ecotrek batteries using 6 internal amps

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

Another thread got to talking about warranties and such, and the Ecotrek battery drain issue came back to mind in relation the the value of a long warranty if there is no admission of a problem existing.

There is a difference between a broken product and a stupid product.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

There is a difference between a broken product and a stupid product.

Yep, exactly the point I was making

[gregmchugh]

Roadtrek last statement on the internal loads was something like 30-35 watts of internal power for each 200 Ecotrek module.

No hints on any plan to fix it...

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

Roadtrek last statement on the internal loads was something like 30-35 watts of internal power for each 200 Ecotrek module.

No hints on any plan to fix it...

IMO, not all of it needs fixing, per se. The suds necessary to maintain lion battery temps within an acceptable window apply to any BMS system, not just R/T. So they can't be faulted for that. The remaining load is another matter and the marketing gurus undoubtedly propelled the development of a management system design was rushed and is in a relatively primitive state of development. My guess is that R/T will develop a master management module that will sample and supervise whatever number of batteries are employed which should cut down on the power requirement. But no matter how sophisticated the BMS becomes, the power required to keep the batteries stable won't change....for anybody.

At this point, the R/T fix is more like a bandage, which is the support provided by the solar panel which will support the fridge and at least one battery module. R/T suggests for coaches that have multiple batteries that when left unattended that all batteries except one be shut down to minimize the depletion issue. Sort of a Rube Goldberg fix, but it works....more or less.

But hey man, for all the warts and stumbles they have experienced, I still think R/T deserves kudos for having the cajones to move into the cutting edge of this technology and put a six year warranty behind it. By comparison, LTV, Winnebago et al are dinosaurs. When I asked LTV if they could provide a second set of AGMs on a build, all I got in response was a dial tone. No question that ARV has done a better job implementing this technology but their premium is painful.

[booster]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

IMO, not all of it needs fixing, per se. The suds necessary to maintain lion battery temps within an acceptable window apply to any BMS system, not just R/T. So they can't be faulted for that. The remaining load is another matter and the marketing gurus undoubtedly propelled the development of a management system design was rushed and is in a relatively primitive state of development. My guess is that R/T will develop a master management module that will sample and supervise whatever number of batteries are employed which should cut down on the power requirement. But no matter how sophisticated the BMS becomes, the power required to keep the batteries stable won't change....for anybody.

At this point, the R/T fix is more like a bandage, which is the support provided by the solar panel which will support the fridge and at least one battery module. R/T suggests for coaches that have multiple batteries that when left unattended that all batteries except one be shut down to minimize the depletion issue. Sort of a Rube Goldberg fix, but it works....more or less.

But hey man, for all the warts and stumbles they have experienced, I still think R/T deserves kudos for having the cajones to move into the cutting edge of this technology and put a six year warranty behind it. By comparison, LTV, Winnebago et al are dinosaurs. When I asked LTV if they could provide a second set of AGMs on a build, all I got in response was a dial tone. No question that ARV has done a better job implementing this technology but their premium is painful.

I think I would have to disagree with a lot of this. When you have 70ah per day of parasitic on a 200ah system, you have a problem that is beyond normal, especially when the the parasitic increases with proportionately with each module added. A megabuck state of the art system shouldn't need owner intervention to monitor and turn modules on and off IMO. A six year warranty does you no good if they don't admit there is a problem.

I would certainly hope they are looking at a single control system for all modules to reduce parasitic losses, it only makes sense. Hopefully, they will also honor warranty claims to update older systems. I know I would not be a happy camper if I had to run the engine every day or two when I had 400ah of battery.

Keeping the batteries warm and online is pretty much not an issue, IMO. Normal temps above 20 degrees, with use, will do that per davydd, without any auxiliary heaters. If they are running heaters all the time when the don't need them, that is just silly and unjustified. Most folks will rarely, if ever, need the battery heat, even though it should be included so you can recover cold batteries if needed, or for coming out of storage.

I would agree that Roadtrek deserves credit for expanding the technology, but their design and implementation has been very poor, and their response to problems even worse. AFAIK there are still etreks with battery life issues from years ago, and the Zions are still reporting Voltstart issues. How long can they continue to promise the world and then disappoint the early adopters, all the while denigrating anyone who would even question what they do, or ask for real specifications?

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions

[gregmchugh]

I agree with the kudos to Roadtrek for getting out in front on the lithium battery technology.

The 35 watt internal power load has nothing to do with the battery heaters however which which require another 50 watts or so on top of the 35 watts for the two heating pads. Lots of speculation on where the 35 watts goes but the relays that control the connection of the charge and load terminals to the battery cells seem to be most likely source for the load. There is not much else in a Battery Management System that takes any significant power. If the 35 watt loss was for a large battery bank it might be tolerable but still not ideal. With a 35 watt loss in each 200 amp hour ecotrek module it takes the power from the standard 270 watt solar panel just to handle the BMS in one ecotrek and the additional 200 watts solar option to handle the fridge. The 35 watt loss is not as big a deal for the case where you are running the air conditioning from the battery bank but for the boondocking mode of operation you are going to be forced to run the engine generator more often and as you said the idea that the user has to manually switch between batteries regularly is far from ideal.

I am hoping they are stepping back and using the lessons learned so far to come up with a new system design that minimizes some of these issues. If they stay with the battery module concept (which I expect they will) then the BMS in each module needs to have much lower power requirements which is not something that a little money won't solve.

The other area that needs to be addressed is the lack of any system status info. There is no way to know the current state of charge of the battery modules, the load or charge current on the batteries, etc. When things are not working it is very difficult to determine what to do without some data to work with. Their goal of making all this technology transparent to the user is not there yet so some data would be useful until they reach that goal.

[gregmchugh]

Roadtrek has said they will be reintroducing the Coach Connect option which gives them the opportunity to provide a coach wide status and control system including info on the status of the battery system. I would hope they have a basic system at lower cost without the cellular connection, cameras, etc., rather than only a high cost option with all the fancy stuff. There is a connector on each ecotrek module where the two control switches connect and hopefully that connector also supports a network for status and control (and maybe even get rid of two ecotrek switches for each module which don't seem in keeping with the high tech marketing of all this stuff).

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

I agree with the kudos to Roadtrek for getting out in front on the lithium battery technology.

The 35 watt internal power load has nothing to do with the battery heaters however which which require another 50 watts or so on top of the 35 watts for the two heating pads. Lots of speculation on where the 35 watts goes but the relays that control the connection of the charge and load terminals to the battery cells seem to be most likely source for the load. There is not much else in a Battery Management System that takes any significant power. If the 35 watt loss was for a large battery bank it might be tolerable but still not ideal. With a 35 watt loss in each 200 amp hour ecotrek module it takes the power from the standard 270 watt solar panel just to handle the BMS in one ecotrek and the additional 200 watts solar option to handle the fridge. The 35 watt loss is not as big a deal for the case where you are running the air conditioning from the battery bank but for the boondocking mode of operation you are going to be forced to run the engine generator more often and as you said the idea that the user has to manually switch between batteries regularly is far from ideal.

I am hoping they are stepping back and using the lessons learned so far to come up with a new system design that minimizes some of these issues. If they stay with the battery module concept (which I expect they will) then the BMS in each module needs to have much lower power requirements which is not something that a little money won't solve.

The other area that needs to be addressed is the lack of any system status info. There is no way to know the current state of charge of the battery modules, the load or charge current on the batteries, etc. When things are not working it is very difficult to determine what to do without some data to work with. Their goal of making all this technology transparent to the user is not there yet so some data would be useful until they reach that goal.

Very well said. Thank you. However there is an understandable reason for the lack of monitoring information. It would require a specialized monitor because typical monitoring systems that examine charge/discharge rates, amp hours remaining etc are looking at a single battery source which permits defining the amp hour rating for meter setup. For the AGM application, the Trimetric shut based meter works just fine. But with the R/T Eco multiple battery setup where individual batteries can be brought on of off line, any time you turn on or turn off one of the batteries you would have to initialize the meter and reenter the current ah capacity in the meter to avoid erroneous meter readings. Other than having separate meters for each battery, I don't know how this can be practically resolved.

[booster]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

Very well said. Thank you. However there is an understandable reason for the lack of monitoring information. It would require a specialized monitor because typical monitoring systems that examine charge/discharge rates, amp hours remaining etc are looking at a single battery source which permits defining the amp hour rating for meter setup. For the AGM application, the Trimetric shut based meter works just fine. But with the R/T Eco multiple battery setup where individual batteries can be brought on of off line, any time you turn on or turn off one of the batteries you would have to initialize the meter and reenter the current ah capacity in the meter to avoid erroneous meter readings. Other than having separate meters for each battery, I don't know how this can be practically resolved.

That solution is easy. Each module has it's own monitor and no a big deal doing that, or even better you don't have to turn them on and off and have one monitor. IMO there is no viable reason to not have them all active all the time. That is how everyone else does it successfully as far as I know. We all parallel AGMs without concern and use one monitor, so the lithium really shouldn't be any different, especially since all the the guts are already series and paralleled multiple times.

As Greg said, the power use is probably relays, as we have discussed before several times. I was referring to heaters because that appeared to be given as one of the causes of high parasitic. I don't think they are or should be. Using high amp draw relays in a situation like this is just a money saving thing, as low use ones are easily available all the way down to near zero current hold versions.

[gregmchugh]

Seems like there are two basic configurations Roadtrek could use and still keep the modular building block approach to configuring lithium battery banks that they seem to favor at the moment.

You can significantly reduce the internal load of the BMS in each module and add a shunt in each module to keep track of battery capacity and a network communication link to bring all the status and control to a single point for all modules.

You could also move most of the battery management functions to a central point with one shunt on the whole bank (leaving the cell balancing in each module) and only two relays to control the charge and load connections to the overall bank. Now the bank all shuts down at once and comes up at once just like an ARV configuration rather than have each module controlling its connection to the charge and load terminals. Still keep the power requirements for the central battery management functions as low as possible.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by booster

I think I would have to disagree with a lot of this. When you have 70ah per day of parasitic on a 200ah system, you have a problem that is beyond normal, especially when the the parasitic increases with proportionately with each module added. A megabuck state of the art system shouldn't need owner intervention to monitor and turn modules on and off IMO. A six year warranty does you no good if they don't admit there is a problem.

I would certainly hope they are looking at a single control system for all modules to reduce parasitic losses, it only makes sense. Hopefully, they will also honor warranty claims to update older systems. I know I would not be a happy camper if I had to run the engine every day or two when I had 400ah of battery.

Keeping the batteries warm and online is pretty much not an issue, IMO. Normal temps above 20 degrees, with use, will do that per davydd, without any auxiliary heaters. If they are running heaters all the time when the don't need them, that is just silly and unjustified. Most folks will rarely, if ever, need the battery heat, even though it should be included so you can recover cold batteries if needed, or for coming out of storage.

I would agree that Roadtrek deserves credit for expanding the technology, but their design and implementation has been very poor, and their response to problems even worse. AFAIK there are still etreks with battery life issues from years ago, and the Zions are still reporting Voltstart issues. How long can they continue to promise the world and then disappoint the early adopters, all the while denigrating anyone who would even question what they do, or ask for real specifications?

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions

I take no offense at your disagreement because my own opinions regarding this are pretty tentative.

I do think your critique of R/T deserves some context. For a Class B vehicle builder, they may have the largest market share but they are still a relatively small business and can't support an R & D division with the depth and breadth that can produce a relatively perfected product from the get go. Fact is, they're pedaling as fast as they can. Consequently any breakthrough in technology they develop is going to have a higher opportunity for hiccups if not total disasters. Unlike ARV, they have to do it at a price point that is acceptable to the market they play in. ARV has done it very well, but they are dealing with a different customer profile that is much less sensitive to cost. So while you justifiably critique R/T for their design shortfalls, also consider that Winnebago, a multi-billion dollar behemoth with sufficient capacity to have a big R & D division, has offered the RV community bupkis in technology innovation beyond some cute mattress support.

Your comment regarding the Voltstart issue with some Zions warrants some concern because the failure of Voltstart to kick on when needed could have some horrendous consequences for a pet left in an unattended coach on a hot day. Until I have absolute confidence in that device, the pooch goes with us. At the very least, there should be some way for the user to simulate battery depletion to see if the Voltstart kicks in properly. The other thing missing from this system is a feature that permits the user to define the level of remaining fuel that tells the Voltstart to fugeddaboutit. That's at least one of the redeeming virtues of an Onan installation which by design doesn't let you run out of fuel.

[gregmchugh]

Roadtrek is in a solid 2nd position to Winnebago who has had the lead in market share for awhile now...

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

Roadtrek is in a solid 2nd position to Winnebago who has had the lead in market share for awhile now...

I assume you are talking about Class B for which WGO is a relatively recent entrant. There is no question that the Travato and Era (that are very good bangs for the buck) constitute a serious threat to R/T market share which probably prompted their aggressive push into under hood generator, lion battery/Voltstart implementation in order to clearly distinguish their brand. I think it was a smart move because IMO there is no way they could complete with WGO on the WGO playing field with their economy of scale. I wonder how they compare with respect to net profit percentages per unit.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

But no matter how sophisticated the BMS becomes, the power required to keep the batteries stable won't change....for anybody.

No question that ARV has done a better job implementing this technology but their premium is painful.

I am not sure "won't change.....for anybody means." ARV does not have those parasitic loads. They don't have an 800ah system requiring turning four banks on and off. They don't have disaster recovery AGM batteries. They've resolved all those issues Roadtrek seemingly can't. They are more sophisticated by far, but the premium costs are not because of the lithium ion battery system. The premium cost is they just put more into their Bs and build them with better materials every which way across the board. Advanced RV is a small company with maybe about 30 employees but they are very sophisticated in the research and development of the system they came up with and have the personnel to execute it. They exist solely because the owner won't compromise in quality or value to compete with anyone else. The owner previously owned a Pleasure-way and Great West Van Class B. He actively drives his creations in a serious way. His challenge is simply to build the best he can with the knowledge and resources available. Some people want that. Just about every ARV customer puts his/her own stamp of design, ideas, features and desires into their Bs that are impossible to get anywhere else. They listen to their customers and accept the challenges brought forth. A great deal of their innovations were born from customer wants and suggestions. There are millions of cars built every year but there is still a ready market for people who want to drive Lamborghinis at any cost.

Don't be so absolute in what can be achieved by what Roadtrek does. Roadtrek plays in the dealer game and they have to compete with others. They can't immediately gear up and provide something new or different with every model that goes out. In that regard with the bottom line constraints they have to maintain, they do an amazing job driving change in that market.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

I assume you are talking about Class B for which WGO is a relatively recent entrant. There is no question that the Travato and Era (that are very good bangs for the buck) constitute a serious threat to R/T market share which probably prompted their aggressive push into under hood generator, lion battery/Voltstart implementation in order to clearly distinguish their brand. I think it was a smart move because IMO there is no way they could complete with WGO on the WGO playing field with their economy of scale. I wonder how they compare with respect to net profit percentages per unit.

Winnebago has an 8% lead over Roadtrek in the Class B market share and has been in the lead for something like a year as I recall. Roadtrek keeps saying they are the leader but it has been awhile since that was so...

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

Winnebago has an 8% lead over Roadtrek in the Class B market share and has been in the lead for something like a year as I recall. Roadtrek keeps saying they are the leader but it has been awhile since that was so...

It will be interesting to see if the R/T Zion eats into Travato sales. I like the Travato but the availability of the UH generator, lion batts and Voltstart on the Zion would tilt it for me in that direction. I've learned that Onan is an ancient Chinese epithet that roughly translates to: chronic headache.

[markopolo]

The Zion was launched at the end of 2014. - http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f9...zion-3232.html - Roadtrek finished that year in first position at 35.2% market share and Winnebago finished second with 25.4% market share. http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f9...s-2385-21.html

May 2016 are the most recent stats available and they showed Winnebago in first place with 37.1% market share and Roadtrek in second place with 29.1% market share. http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f9...s-2385-42.html

Winnebago has held the top spot since the April 2015 stats report: http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f9...html#post28547

A very interesting current stat is that 64.7% of Class B units sold were diesel powered (only 35.3% were gas powered) - http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f9...ctor-5634.html - It would appear that the Travato and the Zion etc. are a small part of the already small Class B market.

Jim Hammill from Erwin Hymer Group NA indicated a 35 watt draw from each Ecotrek module in a reply to this post on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/road...19944704831179

35 watts.JPG

Partial quote from that post on Facebook:

I got the 600 W solar because my estimates of my power use were about 175 amp-hrs per day, which 600 W solar panel should have no problems supplying in Florida. But leaving all 8 battery banks on drains the power in about 48 hours. I found that 600 W of solar is sufficient to keep one bank charged, but not two. So either my solar panels are not charging or the battery management system in the Ecotrek batteries is consuming quite a bit of power.

The first post in this current topic was reportedly copied from an email to a Roadtrek owner. It comes from the Roadtrek Owners Group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1676694222568818 - maybe someone who is active on that group will post a link for completeness here.

Partial quote from: http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f5...html#post45029

EACH of the lithium modules has an internal self-draw of about 6 Amps per hour, 24 hours per day. The solar setup can provide about 20 Amps per hour for as long as there is bright sunshine on it (6-8 hours at the most. So, 6x4=24 Amps draw x 24 hrs = 576 Amps draw per day, just doing nothing. Solar is 20x7 = 140 Amps per day charge.

576 Amps out, 140 Amps in = net loss of 436 Amps per day from an 800 Amp bank. This is without anything running.

An owner with some technical inclination is needed to record and share data. I suspect that will happen eventually. Maybe a second owner.

[gregmchugh]

It would be pretty easy to get a rough verification for the 35 watts stated by Roadtrek. Fully charge a single 200 amp Ecotrek and then with the DC loads disconnected using the battery switch and the inverter off to prevent parasitic loads from the inverter and the solar controller disconnected, measure how long it takes for the Ecotrek to go offline at the max discharge limit. Assuming 180 amp hours of energy was dissipated internally you can estimate the internal load.

Rough estimate because you are assuming the battery module will shutdown at 90% discharge which was the original info from Roadtrek but is that really the number in the current Ecotrek configuration? I don't recall that it changed but it may have...

At least two people have reported results from their tests to estimate the load, one seemed to verify the 35 watt number and one got a result showing less of a load. I don't recall the details of their setup for their tests.

[markopolo]

Yes, that would give an idea of the rate of loss subject to the assumption of capacity and shutdown set point as you noted.

It could be a 60 hour test though and how would you know exactly when the module shut down?

Could a motion triggered camera event capture the switch light going out for example? (camera emails a photo for example)

Could you use a Kill-a-watt meter to report on power consumption?

You'd still have to use most of Greg's idea:

...................Fully charge a single 200 amp Ecotrek and then with the DC loads disconnected using the battery switch and the inverter off to prevent parasitic loads from the inverter and the solar controller disconnected, ............................

[gregmchugh]

I would use my Mooshimeter logging multimeter to log the voltage to see when it dropped out. Kill-A-Watt would not work, no AC voltage being produced. Watt's Up meter would shutoff with no memory of the time. There are other logging voltmeters that would work. A camera using a time lapse photo setting would do it pointing at the Ecotrek status light. Say a GoPro set to a 1 minute time lapse with an external power cord if it needs to to run for 60 hours. I have run out of off the shelf ideas. How about a Arduino or Raspberry Pi with a voltage input that is online sending a text message to your phone when the voltage drops out...