Thank you for your support.
1 Like
Why would you replace the wires?
You just have to crimp MC4 connectors to the wires that are now connected directly to the terminals.
3 Likes
True (why i purchased the TR Model so i didnât have too) on two i could but the third unit would be difficult hope that one doesnât fail.
The main advantage for me ( with just wires) is where and how the wires are routed and where the MPPTâs are, currently i have small holes going through varies walls when i fit my next RS450/100 the holes will have to be much bigger.
Its an inconvenient but not a problem, thank you both for the great support 
Those photos were taken from official Victron product page. They are exact what I have for SmartMPPT RS 450/200
I was also impressed to get TR version because of 16 vs 18 A current in datasheet. But there is no difference in firmwares, and my dealer was unable to find TR version in stock/EU warehouse.
So I double-checked my PV arrays and found 16A is plenty anyway.
For the DC surge/fuse board - it is interesting one.
Also, @mvader mentioned this device needs external DC disconnects in order to protect you when you connect/disconnect PV array. We found large sparks when disconnecting PV,.even when software disabled MPPT
Overall - Iâm happy with the device.
You may see it in action
Hi @guystewart
Iâve got the bulletin from the dealer. It was very helpful.
Although, there was not much info in it that youâve already told us.
Additional question:
It will be the possibility of the user to perform some âhardware upgradeâ by some buy-back action?
Because, there was, in some degree, an admission from Victron that the design was flawed. Quote:
âWe have temporarily stopped the production of all RS equipment while the design is adjusted.â
I appreciate that only the one that doesnât work doesnât make mistakes, but in the same time I have the desire to get the latest, improved, design.
Thanks again!
1 Like
Iâm not sure the details of the design changes yet, I donât have any reason to believe it is retrofit though.
This isnât a recall, and as long as the updated installation guidelines in the manual are followed existing models are expected to perform for their normal life without issues.
Itâs normal for us to incrementally improve our hardware designs normally over time, rarely are replacements escalated beyond the normal RMA process that is used for a specific unit that has an issue.
I will continue to be running my personal units as is as well.
2 Likes
Thanks for confirming this. I thought they were spd but distributor didnât reply to my queries and didnât find anything in sesrching pdf manual. I am not sure the manual is up to date despite getting manual from distributor for new units.
Can @guystewart or staff comment - is this just the TR model that is discontinued (i.e the MC model will still continue, in which case we keep designing with the MC model as an option) or the whole RS 450/100 xxxx line discontinued and we must use the /200 in new designs? I canât imaging the latter, but important to check!
@RoarPowerNZ
(Not staff.)
But an easy way to tell what is and isnât available to order is the price list.. What each supplier has or has not got on stock is a different story.
The MPPT RS 100/200 are all MC4 models now. No more tr.
1 Like
Slowly we get the new RS 450/X00. We still have a bit of backorder but it gets better.
Only the MC4 model is available, the TR model is EOL.
Great tip, thanks.
A quick followup - given that the Cerbo-S GX isnât listed on the current pricelist, is that an indication of EOL for that device?
Yes, the Cerbo-S is no longer available.
But I donât know why, it was nice for small systems like in a RV or boat.
Probably because, in the future, the trend will be with CAN bus connections and then youâll need (at least) two buses, one for battery and one for systemâŚ
Alex; Do you mean CAN bus in preference to VE.Can?
Can you elaborate on the history of the two? My understanding is that VE.Can is Victronâs proprietary take on CANbus , and CANbus is the open standard, so does your comment imply that VE are ditching the proprietary and standardising on the open standard of CANbus?
What are the benefits of moving away from VE.Can, or maybe more pointedly, why are there two different ports that seem to have so much overlapping functionality?
Your understanding is quite spot on.
The âCAN wayâ of sending and receiving data, with 11 or 29 bits IDs, frames, arbitration, versions, etc. is a de facto standard.
Now, each company is free to send over this CAN (FD) whatever data it wants and in whatever way/timing it wants.
Victron choose a certain format of data and named it VE.Can.
CAN bus is about layer 1 and 2, while VE.Can is 3 and up on the OSI model.
Just like the dish, fork and knife (CAN standard) that can carry whatever food one wants (VE.Can). 
What Iâve meant is that, probably, in the future, all will be on VE.Can (CAN) and VE.Bus (RS485) will be ditchedâŚ
Am i right to presume that BMS-Can is also mostly CANbus, but ignoring the addressing to maybe speed up the protocol enough, or reduce the CPU overhead, for the real-time requirements of watching a battery?
Oh - ok. Thatâs the opposite of what i expected. What advantages does VE.Can have over VE.Bus?
BMS Can is a CAN communication, only that is on 11bit IDs, in contrast with the VE.Can (and NMEA 2000) which are on 29bit IDs.
Itâs all about the robustness, âeleganceâ and the easy way to implement, as many of the low level handling is now inside the communication chips and therefore the CPU overhead, as you say, is reduced.
Imagine how easy is to program a chip to handle all the sends and receives and donât bother the CPU unless the send stack is empty or a new frame is already received and processed in the receive stack.
In fact the advantages over RS485 are obvious just on the fact that it isnât anymore a master-slave(s) communication and all the arbitration (when two or more âtalkâ in the same time) is handled in the lower hardware levels.
Also the ability to âbroadcastâ the states of the devices on the bus (passive vs active node) for everyone to listen on what is interested is a big step forward from the old RS485, where if you want to implement that is quite complicated and CPU consuming when working on an master slave architecture.
ISO-11898 and all its revisions is a good place to start for more info⌠
VE.Can, BMS.Can and so on, are just designations of a proprietary way of communicating things, implemented on top of a standard, the CAN standard/protocol.
Imho itâs high time to change all communication to âover IPâ and get rid of proprietary hardware