burby are you telling me that an IB cell at 1.207 @ 35 amps is not a better cell than a 1.20 IP @ 30 amps? if this is the case i think mathcers need not put labels on cells? were talking 1.22 at 30 amps for IB and 1.20 at 30 amps for a IP ..did you buy up all the paragon and start huffing it? now i am a sponsor whore no doubt but man o man even i would have a hard time telling racers that the labels don't mean sheot! i have had my ib packs for 3 months now and i'm still very pleased with on track performance. do they have color tv and indoor plumbing where you race? i respect your oppinions but dude...ip is still playing catch up as is gp .... this is going to be a long expensive year of oval racing if gp ib and ip play games all year long. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
funny stuff Katman
HERE IS MY TRADER FEEDBACK ON HOBBYTALK. http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/itrader.php?u=8257
Dawn - You are correct, this is a sport/hobby and let us leave the attorneys out.
I made the statement as a general observation without knowing ALL THE FACTS, and I stated that in my post.
However, when a sanctioning body makes decisions of this kind, they need to look at the big picture and the possible implications that can arise in the future. That is my main concern.
All the batteries that have been approved are very close to each other in performance and quality. It is now up to the three main players (manufacturers) to continue their R&D and provide us with better products as they have been doing.
I do not care about measurements or weights to be honest; I look at the overall performance of a cell and what I can do as an engineer to exploit the power of that cell.
Politics set aside, let all the approved manufacturers/distributors continue with their ongoing goals of providing a better product to the racer.
In no way did I imply that it is up to the attorneys to get the products approved. I just want to clear that up.