Originally Posted by JERRY2KONE (Post 388884)

THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. Look none of us are asking for a graph that shows fair performance. What we are asking for is proof that shows that these cells hold up to the advertised claims of TRUE 150C rated race packs. From our understanding that means 150C continuous load capability all while holding nominal voltage. If this is not possible, then I would think that the reasonable and responsible thing to do is correct the advertising to match the actual ability of these packs. Otherwise it still shows that Maxamps is falsely advertising its batteries.

It was nice to have one of your biggest race supporters drop in to post a nice retort in support of your batteries and your company in general, but it still does not show that your TRUE 150C claims are in fact accurate. We can sit here all day long and write posts for or against Maxamps, but that will not prove or disprove your claim. We as your consumers want to see proof of your advertised claims for a battery that holds up a "true 150C" continuous load. Until you are willing to do just that all of this is a waste of our time and yours. So please stop with the song and dance and provide what you promised to do in the first place. This is not a bash on your company or anyone elses. We could care less about your reputation one way or another, but what we would like is for you to be honest and do whats right.

Originally Posted by fastbaja5b (Post 388909)

Wow, retailers must get away with a lot in the USA.

Retailers have been stung for far less than this under misleading and deceptive conduct in Australia. The general consensus is that a stated C rating is that of the continuous load, so a 65C pack can do 65C Continuous. If you advertise a pack as 150C and you know (or ought to have known) the public would take this as a continuous rating, and it's not, then it's a deliberate misstatement.

I mean a V8 F150 can get 1l/100km if I roll it down a hill and cut the engine....

Originally Posted by fastbaja5b (Post 388909)

Wow, retailers must get away with a lot in the USA.

Retailers have been stung for far less than this under misleading and deceptive conduct in Australia. The general consensus is that a stated C rating is that of the continuous load, so a 65C pack can do 65C Continuous. If you advertise a pack as 150C and you know (or ought to have known) the public would take this as a continuous rating, and it's not, then it's a deliberate misstatement.I mean a V8 F150 can get 1l/100km if I roll it down a hill and cut the engine....

Originally Posted by Arct1k (Post 388927)

FYI from the maxamps site

The use of Lithium Polymer batteries in radio-controlled models is to be considered experimental, and there is no warranty, expressed or implied, by the manufacturer, distributors, or retailers with respect to the capacity, life in cycles, storage, or discharge characteristics of lithium cells in RC use, nor any other use nor aspect unless otherwise stated.

Originally Posted by thzero (Post 388935)

It's real easy. Don't like it? Don't believe the claims? Don't buy.

Originally Posted by JERRY2KONE (Post 388937)

I believe some people here are missing the point of this thread. "TRUE 150C" race ready LiPo packs in the eyes of most R/C hobbiests reads to be a battery pack that can hold 150C continuous. If these packs can only do 75C continuous then advertise them that way. Stop using advertising tactics that try to fool everyone into thinking that their batteries are more than they really are. Great some people are impressed that they now have a pack that can do 75C continuous, and 150C one second bursts. Then advertise them that way. We are trying to watch out for everyone in this hobby, not just our own wallets. If this were a Chinese company you guys would be having a fit and contacting the Department of State over the matter. Claiming a TRUE 150C status on a LiPo pack is shady at best when we all know very well that it will not hold up to that claim. Personally I was glad to hear that they are now offering the 3 year warranty on all of their packs. That was a good move. Whether or not they honor that will have to be seen.

Originally Posted by thzero (Post 388938)

Really? Who appointed you, us, whatever as guardians of the industry? If you were really that interested in "guardianship" you'd be doing more to test and verify the claims of ALL battery manufacturers/distributors, including the Chinese, Taiwanese, etc. ones too, and not just harping on one.

Frankly most of the LiPo battery manufacturer/distributor, etc. out there don't do anything to back up their claims with solid information and technical specifications that can be verified. It's a free-for-all.

Originally Posted by JERRY2KONE (Post 388940)

Yes except you forgot one thing. Most of the LiPos being used out there today have been tested over time and all of them have some level of reputation to back them up whether it is performance, durability, specs, of bad claims processing. This one in particular has not done so well over the last two or three years in the eyes of most of the people in here because of puffed cells, none respect where warrenty issues are concerned, and the highest prices in the business. That is what started this discussion in the first place. I am not asking to be appointed for or by anyone for anything. Like everyone else in here I am merely posting my opinions, experience, and concerns about this issue, because people want to know if Brandon is going to breath new life into this company or just keep following the same previous reputation. No need to boil over here. This is a fair and open discussion requesting real world specs on these LiPos. Don't lose respect just because you may not agree with my posts. This is what forums are for.

Originally Posted by snellemin (Post 388944)

Originally Posted by What's_nitro? (Post 388948)