LIPO rating system. Time for xtreme rc to do a lipo shoot out.
11-27-2008, 06:03 AM
#1
LIPO rating system. Time for xtreme rc to do a lipo shoot out.
I sent off an email to Derek at xtreme rc last week (aka www.rc411.com)
With Lipo now being ROAR legal and now everyone and there dog producing a hot new lipo. Isn't it about time we electric racers got a shoot out done by the best rc mag in the bizzz? They started dyno standards with the Xdyno for nitro engines. Do we electric racers/consumers not deserve the same kind of love?
It would seem that the stickers on many of these packs these days are simply that.. stickers. Some with actual facts and others with numbers higher then there competitors just to get our attention..
20C,30C and now 40C ratings. Just a few weeks ago it was pointed out that if you take a few brands and cycle them through a GFX that you will see that some packs with bloated decal numbers dont hold up against other packs with lower numbers.. Oh the poop hit the fan because it was one company against another. Well i propose an independent test done by XTREME RC.... These guys still write with out bias to some extent. So i would trust them to come up with some real world data that would compare lipo vs lipo.
For years we all shopped for our nihms and nicads based on the matchers decals. Why? Because the Turbo matcher became the trusted machine for producing accurate numbers. And if you owned a turbo charger you could all but duplicate the numbers on your new packs if you cycled them when new.
Now more then ever its hard to make smart purchases. We no longer actually know what cell we are buying, everything is relabeled. Where in the past you at least new what brand of cell the matchers where matching.
What i would like to see is a Annual or Bi-Annual Lipo shoot out. I would like the test to include the following:
-ROAR legal packs
-All dimensions
-Weight
-street price
-C rating using a STANDARD C rating methode
-mah rating
-average discharge voltage
-average discharge voltage accross a 5minute race or 6minute if ROAR goes that route
-IR
-charge and discharge time
-CASE drop test
-cost vs performance comparison.
For some this type of shootout or data maybe dry, but for electric racers its a great tool for shopping, it also puts the pressure on Lipo builders to produce accurate lables and keep up with performance.
We got dynos for nitro, dynos for brushed motors, dynos coming soon for BL, now we need a standard to compare lipos as do for nihm.
Lets get some feed back, ill be copying this thread to Derek, hopefully he will chime in on this. I realize that there are some issues with producing such data that he may be able to explain.
FYI: i do not care about soft packs or or anything over 2cell. This is for hard cased 2cell racing packs(ROAR)
With Lipo now being ROAR legal and now everyone and there dog producing a hot new lipo. Isn't it about time we electric racers got a shoot out done by the best rc mag in the bizzz? They started dyno standards with the Xdyno for nitro engines. Do we electric racers/consumers not deserve the same kind of love?
It would seem that the stickers on many of these packs these days are simply that.. stickers. Some with actual facts and others with numbers higher then there competitors just to get our attention..
20C,30C and now 40C ratings. Just a few weeks ago it was pointed out that if you take a few brands and cycle them through a GFX that you will see that some packs with bloated decal numbers dont hold up against other packs with lower numbers.. Oh the poop hit the fan because it was one company against another. Well i propose an independent test done by XTREME RC.... These guys still write with out bias to some extent. So i would trust them to come up with some real world data that would compare lipo vs lipo.
For years we all shopped for our nihms and nicads based on the matchers decals. Why? Because the Turbo matcher became the trusted machine for producing accurate numbers. And if you owned a turbo charger you could all but duplicate the numbers on your new packs if you cycled them when new.
Now more then ever its hard to make smart purchases. We no longer actually know what cell we are buying, everything is relabeled. Where in the past you at least new what brand of cell the matchers where matching.
What i would like to see is a Annual or Bi-Annual Lipo shoot out. I would like the test to include the following:
-ROAR legal packs
-All dimensions
-Weight
-street price
-C rating using a STANDARD C rating methode
-mah rating
-average discharge voltage
-average discharge voltage accross a 5minute race or 6minute if ROAR goes that route
-IR
-charge and discharge time
-CASE drop test
-cost vs performance comparison.
For some this type of shootout or data maybe dry, but for electric racers its a great tool for shopping, it also puts the pressure on Lipo builders to produce accurate lables and keep up with performance.
We got dynos for nitro, dynos for brushed motors, dynos coming soon for BL, now we need a standard to compare lipos as do for nihm.
Lets get some feed back, ill be copying this thread to Derek, hopefully he will chime in on this. I realize that there are some issues with producing such data that he may be able to explain.
FYI: i do not care about soft packs or or anything over 2cell. This is for hard cased 2cell racing packs(ROAR)
Last edited by Joel Lagace; 08-03-2010 at 10:49 AM.
11-27-2008, 06:36 AM
#3
Tech Adept
iTrader: (4)
Bang on Joel!
My issue has always been that with NiHM - I'm buying a GP cell, or a IP cell, or a EnerG cell, or a IB cell. I know what I'm getting (pros and cons) before my matcher put his hands on the cells. I rely on the matcher to pick the best ones.
With Lipo - we don't know what we are buying. Why this is so is irrelevant to the discussion. The proposal to have Xtreme to a independant a la X-dyno would have the same effect in my opinion - have the manufacturers think twice about putting inflated numbers just like the nitro manufacturers claiming 3hp when its closer to 1.9-2.1
My issue has always been that with NiHM - I'm buying a GP cell, or a IP cell, or a EnerG cell, or a IB cell. I know what I'm getting (pros and cons) before my matcher put his hands on the cells. I rely on the matcher to pick the best ones.
With Lipo - we don't know what we are buying. Why this is so is irrelevant to the discussion. The proposal to have Xtreme to a independant a la X-dyno would have the same effect in my opinion - have the manufacturers think twice about putting inflated numbers just like the nitro manufacturers claiming 3hp when its closer to 1.9-2.1
11-27-2008, 06:54 AM
#4
Tech Initiate
i love this idea. Xtreme please agree to do this asap
11-27-2008, 07:16 AM
#5
I wonder if a magazine actually would do it. They have dozens of pages of advertisers which sell batteries and chargers. Imagine if 1/2 of them end up with horrible numbers in the test? Then, they start to sell fewer items and drop advertising with the magazine who "did them in". But they do test cars and for the most part give them neutral to good ratings. Could it be done better by a trusted independent web-guy who has the proper equipment? they'd need volunteers to send in a battery pack for a week or so and they could report in some form of online table to review.
11-27-2008, 07:27 AM
#6
test packs should be bought at a hobby shop. Not one that the company "massages" for a test article.
11-27-2008, 07:46 AM
#7
Sounds like a good idea but it will not work. RC magazines make money on advertising so they will not say that one of there advertisers packs is not what it's suppose to be.
What you guys should do before purchasing a pack is to email/contact the company importing/selling the pack that your interested in purchasing and ask them how they test for C rate and capacity. If they can't tell you that then I would be careful.
What you guys should do before purchasing a pack is to email/contact the company importing/selling the pack that your interested in purchasing and ask them how they test for C rate and capacity. If they can't tell you that then I would be careful.
11-27-2008, 07:59 AM
#8
But they have done a 2 part touring car shoot out. That stated wich was fastest and wich on average pulled fast laps...
I see the conflict, but as a reader/consumer i dont care.
LOL
And if the test is done under a voluntary submission, as in each company sends in a pack(ya i know they could massage them, but no where near the cherry picking that can be done with nihm cells.) That way if people got something to hide they wont submit and wont get tested.
I really hope this goes somewhere.
I see the conflict, but as a reader/consumer i dont care.
LOL And if the test is done under a voluntary submission, as in each company sends in a pack(ya i know they could massage them, but no where near the cherry picking that can be done with nihm cells.) That way if people got something to hide they wont submit and wont get tested.
I really hope this goes somewhere.
11-27-2008, 08:08 AM
#9
I understand what your saying but I really don't see how a magazin can say that a 35C/5200 from one of there advertisers is 20C/5000 that would upset the advertiser and they would pull there adds.
Allowing companies to submit packs would be bad as they could use any other cells in the case.
Allowing companies to submit packs would be bad as they could use any other cells in the case.
11-27-2008, 08:15 AM
#10
Sounds like a good idea but it will not work. RC magazines make money on advertising so they will not say that one of there advertisers packs is not what it's suppose to be.
What you guys should do before purchasing a pack is to email/contact the company importing/selling the pack that your interested in purchasing and ask them how they test for C rate and capacity. If they can't tell you that then I would be careful.
What you guys should do before purchasing a pack is to email/contact the company importing/selling the pack that your interested in purchasing and ask them how they test for C rate and capacity. If they can't tell you that then I would be careful.
11-27-2008, 08:22 AM
#11
I would rather go out of business than to have to lie about our products. This is why I will dish out the 1600.00 to purchase equipment than can test all these new packs that keep popping up. I'm thinking of letting someone else do the tests as if I do them there will always be some who will doubt what I'm saying as I'm actually selling packs.
11-27-2008, 08:25 AM
#12
Ya i know there is issues... Maybe we need a consumers reports of RC to do these tests.
I just find it odd that the XDYNO used on all engines that they test has not raised any eyebrows? I mean the the same issue should or could have arrised from them using that. Of course they have not done any large scale shootouts with it but still the potential is there to "OUT" the liars.
I just find it odd that the XDYNO used on all engines that they test has not raised any eyebrows? I mean the the same issue should or could have arrised from them using that. Of course they have not done any large scale shootouts with it but still the potential is there to "OUT" the liars.
11-27-2008, 08:34 AM
#13
i think the mags do provide good content, though i totally agree with danny about how far they will go on the product reviews. some of the "lighter" reviews, or previews border on being authored advertising! lol
back in the late 80's, rcca had a column called "scoping out" authored by john rist i believe. he would take speed controls apart and hook them up to oscilloscope to read what it was actually doing and comparing it to the posted specs. nowadays, none dare go anywhere near that level of objectivity... and how can you blame them.
as a consumer and racer, i totally WANT to make informed decisions and want the very battery review suggested here...but the only way its going to happen is by an independent entity not supported by ads.
curious... what would you as a racer be willing to pay to get that kind of uninhibited review....
back in the late 80's, rcca had a column called "scoping out" authored by john rist i believe. he would take speed controls apart and hook them up to oscilloscope to read what it was actually doing and comparing it to the posted specs. nowadays, none dare go anywhere near that level of objectivity... and how can you blame them.
as a consumer and racer, i totally WANT to make informed decisions and want the very battery review suggested here...but the only way its going to happen is by an independent entity not supported by ads.
curious... what would you as a racer be willing to pay to get that kind of uninhibited review....
11-27-2008, 08:52 AM
#14
damn i'm printing 50 c stickers..now i gotta wait
i would buy that issue in a heartbeat!
c'mon extreme break out the gfx and wallet!
i would buy that issue in a heartbeat!
c'mon extreme break out the gfx and wallet!
11-27-2008, 08:57 AM
#15
Well no more then a monthly subscription price.
I really missed those scoping out reviews. Actually testing equipment and even attempting to make it fail would be nice....
Anyway im not looking for reasons why magazines should not do it, im looking for reasons why they should....
CAR and DRIVER post a load of data on all the cars they drive, yet year after year car makes want there cars in that magazine... Maybe its time we stop worrying about manufactures feelings, and tell the truth?
I really missed those scoping out reviews. Actually testing equipment and even attempting to make it fail would be nice....
Anyway im not looking for reasons why magazines should not do it, im looking for reasons why they should....
CAR and DRIVER post a load of data on all the cars they drive, yet year after year car makes want there cars in that magazine... Maybe its time we stop worrying about manufactures feelings, and tell the truth?