RE: GM's inductive EV death wedge

["BECKETT,WILL (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)" <will_beckett@hp.com>]

It isn't worth the time and money to develop since the California state
standard is to make everything Avcon.  I think we should bail on the idea of
upgrading to the small paddle and move right to Avcon.  The cost to do this
would be much lower and requires a paddle user to take the charger and the
Avcon adapter with them (one charger for all locations).  I expect Toyota
will offer an upgrade for the RAV4-EV, that includes a charger and Avcon
port, soon.

- Will

Will Beckett
Supervisor, Corporate Legal IT
The New Hewlett-Packard Co.
3000 Hanover St., Palo Alto, CA  94304
(650) 857-3859

additional contact information (https://ecardfile.com/id/will_beckett)


-----Original Message-----
From: Neil.G.Miller.98@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG
[mailto:Neil.G.Miller.98@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 4:16 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: GM's inductive EV death wedge


--- Bruce EVangel Parmenter wrote:
I was hoping that with the CARB standard, and GM's nil EV effort, conductive
charging would be totally embraced. This would make more public chargers
possible as the installation cost would be halved (only one AVCON is now
needed, not an AVCON 'and' a inductive).
--- end of quote ---

Are there any dual use units out there (i.e. One charger with AVCON and
inductive outputs)? It doesn't seem like an all-in-one would be that much
more expensive a charger that does only one. I would think (not knowing much
about chargers) that most of the parts would be common between the two.

Are there any issues with that sort of setup? It seems like the ideal
solution, one where both groups of EV users are happy and the 'wedge danger'
is gone.

-n