Still on the fence about the B300K?
Got questions or concerns? Drop them in the comments below! We’re here to provide the answers you need and help you make an informed decision.
2 Likes
Most of the desicions made for the B300K make sense. Im kinda was worried about the missing power bank mode. But it abolute make sense, that this unit not support it. Recharge is not possible by itself, like B300 or B230 and its connected to a unit anyway.
But there is one thing, im really curios to know why it was made. The 12W USB-A.
USB-C would be the most common interface these days. The 100W USB-C is amazing. But maybe there is a technical restriction to choose USB-A. Fine. But why choose 12W instead of 18W like on every other extension battery?
greetings
Erik
Very useful precision on the powerbank mode in the comparison table !
A suggestion:
-replace “DC input” with “Solar Input” to avoid perharps some misunderstandings ;
-for the B230, in line with what is indicated for the B300 and B300S, delete perhaps the 500W indicated for DC Input/Solar Input of the B230
2 Likes
Is there an error in the Canada post below the comparison chart above? The B300K supplies 2764.8Wh, but the words talk about “an extra 3,072Wh capacity.” Doesn’t the 3072Wh only apply to the B300 and B300S?
Something else worth mentioning in the comparison table is that, at least in the US, only the B300 and B300S qualify for a 30% tax rebate since they both exceed the required 3000Wh level needed to claim it.
The product definition of B300K is designed purely as a battery pack, so only the USB port with a lower power consumption of 12W is included for emergency power. The need for a USB-C port will be considered in future product development. :)
2 Likes
@TMan Thank you for your reminder!
Currently, the B300K CA purchase page shows no issues and is displaying 2764.8Wh.
I have notified the CA sales team to correct the display error on the link preview page ASAP.