IWA press release about LFP Guidance Note

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You do not cite the papers authors.

You do not cite any reference documents.

Says the man who regularly posts large chunks of text to the forum without identifying the source, and often misrepresenting its status (claiming it is rules or regulations or law when in fact it is merely guidance or someone's opinion).

[thingumybob]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

I do want discussion on the document, which is why I posted on CWDF about it -- though I'm now wishing I hadn't... 😞 

 

I don't want long and pointless discussions about multiple standards that are irrelevant to the target audience -- which is *not* you. I explained the reason for this, which was agreed by the JWG.

 

It's not a "paper" or a "standard", it's a document to try and help boaters.

 

Do you honestly think a list like yours will be in any way helpful to them?

 

You're totally - and it feels deliberately - missing the point. That was an example. The core point is that anonymous content, especially of an important nature, such as safety, isn't trustworthy content. This is very much a case study of 'if a jobs worth doing, do it right'. Open the document up for public scrutiny via a managed and inclusive consultation - and let's see where it goes. 

[IanD]

I really am starting to wish that (a) I'd never got involved in all this to try and help boaters, and (b) that I'd never posted anything about it on CWDF in the hope of getting useful and helpful feedback from boaters with more knowledge than "joe public" which could then be taken into account for the next revision.

 

I guess I should have known better... 😞 

 

That's it, I'm done, sod the lot of you -- if you have any further feedback, feel free to contact the IWA, not me.

 

P.S. Any posts from the usual suspects going "hooray, we won, he's running away" will be treated with the contempt they deserve i.e. ignored.

Edited August 20 by IanD

[thingumybob]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

I do want discussion on the document, which is why I posted on CWDF about it -- though I'm now wishing I hadn't... 😞 

 

I don't want long and pointless discussions about multiple standards that are irrelevant to the target audience -- which is *not* you. I explained the reason for this, which was agreed by the JWG.

 

It's not a "paper" or a "standard", it's a document to try and help boaters.

 

Do you honestly think a list like yours will be in any way helpful to them?

 

If you don't like it, you know what you can do...

 

(that's a quote from a song by Jeremy Taylor called "Jobsworth", in case you're unaware of it).

Yes, I will do what seems needed to make clear its failings, and to in parallel offer input regarding how to improve it. Like Alain, I do know how to develop technical documents with identifiable foundations, thus contributing to the credibility and traceability of content. This document lacks all indications of traceability. 

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

I really am starting to wish that (a) I'd never got involved in all this to try and help boaters, and (b) that I'd never posted anything about it on CWDF in the hope of getting useful and helpful feedback from boaters with more knowledge than "joe public" which could then be taken into account for the next revision.

 

I guess I should have known better... 😞 

 

That's it, I'm done, sod the lot of you -- if you have any further feedback, feel free to contact the IWA, not me.

 

P.S. Any posts from the usual suspects going "hooray, we won, he's running away" will be treated with the contempt they deserve i.e. ignored.

I don't contribute in order to win or score points or to in effect listen to the ski d of my own voice, I contribute if I believe it might assist with coming to a positive outcome (granted, that depends on my opinion of "positive"). There's a big difference. 

 

I'm afraid that using throwaway lines such as "𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 "𝑗𝑜𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐" 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐼 𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐼 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟... " doesn't advance your case, rather the reverse. 

 

One positive outcome of this discussion is hopefully that it's now understood that anonymous content is very likely to be treated with suspicion, as is any attempt to justify such anonymity, and that if/when IWA/CA take this to insurers and BSS as an input to discussions, that those bodies will see the relevance of involving 'Joe Public' boaters - otherwise known at Those Who Are Directly Impacted - in any attempts to come up with a valid guide. I guess we'll see. 

[NB Thistle]

17 hours ago, David Mack said:

One moment, when a group of people volunteer to get together and produce a guidance note, you say they should all be named, you don't trust them, they are all in it for what they can get out of it, scientific publications are full of incorrect, biased and self serving information etc. etc. and the next you are 'genuinely impressed' by advice given on the internet by someone you don't know who is identified only by his boat name!!!!

My identity and boat location is known to a few people on here. Caution is wise however.

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

6 hours ago, NB Thistle said:

My identity and boat location is known to a few people on here. Caution is wise however.

 In some cases. Having met a few people on here and telling them who I am, we’ve always had a laugh and agreed this isn’t the real world and it’s not taken seriously. So revealing your identity, isn’t going to result in you waking up next to a horses head in your bed🐴🐴

 Most canal businesses don’t take sites like this seriously and treat them “whatever”

However for the OP @IanD to come on here and do these Threads, stating these guidelines backed by the IWA and the CA(who the dickens are they) and try to tell people these guidelines are in the best interest to boaters is quite well what, Eh?  If anything it could turn out the opposite. Also this IWA representing boater’s is a thing of the past. Old people clutching at straws, thinking they have some influence in today’s CaRT decisions.
 I don’t know what organisation or who is pushing these guidelines to Lithium installs(maybe have a He guess) but since the group is made up of real boaters they must obviously be an authority?? or are they boaters that have bought a brand new £300K hybrid electric in the last couple of years from Finesse, Ortomarine and suddenly they’ve became experts in Lithium installs since the ABC incident, just by having the boat, but not actually installing any systems?

 Just makes you wonder how dangerous these people and social media can be, if anything comes of these guidelines.😱

As @Arthur Marshall says, why aren’t these so called experts reluctant to be named, it’s called “courage of your own convictions” if you believe you’re in the right. Maybe they’re not that expert, but people who wannabe somebody in the Narrowboat world, with too much time in their hands.

Edited August 20 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[b00ke23]

1 hour ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

As @Arthur Marshall says, why aren’t these so called experts reluctant to be named, it’s called “courage of your own convictions” if you believe you’re in the right. Maybe they’re not that expert, but people who wannabe somebody in the Narrowboat world, with too much time in their hands.

 

Someone once said 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach talk about it'.

 

Unfortunately volunteer committees, board of governors, parish councils etc do tend to attract these types so this point is fair and valid.      

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, b00ke23 said:

 

Someone once said 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach talk about it'.

 

Unfortunately volunteer committees, board of governors, parish councils etc do tend to attract these types so this point is fair and valid.      

Nice to see there are so many anonymous keyboard warriors on here, all happy to criticize and snipe and denigrate people but not to actually get off their ar*es and do something to try and help boaters... 😞  

 

Some might even think it's hypocritical that they want the authors of the document to reveal who they are and what their qualifications are, while being unwilling to even use their own real names on CWDF. I wonder why that is -- could it be to avoid personal abuse and possible threats? 😉 

Edited August 20 by IanD

[SLC]

I for one object to the implication that Parish Councils attract those that talk about it. My wife is Chair of out parish council. No pay, ridiculous beaurocracy, lots of paperwork much of which is irrelevant, obstructive and indeed incompetent council employees to have to deal with.

Parish Councils do a great deal of work which is unappreciated and this ignorance may explain that stupid remark.

Back to Standards, I too have worked with them but because I have doesn't make my opinion any more valid but for the vast majority, they are meaningless and in this case, the use of LFP batteries in narrowboats, there are none. There can only be guidance based on experience and known facts. When the ABC boat exploded, I commented that LFP batteries do burn giving of dangerous glasses. I was criticised and disbelieved. I suspect some of the critics of the IWA guidance are in that camp, LFP batteries are safe.

We need guidance because standards take years to establish. In that time, there could be many installations  which are potentially unsafe. For the lay person, the majority, they should be helpful and reassuring.

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, SLC said:

I for one object to the implication that Parish Councils attract those that talk about it. My wife is Chair of out parish council. No pay, ridiculous beaurocracy, lots of paperwork much of which is irrelevant, obstructive and indeed incompetent council employees to have to deal with.

Parish Councils do a great deal of work which is unappreciated and this ignorance may explain that stupid remark.

Back to Standards, I too have worked with them but because I have doesn't make my opinion any more valid but for the vast majority, they are meaningless and in this case, the use of LFP batteries in narrowboats, there are none. There can only be guidance based on experience and known facts. When the ABC boat exploded, I commented that LFP batteries do burn giving of dangerous glasses. I was criticised and disbelieved. I suspect some of the critics of the IWA guidance are in that camp, LFP batteries are safe.

We need guidance because standards take years to establish. In that time, there could be many installations  which are potentially unsafe. For the lay person, the majority, they should be helpful and reassuring.

Bingo!!! 🙂 

 

P.S. LFP batteries still *are* pretty safe, they're just not as safe as everyone believed before the ABC boat went boom... 😉 

Edited August 20 by IanD

[b00ke23]

7 minutes ago, SLC said:

I for one object to the implication that Parish Councils attract those that talk about it. My wife is Chair of out parish council. No pay, ridiculous beaurocracy, lots of paperwork much of which is irrelevant, obstructive and indeed incompetent council employees to have to deal with.

Parish Councils do a great deal of work which is unappreciated and this ignorance may explain that stupid remark.

Back to Standards, I too have worked with them but because I have doesn't make my opinion any more valid but for the vast majority, they are meaningless and in this case, the use of LFP batteries in narrowboats, there are none. There can only be guidance based on experience and known facts. When the ABC boat exploded, I commented that LFP batteries do burn giving of dangerous glasses. I was criticised and disbelieved. I suspect some of the critics of the IWA guidance are in that camp, LFP batteries are safe.

We need guidance because standards take years to establish. In that time, there could be many installations  which are potentially unsafe. For the lay person, the majority, they should be helpful and reassuring.

 

I know it's not traditional....but why don't you go back and read everything I've written in this thread before replying, otherwise it tends to make one look foolish! 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

Nice to see there are so many anonymous keyboard warriors on here, all happy to criticize and snipe and denigrate people but not to actually get off their ar*es and do something to try and help boaters... 😞  

 What help are you actually doing for boaters or trying to achieve for actual boaters? 

 If anything, if any of these self written guidelines come to fruition, you will  actually be costing boaters £1000’s. Especially if the BSS take on your guidelines of no Lithium installs in the living space and no DIY installations. Can’t you see that or are you living in your own world and not in the real world?
 The IWA and the CA don’t represent the majority of Narrowboat owners on the canals, just because you’re a member of the IWA and done a £250 Lithium Install course do you suddenly think you’re the nation’s expert and guideline wannabe policy maker for Lithium installs?

 You obviously have no concept of real world boaters and are fixated on this ABC boat thing and these guidelines.
 No Keyboard warriors, just people living in reality and not hiding behind anonymity, like the IWA JWG 

Edited August 21 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[thingumybob]

1 hour ago, b00ke23 said:

 

Someone once said 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach talk about it'.

 

Unfortunately volunteer committees, board of governors, parish councils etc do tend to attract these types so this point is fair and valid.      

No, it's not even slightly valid. Or fair. It's in fact nonsense. 

[b00ke23]

11 minutes ago, thingumybob said:

No, it's not even slightly valid. Or fair. It's in fact nonsense. 

 

What are you referring to?.......My fair and valid comment referred to the paragraph I quoted from @BoatingLifeUpNorth2 

 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

10 minutes ago, b00ke23 said:

 

What are you referring to?.......My fair and valid comment referred to the paragraph I quoted from @BoatingLifeUpNorth2 

 

Hey, cut me some slack, I’ve never mentioned Parish Council’s. The Parish council post came from @SLC so come on guys, at this rate I’ll be falling out with everyone on here. Must go there’s a knock on my door🥊🥊😂😂

Edited August 20 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[MtB]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Nice to see there are so many anonymous keyboard warriors on here, all happy to criticize and snipe and denigrate people but not to actually get off their ar*es and do something to try and help boaters... 😞  

 

This comment summarises why I feel so uneasy about this whole thing. 

 

It reminds me of the apocryphal bloke who helps this elderly lady across the road. He takes her firmly by the arm, holds up the traffic and steers her with confident authority across the road safely to the other side. 

 

Never mind that she didn't want to cross the road in the first place. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Nice to see there are so many anonymous keyboard warriors on here, all happy to criticize and snipe and denigrate people but not to actually get off their ar*es and do something to try and help boaters... 😞  

 

Some might even think it's hypocritical that they want the authors of the document to reveal who they are and what their qualifications are, while being unwilling to even use their own real names on CWDF. I wonder why that is -- could it be to avoid personal abuse and possible threats? 😉 

 

In case you're expecting/hoping for a reaction to whatever abuse you're posting...

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

29 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

In case you're expecting/hoping for a reaction to whatever abuse you're posting...

I’ve chosen to take with a pinch of salt anything you say about actual boating, as I don’t think you’re as savvy as you keep telling everyone on here. 

Edited August 20 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

In case you're expecting/hoping for a reaction to whatever abuse you're posting...

 

 

This seems very unfortunate Ian. 

 

While I can see why you blocked BLUN2 it seems that Books and Thingumy post thoughtful, considerate and valid comments. 

 

Similarly I post critically but I also recognise, appreciate and applaud the sheer amount of effort you put into this even if I disagree with it. Just thought I should say as I generally don't.

 

The whole thing is a complete mess and if and until a history of LFP disasters on boats emerges, I think trying to introduce standards is jumping the gun. 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This comment summarises why I feel so uneasy about this whole thing. 

 

It reminds me of the apocryphal bloke who helps this elderly lady across the road. He takes her firmly by the arm, holds up the traffic and steers her with confident authority across the road safely to the other side. 

 

Never mind that she didn't want to cross the road in the first place. 

Look, I understand there are people who wish this whole can of worms hadn't been opened, and everyone carried on as they were in blissful ignorance of any LFP safety issues.

 

Unfortunately that was simply not going to happen after the ABC explosion, which showed they weren't as safe as everyone -- including me! -- thought.

 

What do you think would have happened if we'd done nothing? Do you really think BSS and insurers would have carried on going "Yeah, everyone knows LFP are perfectly safe, nothing to see here, move on."?

 

Especially given the requirements being written into the ISO standards about this very problem, when it's these standards that will drive both BSS and insurers to put restrictions on LFP installations?

 

Sorry but I can't see how doing nothing could have done anything other than make things worse -- maybe much worse! -- in the longer term, even if it might have avoided facing up to the problem in the short term. And that's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of a lot of other people who actually understand the issues because they've spent considerable time looking into them, not just a quick think (if you can call it that...) and some nasty posts on the internet.

 

What this is really all about is that some people don't want to hear all this, they want to either stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la, I'm not listening", or blame those behind the Guidance Note by either casting doubt on their motives or sincerity or knowledge -- or the fact they don't want to be outed in public so they can be subjected to online abuse... 😞 

 

P.S. This isn't a dig at you, you're being quite reasonable in comparison to some... 😉 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

What do you think would have happened if we'd done nothing?

 

This needs answering.

 

I think the very occasional boat fire might happen and very, VERY rarely, someone might die. Same as happens with solid fuel stoves but one fatality due to stupidity every few years is tolerated so why not the same with LFP?

 

The other consequence is awkward conditions or higher premia for fully comp insurance. Given fully comp is optional then it strikes me as a non-problem. People who insist on it can easily comply with insurance co requirements or choose TPI instead. 

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, MtB said:

 

This seems very unfortunate Ian. 

 

While I can see why you blocked BLUN2 it seems that Books and Thingumy post thoughtful, considerate and valid comments. 

 

Similarly I post critically but I also recognise, appreciate and applaud the sheer amount of effort you put into this even if I disagree with it. Just thought I should say as I generally don't.

 

The whole thing is a complete mess and if and until a history of LFP disasters on boats emerges, I think trying to introduce standards is jumping the gun. 

 

Yes it is unfortunate, I'm just not willing to be subjected to rants from particular individuals who ignore what is said and who resort to ad hominem attacks when what they say is disputed -- in particular, repeatedly calling into question the motivation of the JWG. That's not civilised debate, go and read back through their posts.

 

I agree the whole thing is a complete mess, but the problem with your last line is that it doesn't take a history of LFP disasters for new regulations/conditions to apply, it only takes one. The result is that LFP standards (and BSS regulations, and insurance conditions) are going to happen whether we like it or not, irrespective of whether the Guidance Note had been published, the writing was on the wall... 😞 

 

The really frustrating thing is that there have been lots of LFP installations out there for years with no such disaster, and it's possible that the ABC one was caused by such an unusual combination of one-off events (which could have been easily avoided in future) that it wouldn't have happened again so might have been ignored as a negligible risk -- but we don't know that because ABC won't release any details.

 

In the meantime the ISO standard was saying all along that fire/explosion from gassing was a safety risk (yeah, whatever, regulation nerds...), and then -- hey presto, all of a sudden it turned out that it was... 😞 

[b00ke23]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

While I can see why you blocked BLUN2 it seems that Books and Thingumy post thoughtful, considerate and valid comments. 

 

Thanks @MtB, much appreciated.

 

I certainly never engage in abuse of individuals on a forum as that's just silly. 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

What do you think would have happened if we'd done nothing? Do you really think BSS and insurers would have carried on going "Yeah, everyone knows LFP are perfectly safe, nothing to see here, move on."?

It's the "we" bit that people are worried about. We know some of the authors are already involved in BSS committees in one way or another, same as my previously quoted electrician was - who was quite open about the fact they saw their role as, at least partly, to look for ways to expand the scheme in order to force more work (by failing previously accepted systems) for electricians like them.

The guidance itself looks, at least to an ignoramus like me, to be reasonable, logical and sensible. But if it's being produced by people from a legislative committee such as the BSS, they will have an assumption that it will accepted as is, a vested interest in its adoption and a defensive attitude to any criticism. As that appears to be at least partly the case, it's no wonder they want to stay anonymous, and equally no wonder people are going to be a bit suspicious.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

In the meantime the ISO standard was saying all along that fire/explosion from gassing was a safety risk (yeah, whatever, regulation nerds...), and then -- hey presto, all of a sudden it turned out that it was... 😞 

 

Remind me how long it was from the first signs of a problem - whisps of smoke noticed by the cleaner person IIRC - until the explosion.  Five hours I think but happy be corrected. Plenty of time for people to get the hell out of there.