I would also like to do this update, but how do the 2-pole magnetic contacts hold up? The original 4-pole magnetic contact is designed as 40A ac7-a and ac7-b 22 A. The 2-pole magnetic contacts used are 25A ac7-a, but with ac7-b a maximum of 10A. In 1/3 phase you should therefore use these with a maximum charging capacity of 2500W. There are heavier 2-pole magnetic contacts for sale, but they have a width of 35 mm, which means that 2 will not fit in the casing.
Opened up the old version (square box with display on front) and it seems to be possible there also.. Will do the testing in coming weeks and revert.
Only have 1 phase PV+BESS and would of course not like to use L2/L3 for charging when thereβs excess on L1.
Looking at the ac7-a vs ac7-b, a is intended for resistive loads while b is intended for inductive loads.
Problem is that replacing the 40A contactor with 2 x 25A contactors the de-rating of the charge current should also be done considering the rating of the contactors to <18A charge based on below Iskra datasheet.
Anyhow should be fine as 99.99% of the population will manage with a ~11kW charger as most EV have today for home charging.
Edit: Found Iskra 30.046.833 2 pole and 32A will fit
Iβm using the switching option with great success, and I really appreciate Victron for offering such DIY-friendly features. However, Iβve noticed that when switching from 1 β 3 phases, the charging current remains at my maximum setting of 16 A. In the past, Iβm fairly sure the current was automatically reduced to 6 A after switching phases.
I know this isnβt an official feature, but it would be very helpful for optimization if the system could automatically adjust the charging current when changing phases. Setting it to 6 A when switching from 1 β 3 P, and setting it to 16 A (or the configured maximum) when switching from 3 β 1 P. This would minimize power jumps, for example from 1 P/16 A (3.68 kW) to 3 P/6 A (4.14 kW) instead of jumping straight to the full 11 kW at 3 P/16 A.
@Lpopescu Would it be possible to consider this behavior in a future firmware release?