R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-09-2008, 07:29 PM   #31
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Bill View Post
So, if one were to put together a list of all lipo pack suppliers...You would tell one or the other???
Yea, if you leave Losi off the list, I'll verify all of them as not in the lab....

Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008, 07:31 PM   #32
Tech Elite
 
yyhayyim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Weston, FL
Posts: 3,424
Trader Rating: 26 (100%+)
Default

Someone posted the following in the Checkpoint Lipo thread...

"Hey Dawn, how about ammending the rules to require the packs have all the internal cell info on the outside of the case...internal cell part #'s, C ratings for both charge and discharge, etc"

I think its a great question with legitimate concern. We dont want manufacturers using cheap cells and not disclosing this to the public, but charging top dollar as if they're getting quality Lipos...30C 6000Mah 7.4 500 cycle Lipo B.S., when its really a 15C 5000 at best

How this be tech'd? Matched cells have their info on the outside, so why should Lipos be the same? Will this make it safer for all of us?
yyhayyim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008, 07:33 PM   #33
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyhayyim View Post
Someone posted the following in the Checkpoint Lipo thread...

"Hey Dawn, how about ammending the rules to require the packs have all the internal cell info on the outside of the case...internal cell part #'s, C ratings for both charge and discharge, etc"

I think its a great question with legitimate concern. We dont want manufacturers using cheap cells and not disclosing this to the public, but charging top dollar as if they're getting quality Lipos...30C 6000Mah 7.4 500 cycle Lipo B.S., when its really a 15C 5000 at best

How this be tech'd? Matched cells have their info on the outside, so why should Lipos be the same? Will this make it safer for all of us?
I saw that and forwarded to our testing lab and Ling Tong's opinion specifically along with our Technical Director.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008, 07:44 PM   #34
Tech Elite
 
yyhayyim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Weston, FL
Posts: 3,424
Trader Rating: 26 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Sanchez View Post
I saw that and forwarded to our testing lab and Ling Tong's opinion specifically along with our Technical Director.
Awesome! Seems like its a legitimate concern, or else Dawn wouldnt have forwarded this to the tech crew...

I'm all for it. It will make teching cells that much easier, and make their use that much simpler and transparent for all. Sleezzy manufacturers will be weeded out as well as their mediocre products, and only good quality cells and manufacturers will with transparent and honest dealings will get ROAR approval and customer backing/usage...
yyhayyim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008, 07:50 PM   #35
Tech Champion
 
skypilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,524
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyhayyim View Post
Someone posted the following in the Checkpoint Lipo thread...

"Hey Dawn, how about ammending the rules to require the packs have all the internal cell info on the outside of the case...internal cell part #'s, C ratings for both charge and discharge, etc"

I think its a great question with legitimate concern. We dont want manufacturers using cheap cells and not disclosing this to the public, but charging top dollar as if they're getting quality Lipos...30C 6000Mah 7.4 500 cycle Lipo B.S., when its really a 15C 5000 at best

How this be tech'd? Matched cells have their info on the outside, so why should Lipos be the same? Will this make it safer for all of us?

i think it would be pretty much meaningless. not all matchers get thier numbers the same way, and this would follow for the lipo makers/"matchers" also. and no it won't be safer, matched packs are blowing up like crazy. even with the numbers on the outside
skypilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008, 07:52 PM   #36
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyhayyim View Post
Awesome! Seems like its a legitimate concern, or else Dawn wouldnt have forwarded this to the tech crew...

Not exactly... I wanted to find out more about your question....


And we have determined that ROAR's role is to establish if the battery pack is raceable and safe in our sanctioned events. It's not ROAR's job to determine which lipo is the best or to determine if the battery pack lives up to all the marketing hype.

Last edited by Dawn Sanchez; 02-10-2008 at 08:38 AM.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2008, 09:47 AM   #37
Super Moderator
 
Kraig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sun Prairie, WI
Posts: 6,493
Trader Rating: 71 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyhayyim View Post
Someone posted the following in the Checkpoint Lipo thread...

"Hey Dawn, how about ammending the rules to require the packs have all the internal cell info on the outside of the case...internal cell part #'s, C ratings for both charge and discharge, etc"

I think its a great question with legitimate concern. We dont want manufacturers using cheap cells and not disclosing this to the public, but charging top dollar as if they're getting quality Lipos...30C 6000Mah 7.4 500 cycle Lipo B.S., when its really a 15C 5000 at best

How this be tech'd? Matched cells have their info on the outside, so why should Lipos be the same? Will this make it safer for all of us?
You probably don't have to worry about this because I am willing to bet that matchers will be putting labels on these packs. So you can see what you are getting before you buy them, just like today.
__________________
There is great need for a sarcasm font.

You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.

Sometimes I post just to look at my avatar.
Kraig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2008, 10:08 AM   #38
Tech Champion
 
TimPotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Boynton Beach Fl > Randoph NJ
Posts: 7,481
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to TimPotter
Default

IMHO, I think the question is out in left field... Regular NiMh batteries are not REQUIRED to have numbers on them... They are required to pass the sanctioning rules and tests, if not ,the battery is not legal. The numbers on the labels are put there as a sales tool and out of consumer demand. When battery repackagers find consumers will not pay a premium without some kind of numbers on a label, well then they will start doing it.

Or some repackager/matcher will take the initiative and put numbers on thier batteries becuase nobody else does....




Quote:
Originally Posted by yyhayyim View Post
Awesome! Seems like its a legitimate concern, or else Dawn wouldnt have forwarded this to the tech crew...

I'm all for it. It will make teching cells that much easier, and make their use that much simpler and transparent for all. Sleezzy manufacturers will be weeded out as well as their mediocre products, and only good quality cells and manufacturers will with transparent and honest dealings will get ROAR approval and customer backing/usage...
__________________
Clean Title & Escrow|p3|TRF|Tamiya|SerpentAmerica|FSEARA|Team Butter|RC 3|Munno |RCTECH #29|EAMotorsports|BMI|Novak|SpeedPassion|RadioPost

Last edited by TimPotter; 02-10-2008 at 11:00 AM.
TimPotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2008, 10:14 AM   #39
Tech Champion
 
oXYnary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,301
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to oXYnary Send a message via Yahoo to oXYnary
Default

That doesn't preclude the supplier changing specs. So whose to say whats listed on the outside doesn't match with whats present? If ROAR only checks one every 6 months or so, and lipo tech is always changing??

Example: "Matcher" (used loosely since this term no longer applies) submits and is given approval on a cell type. Supplier changes cell characteristics with little or no notice right after final approval date.... Maybe the only way to tell would be a batch/date code.

Now, unlike of old, we cannot see the cell labels themselves or creation dates. So as per what was mentioned earlier about having these accessible to be seen from the outside would be good.

I also wish ROAR would implement having to put the constant and burst amp rating for the cells used. Most Hobby lipo manufacturers up to recently had been doing this. I really have started to have seen this ignored with "Vehicle" rated lipos, and more than once claims of the C listing rated on the fronts are only what the lipo can do in very short bursts. Not what is is capable of as a constant amp output. So while your pack may claim a 25C rating, its constant rating could be 17C.

I sometimes feel our intelligence is being insulted with the insinuation that us "car" people will be too ignorant to understand these finer points. Even though we were the ones who got so ecstatically into matching and understanding ni-cd/ni-mh specs versus our hobby cousins.

:::::

Somewhat separate but related. Did anyone notice that new discharge tray from LRP that does lipos as well, discharges the lipos to 2.8.

Image: http://www.redrc.net/wp-content/gall...onditioner.jpg

Thats BELOW what the minimum is recommended. In fact, the higher rated C cells of these days, the new minimum is sometimes recommended for 3.2 cutoff per cell versus 3. I hope ROAR nips these practices in the bud.
oXYnary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2008, 10:28 PM   #40
Team Tekin
 
Tekin Prez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,047
Default

Add Tekin to that list. We will be submitting a hard cased 3400mah battery for approval very soon. After 18 months of testing different manufaturers cells we have found one worth putting our name on.

We will even tell you where they come from, what they are and show you all the safety certifications. We will be the only ones selling these cells made exclusively for Tekin by one of the top manufacturers in the world.

Tekin Prez
Tekin Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2008, 04:38 AM   #41
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pa
Posts: 288
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to 4wd Racer
Default

Dawn, what of the grandfathered Orion 4800 (without the label) that have the capacity to make it to 2009 and beyond? With little use and good care, those Lipo's seem to have the abilities to last several years from the data's provided. I think that's pretty much the idea of them anyways.

I just received several 4800's from Orion, and would hate to know that they would be illegal past next year simply because they don't have the label ROAR approved. Would I have to send them to Orion simply to get the approved sticker on them in order to use it past 2009?, lol.

There needs to be a provision to extend the Grandfathered period to more or beyond 2009. ROAR has already done this with NiMh’s in the past; only there wasn’t a set date for the approved grandfathered NiMh cells to expire.

With the several years life span that those new Orion 4800 offer, making them obsolete past 2009 kinds of is counterproductive to those that have already invested in and purchased 4800's today knowing that they would be approved eventually by ROAR, as opposed to waiting several months from now (mid Summer to Fall) until those legal stickered 4800's become available to distributors nationwide. I wouldn’t think that would work with most, or be reasonable, and counterproductive to the Lipo thing.

Thanks for trying to find a solution to this and working on this for racers everywhere. We all appreciate it

Last edited by 4wd Racer; 02-11-2008 at 04:50 AM. Reason: added to post
4wd Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2008, 06:40 AM   #42
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4wd Racer View Post
Dawn, what of the grandfathered Orion 4800 (without the label) that have the capacity to make it to 2009 and beyond?
Your cells purchased in 2008 will be fine without the label. The wording will more than likely change but for now its just a note that we need to notify the mfg's of this label seal on the case.

Also, remember, its been four weeks since the technology has been out there in the rules. The nice thing is we are testing the waters and things will get tweaked here and there. I received a not so nice email from one company not pleased of the rules as they do not have product that falls in the line with them and they feel excluded. I can understand that and I also hope they can understand this is the direction we feel we need to go and will continually research and develop changes in the rules if we must.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2008, 06:42 AM   #43
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTekin View Post
Add Tekin to that list. We will be submitting a hard cased 3400mah battery for approval very soon. After 18 months of testing different manufaturers cells we have found one worth putting our name on.

We will even tell you where they come from, what they are and show you all the safety certifications. We will be the only ones selling these cells made exclusively for Tekin by one of the top manufacturers in the world.

Tekin Prez
Jim, give me a call.... I know we have played a lot of phone tag lately but lets give it a shot?

Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2008, 08:38 AM   #44
Tech Legend
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 29,550
Trader Rating: 240 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Sanchez View Post
Not exactly... I wanted to find out more about your question....


And we have determined that ROAR's role is to establish if the battery pack is raceable and safe in our sanctioned events. It's not ROAR's job to determine which lipo is the best or to determine if the battery pack lives up to all the marketing hype.
Dawn,

Based on saftey concerns, if a manufacturer is saying there cells are rated at X C rate, but in reality is really rated at Y C rate, doesn't that go to a safety concern concerning the batteries ability to handle a load on it?
__________________
Member - Red River Radio/Control Car Club
< Tekno EB48SL / SCT410.3 | Tekno EB410 x 2 | Yokomo YZ-2 DTM x 2 | LC Racing EMB-1 Buggies and Truggies >
Cain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2008, 08:54 AM   #45
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Dawn,

Based on saftey concerns, if a manufacturer is saying there cells are rated at X C rate, but in reality is really rated at Y C rate, doesn't that go to a safety concern concerning the batteries ability to handle a load on it?

The tests we perform are basically for the safety of our members and the misuse they WILL do to the cell. The drop test, the overcharge test and the short circuit test are very complete and give us a very good idea as to what this cell will do in the most extreme conditions and misuse. Although, its been four weeks since the rules have been out and I'm sure tweaking will happen through out the year and for the 2009 rule book. We are all learning and flowing with the knowledge.



This is something I agree with. I have cut and paste from an ongoing email conversation I have been having regarding this topic.

There is no industry standard for determining C rating. It can be defined as the maximum continuous current the battery can sustain and not destroy itself or it can be defined as the maximum continuous current the battery can sustain while maintaining 80% of it's rated capacity. Sometimes a battery can do both, sometimes neither.

We do not have the time or resources to determine the cell's real C rating. I really don't think it's ROAR's job to determine the C rating of each and every battery - that's what the manufacturers should be doing. Unfortunately most manufacturers are greatly inflating the C rating.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ROAR Approves LIPO yyhayyim Electric On-Road 232 01-23-2008 05:44 PM
Big ROAR Announcement on there Website 12-15-07 BullFrog Electric On-Road 53 12-21-2007 11:31 PM
Announcement from ROAR dennisthemennac Florida Racing 123 12-28-2006 03:56 PM
lipo and roar dakrat Electric On-Road 31 11-02-2006 10:54 PM
ROAR President Announcement Dawn Sanchez Chat Lounge 2 12-09-2005 05:10 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 11:46 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net