C Rating battery craze! True or untrue!!
02-12-2009, 01:12 PM
#151
UN T1-T8 testing will be mandatory as of October 1st 2009 and it will not be self certification it will have to be from an official UN recognised lab. Up until that date I guess there is really no way to enforce it.
The ROAR saftey tests are good and this is why tracks should enforce ROAR Lipo rules.
The ROAR saftey tests are good and this is why tracks should enforce ROAR Lipo rules.
When this certification becomes official, how will we know who/what was tested, and who/what wasn't, and are all the batteries tested, or a "sample" tested. I can't believe it will be cheap to do the testing either way, which I am sure will be passed on to us, the consumer. Any specific requirements you can tell us about?
Being in automotive engineering for some time, I know production runs will vary, how does the spec address that or doesn't it, any insite will help?
02-12-2009, 01:16 PM
#152
Thanks for the info. Some have reported more power/punch in 13.5 but I know in 10.5 it should be even better. Guess it all depends on tracks and particular applications. You may want to try and gear up with our pack a little to see if this can help some as our packs have lower IR so they should be able to handle higher loads with less voltage drop.
02-12-2009, 01:20 PM
#153
Please elaborate on T1-T8 testing. I would like to know more. An educated consumer is ussually the best kind...Usually.
When this certification becomes official, how will we know who/what was tested, and who/what wasn't, and are all the batteries tested, or a "sample" tested. I can't believe it will be cheap to do the testing either way, which I am sure will be passed on to us, the consumer. Any specific requirements you can tell us about?
Being in automotive engineering for some time, I know production runs will vary, how does the spec address that or doesn't it, any insite will help?
When this certification becomes official, how will we know who/what was tested, and who/what wasn't, and are all the batteries tested, or a "sample" tested. I can't believe it will be cheap to do the testing either way, which I am sure will be passed on to us, the consumer. Any specific requirements you can tell us about?
Being in automotive engineering for some time, I know production runs will vary, how does the spec address that or doesn't it, any insite will help?
Packs will not be able to ship if UN certification isn't done as of October 1st 2009. This is for air and ground shipments.
SMC will be able to provide these documents as our packs meet these test requirements. It will just cost us some money to get packs tested by a certified lab.
02-12-2009, 01:36 PM
#154
The cost is significant if actually performed on each cell and battery configuration. However I do not believe a UL certified lab is required and it is still a rubber stamp. Should be easy to tell since the cost for a large product line is easily a couple hundred thousand dollars and should be reflected in the price. The down side of thin margins is you have little room to work in for testing, improvements, promotions or support.
Last edited by Tekin Prez; 02-13-2009 at 08:01 AM.
02-12-2009, 10:36 PM
#157
Danny, good stuff. Sorry if I missed it, but will you be measuring voltage in your test? How about a standard 35a or whatever (non destructive) cycle first?
02-13-2009, 07:51 AM
#158
Tekin 3400mah Lipo has had full UN testing since it was released. We invested heavily to bring that product to the market. We under rated the numbers rather than make false claims. Since it is not the most impressive numbers or the cheapest price it is lost a sea of guesses and confusing choices.
Tracks not enforcing some kind of rule is a bad idea if you want Lipo to remain a part of RC. Batteries with false discharge numbers trick people into using them in applications they cannot handle. That is not just asking for trouble, it is performing destructive testing and at some point the results are gaurenteed to be exciting failures and funnny smells.
Tracks not enforcing some kind of rule is a bad idea if you want Lipo to remain a part of RC. Batteries with false discharge numbers trick people into using them in applications they cannot handle. That is not just asking for trouble, it is performing destructive testing and at some point the results are gaurenteed to be exciting failures and funnny smells.
02-13-2009, 11:17 AM
#161
It will be cool to see a graph of the zippy packs. I have run some of their stuff in my e-revo and for the price I dont think they can be beat. will be nice to see how they really stack up though. Would also really be interested in their newer flightmax series (30C) 5000mah cells.
02-13-2009, 11:55 AM
#164
Danny,
When you do your test, can you video tape the test from start to finish and post the resultant video as well as your summary on the resultant data? This will take care of any naysayers on either end of the discussion.
Also, do you know if ROAR is thinking of testing cells for C Rating or come up with a standard testing method for C Rating? It seems that if ROAR wants lipo safety, part of there reasoning for a hardcased shell on a car lipo, seems misleading C ratings generated by tests that are not standardized could be a safety issue as well.
If ROAR would direct that lipos must be tested on X style of equipment for C Rating or follow a certain testing procedure that they confirm on the packs sent to them that they do there other tests on anyway, then it seems racers could put faith in the C Ratings that are stated on the packs?
One thing I would love to see in the mags is a "battery" shootout for sport style packs and there top racing packs.
When you do your test, can you video tape the test from start to finish and post the resultant video as well as your summary on the resultant data? This will take care of any naysayers on either end of the discussion.
Also, do you know if ROAR is thinking of testing cells for C Rating or come up with a standard testing method for C Rating? It seems that if ROAR wants lipo safety, part of there reasoning for a hardcased shell on a car lipo, seems misleading C ratings generated by tests that are not standardized could be a safety issue as well.
If ROAR would direct that lipos must be tested on X style of equipment for C Rating or follow a certain testing procedure that they confirm on the packs sent to them that they do there other tests on anyway, then it seems racers could put faith in the C Ratings that are stated on the packs?
One thing I would love to see in the mags is a "battery" shootout for sport style packs and there top racing packs.
02-13-2009, 12:03 PM
#165
There is nothing illegal about lawfully purchasing a consumer product, testing it, and publishing the results, even if they're unfavorable to the manufacturer. Look at Consumer Reports -- that's exactly what they do. It's only libel if the disparaging statements are demonstrably false. It's clear that Danny plans on describing his entire apparatus and method, and as long as he does this as well as publishing the entire, unaltered, repeatable test results he's totally clear.
