BougeRV Yuma 200: CIGS vs rigid shade test

These figures summarize readings reported in the source video and apply to the tested setup and conditions.

Does CIGS handle shade better? In this TATFT comparison, the BougeRV Yuma 200 did better under several partial shadows, but both panels struggled in deep shade. Full-sun readings were almost the same. Shadow direction mattered, so this is evidence about these two panels in these conditions.

Disclosure: BougeRV sent this panel free for testing and review. The presenter states that BougeRV did not compensate or direct the review.

What was tested

The flexible panel was the BougeRV Yuma 200, 200W drilled-hole version. The comparison panel was a BougeRV 200W rigid monocrystalline panel; its exact model revision is not identified in the available transcript. Input readings came from an Anker Solix C1000. Panels were swapped sequentially, rather than measured simultaneously.

Measured power, not rated output

Both panels are rated at 200W. The figures below are instantaneous power-station input readings from the video, not laboratory module-efficiency measurements or daily energy yields.

Limits that change the decision

The video describes a relatively cool day near noon for the full-sun comparison. Tree shadows moved, and matching the shaded area precisely was difficult. In another orientation, readings were only about 9W for CIGS and 11W for rigid. The roof-overhang comparison also involved a repositioning as the shadow moved.

These tests do not establish performance for every CIGS or rigid design, a calibrated efficiency percentage, long-term durability, or annual savings. A flexible panel may suit a curved surface, but check the mounting requirements for the exact revision. Choose based on the shadows at your site, available mounting area and current price.

Sources and related gear

The source is the TATFT comparison video; the links above follow its cached public transcript. Browse solar panels in the Gear Store and more solar-panel videos.