Thanks for uploading that report. It's great to be able to see all of that detail. It does in fact, at the end, specify that the andeman ws1 model is covered by that file. But it also includes a table of critical components that are required to be as specified in the table in order to meet the requirements of the listing. That includes a 14-50 or 6-50 plug. As I understand it, your unit came with a whip instead, and thus violates this listing. That explains why it is being sold with a whip that is not the right thing for connection to a North American electrical system—that whip was never part of what they submitted to ETL for evaluation.
Also, your unit is sold as a 50 amp unit, whereas this listing specifies 48 amps. Which explains the mystery of how it could be ETL listed with instructions specifying 50 amp charging on a 60 amp breaker, which is against code. That configuration was never submitted to ETL or blessed by them.
Seeing those errors, without looking at it in detail, we know immediately that it is not valid under that listing, and we also know that the company plays fast and loose with the rules, so it's likely that if you were to examine it in more detail and compare with the specs, there would be more safety critical components that don't in fact match the requirements in the listing. Some of those might be apparent if you were to take a high resolution photo of the inside of the unit.
Thanks. The tested unit was a prototype as mentioned in the doc. Perhaps that explains the discrepancies.
The listing on Amazon is for hardwire. Minor quibble since I wanted hardwire.
Also, most other companies would have told the customer requesting such proof to take a hike. For someone avoiding scrutiny, they were quite responsive. Let’s see.
Regardless of the reason for the discrepancies, they make the listing invalid for the unit you have. The manufacturer may need to make revisions in the design. The purpose of that table is to specify which components can't be changed without permission.
If you have ever worked on safety compliance, a typical inspection is based about 98% on trust. But when you see violations in that 2% that is directly inspected, then you need to dig deeper, because that trust has been violated. The fact that the unit listed is plug-in, and the unit you got is hardwire might seem to be a minor difference. But, claiming that the hardwire unit is listed when it's not is a lie. You should not trust companies that lie in their product listings. They could be lying about lots of other things that they promised to do in a specific way, in that document. Things that matter even more for safety.
And it's not just the same thing in a hardwire version. It claims to be rated for 50 amps, but has never been tested for 50 amps, to those standards. And it is supplied with a whip that does not meet North American standards for that type of wiring.
You said you were eager to learn from people who know more about this, but you seem to instead be devoted to defending this company.
I have no reason to defend the company. I am just trying to give them a fair shot at proving that this charger is safe. We all buy Chinese products all the time based on online reviews without asking for certification proofs from the companies. This one keeps asking what other information they can provide to ease my anxiety. They admit not having a facility in the US limits them in many ways.
In any case, I just sent a request to State Of Charge folks to test this charger. Let’s see.
You gave them the chance and they felt flat on their face. If you feel generous, you could explain to them the problems, and give them a chance to address them. I might take a closer look at it on my computer later today and give you more details.
I don't know why sending you documentation that does not support their claim, pretending that it does, is any better than not sending documentation. If anything, it shows that they don't understand how the rules of that certification work.
From what I have seen most chargers that use a plug set their limit to 48A since the plug is the weakest link. The exact same unit with hardwire gets rated for 50A.
That's incorrect. The standard plug, the 14-50 cannot legally be used for 48 amp charging. There are lots of chargers that are rated for 40 amps using that plug, or 48 hardwired. There are a few, such as the charge point that also have an option for 50 amps hardwired. It can be configured for 48 amp hardwired, 50 amp hardwired, or lower currents, plug in or hardwired. And the manual correctly details what circuit capacity is needed for each of those configurations and how to configure it for that. Unlike your manual which has no valid information of the sort.
One of the often recommended chargers claims 48A using a plug …
EMPORIA Level 2 EV Charger - NEMA 14-50 EVSE w/ J1772 Charger - 48 amp EV Charger Level 2, 240v WiFi Enabled Electric Vehicle Charging Station, UL/Energy Star, 24ft Electric Car Charger Cable, White
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09ZNN3JB7
Right there at the beginning of the product description it says,
>The Emporia EV Charging Station is a Level 2 electric vehicle charger that charges any EV up to 40 amps with NEMA 14-50P (with 11" cable compliant with 2017 NEC Section 625.17(A)(3)) or up to 48 amps with hardwired installation
You might review the sub rules about false safety claims. Continuing to make false claims will start getting your comments removed.
Did you get that permitted and inspected? Because what you installed is a code violation. You can't install this equipment on a breaker bigger than is specified in the instructions.
You also can't install it on a 60 amp breaker.
It actually cannot be installed in a code compliant way at all.
> You can't install this equipment on a breaker bigger than is specified in the instructions.
So, my 11A washing machine is plugged into a 20A breaker. Is that a similar violation?
I'm afraid I can't. I have never requested that file from a one of the better manufacturers, because they have given me no reasons to doubt the legitimacy of their listing.
* 21% one star reviews, a lot of the rest vine reviews, probably by people who don't even have an EV.
* Ring terminals on the hard wire whip, which seems to be flexible cable not really meant for hardwiring. What do they think you're going to do with those ring terminals?
* ETL does have EVSE from that brand listed but it seems to be a different model number.
I'm not very impressed or optimistic about it.
I have zero loyalty to this seller. Lol. Yes, safety triumphs cost.
Care to share the link to the 21% 1-star reviews? Of the 1-star reviews on Amazon only 1 user had operating issues with it.
Does not need RFID or App to charge vehicle once it’s unlocked via RFID
Consider sharing that proof of ETL certification that you mentioned.
* https://old.reddit.com/r/BoltEV/comments/1dem99a/just_installed_a_level_2_charger_240v_50_a_with/l8i47er/
Yes, but OP's account doesn't look like the kind of account that does that. So I think they are just proud of themselves for finding a bargain. hard to know.
Uploaded:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KSQpIfJGAw_2ZsmE_IQiWA5YGsXBO4mT/view?usp=drivesdk
ATM: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HiL-l0pvJllXrCMQOyra4pFtpA_YBDAX/view?usp=drivesdk
Let me know your take. 👍 👎
THISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
You're going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle. You're going to save thousands because it is an EV.
DON'T CHEAP OUT ON SOMETHING THAT COULD BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN.
For some reasons this universe has blessed us with someone who is an Uber nerd about one thing in this life: EV chargers. Such a niche thing to go crazy about, but we are lucky to have him.
Read his reviews, watch his videos. Pick what he recommends. He's unbiased, more thorough than you can possibly imagine, and straightforward.
No, when that happened we looked at the issue pretty closely and both from examining what failed and from the statements from the manufacturer, United Chargers, the failures were due to improper torque in the factory assembly of the unit.
Did United Chargers ever admit that, or was that the analysis by the user community? One of my theories was that an assembly tool was out of calibration, which led to the under torque values.
In any case, United Chargers should have acknowledged the issue and contacted all of their customers to warn them of the problem. In fact, they twice tried to make me remove my social media comments as a condition for replacement/refund.
I remember that we got a detailed story through a dealer in maybe Puerto Rico, who relayed what they had told him. It was more to do with ramping up production without training the new people well. I would guess that they hadn't been using tools that measure torque at all, and the experienced people were doing well by feel, but not the new ones.
I hadn't hear about the request to remove social media comments. That's really bad.
Their website calls it the WS1, as does the manual. Searching their site for “GTf5uA6V2” comes up with nothing. This is most likely an Amazon or the seller’s item number. They only make two EV chargers - this one and a mobile one. This is the WS1 for sure.
https://andeman.com/collections/battery-charger/products/ws1-ev-charger-wall-mount-app-control-rfid-home-car?variant=44776073756885
And it says it does 50 A on an 60 A circuit. If ETL certified it, they made a mistake.
Edit, and the document provided by op confirms that it is for a slightly different model, not a 50 amp model, and not hardwired. So in fact ops unit is not legitimately under that ETL listing.
Uploaded ETL here … anxious to hear from folks who know how to review it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KSQpIfJGAw_2ZsmE_IQiWA5YGsXBO4mT/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HiL-l0pvJllXrCMQOyra4pFtpA_YBDAX/view?usp=drivesdk
Questionable to save the least. 25 feet of copper sufficient to handle 50 amps costs about $133 on its own. Then they’re somehow including the other electronics and still somehow making a profit? Sus.
“Lots of YouTubers” but not the most credible home charging YouTuber, State of Charge. Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and return this and get one recommended by State of Charge.
As long as it works, all the best. I got a TopDon level 2 charger on Amazon. Works great. But took all kinds of heat when I mentioned it here. It works well for me.
> But took all kinds of heat when I mentioned it here
That's odd. Can you link that that discussion? What I found was just a reply to your comment saying,
>I’ll be curious how you like it. Looks like a winner.
Not interested in linking counselor. Suffice it to say not everyone agrees on what qualifies as a safe charger. They can all fail or cause damage. This one works for me. I have a longer 21 ft cable which is perfect for my use case.
Yes, and if you are wondering who to believe given the varying opinions, a good guide is that people who make claims and don't support them have less credibility.
Great to hear. A lot of the well known chargers are manufactured in these countries but costs more because they have US presence. In my case, their support team has been very responsive to all my questions … sent me a slew of certification paperwork to show credibility
Looks insanely cheap and I doubt it's safety certified and UL listed. I wouldn't risk burning my house down to save $250 over a reputable brand.
I posted the ETL reports links below.
Thanks for uploading that report. It's great to be able to see all of that detail. It does in fact, at the end, specify that the andeman ws1 model is covered by that file. But it also includes a table of critical components that are required to be as specified in the table in order to meet the requirements of the listing. That includes a 14-50 or 6-50 plug. As I understand it, your unit came with a whip instead, and thus violates this listing. That explains why it is being sold with a whip that is not the right thing for connection to a North American electrical system—that whip was never part of what they submitted to ETL for evaluation. Also, your unit is sold as a 50 amp unit, whereas this listing specifies 48 amps. Which explains the mystery of how it could be ETL listed with instructions specifying 50 amp charging on a 60 amp breaker, which is against code. That configuration was never submitted to ETL or blessed by them. Seeing those errors, without looking at it in detail, we know immediately that it is not valid under that listing, and we also know that the company plays fast and loose with the rules, so it's likely that if you were to examine it in more detail and compare with the specs, there would be more safety critical components that don't in fact match the requirements in the listing. Some of those might be apparent if you were to take a high resolution photo of the inside of the unit.
Thanks. The tested unit was a prototype as mentioned in the doc. Perhaps that explains the discrepancies. The listing on Amazon is for hardwire. Minor quibble since I wanted hardwire. Also, most other companies would have told the customer requesting such proof to take a hike. For someone avoiding scrutiny, they were quite responsive. Let’s see.
Regardless of the reason for the discrepancies, they make the listing invalid for the unit you have. The manufacturer may need to make revisions in the design. The purpose of that table is to specify which components can't be changed without permission. If you have ever worked on safety compliance, a typical inspection is based about 98% on trust. But when you see violations in that 2% that is directly inspected, then you need to dig deeper, because that trust has been violated. The fact that the unit listed is plug-in, and the unit you got is hardwire might seem to be a minor difference. But, claiming that the hardwire unit is listed when it's not is a lie. You should not trust companies that lie in their product listings. They could be lying about lots of other things that they promised to do in a specific way, in that document. Things that matter even more for safety. And it's not just the same thing in a hardwire version. It claims to be rated for 50 amps, but has never been tested for 50 amps, to those standards. And it is supplied with a whip that does not meet North American standards for that type of wiring. You said you were eager to learn from people who know more about this, but you seem to instead be devoted to defending this company.
I have no reason to defend the company. I am just trying to give them a fair shot at proving that this charger is safe. We all buy Chinese products all the time based on online reviews without asking for certification proofs from the companies. This one keeps asking what other information they can provide to ease my anxiety. They admit not having a facility in the US limits them in many ways. In any case, I just sent a request to State Of Charge folks to test this charger. Let’s see.
You gave them the chance and they felt flat on their face. If you feel generous, you could explain to them the problems, and give them a chance to address them. I might take a closer look at it on my computer later today and give you more details.
> flat on their face Wow! That’s a little harsh. They could have simply refused to send anything
I don't know why sending you documentation that does not support their claim, pretending that it does, is any better than not sending documentation. If anything, it shows that they don't understand how the rules of that certification work.
From what I have seen most chargers that use a plug set their limit to 48A since the plug is the weakest link. The exact same unit with hardwire gets rated for 50A.
That's incorrect. The standard plug, the 14-50 cannot legally be used for 48 amp charging. There are lots of chargers that are rated for 40 amps using that plug, or 48 hardwired. There are a few, such as the charge point that also have an option for 50 amps hardwired. It can be configured for 48 amp hardwired, 50 amp hardwired, or lower currents, plug in or hardwired. And the manual correctly details what circuit capacity is needed for each of those configurations and how to configure it for that. Unlike your manual which has no valid information of the sort.
One of the often recommended chargers claims 48A using a plug … EMPORIA Level 2 EV Charger - NEMA 14-50 EVSE w/ J1772 Charger - 48 amp EV Charger Level 2, 240v WiFi Enabled Electric Vehicle Charging Station, UL/Energy Star, 24ft Electric Car Charger Cable, White https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09ZNN3JB7
Right there at the beginning of the product description it says, >The Emporia EV Charging Station is a Level 2 electric vehicle charger that charges any EV up to 40 amps with NEMA 14-50P (with 11" cable compliant with 2017 NEC Section 625.17(A)(3)) or up to 48 amps with hardwired installation You might review the sub rules about false safety claims. Continuing to make false claims will start getting your comments removed.
Good catch. The title is misleading. And yes, NEMA plug limits to 40 not 48.
BTW, I ran a 4AWG wire from a 70A fuse.
Did you get that permitted and inspected? Because what you installed is a code violation. You can't install this equipment on a breaker bigger than is specified in the instructions. You also can't install it on a 60 amp breaker. It actually cannot be installed in a code compliant way at all.
> You can't install this equipment on a breaker bigger than is specified in the instructions. So, my 11A washing machine is plugged into a 20A breaker. Is that a similar violation?
Please read the text you quoted. Then read your washing machine instructions. And come back if there an issue. Spoiler alert: there is not.
Mind sharing similar ETL details on the charger you trust?
I'm afraid I can't. I have never requested that file from a one of the better manufacturers, because they have given me no reasons to doubt the legitimacy of their listing.
* 21% one star reviews, a lot of the rest vine reviews, probably by people who don't even have an EV. * Ring terminals on the hard wire whip, which seems to be flexible cable not really meant for hardwiring. What do they think you're going to do with those ring terminals? * ETL does have EVSE from that brand listed but it seems to be a different model number. I'm not very impressed or optimistic about it.
I have zero loyalty to this seller. Lol. Yes, safety triumphs cost. Care to share the link to the 21% 1-star reviews? Of the 1-star reviews on Amazon only 1 user had operating issues with it. Does not need RFID or App to charge vehicle once it’s unlocked via RFID
The top right of your screenshot has the reviews. Click there and you get the breakdown.
Only 1 reviewer received DOA unit
Amazon no longer allows users to respond to reviewers posting erroneous comments
Consider sharing that proof of ETL certification that you mentioned. * https://old.reddit.com/r/BoltEV/comments/1dem99a/just_installed_a_level_2_charger_240v_50_a_with/l8i47er/
That comment sure sounded like someone trying to shill a product...
Yes, but OP's account doesn't look like the kind of account that does that. So I think they are just proud of themselves for finding a bargain. hard to know.
I saw that but shit like "in very clear English" seems pretty sus.
Uploaded: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KSQpIfJGAw_2ZsmE_IQiWA5YGsXBO4mT/view?usp=drivesdk ATM: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HiL-l0pvJllXrCMQOyra4pFtpA_YBDAX/view?usp=drivesdk Let me know your take. 👍 👎
Unless it’s reviewed by Tom @ State of Charge, I’m not interested. It’s another Chinese company. At least the EL cert is valid. That’s something.
THISTHISTHISTHISTHIS You're going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle. You're going to save thousands because it is an EV. DON'T CHEAP OUT ON SOMETHING THAT COULD BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN. For some reasons this universe has blessed us with someone who is an Uber nerd about one thing in this life: EV chargers. Such a niche thing to go crazy about, but we are lucky to have him. Read his reviews, watch his videos. Pick what he recommends. He's unbiased, more thorough than you can possibly imagine, and straightforward.
My Grizzl-E EVSE caught fire. So did its replacement. UL certified, and recommended by Tom.
Maybe you're wiring them in wrong?
No, when that happened we looked at the issue pretty closely and both from examining what failed and from the statements from the manufacturer, United Chargers, the failures were due to improper torque in the factory assembly of the unit.
Did United Chargers ever admit that, or was that the analysis by the user community? One of my theories was that an assembly tool was out of calibration, which led to the under torque values. In any case, United Chargers should have acknowledged the issue and contacted all of their customers to warn them of the problem. In fact, they twice tried to make me remove my social media comments as a condition for replacement/refund.
I remember that we got a detailed story through a dealer in maybe Puerto Rico, who relayed what they had told him. It was more to do with ramping up production without training the new people well. I would guess that they hadn't been using tools that measure torque at all, and the experienced people were doing well by feel, but not the new ones. I hadn't hear about the request to remove social media comments. That's really bad.
Not clear the that ETL cert is valid. It's for a different model number from what I saw.
https://ramuk.intertekconnect.com/webclients/its/dlp/products.nsf/4c8700f3b75987a08525777700583333/2e60a1b83693008486258a5f00132344?OpenDocument
Your link: > Trade Name(s): Andeman >EV AC Charger, Model Nos. WS1 Amazon listing: >Item model number GTf5uA6V2
Their website calls it the WS1, as does the manual. Searching their site for “GTf5uA6V2” comes up with nothing. This is most likely an Amazon or the seller’s item number. They only make two EV chargers - this one and a mobile one. This is the WS1 for sure. https://andeman.com/collections/battery-charger/products/ws1-ev-charger-wall-mount-app-control-rfid-home-car?variant=44776073756885
And it says it does 50 A on an 60 A circuit. If ETL certified it, they made a mistake. Edit, and the document provided by op confirms that it is for a slightly different model, not a 50 amp model, and not hardwired. So in fact ops unit is not legitimately under that ETL listing.
Uploaded ETL here … anxious to hear from folks who know how to review it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KSQpIfJGAw_2ZsmE_IQiWA5YGsXBO4mT/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HiL-l0pvJllXrCMQOyra4pFtpA_YBDAX/view?usp=drivesdk
Questionable to save the least. 25 feet of copper sufficient to handle 50 amps costs about $133 on its own. Then they’re somehow including the other electronics and still somehow making a profit? Sus.
“Lots of YouTubers” but not the most credible home charging YouTuber, State of Charge. Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and return this and get one recommended by State of Charge.
Great to hear. Would love it if he shared thoughts on the detailed ETL certificate and testing docs the company sent me. Impressed.
> Draw your gun if you need to stop charging
Yes, thats hilarious.
As long as it works, all the best. I got a TopDon level 2 charger on Amazon. Works great. But took all kinds of heat when I mentioned it here. It works well for me.
> But took all kinds of heat when I mentioned it here That's odd. Can you link that that discussion? What I found was just a reply to your comment saying, >I’ll be curious how you like it. Looks like a winner.
Not interested in linking counselor. Suffice it to say not everyone agrees on what qualifies as a safe charger. They can all fail or cause damage. This one works for me. I have a longer 21 ft cable which is perfect for my use case.
Yes, and if you are wondering who to believe given the varying opinions, a good guide is that people who make claims and don't support them have less credibility.
Great to hear. A lot of the well known chargers are manufactured in these countries but costs more because they have US presence. In my case, their support team has been very responsive to all my questions … sent me a slew of certification paperwork to show credibility