L-ion batteries - C&MC mag Oct 18

[arthur49]

Aimed particularly at Allan ....... I'll e mail you a copy of the article

 

Magazine features an article by a Gary Martin extolling the virtues of a bank of 6 L-ion batteries at a cost of c£7200 against lead acid batteries at approx £300 each??? and weighing 35kg???

 

Gary Martin is Editor of magazine and the article appears to be marketing exaggeration?

 

Company involved is here -

 

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/

[Rayjsj]

arthur49 - 2018-10-05 11:27 AM

 

Aimed particularly at Allan ....... I'll e mail you a copy of the article

 

Magazine features an article by a Gary Martin extolling the virtues of a bank of 6 L-ion batteries at a cost of c£7200 against lead acid batteries at approx £300 each??? and weighing 35kg???

 

Gary Martin is Editor of magazine and the article appears to be marketing exaggeration?

 

Company involved is here -

 

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/

 

£7200 for leisure batteries !!!!!!! Got to be joking. Could buy 3 Efoy units for that. Now that IS green energy.

[arthur49]

Rayjsj - 2018-10-05 12:16 PM

 

£7200 for leisure batteries !!!!!!! Got to be joking. Could buy 3 Efoy units for that. Now that IS green energy.

 

No joking ..... article claims a 100Ah lead-acid battery weighs about 35kg and costs about £300 ..... I've asked the C&MC Editor what lead-acid battery he is suggesting at that weight and price. My LFD90s weigh probably 25kg and cost about £110 delivered.

 

So if the article contains such inaccuracies/exaggerations, how much faith can be placed in the rest of it?

 

 

[Roryboy]

What I find utterly amazing is that someone actually reads the Magazine.

 

Has your PC or tablet been broken, need charging or been stolen ?

 

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Keithl]

arthur49 - 2018-10-05 11:27 AM

... against lead acid batteries ... weighing 35kg???

 

Obviously had a lot of concrete in them :D

 

Keith.

[Derek Uzzell]

The 2-page article (consisting mostly of photos) in the C&MC magazine contained no “extolling” by Gary Martin. As was stated clearly in the article’s heading, it was just crystal-ball gazing at how future motorhomes might not carry LPG for fuelling domestic equipment. As C&MC members were not being actively encouraged to go ‘gas free’, I can’t see it mattering much whether the lead-acid battery cost/weight estimates were excessve.

 

Certainly more realistic was the article on Pages 188-191 of the October 2018 issue of MMM magazine that described how members of the MMM ‘team’ had installed lithium-ferrous batteries in their own motorhomes.

[arthur49]

I wrote to Gary Martin and received the following reply

 

"It seems we might have ben a bit over with the weight, as you pointed out. It seems 25kg is nearer the mark.

 

With regards the price, what we were trying to show was that even a really good lead-acid battery isn’t in the same realms in terms of price as the lithium-ion one used by Transporter Energy for its concept. As you rightly say, you can purchase a good lead-acid battery for much less than the £300 we quoted"

 

To me cost comparison with lead-acid is important. The article does indicate that L-ion is expensive but exaggerating the weight/cost gap with lead-acid is wrong, and smacks of marketing hype. Surely a man in his position has lead-acid facts more readily to hand?

 

I'm a member of C&MC and look for accurate details from my representative Club.

 

However, I do concede my choice of 'extolling' was wrong ....... I was heading for coffee with friends

:-D

[spirou]

Look at it this way... you're not going to get an LFD90 at less than 200-250€ anywhere else but UK. Whereas lithium is almost the same everywhere (but quite a bit cheaper in US). So maybe they're comparing continental prices ;-)

[arthur49]

I suggested respectfully to Gary he run a clarification in Nov issue. Here's his response

 

"Unfortunately, the News pages have already gone and I’ve nowhere else to run a correction – the November issue goes to press on Tuesday.

 

I’ii consider running a correction in the December issue, but by then two months will have passed. Leave it with me"

 

So he felt it necessary to give cost and weight comparisons and concedes it was inaccurate

- I asked for "clarification", he quotes "correction"

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Arthur

 

If you look a bit more closely at the Transporter Energy (TE) website that you provided a link to in your original posting, you’ll find (as is commonplace with many caravan- or motorhome-related articles of this type) that the weight and cost data in the C&MC article are just copied from the TE website.

 

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/battery/overview

 

You know and I know that those data are unrepresentative, but I doubt if Gary Martin would have been aware of this, any more than (I suspect) Daniel Attwood would be.

 

In the same C&MC magazine issue (Page 72) is a question about CP-marked tyres. but the answer merely repeats what the tyre manufacturers’ advertising claims and the suggestion that a CP-marked tyre provides “superior grip on a wet pitch and improved comfort" has absolutely no real-world foundation.

 

Articles in the C&MC and MMM magazines are not written for people who are obsessive over accuracy and/or fine detail - it’s man-in-the-street writing. The obsessives can get their kicks on this forum. ;-)

[arthur49]

Sorry Derek, you and I clearly look for different things in a magazine that I read to be informed.

 

It is up to the Editor to separate fact from fiction and inform details. If those details are incorrect then they should be corrected/clarified.

 

There's too much bovine effluent spouted by marketing departments and I expect my representative body not to add to that effluent.

 

I don't have an issue with crystal ball gazing. I actually found the article interesting .....

 

:-S

[aandncaravan]

Arthur, I can see why you think the article is so poor.

 

The writer claims (and he should not be writing anything such as this type of article without confirming it is factual) that Lithium batteries recharge 12 times faster than Lead Acid.

Really?

 

So if a Varta LFD90 charges from an Alternator at around 10 - 15 amps per battery, then the 6 x 100Ah Lithium batteries will charge at 120amps per battery x 6 = 720amps.

 

 

Have you ever seen a 720 amp Motorhome charger? What about a 720 amp Alternator?

This set-up apparently works well with Solar, so maybe 150 x 100watt Solar panels will also get it charged up pretty quickly?

Might be an issue with roof space though, and 150 Solar panels might weigh a little bit?

 

 

Practically flawed in it's very 'concept', so for anyone to suggest a set-up can charge 12 times faster when there isn't a way to get anywhere near such a thing shows a total lack of understanding of even the basics of batteries and their usage in a motorhome.

 

There is absolutely no discussion on how all that power is going to be put back, it's a crazy, one sided piece of amazingly poor journalism.

 

 

 

It is SO reassuring to know that it is the CAMC behind the NCC Verified Battery scheme, don't you think?

 

 

 

[arthur49]

Thank you for input Allan. I restricted my input to the simple weight and cost of lead-acid, so obviously flawed ..........

[Billggski]

There's a brand new efoy kit on ebay, in Nottingham.

Now that would really make you independant!

 

No re-charging, no solar panels, no generator, just silent 12v power.

[Derek Uzzell]

arthur49 - 2018-10-05 7:34 PM

 

Sorry Derek, you and I clearly look for different things in a magazine that I read to be informed...

 

:-S

 

The difference between us is that, when I came across the C&MC article that has seemingly infuriated you, I went to the Transporter Energy (TE) website from which it was plain where the article’s author (Gary Martin or an underling) obtained the weight/cost data that you’ve quibbled over.

 

Claims of a 43.8kg ‘weight saving’ and a 60% longer power capabiliity for a system (presumably) comprising a pair of 100Ah TE batteries are footnoted as follows

 

"*vs. leading lead acid 100ah batteries used in an Auto-Trail Apache 632 battery performance test. Results may vary by leisure vehicle, appliance and usage pattern.”

 

No details of the Apache’s batteries are given, nor what the test entailed.

 

The TE website is 100% pure advertisement and (as might be expected) no mention is made of potential drawbacks. The C&MC article does not challenge the claims made on the TE website, but (if the article is read carefully) it’s evident that its author is just reporting infomation rather than writing as an ‘expert’. For example

 

“I am also told that recharging takes between three and six hours - that’s up to 12 times faster than leading lead acid competitors”. (Note the “I am also TOLD”)

 

It’s very easy to nit-pick about magazine articles when the information in them is clearly questionable or even wrong, but the C&MC article is just a 2-page unimportant ‘filler’ that (realistically) won’t convince any C&MC member to fork out lots of dosh on lithium-ion batteries. Everything in the C&MC magazine tends towards accentuating the positives of ‘camping’ while ignoring potential negatives and the TE-related article is no different.

[Derek Uzzell]

Billggski - 2018-10-06 9:08 AM

 

There's a brand new efoy kit on ebay, in Nottingham.

Now that would really make you independant!

 

No re-charging, no solar panels, no generator, just silent 12v power.

 

But all that would do is add methanol to the habitation power-sources already present.

 

The ‘logic’ behind the the Transporter Energy approach is that it has the potential to completely remove one of the traditional habitation power-sources (LPG).

 

(It’s interesting that criticism is being directed to the chuck-in-the-waste-bin C&MC article, that is of near-nil technical value, but the much more interesting lithium-battery-related piece in MMM magazine has not been mentioned. Perhaps members of this Warners-provided forum don’t buy MMM?)

[arthur49]

Derek Uzzell - 2018-10-06 9:30 AM

 

arthur49 - 2018-10-05 7:34 PM

 

Sorry Derek, you and I clearly look for different things in a magazine that I read to be informed...

 

:-S

 

The difference between us is that, when I came across the C&MC article that has seemingly infuriated you, I went to the Transporter Energy (TE) website from which it was plain where the article’s author (Gary Martin or an underling) obtained the weight/cost data that you’ve quibbled over.

 

Claims of a 43.8kg ‘weight saving’ and a 60% longer power capabiliity for a system (presumably) comprising a pair of 100Ah TE batteries are footnoted as follows

 

"*vs. leading lead acid 100ah batteries used in an Auto-Trail Apache 632 battery performance test. Results may vary by leisure vehicle, appliance and usage pattern.”

 

No details of the Apache’s batteries are given, nor what the test entailed.

 

The TE website is 100% pure advertisement and (as might be expected) no mention is made of potential drawbacks. The C&MC article does not challenge the claims made on the TE website, but (if the article is read carefully) it’s evident that its author is just reporting information rather than writing as an ‘expert’. For example

 

“I am also told that recharging takes between three and six hours - that’s up to 12 times faster than leading lead acid competitors”. (Note the “I am also TOLD”)

 

It’s very easy to nit-pick about magazine articles when the information in them is clearly questionable or even wrong, but the C&MC article is just a 2-page unimportant ‘filler’ that (realistically) won’t convince any C&MC member to fork out lots of dosh on lithium-ion batteries. Everything in the C&MC magazine tends towards accentuating the positives of ‘camping’ while ignoring potential negatives and the TE-related article is no different.

 

Sorry Derek I stand by my view. Its sloppy journalism. Editor's role is to separate fact from fiction and not spoon feed me blatant advertising/marketing.

 

 

[Adiebt]

I found the article very interesting and perhaps gave a glimpse into the future . Re advertising and marketing I’d hope that most people would make a purchasing decision with more info than the mag article provided.

Well done C and MH magazine for a thought provoking article , keep up the good work .

[aandncaravan]

EFOY units don't inspire confidence with all the warnings about dangerous gas being expelled from the unit when it is operating, the many warnings in the documentation about the risk of explosion, etc.

 

But, for me, there is little detailed information on how the battery charger operates.

From the little info that there is in the Tech sheets, it seems to have a 'switch' on voltage that is user programmable but set by default to 12.3v!!

12.3v is a massively discharged (and most likely degraded) quality battery, close to 75% Depth Of Discharge, so for a charger to only start charging a battery when it is discharged so much seems to me to be a very poor battery charger unit.

 

The talk of switch on/switch off preset values, makes it appear to be a very low tech, low power (just 4 amp charge rate in the bottom end unit) unit where the manufacturer doesn't seem to understand batteries or battery charging.

 

For something which costs so much money, I would have expected a decent battery charger to have been used with the Fuel Cells, rather than all the R&D go into the Fuel Cells, with little regard for the battery charging unit.

 

 

[Tracker]

It matters little what batteries you have, they still need to be charged.

If you do a lot of miles the alternator, or an uprated version, with or without a solar panel and decent regulator MIGHT manage the job and if not it probably means a mains hook up - and if you are going to use an EHU to charge or to replace gas why bother with expensive batteries?

So where is the advantage, other than no gas bottles or tank refilling?

Nice idea methinks but too many flaws to be viable given today's technology?

[Billggski]

I'm no champion on efoy, but some of the comments about it need correcting.

 

 

https://www.campervanstuff.com/shop_stuff/index.php?mod=product&id_prd=1068

 

It seems it cuts in at 12.3 v to take your battery up to 14+, its emissions are miniscule CO2 (about a child's breath is the blurb) and is noiseless. I'm happy with my set up, which is solar panel, led lights and gaslow, so have no axe to grind.

 

Yes, it uses alcohol as fuel, but don't we all?

[John Allen]

Bought a Varta LFD 90 for €130 at Landevant in west France in July

[Rayjsj]

aandncaravan - 2018-10-06 1:22 PM

 

EFOY units don't inspire confidence with all the warnings about dangerous gas being expelled from the unit when it is operating, the many warnings in the documentation about the risk of explosion, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Batteries are not without their dangers, and risk of explosive gases being present, plus electric shorting and sparking potetnial......so not much differance really.

For me the only downside is the high initial purchase price and then the high cost of the Methanol fuel . (No more dangerous than a petrol generator.....and virtually silent). My choice over batteries any time.

[aandncaravan]

Derek, the point I made about each 100Ah Lithium needing a 100amp charger, therefore 6 batteries needing over 700amp chargers, is because that is what the manufacturers state is required to achieve the performance noted by the marketing teams.

 

It doesn't matter which 'review' of Lithium's you read, not one we have seen has had an adequate mains charger, Alternator or Solar set-up.

We have not even seen one installation where they even uprated the wiring adequately.

If you know anyone that has had a Lithium install, ask to see the Alternator charger cable under the bonnet/Starter battery box, we have never seen anything other than the standard Fiat item.

 

We noted in another thread how inadequate the Alternator wiring was to the Starter battery, even including pictures to show it's spindly size.

That cable is already inadequate for 2 x AGM '20 amp draw' batteries, so how will it fair with a SINGLE 100Ah, '100amp' Lithium?

 

When the basic infrastructure, and integration with the Power Controllers are in place to cope with Lithiums, then they might be safe. But we have not seen one installation that meets the claims of the installer.

 

Lithiums are more efficient, but to charge a battery 12 times faster you need pretty much 12 times more amps, that is just physics.

 

 

 

Billggski - 2018-10-06 8:03 PM

I'm no champion on efoy, but some of the comments about it need correcting.

https://www.campervanstuff.com/shop_stuff/index.php?mod=product&id_prd=1068

 

It seems it cuts in at 12.3 v to take your battery up to 14+, its emissions are miniscule CO2 (about a child's breath is the blurb) and is noiseless. I'm happy with my set up, which is solar panel, led lights and gaslow, so have no axe to grind.

 

Yes, it uses alcohol as fuel, but don't we all?

 

 

Billggski, Then why does the manual say,

"In exceptional cases, the exhaust gases emitted by the device may contain substances that are harmful to health!"?

 

 

Again if you look at the manual, you will see more 'Hazard' warnings than I have ever seen for a quality Wet Acid battery like a Varta LFD90.

For example -

 

WARNING!

Damage in the event of an accident; risk of injury! EFOY COMFORT fuel cells and EFOY fuel cartridges must be securely fastened to prevent damage in the event of an accident.

 

and -

 

DANGER!

Leakage of methanol fumes poses a fire hazard! Do not smoke when replacing the EFOY fuel cartridge and do not expose it to other ignition sources! Protect EFOY fuel cartridges from temperatures exceeding

50°C/122°F

 

and -

 

CAUTION!

Impurities in methanol!

Original EFOY fuel cartridges contain methanol that has been approved by SFC. Even slight impurities or foreign particles in commercially available methanol may cause irreversible damage to the device.

 

and -

 

WARNING!

Methanol is toxic when inhaled, swallowed or allowed to come into contact with the skin. Inhaling and swallowing methanol, or allowing it to come into contact with your skin carries a serious risk of irreversible

damage.

 

And so on, lots more in the manual.

 

 

All this Danger for a paltry 3.3 amps charge rate?

See this extract from the manufacturers download :

 

EFOY COMFORT 80 140 210

Maximum power 40 W 72 W 105 W

Charge capacity / day 80 Ah 140 Ah 210 Ah

Nominal voltage 12 V 12 V 12 V

Charge current 3.3 A 6.0 A 8.8 A

 

 

 

A Varta LFD90 doesn't gas off fluid, won't explode and won't leak, just about as safe as you can get, with lots of knowledge around on how to keep it that way.

 

Your statement contradicting the manufacturers warning on poisonous gas and indicating 'alcohol' is safe when the device uses poisonous Methanol shows just wrong some of the 'perceived' information is.

 

 

Sorry to disagree, but IMO a comparison between a quality wet acid battery like a Varta LFD90 and a life threatening EFOY doesn't make sense.

But we know from past experience, those that have shelled out thousands will defend them to the core.

 

 

 

 

 

[aandncaravan]

 

But we know from past experience, those that have shelled out thousands will defend them to the core.

 

 

Well that has proved me well and truly wrong as someone with an EFOY isn't happy with the device and thinks it was missold.

Got an email from an unhappy customer who has had an EFOY for just over 2 years and is disappointed.

 

 

Their key gripe is that the manual states (in very small text) that -

 

"The nominal power varies by +/- 10%, decreases with the operating hours".

 

That is, it may be 10% less than the nominal 3.3amps but additionally the more hours it clocks up the lower the charge rate becomes.

 

His charger is down to under 1.7 amps charge, on contacting the manufacturer, he was pointed to the small print to tell him it is working as designed. See page 105!!

 

He is also a bit upset that he has lost 2 batteries, when the whole point of buying this gizmo was to stop them discharging low by keeping them fully charged in Winter.

 

He suspects both batteries were lost because they were allowed to drop into the danger zone before the EFOY charged them back up but wonders if they were also overcharged. The battery "protect" feature only comes into play below 11.2v!!!!

 

 

This Spring, the unit was dead and wouldn't charge the battery.

The manufacturer asked him to check the battery was charged up, because "the EFOY will only charge a charged up battery".

 

Sure enough when he recharged the battery the EFOY 'woke up' and reacted normally

 

 

In 'Antifreeze' mode it consumes far more Methanol then was described by the retailer, but again this 10 litres use of Metanol, just to do nothing, is covered in the manual -

 

"CAUTION!

INFO: For a five-month winter period in Central Europe, the device requires approx. 10 liters/2.64 gallons of methanol in antifreeze mode".

 

 

And lastly, he doesn't like the unit to continuing to charge the battery for up to 3 hours after the battery has reached it's 'charged voltage'. He suspects this results in overcharging and is a 'feature designed to protect the Efoy rather than the battery.

 

INFO:

To ensure optimal battery maintenance, the charging current must not be stopped abruptly when the cut-off threshold is reached. For this reason,

the EFOY COMFORT fuel cell continues charging the battery for up to 3 hours at a reduced current after the configured cut-off threshold is reached. The length of the recharging period depends on the battery voltage and power consumption.

 

Lastly, it shuts down every now and then which is 'normal'.

INFO:

During normal operation, the EFOY COMFORT fuel cell briefly interrupts

power generation several times each hour. A charging current of 0.0 A is

displayed when this occurs.

 

 

 

His words =

"as a battery charger it is very poor with far higher running costs than I expected, as a magic gizmo to boast to your friends about, it's brilliant".

"I expect that by the end of Winter the charger output will be down to about 1.2amps?".

 

 

Most of that I never knew, as we have never bothered to find out about them because they install by bypassing the existing Power controller charger. Something that usually leads to long term reliability issues.

 

 

But it does show you that all that costs three Gold Bars, isn't Gold.

 

£5,258 for the not very powerful 8 amp, top of the range model is just bonkers, when it might only have a 3 year life before a very expensive 'rework' that isn't covered by the warranty.