Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

Some places I read say this is a 0.5C and some say 1.0C.

 

I am failing to also find the cycle specs at different SOC's.

 

Can anyone help with this?

 

Also, is this battery fully compatible with SunSynk? Does not show on their website as a supported battery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2021/04/02 at 7:50 AM, Vassen said:

Bull-Datasheet-125Ah.pdf
 

this is the data sheet available. From what I understand it can do 1C but recommended is 90A so around 0.7C. 
 

it’s also a 80% dod battery 

Thanks, I have read the specs again and then comparing it to the Humble AM2 which claims 100A max and state DOD of 100% I assume they then cover warranty at that level.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, 0.7C means the suggested output is lower?

i.e 6.12kwh over 0.7C makes it +-4.5kwh ?

Then we can run only 80% of this 4.5kwh which is 3.6kwh ?

 

The Humble at 1C at 80% DOD is around 4.4kwh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Speedster said:

When it comes to C value that refers to instantaneous power draw (kW), not capacity (kWh). A 1kWh battery discharging 1kW is 1C. So in your example the 0.7C battery can provide a maximum of 4.5kW at any given time. 

Thanks @Speedster

This clears that up very well for me. 
 

So for backup power/night use this is still great. 
 

I assume as you stack more battery’s this will go up also? Parallel I guess would archive this. 
 

The Huble will give more instant power but the BLS will last longer 👀 so many pros and cons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Levan said:

Thanks, I have read the specs again and then comparing it to the Humble AM2 which claims 100A max and state DOD of 100% I assume they then cover warranty at that level.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, 0.7C means the suggested output is lower?

i.e 6.12kwh over 0.7C makes it +-4.5kwh ?

Then we can run only 80% of this 4.5kwh which is 3.6kwh ?

 

The Humble at 1C at 80% DOD is around 4.4kwh.

As @Speedster mentioned, it’s 2 separate topics. 
 

If you parallel the batteries, the C rating doesn’t really matter too much. If you have just 1 battery, then yes, it will make a more of a difference. 

I’m pretty sure when I checked, the Hubble was also 80% recommended dod and if you go higher the cycles drop a lot. 

For me, the dod and the price makes the most difference. When I did a comparison, the pylons 3.5 give you 3.3kwh of usable power @18k, gives you about 5413 per kWh. 
 

The BSL 6.2 gives 4.96kwh @ 32k, costing around R6450 per kWh. 
 

The Hubble gives 4.4 kWh at R24700, costing around R5600 per kWh. 

The above is based on the pricing I have seen on thIs forum or standard retail pricing for the pylons. 

So for me personally, the pylons are tried and tested and costs less than the others. I’ve got 3, looking to add another soon so they work out perfectly. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FixAMess said:

Save yourself the trouble and get pylontechs...More reliable in the long run...Proved in AU tests,  also seems to have lower rate of fade than the others 

They work out more when you start to add them up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vassen said:

As @Speedster mentioned, it’s 2 separate topics. 
 

If you parallel the batteries, the C rating doesn’t really matter too much. If you have just 1 battery, then yes, it will make a more of a difference. 

I’m pretty sure when I checked, the Hubble was also 80% recommended dod and if you go higher the cycles drop a lot. 

For me, the dod and the price makes the most difference. When I did a comparison, the pylons 3.5 give you 3.3kwh of usable power @18k, gives you about 5413 per kWh. 
 

The BSL 6.2 gives 4.96kwh @ 32k, costing around R6450 per kWh. 
 

The Hubble gives 4.4 kWh at R24700, costing around R5600 per kWh. 

The above is based on the pricing I have seen on thIs forum or standard retail pricing for the pylons. 

So for me personally, the pylons are tried and tested and costs less than the others. I’ve got 3, looking to add another soon so they work out perfectly. 
 

 

Thanks.

Will look into this more today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Levan said:

They work out more when you start to add them up.

Look over the 15 yr lifespan, not the money you are paying now...

Pylontechs have been tested, the other batteries you mention have not done as well as the pylontechs in the same test (If they were tested at all).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vassen said:

As @Speedster mentioned, it’s 2 separate topics. 
 

If you parallel the batteries, the C rating doesn’t really matter too much. If you have just 1 battery, then yes, it will make a more of a difference. 

I’m pretty sure when I checked, the Hubble was also 80% recommended dod and if you go higher the cycles drop a lot. 

For me, the dod and the price makes the most difference. When I did a comparison, the pylons 3.5 give you 3.3kwh of usable power @18k, gives you about 5413 per kWh. 
 

The BSL 6.2 gives 4.96kwh @ 32k, costing around R6450 per kWh. 
 

The Hubble gives 4.4 kWh at R24700, costing around R5600 per kWh. 

The above is based on the pricing I have seen on thIs forum or standard retail pricing for the pylons. 

So for me personally, the pylons are tried and tested and costs less than the others. I’ve got 3, looking to add another soon so they work out perfectly. 
 

 

I think if one is looking at a single battery, the C value is of significance. There's a big difference between being able to pull, say, 2.4kW (0.5C) or 4.8kW (1C) from a 4.8kWh battery. Once you start adding multiple batteries, the C becomes less of a factor. 

EDIT: To latch onto you example. The Pylon gives you 1.75kW draw while the Hubble allows 4.4kW for roughly the same price. That's a hefty difference.

Edited by Speedster
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add 2 cents to this conversation: It should be made clear that the AU testing was on the US2000B Pylontech, and even then only a few (one?) units, so it's not clear to me if this trend can be extended to all models in the Pylontech lineup. We can always hope, because hopefully they use the same cells in all their products and hopefully it hasn't changed since they started testing a few years ago, and hopefully it's the same for all markets (AU and SA), but unfortunately hoping won't make it true without actual data... 

At least the Pylontechs are reasonably well established in the market, and results of 1 test battery seems to be more than other brands are willing to share. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) the problem with most of the other batteries is that they haven't been around long enough to even attempt a proper test. If you consider that to charge and discharge even at a nominal 1C to 100% DOD would mean that they can only cycle the battery maximum once every 2 hours, they'd have to test a series of batteries for 16,000 hours (1.8 years) to get to their claimed 8000 cycles... and what half-baked engineer STOPS when they get to the nominal rating?! Lower C-rates are even worse... look me in the eye and tell me anyone would test a 0.5C battery for over 3 years before releasing it to market 🙄 

Bottom line: Pick the one that has the best chance of honouring their warranty, and make sure the supplier is one you trust and can deal with, because if the "data" turns out not to be true you're going to need their help to claim your warranty in a few years :D

BTW - Has anyone on this forum actually HAD a lithium battery of any type for over 10 years? Maybe this site should start an index of battery models and types of failures, so we can generate the data that's sorely missing from the industry?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

To add 2 cents to this conversation: It should be made clear that the AU testing was on the US2000B Pylontech, and even then only a few (one?) units, so it's not clear to me if this trend can be extended to all models in the Pylontech lineup. We can always hope, because hopefully they use the same cells in all their products and hopefully it hasn't changed since they started testing a few years ago, and hopefully it's the same for all markets (AU and SA), but unfortunately hoping won't make it true without actual data... 

At least the Pylontechs are reasonably well established in the market, and results of 1 test battery seems to be more than other brands are willing to share. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) the problem with most of the other batteries is that they haven't been around long enough to even attempt a proper test. If you consider that to charge and discharge even at a nominal 1C to 100% DOD would mean that they can only cycle the battery maximum once every 2 hours, they'd have to test a series of batteries for 16,000 hours (1.8 years) to get to their claimed 8000 cycles... and what half-baked engineer STOPS when they get to the nominal rating?! Lower C-rates are even worse... look me in the eye and tell me anyone would test a 0.5C battery for over 3 years before releasing it to market 🙄 

Bottom line: Pick the one that has the best chance of honouring their warranty, and make sure the supplier is one you trust and can deal with, because if the "data" turns out not to be true you're going to need their help to claim your warranty in a few years :D

BTW - Has anyone on this forum actually HAD a lithium battery of any type for over 10 years? Maybe this site should start an index of battery models and types of failures, so we can generate the data that's sorely missing from the industry?

Speaking of which. Isn't it about time for the next Aus battery test report?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Speedster said:

Speaking of which. Isn't it about time for the next Aus battery test report?

Hope so! We should all get together and make our own SA test report... I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum with the expertise and experience with all the battery makes who could give us general warranty claims data for the batteries they've installed. I'd love to see what the data actually says, since EVERY supplier I've talked to has claimed that their batteries "have sold thousands and never had a return" :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, FixAMess said:

Look over the 15 yr lifespan, not the money you are paying now...

Pylontechs have been tested, the other batteries you mention have not done as well as the pylontechs in the same test (If they were tested at all).

 

BLS has been around for a long time.

 

8-10 years is enough for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Speedster said:

I think if one is looking at a single battery, the C value is of significance. There's a big difference between being able to pull, say, 2.4kW (0.5C) or 4.8kW (1C) from a 4.8kWh battery. Once you start adding multiple batteries, the C becomes less of a factor. 

EDIT: To latch onto you example. The Pylon gives you 1.75kW draw while the Hubble allows 4.4kW for roughly the same price. That's a hefty difference.

100%

I looked at Pylon yesterday; I could get 2 of the 2.84kwh for about the same money as the BLS but they still do less power at that money so return for me is much lower at a difference of 0.368kwh at 80% DOD

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

To add 2 cents to this conversation: It should be made clear that the AU testing was on the US2000B Pylontech, and even then only a few (one?) units, so it's not clear to me if this trend can be extended to all models in the Pylontech lineup. We can always hope, because hopefully they use the same cells in all their products and hopefully it hasn't changed since they started testing a few years ago, and hopefully it's the same for all markets (AU and SA), but unfortunately hoping won't make it true without actual data... 

At least the Pylontechs are reasonably well established in the market, and results of 1 test battery seems to be more than other brands are willing to share. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) the problem with most of the other batteries is that they haven't been around long enough to even attempt a proper test. If you consider that to charge and discharge even at a nominal 1C to 100% DOD would mean that they can only cycle the battery maximum once every 2 hours, they'd have to test a series of batteries for 16,000 hours (1.8 years) to get to their claimed 8000 cycles... and what half-baked engineer STOPS when they get to the nominal rating?! Lower C-rates are even worse... look me in the eye and tell me anyone would test a 0.5C battery for over 3 years before releasing it to market 🙄 

Bottom line: Pick the one that has the best chance of honouring their warranty, and make sure the supplier is one you trust and can deal with, because if the "data" turns out not to be true you're going to need their help to claim your warranty in a few years :D

BTW - Has anyone on this forum actually HAD a lithium battery of any type for over 10 years? Maybe this site should start an index of battery models and types of failures, so we can generate the data that's sorely missing from the industry?

So true.

 

I read Pylon only honor warranty when they stacked in 3s also which is a concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Hope so! We should all get together and make our own SA test report... I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum with the expertise and experience with all the battery makes who could give us general warranty claims data for the batteries they've installed. I'd love to see what the data actually says, since EVERY supplier I've talked to has claimed that their batteries "have sold thousands and never had a return" :P

I hear this also from people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Hope so! We should all get together and make our own SA test report... I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum with the expertise and experience with all the battery makes who could give us general warranty claims data for the batteries they've installed. I'd love to see what the data actually says, since EVERY supplier I've talked to has claimed that their batteries "have sold thousands and never had a return" :P

I'll tell you what. You guys sponsor me a battery and I'll test it for you 🤣  

Edited by Speedster
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Buyeye said:

That's a nice battery. Been around for a little while now. 

Interestingly, I just had a look at the specsheet again. While it is a 0.5C battery, it allows for higher discharge rates for short periods as follows:

  • 50A (Continuous)
  • 74-89A (60sec)
  • 90-200A (Peak @ 15sec)

The warranty doesn't make any mention of minimum capacity after a certain number of cycles though.

EDIT: The warranty does in fact state that minimum capacity means at least 80% of the nominal energy during the warranty period. So I believe that makes it a 5 year, 80% warranty.

Edited by Speedster
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Speedster said:

That's a nice battery. Been around for a little while now. 

Interestingly, I just had a look at the specsheet again. While it is a 0.5C battery, it allows for higher discharge rates for short periods as follows:

  • 50A (Continuous)
  • 74-89A (60sec)
  • 90-200A (Peak @ 15sec)

The warranty doesn't make any mention of minimum capacity after a certain number of cycles though.

EDIT: The warranty does in fact state that minimum capacity means at least 80% of the nominal energy during the warranty period. So I believe that makes it a 5 year, 80% warranty.

Its usable power is also much less than the BLS,

The Hubble and BLS are the best value for money.

 

Pylons if you don't mind spending more money.

Freedom Won is also good value but a little more expensive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...