IB4600
11-20-2007, 11:48 PM
#31
As some of you may know SMC decided to stop matching IB4200s until they were able to make the proper changes to the cell to make it more reliable. This has been real tough on our business but we felt it was the right thing to do for our customers and business. We have always tried to offer the best matched packs with the best performance but with these new generation cells performance has been achieved at the expense of reliability. IB has been working real hard and they have come up with improvements that makes there 4200 and 4600 more reliable while keeping the performance level of the cells that we have come to expect from IB.
We got a small shipment of improved 4200s last week and these will be the cells SMC drivers will be using in Cleveland. After cycling and matching the cells we did see a big improvement as far as cells selfshorting/dying. Early reports from our drivers in Cleveland is that the cells are running real well with no issues so far. This improvement is what we were expecting so we decided to place a large order so we can now start matching cells again for our customers. Expect IB4200s to be back in stock in a few weeks.
IB4600s should be available a few weeks after the 4200s.
We got a small shipment of improved 4200s last week and these will be the cells SMC drivers will be using in Cleveland. After cycling and matching the cells we did see a big improvement as far as cells selfshorting/dying. Early reports from our drivers in Cleveland is that the cells are running real well with no issues so far. This improvement is what we were expecting so we decided to place a large order so we can now start matching cells again for our customers. Expect IB4200s to be back in stock in a few weeks.
IB4600s should be available a few weeks after the 4200s.
That is one way to get a big share of the market
11-21-2007, 12:58 AM
#33
Interesting how easy people make comments when they don't know all the facts!!
Size limit is there for 1 year!!! IB, GP never complied (they only said we can't do that!) and EFRA overlooked for some reason this issue based on a small window on the rules. Now this window is closed
Orion managed to find a factory after searching for 1 year, that can build cells per their specifications BASED on EFRA rules and they released it.
Size limit is there for 1 year!!! IB, GP never complied (they only said we can't do that!) and EFRA overlooked for some reason this issue based on a small window on the rules. Now this window is closed
Orion managed to find a factory after searching for 1 year, that can build cells per their specifications BASED on EFRA rules and they released it.
11-21-2007, 07:09 AM
#34
The timing seems shady. But likely pure coincidence.
Last edited by Rick Hohwart; 11-21-2007 at 07:31 AM.
11-21-2007, 08:01 AM
#35
Interesting how easy people make comments when they don't know all the facts!!
Size limit is there for 1 year!!! IB, GP never complied (they only said we can't do that!) and EFRA overlooked for some reason this issue based on a small window on the rules. Now this window is closed
Orion managed to find a factory after searching for 1 year, that can build cells per their specifications BASED on EFRA rules and they released it.
Size limit is there for 1 year!!! IB, GP never complied (they only said we can't do that!) and EFRA overlooked for some reason this issue based on a small window on the rules. Now this window is closed
Orion managed to find a factory after searching for 1 year, that can build cells per their specifications BASED on EFRA rules and they released it.
For stock racing and other types of racing where runtime isn't an issue a smaller cell will be o.k. but for classes where runtime is an issue expect to have less capacity out of a smaller cell.
As the current manufacturers have been trying to make the cells more reliable while keeping the performance as high as possible they will now be forced to go backwards. This will result in a dropoff in capacity and since some types of racing are dependant on capacity they will most likely try to cram in more capacity at the expense of reliability.
I'm not sure who came up with the idea of forcing the cells to be smaller but it simply makes no sense. You can't allow cells for 3 years or so and then simply change the rules and have to redesign new cells.
What about racers who buy cells up until April 1st 2008 will they be able to use there cells past April 1st ?
I strongly reccomend that EFRA and the BRCA people contact the cell manufacturers directly as they can the information on how this will not be good directly from the people who know about cell structure.
11-21-2007, 11:39 AM
#36
Tech Apprentice
I'm not sure who came up with the idea of forcing the cells to be smaller but it simply makes no sense. You can't allow cells for 3 years or so and then simply change the rules and have to redesign new cells.
What about racers who buy cells up until April 1st 2008 will they be able to use there cells past April 1st ?
I strongly reccomend that EFRA and the BRCA people contact the cell manufacturers directly as they can the information on how this will not be good directly from the people who know about cell structure.
What about racers who buy cells up until April 1st 2008 will they be able to use there cells past April 1st ?
I strongly reccomend that EFRA and the BRCA people contact the cell manufacturers directly as they can the information on how this will not be good directly from the people who know about cell structure.
As cells were send to EFRA for homologation the cells were "selected" to meet the required sizes. As the cells were homologated cells were made and sold at a different size.
As long as we have adopted the Industial std size for sub c cells, we shouldn't be using other size cells. The current cells are simply no sub C cells anymore and therefor forbidden !
11-21-2007, 11:44 AM
#37
The cells have been the same size for the past 3 years. Cells will expand as you cycle them under high currents which is what happens in RC applications.
This means cells will be submitted so they can meet the 43mm rule but if a racer overcharges his cells and they expand to much the cells will be illegal. It will make allot of sense for a racer to pay for new packs and travel to a race only to find out his pack expanded .1or .2 mm above the required spec.
The new rules will only make cell technology go backwards which will result in a less reliable cell with runtime being more important than ever.
Instead of controlling a cells length which is hard to control due to cell expansion due to charging and heat they should make a capacity rule which would keep manufaturers from increasing the capacity.
I seriously think EFRA needs to talk with cell manufaturers so they understand the negative effects of reducing the cells length.
This means cells will be submitted so they can meet the 43mm rule but if a racer overcharges his cells and they expand to much the cells will be illegal. It will make allot of sense for a racer to pay for new packs and travel to a race only to find out his pack expanded .1or .2 mm above the required spec.
The new rules will only make cell technology go backwards which will result in a less reliable cell with runtime being more important than ever.
Instead of controlling a cells length which is hard to control due to cell expansion due to charging and heat they should make a capacity rule which would keep manufaturers from increasing the capacity.
I seriously think EFRA needs to talk with cell manufaturers so they understand the negative effects of reducing the cells length.
11-22-2007, 10:46 AM
#38
Tech Master
I believe EFRA made a statement of intent 12 months ago - that they intended to revert to actually policing the rules (rather than letting anything in) from 2008 season. So, they are just doing now what they said 12 months ago.
I think it's fair to say that all the manufactures have known about this, and made their own decisions on what they wish to make.
I think it's fair to say that all the manufactures have known about this, and made their own decisions on what they wish to make.
11-22-2007, 12:04 PM
#40
The cells have been the same size for the past 3 years. Cells will expand as you cycle them under high currents which is what happens in RC applications.
This means cells will be submitted so they can meet the 43mm rule but if a racer overcharges his cells and they expand to much the cells will be illegal. It will make allot of sense for a racer to pay for new packs and travel to a race only to find out his pack expanded .1or .2 mm above the required spec.
The new rules will only make cell technology go backwards which will result in a less reliable cell with runtime being more important than ever.
Instead of controlling a cells length which is hard to control due to cell expansion due to charging and heat they should make a capacity rule which would keep manufaturers from increasing the capacity.
I seriously think EFRA needs to talk with cell manufaturers so they understand the negative effects of reducing the cells length.
This means cells will be submitted so they can meet the 43mm rule but if a racer overcharges his cells and they expand to much the cells will be illegal. It will make allot of sense for a racer to pay for new packs and travel to a race only to find out his pack expanded .1or .2 mm above the required spec.
The new rules will only make cell technology go backwards which will result in a less reliable cell with runtime being more important than ever.
Instead of controlling a cells length which is hard to control due to cell expansion due to charging and heat they should make a capacity rule which would keep manufaturers from increasing the capacity.
I seriously think EFRA needs to talk with cell manufaturers so they understand the negative effects of reducing the cells length.
Although it has to be said that the cell manufacturers should never have been allowed to get away with the "oversized" sub-C's in the first place.
However a capacity rule will also not work. The current 4200 cells are realistically 4500+ when brand new, what is to stop manufacturers putting a 5000mAh cell in a 3000 shrink? Impossible to scrutineer trackside.
Now what WOULD work in my opinion is a much lower maximum cell weight. Insist on cells being under something like 60gms (instead of current cells which are 70-ish) and you will have a much lower performance cell straight away because there just wouldn't be enough electrolyte in there!
11-22-2007, 12:30 PM
#41
From Sosidge
"Now what WOULD work in my opinion is a much lower maximum cell weight. Insist on cells being under something like 60gms (instead of current cells which are 70-ish) and you will have a much lower performance cell straight away because there just wouldn't be enough electrolyte in there!"
This is a bright idea covering a whole bunch of relationships including the Li po thing. Plenty of scope here.
"Now what WOULD work in my opinion is a much lower maximum cell weight. Insist on cells being under something like 60gms (instead of current cells which are 70-ish) and you will have a much lower performance cell straight away because there just wouldn't be enough electrolyte in there!"
This is a bright idea covering a whole bunch of relationships including the Li po thing. Plenty of scope here.
11-22-2007, 12:49 PM
#42
how big are these new ib4600 cells?
11-22-2007, 06:12 PM
#44
When do these new IB4600 cells will be available in the market?
And for Danny, SMC IB4600 matched packs ???
And for Danny, SMC IB4600 matched packs ???
11-23-2007, 01:45 PM
#45
We should have matched IB4600s available by the 3rd week of December.
For the last 2 years or so cell manufacturers have kept the cell size the same. It makes no sense to get them to go backwards as this will result in a drop in capacity and the current manufacturers will try to put as much material in the size allowed to try and get an edge. The result maybe a less reliable cell that will not hold up well over time.
I think the rule should be to keep the cells the same size and not let manufacturers increase the weight. This would allow manufacturers to focus on reliability instead of trying to our capcity each other.
For the last 2 years or so cell manufacturers have kept the cell size the same. It makes no sense to get them to go backwards as this will result in a drop in capacity and the current manufacturers will try to put as much material in the size allowed to try and get an edge. The result maybe a less reliable cell that will not hold up well over time.
I think the rule should be to keep the cells the same size and not let manufacturers increase the weight. This would allow manufacturers to focus on reliability instead of trying to our capcity each other.