R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2008, 04:38 PM   #46
Super Moderator
 
Grizzbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sand Springs, OK
Posts: 3,063
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

This is something I posted on another forum, I think it can be said here, too...

I agree, it would be nice to see a comprehensive test of different LiPos, especially since it could help clarify just what difference a given pack's C rating can make(as well as possibly expose some that may have "enhanced" C ratings due to playing around with the test conditions, numbers, etc.). But I have doubts that ANY of the magazines today would be willing to do it right, because they don't want to scare off ANY advertisers today. The only way to do it right these days would be for a 3rd party to do this, with a little funding help from ALL of the magazines(which they could all publish at the same time). They'd need the same test equipment that the manufacturers use for the C rating tests, & would need to buy EVERY test pack from the same source that we get them from(hobby shops, web shops, etc.), so there'd be no "special" packs in the mix(in other words, no cherry picking a pack just for the test). In addition, I think they'd need help from some racers at different kinds of tracks(say an off-road guy, a paved & dirt oval guy, & a good onroad guy who runs rubber & foam tire TC's & pan cars, that'd cover just about all kinds of race loads that'd be put on the packs) & use logging devices like the one from Eagle Tree & Novak's Sentry(with the current sensor installed). have them race each pack in the test a couple of times(to make sure to avoid any flukes in the data) & then report on the current draw & voltage of each both at rest & under load, as well as how well each holds up over the course of a race(I know the Sentry can do this, as I have one myself, & I can see how it runs in realtime with its playback mode) And of course, the lap times for each pack can also be added. If we really wanted to see a FAIR test of the different race-worthy Lipos, that's what it'd take, & I doubt any one magazine would be willing to commit the time & resources to doing it right....

I think a 3rd party is the ONLY answer to doing this the right way(& I don't consider Tower or Horizon to be a proper 3rd party, better to be someone who has absolutely NO vested interest{financially I mean} in the R/C industry).....
__________________
Bob Seay
Tamiya TRF417, TA05v.2, TRF211XM, M-05ver.2R, XRAY X12, Associated B5m Factory Lite

Go Pokes!!!
Grizzbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:40 PM   #47
Team Tekin
 
Tekin Prez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,047
Default

Isnít this part of why leading brands exist. They earn your respect and trust so you do not have to wonder and do testing to check up on them.

We actually under rated out current lipo because we are engineers and that is how it is done. As marketers we have learned to not leave anything on the table for factor of safety as we call it. So we have a very good 3400mah 23C Tekin rated battery that really takes about 3500mah to 3600mah and holds 25C easily by most standards. Unfortunatley it is lost in a sea of lower cost batteries claiming bigger numbers. As marketers it is even reasonable to be within 5% of claims and make it a 3700mah at 28C.

So do you trust the brands that have earned it, or take a chance and save a buck on what may be the night shift rejects? Cheap and value are not really the same thing in the long run.

Tekin Prez
Tekin Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:53 PM   #48
Tech Elite
 
Jube's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,397
Trader Rating: 43 (100%+)
Default

Good point Tekin but with todays economy it has forced to look for better bang for our buck. This also is part of the problem with manufacturers making goods today. They are in tighter markets and so they are sharpening their pencils alittle more and cutting quality to some extent at the same time. Its the cold hard facts. This makes us as consumers untrustworthy for reason so if the manufacturer makes a good product then they should be all for this test IMO. Just my .02
Jube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 09:37 PM   #49
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4
Default

I am thinking about creating website for keeping records of battery performance so the consumers could have hard data for comparison. This website would be similar to "www.Tomshardware.com" where objective testing is done on computers and the performance is indexed to a score.

I have access to a GFX and industrial battery testing equipment that can measure performance under extreme loads. The testing loads could be possible exceed 100A. The test would be conducted in a controlled environment.

All test will be done in confidentiality. If a battery company would like a closed door test, that would be their choice. This is ideal for sourcing new battery cells and trying to find a competitive advantage without public eye.

When battery test are released from the manufacture for publication it is a win-win for both the manufacture and consumer. The consumer can know that the battery test are legit and the manufacture can earn the respect of consumer by having a published battery test.

The process to create such a website and obtain testing equipment will easily cost several grand. Every battery test could take hours of to complete which is more cost to me. I would not want to charge consumers for the access to the information but I would accept donations. I would have to obtain majority of the funding elsewhere including my own pockets. I purpose a yearly membership of $200 to anyone that would like batteries tested. This could include manufactures, publishers, race teams, officiating organizations or even individuals.

The membership will include several features:
Unlimited Standard Battery Testing
Website hosting of published battery test
Certified Tested Badge for battery tested
Web Link to Manufacture Home Page


Other services and individual battery test may be available upon request.

If anyone, manufacture, publisher or race team is interested, I would need at least 5 confirmed memberships before purchase the equipment and software needed for this venture. Serious inquires, please reply by RCTECH PM..

Thanks

Josh
BatteryWarLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 05:19 AM   #50
Tech Elite
 
Joel Lagace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,628
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Sure an independent 3rd party would be great. But common lets get real, we are talking about toy car batteries. In a hobby where only about 10% actually race. I understand the reluctance to beleiver maganzines but in our small industry its all we have and for the most part they are trust worthy.

I mean we read the magazines dont we? If we all though they where full of [email protected]#$ and lies why would anyone buy them? We dont have to 100% trust the results. I just think that they are the most likely group to do this shoot out. Maybe after they have done the shootout we can discusss weather or not it was a fair or legit test.... Its like not voting because you feel the canditates are all liars.... (ok bad comparison they all lie) but to suggest they dont do the test because a few think the test will be skewed is a shame....

also this shoot out does not need to be complicated. As racers most of us Trust the GFX and the whole line of CE matchers and chargers. So base the tests on that. We dont need to run packs in 5 classes of cars with 5 types of motors. We shop for our nihms by numbers. Do the same for lipo.... To many variables with running cars on a track to test a battery..

The test:
-ROAR packs
-Basher packs
-store bought battery
-if submitted by the manufacture state that
-Typical 35Amp GFX cycle test.
-time line data show the discharge curves
-standardized C rate test
-price vs performance comparison
-case tests(drop test)
-case measurements
-weight

They dont print lies with there xdyno(well we have no way to know it) and because of that motor builders are buying xdynos to use in house.... So i am confident enough to accept results if they print them...

If for nothing more we would actually have reason to piss and moan in a tread for 10pages as we all fight with all the fanboys over who;s pack was better or worse.
__________________
"Without Rules its just Backyard Bashing!"
www.rcottawa.com
Joel Lagace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 10:10 AM   #51
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Lagace View Post
Sure an independent 3rd party would be great. But common lets get real, we are talking about toy car batteries. In a hobby where only about 10% actually race. I understand the reluctance to beleiver maganzines but in our small industry its all we have and for the most part they are trust worthy.
I understand the R/C market is way smaller than the performance PC market but the cost to benchmark batteries is a lot higher than to bench mark PC's The consumers still want to know the bottom line performance of the product they are buying. I know that you would prefer that a magazine do the test. I was offering my services to anyone who wants outsource a hardcore battery test so they would not have to invest in equipment or trained personal..

Many r/c publications own a speed trap or radar gun because they need to routinely perform speed test. The level and accuracy of the speed test does not vary between much between equipment used thus a $100 radar gun is just as good as a $1000 system. What changes between the $100 and $1000 system is the interface and ability to export the data into graphs. The top speed of the car is still limited to the car not the radar systems +/- 2mph.

When measuring battery performance the performance is completely related to the equipment used. If a battery is discharged at a lower level the capacity numbers and average voltage may actually be bloated. Most batteries when discharged at 1C will yield 5 to 10% more than the rated capacity. When the load is increased the available capacity begins to shrink and the voltage drops. Not all discharges are equal because of the discharge rates.

Using different equipment can yield different results and none the the hobby grade equipment can perform test even close to the claims of the battery labels. Yes a Turbo 35 is a good test to perform, but even that test will not tell you how the battery will perform at 40, 50A, 75A or even 100A. By using industrial equipment that is exporting the data to a computer, a more detailed analysis could be performed.

Like I said, I was just testing the waters for 3rd party independent testing.
BatteryWarLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 05:43 PM   #52
Tech Master
 
DerekB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny/SMC View Post
I understand what your saying but I really don't see how a magazin can say that a 35C/5200 from one of there advertisers is 20C/5000 that would upset the advertiser and they would pull there adds.

Allowing companies to submit packs would be bad as they could use any other cells in the case.
You do know that we have an Dyno that directly contradicts advertising claims all day.

I'd love to do that test, but I have to figure out how to do it where it make sense.

And nobody "cherry" picks anything. I get stuff from companies that doesn't work all the time...how are they going to send me something that has better numbers?
DerekB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 05:45 PM   #53
Tech Master
 
DerekB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatteryWarLord View Post
I understand the R/C market is way smaller than the performance PC market but the cost to benchmark batteries is a lot higher than to bench mark PC's The consumers still want to know the bottom line performance of the product they are buying. I know that you would prefer that a magazine do the test. I was offering my services to anyone who wants outsource a hardcore battery test so they would not have to invest in equipment or trained personal..

Many r/c publications own a speed trap or radar gun because they need to routinely perform speed test. The level and accuracy of the speed test does not vary between much between equipment used thus a $100 radar gun is just as good as a $1000 system. What changes between the $100 and $1000 system is the interface and ability to export the data into graphs. The top speed of the car is still limited to the car not the radar systems +/- 2mph.

When measuring battery performance the performance is completely related to the equipment used. If a battery is discharged at a lower level the capacity numbers and average voltage may actually be bloated. Most batteries when discharged at 1C will yield 5 to 10% more than the rated capacity. When the load is increased the available capacity begins to shrink and the voltage drops. Not all discharges are equal because of the discharge rates.

Using different equipment can yield different results and none the the hobby grade equipment can perform test even close to the claims of the battery labels. Yes a Turbo 35 is a good test to perform, but even that test will not tell you how the battery will perform at 40, 50A, 75A or even 100A. By using industrial equipment that is exporting the data to a computer, a more detailed analysis could be performed.

Like I said, I was just testing the waters for 3rd party independent testing.

THat's my issue is if I'm going to really test the battery by just discharging on a Turbo 35...I'll have to ask some of the companies about what they think and see what we can do.


FYI, we are working on servo dyno and have the ability to test the response of radios.
DerekB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 05:52 PM   #54
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I'm not sure how much your Dyno costs but equipment to test packs at 200 amps is going to cost a minimum of 2000.00

If you really want to this test and make it a true one you should contact manufacturers and tell them you want to do this test and it will be accurate. if they want to be listed in this test they need to send 200 bucks. This would help cover the expenses of the equipment and pack purchases. Companies who don't participate would most likely have something to hide as 200 is a small fee to get such exposure.


Why you shouldn't accept packs directly from the manufacturers is because they can easily send you a higher C rate pack that would prove what there selling is legit. Trust me there is allot false claims going on in the Lipo world.

In a few weeks I will have a new setup that will allow me to test up to 2000 watts which means I can do 250 amps on a 2S pack.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 05:53 PM   #55
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekB View Post
THat's my issue is if I'm going to really test the battery by just discharging on a Turbo 35...I'll have to ask some of the companies about what they think and see what we can do.


FYI, we are working on servo dyno and have the ability to test the response of radios.

A GFX is useless to prove C rate. It can show the lowest IR and best average voltage at 35 amps but it stops there. A 5000/20C/2S pack requires a 100 amp discharge which means you need to dissipate 800 watts.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 06:02 PM   #56
Tech Master
 
DerekB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny/SMC View Post
I'm not sure how much your Dyno costs but equipment to test packs at 200 amps is going to cost a minimum of 2000.00

If you really want to this test and make it a true one you should contact manufacturers and tell them you want to do this test and it will be accurate. if they want to be listed in this test they need to send 200 bucks. This would help cover the expenses of the equipment and pack purchases. Companies who don't participate would most likely have something to hide as 200 is a small fee to get such exposure.


Why you shouldn't accept packs directly from the manufacturers is because they can easily send you a higher C rate pack that would prove what there selling is legit. Trust me there is allot false claims going on in the Lipo world.

In a few weeks I will have a new setup that will allow me to test up to 2000 watts which means I can do 250 amps on a 2S pack.
Our dyno is available to purchase for $6500, not that price has much to do with anything.


I'm questioning how they are going to send me a battery with a C rating they don't sell? I've gotten lots of "problems" from companies that get accused of this all the time.

I know there's lots of "creative marketing" going on in NIMH, LIPO, 9Volt, speed, power everything....we try to clarify things we can accurately. Nitro Engine HP was tackled, we have a $2500 radar gun to give speeds (which rarely meet the stated MPH claim...and I've gotten angry emails from companies about that and telling me I needed a 1/4 mile of run up before I get my topspeed).

But the bottom line is I'm interested in doing something on LIPO I'm just not 100% sure of what that data will show. Much like NIMH with 4 different companies and power delivery characteristics...does the battery that gives the most power win? Or the one that doesn't become a paper weight in 4 runs a better choice?

It's not a cut and dry answer.
DerekB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 06:14 PM   #57
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Derek: The test should be about C rate and capacity as this is what companies are claiming on there labels. I know some are accurate but some aren't. Adding cycle life would be great as well but will require a long term test which could be posted later on.

Glad to see that spending 2000+ dollars is not that bad for you guys. Maybe I should wait until you get the equipment and do your test. That would save us money.

If you want I can send you a 5200/24C , 5000/28C , 5000/33C , 5000/35C and 5000/40C all in the same case with the same label. This is why you need off the shelf packs for your test.

If you need any help setting up a test let me know as I think it would be great and I'm sure I can help.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 06:20 PM   #58
Tech Master
 
DerekB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny/SMC View Post
Derek: The test should be about C rate and capacity as this is what companies are claiming on there labels. I know some are accurate but some aren't. Adding cycle life would be great as well but will require a long term test which could be posted later on.

Glad to see that spending 2000+ dollars is not that bad for you guys. Maybe I should wait until you get the equipment and do your test. That would save us money.

If you want I can send you a 5200/24C , 5000/28C , 5000/33C , 5000/35C and 5000/40C all in the same case with the same label. This is why you need off the shelf packs for your test.

If you need any help setting up a test let me know as I think it would be great and I'm sure I can help.
The way to eliminate the issue is to only test the highest rated pack

Our investing in tools to help the consumer is what our magazine does different. We invested a lot of time, effort and money in to the dyno because it helps the industry as a whole. It did NOT sit well with most engine companies to see us rate their engines at HALF of what they claim. And they of course made statements about how we test, our dyno, all the BS stuff...but when you ask them to see their dyno work and how they got #s...it got quiet.

So once i figure out something that I think is valuable we'll work on getting something in the works.

Do you have information on the software and discharger that you're looking into?
DerekB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 06:23 PM   #59
Tech Elite
 
SWTour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Coast...CALIF.
Posts: 2,873
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Derek,

Can you do a DROP TEST on Steam Engine Locomotives. I've heard if you drop a STEAM Engine Locomotive from 100,000 ft. they don't hold up to the pressure, or the impact. J/K

If you do some lipo testing, something I know some of my buddies and local racers would like to see is a little informational research as to what kind of loads are being used in 'Real Race' conditions. (That's the stuff they like reading in the MAGS...)

This would apply to Off-Road, On-Road (carpet and asphalt) and of course OVAL.

What kind of PUNCH draw do the current systems use off the line at the start of a race

What kind of PUNCH do they draw once they are moving (during the race)

What kind of average amp draw are they using during the race...

Knowing that information FIRST, then doing various testing of DIFFERENT Sizes and MFG's of LIPOS in THOSE conditions will probably give a clearer picture of what a racer might see for a difference in performace on the track with the different batteries.

For instance, if it's found a 10.5/LIPO TC pulls 49.2 amps off the line in a HARD START hole shot, then a comparison at a 50 amp load of different sizes and brands of batteries could be helpful, cause you'd see how the voltage drop and amp spike is affected under those conditions.

If during a 6 minute On-Road race, that same 10.5/LIPO car is shown to average 18 - 20 amps of load, but spikes are seen in the 24 - 28 amp range as the car exits hard corners, those numbers too would be helpful to know the packs that respond the best and carry the best loaded voltage in that range. Plus it would be nice to compare the brands across the board under this conditions to see just how much variance there is from pack to pack in the SAME mAh range, and how much difference there is in the 2s2p packs vs. the 2s1p packs.

Then, once you have acquired the SPIKE numbers, and the average amp discharge number, it would also be interesting to show how much energy is still being left in the various batteries after a 5-6 minute run.
__________________
Joe Myers
R/C Racing since 1985 ~ Santa Maria, CA (Central Coast)
2001-2012 - South-West Tour R/C Oval Series...will the SWT be revived?
Things are headed towards a return of the SWT Series, but for
2017 the focus will be on the Encino Velodrome (and dirt oval racing)
SWTour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 06:24 PM   #60
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Hope you do a test that shows true C rate and mAh. Then add cycle life into it and you will have a very good test. I have allot of info on how this can be done.

You can email me and I can help you figure out the equipment needed as I'm purchasing such equipment as I want to show what is really going on. Lipos are out of control as anyone can but direct from China. With sub-c cells atleast it use to be a few different cell models until companies decided to do there own shrink.

[email protected]
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



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 08:30 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