Skip to content

Country

You must be logged in to see wholesale prices. Click here to LOG IN or SIGN UP

One Year Update: Our Response to Nomadic’s Rebuttal

One Year Update: Our Response to Nomadic’s Rebuttal

After a year of legal intimidation and, more recently, a direct attack on the credibility and integrity of our team, we feel compelled to respond to Nomadic’s latest rebuttal article (link).

After multiple unsuccessful attempts to have our published data removed through legal threats, it appears they have now shifted tactics, relying on general claims aimed at discrediting our staff, our testing, and our data analysis. Despite these continued efforts, we remain committed to vigorously defending our staff and the integrity of our test results. 

Let us start by re-iterating that the purpose of our test procedure was not to validate any BTU/hr or airflow claims made by the manufacturers of the units we tested. Our goal was to demonstrate relatable performance data, through a repeatable test, so customers could make an educated purchasing decision. For too long, the RV industry has marketed A/C cooling BTUs/hr on the theoretical capacity of the compressor without considering:

  • the cooling system components as a whole
  • varying environmental factors
  • or conducting true capacity tests

These specifications published by manufacturers have historically been the guiding metric by which customers would choose an A/C to fit their needs. However, story after story, units advertising big BTUs/hr were falling short of customer expectations. Our test sought to provide data on the real performance that customers care about. Will this A/C reach my intended set-point? How long will it run on my off-grid battery system?

We share the belief that product testing should be transparent, repeatable, and grounded in sound engineering principles. That’s why we confidently stand behind our test results and why we’re publishing the raw data sheets collected during each test. We’re also happy to facilitate direct conversations between professional builders and consumers to share authentic, real-world performance experiences firsthand. 

TEST DATA SHEETS:

RTX 2000

VELIT 2000R

Turbo Air II

IndelB Plein Aircon

Nomadic X3

 

It appears that Nomadic does not offer a way for customers to leave publicly accessible reviews on their website, so we encourage readers to explore independent, unbiased forums, such as Sprinter Source and other van-related communities, where real users share their firsthand experiences and feedback. These platforms offer a more transparent and unfiltered view of how the product performs in real-world conditions.

Their article seems to focus on the claim that we intentionally omitted the X2, supposedly because it would have outperformed the competition, and further implies that our motive was to discredit Nomadic due to a failed partnership and compromise the integrity of our test. More on that later. As they put it: “Had the X2 been included, it would have: outperformed all other units in runtime, pulled the chamber temperature down faster, delivered the best cooling-per-amp profile”.

 


We chose to test the X3 because it was being marketed as Nomadic’s flagship, top-performing model. Their own spec sheets in a X2 vs. X3 comparison article reflect that positioning. (Link

 

 

If we’re going by tradition and relying on the manufacturer’s listed BTU/hr ratings, the X3 is clearly positioned as the stronger performer. However, that higher output comes with increased amp draw and energy consumption, which led us to reasonably hypothesize that it would have a shorter runtime. Our testing confirmed that.

What stood out, though, was that despite its high advertised cooling capacity, the X3 failed to reach the 75°F setpoint. And based on the test parameters of cooling a chamber from 100°F to 75°F, Nomadic’s recommendations (link) suggest the X3 is the appropriate model for this application. 

As for the X2, its published specs state: “The X2 is designed to maintain a temperature difference of 15°F - 20°F, ensuring consistent cooling.” A 20°F delta from our 100°F starting point suggests the X2 would not have been able to meet the test’s 75°F setpoint. Thus, the X2 did not meet the conditions of our test.

 

Our intent in selecting the Victron 200Ah Smart Lithium battery was not to exercise the battery bank and demonstrate the battery’s ability to run the units. We selected 200ah based on the maximum recommended continuous current output, which for this Victron battery is 200A (as documented here).

 

 

The Victron battery had plenty of margin to run a unit that advertises a maximum amp draw of 110A. A 200ah battery was selected to keep the runtime and test duration reasonable. Based on our calculations, the selected 200ah battery was more than enough for each unit to achieve the set-point and reach steady state. And in each case, it did.

 

Once each unit reached steady state, we were able to use that data to project additional runtime for larger battery capacities.

 

The choice to use a 200ah battery was intentional and aligned with the goals of the test. There was certainly no ulterior motive involved. It simply met the requirements needed to achieve our test objectives. Additionally, a 200Ah battery capacity is specifically referenced by Nomadic as an example setup for the X3 in a comparison article on their website (link).

 

 

Regarding Nomadic’s mention of “voltage regulation,” the system’s voltage is, in fact, regulated by the design and architecture of the battery itself.

 

Based on the test parameters outlined in Nomadic’s recent article, specifically their reference to a “battery equivalent load profile via DC power simulation," it appears they used a DC power supply to simulate a battery bank. While this approach may offer consistency for repeatability, using a power supply instead of an actual battery bank may not accurately reflect the real-world use cases that customers are most concerned with. Some important questions to consider about the simulation would be how it accounts for internal resistance changes and cell temperature fluctuations from prolonged or high current draws, and changes in stored capacity. 

 

Additionally, Nomadic appears to have taken fault with our choice of operating mode. “Their test never activated Full Mode. The result was that the X3 ran at 60-70% of output while competitors operated at full throttle.” To clarify, all units were tested in their default Auto or Normal mode. Not all units offered a “Full”, “Turbo”, or “Boost” mode that could run the full duration of the test. For example, the RTX 2000 can only run Boost mode for 20 minutes before defaulting back to Auto and is mainly used for initial pull down.

 

Considering this, it did not seem fair or consistent to run units in different modes. Rather, we selected a mode that all units had in common.  The X3’s inability to deliver its full output while operating in Auto mode appears to be a design limitation rather than a flaw in the testing process. In the case of the other units, Auto mode does not prevent the system from operating at full power when needed. Alternatively, Turbo or Boost modes simply force the compressor and fan to run at maximum speed. Naturally, this isn’t ideal for maximizing runtime, which is another reason we chose not to use those modes in our testing.

 

By this point, we hope it’s clear that every effort was made to conduct the test in a fair and repeatable manner to evaluate the units under reasonable conditions and within their advertised capabilities.

 

To reiterate, we did not personally perform these tests, we only specified the test parameters and design. All tests were conducted by a third-party lab specifically setup and staffed with trained professionals that specialize in this field.

 

All units were installed using the manufacturer supplied or specified components. Wire gauge, fuse capacity, and battery connection specifications were in full accordance with industry standards.

 

The test was not designed, nor were any units excluded, with the intent to discredit Nomadic or their product due to a “declined relationship.” In fact, the test results were what prompted us to discontinue pursuing a distribution relationship with Nomadic and opened the door to conversations with other manufacturers included in the test. At the same time, we were in discussions with Indel B regarding the Plein Aircon, which was also tested, but those conversations ended after reviewing the results. Velit, a newcomer to the market, was selected based on its price point and similar dimensions and specifications to the RTX 2000. It was only after seeing the test results that we began actively pursuing a distribution partnership with Velit.

 

This has been our approach, thoroughly testing and vetting product lines ourselves before bringing them to our customers. We ship, we install, we push product to their specified limits, we push past those limits, we uninstall and replace, compare and contrast, all to provide better service and honest recommendations to our customers.

 

We do not manufacture an air conditioner, and our market share is not impacted by how Nomadic’s products perform. However, we do have customers, and they are important to us, which is why we do the hard work to make sure the products we carry are properly vetted so you can have confidence in your purchase and receive the value you're paying for. 

 

Now that we’ve addressed many of the challenges raised by Nomadic in their article, we encourage you, the reader, to review the data critically. Ask your own questions. Form your own conclusions. That’s exactly what our testing is meant to support.

 

Be curious, not judgmental.

 

Barbecue sauce.

Next article Heat Chamber Test Results: DC Powered Rooftop A/C Units

Compare products

{"one"=>"Select 2 or 3 items to compare", "other"=>"{{ count }} of 3 items selected"}

Select first item to compare

Select second item to compare

Select third item to compare

Compare