R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-19-2005, 10:11 AM   #16
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Since SMC is mentioned here I would like to point out a few facts about battery matching.

To truly compare packs from various matchers you need to make sure that the cell are from the same batches and to do a true test you need to compare new packs.

The perfect example is that GP has changed the 3300 around 4 times and every time it has been an improvement. So if you compare an older version versus anewer version cell it will run dfferently.

On to trapping the voltage to make it look higher. This is used by some matchers to make the numbers look better because the realise that the majority of the people buying matched packs just look at the numbers. So higher numbers means higher sales. Even if they mention it on the packaging the customer will most likely buy them because the numbers are higher. When trapping voltage you will see a bigger difference on a higher capacity cell than a lower capacity cell.

I have seen 1.18, 1.19 , 1.20 from Orion and we match thousands of cells per month and we see 1.16 , 1.17 and 1.18. I'm glad that you like your Orion packs but you will never convince me that the numbers on the cells are what they cycle out to be on a TM-4.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 10:16 AM   #17
Tech Master
 
koabich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to koabich
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Rimer
I am not criticizing anyone. I am simply stating that you cannot compare the numbers of these two companies directly. That doesn't make them right or wrong in the way they do it, it just means don't think your lower number pack from one of the matchers I mentioned is not as good as a 1.195 Orion pack. Numbers sell. Period. But the consumer needs to know that trying to compare these numbers is not as straightforward as simply looking at the label on a cell. By the way, you would be surprised what I have tested.
Depneds on the pack you are talking about and comparing against the Orions. To be honest I have cells that are 1.186-1.188 from other matchers that I mentioned before, I all my Orion 1.190+ packs run better on the track and cycle better on my Turbo Matcher.

If all you were trying to get accross that comparing numbers of different matchers packs souldn't be done, then you should have mentioned it in your other posts. I am in agreement with you there. Never compare the labels of two different matches...too many variables involved.
koabich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 10:17 AM   #18
Tech Elite
 
vtl1180ny's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wrong Island
Posts: 4,963
Default

Isn't orion discharging at 20 amps?

Why can't everyone keep the same standard....
__________________
I still lurk....
vtl1180ny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 10:25 AM   #19
Tech Master
 
koabich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to koabich
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by vtl1180ny
Isn't orion discharging at 20 amps?

Why can't everyone keep the same standard....
Orion discharges at 30 amps. As far as everyone matching to a standard, it will not happen. Evey matcher has a different process that they feel is better. Even if that match to the same standard, they can still treat the cells differently before matching, they can use different room temps...stuff like that.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else that the numbers on an Orion pack will exactly match what a Turbo Matcher says.
What I am arguing is that the numbers on the labels of Orion Cells are closer than what most people think!

In fact, I have never had a battery, from any manufacture match the numbers my Turbo Matcher spits out. I have had some come closer than others...
koabich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 10:33 AM   #20
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

koabich: As an owner of 60 + TM-4 I can tell you that they do tend to fluctuate and this is why we have them calibrated and only use 35 new units to do our final cycling.

I had a friend who owned one and he was getting .008 lower per cell on his compared to the ones we use. He sent it in for calibration and it came back and had the same numbers as ours did.

The TM4 grey units are a bit different than the black TM4. To me the black ones give a bit more avg. voltage but the AIR is also a bit higher.


If you can send me a new Orion cell that cycles to it's label on my TM-4's I will give you 1000 bucks plus free packs for the rest of your RC career.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 10:37 AM   #21
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: pa
Posts: 295
Default

Right now every body is searching ther boxes for there team orion cells hoping one matches! danny you have a pm thanks!
pony klr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 12:10 PM   #22
Tech Adept
 
hugh janus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ga
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Danny/SMC

If you can send me a new Orion cell that cycles to it's label on my TM-4's I will give you 1000 bucks plus free packs for the rest of your RC career.

you are the man!!! 1st time ever on this forum, someone has put their money where they're mouth is. i have removed my waders' for this post only!
hugh janus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 12:27 PM   #23
Tech Master
 
koabich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to koabich
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Danny/SMC


If you can send me a new Orion cell that cycles to it's label on my TM-4's I will give you 1000 bucks plus free packs for the rest of your RC career.
I am sure you could make the same offer for SMC batteries as well. You could make the same offer for any manufacture!

And besides, once again I think you are missing the point of this thread and my posts. I never said that Orion packs will test out on an Turbo Matcher what the label says it should.
koabich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 12:39 PM   #24
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I have no troubles with your post except that your claiming that the Orion numbers are close on your TM-4.

If you come visit our facility and bring a brand new packaged Orion pack we will gladly put it on our TM-4's and I will give you 1000 bucks and free packs if they cycle out the same or or higher than the labels.

I will also take a brand new SMC pack and put it on TM-4 and it will be the same.


You can say that Orion packs run faster longer that is fine with me. I never say that our competitors have bad products plus we have allot of happy customers who do buy our product and think they are fast.

But I will not agree that 460-1.19 cells have accurate numbers when we never see such numbers.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 12:53 PM   #25
Tech Addict
 
gee-dub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fontana, CA
Posts: 559
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

i just have one question here....

a few years ago (back in the 20A discharge days), everyone was on the 'bash integy' bandwagon for them using the early cut-offs and full runout times to "inflate" numbers.

now, many of the 'name brand' matchers are doing the exact same things as well as stuff like the variable rate discharge, and it seems to be getting almost unanimous applause from the r/c community. why the change in attitudes?

i even remember complaints about trinity using .85 instead of .9 for the cutoff voltage to increase run time (not that it added more than a few seconds and also lowered the avg. voltage...but still).
gee-dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 12:57 PM   #26
Tech Master
 
Anders Myrberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manīs best friend: Hugo Myrberg
Posts: 1,987
Default

Not only have Danny the best batteries, he got the biggest balls as well! Your the man!
Anders Myrberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 01:02 PM   #27
Tech Master
 
koabich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to koabich
Default

Well I have used both Orion and SMC products in the past and I will continue using them in the future...both companies put out good products.

I do have a question for Danny regarding SMC packs...a little off topic (which might be a good thing). How would one compare the numbers of an SMC 30 amp pack against the numbers of a 35 amp pack? For example a 1.180 30 amp pack would be comparable to a 35 amp pack with x.xxx numbers?

Does this question make sense?

Thanks
koabich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 01:03 PM   #28
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

As I said in an earlier post the majority of the people buying matched packs look at the numbers. So by having extra runtime or voltage or both this will mean more people will buy the packs.

Yes there are some who know when it's to good to be true it probably isn't but that is not the majority of the people buying packs.

You would be amazed how many people email me saying they have seen company X's driver using a 1.21 pack and that our 35 amp packs are only 1.16 and how can he compete. But in fact one pack was matched at 20 amps which means our 35 amp 1.16 would probably be a 1.21 or more at 20 amps.

We truly believe that 35 amp matching is better than 30 amps we did this to offer a better product to the racer. In return it has made the numbers look lower and I believe some will not buy them because the numbers look lower but in fact the pack will perform better.


Maybe we should come out with a series of packs trapped at 100 seconds and discharged down to .10 volt this way we would have some 450 + with 1.28 voltage. Then we can sell more packs and racers will come on the webs saying that the packs run good because in fact it will not affect the packs performance to trap the voltage or cutoff the runtime lower. All it does is make the numbers look better.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 01:09 PM   #29
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Converting numbers from one rate to another is hard because the IR of the cell makes the difference in the voltage drop of the cell.

Here is a guideline that you can use.

Runtime: 35 x runtime divide by rate you want to know.

Example: 35 x 360 = 12600 divide by 30 = 420 @ 30 amps.

Voltage: Subtract .015 to get 30 to 35 amp voltage.

Example: [email protected] = 1.16 @ 35.

The lower the IR of the cell the less it will drop off at the higher rate.

When testing Sanyo3600 the IR of the cells are in the 3.0-3.6 range and I was getting .022 - .026 drop from 30 to 35 amps.


When testing the IB3600 with its low IR I get closer to .013 -.01 voltage drop.


Hope this helps.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2005, 01:14 PM   #30
Tech Master
 
koabich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to koabich
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Danny/SMC
As I said in an earlier post the majority of the people buying matched packs look at the numbers. So by having extra runtime or voltage or both this will mean more people will buy the packs.

Yes there are some who know when it's to good to be true it probably isn't but that is not the majority of the people buying packs.

You would be amazed how many people email me saying they have seen company X's driver using a 1.21 pack and that our 35 amp packs are only 1.16 and how can he compete. But in fact one pack was matched at 20 amps which means our 35 amp 1.16 would probably be a 1.21 or more at 20 amps.

We truly believe that 35 amp matching is better than 30 amps we did this to offer a better product to the racer. In return it has made the numbers look lower and I believe some will not buy them because the numbers look lower but in fact the pack will perform better.


Maybe we should come out with a series of packs trapped at 100 seconds and discharged down to .10 volt this way we would have some 450 + with 1.28 voltage. Then we can sell more packs and racers will come on the webs saying that the packs run good because in fact it will not affect the packs performance to trap the voltage or cutoff the runtime lower. All it does is make the numbers look better.
Yeah, I can understand how the numbers game comes into play. But is there some kind of formula that can be used to compare 30 amp SMC's vs. 35 amp SMC's?
koabich is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
F/S - 4 cells 6 cells IB4200 Batteries for TC or Trans Am Solara R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 5 08-11-2008 09:38 AM
2 packs Power push 3600 intel. cells,4 cells whynot R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 0 05-31-2005 09:01 PM
XRAY T1FK - RC12L3 - Serpent 710 - Surge Batteries (4-cells & 6-cells) and more XrayRacer R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 24 03-31-2005 03:19 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 09:05 PM.


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