I'm not Paul, but I can think of a few ways to get 500-600 watts up there (was originally planning 470 myself, but am going to stick with 400 roof/200 ground as I have no need for any more). You do have to be willing to give up a few things if you want the max amount (stock TV antenna, easy overcab access, perhaps easy roof access), and accept a slight overhang of the top tier.
Once going to that much solar, a person would want to seriously re-vamp the stock DC distribution system. You'd have a large house bank to accept all that solar, and once you are storing that much power in the batteries, good wiring and fusing is even more important.
To me it's all about one's use-case or cases. I say that because different priorities would lead one to different "best" systems. There is no one best one (as I'm sure you have figured out by now).
I boondock 99% of the time, so a robust DC system is important to me. That said, I don't need the largest possible system because I'm not running large loads like Air-con/microwave/etc. on my DC system. I did pretty much completely re-do the DC distribution system - kind of had to due to too much voltage drop in the stock system, plus wires that were too small to fuse properly. That's just my particular use case though.
Fridge Performance
Re: Fridge Performance
1999 Concourse
Re: Fridge Performance
Blue;
Can you run your panels through your in Coach charge controller to your batteries AND have your panels connected to your batteries with it's own charge controller going at the same time?...Dano
Can you run your panels through your in Coach charge controller to your batteries AND have your panels connected to your batteries with it's own charge controller going at the same time?...Dano
"Jewels" - '02 Chinook Concourse XL
Re: Fridge Performance
Dano, I don't think it is usual to have two separate charge controllers, but certainly it can be done. For our rig, the typical setup is to charge the coach batteries, and when there are spare energy (when the voltage on the batteries is high enough), the Surepower separator will connect the chassis battery, and let the panel charge it up.
Let me know if I misunderstood your comment. Hopefully this does not make the thread to go off in a tangent from fridge discussion.
Let me know if I misunderstood your comment. Hopefully this does not make the thread to go off in a tangent from fridge discussion.
2000 Concourse dinette, on 1999 6.8L Ford E350 Triton V-10 Chassis
Re: Fridge Performance
I'm also not quite sure what you are getting at (because you mention batteries and batteries like there are two house banks?), but, some thoughts.
To preface them, solar is a relatively "weak" source (but a wonderful one). So (to use an analogy) you definitely want all the water in the bucket on the roof, getting to your batteries. Low voltage or small panels, thin/long wiring with voltage drop, an inefficient controller, and then especially long/thin wires from the controller to the batteries are all leaks in the hose that leads to the batteries. You don't want half the "water" leaking out along the way. It's a good idea to eliminate the leaks (voltage drop, other inefficiencies).
The original system would pretty much now be considered something to keep your batteries topped off in storage, or maybe good for running a few LED lights (I'm sure it was hot stuff then though - solar used to cost an arm and a leg!). The panel is small and low voltage, the wires to the controller are long and small (although not too bad for that one small panel) and then worst of all, the controller is "miles" from the batteries and those wires are longer and smaller. Lots o' leaks. Not really something you want to add on to without some changes.
1) For anything other than keeping the battery topped off in storage, I would remove the original solar controller. It is very dated and tiny. Also, the wires running from the roof to it, and then to the batteries are very long and thin. It's not in a good location vis-a-vis the battery bank.
2) Much, much better to have the controller near the house batteries. Also, there are any number of wonderful controllers nowadays, and they don't have to cost an arm and a leg (for smaller systems especially). I wouldn't go for a controller/display in one, because that basically forces you to put the controller far away from the batteries (unless you want to lie on the floor to read the display). I'd suggest a controller with a remote display, or a bluetooth function for a display on a smart phone. Model and size would depend on your system which would depend on your usage plan and etc.
Then once you know your system size and where things will be situated, you can determine the size of the wires you will want (length and number of amps flowing need to be taken into a account). Not only don't you want to lose power (leaks), but the controller will be putting out a specific voltage to your batteries. You want that same voltage to actually reach your batteries, or why bother. That's what that last line between controller and batteries is even more important. No sense setting your controller to charge at 14.4 volts (for example) and then because the wires are so long and thin only having 13.9 get to them (in this realm tenths count).
So it comes back to what is your use plan, then come up with a system to suit it, then choose components and place them (plan anyway), then lastly figure out wire sizes.
We can make suggestions once we know what you are looking to do. Quite a few folks here have solar setups that serve their needs well. The setups are different because the usages are different (with some personal taste thrown in).
To get back to your question: There is a school of thought that says one controller per panel is a good way to go, because then each panel will get "controllered" at it's peak efficiency. But then you have other considerations about choosing controllers that will work well together, where to put them all, etc. In general I'd say on an RV roof (as compared to say a boat where there is SO MUCH SHADE due to lines and etc.) it's easier just to go with one controller, but I could see having one for roof panels and one for ground panels. (Still, none of them would be the original Chinook one though - seriously, it's a Model T but not a cool way.)
To preface them, solar is a relatively "weak" source (but a wonderful one). So (to use an analogy) you definitely want all the water in the bucket on the roof, getting to your batteries. Low voltage or small panels, thin/long wiring with voltage drop, an inefficient controller, and then especially long/thin wires from the controller to the batteries are all leaks in the hose that leads to the batteries. You don't want half the "water" leaking out along the way. It's a good idea to eliminate the leaks (voltage drop, other inefficiencies).
The original system would pretty much now be considered something to keep your batteries topped off in storage, or maybe good for running a few LED lights (I'm sure it was hot stuff then though - solar used to cost an arm and a leg!). The panel is small and low voltage, the wires to the controller are long and small (although not too bad for that one small panel) and then worst of all, the controller is "miles" from the batteries and those wires are longer and smaller. Lots o' leaks. Not really something you want to add on to without some changes.
1) For anything other than keeping the battery topped off in storage, I would remove the original solar controller. It is very dated and tiny. Also, the wires running from the roof to it, and then to the batteries are very long and thin. It's not in a good location vis-a-vis the battery bank.
2) Much, much better to have the controller near the house batteries. Also, there are any number of wonderful controllers nowadays, and they don't have to cost an arm and a leg (for smaller systems especially). I wouldn't go for a controller/display in one, because that basically forces you to put the controller far away from the batteries (unless you want to lie on the floor to read the display). I'd suggest a controller with a remote display, or a bluetooth function for a display on a smart phone. Model and size would depend on your system which would depend on your usage plan and etc.
Then once you know your system size and where things will be situated, you can determine the size of the wires you will want (length and number of amps flowing need to be taken into a account). Not only don't you want to lose power (leaks), but the controller will be putting out a specific voltage to your batteries. You want that same voltage to actually reach your batteries, or why bother. That's what that last line between controller and batteries is even more important. No sense setting your controller to charge at 14.4 volts (for example) and then because the wires are so long and thin only having 13.9 get to them (in this realm tenths count).
So it comes back to what is your use plan, then come up with a system to suit it, then choose components and place them (plan anyway), then lastly figure out wire sizes.
We can make suggestions once we know what you are looking to do. Quite a few folks here have solar setups that serve their needs well. The setups are different because the usages are different (with some personal taste thrown in).
To get back to your question: There is a school of thought that says one controller per panel is a good way to go, because then each panel will get "controllered" at it's peak efficiency. But then you have other considerations about choosing controllers that will work well together, where to put them all, etc. In general I'd say on an RV roof (as compared to say a boat where there is SO MUCH SHADE due to lines and etc.) it's easier just to go with one controller, but I could see having one for roof panels and one for ground panels. (Still, none of them would be the original Chinook one though - seriously, it's a Model T but not a cool way.)
1999 Concourse
Re: Fridge Performance
Chin / BG: Your suggestion of not hijacking this thread was good so I added a response in my original post...”Right people, I need electrical upgrades...” Have a look over there....
"Jewels" - '02 Chinook Concourse XL
-
pdemarest
- **Forum Contributor**
- Posts: 384
- Joined: August 8th, 2015, 11:54 am
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Re: Fridge Performance
Hi Dano - I've got 460 watts on the roof. It did require a new charging system and wasn't cheap but I'm glad I had it done. In case of a power outage at our home I've got a refrigerator, enough power to charge up cellphones/laptops in case of emergency and run a small tv. Obviously I have a generator onboard but even if my gas tank was full that would only run a day or so before I'd be out of power. I run my generator only if I'm not plugged in and want to run the microwave, coffeemaker or A/C.
Paul Demarest
2003 Premier V-10
2003 Premier V-10
Re: Fridge Performance
Boy, that's a ton! You could probably cross your roof by stepping only on solar!
"Jewels" - '02 Chinook Concourse XL
-
pdemarest
- **Forum Contributor**
- Posts: 384
- Joined: August 8th, 2015, 11:54 am
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Re: Fridge Performance
Yeah, there's not a whole lot of space left up there but then I didn't have a cargo rack and didn't picture myself climbing up and down the ladder while holding items in one hand and clutching the ladder with the other - might be amusing for others to watch, though, 
Paul Demarest
2003 Premier V-10
2003 Premier V-10
Re: Fridge Performance
Fridge wasn't working on LP, changed Dinosaur board and worked once but pilot would not light again. Unscrewed Burner Jet and it was clean, took off Burner, it looked good but when I tipped up alot of rust fell out. Cleaned and reinstalled. Turned fridge on LP and checked Burner, immediately the beautiful blue flame was there in all its glory. Not sure how I can really clean the chimney, I knocked on it and stuff came out, but might be easier to clean Burner when needed as opposed to taking chimney apart to clean.
Dinosaur board was bit over $100, turns out didn't need it but since original is 18 years old probably due for upgrade anyway.
Also with engine running and fridge on DC I am putting about 6 amps back into coach batteries.
Dinosaur board was bit over $100, turns out didn't need it but since original is 18 years old probably due for upgrade anyway.
Also with engine running and fridge on DC I am putting about 6 amps back into coach batteries.
2001 Concourse XL Lounge model, 6.8L Ford E350 Triton V-10 Chassis.