Cammer

iTrader: (3)

With higher and higer C rating we will start to see last years batteries be uncompetitive again.

http://www.redrc.net/2008/09/reedy-3...battery-packs/

Soon we will be seeing 40 then 50 C packs and the packs we all buy today will no longer wanted.
Is it time to have ROAR at least limit the marking or advertising of C ratings so we don't get into what we just got out of.

iceman76

iTrader: (1)

For now i think we need to see how high they can get them.Then ROAR step in and limit it. For now in the 10.5 class i do not see a plus in higher C rating.
20c 25c 28c now 30c and we all are still close in lap times just up to the driver and setup not the power of the battery..

rocketron

iTrader: (16)

ROAR has only two approval dates - September and April to have batteries approved for racing.

Now should ROAR turn into consumers digest ? that is another discussion

JamesArluck

iTrader: (52)

The C rating on Lipo packs is about as believeable as HP numbers on nitro engines...

sosidge

History has proven time and again that we always get into what we have just got out of!

Limits don't work. There will always be someone prepared to push beyond them.

LiPo will end up just the same as NiMH did. That's competition. People want to think that they have "the best" stuff, and will buy the latest and greatest regardless of whether there is any real-world improvement in performance. I have been saying this since day one. Anyone who thought otherwise was being incredibly naive.

ottoman

iTrader: (13)

Just how are you going to enforce a "C rating" limit?
Are you going to have a portable lab to test C ratings along with a qualified technician at every race?
Are we going to have all batterys tested at the race?
As far as I know there isnt even a official standardized C rating procedure.
You cant stop progress... just look at the past

skypilot

iTrader: (14)

+1

I think its up to us as racers to keep the hype and BS in check. when a "standard" is used for "all" C rating, then they might mean something.

John Tag

iTrader: (42)

+1 more..I keep saying most need to work on set up and driving than worry about C ratings. Even if these mystry C ratings were slightly faster,1 shot in the boards and your extra power just did ya no good.

Adam?

zZzZzz

It's a war of marketing in this case, not performance. "C" rating is a mythical way to judge batteries. You can race stickers. I race cars.

SWTour

iTrader: (9)

There is only ONE WAY I know of to FIX this situation..and it's the only way I know of that is FAIR to the people who should count - THE RACERS.

However, it is NOT fair to the MFGs or the COMPANIES...

LIMITING the RULES where YOU Race to just ONE BRAND and SIZE of Battery

This removes the BATTERY WAR.

Just like a socalled 'SPEC' class, by limiting a rule to ONE product it then becomes about the RACING, not the MFG or the PRODUCT.

R.O.A.R. has an issue where in effort to be 'FAIR' to MFGs they allow things that probably should never be allowed or approved. Good for the MFG's, BAD for the racers in many cases...

On the FLIP SIDE, if a "Pro/Expert" level class is offered, leave it WIDE OPENED so they can showcase ALL the different products. LET THEM WAR all they want.

RCHR

Racers love technology being improved, and the perception that the lastest technology will give them an advantage. So why take away what racers want?

As much as people say they want affordable racing, the lack of any long-standing spec class racing proves them worng.

I've seen one company offering lipo cells that are matched and labeled with the discharge runtime and average voltage, etc, just like the Nimh cells were, so no suprise there. Lets just hope the lipo stay reliable and safe as technology moves on - unlike what happened with Nimh.

The majority of racers knew the new battery technology would get the same treatment. Just the early lipo advocates were touting that lipo would be the "end of the battery wars", obviously they were wrong or lying.

CypressMidWest

iTrader: (1)

Exactly!

The Rev

iTrader: (3)

i agree with everything that is said so far. but lets not forget that we are still far and away better off with lipos then nimh. the difference between "c" ratings/cells, etc is so minimal compared to nimh it's not funny. yes, there may be very slight differences in performance with lipos, but not like NIMH. in the past, you spent $100 to get a decent (that is to say far inferior to what pros get) that would last 10 races. Now you can compete on a similar level for much cheaper and get 100 races per pack. Yes, that is major progress. I'ts not a perfect solution, but it has narrowed the gap to an almost minimal issue.

out.

Darkseid

iTrader: (9)

Exactly!

Thats why the answer to every thread asking ''What's wrong with R/C" will always be...everything.

I said it in another thread. We were given the holy grail of hobby racing. Equal motors, equal batteries, long life motors, long life batteries...and we're still managing to screw it up with an over competitive nature. Pathetic.

Jack Rimer

Look up the original SMC lipo thread where Danny and I took a beating for weeks on end for telling the lipo police what they didn't want to hear. IT IS RACING PEOPLE. Manufacturers will continue to push the envelope to gain an advantage. It's what we do. It is how we distinguish our products from the 100 online stores that sell Yeah racing packs for $35. For our company to survive and thrive, we have to try to build a better mousetrap. Any company that claims to be involved in racing to better their products and win races, owes it to the consumers who support their products to forge ahead with the latest technology.