Help us build a better Ebike battery

[basicasic]

I get regularly aggressively questioned by some members and never worry about that.
manufacturers benefit from aggressive questioning.

hehe I'll remember to ask you the same question 4 times in some future discussion

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I've just read back over this thread and I missed some posts, so let me comment on them:

I work a lot with various e-bike brands in the UK. More than one of them have asked their test houses if they would certify a bike with a 48v system. The answer was no.

I also know that the KTM with the Panasonic hub motor has a standard 13s 48v battery, although they called it 47v. Presumably, it was certified somehow, but that's only an assumption. It now seems to have been dropped from the range and there are no other certified ebikes with a 48v motor that I know of.

The reason I kept asking was that he didn't give a definitive answer. I wanted to know if he had had confirmation that a 48v system would be approved, but he didn't answer directly.

Have a look around. Why are there no 48v bikes with EN 15194 certificates? Everybody knows that 48v is more efficient. Hello!

The question is not whether anyone thinks that a 48v system is safe or whether it complies with any other standards. it's simply a question on how the test houses interpret the EN 15194 standard that says "up to 48v". I'm looking for confirmation that at least one has confirmed that a 48v system is OK. The next logical question is which one?

 

[anotherkiwi]

From EN 15194 "This European Standard specifies requirements and test methods for engine power management systems, electrical circuits including the charging system for the assessment of the design and assembly of electrically power assisted cycles and sub-assemblies for systems having a voltage up to and including 48 VDC or integrated a battery charger with a 230 V input."

Which would make an 11S fully charged battery (46.2 V) the legal maximum. There is no mention of 48 V nominative or rated in the entire document. Which is to be contrasted with "maximum continuous rated power of 0,25 kW".

 

[shemozzle999]

The OP might be referring to the new battery standard:

BS EN 50604-1-2016 - 产业标准 - 道客巴巴

 

[RobF]

The OP might be referring to the new battery standard:

BS EN 50604-1-2016 - 产业标准 - 道客巴巴

And the OP might think it's up to his competitors to do their own legwork.

 

[anotherkiwi]

The OP might be referring to the new battery standard:

BS EN 50604-1-2016 - 产业标准 - 道客巴巴

That is for secondary batteries not primary ones...

 

[shemozzle999]

That is for secondary batteries not primary ones...

http://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2016/11/eu-standard-for-e-bike-batteries-published-10128083

 

[anotherkiwi]

Well that is a bit ambiguous isn't it? On the standard document it says:

"This European Standard does not apply to:

• lithium cells;
• batteries other than lithium ion types;
• primary Batteries(including lithium types);
• batteries covered by the ISO 12405- series."

For me the battery supplying the power is my primary battery...

And the voltage limit is specified in EN 15194 which does refer to other EN documents for battery security which 50600-1 appears to be.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Now you can see why I kept asking the question. That still leaves us with another question: Is the KTM with the Panasonic hub-motor legal?

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I feel almost embarrassed at the tone and nature of some of the comments on this thread.

I'm making a guess that one of the first things Inuell would have done before expending a lot of time, effort and money into this project was to make sure that what he was doing was going to gain certification. Maybe he called the 'test houses', explained the nature of his project and asked beforehand if a charging voltage of 57.6V would be acceptable for certification. Maybe he even went and had a meeting with them.

Oh guess what? He did.

I still have my doubts that he did. I expect that after reading the subsequent posts, your embarrassment has shifted in another direction.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Well that is a bit ambiguous isn't it? On the standard document it says:

"This European Standard does not apply to:

• lithium cells;
• batteries other than lithium ion types;
• primary Batteries(including lithium types);
• batteries covered by the ISO 12405- series."

For me the battery supplying the power is my primary battery...

And the voltage limit is specified in EN 15194 which does refer to other EN documents for battery security which 50600-1 appears to be.

The standard that applies to the bike is EN 15194. That standard might say that the battery must comply with other standards, so the battery must comply with all standards, including the maximum voltage referred to in EN 15194. The fact that battery standards allow other voltages doesn't make them comply with EN 15194.

The whole issue is whether "up to and including 48v" means an absolute limit of 48v or a battery of nominal 48v. As it's not clear in the standard, it depends on the interpretation of the tester.

 

[GLJoe]

For me the battery supplying the power is my primary battery....

Unfortunately, that's not how the nomenclature is used.
Secondary = rechargeable. I know. Its stupid!

 

[Danidl]

The standard that applies to the bike is EN 15194. That standard might say that the battery must comply with other standards, so the battery must comply with all standards, including the maximum voltage referred to in EN 15194. The fact that battery standards allow other voltages doesn't make them comply with EN 15194.

The whole issue is whether "up to and including 48v" means an absolute limit of 48v or a battery of nominal 48v. As it's not clear in the standard, it depends on the interpretation of the tester.

I would read up to X volts as meaning X volts is the maximum allowed. It does not seem ambiguous to me. In previous contributions, I have suggested that this level has origins in obscure telecommunications engineering standards, e.g the ring and tip voltages on old analogue exchanges.

 

[basicasic]

I still have my doubts that he did. I expect that after reading the subsequent posts, your embarrassment has shifted in another direction.

Fortunately not. Inunell has stated quite clearly:

'The test houses we have spoken to in the UK deal with 48v nominal, and as long as it is under 60v during peak charging. Not sure where these other testing houses are but they are mistaken.'

You can speculate, pontificate, huff and puff about the standards all you like but that is his answer. Unless you are calling him a liar or outright calling him incompetent I suggest you accept his answer with good grace and move on.

I admire his patience putting up with your aggressive hectoring and patronising tone. Your attempts to bully him to repeatedly answer your question (which was none of your business anyway) were simply designed to make yourself seem 'I'm all important and clever' and him look stupid.

Unfortunately you just come over as a sad old bully trying to protect his turf as the forum 'expert'.

 

[Woosh]

Unfortunately you just come over as a sad old bully trying to protect his turf as the forum 'expert'.

I disagree. D8veh is foremost an engineer, not a silver-tongued salesman or politician. He can be abrasive but a bully he is not.

 

[basicasic]

I disagree. D8veh is foremost an engineer, not a silver-tongued salesman or politician. He can be abrasive but a bully he is not.

He is a bully. An embarrassing one at that.

He's tried to bully me in a different thread and his bullying manner with Inunell was excruciating to read. Trying to make yourself look smart and clever by putting other people down and making them look small are the actions of a bully.

Good manners, civility and decency cost nothing. He thinks he's still in the classroom lecturing 12 year old kids.

 

[fredtop]

He is a bully. An embarrassing one at that.

He's tried to bully me in a different thread and his bullying manner with Inunell was excruciating to read. Trying to make yourself look smart and clever by putting other people down and making them look small are the actions of a bully.

Good manners, civility and decency cost nothing. He thinks he's still in the classroom lecturing 12 year old kids.

A lot of these tech heads are on the spectrum and are unaware or simply don't care how they come across - they don't go out of their way to offend people but their passion and interests outweigh everything else.

 

[Woosh]

A lot of these tech heads are on the spectrum

me? only when the subject of conversation is about batteries.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

You don't need to defend me, guys. The situation is much more simple than that. I'll explain: Basicasic brings up some research, which would mislead forum members to use their batteries correctly. He's put straight on it, so gets a chip on his shoulder, which he probably already had because he completely misread and misinterpreted what I wrote. He then tries to get revenge by making personal attacks in another thread. We just have to bide our time with these wakers until they find other forums to troll.

 

[shemozzle999]

I think d8veh is just trying to obtain clarity on the voltage limit.

It is very difficult as there is a lot of conflicting unnecessarily complicated legal information to wade through on what is a basically a simple product.

An example being the new report regarding the x4 power subject which has been discussed at the last MCWG but not currently made available for the ordinary citizen to ponder on.

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/b02ecb09-e7e8-4540-b8dd-bdeeea88f779/MCWG_2017_04-16 draft_agenda_v0.4.pdf