My test results: Intellect IB 3600 versus GP 3300 Cells
#16
Well done Bob - great to share this kind of info around. I found a small error though - the runtime and voltage numbers were the wrong way around (probably a typo more than anything). The IBs are the 374s at 35amps and GPs are 416s at 30amps.
#17
We need more of this
We need more of this kind of objective scientific testing of RC products is what .
The only thing which would help this kind of battery testing is if we could do a better simulation of actual amp draw than just a constant 30 amp drain.
I see no obvious reason that this would change which battery tested better, but it could minimize or eliminate the gap.
You could possibly add this step.
Discharge for 1 minute. Put the battery in a car. Measure the time it takes the car to go 100 feet from a standing start with a stop watch.
Repeat the test at the 2,3,4,5 minute points.
Without this additional protocol aren't you assuming "punch" is
identical with measured voltage at a given time in the discharge cycle.
I could imagine a battery or battery technology which maintained a good averge voltage but when called on for maximum amperage was either slow to deliver or delvered less.
Not to overcomplicate things but if you wanted a more definative answer you could repeat the above tests switching out a stock motor for a mod motor.
and using a 30 amp drain is arbitrary. I would think you could do several 5 minute race simulations and then measure the actual voltage at the end of the race, if you were to compare this number to discharge curves for 20,25,30,35,40 amps you could determine which discharge rate most closely emulates real life conditions(again you would need to do this with bot hstock and Mod motors)
Th only reason I suggest thes extra steps is that when you choose to test something artifically(indirectly) and you get very close results you can not always draw statistically meaningful conclusions from the data.
The only thing which would help this kind of battery testing is if we could do a better simulation of actual amp draw than just a constant 30 amp drain.
I see no obvious reason that this would change which battery tested better, but it could minimize or eliminate the gap.
You could possibly add this step.
Discharge for 1 minute. Put the battery in a car. Measure the time it takes the car to go 100 feet from a standing start with a stop watch.
Repeat the test at the 2,3,4,5 minute points.
Without this additional protocol aren't you assuming "punch" is
identical with measured voltage at a given time in the discharge cycle.
I could imagine a battery or battery technology which maintained a good averge voltage but when called on for maximum amperage was either slow to deliver or delvered less.
Not to overcomplicate things but if you wanted a more definative answer you could repeat the above tests switching out a stock motor for a mod motor.
and using a 30 amp drain is arbitrary. I would think you could do several 5 minute race simulations and then measure the actual voltage at the end of the race, if you were to compare this number to discharge curves for 20,25,30,35,40 amps you could determine which discharge rate most closely emulates real life conditions(again you would need to do this with bot hstock and Mod motors)
Th only reason I suggest thes extra steps is that when you choose to test something artifically(indirectly) and you get very close results you can not always draw statistically meaningful conclusions from the data.
Last edited by imjonah; 03-30-2005 at 05:52 AM.
#18
Tech Master
That is an awesome job you did on your analysis. I have the same charger too. It will be great for us average racers to get some data that we can actually use. Most other comparisons i have seen are on some crazy $90 per pack that the average joe racer would not be able to afford.
#19
Originally posted by veecee
I found a small error though - the runtime and voltage numbers were the wrong way around (probably a typo more than anything). The IBs are the 374s at 35amps and GPs are 416s at 30amps.
I found a small error though - the runtime and voltage numbers were the wrong way around (probably a typo more than anything). The IBs are the 374s at 35amps and GPs are 416s at 30amps.
#20
Re: We need more of this
Originally posted by imjonah
We need more of this kind of objective scientific testing of RC products is what .
The only thing which would help this kind of battery testing...
We need more of this kind of objective scientific testing of RC products is what .
The only thing which would help this kind of battery testing...
#21
I have noticed when someone makes a decsent comparison with some merrit there is always someone bitchin about the way the test was done. Jeeze guys take it as informative. the guy spent his money and did this on his own stop looking for the negative shit in someones effort to offer some insight on the equipment we use without spending money off our own.
Bob your test was very useful and the fact that its unbiased because your not selling or making money off of us is appreciated and will help us decide which type of battery some of us will want to buy.
Bob your test was very useful and the fact that its unbiased because your not selling or making money off of us is appreciated and will help us decide which type of battery some of us will want to buy.
#23
I would like to see more unbiased testing like this...similar to what Tomshardware.com does for computer hardware. Real, proven testing methodology, conclusions based on test results, not echoes of manufacturer propaganda.
You go, Bob!
You go, Bob!
#24
Attempting to perform an actual scientific test for PUNCH won't even work correctly to provide the user with any type of data that would be rellevant to his/her application...
The issue is there are WAY too many variables you are attempting to control....car, driver, temp, tires, gearing, etc....so what makes the battery punchy in my test car, may make it a slug in yours....
The test done here, was excellant...limited variables with straight test numbers.....and then an opinionated run of the car on the track.
Good job...
And I can tell you why the price went down to $45...cause the Ib3600 is already being replaced by the new IB3800...
Later EddieO
The issue is there are WAY too many variables you are attempting to control....car, driver, temp, tires, gearing, etc....so what makes the battery punchy in my test car, may make it a slug in yours....
The test done here, was excellant...limited variables with straight test numbers.....and then an opinionated run of the car on the track.
Good job...
And I can tell you why the price went down to $45...cause the Ib3600 is already being replaced by the new IB3800...
Later EddieO
#26
nice work bob!
#28
nice work bob!
#29
Tech Initiate
Useful info - thanks.
Found this on a Swiss website - another test:
http://www.rcworld.ch/neueprojekte.asp?id=1697#eng
Found this on a Swiss website - another test:
http://www.rcworld.ch/neueprojekte.asp?id=1697#eng
#30
We have had track time with the IB3800 , these are wicked awesome.
Charges over 4200mah on our GFX!!
Charges over 4200mah on our GFX!!