Oh duh, I forgot you had a Destiny!
I was thinking about panel watts, not battery amp hours, btw. Used to be folks would have larger battery banks and fewer panels. Batteries were cheap and panels were expensive. Plus the thought was you'd have this big battery bank to carry you through multiple cloudy days, etc.
But that's somewhat changed. Panels are cheaper and batteries are more expensive. Plus now people are more aware that some batteries (AGM) like to get back up to 100% as often as possible. So now the ratio one might shoot for is at least as many watts as amp hours, and leaning toward even more watts for quicker re-charges.
Sure, you want battery amps to get you through say, three cloudy days. But if you have (not saying you proposed this, but just as an example) 600 amp hours of batteries and 200 watts of panels, and you spend three days and get that 600 amp hour bank down to 60% discharged, you now have to put back 360 amp hours. That would take a LONG time with 200 watts of solar and you'd be hammering your batteries most likely as of course you would still be using daily power on those days you were trying to catch up. Sure, you might be able to plug in, but if that's the case you also/still don't need a large battery bank relative to solar.
So my thought would be minimum of even amp hours/watts of solar, and if changing that go for more solar relative to battery amp hours. Of course there could be certain specific usage patterns that would be different. Like say you want to go out for three days, hammer on the batteries, then charge them up by plugging in at home. My ideas are more related to longer term solar usage - that's what I tend to do.
As for a stand-alone charger, I have a Sterling ProCharge Ultra/Promariner ProNautic P (these are basically the same, both made by Sterling; I have the ProNautic). These are good, marine type chargers and have temperature compensation, completely adjustable charge parameters, etc. There is a remote panel available that has a lot of functionality.
I got a 60 amp because I wanted the quickest possible charge via generator (still not quick once you get to absorb, but would be quicker for bulk stage). However, as it turned out, I never run the generator and very, very rarely plug in. So now I kind of wish I'd gotten the 40 amp as it's slightly smaller (or even no shorepower at all!). I suppose I could look into selling mine (unused) and then getting the smaller one, but I haven't yet.
Blue Sea also makes some chargers that look nice, although I think they only go up to 40 amp. AGMs have a very high acceptance rate, so 60 amps or even more will bulk charge them quickly; hence why I originally selected the 60 amp. Who wants to listen to the generator drone on for hours if bulk charging that way? (Also would make for quick charging overnight if only stopping for one night at a campground, was my thinking.)
HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
1999 Concourse
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
This is the Grape panel I've been watching: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GG ... JU3ZKQUG9S Amazon will drop them as low as $200 and I keep missing it.HereComesTrouble wrote:It also appears that Grape GS-S-100-TS solar panels are no longer available. They seemed to have been the narrowest panel and, would only overhang the top tier of the wedding cake by about 2 inches. Lengthwise, they also allowed an upgrade from 200 watts to 400 watts if needed in the future. I would love to know if there is anything as compact or more compact with a frame, available today (at a reasonable price) Suggestions appreciated.
'02 Concourse where there's always a project going on...
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
Couple of notes on that panel (which you may already have in mind, but just in case).
1) It is 26" wide x 58" long. So (to my mind) the only reasonable place it would fit on a stepped Chinook roof (i.e. post-1991-ish) would be on the center hump. Not a bad fit if you remove the air-con, but otherwise its ~58" length would hang off back of hump by over a foot, plus be subjected to shadow from air-con unit. On the side "layers" it would hang off the side by over 6", which seems like too much to me (vs. the 20-3/4" panels which hang off around 3").
Also, just for the record, only one 58" panel would fit on the driver's side (because of the bathroom skylight) and while two would fit on passenger side, the after one would be in the way getting onto the roof from the ladder.
2) Keep an eye on voltages if you plan to mix panels. The Grape 160 voltage is a bit higher (18.5 volts), so not the best mix if if you plan to add any 17.x volt panels (Grape 100, Renogy Eclipse 100 - which are the 20.7" wide ones). OTOH, the cheaper/larger Renogy 100 panel is 18.9 volts, so that could work - but now you've got a large 160 watt panel AND a large 100 watt panel. Reason I say that is this Renogy 100 watt panel (their bread and butter cheaper 100 watt panel) is 21.3" wide by 47" long.
So to summarize:
1) For our Chinook roofs, my feeling is that the narrower the better (although see note below).
2) It's good to keep panel voltages (Vmp) within .5 volt (otherwise higher will be sucked down to level of lower).
3) The Grape 160 is a whopper, size wise, for our wedding-cake-like roofs (post 1991-ish Concourse/Premier). It is 26" x 58" and has a Vmp of 18.5 volts. Physically it's a fine fit if you remove the air-con (and don't want a skylight or vent in its place), but otherwise seems too large, at least to me.
4) The Renogy "economical" 100 watt panel has a similar Vmp, at 18.9 volts, but is larger than the Grape 100 or the Renogy Eclipse 100. Physically it is 21.3" x 47".
5) The Grape 100/Renogy Eclipse 100 is the slimmest of the 100 watt efficient panels, at 20.7" x 40.8". This is good for our "second cake tier." It overhangs the tier by around 3", but does not overhang the actual side of the Chinook. Also two will fit on passenger side with plenty of ladder-disembarking room, and two will fit on the driver's side ahead of the bathroom skylight. This has a Vmp of 17.7 volts, so it's a bit less ideal to go with #3 or #4 above.
6) Haven't shopped lately, but the lightweight (formerly known as "flexilble" panels I use as ground panels are 17.8 volts at Vmp. That might or might not be a nice match factor to the panels in #5 depending on how you plan to set up your system.
7) One panel I hadn't mentioned above is the "skinny" Solarland SLP-070. I was very tempted by this panel because at around 13" wide by 58" long, it would fit entirely on the lower roof tier, without even coming close to overhanging the sides. So why aren't I going with it? I just couldn't bring myself to sacrifice THAT much function for form. Reason I say that is that this is an older design panel, so not very efficient for its size or price. It's lower voltage (17.2 Vmp), and lower wattage for its size. Due to being 58" long, I could only fit two on the roof unless I really wanted to block the ladder dismounting point on the roof, then I could fit three (just). But three is an awkward number if you want to set up in series (I want the option) because three in series is pretty high voltage. It almost maxes out many controllers, and now you have to get special switches and etc. because many max out at 36 or 48 volts. However if a person only needed 140 watts, two would fit (one each side). But they are expensive for what you get (around $240). They used to be only a 65 watt panel but were somehow uprated to 70 a couple of years ago. They are polycrystalline, vs. all of the others being monocrystalline. So I'd say these would be good for someone who is fine with only 140 watts on the roof, and doesn't mind that they are largish for the power they put out, or a bit pricey for the power. BUT they fit without overhanging. That's about all I can see to recommend them.
But since I like my sleek little Chinook, I hemmed and hawed for the longest time about them. Finally I decided that I'd go functional and the slight overhang would be okay as I'd know they are efficient and the voltage is a bit higher. (I actually have a set of Grape 135's, which are basically the same width/voltage as the Grape/Eclipse 100 but 58" long and 135 watts. So I was looking at two 58" panels at 140 watts total but no overhang, or two 58" panels with a 3" overhang but 270 watts total. Kinda hard to justify the looks of the narrower ones with that choice.)
******
So if it were me buying roof panels now, from scratch, given what is available to purchase now? I'd go with the Renogy Eclipse panels (same as old Grape 100) . They are the narrowest panel that is modernly efficient (and the shortest too). It would bug me to save $90 per panel now, but have them be much longer and wider (the cheaper Renogy 100 panel). Also for me the latter would be kinda high in voltage to match my ground panels, but that might not be a factor for others.
Even though I removed my air-con, so could fit one of the Grape 160's, I would absolutely HATE to give up my skylight! Plus this way the air-con can be replaced as the hole hasn't changed (air-con uses stock 14" x 14" RV vent sized hole, btw).
1) It is 26" wide x 58" long. So (to my mind) the only reasonable place it would fit on a stepped Chinook roof (i.e. post-1991-ish) would be on the center hump. Not a bad fit if you remove the air-con, but otherwise its ~58" length would hang off back of hump by over a foot, plus be subjected to shadow from air-con unit. On the side "layers" it would hang off the side by over 6", which seems like too much to me (vs. the 20-3/4" panels which hang off around 3").
Also, just for the record, only one 58" panel would fit on the driver's side (because of the bathroom skylight) and while two would fit on passenger side, the after one would be in the way getting onto the roof from the ladder.
2) Keep an eye on voltages if you plan to mix panels. The Grape 160 voltage is a bit higher (18.5 volts), so not the best mix if if you plan to add any 17.x volt panels (Grape 100, Renogy Eclipse 100 - which are the 20.7" wide ones). OTOH, the cheaper/larger Renogy 100 panel is 18.9 volts, so that could work - but now you've got a large 160 watt panel AND a large 100 watt panel. Reason I say that is this Renogy 100 watt panel (their bread and butter cheaper 100 watt panel) is 21.3" wide by 47" long.
So to summarize:
1) For our Chinook roofs, my feeling is that the narrower the better (although see note below).
2) It's good to keep panel voltages (Vmp) within .5 volt (otherwise higher will be sucked down to level of lower).
3) The Grape 160 is a whopper, size wise, for our wedding-cake-like roofs (post 1991-ish Concourse/Premier). It is 26" x 58" and has a Vmp of 18.5 volts. Physically it's a fine fit if you remove the air-con (and don't want a skylight or vent in its place), but otherwise seems too large, at least to me.
4) The Renogy "economical" 100 watt panel has a similar Vmp, at 18.9 volts, but is larger than the Grape 100 or the Renogy Eclipse 100. Physically it is 21.3" x 47".
5) The Grape 100/Renogy Eclipse 100 is the slimmest of the 100 watt efficient panels, at 20.7" x 40.8". This is good for our "second cake tier." It overhangs the tier by around 3", but does not overhang the actual side of the Chinook. Also two will fit on passenger side with plenty of ladder-disembarking room, and two will fit on the driver's side ahead of the bathroom skylight. This has a Vmp of 17.7 volts, so it's a bit less ideal to go with #3 or #4 above.
6) Haven't shopped lately, but the lightweight (formerly known as "flexilble" panels I use as ground panels are 17.8 volts at Vmp. That might or might not be a nice match factor to the panels in #5 depending on how you plan to set up your system.
7) One panel I hadn't mentioned above is the "skinny" Solarland SLP-070. I was very tempted by this panel because at around 13" wide by 58" long, it would fit entirely on the lower roof tier, without even coming close to overhanging the sides. So why aren't I going with it? I just couldn't bring myself to sacrifice THAT much function for form. Reason I say that is that this is an older design panel, so not very efficient for its size or price. It's lower voltage (17.2 Vmp), and lower wattage for its size. Due to being 58" long, I could only fit two on the roof unless I really wanted to block the ladder dismounting point on the roof, then I could fit three (just). But three is an awkward number if you want to set up in series (I want the option) because three in series is pretty high voltage. It almost maxes out many controllers, and now you have to get special switches and etc. because many max out at 36 or 48 volts. However if a person only needed 140 watts, two would fit (one each side). But they are expensive for what you get (around $240). They used to be only a 65 watt panel but were somehow uprated to 70 a couple of years ago. They are polycrystalline, vs. all of the others being monocrystalline. So I'd say these would be good for someone who is fine with only 140 watts on the roof, and doesn't mind that they are largish for the power they put out, or a bit pricey for the power. BUT they fit without overhanging. That's about all I can see to recommend them.
But since I like my sleek little Chinook, I hemmed and hawed for the longest time about them. Finally I decided that I'd go functional and the slight overhang would be okay as I'd know they are efficient and the voltage is a bit higher. (I actually have a set of Grape 135's, which are basically the same width/voltage as the Grape/Eclipse 100 but 58" long and 135 watts. So I was looking at two 58" panels at 140 watts total but no overhang, or two 58" panels with a 3" overhang but 270 watts total. Kinda hard to justify the looks of the narrower ones with that choice.)
******
So if it were me buying roof panels now, from scratch, given what is available to purchase now? I'd go with the Renogy Eclipse panels (same as old Grape 100) . They are the narrowest panel that is modernly efficient (and the shortest too). It would bug me to save $90 per panel now, but have them be much longer and wider (the cheaper Renogy 100 panel). Also for me the latter would be kinda high in voltage to match my ground panels, but that might not be a factor for others.
Even though I removed my air-con, so could fit one of the Grape 160's, I would absolutely HATE to give up my skylight! Plus this way the air-con can be replaced as the hole hasn't changed (air-con uses stock 14" x 14" RV vent sized hole, btw).
1999 Concourse
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
I obviously interjected myself into this somewhat private discussion,but I know Blue is familiar enough with my parallel opinions not to be offended if I respond from what is an alternative universe.Everyone does have different use patterns and budgets as well.The important thing as the thread started,is to treat those expensive batteries right by keeping them charged properly.I started out with a philosophy of conservation,of resources...by that I mean the amps I use and the dollars I have to spend...I purchased my single 150watt panel via eBay,it is a Solarland panel that is mfg in China with Bosch cells manufactured in Germany....I mounted it across the back UP so it has less of a chance of getting shadows cast by the Ac unit just forward,I thought I will start there and buy another panel if necessary but have not yet found that need,given my particular pattern of use.If I understand correctly of having watts equal battery bank amp capacity....I am doing fine with less,but I do like rules of thumb...If I had more resources I might have spent more,but so far I am happy with what I guess you might call a middle of road system,something more than minimal and outdated,but something less than state of the art high end....The important point for me is whatever you install...if they are keeping your batteries,charged regularly,You are fine....finding or guessing what your level of need is,different methodologies arise to determine....I am a proponent of a conservative step by step empirical approach,but if your means or inclinations are otherwise,that's fine as well.....Rooney
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
Rooney,
Not private at all! Your contributions are always welcome. They add to the thread.
We're not so far apart on resource conservation. I come from boating back in the "old days" where we used kerosene lamps and etc. Getting one small solar panel was a revelation and we felt like high tech kings! But as you allude to, if you don't use it, you don't have to put it back (nor do you have to buy the means to supply it or to put it back).
I've been doing just fine with 200 watts. In fact sometimes I have to look around to see if there is something else I can charge, because I have an excess of power most days. Only reason I'm adding more is that I only have ground panels, and I'd like some on the roof because when I'm traveling or making short stops (Walmart, rest area, or even one night at a camp spot), I either can't or sometimes don't want to set out ground panels. So having something on the roof will be great. OTOH, I already have the ground panels and they are nice for parking in the shade - so I'll end up with more watts than I need, but each useful for different scenarios.
If 160 watts (as Skillet is considering) is enough, then no need to "match" it to any other panel or to need to add more. But I think Skillet uses his air-conditioning (I would think, being in the Mid-Atlantic (?)), so hence was thinking that 160 might be hard to fit on the roof. So I figured I'd mention it. And too, I think the original poster was talking about setting things up so that future expansion would be possible.
It's always a little hard to tell what someone will want/need because our usage patterns are so different, plus there is the variable of where you camp (cloudy PNW; hot, muggy Florida, etc. etc.)
I was pleasantly surprised that 200 watts was able to take care of my needs year 'round and still "baby" the batteries. So maybe all the modern talk of how many watts people have makes some folks think they need more than they really will (?). But then I'm like you in that I don't use a lot of power -- I just got used to not having it on boats back when solar panels cost a mint (plus there is little space to fit them). OTOH, I have a camping buddy who has 600 watts on the roof and 200 more in ground panels. That's his happy spot for the amount of power he likes to use and while it works very well for him, he'd feel a bit deprived with less.
Anyway, I'm glad you decided to add to the thread. Good info, food for thought, and you have a way with words that's fun to read.
Not private at all! Your contributions are always welcome. They add to the thread.
We're not so far apart on resource conservation. I come from boating back in the "old days" where we used kerosene lamps and etc. Getting one small solar panel was a revelation and we felt like high tech kings! But as you allude to, if you don't use it, you don't have to put it back (nor do you have to buy the means to supply it or to put it back).
I've been doing just fine with 200 watts. In fact sometimes I have to look around to see if there is something else I can charge, because I have an excess of power most days. Only reason I'm adding more is that I only have ground panels, and I'd like some on the roof because when I'm traveling or making short stops (Walmart, rest area, or even one night at a camp spot), I either can't or sometimes don't want to set out ground panels. So having something on the roof will be great. OTOH, I already have the ground panels and they are nice for parking in the shade - so I'll end up with more watts than I need, but each useful for different scenarios.
If 160 watts (as Skillet is considering) is enough, then no need to "match" it to any other panel or to need to add more. But I think Skillet uses his air-conditioning (I would think, being in the Mid-Atlantic (?)), so hence was thinking that 160 might be hard to fit on the roof. So I figured I'd mention it. And too, I think the original poster was talking about setting things up so that future expansion would be possible.
It's always a little hard to tell what someone will want/need because our usage patterns are so different, plus there is the variable of where you camp (cloudy PNW; hot, muggy Florida, etc. etc.)
I was pleasantly surprised that 200 watts was able to take care of my needs year 'round and still "baby" the batteries. So maybe all the modern talk of how many watts people have makes some folks think they need more than they really will (?). But then I'm like you in that I don't use a lot of power -- I just got used to not having it on boats back when solar panels cost a mint (plus there is little space to fit them). OTOH, I have a camping buddy who has 600 watts on the roof and 200 more in ground panels. That's his happy spot for the amount of power he likes to use and while it works very well for him, he'd feel a bit deprived with less.
Anyway, I'm glad you decided to add to the thread. Good info, food for thought, and you have a way with words that's fun to read.
1999 Concourse
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
I definitely use my a/c here on the East coast and use my tv as well. I don't mind some overhang and would love to have more than 160 on the roof, in addition to my 125 (or whatever it is) on the ground. If I could find a long, skinny panel that was 200, I'd get it. I still want to be able to access the roof in case I have to take the a/c cover off or have a problem with the tv antenna. I was considering the 50 panel that sticks down, but I've heard mixed reviews on them. Mostly that panels need an airflow under them. I'd consider a 50 stuck to the top of the a/c cover and 160 panel on the passenger side unless someone can point me to a skinny 200 panel.
'02 Concourse where there's always a project going on...
Re: HELP!!! AGM Batteries (DUMB QUESTION & RANT)
I've not seen any thin 200 watt panels. The largest skinny panels I've seen are the ~13" x ~58" Solarland SLP 70, and that's only 70 watts (not that great for the size but is an older panel design).
On the other hand, the Renogy Eclipse panel seems to be a clone of the former Grape 100, and is a really efficient 100 watt panel. It's the skinniest larger panel I've seen although it is 20.7" wide. This makes for around 3" or so of overhang from the second tier, but that doesn't overhang the side of the rig as a whole. Since these panels are only around 41" long, two can be fit on either side (depending on what else you have there), or one each side of course.
I think that one Eclipse could be fit on the center hump behind the AC, and then one across the rear (no overhang), but the rear one would be in the way of the ladder access. However if you have a ground panel(s), then maybe one 100 watt panel on the roof is adequate, and it could go behind the AC on the center hump.
I have two of the thin/lightweight/flexible panels that I use as ground panels. But I would not put one on the roof if I had any other option. The reason is they are just not that hardy. I've already had one fail (was replaced under warranty) and the other one doesn't look all that great either - and I baby them. When I'm not actively using them they are in their shipping boxes in my rig, and I'm very careful to support them well plus have air under them when in use. They get floppy/crackly when they are hot and then seem even more fragile. Also the plastic surface is prone to scratches and cupping.
Not that one couldn't use them on the roof, but traditional glass/aluminum panels are SO much more durable, that I'd always try to fit those if possible. As ground panels I put up with their flaws because they are very thin to store inside the rig and light to carry in and out. But those advantages don't really exist when they are fixed roof panels (at least in my mind).
However it's done though, having solar is great. 200 watts provides for all my needs and never makes a peep (that said I can get by without Air-conditioning).
On the other hand, the Renogy Eclipse panel seems to be a clone of the former Grape 100, and is a really efficient 100 watt panel. It's the skinniest larger panel I've seen although it is 20.7" wide. This makes for around 3" or so of overhang from the second tier, but that doesn't overhang the side of the rig as a whole. Since these panels are only around 41" long, two can be fit on either side (depending on what else you have there), or one each side of course.
I think that one Eclipse could be fit on the center hump behind the AC, and then one across the rear (no overhang), but the rear one would be in the way of the ladder access. However if you have a ground panel(s), then maybe one 100 watt panel on the roof is adequate, and it could go behind the AC on the center hump.
I have two of the thin/lightweight/flexible panels that I use as ground panels. But I would not put one on the roof if I had any other option. The reason is they are just not that hardy. I've already had one fail (was replaced under warranty) and the other one doesn't look all that great either - and I baby them. When I'm not actively using them they are in their shipping boxes in my rig, and I'm very careful to support them well plus have air under them when in use. They get floppy/crackly when they are hot and then seem even more fragile. Also the plastic surface is prone to scratches and cupping.
Not that one couldn't use them on the roof, but traditional glass/aluminum panels are SO much more durable, that I'd always try to fit those if possible. As ground panels I put up with their flaws because they are very thin to store inside the rig and light to carry in and out. But those advantages don't really exist when they are fixed roof panels (at least in my mind).
However it's done though, having solar is great. 200 watts provides for all my needs and never makes a peep (that said I can get by without Air-conditioning).
1999 Concourse