HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Apr 14, 2012, 10:40 PM
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34
Shortman's Avatar
United States, OR, Portland
Joined Nov 2003
2,116 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by microwave View Post
So are you suggesting that the excellent engineers at TP are in cahoots by colluding and conspiring with TPs marketing gurus? If you are REALLY that concerned about TP engineers adapting their scientific calculations to satisfy your truer, honester, and more accurate figures then ... WHY don't you contact an industry leader like Thunder Power and find out exactly how they scientifically justify a 65C rating of 65C.

What good is all your effort if you never confront an industry leader like TP with your supposed actual true calculations for their explanation. You just might come away with a new appreciation for your due diligence as well as TPs.

We will wait
....
Shortman is offline Find More Posts by Shortman
Last edited by Shortman; Apr 15, 2012 at 01:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Apr 14, 2012, 10:51 PM
Registered User
So. Cal.
Joined Oct 2004
7,826 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron101 View Post
I think they should drop the C rating and name them by I.R.
That would certainly be helpful to the end-user as it's a tangible number that can be independently verified with simple equipment that does not require the massive electronic load needed to perform high-power discharge tests. Likely not to happen though as many manufacturers use inflated 'C' ratings to sell packs. It's their snake oil.

Incidentally, Hyperion used to quote internal resistance in their marketing literature when they released their G3 lipolys several years ago. I found this to be very admirable and bought some of their CX packs (25C rating). Best packs that I have ever owned and still going strong after almost 3 years of hard flying. They have since removed internal resistance from their literature.

A little birdie tells me that there will be at least one lipoly manufacturer that will be quoting internal resistance for their packs at some point in the future...

Mark
mrforsyth is online now Find More Posts by mrforsyth
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 12:50 AM
like a rock!
gravityKills's Avatar
Finland
Joined Oct 2007
2,453 Posts
>> that does not require the massive electronic load needed to perform high-power discharge tests

with the slight inconvenience that it may or may not correlate with the actual flight performance
gravityKills is offline Find More Posts by gravityKills
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 10:17 AM
Registered User
microwave's Avatar
lac superieur - chemin le pointe croix
Joined Apr 2008
159 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron101 View Post
I think they should drop the C rating and name them by I.R.
You've got to be kidding. If that had been the way Lipos had always been rated by manufacturers or even if it was instituted with the advances in lipo technology ... there would now possibly be 2-3 threads to every 1 thread like this one asking manufacturers to rate/label their lipos based on a pack's continuous discharge rate and maximum charge rate.

You do realize that very few if any RC enthusiast would have application or need for a true(according to your thinking) 65C like the TP 65C/12C to perform at 65C over and over and over. Reminds me of the top heavy weight class of tractor pulls when a super-duper charged special nitro mix fueled engine would melt its pistons if the pull lasted more than 50 seconds, while hot flames spewed from the exhaust pipe during the last few seconds of the pull.

Have you noticed yet that TPs continuous discharge ratings and maximum charge rates for each of the three classes is not dependant upon the cell count of the pack or the mAh capacity of a pack ... whether they are labeled in the Pro Lite 25C/4C class, Pro Performance 45C/8C class or the Pro Power 65C/12C class.

Some RC enthusiasts are abusive and stressful with their packs compared to the engineers in TPs research test facility. Some RC enthusiasts get upset and feel cheated because their less expensive bargain brands are sometimes mislabeled and don't provide even 1/3 or 1/2 the number of cycles (200-300) than the 600 cycles TPs test engineers claim as possible when treated properly. Even if some RC pilots only got 200-300 performance cycles from a good quality more expensive lipo pack the extra cost would be to your advantage (more reliable) than getting only 100 cycles from another less expensive pack charged at 1C that was abused. Isn't that part of the problem that what TP, other manufacturers and even edf(Charles) calls abuse/mishandling, many RC enthusiasts call FUN!

Instead of expecting TP and other manufacturers to jump through your formulated hoops it would be helpful if at least one of this threads vocal proponents first try to understand TPs scientific testing methods and calculations before being so sure and quick to judge Thunder Power engineers and marketeers with misleading claims and false labeling.
microwave is offline Find More Posts by microwave
Last edited by microwave; Apr 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 10:36 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2012
58 Posts
Quote:
Instead of expecting TP and other manufacturers to jump through your formulated hoops it would be helpful if at least one of this threads vocal proponents first try to understand TPs scientific testing methods and calculations
I am trying to understand but I can't find any information on their website. Do you have it please?
Andy from Sandy is offline Find More Posts by Andy from Sandy
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 11:12 AM
Registered User
microwave's Avatar
lac superieur - chemin le pointe croix
Joined Apr 2008
159 Posts
http://thunderpowerrc.com/html/G6Pro...sBatteries.htm

Quote:
When your high-power EDF, 3D helicopter or other applications demands nothing but the best, G6 Pro Power 65C series batteries deliver up to 60% more power than previous generation LiPo batteries and up to an incredible 600+ cycles. Their ultra-low internal resistance (IR) also allows them to be capable of ultra-fast charge rates up to a technology-leading 12C* for charge times of 5 minutes or less.

*Max charge rate is possible when using approved charger and balancer combinations ONLY. Max charge rate is 2C when using all other combinations and 1C when charging without a balancer.
Why doesn't at least one of the naysayers of purported false claims and misleading labeling confront an industry leader like TP with their supposed superior test calculations that some believe to be false. I don't hear edf(Charles) our most knowledgeable member taking vocal participation in this thread or accusing/blasting an industry leader like Thunder Power for erroneous engineering test claims and marketeers for false and misleading labeling.

This thread sounds more like typical complaining by RC enthusiasts that expect less expensive and less reliable bargain brands to provide at least 200-300 performance cycles even with a little abuse/mishandling ... all for the sake of having a little more FUN!
microwave is offline Find More Posts by microwave
Last edited by microwave; Apr 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 11:22 AM
Pursuit of Happiness
Ron101's Avatar
Brentwood, California
Joined Jul 2007
7,182 Posts
Quote:
Instead of expecting TP and other manufacturers to jump through your formulated hoops it would be helpful if at least one of this threads vocal proponents first try to understand TPs scientific testing methods and calculations before being so sure and quick to judge Thunder Power engineers and marketeers with misleading claims and false labeling
.


Sir this is not a brand war... and believe me when I say I fly as high power of planes you can get. I fly giant warbirds and EDFs. I have planes that are 27 pounds and pull 115 amps.. I have a 22 pound 1/6 scale edf hawk that pulls 130 amp..... so I know high power. I'm building a twin F-18 that pulls 130 amps per fan and will be 40 pounds... I know high power!

I have flown every brand you can think of since I switched to all E power in 2007....I've been in the hobby for 20 years.

I do feel thunder power and hyperion are the best on the market.... but with that siad I take very good care of my packs and have 4 year old zippy packs that are still working great.... I have two pairs of 11s 30c 5000 mah turnigy that have actually been better than the 30c thunder powers that puffed and I replaced.

We can all have opinions and I feel C ratings are silly and meaningless

Why do I feel that way.... because it can't work across the board on all pack sizes. Take a 65c 3s 2200 mah pack...can it handle 143 amps cont.? or can a 6s 7700 handle 500 amps cont.? hell no I would like to see testing showing either pack set at those amps cont. until it's at 3.7 per cell..... you will see a huge blow fish and a fire.

To me it's more important to know the quality of the cells.... and when I say list the I.R. I don't mean in genaric terms. I'm literally test the cells that I'm buying and they better be within a range if that what advertised.

For me the big prolem with all cells is inconsistency.... I have had great turnigy packs with very low I.R. also have had packs that the I.R. was all over the place

Thunder power and Hyperion have the others beat here...much more consistent
Then thunder power has there warranty if you get a bad cell

So my point is let say the primo 6s 5000 mah packs where sold at .5 to 1.5 I.R. packs.... that's how they are labeled. They could be tested before they went out the door... if they weren't up to snuff they would be a b grade cell.

We need a way of quality control before they leave the seller.... not just a slapped on 65c label or 150c label
For now at least we can check I.R. and use the database to keep each other informed and try and keep the manufactors honest..... much better than just saying hey I bought this new pack and it flew great...

That tells us nothing... maybe it was 65 degrees out and your plane pulls 30 amps. How will it work in my plane that pulls 130 amps with is 95 degrees out. If we new the I.R. we have a better understanding

I don't have all the answers on how packs should be labeled but I do know that C ratings are a joke.... when we have 25c packs that out perform 45c and 65c packs something is broke with the current system
Ron101 is offline Find More Posts by Ron101
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 12:57 PM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2012
58 Posts
microwave your link goes to a page that has been removed.

When I was looking at the TP website they have written that the 25C and 45C packs can be used for continuous discharge up to the specified C rating but they do not make the same claim for their 60C packs.
Andy from Sandy is offline Find More Posts by Andy from Sandy
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 01:07 PM
Registered User
microwave's Avatar
lac superieur - chemin le pointe croix
Joined Apr 2008
159 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy from Sandy View Post
microwave your link goes to a page that has been removed.
Try this ... http://thunderpowerrc.com/html/G6Pro...sBatteries.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron101 View Post
So my point is let say the primo 6s 5000 mah packs where sold at .5 to 1.5 I.R. packs.... that's how they are labeled. They could be tested before they went out the door... if they weren't up to snuff they would be a b grade cell.

I don't have all the answers on how packs should be labeled but I do know that C ratings are a joke.... when we have 25c packs that out perform 45c and 65c packs something is broke with the current system
What’s to prevent manufactures and/or distributors from IR mislabeling any less than mislabeling with a continuous discharge rating. You and others sound as if somehow forcing manufacturers to IR label their packs is somehow going to slap their wrist forcing them to be accurate, true and honest with much improved quality control without any price increase. You certainly have street smarts enough to know that the marketeers from China and others selling less expensive bargain brands wouldn't label their packs as: QA (Excellent Quality Control) or QB(Reasonable Quality Control) even if they knew which one was which. If anything they would probably rather label them as QA/QB packs without ever indicating what percentage of the packs are grade QA and which are QB grade packs. Would you actually buy a QB grade pack knowing that it may be closer to a QC grade even if it was cheap, cheap, cheap.

My point is: Don’t you guys see that the same inconsistencies/problem (human nature) could still exist even with an IR rating system … a pack with a 1.5 IR rating may outperform a pack with a .5 IR rating just like your current rating example that you call a "joke" ... “when we have 25c packs that out perform 45c and 65c packs something is broke with the current system.”

What makes you think by using an IR rating it is going to eradicate/cure the problem by somehow forcing engineers and marketeers to jump through your idealistic hoops. I say idealistic because for better or worse we are living in a world that … well … ah … as P.T. Barnham opinionized … "there’s a sucker born every minute". Even, if every other RC enthusiast were as experienced and meticulous as you and Charles there would still be lipo manufacturer/distributors trying to sell less expensive and less reliable bargain brands to the other half (call them suckers, penny pinchers and/or RC enthusiasts that every manufacture realizes this other half abuses and mishandles Li-Polys both from ignorance and for the sake of having FUN. Yet, some of you guys expect bargain brand lipo distributors to sell you less expensive bargain packs having the same excellent quality and guarantee as an industry leader like Thunder Power.

Ever consumed any less expensive pink slime or high fructose corn syrup or processed food with so many chemicals we can't even pronounce their name let alone care whether these chemicals are harmful? And that's going into our own body. Yet, you guys expect the less expensive bargain brand battery manufacturer/distributors of this HOBBY to look out for your best interests instead of theirs.

Bottomline: Business Ethics is an oxymoron (BuyerBeware)
microwave is offline Find More Posts by microwave
Last edited by microwave; Apr 15, 2012 at 01:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 01:45 PM
like a rock!
gravityKills's Avatar
Finland
Joined Oct 2007
2,453 Posts
>> My point is: Don’t you guys see that the same inconsistencies/problem (human nature) could still exist even with an IR rating system
it's quite obvious to me.
Further, it misses the problem as even the "dishonest" brand packs usually kick *ss, according to whatever measurement method you conceive, but only for half a dozen cycles. The real problem is how they age.

>> with so many chemicals we can't even pronounce their name
don't get me started. Hellooooo are you struggling with your weight? How about if I put some stuff into your high-fat high-salt high-carbohydrate potato chips that will trick your brain into thinking it's hungry, the more you eat? Sorry, I digress
gravityKills is offline Find More Posts by gravityKills
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 03:08 PM
Registered User
Rugby, UK
Joined Feb 2007
831 Posts
Quote "I do feel thunder power and hyperion are the best on the market.... but with that siad I take very good care of my packs and have 4 year old zippy packs that are still working great.... I have two pairs of 11s 30c 5000 mah turnigy that have actually been better than the 30c thunder powers that puffed and I replaced.

We can all have opinions and I feel C ratings are silly and meaningless

Why do I feel that way.... because it can't work across the board on all pack sizes. Take a 65c 3s 2200 mah pack...can it handle 143 amps cont.? or can a 6s 7700 handle 500 amps cont.? hell no I would like to see testing showing either pack set at those amps cont. until it's at 3.7 per cell..... you will see a huge blow fish and a fire."

Ron,

I agree with virtually all your post, particularly the above bits.
As usual, this thread has been attacked by those who think they now better, or so it appears. They never seem to add any positives to the thread; not sure whether they need attention or they just want to derail it; doesn't matter really.

I don't know if you are correct about TP and Hyperions being the best but I have the impression from reading many posts that you probably are. I have never tested Hyperions, but I know Mark rates them very highly and Charles rates TP.
Although I have done a lot of properly controlled full power testing on lipos, my testing of these two types is very limited as they are very expensive and generally I buy them myself.

The point you make about the Zippy and Turnigy packs is very common. I have tested (and used) some very good Turnigy packs and some real poor ones so it really is a lottery. I guess it may depend on who manufactures the particular cells you get - all marked "Turnigy".
BTW the only TP pack I have ever power tested was rated at 20C and puffed on its first full power 20C discharge, but I am sufficiently open minded not to expect all TP packs to do the same.

In any case this thread was never aimed at any particular lipo maker, only at the very general mis-information printed on so many lipos.

The thread is intended to offer the open minded flyer a simple tool which will tell them the real current capabilities of their lipos much more accurately than the "C" number written on the side of the pack.

Why the bigots want to turn it into a brand war says more about them than the lipos or the thread.

Wayne
Wayne Giles is offline Find More Posts by Wayne Giles
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 05:51 PM
Team30 Micro EDF
NitroCharged's Avatar
Adelaide, Australia
Joined Apr 2004
11,171 Posts
I asked max-amps how they came to the "true 100C" statement and what tests they performed to verify the claim. It took a few emails to finally be told that they short out the lipo for a fraction of a second to see how much current goes thru the meter.

So, there we have another mislabelled product.

I still have to purchase my IR meter from you Wayne - and I do look forward to being able to offer input for the ongoing claims of the lipo manufacturers.
NitroCharged is offline Find More Posts by NitroCharged
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 06:02 PM
Registered User
So. Cal.
Joined Oct 2004
7,826 Posts
Maxamps have since upped the ante and done themselves one better and now offer 'True 150C' lipolys. Hook me up!

Mark
mrforsyth is online now Find More Posts by mrforsyth
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 06:16 PM
Since 1952
Harry D's Avatar
Canada, AB, Edmonton
Joined Oct 2004
1,233 Posts
I've emailed Thunder Power to ask them what size cell connectors and wire gauge they use on their 7700mAh 130C burst packs (over 1,000 amps !)

Must be that room-temperature superconductor material that was in the news a while ago.

We'll see what they say.
Harry D is offline Find More Posts by Harry D
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2012, 07:25 PM
I ♥ OpenTX
H2SO4's Avatar
Australia, New South Wales, Sydney
Joined Jan 2011
2,663 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by microwave View Post
What’s to prevent manufactures and/or distributors from IR mislabeling any less than mislabeling with a continuous discharge rating.
IR is somewhat more difficult to fudge. As in the music industry, "peak power" ratings are almost utterly useless because everyone has their own definition of "peak" and can change it to suit the marketing department's ideas of what would look good on the brochure. IR cannot be so easily subverted as a statistic because it's a measurable quantity - hence this excellent new comparative framework.

Quote:
Originally Posted by microwave View Post
You and others sound as if somehow forcing manufacturers to IR label their packs is somehow going to slap their wrist forcing them to be accurate, true and honest with much improved quality control without any price increase.
...
Yet, some of you guys expect bargain brand lipo distributors to sell you less expensive bargain packs having the same excellent quality and guarantee as an industry leader like Thunder Power.
Out of idle curiosity, are you by any chance personally or professionally linked to a lipo manufacturer?
H2SO4 is online now Find More Posts by H2SO4
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product Cell Internal Resistance Meter - more useful than 'C' ratings - Now available. PLD Batteries and Chargers 468 Oct 05, 2012 10:02 PM
Discussion Lipo C-ratings puzzle: what's most important, C-rating or mAh capacity?? Merlin45 Batteries and Chargers 18 Apr 03, 2010 04:45 PM
Idea Proposal for simple lipo performance figures of merit kgfly Batteries and Chargers 8 Oct 29, 2009 05:55 PM
Question What is the formula for lipo discharge amps? C ratings and such? skid_68 Batteries and Chargers 6 Nov 10, 2005 08:10 AM
LiPo "C" Ratings: Useful? RD Blakeslee Batteries and Chargers 121 Mar 17, 2005 10:02 PM