Judging Deep Cycleability by weight per capacity ratio

[landyacht318]

I am stuck with 12v batteries.
No way, No how are 2 6V batteries fitting in my rig.

The screw31's fat lady is in the dressing room preparing for her performance.

I was looking to replace screwy31 with a SCS 225 from Trojan which is just about the same size, except the handles add one inch to the length and I might have to shave off one handle to accommodate it. Not desirable, but more desirable than another Screwy31.

Now, it is no secret that the group 24/27/31 sizes are not built anywhere nearly as burly as the T-105's.

If we divide the capacity by the weight
T 105s 225AH/124LB's we get 1.84 AH per pound
SCS-225 130AH/066LB's we get 1.97 Ah per pound
T-1275 150AH/082LB's we get 1.82 Ah per pound

Now the T-1275 might fit my intended location, if I Modify and lower my battery tray. I do not really need the 20 extra AH of capacity, but the closest place I can acquire the T1275 battery, offers it as the same price as the SCS-225(3$ more core charge) for the extra 18Lbs of lead.

From the AH per weight category, I think perhaps the T-1275's plates are thicker and has a better lead/electrolyte ratio and should have a much better cycle life than the SCS225/ group 31

What say you Mex, is a lower AH to weight a good indication of how burly the guts of a battery are?

Do you think the T-1275 could compare to the T105 in plate thickness?

I wonder how much space is below the plates on the T-105 vs the T-1275.

I might stop cycling the screwy 31 and plug in the Meanwell overnights, as fabricating a new battery tray and purchasing a new battery will squeeze finances too tightly for the next two weeks or more.

http://www.trojanbattery.com/pdf/datasheets/SCS225_Trojan_Data_Sheets.pdf

http://www.trojanbattery.com/pdf/datasheets/T1275_Trojan_Data_Sheets.pdf

[MEXICOWANDERER]

One of the hallmarks of a good battery is that they are FORGIVING of mistreatment.

Up to a point. Limited but of course but very significant.

An industrial battery can recover repeatedly from misuse that would put a lesser battery in the recycle bin many times over. A good, hard equalization may remove 7-10 microns of surface from a positive plate while the same would destroy a more porous plate.

Nothing is free. Dense plates offer less performance. Denser, harder plates make the battery significantly more expensive to manufacture. And manufacturing mishaps make production line faults expensive. Manufacturing top quality batteries is a great financial gamble. It is a niche market - quirky and always subject to oppressive federal rules and regulations. Not saying the rules are wrong, but it really impacts the final cost.

"Cheapest At Any Price" customers, cloud the issue. Regardless of any other factor, the result of calculating cost per kWh service rendered over the lifespan of the product is the benchmark. The only benchmark. Anything other calculation is hocus-pocus.

[pnichols]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
But wanna be runners up become harder and harder to charge as time passes. They sulfate faster than a top of the line GC and in reality make a mockery of the supposed "savings" in the retail price.

None of the weaknesses of a bargain battery will show up under shallow occasional use. It's when batteries are cycled deeply and often that pretenders fall flat on their face. Positively false economic savings.

David, very well stated ..... I think ..... as what you say sure makes sense in light of how many other products around us are gradually being cheapened so as to not attract our attention, and hence not impact our continuing to hand over more and more cash for less and less product.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

GC batteries are remarkable when properly constructed. Their electrolyte volume to active plate surface area side steps many potential issues. A GC with industrial .145" plates and paste would be awesome but that would come at a cost of high price and substantially lower capacity per footprint area.

However -

The manufacture of consistantly dependable GC batteries is an artform. The typical RVer does not even begin to approach the demands as needed on a golf course. But wanna be runners up become harder and harder to charge as time passes. They sulfate faster than a top of the line GC and in reality make a mockery of the supposed "savings" in the retail price.

None of the weaknesses of a bargain battery will show up under shallow occasional use. It's when batteries are cycled deeply and often that pretenders fall flat on their face. Positively false economic savings.

[landyacht318]

It will be interesting to find out how a new T-1275 responds to my solar's 198 watts and adjustable controller, as this is the main recharging source. My Meanwell and Alternator are the other 2, with the well wired alternator coming close to the 'instant absorption voltage' if RPM's are adequate.

Tickling the lid of pandora's box, these brief 15.5v blasts mid absorption are just for more aggressive bubbling, acid mixing?

I rarely am trying for the fastest recharge possible. I never use a generator. If I can plug in, there is no real time limit.

When weather and overnight Usage combine to make it obvious my Solar cannot hold absorption voltage for 2+ hours, then there is Meanwell or alternator assist usually in the morning, as I seek to be in the high 90% range before the next discharge cycle begins.

My single screwy 31 was a downgrade in capacity from the dual 27 house bank I had run for 3 sets of batteries previously. Sure the cycles were deeper, and I spent more effort in fine tuning voltages and applying EQ voltages, but this lesser capacity was better $ per cycle by a good factor.

The 27's plates got exposed due to their difficult location, but judging by how quickly/exponentially water usage has increased on the screwy31, I'm guessing that the plate exposure was a sign those 27's would have been done for soon enough, even if I watered them in time.

The T1275 increases my capacity by 20Amp hours over the 31. The 31 was an attempt to have my solar come closer to the 'recommended' 10% rate, but of course this is only approached at solar noon. Trojan recommends a 10 to 13% rate, if one is using a plug in charger, and My solar will be ~8.5% maximum, on June21.

I am eager to have a new t1275 battery to compare its behavior to the Screwy31. I hope It is not too difficult to shoehorn into place. I also have to think about how easy it is to remove so I can reach those furthest 3 cells. The mirror and flashlight trick to check levels is a waste of effort. All one can determine is if the plates are exposed or not. A hydrometer extension tube is in my future especially if the weak sister is one of the 3 furthest.

At least the t1275 will be a battery much closer to a true deep cycle. No more screwing around with these compromised 27 and 31's with deep cycle stickers, that also list CCA ratings.

[BFL13]

I had my two T-1275s and four 6s in one big bank on solar last summer for a while. The 6s kept needing water because the T-1275s still wanted charging while the 6s were getting overcharged in the afternoons.

The T-1275s deep cycle and take big inverter loads very well, but they are not the same as 6s for charging them.

[NinerBikes]

Golf car batteries get blast charged 2 to 3x a day, go back on the charger as soon as the golf cart acts sluggish, and then someone drives it back and grabs a fresher charged cart. Then end of the day, into the shed for a full overnight charge session.

Sweeper battery aka the T-1275, runs all night, sweeping floors at stores while everyone else sleeps, until run down. Then back to the shop for a full 14-16 hour recharge session to be ready again for the next nights work. Some golf carts run on T-1275's but in my opinion, it's not in the same league speed charging wise, as a T-105. A T-105's design screams "abuse me" on the charging cycle, it has a lot of battery acid in it, it's not confined to dimensions of height, as it sits easily with plenty of space under the seat, so the height dimension of the design is not a recharging constraint. Not so with the T-1275... it's stuffed into a compact tiny floor sweeper, it's dimensions are a design constraint, so I assume you need to recharge it accordingly, slowly. Good candidate for solar recharging all day on sunny days, to get it fully top charged, but in my observation, it takes it's sweet mary anne time to get those last few percentage points to truly get it top charged. Not getting it top charged daily is where the cumulative damage starts on a T-1275. It gets stubborn fast if it doesn't get those last few points daily. IMHO.... of course. But I'll defer to mexicowanderers input... my battery had been pretty worked before I received it.

[MrWizard]

Mexi
You brought up a good point
Might I ask aren't golf cart batteries in the same industrial category, along with lift batteries etc..
Things that are used all day or work shift
Then They get a nice 8~12 hour unmolested recharge
I have posted before..That one day a week I try to give my batteries an all day recharge via genset plus whatever solar can provide

Hey maybe that's too much work and to much money
Let's see one gallon less than $4, SO four days per month of all day charging less than $16, about 7 months to save for one new battery, replace seven batteries will take 49 months of savings
I think the batteries will be dead before that, and replaced
Oops ... better keep doing what I'm doing
My current batteries are not golf cart batteries, that's why there are seven instead of eight

[MEXICOWANDERER]

The 1275 was specifically designed to accept "overnight" charging or full day-cycle charging. A cheater is to provide mechanical electrolyte circulation via gassing but that raises even more issues. Absorbsion limit to light bubbling then 20-30 seconds at say 15.5 volts then return to max absorbsion for 10-minutes. This really works well but few would bother to work out the necessary mechanism to enable flash charging. It can reduce a 3-hour recharge to 2 hours and small change. Oops Pandora's Box, time....

[NinerBikes]

My take is that the T-1275 is perhaps a little bit acid starved. It prefers low and slow near the top charge portion. It takes a day for the Specific gravity to pop up after an EQ session if you can get it to 16V.


I had to do 3 or 4 equalize sessions over maybe 10 days to finally get my abused battery to pop the SG up on the weak cell and get it in spec, and I seem to recall it finally happened on a hot summer day, like 95F + that day to get all the sulfur off. So, in a sense, it was stubborn.

My observation is not to abuse it, don't get the battery below 60% SOC, and it's a professional grade battery that requires professional recharging care daily to get it topped off, not 90%, nor 95%, or 98. I find an hour late in the day to 15.0V if on a small solar panel gets it down to about 4 ah from 9.5 to 9 when it will take all my 150W panel will put out. If I do this daily on a 14 day trip, it will not take much of an EQ charge, time wise, to have it desulfated and ready for storage. Mine are rather gassy, but I don't seem to be losing water much at all... champagne bubbles on 14.8V, a bit faster, about same size at 15.0V. Stirred, and that's what it takes to get fresh electrolyte near the plates that can take the sulfur off of them. It is a slow process, for the last few percentage points of fully charged on these.

YMMV, find out what works for you. Stay on top of that weak sister cell. I may give up a little life pushing mine to 15.0V for 30 minutes to an hour daily, or maybe not... I don'f full time, I want my battery in tip top shape before going into storage fully disconnected.

Is it a good battery for me? You bet. Is it a little fussy? You bet. Will it last? Mine has an H1 build date, and was worked hard on a golf course for at least 1.5 years here in So Cal, where they golf year round, weather wise.

Probably a good fit for you, if as Mex says, you figure it out quickly, what makes it tick, and what keeps it happy, baby sitting wise. It will need a bit of baby sitting, IMHO... not for everyone, like a T-105. The T-105 charges easily, efficiently, and needs not much care for long life. I think a T-1275 is a different animal. A little more quirky, and a little more stubborn to get the last few points of top charge into it.

[landyacht318]

Thanks Mex.

I'll definitely be fine tuning absorption duration and float for the T1275. I wonder how much different it will be than BFL's or Niners experience since I will get the battery new, and theirs needed some loving after life in a golf cart to return to respectable cycling

I hope the weak sister cell is one of the 3 I will have easy access too.

There are a few different versions of the t1275 with terminals and fill hole configuration being the variables.

The H4 plug on my headlight is the limiting factor is lowering the tray enough for it to fit.

I'm hoping the screwy31 can last another 25 to 30 cycles. I'd really like to cycle it till a cell shorts, just to see when it happens, But a taller maroon battery in its place will fill me with warm and fuzzies.

Now, if Only i could fit the J185E but 15 inches long and 14 inches high could never fit.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

It's been decades since I had a traitorous spy in Trojan engineering.

It depends on the thickness of the positive plates and the density of the paste. You can ask Trojan a question that may or may not raise their "PROPRIETARY INFO!" hackles.

ARE THE SAME PLATES USED IN THE T-105 AND T-1275?"

A phone call to Sata Fe Springs, CA. is inexpensive.

If they answer the question with "No" then the 1275 plates are going to be slightly thicker.

Ultra-high density plate paste is extremely expensive. I do not know this guaranteed but I can only assume Trojan reserves the high-priced-spread for the industrial battery line. The dollar per amp hour and calculated by weight is a clue to what an industrial battery consists of, material wise.

But this is quibbling the point...

The 1275 is a different animal than the 31

More antimony and denser plates make re-learning trends & tendencies a must.

The voltage/gassing point will be different as will float voltage value.

Charge acceptance will be different a whole new world.

Learn to fine-tune float voltage. Exactly enough watts to not allow gravity to degrade over time.

All flooded batteries tend to have a weak sister cell. Find it right off the bat.

[pnichols]

landyacht318 wrote:
Now, it is no secret that the group 24/27/31 sizes are not built anywhere nearly as burly as the T-105's.

It's probably not correct to take that statement at face value without supporting qualifiers.

Comparing equivalent volumetric sizes of true deep cycle Group 24/27/31 12 volt batteries to true deep cycle Golf Cart 6 volt batteries might reveal that:

Since an equivalent case-volume size 12 volt battery has to supply only 1/2 the current per cell that an equivalent case-volume size 6 volt battery does per cell, the 12 volt version can, and must, be built with less density per cell (12 volt = 6 skinny cells, 6 volt = 3 fat cells). HOWEVER, the less dense per cell 12 volt version will last the same length of time as the more dense per cell 6 volt version because the 12 volt version consumes itself, over time, only one-half as fast due to supplying only one-half of the current per cell on average over time.

I'm talking grass roots basics here - which are difficult for us to prove or take advantage of because finding a non-AGM 12 volt equivalent to the common non-AGM T-105 is so difficult. It would be necessary to step into the AGM battery world - in order to compare 6 volt and 12 volt deep cycle version lifetimes - so as to demonstrate equivalency of 6 low-burliness cells supplying one-half the current (per cell) to 3 high-burliness cells supplying twice the current (per cell).

[BFL13]

I think for acid starvation potential, you should compare their volumes vs their weights instead of their AHs.

My T-1275s have their caps in a V shape but ISTR Niner showed a photo of his with a different caps layout. No idea if that means anything.
They might come with various post type options too, don't know.

$175 seems a good price to me. Up here they want that for a single 6. Two 6s would be 232AH and two T-1275s is 300AH.

[landyacht318]

The T-1275 is listed at 82Lbs, not 84 as I originally posted, I will edit the OP.

I found the SCS225 and the T-1275 both cost 175$ at my nearest distributor with the t-1275 having a 3$ higher core charge

I do have nearly 200 watts of solar, and the screwy31(USbattery) which is about to fail, has about 465 cycles on it, in 19 months. I do not think this is bad. In terms of cycles per dollar the screwy31 has been a better value than all previous batteries, but it also got much more attention and massaging.

However the screwy31 recharging requirements are rather extreme. If it is not top charged daily at high voltages, upto 15.3v, Specific gravity tanks quickly and performance, (voltage held under load) is horrible. And EQ cycles are required every 2 to 3 weeks even when top charging daily.

I'm hoping Trojan's are less demanding in this respect. Mex in the past has called flooded 31's acid starved. Trojan's 31 weighs 2 lbs more than USbattery's 31, so perhaps Trojan's 31 would still be petulant.

Fitting a T-1275 where the screwy31 currently resides is going to be a very tight fit. The screwy31 barely fits. The tray can be lowered with more effort than most would employ to achieve, but the tray is currently compromised and needs attention anyway.

My main curiosity in this thread is the plate thickness, if it can be determined by weight. Trojan lists CCA ratings for its 24/27/31 group sizes but does not bother with CCA ratings on the t-1275.

SCS, superior cycling series, in comparison to what, standard dual purpose marine batteries? That is not such a high bar to jump over.

I'm hoping the T1275 is on another level compared to the 24/27/31 group sizes. As the price is the same, I'd be a fool to not try and fit the T-1275 instead of another 31 compromise.

This is an interesting link.

http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/deep_cycle_battery

The t-1275 is also called a J150 but this model has different handles. that extend beyond the case where the t-1275 does not.

He calls the 24/27/31 'pseudo deep cycles" at 600 LAB cycles to 50% DOD
He says both the t-105, J150 are rated at 1200 Lab cycles to 50% DOD

Same price but 50% more rated LAB cycles? Sign me up.

Bottom line is, I want a true deep cycle battery, and I do not think that is possible in a 12v format in the 24/27/31 size, no matter the labelling on the battery. I will go through the effort of fitting the T-1275, even though shaving off a handle of an SCS 225 would be easier.

USbattery31 and trojan's 31 might very well be superior to any other flooded group31 available that has a 'deep cycle' claim, but can they compare to a battery that was designed around cycling in the first place?

Does the weight/AH ratio of the T-1275 place it firmly in the true deep cycle camp like the t-105, or is it somewhere in between T-105 and the SCS 24/27/31?