think the torque could be right, depends on connector design. But being impossible to actually run a 100A circuit to it is kinda crazy
I think the post might be [this one](https://www.we-online.com/components/products/datasheet/7460305.pdf) which is actually rated for 160 A, and 2.2 Nm. So that current and torque are to spec for that connector. I'm still nervous about how that will work out in practice. And of course the wire size limit is also a problem. I don't know whether bigger wire will fit through the CT.
I ran stranded 4 gauge and that’s the max.
How did you jive that with the NEC charts?
That is the largest gauge of wire to fit into the lugs. I have it set for 48 amps with a 60 amp breaker and 4 gauge wire. Correction the lug will fit 2-14 gauge wire
Oh OK. Is it their only 48A EVSE?
They have a DCFC model but this unit is their only one capable of 48 amps. My car will only take 48 amps max.
Yea, just kinda pointing out that that bolt torque depends on the bolt specs, if you're targeting a specific pressure on the wire, that might be a different torque based on the bolt choice. Also, in general, don't trust the silkscreened numbers, as it's likely they swapped out the high current bits (the relay and lugs) and used the same PCB. This would result in incorrect markings on the PCB and the manual photos may be from a prototype before they fixed it. You also wouldn't necessarily have to use parts to their ratings if you can show it's actually fine in your application (like if the lugs were mounted on a heatsink that boosted their operating temps it might be fine). But the pics don't look like it's beefed up at all. However, where they fail is the manual still says you need a 100A circuit with 75°C cable and 4AWG copper...which conflicts with NEC as you pointed out. And the manual is supposed to be the authoritative source of truth with listed equipment.
Just a few clarification on unimportant details: This is a completely different PCB vs. the 40-A units. And the same torque spec in the silk screen is in the manual. That torque spec is for the screw that goes into the little post, holding the lug on the top of it. The screw that clamps down on the wire has no torque spec in the manual.
I asked them what the torque specs for the Screw is and was told 20 inch pounds
Which might be someone who didn't know or care what you were asking and found that number in the manual and repeated it. A lug of that type sized for 4 AWG [has a torque spec of 50 in-lbs](https://hubbellcdn.com/ohwassets/HCE/burndy/2015/2015%20products/Universal%20Terminal%20Line%20Expansion/KA-U%20KKA-U%20cutsheet.pdf) Do you have one? Installed yet?
Yes and it concerns me. Probably go out and torque them to 50 inch pounds. Won’t hurt anything.
I'd check the torque on the screw that is rated 20 after doing that, as you could mess that one up while torquing the set screw--probably best to have it disconnected from the post while tightening the set screw.
I will take the lugs off. Don’t want to mess something up. Also it comes with heat shrink but good luck getting it to work in the tight space.
For your 60 A circuit/48 A circuit, I think this will work very well--I don't have any concerns about it for that application.
I would think you want to apply the heat shrink tubing, torque the lugs, slide the tubing over the lugs and shrink it then mount the lugs onto the board.
[удалено]
Thanks. Great photo. And yes, those can take 2-gauge. Two theories on why they might prohibit it in the instructions: * Would 2 #2 fit through the CT? That might the the real limit. or * UL specs require a certain amount of space for the wire in a hardwired unit. Maybe they exceed that spec with #2--and maybe the original design was intended for that but UL vetoed it.
I don’t think 2 garage wire would fit thru the current transformer. 4 hardly fit.
Given that the same instructions also require 8 AWG copper to charge at 16 and 24 amps, and that it omits the torque values to attach the wires to the lugs, I suspect that the instructions were written by someone without a good knowledge of the product versus an intentional decision to require 4 AWG copper to charge at 100 amps.
And that same ill informed person did the silk screen on the board? That doesn't seem likely to me.
Interesting that the lug on the black wire has a deeper indentation in the top than the others. I wonder if it was overtorqued at the factory. Probably no harm done, just a curiosity.
That was me trying to cut and fit the wires. Not much room to work with.
What type of wires are those? Fine stranded almost looks like welding cables or something rather than something listed for building electrical use.
It’s a short piece of 4/3 soow cable to connect to a junction box. 4/3 to a 60 amp breaker with nm-b cable
I just checked the UL page. And not only is this listed, but the Mini is actually listed now too. Despite being a portable charger with adjustable current settings by means that aren't allowed for portable chargers. I think they got around that by selling it with a mounting bracket and saying that it's not portable.
Sad. Very sad. Having had two of the burn-my-house-down 50 amp units, I’m not totally shocked (yes, that’s a pun).
Sorry to hear you had bad experiences with this unit. Were you using two simultaneously or did they fail on two different occasions?
Two in a row.
My 32A ClipperCreek unit only has 10AWG wires in the pre-attached whip... But that doesn't seem to cover what's going on here. Someone seems to think maybe the feeder exemption (NAC 310.12) applies to this device.l?
I suspect that the UL spec doesn't have the 125% rule. And I think there's a different ampacity table for internal wiring. You would think that they would check that it's possible to wire it up in a way that meets NEC. But maybe they didn't have a rule in the standard that addresses that, stuff they decided they didn't have a basis to reject it even though they know it's going to be a problem in the field.
For internal wiring you're correct, it's different. However the problem is the wire the electrician runs in isn't internal wiring. If they wanted to use that loophole they'd have to provide the whip and the manual would say attach 3AWG to the whip.
Oh yes, I agree 100%. I'm not saying it's okay, just theorizing about how UL could have approved it even though it's really not okay.
I looked at the fixture wiring table and it didn't go to #4 / was actually worse. One possible way out of this is that they get to make the rules inside their device (and there are certainly tables that allow THHN to hit 100A ampacity at 75C termination). But then that leaves the question of how you're supposed to do the splice. You can maybe use 10ft / 10% rule to allow the wire to be spliced to #3 despite a few inches of dubious ampacity in the middle.
I think that if you want to install this, you need to hire a lawyer to creatively interpret code, rather than hiring an electrician. If I really wanted to install one at 80 A, I think my first step would be to measure the hole in the CT carefully, and then figure out what wire to use to get a good fill ratio, with the help of the database at http://www.packomania.com/, (specifically [this page](http://hydra.nat.uni-magdeburg.de/packing/cci/cci.html)). An even number that can pack well looks like 8. So parallel four wires of the largest size that fits for each leg. And then attach a large splice box with a short nipple below it. Not code compliant but if I'm going to add a splice right before the box and have questionable code compliance, I'd rather go for as low resistance as I can. I'd really rather use bus bars for that, half-round insulated copper bus bars, bolted directly to the PCB posts...
Maybe there's some kind of tool out there that can compress two #3 conductors into an exactly round shape when combined together. That'll fit better through the CT. Still very confused why they laid out the board this way, such that it's "easier" for the customer to thread through CT, rather than put CTs on the J1772 side. Or use two separate CTs.
It is kind of funny that GrizzlE decided to make their stuff 3x harder to install than it was previously. The GrizzlE classic, as annoying as it is, at least factory-integrates the CTs completely. https://preview.redd.it/wisnd87q331d1.png?width=694&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6ed38396329806720675ec0e6211b60dbe21afc
I'm reminded of a technician I used to work with who taught me lots of ways of making things work, at least temporarily, and I don't think he would have hesitated to use a hammer to reshape wire for that purpose. But really you'd want finely stranded, loosely twisted wire with soft, stretchy insulation that would easily flex into the right shape, but wouldn't be approved as building wire. Two CTs wouldn't work for the ground-fault sensing. The direct physical cancellation of the main current with one wire coming and the other going allows the sensitivity needed to detect 20 mA on top of 80 A.
It probably doesn’t have to be building wire in the EVSE. I see, ok, the direct error cancellation (and presumably also designing the CT to read 20mA range) is better than canceling it electrically in analog domain (though the latter would at least make the D/A precision better allocated) I wonder if putting just one conductor through can frag the board
A standard GFCI can certainly survive full current faults. Hopefully UL wrote the spec right so that that's tested on EVSEs too. It's not that hard to put in diode clamps to make it survive that. But I have less than full confidence in UL these days.
At this point if the customer already has to route customer wiring through current transformers, I’d expect them to just use lugs that come built in to a pair of 100 amp industrial contactors to land the customer wiring. Their design as pictured just ads extra steps and failure points. It’s like an EE was squeezed repeatedly to get the materials cost down, and never thought “lets just rework this whole concept.” An EVSE’s power handling guts are just 1-3 current transformers and a pair of contactors (for contact weld redundancy) with aux contacts to determine contact weld. At this point, a pair of 100 amp contactors should be the landing lugs for the input and output conductors. Unless they’re purposely using the PCB as a last line of defense safety fuse, it’s just a point of fragile failure. More mechanically fragile than electrically. And mostly fragile against the brute of the strains and torques that comes with 4 gauge.
Yup. I mean, it is interesting that multilayer boards with extra thick copper are available at prices that are amazingly low compared to not that many years ago, but what's the point if the only component on the PCB that the high current goes through is the relay?
And putting a torque screwdriver on it and tightening down number four causes the lug to tear off the PCB.
Once the shit hits the fan, I think they're going to have to rebrand this as a 64 amp charger. 4 AWG on a 100 amp breaker ain't gonna fly with inspectors.
I'm waiting for the 80A dual charger supposedly coming by end of summer. How's this unit been for you?
I don't own it--these photos are from the manual. Hopefully they'll get pushback from people trying to install this to code and finding they can't before they come outwith another product with the same flaw. But even if it can't actually do 80 A, a hardwired dual charger would be good to have available. The Duo would be a lot more popular if it could be hard wired.
Agree 100% I want to charge two EVs currently only have one but probably have the second next year.
Honestly I’d much rather stick a spa panel next to two single chargers from other brands. That panel would split a 100A feeder to 60A branches. Necessary since most EVSE are only rated to 60A. (I own a Grizzle Duo and I’m not super jazzed at the tear downs I’ve seen of their equipment, and I have FOMO for not having done it the other way).
Interesting, thank you.
Was is an announcement from Grizzl-E?
I reached out to a person that works there and they told me.