IanD

In other words -- when CART asked boaters if they'd be willing and able to pay for something that is currently free, over 50% of respondents said "no". Not exactly surprising, methinks... 😉

Except for all those who decide to keep the traditional dumb alternator charging a LA battery, and add the lithium battery in parallel with a long wire for protection... 😉

Nope, never said that -- obviously REC-BMS or Victron is better (especially for high-power use) but also *way* more expensive, so neither affordable or necessary for many boaters. As Will Prowse said, the BMS inside "drop-in" LFPs are a lot better than they used to be -- and almost certainly better than some DIY BMS put together and programmed by someone (not @nicknorman ! ) who got all their "knowledge" from YouTube... 😉 What I said is that using such a system with NMC cells -- especially ex-EV ones because they're cheap -- is a really bad idea, because you're totally reliant on the BMS to protect the cells, and if it doesn't (or is programmed wrongly) and they catch on fire that's probably bye-bye boat... 😞 With LFP cells/batteries the worst that's likely to happen is damage to the cells/battery -- expensive, but far less dangerous.

Which is exactly what you'd expect, and why NMC cells/batteries should *not* be used on boats -- or RVs, or anywhere else without the sophisticated integrated overvoltage/overcharging protection systems that EVs typically use***. And even there NMC battery fires happen, especially with physical damage -- though it has to be said, still far less often than ICE fires, and nobody clamours for petrol to be banned because of this... 😉 *** which is why using cheap ex-EV NMC cells/batteries on a boat -- often with a cheap DIY BMS/charge management system -- is a *really* bad idea... 😞

I'm pretty sure most of the CMers/rule-benders are perfectly well aware of what both the spirit and the letter of the CC rules are, they just don't want to follow them because it doesn't suit their lifestyle -- claiming that clarity is the problem is just trying to shift the blame from themselves to CART... 😞

How can you "fiddle" a license fee when CART already have information like boat length/width and type of license fee (HM or CC) which you tell them? Geographical license fees do have some detection/enforcement issues, but the point is that you only need to have checkers on the high-cost/honeypot parts of the system. Toll gates or charging for locks keep getting suggested, but a moment's thought shows they're simply not practical nowadays given manning costs -- the days of a badly-paid resident lockie/toll-collector in a peppercorn-rent BW canal cottage are long gone. The one thing that would work and be difficult to fiddle and could charge in any number of ways would be trackers on boats, but too many people objet to this on privacy grounds for it ever to be feasible.

You do know that there are spotters out on the canals? Especially in the "high-cost" areas? 😉

The problem with solder isn't that it's soft, it's that it creeps under stress -- "runs away" from the load, and I've certainly seen this happen. Stranded copper conductors once compressed into a terminal don't do this, so long as they're properly clamped in -- screw terminals where the screw bears directly on the conductors don't do this, you need ones with a plate/shim between the screw and the conductors. Lever terminal blocks/connectors do a much better job than the old-type bare-screw ones often seen in chocblocks -- at least, the decent quality ones do... 😉 https://www.amazon.co.uk/flintronic-Lever-Nut-Connectors-Electrical-Terminals/dp/B0BCNTVV4S?th=1

Why is it complicated? Anyone with a calculator can work it out in seconds, and CART can calculate the license fee automatically from the data they have -- which could include things like boat length/width/age and type of license and geographical area, but for obvious reasons not personal data like @Alan de Enfield referred to -- hopefully in jest... 😉 Or is your objection that some people -- for example, a widebeam CCer in a new boat -- might end up paying a *much* higher license fee than today? (while others would pay less, for example an old narrowboat with a home mooring...)

Scientific papers and documented evidence do indeed show what can happen when things go wrong, such as MIC eating through a hull. And yes, this has happened (at least a couple of times) to canal boats. The debate is about how often such disasters actually happen on canal boats in real life, as compared to all the other things that can go horribly wrong with them -- in other words, a risk assessment. Without this the papers and evidence are interesting but may not be worth worrying about. I'm sure a scientific paper would clearly show that a falling airliner striking a boat would sink it, but nobody worries about this. So, how many documented cases of severe hull erosion due to MIC on the canals are there, and over what time period? P.S. A couple of incidents in ten years puts this down at the same risk level as going over a weir because an anchor fails to set or boats sinking because of overplating, other risks where similar accusations of scaremongering have been made in the past... 😉

Where on earth was that?

Hooray for Will Prowse!!! 🙂 That video should be made compulsory viewing for all the anti-lithium naysayers -- on CWDF or elsewhere -- who keep banging on about lithium battery fires and LFP being dangerous...

That might be a problem, as I said -- but which is worse for boats that want to move, finding prime visitor moorings full (a bit annoying?) or being unable to move at all because of no water (complete disaster)? It's a case of choosing the least bad solution, the only good solution (more water!) is out of our hands... 😞

IIRC the ISO/BSS/RCR/whatever rules also specifically say that the "above waterline height" freeboard requirement (250mm?) does *not* apply to things like sink drains, so long as these are done in such a way that failure of one part doesn't cause a leak -- so no fragile hull fittings that can be knocked off (welded steel is fine) and any piping properly secured (e.g. double SS clamps). The fact that some surveyors and BSS examiners -- and boatbuilders! -- seem to be unaware of this says a lot for the level of education about what the standards actually say... 😞

So you think it's better to keep the 14 day rule even if this increases water usage compared to temporarily relaxing it? Genuine question -- if the answer is "yes", what's your reason for this? 🙂

I don't understand why you're adding a pump to the sink to enable you to have a hull outlet that high above the waterline. So long as the drain from the sink is done securely (e.g. double stainless-steel clamps) it doesn't have to be far above the waterline (e.g. the 250mm that is often quoted) -- or indeed above it at all, though there shouldn't be any need for this even with a deep sink. That's from all points of view, BSS and common-sense... 😉

Lots of posts seem to be missing the point that was being made -- it's not whether people have a need/want to stay in one place for more than 14 days, the question was whether if this was temporarily extended some boaters (who don't feel the need to move, but have to under the 14 day rule) would choose to stay in one place for longer instead of moving through locks, and therefore save precious water for those who do want/need to move. Yes it's possible that this would be seen as encouraging CMers who don't want to move, but in return the canals would have more water for CCers/hire boats who want/need to move, and be less likely to close due to water shortages. Look at it the other way round -- if this isn't done and canals have more/earlier restrictions/closures as a result, are the moving boats going to say "Well I can't go anywhere, but at least we stopped those pesky CMers squatting for longer!" ? Sound like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me... 😉

Which is exactly the point that needs to keep on being made when people keep spreading FUD about lithium batteries being a fire risk (which is true for NCO/NMC etc!) while failing to realise that this is simply not true for LFP batteries, which if anything are safer than the LA batteries that everyone has been happy with for many years. What also needs doing is educating insurers and standards bodies (including BSS) because it seems the same misunderstanding/failure to understand the difference also happens there. They can understand the big difference between diesel and petrol as far as safety is concerned, why can't they do the same for LFP and non-LFP lithium batteries?

Also slit or clit... 😉

Or you're dealing with a dyslexic one... 😉

The percentage of responders who were CCers (27%) isn't massively different to the percentage of license-holders who are CCers (about 20%?), but it's certainly possible there was some NBTA "vote-stacking" going on to push their views forwards. But that's no different to what they do to get press attention out of all proportion with their numbers and support, is it? It's why poll response weighting is actually a good idea... 😉 “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.” ― Plato

Ah, I see the problem. However there would presumably be nothing stopping CART making the extension region-specific i.e. only in areas/canals with water shortages... 😉 (the NBTA would have difficulty claiming "discrimination" since "the circumstances" wouldn't apply to London -- though I expect that wouldn't stop them trying...)

So "or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances" (i.e. severe water shortages) would cover it then?

This argument is all getting a bit cilly... 😉

Seems like a good idea, in this specific situation, for the reasons you say. Though whether this ends up happening more regularly in future due to water shortages due to climate change is something to think about, because it could then end up changing the law de facto without legally changing the law, which is bound to cause legal problems... 😉