Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-22-2018, 01:07 AM   #1
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 65
Default Roadtrek Ecotrek update

Iíve read about a lot about people on this forum (including us) that werenít impressed with the phantom loads on the Ecotrek battery system. The phantom loads were crazy high (4-6 amps). They arenít any more.

Roadtrek have a new generation of Ecotrek modules out where theyíve reduced the phantom loads to 0.3 amps.
__________________

Cannuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 01:12 AM   #2
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post
Iíve read about a lot about people on this forum (including us) that werenít impressed with the phantom loads on the Ecotrek battery system. The phantom loads were crazy high (4-6 amps). They arenít any more.

Roadtrek have a new generation of Ecotrek modules out where theyíve reduced the phantom loads to 0.3 amps.

Interesting, where is that information from? Anyone tested it yet? If that is accurate, that would be a big plus for them compared to what they have had.
__________________

booster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 01:46 PM   #3
Platinum Member
 
markopolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 7,485
Default

If true then the parasitic loss would be up to 20 times less. It's where it should have been at the beginning.

Maybe competition is motivating them to improve. Winnebago seems to have leap-frogged past them. Even Winnebago's warranty on the Pure3 Energy lithium system bests Roadtrek at 8 years vs 6 years!

Hopefully previous Ecotrek purchasers will have an upgrade path made available to them. You could say they pretty much funded the experiment and it would be nice if they benefited from the up to 20 times parasitic loss improvement if this information is accurate.
__________________
Two bikes on sliding cargo box: https://www.classbforum.com/forums/m...icture206.html & 1997 GMC Savana 6.5L Turbo Diesel Custom Camper Van Specifications: https://www.classbforum.com/forums/f...vana-5864.html
markopolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 02:29 PM   #4
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,303
Default

If some of us have the appearance of skepticism, it is mainly because there is some (plenty?). Roadtrek has a history of giving out false and misleading information in the past, particularly about electrical systems and batteries, over quite few years. We have even heard of reduced parasitic load on the Ecotrek modules in the past, that appears to not have been true, or at least not as large a reduction as claimed, as it still appears to be there. The claims are very hard to verify on the Ecotrek systems because of the complete lack of accurate battery state of charge monitoring. The claims are usually verbal at a show, or maybe an offhand Facebook group post, so no real spec release.


The assumptions (and guesses) on this forum as to the cause of the issue and how easy or hard it would be to fix have mostly focused on the internal relays used in modules to control input and output, which is likely correct but unproven. Fixing it probably should really not have been a big problem, but it has gone on for years so maybe is something more difficult.



AFAIK, nobody else has this level of parasitic loss in their lithium systems, so it isn't rocket science.
booster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 07:19 PM   #5
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: CA
Posts: 1,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by booster View Post
The claims are very hard to verify on the Ecotrek systems because of the complete lack of accurate battery state of charge monitoring.
Since the drain is internal in the BMS it never passes through the shunt so how can a SOC meter quantify it?
cruising7388 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 07:27 PM   #6
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cruising7388 View Post
Since the drain is internal in the BMS it never passes through the shunt so how can a SOC meter quantify it?

If our assumptions about the relays using most of the power, they can easily be separated from the rest of the controls. I think Lithionics shows them that way in a couple of the pix on their site, IIRC. That would just leave the BMS proper to account for any power use, and my guess would be that it would use a relatively constant amount of power when it is active. Even if it was variable power use based on battery output, it could pretty easily built into the monitor programming. I have seen that one of the monitors currently available, don't remember which it is, has a setting for "self discharge" in % of battery capacity which is intended for lead acid batteries when they are in storage, so I would think it must not be too difficult especially since the other brands don't seem to have any problem with real monitors on their lithium systems.
booster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 07:40 PM   #7
Platinum Member
 
markopolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 7,485
Default

Is RT still using the relatively small capacity 200A modules and a switch for every module? If so, doing away with that concept would be an additional way to reduce parasitic loss.

.3A x 8 modules for example is still a 2.4A loss. That's 58Ah per full day so I guess those rigs still need multiple manual switches for end users to keep the losses under control.
__________________
Two bikes on sliding cargo box: https://www.classbforum.com/forums/m...icture206.html & 1997 GMC Savana 6.5L Turbo Diesel Custom Camper Van Specifications: https://www.classbforum.com/forums/f...vana-5864.html
markopolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 08:00 PM   #8
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopolo View Post
Is RT still using the relatively small capacity 200A modules and a switch for every module? If so, doing away with that concept would be an additional way to reduce parasitic loss.

.3A x 8 modules for example is still a 2.4A loss. That's 58Ah per full day so I guess those rigs still need multiple manual switches for end users to keep the losses under control.

I agree, and getting rid of the switches would also get rid of the required user input, which really shouln't be needed on a high end system like these.
booster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 08:24 PM   #9
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: CA
Posts: 1,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by booster View Post
If our assumptions about the relays using most of the power, they can easily be separated from the rest of the controls. I think Lithionics shows them that way in a couple of the pix on their site, IIRC. That would just leave the BMS proper to account for any power use, and my guess would be that it would use a relatively constant amount of power when it is active. Even if it was variable power use based on battery output, it could pretty easily built into the monitor programming. I have seen that one of the monitors currently available, don't remember which it is, has a setting for "self discharge" in % of battery capacity which is intended for lead acid batteries when they are in storage, so I would think it must not be too difficult especially since the other brands don't seem to have any problem with real monitors on their lithium systems.
With a master BMS, the losses certainly could be programmed into a SOC meter designed for it, but with the RT multiple BMS system that permits turning discrete batteries on and off, it gets problematic particularly if there is just one shunt. And while mono-stable relay current is easily defined, the duty cycle isn't because with different conditions, some relays may or may not be energized, although with bi-stable latching relays, the duty cycle error would be negligible.
cruising7388 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 08:55 PM   #10
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cruising7388 View Post
With a master BMS, the losses certainly could be programmed into a SOC meter designed for it, but with the RT multiple BMS system that permits turning discrete batteries on and off, it gets problematic particularly if there is just one shunt. And while mono-stable relay current is easily defined, the duty cycle isn't because with different conditions, some relays may or may not be energized, although with bi-stable latching relays, the duty cycle error would be negligible.

That is the point that is being made, ditch the multiple BMS and make the systems to size with one BMS and bistable relays, or at least relays after the shunt, which would be a single so the losses could be measured. All power measured except for a single BMS and maybe even that could be run through the shunt if designed carefully. It really can't be more work or cost to make the batteries stackable but with specific to size BMS than it is to add all the switches and wiring plus multiple BMS's.
__________________

booster is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.