Jump to content

Don't mention the ..............


aandncaravan

Recommended Posts

We have received our contacts name David Shield, to arrange our tour of the Certified battery test facility to do a tour and get a Battery tested. I have emailed him, just awaiting a reply.

 

However, I am not allowed to tell you why we are doing this otherwise the Forum editor will probably delete my account the same way he has deleted THAT thread on a certain companies battery scheme.

However, you can read all about it here : http://www.aandncaravanservices.co.uk/campaign-for-battery-change.php

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
aandncaravan - 2018-06-11 7:44 PM

 

We have received our contacts name David Shield, to arrange our tour of the Certified battery test facility to do a tour and get a Battery tested. I have emailed him, just awaiting a reply.

 

However, I am not allowed to tell you why we are doing this otherwise the Forum editor will probably delete my account the same way he has deleted THAT thread on a certain companies battery scheme.

However, you can read all about it here : http://www.aandncaravanservices.co.uk/campaign-for-battery-change.php

 

 

Really interesting read Alan. I applaude your determination and tenacity. It's not easy taking on organisations such as these but, personally, I have never subscribed to the view that this particular 'representative' body has done very much to ensure improved standards and quality in the industry. The best vehicles I have owned have not been NCC approved.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aandncaravan - 2018-06-11 7:44 PM

 

...However, I am not allowed to tell you why we are doing this otherwise the Forum editor will probably delete my account the same way he has deleted THAT thread on a certain companies battery scheme...

 

 

THAT thread has not been deleted - it’s been moved to the Admin Quarantine forum that’s only visible to forum moderators.

 

That it has ended up there is largely your own fault. I’ve re-read your posting of 9 June on that thread and you pushed your luck just that bit too far with the wording of your observations on the NCC scheme.

 

Your comments could be just as valuable and effective without the hyperbole that risks a thread having to be (at best) ‘moderated’ and (at worst) completely removed from general view.

 

I believe you said that you had been banned from the MHFun forums. It’s been a long time since anyone was given the boot here, but it’s irritating (to everybody) when useful threads need to be amended or removed when a hint of toning down their content originally would avoid this.

 

Here endeth the lesson...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2018-06-12 8:29 AM

 

aandncaravan - 2018-06-11 7:44 PM

 

...However, I am not allowed to tell you why we are doing this otherwise the Forum editor will probably delete my account the same way he has deleted THAT thread on a certain companies battery scheme...

 

 

THAT thread has not been deleted - it’s been moved to the Admin Quarantine forum that’s only visible to forum moderators.

 

That it has ended up there is largely your own fault. I’ve re-read your posting of 9 June on that thread and you pushed your luck just that bit too far with the wording of your observations on the NCC scheme.

 

Your comments could be just as valuable and effective without the hyperbole that risks a thread having to be (at best) ‘moderated’ and (at worst) completely removed from general view.

 

I believe you said that you had been banned from the MHFun forums. It’s been a long time since anyone was given the boot here, but it’s irritating (to everybody) when useful threads need to be amended or removed when a hint of toning down their content originally would avoid this.

 

Here endeth the lesson...

 

 

THAT thread HAS been deleted from general view, which is all that matters in the real world. Don’t nit pick Derek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all.

 

Derek, The Editer PM'ed to say it had been deleted so I assumed it had.

 

The reason I was banned from Motorhome fun was because of technical advice that was not well received by a supplier who advertises on the Forum.

We advised one poster who was having issues with the batteries not being charged up in Winter, that having a single battery Solar regulator plus a battery Master for the Starter battery was not the most efficient setup.

We suggested a good twin battery Solar regulator could deliver more Solar power with more charge going into the batteries.

That did not go down well with Jim, who seems to promote the Battery Master.

Vanbitz who spend money advertising on the Forum were not impressed either.

 

I was told to change my user account, but my new user account never got activated. Strangely all my requests to have it activated went unacknowledged. Even a request sent internally by another forum member was ignored. Shame.

 

 

You are right, as usual, that I was pushing my luck. I will moderate it in future.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aandy - 2018-06-12 9:04 AM

 

I see that a related thread has been pulled from Swift Talk. It did get a bit heated at one point so that may be the reason rather than any discomfort on Swift's part over criticism of the NCC.

 

As the OP on Swiftalk Andy I deleted the thread. After Allan's post some jumped on the thread, basically saying he had no right to defend himself. It had gone far enough and had I not deleted I'm sure the Moderators would have done so, or at least closed it. Pity ......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2018-06-12 11:05 AM

 

If what Allan said was so valuable why could the moderators not edit out the contentious stuff and allow the gist to remain with maybe a footnote clarifying their actions - or is it easier to just hide it and say nowt?

Possibly, though as he found some forums get a bit jittery over criticism of a product who just happen to be a sponsor. One major reason i rarely bother reading test reports in magazines.

 

However going on his many informative postings on batteries in general but also leisure specific, i wouldn't hesitate to purchase from him if looking for an improved battery 'set up'. His knowledge seems pretty extensive on batteries and electrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ron. - 2018-06-12 9:10 AM

 

THAT thread HAS been deleted from general view, which is all that matters in the real world. Don’t nit pick Derek.

 

The difference between ‘deletion’ and ‘quarantining’ is that - in the latter case - a thread could be recovered and moved back to its original forum having been suitably edited (as Tracker suggests). I and any of the other forum moderators could do this.

 

In this instance these forums’ Administrator (Daniel Attwood) evidently decided to remove the thread from the Motorhome Matters forum.

 

There used to be an “Acceptable Use” policy-statement relating to these forums, but it disappeared and has never been replaced. Consequently, with no stated terms and conditions, any forum member can (in principle) say what they like: conversely, the forum Administrator can do whatever he/she likes regarding threads/postings and need not provide any explanation for his/her actions.

 

The Admin Quaratine forum is surprisingly educational with some really large threads ending up there (there’s a 2007 22-page thread that ran for 6 weeks before getting pulled) and some of the ‘discussions’ contain information that might still be useful. But the policy has generally been to remove a complete thread rather than try to edit postings within it, and this can result in valuable material sometimes being ditched.

 

As you’ll see from Allan’s posting that follows yours, he was aware that he was pushing the envelope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2018-06-12 8:29 AM

.................

That it has ended up there is largely your own fault. I’ve re-read your posting of 9 June on that thread and you pushed your luck just that bit too far with the wording of your observations on the NCC scheme.

..........

 

Sadly, I missed the thread when it was visible. I too have been a lot less than impressed by the alleged capacity, durability and even suitability of some leisure batteries - as well as seroiusly out of pocket.

 

No offence intended, Derek, I know Alan admits he was pushing it and if the post was libellous, fair enough but if it was not, or could be made not so, surely it could have been 'moderated', or temporarily removed and Alan asked to tone it down before it was put back up? It's already been stated that there was some good information in it.

If it was only stepping on the NCC's toes, so what.

The NCC should be brought to account if they are not doing the job properly and only truly in existence to improve the market for the Motorhome/Caravan and peripheral trades. If you put your seal of approval on an aftermarket product (battery in this case) then that SHOULD be for the customer's benefit. You can't claim to uphold standards and refuse to reveal the basis of your standards.

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

747Heavy - 2018-06-12 4:46 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2018-06-12 8:29 AM

.................

That it has ended up there is largely your own fault. I’ve re-read your posting of 9 June on that thread and you pushed your luck just that bit too far with the wording of your observations on the NCC scheme.

..........

 

Sadly, I missed the thread when it was visible. I too have been a lot less than impressed by the alleged capacity, durability and even suitability of some leisure batteries - as well as seroiusly out of pocket.

 

No offence intended, Derek, I know Alan admits he was pushing it and if the post was libellous, fair enough but if it was not, or could be made not so, surely it could have been 'moderated', or temporarily removed and Alan asked to tone it down before it was put back up? It's already been stated that there was some good information in it.

If it was only stepping on the NCC's toes, so what.

The NCC should be brought to account if they are not doing the job properly and only truly in existence to improve the market for the Motorhome/Caravan and peripheral trades. If you put your seal of approval on an aftermarket product (battery in this case) then that SHOULD be for the customer's benefit. You can't claim to uphold standards and refuse to reveal the basis of your standards.

 

Will

I would have thought it similar to any BS marked product which is basically saying 'we tested this item and it meets the BS requirements' etc. Knowing what the standards are, i would have thought easy enough to find out....why would it need to be kept 'secret'?

 

I found this on the NCC website;

 

David Reid, NCC Standards and Regulations Adviser, advises that the NCC has been aware that consumers could be getting short changed when purchasing a leisure battery because, until now, there has been very little guidance on how to match their requirements to the technical specification of the battery. Leisure batteries can cost as much as £200 each so the NCC wants to make sure that when people buy a new battery they get a product that is suitable for their caravan or motorhome and suits their lifestyle.

 

The scheme is designed to bring transparency to the leisure battery marketplace and help consumers select a product that’s right for them. The scheme was started with some of the leading leisure battery brands signed up, including Banner, Platinum and Yuasa and more are being brought on board all the time.

 

http://www.thencc.org.uk/our_schemes/ncc_verified_leisure_battery_scheme.aspx

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

arthur49 - 2018-06-12 12:48 PM

 

aandy - 2018-06-12 9:04 AM

 

I see that a related thread has been pulled from Swift Talk. It did get a bit heated at one point so that may be the reason rather than any discomfort on Swift's part over criticism of the NCC.

 

As the OP on Swiftalk Andy I deleted the thread. After Allan's post some jumped on the thread, basically saying he had no right to defend himself. It had gone far enough and had I not deleted I'm sure the Moderators would have done so, or at least closed it. Pity ......

 

A shame, as you say. I didn't see the later posts but I could see the way it was going which is why I backed out. It was getting almost personal. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that one of the protagonists took umbrage some while back after Alan pointed out an error or omission in an article he had had published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

I have been stung with two rubbish 'Leisure' batteries over the last few years. Both marketed as "deep cycle" "specialist camping" They were not. And when they give up in the south of France its not just the cost of the battery that is lost.

 

The question is if Allan hadn't picked up the baton who would have?

 

Keep up the good work Allan

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

747Heavy - 2018-06-12 4:46 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2018-06-12 8:29 AM

.................

That it has ended up there is largely your own fault. I’ve re-read your posting of 9 June on that thread and you pushed your luck just that bit too far with the wording of your observations on the NCC scheme.

..........

 

...No offence intended, Derek, I know Alan admits he was pushing it and if the post was libellous, fair enough but if it was not, or could be made not so, surely it could have been 'moderated', or temporarily removed and Alan asked to tone it down before it was put back up? It's already been stated that there was some good information in it...

 

Will

 

The thread had already been ‘moderator edited’ at Allan’s request before a subsequent posting by him resulted in the complete thread being removed by the forum’s Administrator.

 

My understanding of how UK libel laws apply to internet forums is that legal action against whoever hosts a forum (in this case Warners) is unlikely to succeed if the forum’s ‘management’ reacts promptly and appropriately when a potentially libellous comment is identified.

 

In Allans’s crusade about the NCC scheme he’s far more at risk over anything libellous that might be posted permanently on his own website than Warners might be over similar statements temporarily posted here.

 

The objective of the NCC scheme is stated in Bulletguy’s posting above. The objective is laudable, but (as Allan has often explained) the underlying principles of the scheme have always been flawed. Obviously I don’t know if the NCC scheme in its present form has actually caused people to buy a leisure-battery that’s really unsuitable for their requirements, but it’s very likely that they will have not bought the battery that would be most suitable on a value-for-money basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Tour around the Battery test Laboratory is set for tomorrow, the 14th. I need to buy my 'test' batteries quickly!!!

 

Derek, As you know we repair Battery Chargers so get people coming to see us with failed units.

In 95% of cases, a poor battery or over large battery bank is usually the cause of the charger failure.

 

When we see an inappropriate battery installed we ask questions. So often, and getting worse, the battery was chosen on NCC verified battery 'guidance'. The scheme is not serving the consumers.

 

As you say the NCC battery scheme is laudable, but needs to change to suit the consumers better.

 

All we want is the NCC to make it open and better.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aandncaravan - 2018-06-13 9:14 AM

 

Well the Tour around the Battery test Laboratory is set for tomorrow, the 14th. I need to buy my 'test' batteries quickly!!!

 

Derek, As you know we repair Battery Chargers so get people coming to see us with failed units.

In 95% of cases, a poor battery or over large battery bank is usually the cause of the charger failure.

 

When we see an inappropriate battery installed we ask questions. So often, and getting worse, the battery was chosen on NCC verified battery 'guidance'. The scheme is not serving the consumers.

 

As you say the NCC battery scheme is laudable, but needs to change to suit the consumers better.

 

All we want is the NCC to make it open and better.

I can't see any harm in asking for that, and if they start 'building brick walls' questions have to be asked as to why and in whose interest, consumer or retailer? Personally i've often found customer recommendation counts a lot and if folk aren't happy with a product/business...word soon get's around.

 

Bit off topic here but i've always been puzzled why battery life of smartphones is so abysmal. I know with 'apps' etc they 'do' more than a normal mobile but why after all these years has nobody been able to develop a battery with a decent useage? Eg, a 15 year old Nokia 7250i, owned from new, still with original battery, left switched on 24/7, lasts around 7 days before needing charging. My short 'acquaintance' with a smartphone lasted just two weeks as i quickly found the damn thing needed charging every couple of days...so i sold it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a great day I have had on my tour of the Battery test faciliity. A real success, story.

But more on that later,

 

I had previously written to most of the companies who have batteries listed on the NCC verified battery scheme, to ask if they would release their battery test results into the public Domain after the NCC refused to do the same.

 

Yuasa have replied and said they will send all their tests for all the batteries submitted and I am hopeful that Exide and Banner will do the same.

 

I asked Yuasa, that if I created our own Battery 'approved' scheme, would Yuasa support us, and again the answer was YES.

 

 

The plan I have (only vague at the moment) is to create a web page where all the characteristics of all those batteries in the scheme are listed, along with the data from the tests.

I promise I won't get my two young children to just type random numbers to populate the fields. They will only be taken from the Test results.

 

A battery will only be listed if it has corresponding laboratory test data, visible for all to see.

 

I will set up a new thread to cover this as I would like to ask for help on this?

 

 

 

The battery test laboratory tour was brilliant. My guide for the day was a battery designer. A real expert who's job is to specify what technology goes into a battery.

I also met 2 other technicians and asked as many questions of everyone as I could.

 

 

It pretty much started with me being told I had stirred a Hornets nest.

"You will never guess who was here last week". said David.

"Who?" says I.

 

"Some technical chappie from the Caravan club asking all sorts of questions about AGM batteries". "He seemed to want to know if AGM's really would have short lives in the scenarios you painted on your Blog".

 

"What did you tell him?".

 

"You know I can't tell you that, and I don't want you putting on your website everything we talk about today".

He went on,

"But did you know that Audi/Volkswagen have pulled AGM batteries from all their cars?".

 

"What the whole group, including, including Skoda and Seat?"

 

He went on to explain that AGM are being kicked out and they are going back to Wet Acid/Flooded technology.

BMW were preparing to do the same.

But he told me not to say anything about Land Rover, so sorry, that bit is secret.

 

Apparently the official Audi line is that Wet acid technology has advanced so much in the last few years, that the difference between AGM and Wet acid is now so small that "the disadvantages of AGM make Flooded technology more attractive".

 

But the unofficial version is that AGM's have not 'performed in the field as well as expected'. I think in Allan speak that might mean they were rubbish?

 

Apparently most BMW Dealers have been replacing failed AGM's with Enhanced Flooded Batteries (EFB) for a while with great success (just as we reported 2 years ago on the AGM page) so they are now gearing up to migrate live production as well.

 

Allegedly Mercedes have replaced one of the two AGM's in the top cars with an EFB, which might suggest they are gearing up to follow suit?

 

Sorry I can't say anything about Landrover. He, he.

 

Yuasa had been working on a new Truck battery design, the battery that both powers the overnight sleeping area's Inverter, Microwave, kettle, Diesel Heater, reading Lights, TV, etc. ( doesn't it sound like a motorhome habitation area behind those big comfy seats!) and starts the engine. It was originally intended to use AGM techology, but that now looks like being binned with a move to EFB's.

 

 

So, to the person who emailed me over three years ago with, "You are wrong about AGM Allan. If they were not any good Hymer would not be fitting them", May I say back "If AGM were any good, Audi would not be de-installing them now".

 

 

Hopefully all that AGM news was also relayed to the MCC 'techie' and will result in a change on the NCC web pages, so two good results.

 

So far, so good.

 

 

When I was introduced to the Lab guys and they were told by my 'Tour guide' they were testing a battery for me, they asked which one.

 

When I told them, there was lots of laughter.

One called across the room to another techie, "he wants one of those batteries tested that you did a few weeks ago, how many cycles was it 60?"

"No one did nearly 70 and the other nearly 30".

 

"You must be mistaken" says I, "this battery delivers 220 cycles, that's verified by the NCC scheme".

 

More laughter.

I wonder if they have already tested other relevant batteries?

 

So we will have to see what the test shows, which might be a while as they were a bit busy.

 

 

They had 63 batteries directly on test, three in the Freezer waiting for them to reach -18 degrees before doing the 'Cranking amps' CCA test (and no, the Fish Fingers were not in there, they were in a separate freezer) and a couple in a paused state between tests.

There were banks of racks full of automation equipment, charging a battery, pausing, then discharging them all automatically. It was mind boggling.

Made my charger and Tungsten bulb look a bit Stone Age.

 

They showed me batteries mid way through a test and what they went through.

No wonder one of the budgets they tested managed only 7 cycles. A battery that you might be shocked to find out the name of.

You will all have heard of it and seen the label to the effect of "Heavy Duty Leisure".

 

 

That made me think that even if the NCC Verified scheme was open and honest, it wouldn't stop these horrors from being missold.

 

So on the drive back I hatched a cunning plan, more on that later.

 

 

I heard all sorts of stories, but after the telling, I got, "but you can't publish that".

 

Learnt a lot about the birth of the NCC/Caravan Club scheme as one of the technicians present was in at the start of the scheme, but again I can't relay that either.

But it will be put to good use at some point.

 

 

I did get shown a graph, that I can't talk about.

However, it showed a Varta LFD as one of the poorest performers against the other batteries.

I didn't get to see it properly, I think he saw me reach for my camera.............

 

They were all 'new release' batteries. One was a Banner that I need to research and the other was a new Yuasa Leisure battery using EFB technology, I didn't recognise the others.

Both batteries exceeded the Varta in every area, with higher cycle life, etc. So if I can track them down, look out for those two in the new "Al's Approved Battery scheme". :)

 

 

I learnt and saw loads that I can't all repeat, but what a great day. I was like a kiddy in a sweet shop.

 

 

To get Yuasa's support as well is brilliant.

 

I have a lot of updating to do on the web page : http://www.aandncaravanservices.co.uk/campaign-for-battery-change.php but I am tired it will have to wait.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you enjoyed yourself Allan!

Do they have a standard test plan for each battery or do the battery manufactures specify their own?

 

My concern is that the test plan should be appropriate for motorhome use and this in itself is not easy to define as there are different "user scenarios". I would class myself as a low user as I don't use an inverter, watch much TV, have LED lights etc. On average, I use about 6AHr overnight, topped up with solar during the day. Other users with inverters etc, are going to use many more AHrs and then there are those users in between.

 

If the battery test is going to be say C/20 discharge, then I am not sure how applicable this will be (although much better than what we have today).

 

Has anyone run a user survey of battery use? (low, medium and high use maybe?). How the battery is used during storage is another case. If not, would this be a good thing to know so that the battery test is more applicable? It is probably too much to ask to run separate tests for each user case unfortunately.

 

Phil

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2018-06-12 12:59 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-06-12 11:05 AM

 

If what Allan said was so valuable why could the moderators not edit out the contentious stuff and allow the gist to remain with maybe a footnote clarifying their actions - or is it easier to just hide it and say nowt?

Possibly, though as he found some forums get a bit jittery over criticism of a product who just happen to be a sponsor. One major reason i rarely bother reading test reports in magazines.

 

However going on his many informative postings on batteries in general but also leisure specific, i wouldn't hesitate to purchase from him if looking for an improved battery 'set up'. His knowledge seems pretty extensive on batteries and electrics.

 

Sadly, Allan doesn't sell batteries or solar etc just repairs chargers etc that have (often) been damaged by said batteries/solar regulators etc. However. He has given valuable assistance and advice in the past about what systems/products rank among the best.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...