Latest comment: Monday at 09:221 comment1 person in discussion
I am not sure why there isn't any discussion here so I was going to jump in here. It really looks like the "small guy" is going to win here. Kudos to the solar forum community and to Louis and his diligent work. If I was a betting man I would bet Dennis isn't going to save face and will melt the company like these batteries. What sucks are all the people/businesses who have these batteries and they are good to maybe discharge to 37.5 amps. They aren't going to have a place to make a future warranty claim or someone to call if they have a question about the product. Blairski (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Review of ULs certifications?
Latest comment: Tuesday at 12:162 comments1 person in discussion
One thing that might be tangential to the core of this specific topic, yet potentially even more worrying is that these batteries are sold and marketed as UL Listed. If this is really the case, how can they display such major flaws during normal use?
If they are indeed UL Listed as branded?
If someone with access to the physical product cn check to see if the product(s) bear any control / issue number (4–6 digits)
this would be helpful, otherwise i call bull$hit on all claimed UL certifications. Might be worth pursuing in a class action lawsuit if many people were misled by false UL certification claims?
--Traste (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: Tuesday at 15:372 comments2 people in discussion
It appears Will is testing the BB10012 (100AH), where the max charging current is listed as 50A. I have this battery and that's what my spec sheet (downloaded in 2018) has listed. The Battle Born website is also still showing the max for the BB10012 as 50A.
So either Battle Born is claiming Will tested a BB1275 (75AH) battery, which the spec may have conveniently changed from 50A to 37.5A, or they are claiming the max charging current on the BB10012 is now somehow 37.5A - even though their website still lists it at 50A.
Latest comment: Tuesday at 16:3810 comments2 people in discussion
I'm only doing a really cursory search, but I don't see any of the UL Listed or Certified marks on the battery (as imaged here on 8 June 2026: https://battlebornbatteries.com/products/100ah-12v-lifepo4-deep-cycle-battery ) -- I haven't fully read through the filing yet, but if they are claiming that the batteries are UL Listed, it's curious that the actual UL Listed mark doesn't appear to be on the battery (the BB10012 at least), and isn't showing up in the listing registry. I *think* they're only claiming that the batteries are made "...to UL 2054...standards", which is a different thing than claiming to be actually certified or listed (I think).
The "CE" mark indicates that the product is supposed to conform to European consumer standards (cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking) which I'm suspecting it does not (but I am not a European battery safety expert). Still, "...It is a criminal offence to affix a CE mark to a product that is not compliant or to offer such a product for sale."
I didn't include this in my original comment, above, but UL's site for marks is here: https://markshub.ul.com/
I'm finding this whole situation (as a non-engineer) very confusing (I feel for the poor consumer). For example, I have yet to find the "shield" UL standard mark that's on Traste's image for the battery on the "Marks Hub". The standard for Lithium batteries is not 62133; it is 62133-2 (62133-1 is the standard for alkaline batteries): https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL62133-2_1_S_20200110 but the standard's page here does not list any associated mark (like the shield mark).
I can't look at the actual standards document (I think), because if I'm reading this page correctly, I would have to purchase a copy of the standard (at a minimum of $688 and a max of $1719), which is...weird. I'm probably not finding it, or I'm looking in the wrong place, but it's just driving home for me how difficult it is for the average, not-especially-technical consumer to independently verify marks that companies slap onto their products (which, to be honest, makes me less confident in the UL mark). Jackalgirl (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I should also add that I went ahead and signed up for the UL Product IQ site, which I do not recommend considering that they ask you for a LOT of personal information up-front and won't let you sign up without doing so (so I'm not sure how long my account will last since I put a bunch of bogus info in there). I have been trying to find any other RV Lithium-Ion battery manufacturers, to try to see how their product info might compare to Dragonfly's info, and have come up empty so far. Looking at the batteries that come up on standard review sites (which may or may not be actually real) and which inevitably link to Amazon, none of the image show any batteries with any UL mark. That I have so far been able to find. Jackalgirl (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Jackalgirl,
Apparently there are different UL services and lookup pages, and the ones Dragonfly state for their certifications is Intertek;
A representative sample of the listed devices have been tested, investigated and found to comply with the requirements of the Standard(s) for Safety Household and Commercial Batteries (UL-2054) and are identified with the ETL Listed Mark."
Could not find any validation for the other (In the specifications documents) mentioned certifications.
Okay, got it. This has to do with my non-engineer's ignorance (at this point) of what UL actually is -- is it an overall set of standards that other entities can use for testing, and therefore vouch on behalf of UL that the item is certified to UL's standard? If that's the case, and if Intertek is then verifying that this battery is UL 2054-compliant, got it.
But correct me if I'm wrong: this does not mean that the battery is "UL Listed" or "UL Certified" -- you'd still have to go through UL for this, right?
I'm also curious about what the testing process is at Intertek -- what their own requirements are for testing and then reporting that something is UL-compliant. The cynical part of me says that Intertek is the company you go to when you know your product won't pass UL testing (or perhaps UL is just freakishly expensive, which would not surprise me at all, which drives business to Intertek, assuming that testing through them is less expensive). Jackalgirl (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, I am perhaps just hours ahead of you in my understanding, if even that. As you say, there are different agreed sets of standards, and then there are the testing services who tests the actual products - like Intertek in this case . I doubt a company or organisation who makes a business from testing product standards compliance would devalue themself by not testing properly. I find it more likely that Dragonfly has submitted better constructed products for testing and then let the retail product line "enshittyfy". The Intertek listing includes far from all Dragonfly models, like BB1275 is stating Certification in the spec document, but is not listed. This might be "OK", I do not know if each variation and model needs a specific certificate (but since the the specs are very different and the listed certifications differ in the documents, it would make sense if it IS required).
So either the observed faults were not applicable to the sample batteries tested and certified, Dragonfly did a switch, or the certifications are worthless. I started looking into how to hold companies with such claimed certification accountable as well as the testing services, because I refuse to accept that the heat, arcing and molten plastics would successfully pass such a certification.
Yes, I definitely think it's worth that. I have some thoughts, and will see what I can do. Thank you!
I think the thing that distresses me the most about all of this is how hard it is to understand it. At this point, I feel like all those marks are like the fronts of a Potemkin village. But I'm probably just being cynical (again). Jackalgirl (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here is the letter I sent via Intertek's general inquiries form, which required a bunch of personal information (and I took one for the team and supplied actual contact information because I would really like to get the answers to this if they are willing to entertain me, and haven't been inundated with requests for information about this already):
Will tested a brand new Battle Born BB10012 model battery, charging at 49A, through cycle testing in accordance with the battery's specifications (charged at -1A of the rated 50A, discharged at 99A, -1A from the max discharge of 100A). He was trying to test for a repeatedly-reported issue with the battery: that the positive terminal is bolted to its bus using aluminum bolts with a plastic spacer (PA-765), which deforms under the heat load of current passing through the bolt and nuts, and result in a loose terminal. However, what happened during his testing (after he had to lower the testing specifications because the battery was disconnecting when cycled at its advertised rate) was that the negative side of the battery heated up so badly after 30 cycles (far fewer than the 3,000-5,000 cycles advertised by the company) that it deformed the battery's case and the battery completely ceased to function.
I have a few questions about your certification of the BB10012 battery.
o Did you actually test the BB10012 100AH, 12V battery?
o Were you able to cycle the BB10012 between 3,000 and 5,000 times at the stated charge/discharge capacities without failure, overheating, deformations, or other safety issues occuring?
o If so, was the plastic spacer used in the connection of the positive terminal present in the model that you tested?
o If so, could you explain how a plastic spacer that deforms and leads to loose connections (not "disconnects" as the manufacturer claims) could still conform to a safety standard?
o Do you require companies that make changes to their products to retest with you, or submit their changes to you for review?
o If so, are there any changes that are considered minor enough to not require retesting/recertification?
o If so, do you have any kind of guidelines as to what would characterize a change as "minor" in this sense?
o Would the insertion of a PA-765 spacer within the assembly of the positive terminal's connection to the bus be qualified as a "minor" change, or would it require you to retest the unit? Jackalgirl (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
As an example: on eTrailer, I found some other RV batteries:
o Dometic's "Go Power" battery, quick-start guide here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/catsy.549/GP-LiFePO4-100+Quick+Guide.pdf - this battery doesn't show any UL marks; it just claims that it "conforms to UL 2054", which is the standard for "Household and Commercial Batteries" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2054_3_S_20211117). I can't, of course, tell what this standard actually details from the source, but found this from a company in Germany: https://www.vri-gmbh.de/en/vri-knowledge-base/standards-and-regulations/ul-2054: "UL 2054 is a safety standard for portable primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries used as power sources in products. The standard covers both single cells and multi-cell configurations (battery packs) and defines construction requirements, test procedures and marking requirements. Unlike UL 1642, which focuses on lithium cells at the cell level, UL 2054 addresses the battery and battery pack level for all chemistries. For lithium cells used in battery packs, UL 2054 references the requirements of UL 1642 [JG: which is the safety standard for lithium batteries, both rechargeable and non-]."
I know this is not relevant to Battle Born; however, what I'm trying to convey here is the difficulty of actually understanding and tracking this stuff down (for a person who is not an engineer and who has not had extensive training in this system).
Additional resources: I (finally!) found my way to UL's page for batteries in general, which should be a good resource: https://www.ul.com/services/battery-safety-testing. It lists the following relevant "global" UL standards:
IEC/UL 62133-2, the Standard for Secondary Cells and Batteries Containing Alkaline or Other Non-Acid Electrolytes - Safety Requirements for Portable Sealed Secondary Cells, and for Batteries Made from Them, for Use in Portable Applications - Part 2: Lithium Systems
