Feature Request: VE.Smart Networking for IP65 & Missing M10 Connectors

Been thinking about this a lot lately after expanding my static caravan setup.

Running a couple of Victron IP65 chargers and honestly the lack of VE.Smart Networking support is a proper frustration. My MPPT and BMV-712 talk to each other no bother via Bluetooth mesh, but the IP65s are just sitting there doing their own thing — no temperature compensation sharing, no coordinated charge algorithms. Feels like a gap Victron really should've closed by now.

Also noticed the missing M10 battery connector situation. Had to source adaptors separately which isn't the end of the world but feels like a fiddly omission for what's supposed to be a plug-and-play unit.

My use case is fairly modest — 200Ah of Fogstar Drift LiFePO4 in a small off-grid setup — but even at this scale the lack of networked sensing means I'm not getting the most from the kit. Bit annoying when you've specifically chosen the Victron ecosystem because of how well everything integrates.

Would love to know:

• Has anyone found a workaround for temperature sharing on IP65 units?
• Any word from Victron on a firmware update addressing VE.Smart for this range?
• Is the M10 adaptor situation consistent across batches or did some people get them included?

Feels like both issues are fixable — one via firmware, one via box contents — so hopefully Victron are listening. The community here tends to have good intel before official announcements anyway.

Anyone else running IP65s in their setup noticed the same?

@OffGridDawn - hit this exact wall last year setting up my garden office system. Had two IP65s running completely blind to each other, temperature compensation just guessing independently on both units.

What I ended up doing was bridging them through a Victron SmartShunt acting as the network hub — not a perfect solution but at least the battery temperature data propagated across. Still no coordinated absorption timing though, which on a marginal winter day genuinely costs you.

The M10 connector absence is the stranger omission to me. It feels like Victron deliberately positioned the IP65 range just below the threshold where serious users want to take it. Classic upsell architecture.

Anyone tried running a BMV-712 as the network anchor instead? Curious whether that behaves differently to the SmartShunt in terms of what data actually broadcasts to connected chargers.

@OffGridDawn the M10 connectors are the real killer for me. Running a static caravan setup and had to bodge Anderson connectors onto the output terminals because the IP65 range just doesn't play nicely with standard cabling configurations without proper lugs.

On the VE.Smart point — Victron's segmentation here is deliberate. They want you spending up on the SmartSolar or Blue Smart ranges if you want networking. Classic upsell territory.

Workaround I've used: a BMV-712 handles the temperature and voltage compensation centrally, and I've just accepted the IP65 units operate on fixed charge curves. Not elegant, but functional.

Realistically, Victron aren't going to retrofit VE.Smart into the IP65 line. If networked charging is non-negotiable for your setup, you're better off just migrating to compatible units rather than waiting on a firmware miracle.

EllaPalmer | 47 posts | ⚡ Member

@OffGridDawn completely feel this one - the IP65 range sits in such an awkward spot in the Victron lineup, doesn't it? Brilliant build quality and that weather resistance is genuinely useful for outdoor installs, but then you hit these limitations and wonder who the target market actually is.

On the M10 front, worth knowing that Victron's own M8 to Anderson adapters are reasonably priced if you need a cleaner solution than @WhatsAFuse65's bodge (no offence meant, we've all been there!). Not ideal but tidier for a permanent static caravan install.

For the VE.Smart gap - have you looked at whether a dedicated BMV-712 could at least give you shared voltage/temperature sensing across the system? Not a fix obviously, but bridges some of the functionality while we wait for Victron to sort their priorities out.

@OffGridDawn the frustrating thing is Victron clearly know this gap exists — the Blue Smart IP65 sits right between consumer kit and proper off-grid gear, price-wise, but the feature set doesn't keep up.

What I ended up doing on my static setup was pairing the IP65s with a SmartShunt and letting the shunt handle the battery sensing across the network. Not perfect — the chargers still aren't truly coordinated — but it at least gives you accurate SOC data feeding into VictronConnect rather than each charger guessing independently.

On the M10 issue, worth checking Fogstar's cabling options if you're running lithium. Their premade battery leads saved me a proper headache.

Realistically though, this is a firmware limitation Victron need to address — the hardware could presumably handle it. Would be good to see it raised on their community forum directly.

Hamish1980 | 134 posts | ⚡ Member

@OffGridDawn totally with you on this. What frustrates me is the IP65's weather resistance actually makes it ideal for outdoor or semi-exposed installations — exactly the sort of scenarios where VE.Smart temperature compensation and battery voltage sharing would be most valuable. Instead you're stuck either running cable back to a SmartShunt for proper readings or just accepting the charger's best guess.

On the M10 front, @WhatsAFuse65, I ended up using proper M10 ring terminals crimped onto 16mm² cable rather than fighting with adaptors — far more reliable long-term.

Worth submitting directly through Victron's official feature request process if you haven't already, @OffGridDawn. They do genuinely monitor it. Enough voices asking for Bluetooth networking on the IP65 line might actually move the needle eventually.