i have and i am not happy with it, max amps does not stand behind there warrenty on the 5250 packs, i would love to test out the new packs on my high kv topspeeder but im sure that would void the warrenty on the new packs too

You my friend have stepped into the Lions den and your wearing RoastBeef Cologne.
Good luck with your new endeavor :oops:

I don't understand how more people don't question this.

If say a car manufacturer came out with a car that had 1000 horsepower on a 4 cylinder naturally aspirated motor. There would be a shit storm. People would be demanding a dyno graph.

How is this any different?

Heres something for Maxamps. Give me proof and I promise to buy a 2s pack!

Brandon has said he would get some graphs up when they were available. I would hope that would be sooner, rather than later, otherwise they may lose quite a few sales. If these batteries really do hold their voltage that well I'll be buying some, too.

Industry standard
 

Instead of ripping on MA (which is quite easy to do) We as consumers need to DEMAND an INDUSTRY STANDARD for lipo testing, similar to wattage ratings on home stereos. (x watts at x ohms at x thd)

So much time and energy is wasted on bickering and mud throwing, why not use that time and energy to solve the problem?

But that would make too much sense.

...and this is America. Making sense is a felony. :lol:

Never thought I'd hear something that made so much sense from you Harold

every now and then there is a glimmer of brightness that pokes out from my otherwise dull existence:lol:

Light bulb goes on above head.
 

Harold you just hit the nail on the head my friend. Why not have someone in here write to CONSUMER REPORTS questioning the battle going on between all of these LiPo complany products and ask them to sort things out for the rest of us. I have always loved the way they do their comparisons and report the facts to the consumers. That would be interesting enough for me. Having an impartial judge to sort them out would work best, right?

I like it. I hadn't considered Consumer Reports. I will write something up, and as long as I'm sending it off I will send it to Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

What should the criteria be? I feel burst ratings aren't as important, and will be harder to measure exactly. So I think the formula should be to measure constant "c" ratings. Something like:

x amp discharge for x seconds without cells dropping below x volts

and of course graphs to back it up.

I'm pretty serious about this. I think we (RCM) should collaborate and decide what the formula should be and start putting it out there. Call it the "RCM standard" Any manufacturer worth their grits would be happy to participate in a standardized test.

So guys: What should the formula be? Lets help mature our beloved hobby.

also, to remove all variables batteries should be at ambient temp and the testing room temp should be noted. As well as pack temp after. Up to x mph cooling airflow allowed.

Are there any variables I am missing?

Let us make the criteria and shove it down the industries throat! It's our money lining their pockets, lets us be informed!

Ideas
 

From my perspective the best person to set this up if he wants to accept is Brian G. He can place whatever we come up with into one of his spec charts for all of us to have access to.

I believe all we have to do is input what we feel is most important for these comparisons and once its all put together you can copy it as a file and attach it to your letter to Consumer Reports as a request from the entire R/C community and list The RCM Forum as a place of contact for further info if required. This really shouldn't be all that hard to pull together with the level of intelligance, skills, and experience gathered in here.

Really guys.
 

Really guys lets do this. Let us all pull together here on RCM and put this to rest once and for all. Just think of what this can do for the entire R/C community world wide? This can put an end to all of the confusion, and all of the Bull$hit blowing smoke up peoples skirt trying to fluff up their particular batteries regardless of advertising or anything else for that matter. Just pure facts, and stright up comparisons. Then they can talk all the crap they want about how their product is the best in the world or in the market, but none of that will matter because we will have the facts to shut them up. What do you guys think??

If we are all onboard with this, then BrianG can you set up a specific thread where all of us can put in our two cents for entries into whatever format you can come up with as a standard for Consumer Reports or whoever gets involved with this can follow. I know I'm pumped about the possible outcome that this will be able to reveal for all of us. Put the mystery out of the equasion and let us make the standard which all of the manufacturers will have to meet in order to be competitive for our business.

I like the idea of using some kind of standardized test but I have a feeling no such test fairly exists. Think about AA batteries. Duracell, Energizer and the like all have great ads proclaiming they make the best, strongest, longest lasting batteries yet even in these consumer products, there is no real testing or way to compare. No way to truly know if the expensive battery is better than the CVS generic battery. I doubt Consumer Reports wants to get involved in RC Hobby batteries. If, using an EagleTree system or some such device, someone impartial can separate fact from fiction, that would be a step in the right direction but I'm quite sure no unified system of reporting accurate numbers is coming anytime soon.

With all that said. I've got a MA 5250 4s Pack that I got 2-3 weeks ago, it's brand new. I didn't race this weekend but I did race with it last weekend. If BrianG or someone wants to conduct this test, I'd be happy to send it to him. It's not one of these new "Race Edition" packs but it is a brand new current model MA pack.

I just want to see graphs. If MA came up with a pack that can pull a true 150c (I highly doubt it) I will be a MA customer again. Until then my money will be going elsewhere.

Not really interested in the "lipo-wars" here, but one question remains to all the people who demand to see some graphs:
What does a graph really tell you?
In case of doubt only that someone was quite capable of using power point, photo shop or MS paint and has a good imagination.
In my opinion graphs are meritless if provided by the manufacturer of the product.
Any manufacturer of any of their products that is.
I think a neutral, unbiased tester is the only one to provide a usefull graph.

But then, how do you test a product if it fullfills it's specs, if no sufficient specs are provided?
150C is fine, but for how long? One nano second? 10 seconds burst? Constant discharge? "True" just isn't a concept of time known to me.
Since there are no limiting factors given, to the amount of time the 150C are possible, one would have to assume it is constant discharge.
So maxamps-guys, if you really have any interest in "clearing your name" with the submonsters here, provide some specs so someone can actually test your products.
If not, the fronts will remain as they are.

Unfortunately I think the greatest form of testing would be that of the few forms of media we have. If the RC magazines that are in existence weren't so heavily dependent on the advertisement of certain manufacturers to hold a test all in one of there mags I would be a happy man.

Just imagine how many folks would be resourcing that edition for there facts on batteries. Of coarse there would be some rebuttal but ultimately they have the torch in there hands. So many of us have prescribed to at least one if not more of these magazines. Imagine if they were to be the bearer of bad news.

Unfortunately certain mags, at least the ones I read, are owned by those who control there pocket books so we will never have a magazine that can man up and show its readers a true test. Maybe one day we will have this such thing happen...

Even if this pack do hold a 150 c discharge...(almost impossible)

WHAT´S THE POINT ??

There´s no motor/ESC that will pull that much Amps on 4s ... Is like killing a cockroach with a V2 missile...

The bigger problem would be the equipment to test those specs.
You would really need some tough hardware for those 975 amps.
I would know just the right person to do a trust worthy test:
Gerd Giese from www.elektromodellflug.de/ is the LiPo guru in Germany, he certanly would have the knowledge to test those packs, but I doubt he would have the equipment.
Even if maxamps wouldn't provide a lipo, getting one for him would be easy, if everyone here, who wants to see hard facts and definite proof, would donate 10 bucks we could easily get at least one pack.

@molak: killing cockroaches with V2 missiles?
Sounds like fun:party:

I disagree. The point of a higher C rated battery is that as your current climbs you put more stress on a battery, diminishing it's life cycle. A battery that can handle a very high discharge will not be stressed nearly as much when pulling 150-200 amp spikes if it can handle 900amp spikes. My RC8T truggy on 5s geared for less than 40 had a peak of 167 Amps. Even with good quality cells that I was using (RC-Monster 25/50C) they did get warmer than I would have liked, even though they held about 3.4V/ cell under that load, the heat that they generated did tell me they where getting stressed. If that battery had been a 50/100C it may have been 10-15 degrees cooler because I wouldn't have been stressing it as much.

I doubt that these lipos from MA are 150C constant, that may be their burst C rating, so maybe they are actually a 40C continuous, which would still be a great battery.

As it's already been stated we really need an industry standard for measuring C ratings. Such as it needs to hold 3.4 volts at load or 3.5 or whatever, as long as it's a standardized value we would really be able to make an accurate assesment on the batteries we purchase

Each cell is 4.2 volts and if we discharge at 975 amps, we get 4095 watts.

4.2v X 975amps = 4095 watts (Note: this would make a 4S pack, capable of 16,380 watts of power.

1 electric horsepower = 746 watts of power

This would make a single 4S pack capable of producing 21.96 horsepower!

22 electric horsepower would not only start your car, but it would be enough to push a small car fairly well.

The Industrial Lift Trucks I mentioned earlier have a 6.6kw drive motor. That's less than 9 horsepower and the truck weighs almost 10,000lbs. Top Speed of 9.5 mph, but still ALOT of weight.

All Batteries have an amp hour rating or on the smaller types of batteries we use, a mah rating.

Mah rating is amp hours divided by 1000. Since Mili means 1000.

A 6500 mah pack can also be called 6.5 amp hours.

The "hour" term is added to show how much amp draw it can sustain in 1 hour. A 6.5 amp hour pack can hold a 6.5 amp discharge for 1 hour.

As long as we know this, we can play with the numbers and calculate how long the pack can sustain any rate of amperage discharge.

The same pack can sustain a 1 amp discharge for 6.5 hours.... and so on.

Now, how do we calculate how long it can sustain a 975 amp discharge?

6.5 amp hour pack / 975 amp discharge X 60 (discharging minutes) X 60 (discharging seconds) = How long the charge will last at that level of discharge.

6.5 / 975=.006666666666666666666666667 X 60 = 0.4 X 60 = 24 seconds

You can play with this formula any way you like, for any size pack, for any amp draw rate.

So, in conclusion. If the 6500mah of charge ONLY lasts for 24 seconds. This should change the warranty to pretty much an unconditional warranty as far as the discharge rate is concerned.

No more should anyone hear "Well your gearing was wrong and it was too much load on the pack".

Because evidently, if you don't discharge the ENTIRE charge in less than 24 seconds, you are safe within the confines of the discharge rating. :whistle:

I'm very sure this kind of amperage is enough to smoke and cook every FET from the power board of ANY ESC if the esc fails and the powerboard goes into runaway meltdown.

^ Blah blah facts..... blah blah math....why so negative???

:mdr:

All the Blah blah facts and comparisons point toward something........

A "True 150C" continuous rating is NOT possible from these "little" Lipo packs and these little wires.

I think you know that was sarcasm...

150C

whats sarcasm? ha ha sorry red couldnt help it! at the risk of stirring up another sh!tstorm i want to throw a question out there. thought of something interesting today during a conversation with a buddy. now i know these are dc batteries, but we subject them to high frequency switched loads right? seems logical to me but everything sounds good inside your own head i gues..... so my question is, to which does the "C" rating refer to? a dc constant load or an ac like switched load? i could see a battery sustaining a higher switched load than a constant one. feel free to blow this out of the water if im wrong, but i think it might be something to consider if we are tying to pioneer a standardized rating system, and since our esc's are all high frequency switches in a sense maybe this is how we should rate these packs? no? i mean lets face it we all know that even a peice of 8 gauge wire wont take more than a couple hundred amps of straight/constant/dc load without becoming a fusable link(fun to watch!) right? but go to a switched/ac load and it might hold a bit more load. any who just curious to hear what others think on the topic. LET THE STORM BEGIN! ha ha ha....

Not to burst your bubble, but there is no AC current at the battery terminals... I think you meant to say Pulsed-DC current. :smile: I know what you're getting at, though. The C rating would refer to a constant load, rather than a pulsed load. Seeing as how our ESCs use such high frequencies, they can be taken as a constant load.

it's dc, needs to be tested as dc, and at no point in time becomes ac.

I get what you're saying though. Your theory might work if we tested after the esc and before the motor, but simply testing the battery all we need is dc.

Wow
 

Sikeston just reading through your post boggles the mind. Not working with this kind of high end electronics equation stuff leaves one speachless. Still I get what your saying pretty well, and that is exactly what I was thinking before reading your post. Having an R/C type of LiPo battery that can deliver 150C discharge just seems impossible to me. More like scinence fiction than reality. You have to wonder where in the world are the MaxAmps people are getting this idea of 150C from. Well I would like to hear their side of this explanation. So we know your reading through all of this. Lets here it Maxamps. How are you calculating a 150c draw from a 4.2volt cell? I am not getting it????

That is the exact point I was making on the car action site. Cant see anymore complaints about gearing.

rodger that! makes more sense when i see grover explaining things:lol: you guys are right, for some reason ive been preprogramed working with ac for so long i forget that it has a brother, dc who is much happier to do what you tell it to. what really throws me are the three phase wires on the motors, i see that and boom my brain sweats cause i think i got some ac excitement!

If you invented the bread slicer, wouldn't you have a slice of bread to show off?

So what ever happened to that guy that was on the opposing side.

He said we would get some graphs right.

I was really thinking that with his credentials at RC Car action he would pull through and give us something.

I really wish that RCMonster would let them talk for a few minutes so that we can get some of the information out of them. Every time someone gets on here from or regarding Maxamps we tear them to pieces. I want to hear their story. Are these new chemical compositions? New materials? New something?

I think that was Friday i.e. less than 1 business day ago...

Perhaps he could have a week before the pyre burning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEOQqnHMSMc

:lol:

Getting ready to leave for iHobby tomorrow so I have a lot to do. When I get back I will be getting some graphs and videos together to post for you guys. Thanks for understanding.

Brandon

Is Mike going to iHobby this year?

If so, maybe he can bring some fresh Hyperions to battle with the new MA packs.

With this high C rating, will it be possible to run three Schulze 40.303s wired to ONE 42s1p Maxamps battery pack with no parallel cells? I mean, that's only 909 amps, so there will be plenty of overhead. Just curious.

Hey, I'm skeptical of Maxamps, not because the claim might not be true, but because they are making sales on a product that claims 150c before there is any published proof of it. That is bad marketing ethic that no 300C battery pack can redeem. In the hobby business, integrity is key. I just hope that Maxamps had proof of 150c before marketing the batteries to buyers. That's what matters most to me.

But if these packs are legit, it would be a great upgrade in the RC market. However I hold my stance: unless Maxamps had proof of the 150c rating before marketing the batteries, Maxamps is practicing dishonest marketing (and possibly false marketing if it turns out that the batteries are not 150c). See, it doesn't even matter if these packs can run at 150c. What matters is if they had proof of this before marketing the batteries to uninformed buyers.

When I make a purchase, it's the ethic I shop for first. Thus I stay away from Integy and other knockoff companies. Currently I stay away from Maxamps because my four 3s2p 8000mah batteries all puffed and failed, hopefully that will remain the only reason I stay away from them.

I am sure we will get a graph fro Maxamps. Why not? Only a graph. I can also supply you guys with a graph suggesting that my Turnigy lipos can support 300C discharge rates. I am very good at Power Point presentations. :yes:


What gets me is that , like sikeston34m has shown us, these cells can supposedly able to generate around 21 horse power. That is more than enough to start any diesel engine that I have ever worked on and they had a little bit thicker wires going to their starter motors than the 12awg wires that Maxamps use. About 3/4 of an inch thicker. Hmmmmmmm??????????

Everyone take a chill-pill. Let Brandon work at iHobby and lets wait for the graph.

Yeah most of us, if not all, are skeptical but no point in dragging it out any more.

Brandon enjoy iHobby :yes: