Aaah ok, I had a gander at the thread on the other side.
Out of the three listed initially, the Hubble is the one I’d rate third. That is not to say it is a bad battery, but I have a lot of experience with Pylontech, and also a bit of very positive experience with BSL. Honestly, from a technical standpoint, BSL has one of the best BMSes I’ve dealt with, the only thing I don’t have data on (which for Pylontech we do, thanks to the Ausie battery tests) is how they will hold up.
There are people who sell a Hubble with a Victron inverter, and then they program good voltages on the inverter because the battery cannot communicate with the rest of the stack. Which is fine on a technical level (with some caveats)… but many manufacturers won’t honour a warranty unless you have that comms cable…
I remember years ago, when I was a young Linux-convert who took every opportunity to bash Microsoft Windows, that someone told me I was going about it wrong. You don’t pick the OS first. You pick the best application first. Then you pick the OS that the application works best on. The OS is secondary. The application (which does the job) is primary.
I think some of that spills over to this debate. You don’t pick the battery in isolation. It needs to fit the rest of the stack.
Besides, that 1C argument is rubbish. Load shedding is 2 hours at least. Nobody specs a battery in a solar system for 1C.
Edit: Where 1C comes into the debate is when you are comparing batteries. You cannot directly compare two batteries if one is tested at 1C and the other is tested at C/10 (which at least one manufacturer actually does!). And you cannot directly compare the expected cycle life if one tests to 100% DoD at 1C and the other tests to 80% DoD at C/2. That is true. But once you KNOW the parameters… you can usually make a pretty good estimation as to where they will land. A battery that does 2000 cycles at 100% DoD and 1C discharge rates… will usually do over 7000 if you treat it properly, which is where EVERYONE else specs theirs too…