IanD

If you don't consider "Do the authors have shares in Victron by any chance?" to be a dig as to the motives of the authors, you can't have much of an understanding of English... 😞 Unlike you I'm not impugning your motives or intelligence or mental condition, just labelling you as what you are. Byeee...

<sigh> Oh dear, the usual tedious and inaccurate personal attacks and insults. I really don't know why I bother trying to compliment you about your level of knowledge when you always just revert to being an obnoxious tw*t again. Go and sleep with the trolls... BTW if you don't consider "Do the authors have shares in Victron by any chance?" to be a dig as to the motives of the authors, you can't have much of an understanding of English... 😞 OK -- *if* your insurer places demands for LFP installation that you can't meet and *if* you can find another insurer that doesn't, *then* you can still get insurance. *If* all the other insurers place the same conditions, *then* where will you get insurance from? I suppose you could give up on comprehensive insurance (*if* that's what you have) and *then* fall back to a cheap no-questions-asked policy, *if* you're happy with that. But *if* you're not, what *then*? Is that enough *ifs* and *thens* for you? 🙂

Sure, do that. Now compare blowing the air from (for example) a 12" diameter fan through a porthole with a hole 12" diameter with how much of the air gets through a 6" wide slot (typical hopper window) and see which is more effective... 😉

Given that there are only a handful of insurers who cover the canals, I don't understand why CRT don't automatically check with them that the details supplied by boaters are valid -- this should be trivial to do and there are no data disclosure problems, CRT just send the details from the license application (extracted automatically) to the insurer who compares these with their details and comes back with "policy valid" or "policy invalid"...

I'm sure you realise why "signing off your own homework" is not a good thing -- there are very good reasons for not doing this, especially with anything new. Or even old, see the water companies... 😉 You seem to keep thinking this is somehow a formal survey to well-defined standards, when it's nothing of the sort -- that only works in established industries with standards developed and tested in the field over many years (like nuclear pressure vessel welding?), this is just not possible in cases like this. It's a second pair of eyes independently looking at the hull to see if they can spot anything wrong with design or build, which is exactly what is needed in a new product area. This is really a similar problem to LFP installations -- who is qualified to sign them off, to what standard, and how are they trained? The answer right now is nobody, none, and they aren't -- but it's still much better to have *somebody* (independent!) checking what the builder/installer did than trust that they got it right and didn't make any mistakes or cut any corners... 😉 Maybe in five or ten years we could have the kind of rigorous survey/sign-off you seem to be thinking of for both HDPE boats and LFP installs, but it simply isn't possible today. Which doesn't mean the technology shouldn't be introduced, because if this doesn't happen than there's no way to get the experience over 5 or 10 years to be able to make the process rigorous. So if you wait for this, nothing new will ever be introduced at all, chicken and egg again... 😞 Aha, *now* I think I see where you're coming from... 😉

True, but also rather less effective at passing blown air from a fairly large diameter fan... 😉 (I'm assuming full-opening portholes that can be just lifted out, the most common type fitted nowadays)

I'm not trying to shut you up, just pointing out that almost everything you post about anything vaguely new is invariably negative, or is having a dig at people personally, or playing the victim like here and claiming "they're trying to shut me down"... 😞 I think any (independent) second eye on something new like HDPE narrowboats is going to be better than not having this -- of course it's not guaranteed that they will find every possible flaw, but it just increases the chances of problems being spotted. I've been involved in design (and design reviews) for circuits and products for all my working life, and it's surprising how often a fresh pair of eyes can spot something that the designer/builder didn't -- even if they're not absolutely the world expert in the subject... 😉 So the purpose of reviews/surveys like this is not to sign something off to a detailed set of standards, ISO or anything else -- especially if such standards don't exist, which they often don't for new products (including LFP batteries...) -- but to increase the change of spotting any design flaws or build errors. From that point of view UK Marine Services look like a good choice, given their qualifications. Or do you have a better suggestion? (because if not, what are you saying -- that it would be better not to have this second review/survey at all?)

That situation is exactly what third party insurance (and comprehensive) is intended to cover, so I don't understand why you think this wouldn't happen. If the batteries are in a box with venting only to the outside world the gas doesn't have anywhere else to go, and once it's outside it will dissipate not build up (explosively?) like it could inside the boat -- the point is to keep it away from people and the boat living spaces. It's really irritating that people seem to keep assuming these are going to be official rules like BSS/RCR (and who makes them enforceable, eh?) when the very first section emphasizes that this is precisely what they are *not* -- they are ADVICE TO BOATERS (from boating organisations, not legal regulatory bodies or the government) on what constitutes "best practice" for LFP installations, so they can make sure they don't get sold a pup. Nothing in there is unachievable or unreasonable and there are solid reasons behind all the suggestions, but inevitably not every last suggestion will be followed in the real world, they're a target to aim for, that's what "best practice" means -- and to ask for, if you're having an installation done for you. Procedures, paperwork etc -- that's what customers are supposed to get with a new boat (but probably don't always -- especially when it's not new any more...) so why should this be any different? If the installer isn't willing to provide you with this, you should ask yourself why not -- is it because corners have been cut or inferior components substituted, as one well-known hybrid boatbuilder is alleged to have done on multiple occasions? That's why the checklist is there at the end -- the purpose of the Guidance Note is to *help* boaters get a high-quality and safe (and insurable!) LFP installation, not hinder them... 😉

Not being negative? Really? Have you actually gone back and read your own posts? Anyone trying to introduce something new to an existing market will face resistance, especially from those who don't want or like anything new pretty much on principle -- which sounds very much like you, going by your posts on this and other subjects. So they need to try and find ways to convince customers that they have a genuinely good product and aren't cutting any corners in construction -- and what Shaun is doing looks to me to be an honest attempt at doing just that. If you don't believe this and think it's all just marketing guff then that's your opinion, but it's not one that everyone will agree with... 😉

I suspect your fear is unfounded; many people (including *lots* on CWDF!) definitely have a "suspicion of the new", and anything that can be done to reassure them is likely to increase the chance of a sale to them -- assuming they'd consider an HDPE boat in the first place, of course... 😉 I don't know how much such a survey costs (£500? -- complete guess?) but if it increases the sales of £40k hulls (another guess) by a few percent it will have paid for the cost several times over -- if it sells even 10% more boats (perfectly possible) it's an absolute no-brainer. The galley worktops concern seems to be true for the majority of new boat buyers, according to boatbuilders/fitters I've talked to and what people post about their boats... 😉

I'm sure it will be, but maybe not an effective one if the hire base confiscates their damage deposit (if there is one)... 😉

How do they get a track record without building HDPE boats for several years? Regardless of how much you think this is marketing (and I agree it is partly this), surely it's still better than not having such an inspection?

A porthole would be OK though, these are usually too small for a thief to climb in through... 😉

Surely it doesn't matter which way the fan points, unless you're sitting directly in front of it? If it points out then it blows (hotter?) air out of the boat, and (cooler?) air comes in via other routes to replace it. If it points in then it blows (cooler?) air into the boat, and (hotter?) air goes out via other routes to balance this. Either way the effect is the same, circulating air through the boat -- but there's only any point if outside is cooler than inside, if it's not then close the windows/curtains/blinds and sit in the cooler air inside.

On your basis, anyone who is paid to do any kind of vetting/inspection by the manufacturer/customer is dodgy, including boat surveyors and BSS inspectors and house surveyors... 😞 (which I'm sure is often the case...) My view is that this is a positive step by Shaun and one which other hull fabricators are not doing. If you see it as purely marketing, that's your opinion to which you are of course entitled. I didn't do the same because building of steel hulls is a well-established process and I chose a builder with a good reputation and history. Neither of these is the case for HDPE because it's a new material to this market, so this justifies an independent inspection by a company who I believe is an expert in HDPE boat surveying in other markets (e.g. offshore).

The other side of this negativity (from the link posted above) -- my bold.. Dr Elliott Berry, Director and Surveyor of UK Marine Services Ltd, said: Dr Barry Burnell, Director and Surveyor of UK Marine Services Ltd, added:

You did read that I said "...if your insurer demands conditions for installed LFP batteries as a condition of insurance..." didn't you? I assume you understand what "if" means? 😉 What happens in future with third-party cover is an interesting question, because if (!!!) insurers think that having LFP installed increases the risk of a claim it's a question they might start asking, even if they don't today. It would also obviously be worth checking any policy small-print to see if (!!!) there are any LFP conditions -- just because they don't ask the question when you apply doesn't mean it's not hidden away, that's a favourite insurer trick... 😉 There is also the question about what happens if you didn't tell them about installed LFP (if (!!!) the T&C said you needed to...) and it starts a fire which destroys other boats -- would they pay out or not (probably would), and would they then come back and try and recover money from you? (maybe a waste of time...) Or maybe you're right and none of this will happen, and they'll carry on just asking "how long is your boat?"... 🙂

Because if your insurer demands conditions for installed LFP batteries as a condition of insurance, if you don't meet them you're uninsurable, which means you can't get a CRT license... 😞 As I'm tired of saying there has *not* been a string of LFP disasters on boats, any more than there has been a string of Chernobyl disasters -- the ABC fire explosion was (AFAIK) the first of its type. The problem for insurers -- and regulatory authorities -- is that as far as they can see there's absolutely nothing stopping the same happening again tomorrow -- or in a year, or two years, or five years, or ten years -- because many other boats with LFP are built the same way using similar components. It was lucky that it was only an insurance write-off of one boat costing maybe £150k or so (total guess), next time (if it happens!) it could be a boat in a marina which sets several other on fire (as has happened multiple times, most recently a few weeks ago) which could cost the insurer maybe £500k -- and if it happened at night on a liveaboard boat there's a good change people would be killed, with liabilities in the millions. You can say until you're blue in the face "but it's only happened once!", that doesn't help -- yes if we could wait 10 years and there's no other occurrence it could be said to be a rare one-off event, but insurers (and regulators) don't work like that, they have to decide what to do next year given what they know now about the risk and the cost of a recurrence. As I said, one of the purposes of the document -- quite apart from the main purpose of advising boaters on what "best practice" is for LFP installs, which is *not* the same as saying "you must take every single conceivable precaution"! -- is to try and nudge insurers into making sensible decisions about conditions not stupid ones (e.g. unattended charging, lithium fire extinguishers), and also to give boaters something they can use to push back against insurers who try to do this. Because trying to argue with an insurer as an individual by saying "I think your requirements are unreasonable" is almost certainly not going to get you anywhere, whereas being able to use the Guidance Note to back this up is much more likely to succeed. Now do you understand? 🙂 Most modern brushless 12V/24V DC computer fans have no mechanism to generate a spark to ignite any gas, however they are not certified for use in explosive environments -- not even the IP67-rated Noctua Industrial fans I use for electrical cooling. Though it could be said that with the fan running to remove any vented gases, there probably won't be chance for an explosive concentration of hydrogen to build up... 😉

And that is why insurance companies need to apply sensible restrictions, not stupid ones, which is one reason for producing the Guidance Note... 😉 No "handheld lithium fire extinguisher" (what insurers specify) exists that has the slightest chance of extinguishing a battery fire from an installed LFP battery of 100Ah or more. None. It's simply not possible, with a battery this size you would need a *far* bigger extinguisher to have any chance of success -- and even then it's debatable how effective this would actually be in real life. And even if you did, this goes directly against Fire Brigade advice which is: 1. DO NOT try and fight such a fire 2. GET OFF THE BOAT ASAP The amount of gas produced is much higher than from an LA battery, but should be within the capability of any bilge blower or even decent-volume computer fans. Forced ventilation is not necessarily required anyway -- if the batteries are in a relatively small box with little free space, all that is needed is a suitable sized vent to the outside so any gas produced can escape, a duct/hole a few inches diameter should be fine. There are probably standards somewhere for this (like there are for LA batteries) but I haven't checked... 😉 It's saying nothing of the kind, I was just giving an example to show that what you said was wrong -- Victron is the almost certainly most widely installed electrical kit on boats. I believe that Fogstar also prevent users changing safety-critical charging parameters via a password, though the security of this is debateable (I've heard that it's known on t'interweb). Your repeated digs at the motives of the authors of the report are getting close to libellous, I suggest you tone them down... 😞

Your last comment shows that you've entirely missed the point... 😉 Handheld "lithium" fire extinguishers are totally useless against an LFP battery fire in an "install-sized" battery -- they might have a chance against small portable appliance batteries, but even these are almost impossible to extinguish -- and of course diesel boats with LA batteries are just as likely to have such battery-powered appliances on board. For "large" battery fires (e.g. 100Ah or more) the fire brigade advice is very clear -- do *not* try and fight them, get off the boat ASAP and call the fire brigade. Having a "lithium" extinguisher on board is likely to encourage boaters to do the wrong thing... 😞 If you've already got LFP installed in the living area then you might as well stick with it, nothing to lose -- change it when/if you have to, with a slim chance you might not have to. If you're going to install LFP but haven't done it yet, I think you'd be crazy to put them openly in the living area, given the way things are going -- but it's a free world, go ahead if you want to take the risk. Which might be that you find yourself unable to renew your insurance with little notice if the insurers do go the way I suspect they will... 😞

Exactly correct. What's annoying is that there's a chance that the cause was a one-off cock-up (like a 15S battery connected to a charger set for 16S) which would be trivially easy to stop ever happening again. Instead we're in the situation where nobody knows what happened, so has to think about all the things that might have gone wrong -- even if they didn't -- and recommend measures to stop these happening even if they didn't this time... 😞 In the meantime the ISO standards are being written which also includes many of the measures in the advice note, and once these are done they'll undoubtedly be used as the basis for UK regulations like BSS/RCR which insurers will then insist on. And if boaters ignore all this and stick their heads in the sand until this becomes legally required, they're going to be in for a *very* nasty shock... 😞

The issue with LFP is what happens *if* things go badly wrong -- amd ABC refusing to say what that was has just made things much worse... 😞 Unfortunately I agree with your last statement too.

You don't need to, only when the gas detector triggers. In which case I doubt you'd hear the fan over the screaming "GAS!!!" alarm... 😉