Sorry, another Lithium battery thread

[Theonlysue]

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.u...rs/Lithium-Batteries-The-honest-Truth-/47818/

Makes for some intetesting reading.
Personally, I'm on the fence and will wait.

 

[Pausim]

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.u...rs/Lithium-Batteries-The-honest-Truth-/47818/

Makes for some intetesting reading.
Personally, I'm on the fence and will wait.

Staying on the fence and waiting is a reasonable position to be in.

Unfortunately the quoted article contains the same misinformation about LiFePO4 batteries seen in other aandncaravan articles. For example the lifecycle information is wrong. I agree that LifePO4 batteries are expensive and may not stack up in a cost analysis. However, they have performance and weight advantages that some of us are prepared to pay for. Before buying I read many articles, including the aandncaravans one, but found better argued independant opinions elsewhere.

New innovations are often resisted and sometimes they turn out to be false starts. If no one tried out anything new then nothing would ever move forward. I am not the first to go down the LiFePO4 route and I am grateful to those who pioneered the early stages of the technology.

 

[eddie]

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.u...rs/Lithium-Batteries-The-honest-Truth-/47818/

Makes for some intetesting reading.
Personally, I'm on the fence and will wait.

Quite an old thread now.

Frankly we started supplying Sterling Lithium batteries last year, have dozens of very happy customers, a lot of them members on here and Out & About live all of whom seem to be really happy with the conversion

Ironically one of them posted on here, saying how pleased he and his wife are, and their post has been quoted on the web site of the repair guy that is poo poo’ing lithium’s in that 2017 thread, telling him that he’s wrong lol

Meanwhile in the real world, it’s getting harder and harder to buy anything that doesn’t have Lithium batteries.

As for safety? batteries can be dangerous! Everyone knows that. As a young man, in my first proper job, I worked for the Longlife Tyre & Battery Company, sat in the Royal Eye Infirmary after getting battery acid in my left eye, listening to specialists discuss if I would loose the sight in that eye or nor, hammered home the advice I often ignored about wearing goggles when decanting acid from carbouys

Cars have petrol, petrol catches fire frequently, hence you regularly see burn marks at crash scenes after the debris is cleared up

I guess the difference is that electric cars are new, so when one catches fire, it makes the news, a conventional car catches fire due to battery, fuel or a combination of both, it doesn’t even make the local paper, and any one that has watched “After Life” on Netflix knows now un-newsworthy anything has to be to make a local newspaper

 

[NickandClair]

Firstly sorry to those that have asked me questions, as per post I have been out of office for a few days (we all need a rest at times ), but I'll work thorough them the best I can.

Why do Oaktree claim “Transporter Leisure batteries are the only lithium-ion leisure batteries with CE approval in the UK and Europe.” My Relion is CE marked and I believe the Sterling one is too.

Not true, Transporter's claims are incorrect as I was approached at the NEC by a guy from Transporter TEC telling me what I was selling was illegal .
After very little legwork, it was established that not only they are wrong about them being the only CE approved product on the market, they are also working off the back of something called "Intertek". Now thanks to the support from our supplier, it turns out and I quote "Intertek approved as a Certification Body and Test laboratory to certify non-electrical equipment for use in hazardous areas". OK, non-electrical...………. isn't a battery an electrical piece of kit .

Nick - you kindly responded in a helpful way earlier in this thread. However, @teddybear followed this up by asking if I had gone back to SMC for a response. I thought it may be best to raise the matter of LIFOS batteries not being E-mark compliant (and the potential insurance issue to which Nick referred) with SMC after confirming whether or not this is the case with LIFOS. I emailed LIFOS on 7th March but have so far not received a reply a reply.

I have received several private emails from other Funsters who are as uncertain as I am about the legal/insurance position of using Lithium Batteries, albeit they are keen to fit them for the perceived weight/power benefits. I decided to attempt to get a definitive statement from the UK Vehicle Certification Agency and emailed them as follows...….

Dear Sirs,

I wonder if you can help please, or direct me to the Government Department who may be able to do so.

For a new Motorhome which I am buying, the Dealer is proposing to fit Lithium Batteries for the habitation/leisure equipment use (not for engine starting or management, which is the standard vehicle manufacturer fitted battery) and, except for charging from the engine alternator and a solar panel whilst underway, will only be in use when the vehicle is parked.

The dealer is proposing to fit a pair of such Lithium Batteries (brand LIFOS), which I understand are not certified and E-marked. Another dealer is saying this is not legal, as under current Regulations all Batteries permanently installed in a vehicle must bear an E-mark, as does the engine starter battery.

I shall be grateful if you are able to advise or direct me to the Regulation/Guidance covering use of Lithium Batteries in the circumstances to which I have referred.


I suppose it was expecting too much to get a specific comment on LIFOS branded Lithium Batteries. Instead I received this morning a more general response as follows.......

Good Morning

Thank you for your email.

There is no need for an e-mark under automotive legislation on a battery. However a CE mark may be required. Batteries will generally be covered by one or a combination of the following:

• General Product Safety Directive (for consumer products – does not require CE marking)
• Low Voltage Directive (LVD) (with these voltage limits 50 to 1000 volts AC, 75 to 1500 volts DC)
• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive
• Radio Equipment Directive (RED) (e.g. when using wi-fi communication)

The latter all require CE marking. RED also covers electrical safety and EMC requirements.
There are also requirements applying to all batteries here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulations-batteries-and-waste-batteries
Further information on all of these is available on gov.uk or from BEIS.

Kind regards

VCA Headquarters

General Enquiries Team
Corporate Affairs1 The Eastgate Office Centre​

Eastgate Road
Bristol, BS5 6XX


The sentence in Red above is my highlight. All of this leaves me still somewhat uncertain as to whether or not to go ahead with fitting a couple of LIFOS Lithium Batteries. I think caution may be the best course of action and for the time being to continue with lead/acid and wait to see how the use of Lithium batteries for habitation use develops.

Not sure ithat the foregoing will be of much help to others considering fitting Lithium Batteries, but I did promise in an earlier posting to update this thread on what I uncovered.


.

The VCA's comments are to that of standard battery usage, however as Most Li is coming through with built-in safety protocols such as BMS and other shut-off devices, these need to be tested under the correct E-Mark for road use. Now as @Jim has already gone back to VCA, all I can say is I would like to see what gets said as my understanding from Charles Sterling is that any electrical appliance integrated into any vehicle must conform to the correct E-Rating (hence some manufacturer's run external BMS units and why every B2B/DC-DC charger is graded as such).
Please see this following link; http://www.3ctest.co.uk/userfiles/uploaded/documents/Eliminating_Interference.pdf.
Now before we start to see the posts "It's leisure battery, not an engine battery", please stop and ask how that battery is charged. It is still connected either through a split charge system or some form of DC-DC charging.
If the testing that Sterling has paid for on their own units turns out to be over-kill, so be it. However I would rather know that every pre-caution has been taken to ensure that battery is safe to use and fit for purpose. However as I know that Sterling spend thousands on testing their products, I know that the testing they do on their Li wasn't done for fun. It is clear that any piece of equipment that is linked into the electrical system must me the correct approval as such, hence it's not just about ECE approval!!!

I asked my NFU agent about my LiFePO4 battery modification when I insured with them last autumn and was told it was not a problem (though there is a limit on how many shotgun cartridges I can carry). I also read in “another place” that someone had confirmation by email from Comfort/Aviva that a Relion RB100 with no E mark was ok. Confusing it is but I am comfortable with my Relion installation.

I am aware of Z thread on the other forum and have contacted Y insurer about this and waiting on the reply. My guess is their lack of understanding of legislation (as they still can't get current tracking system classification correct) leads me to believe they are giving out incorrect advise. However I will be happy to be corrected by them if this is the case, I can only go by the facts given to me by the various bodies and the manufacturers to support their claims. I will post the outcome in due course.

As for the OutandAbout thread, I think Eddie's already answered that one, a more tame answer but answered all the same .

 

[Wissel]

The VCA's comments are to that of standard battery usage, however as Most Li is coming through with built-in safety protocols such as BMS and other shut-off devices, these need to be tested under the correct E-Mark for road use. Now as @Jim has already gone back to VCA, all I can say is I would like to see what gets said as my understanding from Charles Sterling is that any electrical appliance integrated into any vehicle must conform to the correct E-Rating (hence some manufacturer's run external BMS units and why every B2B/DC-DC charger is graded as such).

That's interesting Nick, especially the part I've bolded.

Is it your understanding that if the BMS is external then the e-mark is no longer needed on the battery?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[NickandClair]

That's interesting Nick, especially the part I've bolded.

Is it your understanding that if the BMS is external then the e-mark is no longer needed on the battery?

I believe this is more of a grey area, because of the link between the cells and any BMS. I understand at present that some manufacturers are looking into this, but some have gone along the lines of fitting remote BMS equipment as;
A ) A lithium battery cell may not require e marking as there are no electronics in it its radio wave ( EMC ) neutral, this is why some companies go with just the ECE ruling,
B) An electronic BMS does need e marking, any electronic equipment fitted extra to a vehicle needs e-marking, the BMS could just as easily fire off an air bag as a inverter/charger/SCR device could etc, it’s an electronic item.
However as the cell is fundamentally connected to the BMS, then the cells are influencing how the BMS operates, hence the grey area with a Li system.
This was one of the main conclusions we came to when choosing what product we were going to promote, as there are others around (trust in that we have access to a majority of them all) but our concerns were the safety element along with ease of installation and overall costs involved. When creating a system for the customer, safety and accountability are vital (making sure all legalities are above board and conform with current legislation, but also have the support of the manufacturer), but there is also ease of use and a cost effective and tidy solution without loads of boxes and additional equipment required.

 

[Wissel]

Thanks for the explanation Nick - interesting read

Just one more very quick question if you don't mind?

Reading this passage:

B) An electronic BMS does need e marking, any electronic equipment fitted extra to a vehicle needs e-marking, the BMS could just as easily fire off an air bag as a inverter/charger/SCR device could etc, it’s an electronic item.

I see that you included inverters. Should these be e-marked as well if in a vehicle?

 

[Wissel]

Been thinking about this a little more this evening. If any electronic equipment fitted extra to a vehicle needs e-marking, surely this would include a lot of different parts on a motorhome?

Off the top of my head - solar controllers, reversing cameras, some control panels, B2B's, alarms & trackers?

I then had a look around and couldn't find e-marking for a lot of the above. Not even on Sterling's own B2B's? (might be, but I couldn't find it)

If this is correct, and insurance companies are clamping down on equipment that is not TUV/Road Legal conforming, then they are going to be pretty busy

Maybe I have misunderstood?

 

[TheDogMan]

Why do Oaktree claim “Transporter Leisure batteries are the only lithium-ion leisure batteries with CE approval in the UK and Europe.” My Relion is CE marked and I believe the Sterling one is too.

I do not have a clue about any approvals, I can tell you that I got my van off |Oaktree 3 years ago they have brilliant on after sales, David service manager is more than helpful and if they say they are good and safe thats fine by me, Transporter batteries are a straight swap with anything needed built in to them, I have done one 400 mile round trip and two nights out and no problems with the van electrics just full batteries, my 200ah - 23kg batteries were worn out and the lithium were 100ah and weighed 13kg, I don't know if the long term this was a good idea or not perhaps I will have a better idea in 3/4 months time, one thing is certain they have 10 years warranty

 

[andy63]

an interesting thread that just seems to highlight the difficulties everyone is facing as technology seems to outstrip and make a nonsense of current practice and regulations..

I'm just wondering whether any of the motorhome manufacturers are currently supplying vans with the equipment been discussed in this thread , as standard or as an option from new..

surely if they are supplying mh's with lithium batteries and suitable charging safeguards then it makes a nonsense of arguments about the rights and wrongs of installing the equipment as an aftermarket fit... providing its installed correctly .. id hate to see the insurance industry been able to dictate the way leisure vehicle technology went

Andy

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[NickandClair]

Been thinking about this a little more this evening. If any electronic equipment fitted extra to a vehicle needs e-marking, surely this would include a lot of different parts on a motorhome?

Off the top of my head - solar controllers, reversing cameras, some control panels, B2B's, alarms & trackers?

I then had a look around and couldn't find e-marking for a lot of the above. Not even on Sterling's own B2B's? (might be, but I couldn't find it)

If this is correct, and insurance companies are clamping down on equipment that is not TUV/Road Legal conforming, then they are going to be pretty busy

Maybe I have misunderstood?

I can say with confidence that all our Security products conform to both Thatcham and E-marked for both OEM and aftermarket approval.
The Sterling products which the BBW (E24) and BB series (E13) Battery to Battery chargers are indeed marked for approval to OEM standards. Then there's the inverters. The Sterling inverters go through various e-marks from E-8 onwards pending on specification and whether it's the waterproof model or not.
All Dometic product (which are used on both the OEM and Aftermarket) again conforms to various E-Marks from road legal approval.

As for motorcaravan manufacturers, this depends on British/Euro made. A lot of British vans "cheat" the system, by having the electrics isolate when the ignition is applied and as most standard cheap automotive relays have a mark on them, both basic split charging and fridge control are covered. Euro Vans use E-Marked/TUV type approval to meet standards, most boxes we have come across do have the appropriate marks.

The main problem is with the aftermarket sector, where cheap inverters/regulators/Li etc come flooding in from China/USA, courtesy of that well know internet auction site. These rely on import of the product through the CE export scheme, but have little care on the intended use or the implications as lets face it, they are just interested in a sale. Just recently a company importing Li have re-branded their units 3 times, once the investigated body identified that this was happening. For the life of me I cannot remember the names of the Li brand, but they are out there being sold. As we are living in a market where most decisions are based on price, sadly this can be so easily overlooked (and I not judging anyone here as I do consider price with any decisions I make both with the M/H and the Motorbikes). However as you can understand, we have a moral obligation to make sure that ANY product is road legal and conform to current legislations/standards and I will personally make sure it is correct for intended use on a personal level. Just as an example, I recently purchased an exhaust for one of the motorcycles I have and made sure it was for road use, as most of you bikers will know, it will be picked up on roadside stops and on MOT.

an interesting thread that just seems to highlight the difficulties everyone is facing as technology seems to outstrip and make a nonsense of current practice and regulations..

I'm just wondering whether any of the motorhome manufacturers are currently supplying vans with the equipment been discussed in this thread , as standard or as an option from new..

surely if they are supplying mh's with lithium batteries and suitable charging safeguards then it makes a nonsense of arguments about the rights and wrongs of installing the equipment as an aftermarket fit... providing its installed correctly .. id hate to see the insurance industry been able to dictate the way leisure vehicle technology went

Andy

I have to say Andy that it's not as much as technology outstripping legislation, it's more the manufacturers/dealers/distributors not giving a monkeys to the legislation in the first place, placing profit before safety.
I have previously said about Dometic and their equipment is all covered through various e-marks for approval as let's face it most vans have their fridges/AC/Cameras, but most of the Euro built vans follow TUV/Approval.
The safety standards are in place, but too many insurance companies do not know half of the rules and regs, for example and @eddievanbitz has said may times, the insurance companies still quote Cat 5 & 6 tracking, when this was discontinued Dec 2018 (current if you have it fitted at the moment, just not correct on any new installations from Jan 2019).
All it will take is a few incidents to realise that mistakes have been made, but sadly at the cost of the client. Take the unfortunate Ford theft saga as an example , the vehicle sadly has now a bad rep for theft and the insurers are clamping down on what requirements they need due to the manufacturer's oversight in how the van is protected.
Again though, this leads back to professional companies morally making sure that product/equipment does meet the guidelines/rules/regs set out in the industry in the first place. I cannot comment on anyone else, but we here at Van Bitz make sure that all product does conform to both E-Marking/TUV/ECE approval for their intended use. You cannot put a price on safety and security!!

 

[Wissel]

Thanks for the very comprehensive reply @nickvanbitz

Good to know that all the products you mentioned have the certification and in some cases, it's just not advertised (why would it be I guess if from a reputable company).

Nice to see that you (as a company) have taken the time to make sure your installations completely comply with regulations. I have a feeling you are in a minority

Now I'm very much looking forward to when @Jim gets a reply to his letter to the VCA.

With my own system I know there is currently no issue with my insurance company, but I would like to ensure this doesn't change in the future. Although with self-build insurance it's usually a case of declaring something and if the insurance company don't like it they refuse to insure that part. Examples would be a gas installation that hasn't been certified, or a log burner with some companies.

I'd still like everything in my van do meet regulations though, so this is a very interesting thread to me.

I'm pretty confident with most things in my van as I haven't skimped anywhere. I'd already replaced my cheap inverter due to a different set of regs (common earth), with a top of the line Victron model. Plus my gas installation is certified, my inverter is connected to a second consumer unit (no shared neutral with EHU), and anything else that's come up in the past. This e-mark thing is new to me though and I'll now be looking at every little thing installed

I assume the crackdown by insurance companies you mentioned is on e-marking in general, rather than LiFePO4 specifically?

Thanks, David

 

[andy63]

Cheers nick @nickvanbitz .
I do hear what you say and have to say that i do tend to buy branded goods from established reputable suppliers for the reasons you outline ..
im hoping they have done the leg work and are only supplying good quality gear thats fit for purpose...
Appreciate it must be difficult for many suppliers with so many cheap options of similar products available that may not have been tested to the same standard..
The insurance side is a minefield anyway .. i dont consider it a very honourable profession to start with ... no offence intended to anyone
An interesting thread..
Thanks for taking the time
Andy..

 

[NickandClair]

I assume the crackdown by insurance companies you mentioned is on e-marking in general, rather than LiFePO4 specifically?

It is pretty much. Most insurance companies realise that they do need to make sure that the aftermarket industry is conforming, not just with items like Li but with other products too.
On a personal level, it's been a long time overdue as we have been picking up the pieces of inferior equipment being used for ages. Our insistence on what we use, means not only are we on the correct side of legislation/conformity but we know the product is tried and tested and in the words of Ronseal "Does exactly what it says on the Tin".

 

[Theonlysue]

I thought cat 5 abd cat 6 trackers were 2 different things.
One informs you when mh has moved, the other, you have to inform them to track it if its missing.
Is that correct??

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[NickandClair]

I thought cat 5 abd cat 6 trackers were 2 different things.
One informs you when mh has moved, the other, you have to inform them to track it if its missing.
Is that correct??

Yes that's correct, but the entire classification has moved over to VTS on any new installations made from Jan 2019. The insurance companies are not insisting on remote immobilisation as a requirement amongst other criteria. Please see the below link for a bit of info;
https://www.vanbitz.com/wp-content/uploads/Shadow-VTS-flyer.pdf

 

[Wissel]

After thinking about this thread a lot yesterday, I emailed the VCA as well. This is what I wrote:

Good afternoon,

Could you please advise on the following regarding lithium batteries in a vehicle please?

This enquiry is specific to a leisure battery in a motorhome, not the vehicles engine battery. This battery can be charged whilst the vehicle is in motion via an E-Marked battery to battery charger.

It is my understanding that these batteries themselves do not require e-marking to be used in a vehicle. Do I have this correct?

A lithium (LiFePO4 specifically) battery requires a BMS (battery monitoring system) to keep the batteries in great condition. This isn’t a safety feature, it’s simply to prolong the batteries life. If the BMS is separate to the leisure battery, but connected to it, does the BMS require E-Marking?

The product I’m looking at isn’t specifically built for a vehicle battery, it’s mainly used in off-grid solar systems. But it can be used on any LiFePO4 battery and is ideal for a leisure battery in a motorhome. It is European manufactured and has all the relevant test certificates for EMC etc, but not an E-Mark. Does it need one?

I look forward to hearing back from you and thank you in advance,

David Black

The reply I received back was the same as
@Millcourt earlier in this thread I think:

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your email.

There is no need for an e-mark under automotive legislation on a battery. However a CE mark may be required. Batteries will generally be covered by one or a combination of the following:

• General Product Safety Directive (for consumer products – does not require CE marking)
• Low Voltage Directive (LVD) (with these voltage limits 50 to 1000 volts AC, 75 to 1500 volts DC)
• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive
• Radio Equipment Directive (RED) (e.g. when using wi-fi communication)

The latter all require CE marking. RED also covers electrical safety and EMC requirements.

There are also requirements applying to all batteries here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulations-batteries-and-waste-batteries

I emailed them as I was concerned about my own system and future insurance. I was already confident that my battery cells were fine, same with my charger and inverter. It was the BMS I wasn't sure about. Their email doesn't exactly make it crystal

So I emailed the manufacturer of my BMS, who were happy to send me copies of all the certification my BMS has, including the CE mark certification, EMC certification and FCC for it's Bluetooth capability.

Then I did more digging.

I couldn't find a definitive answer on whether my BMS requires an e-mark, but this paragraph was interesting:

"If the product is already CE marked, to the correct listed applicable directives such as the EMC, Radio Equipment Directive. And the product is not safety related it may allow you to self-declare it for fitting in a vehicle."

As my BMS (and I suspect most) is not safety related (defined as "Essentially the product cannot affect the driver’s control of the vehicle or other road users") and CE marked/EMC tested etc, then it looks like it can be self-declared for fitting in a vehicle. I'll fire an email off to the manufacturer about this.

This followed:
“Components sold as aftermarket equipment and intended for the installation in motor vehicles need no type approval if they are not related to immunity-related functions”

I had no idea what "immunity-related functions" meant, so did more digging and found this:

"as a general rule these are ESAs (Electronic Sub Assemblies) which are not related to an immunity-related function of the motor vehicle, are connected directly to the vehicle's dc supply, and are not involved/related with any of the vehicle functions"

Not 100%, but I think this infers that, as a BMS only regulates a battery that isn't involved with the driving of the vehicle, no E-Mark is needed?

I'd still like to know for sure, but my head is starting to hurt

If anyone here has any further info or a different interpretation of the rules around this (do you have any docs you could point me too @nickvanbitz ?), I'd be very interested.

Even if my thoughts are right, then it doesn't mean it would make a difference to an insurance company insisting on an E-Mark. Although, in the case of a claim that went to court, I can't see how insisting on an E-Mark would help them if the regulations didn't require the product to have one.

 

[Robert Clark]

After thinking about this thread a lot yesterday, I emailed the VCA as well. This is what I wrote:

Good afternoon,

Could you please advise on the following regarding lithium batteries in a vehicle please?

This enquiry is specific to a leisure battery in a motorhome, not the vehicles engine battery. This battery can be charged whilst the vehicle is in motion via an E-Marked battery to battery charger.

It is my understanding that these batteries themselves do not require e-marking to be used in a vehicle. Do I have this correct?

A lithium (LiFePO4 specifically) battery requires a BMS (battery monitoring system) to keep the batteries in great condition. This isn’t a safety feature, it’s simply to prolong the batteries life. If the BMS is separate to the leisure battery, but connected to it, does the BMS require E-Marking?

The product I’m looking at isn’t specifically built for a vehicle battery, it’s mainly used in off-grid solar systems. But it can be used on any LiFePO4 battery and is ideal for a leisure battery in a motorhome. It is European manufactured and has all the relevant test certificates for EMC etc, but not an E-Mark. Does it need one?

I look forward to hearing back from you and thank you in advance,

David Black

The reply I received back was the same as
@Millcourt earlier in this thread I think:

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your email.

There is no need for an e-mark under automotive legislation on a battery. However a CE mark may be required. Batteries will generally be covered by one or a combination of the following:

• General Product Safety Directive (for consumer products – does not require CE marking)
• Low Voltage Directive (LVD) (with these voltage limits 50 to 1000 volts AC, 75 to 1500 volts DC)
• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive
• Radio Equipment Directive (RED) (e.g. when using wi-fi communication)

The latter all require CE marking. RED also covers electrical safety and EMC requirements.

There are also requirements applying to all batteries here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulations-batteries-and-waste-batteries

I emailed them as I was concerned about my own system and future insurance. I was already confident that my battery cells were fine, same with my charger and inverter. It was the BMS I wasn't sure about. Their email doesn't exactly make it crystal

So I emailed the manufacturer of my BMS, who were happy to send me copies of all the certification my BMS has, including the CE mark certification, EMC certification and FCC for it's Bluetooth capability.

Then I did more digging.

I couldn't find a definitive answer on whether my BMS requires an e-mark, but this paragraph was interesting:

"If the product is already CE marked, to the correct listed applicable directives such as the EMC, Radio Equipment Directive. And the product is not safety related it may allow you to self-declare it for fitting in a vehicle."

As my BMS (and I suspect most) is not safety related (defined as "Essentially the product cannot affect the driver’s control of the vehicle or other road users") and CE marked/EMC tested etc, then it looks like it can be self-declared for fitting in a vehicle. I'll fire an email off to the manufacturer about this.

This followed:
“Components sold as aftermarket equipment and intended for the installation in motor vehicles need no type approval if they are not related to immunity-related functions”

I had no idea what "immunity-related functions" meant, so did more digging and found this:

"as a general rule these are ESAs (Electronic Sub Assemblies) which are not related to an immunity-related function of the motor vehicle, are connected directly to the vehicle's dc supply, and are not involved/related with any of the vehicle functions"

Not 100%, but I think this infers that, as a BMS only regulates a battery that isn't involved with the driving of the vehicle, no E-Mark is needed?

I'd still like to know for sure, but my head is starting to hurt

If anyone here has any further info or a different interpretation of the rules around this (do you have any docs you could point me too @nickvanbitz ?), I'd be very interested.

Even if my thoughts are right, then it doesn't mean it would make a difference to an insurance company insisting on an E-Mark. Although, in the case of a claim that went to court, I can't see how insisting on an E-Mark would help them if the regulations didn't require the product to have one.

Wondering if it’s another excuse for the motor trade to rip off Motorhome owners ?

 

[eddie]

Wondering if it’s another excuse for the motor trade to rip off Motorhome owners ?

How would any of this be a rip off? You've lost me

 

[andy63]

As my BMS (and I suspect most) is not safety related (defined as "Essentially the product cannot affect the driver’s control of the vehicle or other road users")

Thats an interesting point... because before you qualified it i would have said that the bms systems that are supplied with the different lithium battery types are essential to the battery safety in terms of the known hazzards that exist with them..
That and the build quality of the battery to prevent any cell short circuts due to mechanical damage while installed in a vehicle..
The safety thats quoted relates to driver control and that of other road users.. not the safety of the installation against the known hazzards of the product..
Andy.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[NickandClair]

This followed:
“Components sold as aftermarket equipment and intended for the installation in motor vehicles need no type approval if they are not related to immunity-related functions”

I had no idea what "immunity-related functions" meant, so did more digging and found this:

"as a general rule these are ESAs (Electronic Sub Assemblies) which are not related to an immunity-related function of the motor vehicle, are connected directly to the vehicle's dc supply, and are not involved/related with any of the vehicle functions"

Not 100%, but I think this infers that, as a BMS only regulates a battery that isn't involved with the driving of the vehicle, no E-Mark is needed?

The stance on this one I am waiting on a reply, but my understanding of it is simple. Your Li, BMS and DC-DC/B2B/Split- charger are all linked together, thus then is integrated to...……… your vehicle's DC system. Under the following VCA ruling, it is laid out as the following;
"Prior to March 2009 the regulations were extremely clear - all equipment installed into a vehicle on a permanent basis was required to be E-mark certified, and it was illegal to drive a vehicle that was fitted with non-compliant equipment. The regulations were changed in March 2009 and now require only devices related to safety-relevant functionality to be E-mark certified. Importantly, devices that have the potential to distract the driver are included in the safety-relevant category. Vehicle computers, which are capable of producing both audible and visual signals, clearly fall under this category and therefore still require E-mark certification."
The reason I have underlined the "safety-relevant functionality" is that it's the BMS's job to prevent issues such as over-charging, over-temp etc, which also applies to a DC-DC/B2B charger which is still directly connected to the DC system. It also leads me back to why so many other components from other manufacturers such as our own product, Dometic, Victron and Sterling have all of their main components tested under the E-Mark.
Over the last few days I have checked and double checked both the VCA rules and looked a mixture of electronic equipment and keep coming back to the same conclusion that if it's connected to the DC system in any way and it has safety elements, visual warnings, audible features etc, then it should have to conform to E-Marked standards.

I have since been speaking with a couple of manufacturer's and also contacted both the VCA and Aviva's Technical Team, to get better clarity.
I will continue to look into this matter, as we have a moral obligation to make sure what we are fitting to our customer's vehicles must conform to road legal standards and is safe and reliable.

Wondering if it’s another excuse for the motor trade to rip off Motorhome owners ?

Again, this falls to my last sentence, just saying .

 

[Wissel]

Over the last few days I have checked and double checked both the VCA rules and looked a mixture of electronic equipment and keep coming back to the same conclusion that if it's connected to the DC system in any way and it has safety elements, visual warnings, audible features etc, then it should have to conform to E-Marked standards.

That's a good argument Nick

I'd agree that if a system has visual warnings or audible features, it has the potential to distract a driver and could then need an E-Mark.

Although I can't see this being anymore distracting than say, a satnav. Maybe a satnav needs an E-Mark as well? No idea

My own system has no audible or visual warnings. Not even a display (unless you count when I do flick the app to have a look). My BMS is fully automated in that if it senses too high/low current/temps it switched them on/off. Likewise (and as a very good backup), my charger and inverter each do the same, all independently which gives a good degree of redundancy.

So with my system I can see no clear reason why it would require an E-Mark. Can you?

Of course there is no disadvantage to having extra certification, even if not strictly necessary. I'd way prefer to have more than not enough.

 

[NickandClair]

So with my system I can see no clear reason why it would require an E-Mark. Can you?

Not so much on the Audio/Visual Distraction elements, more on the "safety element" part @Wissel, hence why it's important that all I's and T's are crossed.
Ironically I have looked at the Dometic range of navigation equipment and guess what, all E-Marked .

 

[andy63]

"safety element"

what is the safety element in question nick ? relating to this e marking ?
I quoted a post by Wissel earlier where he has qualified the safety requirement as been related to the drivers control and other road users.... not the safety as relating t the risks associated with most lithium battery systems.. which I would have thought would have been just as big a concern to the insurance companies..
Andy

 

[Pausim]

not the safety as relating t the risks associated with most lithium battery systems

What risks are you referring to?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[andy63]

What risks are you referring to?

The fairly well documented risks associated with most lithium battery technologies... or at least as i understood it ...
Ie the electrolite is known to be a flammable mix its important they are protected and its contained.. the danger of overcharging and causing mechanical damage to the cell as well as heat ..
Is that not why they have to have such a tightly controlled charging and maintenance regime.. ??other than trying to maintain the longevit of the battery..
I have no personal experience.. just what ive read and heard... ie the issues the airlines had with adopting them etc..
So i was trying to find out what the real issues of various certifications been talked about in this thread related to...
Ie the safety of the installations with their specific risks or its impact on the ability of the electrics to effect other vehicle systems... as thats how im reading it that this e certification is about..

Andy..

 

[vin0114]

Ruddy hell my head hurts trying to take in all the information BUT I will say that the tiny little box of matches size Battery Master from Vanbits is one of the best life savers I have ever purchased and at only 60 odd quid lets me sleep at night without worrying about wether the van will be able to start up. Top marks @eddievanbitz.

 

[Barclaybasher]

Why is stuff so complicated?

If my engine battery dies I'd buy a new one £100, if I can't get a new one straight away I'd use my hab battery.

If my hab battery dies I carry torches and 10ltr of fresh water (pump not working)

Worked for me this trip

How many days do you use your MH?

KEEP IT SIMPLE

 

[Wissel]

The fairly well documented risks associated with most lithium battery technologies... or at least as i understood it ...

It's completely dependant on the chemistry of the battery Andy.
People hear lithium battery and think Boeing, Tesla or Samsung.

Most of the lithium leisure batteries use a different chemistry - LiFePO4. The downside with this type of battery is it doesn't hold the raw power (to size/weight ratio) of other lithium types. The upside is it's as safe as a lead acid battery.

Here's an image where the Chinese army were testing LiFePO4 to see if it were suitable in their military vehicles:

Probably not a good thing in a military vehicle if the battery can be punctured and go up like a firecracker (some other chemistry's react very volatile when exposed to oxygen), so they shot 45mm rounds at them for a while

The BMS is only present to keep the battery in tiptop condition and to prolong its life. It has no other purpose, actually some don't even install one and choose to look after the battery manually.

There is no way I'd have fitted anything to my van that might have been in any way a risk. My dog is in there.

I'm personally not at all worried about the safety and completely trust my own setup. What does concern me is this:

Now the next comment is a vital one...…………….. whatever battery you choose, it MUST be a road legal E marked (Not CE marked, E Marked) and tested to conform to road use, not the transportation/export CE mark. Insurance companies (Aviva underwriters especially) are clamping down on equipment that is not TUV/Road Legal conforming and as Li isn't to be messed around with, I would strongly advise a tested and approved road legal unit. Ask to see official test documentation from the supplier, if they're legal they will show you as such!
Any other questions, please feel free to PM or contact me.

Rgs
Nick

This was something I'd never heard mentioned before this thread and something that could effect me and others that have LiFePO4 installed (or anything else not e-marked like an inverter etc). So I want to get a definite answer.

How many days do you use your MH?

KEEP IT SIMPLE

365 days per year, and it is simple

It's more money to install, but for us, a massive benefit.

 

[Barclaybasher]

365 days per year, and it is simple

It's more money to install, but for us, a massive benefit.[/QUOTE]

It's completely dependant on the chemistry of the battery Andy.
People hear lithium battery and think Boeing, Tesla or Samsung.

View attachment 294869
Most of the lithium leisure batteries use a different chemistry - LiFePO4. The downside with this type of battery is it doesn't hold the raw power (to size/weight ratio) of other lithium types. The upside is it's as safe as a lead acid battery.

Here's an image where the Chinese army were testing LiFePO4 to see if it were suitable in their military vehicles:

View attachment 294871

Probably not a good thing in a military vehicle if the battery can be punctured and go up like a firecracker (some other chemistry's react very volatile when exposed to oxygen), so they shot 45mm rounds at them for a while

The BMS is only present to keep the battery in tiptop condition and to prolong its life. It has no other purpose, actually some don't even install one and choose to look after the battery manually.

There is no way I'd have fitted anything to my van that might have been in any way a risk. My dog is in there.

I'm personally not at all worried about the safety and completely trust my own setup. What does concern me is this:



This was something I'd never heard mentioned before this thread and something that could effect me and others that have LiFePO4 installed. So I want to get a definite answer.



365 days per year, and it is simple

It's more money to install, but for us, a massive benefit.

On a daily basis I pass MHs that hardly move all year - I stand by my assertion - too much 'tech' ...for most motorhomers

You want the 'simple life' but need 'tech'...

Why do you need more?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}