Tony1

I should be realistic about what a warm air duct system can achieve, especially when the batteries are out in the engine bay with an air temp of minus 9 on some very occasional mornings. I think I'll give the air duct a go, as its cheap and easy ish to install, but it sounds like other measures might also be needed on the really cold mornings. The one good thing is that although you cant charge them below zero, you can still draw current from the lithiums at minus 10, so at least I can still have power (although I might break out the old gas kettle again on some mornings).

Have you any idea of the consequences of falsely claiming to have a budgie on a narrowboat? You really haven't thought this through.

I keep the stove ticking over all night in winter, whereas in a van you'll be using maybe a diesel heater, that goes off at bedtime? So my hope is that there will a constant supply of warm air in the cabin. The question is whether air at say 15 degrees will be enough keep a battery box above zero. It's got to be worth a try. If it fails the BSS then its back to a gerbil powered air pump. Or I could set the gerbils upon the inspector, and end his miserable existence.

I do like that squirrels are already approved, but I just have a thing for gerbils. Not in any sinister way though. Not that kind of of a thing. But then I would say that.

I'm not sure why you're suddenly all gerbilist

Naw, I was just kidding around Mike. Although, I do wonder how many people have made significant modifications to their boats, and have not informed their insurance company or the BSS people, and could even now be cruising around with their insurance cover potentially at risk. I should probably contact the BSS and make sure those new wind chimes above the bow door are compliant. I'm hoping to avoid them ever going below zero, by ducting air into the battery box from the cabin using a very small fan. If I let magnetman design it, he would have three gerbils running on a wheel to operate a pump, getting electric shocks every 30 minutes to keep them motivated.

Erm, yes. Really.

If that was intended even partly for my attention, I can only say that to expect me to have any regard for one of your posts is the daftest idea I've heard in a very long time.

Fair enough- I have to admit it was wrong of me to doubt your motives in posting that recall.

I've just read rusty's post, and I can see that I owe you an apology for doubting your motive in posting the recall notice. The fact remains that the recall itself is based on garbage, and it will only create a false sense of alarm and incorrect fears about LifeP04s, but that is not your fault. That is very cunning indeed. I heard about one model that tries to keep the battery above zero all night long, but I can imagine that might waste a lot of the batteries charge. Ideally you would want one that you could set to warm itself up based on a timer, so at say 7am it would be ready to be charged, if you were making an early start. To be honest I still like Nicks idea, of ducting some air into the battery box from the cabin. It would only need a tiny 5v USB fan to push the air in, so almost no charge is used, but if it worked it could keep the batteries well above zero all night long.

In normal temps, yes, it is. But in sub zero temps the BMSs in lithiums will sometimes disconnect the battery from charging (and with some BMSs, disconnect from discharging too) So my guess is that they resolved it by running the engine for 30 mins or so just to warm up the engine bay a bit, at which point the lithiums will have warmed up above zero, and will have reconnected themselves, and will now accept a charge. Or something akin to that.

I did read your post - I'm just not 100% sure I believe your motive was all about public safety. The timing of it makes me wonder if was more about having a good old troll, or just to be contrary, when people are trying to explain how safe LiFeP04 batteries are. Anyway, as Nick has explained, the whole recall is based on garbage statements.

I dont know whether you're trolling or whatever by placing that there. If you are then well done and give yourself a pat on the back. But it doesnt change the fact that LiFeP04 batteries are very safe. One recall incident does not a BSS requirement make.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Those potential new draft regs seem to have several requirements that relate only to the health and preservation of the batteries, which to me is absolutely out of order. Generally speaking, if its not an issue that will cause a battery fire, then they have no business making it a BSS requirement. E.g. if you try to charge a lithium battery at say 0.5C when its temp is minus 10, you might break it- but it wont catch fire. Its not a danger to you, its a danger to the battery.

I'll sign up, and if my boat fails its BSS, I'll fail every damn bridge and lock I can get to. Can you fail a lock if the sign isn't the right shade of blue? It seems very dangerous to me. The swines think they can fail my boat??? I'll close down their whole Goddamn system. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

TheBiscuits mentioned that as an option, and I found a video explaining one method: But my concern is that a DIY addition of a BMS to an ex-EV battery might in itself constitute a non-compliance, especially if the BMS unit is sellotaped to the top surface of the battery. The good news is we are still a couple of years away from anything like this getting into the BSS regs, although it does seem likely that it eventually will. I think I can defend my BMS arrangements in terms of providing excellent safety, but my opinion matters nothing if a keen BSS guy decides that each battery needs its own BMS setup. If that ever happened (and it several years away yet), I'd have to decide whether it was worth risking more expenditure on the batteries, with no certainty that meddling with their internals to add a BMS wont in itself cause a failure. Or spending hundreds so that I can have two BMV712s for each battery- and that sounds ridiculous. I bet they've been used in a wide variety of vehicles, and as I've said they seem to be excellent in terms of their quality and performance. It would be absolutely criminal to discard these great batteries when they have a decade or more of life in them, just for the sake of an ill-informed fear based on a different type of lithium battery chemistry. Fingers crossed really.

I'm guardedly optimistic re the BSS. One of the kind members here has given me a suggestion to use for the coming BSS, who has not been hostile to lithiums in the past. So fingers crossed etc. But if that inspector has moved on, or has changed his attitude, then we'll have to see. There's no telling what they might object to, if the mood takes them and if they are too ignorant to realise that LifeP04s are far far safer than lithium ion etc. It might be some aspect of the BMS arrangements, the siting, the fire risk mitigation- or maybe the lack of proof that the batteries are being used for a task that the manufacturer originally said was OK. But since the BSS dont yet have any firm/specific rules in place for lithiums, and an over zealous inspector can be challenged, the odds are this time it'll all be fine. But that said, I am starting to get an impression that the relevant stakeholders and authorities are bringing their focus onto lithiums. For example, your letter is evidence that some insurance companies have got lithiums on their radar, so who knows where that will go in future. My guess is that letter is just the start, and in 5 years time all insurance companies will add a specific question about lithiums (or will ask to be informed if you install them). And then there is the risk that if you dont tell them, a future claim might be disputed. So removing your DIY lithium install for the BSS inspection will no longer be something you'll want to do. Let's just hope that as Ian says, they are smart enough to distinguish between LiFeP04 and the other more risky types, and that they dont introduce a raft of BSS regs that DIYers will struggle to comply with. But as you say, these batteries are too good to be sidelined. They are not going away.

Tbh Rusty if my lithium install does fail, they will be temporarily disappeared and replaced with cheap and nasty lead acids in time for the follow up inspection. I think all the B2Bs and MPPTs can stay in place, and the 'domestic' bank of lead acids could be charged via B2Bs, in the same way as my lithiums are at the moment- at least that shouldn't be a failure. And then, as soon the BSS is issued, the lead acids will be found a new home with a deserving nearby boater. You just hope it doesnt come to that really, but I can see all sorts of shenanigans going on if/when the new regs come into force.

I must admit, when I heard about the likely future regs for lithiums, and then Rusty's insurance letter- and even some dark mutterings from the boat engineer I spoke to- I did briefly consider ditching the valences altogether, and just buying myself a 460Ah fogstar with a full-featured internal BMS, like our illustrious Mr n-baj has done. That battery is probably capable of being 95% compliant with any future regs, as it comes out of the box. But when I calmed down a bit, it seemed to me that most of the potential new/future requirements can be met- even for my valences- using the kit I already have, with BMVs and sensors etc. I think maybe the critical issue will be whether the BSS regs insist on BMS control at cell level, battery level, or just for the whole bank of batteries. At the moment my plans will make me 90% compliant with the possible future regs, but only as long as I manage all three batteries as an overall entity. I.e. a single voltage measurement, or temp measurement, that will be taken and acted upon for all three batteries. After my next BSS I have four years for them to come to their senses. But if they don't, and if a future inspector says there must be BMS management at battery level, then that means I have to have two BMV712s and two temp sensors for each battery, costing me about £700. But rather than have half a dozen BMV712 displays dotted around the place, plus all the shunts and the wiring, it might make more sense to just ditch the batteries, as there will be more powerful and cheaper models available by then. Or ditch the lithiums and go back to burning large amounts of diesel for lead acid battery charging in winter, because who cares about the climate when the BSS have got a bee their bonnets about lithium batteries? I spoke to an electrician who installs lithiums but who shall remain nameless, and he said he had struggled to get his insurance company to cover his lithium install work. We have this incredible LiFeP04 technology that saves on fuel for electricity generation and really helps boaters, and they are acting like 15th century peasants that have a witch on trial. Its pathetic, is what it is.

It's fair to say that its still speculation in terms of BSS, but new requirements seem to be ratified for RCD, so the thinking is BSS and insurers will follow a similar route (eventually). I think this info by Ian and DaveP from the solar dump thread probably sums up the current situation (the US regs are E-13 and the UK version is ISO/TS 23625:2021 , adopted only for BSS.) https://panbo.com/abyc-ratifies-e-13-their-first-lithium-battery-standard/ E-13’s recommendations take effect for systems manufactured or installed after July 31, 2023. So, manufacturers, installers, and boat owners have a year to prepare for the requirements. Also, the standard’s scope lists that it applies to systems of 600-watt hours or greater. For a 12-volt system, that means systems with a capacity of 50 amp-hours or more. Much of E-13 requires the batteries be installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers’ recommendations. In the case of the higher quality batteries that include thorough documentation and specifications, that seems like a fine recommendation. But, there are lots of lithium batteries available on Ali-Express, Amazon, eBay, and other sites that come with varying amounts of information. Additionally, the information they do include can be of dubious quality. Edit 9/9/2022 – I’ve been in touch with a representative of the ABYC who clarified that E-13 is more restrictive than E-10’s 1 inch of movement requirement. His point being no visible movement is a higher standard than one inch of movement. For whatever reason, in my first reading, that wasn’t how I interpreted it. With his clarification, I now see how that’s a stricter requirement. But, it also seems more subjective than a specific measurement. dave August 12, 2022 at 12:19 pm by the way ISO/TS 23625:2021 is also ratified and will be approved standard for RCD boats . in Europe the RCD has the force of law unlike ABYC ISO/TS 23625:2021 is very similar to ABYC TE-13 except in places it offers more stringent specifications then TE-13, but both look like they used the same root documents !! This is the UK doc: https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/76438/9f817478349b4f4f8770642cb1748902/ISO-TS-23625-2021.pdf What seems odd is that Rusty's insurers recently sent him a list of requirements for lithium batteries, that they called an information sheet. I even spoke to an engineer about a week ago about my lithiums, and he knew one BSS inspector who (he said) would fail my setup because the batteries were indoors, and not in a steel box with some fire-resistant insulation. It seems to be coming increasingly onto various people's radar, and that's what prompted me to move my lithiums into the engine bay before I go through my BSS. I know there isn't a current requirement to do that, but its just to avoid getting into difficult discussions. By the way, if anyone knows of a failry relaxed BSS inspector in the Northwest, do please PM me with details. I dont want a zealot who doesnt know the difference between LiFeP04 and the other types.

Believe me if I could easily install a BMS for £100 on each of my three batteries, I'd be more than happy to do it, but its not a straightforward job for an amateur. Also, I would worry about what a BSS inspector would make of an ex-EV battery whose casing extruded BMS wires that were not shown in the manufacturer's data sheet. It seems daft to set up a likely BSS failure for the future (after the incoming regs are in place), by making a major alteration to the battery's internals. I dont particularly like the idea of using a BMV unit to control a temperature disconnect, but in this case I can use the BMV units and the charging disconnect switch that I already have- I just need to add a couple of temp sensors (one high and one low), so it will be a lot simpler than a separate BMS install inside the batteries. For most batteries your solution would be the preferred one, I can see that. But the Valences are a bit of a special case- they are a very well-made battery it must be said, and they have excellent performance, but that lack of an internal BMS will over time come back to bite some of the owners, unless they can do something to meet the incoming future regs. But would a DIY BMS installation meet those incoming regs? That's the question...

You're quite right to counsel caution re cutting holes in bulkheads, and thanks for the reminder. There is a hole for the wiring to pass through the rear bulkhead, and I think its maybe 18 inches above the engine bay floor, so its a safe height, in terms of water passing through from the engine bay into the cabin. But its a right pain to access the current hole- it's tucked away in a corner where all the spiders hang out and where I almost have a hernia trying to get in there with a spanner. But the current wiring/piping hole is now full up anyway, thanks to the extra cables for the lithiums. So my thinking is to drill out a new hole in the bulkhead, a bit higher up, and a bit further away from the hull side. So it'll be easier to reach, and to work cables through it- and it'll be even higher and safer than the current hole. I'll post a photo of the proposed site here before I go ahead and drill it though, just in case I've missed any issues.

It does look as if the official regs will say dont charge below 5 degrees (regardless of current knowledge), but the great thing is that most of these systems are configurable, so you can set it at 5 degrees to meet the regs during the BSS inspection, and then (if you are prepared to risk your Victron warranty) you can change it so that it will charge down to a more realistic limit of zero (although maybe dont charge so hard). My plan is to get through BSS as it is now, and hope that the regs become more sensible over the next few years, as the BSS folks gain more experience of how safe LIFeP04 batteries really are. I think you're right that even the engine bay wouldn't get so cold if the boat is being lived on 24/7, but I can tell you that the temps in the engine bay do fall below zero on some days, so I think the batteries will occasionally need a little bit of help. Nick might have come up with a cheap solution though.

Thanks a lot Nick, I have to say pushing air from the bedroom into the battery box sounds like a cracking idea. Why waste electrical energy which costs a lot (in diesel) to replace, when there is an abundance of very warm air in the bedroom from the stove? A small tube/pipe using a low power computer fan would probably push enough air to keep the batteries well above zero. I think you've hit on a great idea there.

Thanks Brian. I dont suppose you know of such a gentlemen anywhere in the midlands or northwest? If you do, PM me (I wouldnt want anyone's reputation being discussed publicly). I hope you'll keep us posted on how the Fogstars perform in colder weather. I'm particularly curious about how much energy they are going to use in keeping themselves above zero on those very cold nights. If you can fill in a chart of temp vs SoC every 30 minutes throughout the night that would be very helpful.