SteveK
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2019
- Messages
- 6,640
- Location
- Gulf Islands, BC Canada
- Vessel Name
- Sea Sanctuary
- Vessel Make
- Bayliner 4588
I thought I was begining to understand ABYC.
E-13 is definitely not modeled after any particular brand, and there is also a lot of effort to not unduly or inadvertently render something non-compliant. Victron has not been an active participant. In fact, I can't recall them ever participating at all.Post #5 has 7 standards of E13 draft of which Victron lists 5 certifications that I found.
My Renogy LFP has 2 of the 7 certifications but has 9 certifications in total.
Victron is the most popular, now the Epoch leading the pack.
I do not have a problem with ABYC modeling E13 after the most popular brand.
ETA: This is my opinion
As I said in another post, E-13 is definitely not written around Victron.No worries frosty. The E13 was written around Victron, only 2 of the list TT posted was not found attached to Victron (yet). UL 1642 may apply to all LFP sold in the US, but the rest of the list may not be most. When you thought Victron battery was not included, that got me going.
Now I have to wonder why the US ABYC cares what standards other countries have. Some are considered higher standards, so they meet UL 1642, why not make them pass the test, never mind whatthey rate in their own locale. Would it be too simple to say all you need is UL 1642 to be endorsed by ABYC. Maybe insurers would like that simpler descriptor.
Google has no problem in saying it in simple languageWhat is the certification for lithium batteries?
UL 1642 specifies the requirements for the safety of lithium ion cells, while UL 2054 covers the safety of lithium ion battery packs. CE Marking - This certification indicates compliance with EU safety, health, and environmental protection standards.
I actually went and looked up their mission statement last night.Maybe I missed that ABYC wants to be a world authority.
If I ever have the opportunity to talk to one, I will. But except for Markle in the US, and Pantaneous outside the US, the all seem to already agree with you.TT, do your best to make insurers understand LFP is not a higher risk of a claim.
This is what had me "going" yesterday, when I thought perhaps my (Victron) batteries would somehow not qualify (and worse, those of a friend I just helped). When I was first choosing them, ABYC was not as far into LFP, so I wasn't going by that. I chose them based mostly on my own research, but also figured that if they can be sold in the EU, they are probably subject to rules and laws there --- and the EU seems pretty consumer-protection oriented. Perhaps more than the USA sometimes.In the US there are a lot fewer standards required by law. ...
In Europe it's different and many ISO/IEC standards are required by law to sell in the EU.
Correct, based in Annapolis, MD.I actually went and looked up their mission statement last night.
Source of Technical Information
Mission: The role of the American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) is to be the essential source of technical information for the international marine industry. We will develop product safety standards, credentialing, education, training, and other tools to equip our members to be successful. Everything we do will support our members to achieve the goal of making boating safer.
This is me again now. I don't think they are wanting world domination or anything sinister, but their mission statement does say "international marine industry." I believe they are based in the US though.
Exactly. More manufacturers and more products is better for boaters, so if an ISO standard is equivalent to a UL standard, why not accept both? ABYC also works hand in hand with ISO, Transport Canada, and the USCG, and all attempt to harmonize standards where practical.Seems like -- as Twisted Tree said, if I read him correctly -- that it would be in their customers' (meaning their members) best interest to try to establish when, say, an EU standard was equivalent or could be used. I mean UL is great, but from what I have read it's a tedious process to get UL listed and can take a looong time (correct me if I'm wrong). If there is an obviously major standard from another continent that is equivalent, accepting it seems useful for their customers (us) in that it gives us more options, not fewer.
Exactly.I know that if there are 12 battery brands that I can choose from, and they are all up to snuff (via UL or other appropriate/equivalent rating), I would rather have 12 choices when I go to buy something. That's speaking as a consumer.
I presume this is addressed to SteveK, so I'll leave it alone.******
Side note: Has ABYC caused a problem for you in the past? You almost seem to be trying to point out how they are out to "get" everyone or do something nefarious, but without any clear detail. If those details exist, then please let the specifics fly.
ABYC has not caused me any problems. Surveyors using ABYC have misinterpreted the meaning and intent and caused me aggravation.
@Frosty you now know your batteries are OK under ABYC. But was ABYC causing you grief or was it the interpretation of the standards not available freely to the public.
Here is a link to where anyone can join at the "consumer" level (cheaper) and have full access to the standards and other benefits. No need to fly blind! Also of course no need to join sign up year after year probably for most boat owners. One year might do.If it was not for TT & Charlie (and others) we would be totally blind to the wording that matters.
ABYC standards are 100% available to anyone (i.e. The Public). Anyone can join and get access to the standards (and more). (See below for link.) So no need to fly blind.
On re read it occurred to me you are speaking mostly of those that are not members of this or similar forums. Then there are many that lack computer skills to find answers, seen here with same questions being asked.My only issue with ABYC is that it is designed to protect the lowest denominator. Some times I think we should allow Darwinism to remove the lowest denominator from the gene pool.
Good question so I asked google.A slightly more cynical question: how is UL listing acquired (guessing the OEM pays a hefty fee to an independent facility)?
I wonder if Will Prowse quaifies as a tester?The UL certification process typically costs between $5,000 and $50,000,
Lots of good questions.What are the practical benefits of UL listing? Will Prowse frequently mentions it, but insinuates that it's most useful for Code Compliance for grid-tie applications. For example, in his recent review of SOK Marine Battery, he noted a fire suppression module which he felt was a bit dubious given the unlikelihood of fire with LFP.
A slightly more cynical question: how is UL listing acquired (guessing the OEM pays a hefty fee to an independent facility)? Specifically is it possible many batteries just have not been tested? Market lifecycle on LFP is pretty short which might make UL certification impractical. Thoughts?
Peter
On re read it occurred to me you are speaking mostly of those that are not members of this or similar forums. Then there are many that lack computer skills to find answers, seen here with same questions being asked.
I cannot agree as the lowest common denominator does not have access to ABYC or know it even exists.
Not idiot proof in what way?I was referring to the fact that a system could be perfectly safe but it won’t meet ABYC standards because it’s not idiot proof.
I'm trying to understand what part of the standard is seen as idiot proofing vs just good practice for a safe boat.Sadly, ABYC is aware that there are large number of idiots and because of that we have to force all of us to build to their potential stupidity level.
It’s kind of like when trailerable sailboat manufacturers were forced to put warning labels on masts that said “driving around power lines with the mast up could result in death from electrical shock”. If ABYC were involved that warning label would be replaced with a very expensive insulator instead of a warning label.
This is not an anti ABYC post, this is an anti idiot post.
First thought. A house bank will work without a class T fuse. But add one to protect the idiots.Not idiot proof in what way?
I'm trying to understand what part of the standard is seen as idiot proofing vs just good practice for a safe boat.
Not idiot proof in what way?
I'm trying to understand what part of the standard is seen as idiot proofing vs just good practice for a safe boat.
UL approves products to meet a technical standard. UL is a testing body, they have their own staff that tests products to meet a technical standard. They do not always create the technical standard that products must meet. There are many other bodies that do the technical standard creation.Good question so I asked google.
I wonder if Will Prowse quaifies as a tester?
The thing is, fuses are there to protect the downstream wire. The smartest person in the world still should have wires protected by OCP (e.g. fuse, breaker). Electricity doesn't know how smart or idiotic an owner may be.First thought. A house bank will work without a class T fuse. But add one to protect the idiots.
First thought. A house bank will work without a class T fuse. But add one to protect the idiots.