How long did it take for the problems to show up in the Asi panels?

Panel life is certainly a risk, although Sanyo is not a small company and should back up the panel if they have to. The spec sheet on Sanyo's web site shows the standard 20 year, 80% output plus 2 year workmanship warranty.

Trust me, the last thing you want to do is having to get your warranty honored!. The labor of swapping out panels and shipping is not covered and that when you finally get the company to own up!

Asi was a flat out disaster, they promised the same 20 year as Si panel and they start out outperforming the first 3-6 months then start to nose-dive in performance

Now, the Sanyos are not just Asi, they have a 3 part sandwich which even if the Asi faulters would probably still have Si performance and meet the 20% spec.

I'm not saying Sanyos are bad, I'm saying it is a risk that very few people need to take. If in 5-10 years the HIT's have the proof under there belt, then maybe I would spend my money.

Ask yourself, if the Matrix pw175, a proven technology is really that much more roof space than the HIT panels, I think not

If you do get them, let us know how they perform in the comming years!

The highest power Matrix is about 10 watts per square foot, the same as everything else out there (that I've looked at) except the Sunpower and Sanyo. The BPs are 11. The Sanyos range from 14 (the 190) to 15 (the 200). So you can fit 40 - 50% more watts in the same space. That's really more.

I don't minimize anything you've said and appreciate the advice. But the space advantage is really there.

There are several things you can do with the extra space. For example, my roof has a foot-high pipe where the utility lines come in. With more space-efficient panels, we can avoid putting one under the pipe's shadow.

Getting down to the fine stuff, the Sanyo also does not have a 2:1 aspect ratio. A lot of panels ae about 60 x 30 inches; the Sanyo is 52 x 35. This means more options in laying the panel out in a given space.

The Matrix is 44*49 = 14.97 sf , 175 watts = 11.69watt sf

You should move the main feed anyways, remember that at low angles it will have a large shadow area

I agree the Sanyos on paper are the best, I havent seen a roof yet that needs the 28% more area. At least you'll have thought thru the issues!

I use the California Energy Commission rating of 158.3 watts. The nameplate ratings vary somewhat, and as I said, Sanyo is more conservative than the other manufacturers. The Matrix comes out at 10.57 CEC watts/sf, which is in line with the other panels I've looked at - Sharp and Kyocera - and BP runs a bit higher.

Unfortunately I have to use my garage roof.

Do the kyocera panels still have issues, or was their problems only in the summer of 2001? I was looking at the KC190GT.

Also, what's your opinion of the Mitsubishi 170 Watt panels?

You beat me to the question!

While you're at it how about the BP 170's?

I am trying to purchase panels locally (well within driving distance anyway) as I would rather not have to hassle through the mail if there are any issues and I'd like to watch them load them into my truck as opposed to hearing "Thanks for you'r $, we'll ship em when we get em".

Thanks!

I have seen these recommendations to avoid Asi (Unisolar) panels, while I do not have facts to disagree on permanent (long life expectancy) installations, I do see their benefits on some circumstances.

I have two Unisolar PVL-128 rollable panels (intended for steel roof top installations) and have been very pleased about their performance. As it has been pointed out they exceed their performance during the first few months significantly. I have owned my panels now about 6 months and have not noticed "any" degradation yet. To get some accurate reading I have to wait next summer to get the sun at the highest for peak power measurement and compare last summer results.

There has been some reliability studies made (more or less independent test labs/sites... I found reports from Unisolar web site) that show the performance degradation being a lot less than expected.
http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=49

But to come to the point, I think there couple areas where I like the Unisolar panels in particular: They are lightweight, rollable (can be packed with your camping gear), and seem to have outstanding performance in partial shade or cloudy conditions when compared to regular panels. Also they seem to hold the output power better at hot conditions. (Looks like when the voltage drops it compensates it with higher current. This happens also with normal panels but the effect is stronger on Unisolar panels.) In other words I'd give them a try as "portable" panels, or applications with some shading or hot conditions.

The disadvantage is that it is rather low efficiency panel (need a lot of area for a given watts) when compared to regular panels.

I just heard about needing to avoid ICP/Powerflex products, short 3 yr warrenty, often don't work out of the box.
These are not usually rooftop products, but flexible roll-up camping type panels.

Mike

* Inventors of Cheap Plastic

I also have a Uni-Solar 64, on a portable "box" that has been beaten around for about 5 or 6 years, and still works fine. Has had about 2 months total sun exposure. http://www.naturalstudies.org/~solar/im ... CS_056.JPG

ICP... yeah. I have two of their 100W regular panels and have not been impressed about the quality. While the panels itself are fine the connections/wiring looks like an afterthought. I had to fix one when water had corroded the connection strip coming out from the panel. The sealing was made with some RTV silicone without any mechanical stress relief etc... And they are asking close to $10/Watt as brand new!!!