Deep Cycle Systems

Revision as of 11:57, 22 February 2025 by InTransparencyWeTrust (talk | contribs) (Link to lawsuit article)

⚠️ Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete

This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues.

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

Learn more ▼


Deep Cycle Systems (DCS), founded in 2015, is an Australian company that specializes in the design and manufacture of lithium batteries and energy storage solutions.

Deep Cycle Systems
Basic information
Founded 2015
Type Private
Industry Lithium Batteries
Official website https://deepcyclesystems.com.au/


This article is about the battery manufacturer. For other uses, see DCS (disambiguation).

Claims

DCS claims to manufacture long-life lithium batteries for extreme climates. They advertise them for use in solar systems and hybrid vehicles, including marines ones such as boats.[citation needed][1]

Unethical Practices

Lawsuit against reviews

The main article about this incident is DCS sues Small YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty

On August 16, 2023, Australian YouTuber AlloffroadAu uploaded a review on DCS' 12v 50ah LiFePo4 lithium battery, mentioning the short longevity and substantial decline in performance after preforming a capacity test. They also made a followup video regarding DCS' questionable history. Both videos were privated at first because of legal threats from DCS.[citation needed]

AlloffroadAu reports that 30–50% of the capacity is lost in the first several years.[citation needed]They also point out that DCS states that battery capacity will be significantly reduced after traveling a certain distance, but that they also don't mention this in their warranty policy.

Hidden warranty policy update

DCS' warranty policy claims that:[2]

  • For 'normal installations', batteries that fail to deliver 80% of its rated capacity are covered.
  • For installations in engine bays/compartments, batteries that fail to deliver 70% of its rated capacity are covered.
  • This policy was last updated June 14, 2021.

This has been the case since November 7, 2023[3] according to Trove, a web archiving service ran by the National Library of Australia. However, Trove shows that on March 9, 2023,[4] the exception for installations in engine bays/compartments didn't exist, contradicting DCS's statement that their policy was last updated in 2021.

The lack of the second criterion means that owners of a DCS battery purchased before March 9 2023 that:

  • Was installed in an engine bay/compartment.
  • Fell below 80% of its rated capacity.
  • Remained above 70% of it.

would be eligible for warranty coverage, but would have no way of knowing because of the changes to DCS' public warranty policy.

The Trove archives can be found here:

  • DCS Warranty Policy on November 7 2023[3]
  • DCS Warranty Policy on March 9 2023[4]

Alleged removal of Wayback Machine archives

Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has archives of this policy page, but they are all dated in 2024. This is suspicious when considering:

  • DCS falsely claims that their policy was last updated in 2021, when Trove's archives show it was actually updated in 2023, both years not being covered by the Wayback Machine.
  • Louis Rossmann claims that consumers of DCS batteries have reached out to him, claiming that they were no longer able to access many older archives of the policy page when they contacted DCS asking when their policy was updated.

This would suggest that DCS was behind the removal of archives before 2024.

Suspected fake positive reviews

DCS has been suspected of fabricating positive reviews.[5]

Safety issues

A reviewer claimed that on August 4 2023 his car, carrying DCS batteries exploded and caught on fire, the occupants were unharmed but the car was destroyed as a result of the incident. The reviewer alleged that he was faced with legal threats from DCS for publishing the initial review.[6]

References