RC-Monster Forums - BigSquid 4S LiPo Shootout

RC-Monster Forums (https://www.rc-monster.com/forum/index.php)

- Brushless (https://www.rc-monster.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - BigSquid 4S LiPo Shootout (https://www.rc-monster.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28710)

BigSquid 4S LiPo Shootout

So anyone check this out? And if so, anyone used Ace batteries (yet another Chinese battery manf.)? Or know anywhere reputable to obtain them?

Personally even though they seem to be lacking a bit, a 40 price point compared to 250 price point for the Thunderpower, is still a great deal especially for bashing. You definetly get more than 3/4ths the power, etc. for 16th the costs.

Aces being at the 60 price point seem to be almost as good if not better bargrain.

I've read it. That thunder power is a cheater pack at an over the top price. The ACE pack was meant to be sold at a higher price point, but the goofed up chinese sold a big batch to hobbypartz, which in turn sold them at well below the suggested retail price. ACE dug their own hole in the business with that deal.

I have 5 Ace packs in different formats. I charge the 5000mah packs @ 40A with no issues. I'm happy with the 4s hardcase pack that I have. I have requested 10awg wires on my next 4s packs and waiting to see if that will be done.

Too bad they didn't weed them out by doing some higher rate discharges, ALL of them were just barely breaking a sweat and is why they are so equal. I do like the shootout and the format they use. very nice. It takes a lot of work.

Very well done test just seems like they didnt give the turnigy a fair chance by pitting a 4500mah pack with a lower C rating against high C and high MAH packs... Of course its not going to lay down the same power, its a smaller pack...

Someone mentioned it was the largest hardcase from turnigy

I agree, the comparison wasn't quite "fair"

It is hard to find hardcase 4S , but it is also very easy to run a pair of 2S packs , and in many cases it's "better"

A pair of the HK 5200 hard packs in series might be interesting.

I sent them a nice email:

Quote:

To whom it may concern; you may want to revise your test results & testing methods in the 4s lipo shootout...

Capacity Test: You put the turnigy lipo in last place because it had the lowest mah capacity; that’s utterly ridiculous. That’s like scoring a Ferrari higher because its faster than your mustang. If you actually scored that test on rated capacity vs actual tested capacity, the turnigy would come out in 1st place because it held 80mah more than its rating; the lipo in first place held 60mah less than it was rated for- your testing criteria/ methodology is seriously flawed, making that test pretty much worthless and entirely misleading. Once again you have failed to test like with like, resulting in totally skewed results that are largely subjective.

Top-Speed test: Another horribly flawed test. This time you compared lipos with different mah & discharge ratings and decided it was totally reasonable that the highest rated pack should come in first place, even though the rather lower spec turnigy was only 1mph slower. Given that the thunderpower lipo is capable of producing 344.5 amps continuous ( well, until the wires melt anyway... ) and the turnigy only 180 amps, its safe to say the turnigy actually gave the best result based on its specs vs performance. As it happens though, the MMM system is recommended for use with lipos capable of producing at least 120amps, so all those batts are more than adequate; if you really wanted to see how well the pack could power the buggy then you should have been geared for perhaps 50-60mph on 4s lipo, to really put a load on the packs and see which ones couldn't supply the current that's being demanded, thus a slower speed ( and higher lipo temps ) would have been observed. Poor testing methodology once again..

Voltage under-load test: I don't even know where to start- your commentary on the turnigy pack is hilarious quite frankly; you compare lipos of massively varying mah capacity and C rating, and put the pack with the smallest of both last in the results table; well duhhh....
Lets do some basic math shall we. The pack with the highest mah capacity will run for the longest length of time, assuming the discharge ratings were all the same & were accurate ( this is the #1 reason why all your tests are so horribly flawed- you cannot compare packs with different specs and group them in the same results table without accounting for the difference specs that will skew the results ). However, if the mah capacity of all the packs was the same, then the packs with the highest C rating would last the longest, since these packs will suffer less voltage sag under load resulting in a longer discharge time before they reach 3.0v per cell; I have grouped the lipos you tested in order of their power output, collectively in terms of maximum continuous current and total power rating in watt/ hours:

Thunder Power RC 5300mah 65c = 344.5amps & 89.04 watt / hrs
Team Checkpoint 5400mah 35c = 189amps & 90.72 watt / hrs
Venom Group RC 5000mah 50c = 250amps & 84 watt/ hrs
ACE Acepow Electronics 5000mah 40c = 200amps & 84 watt/ hrs
Turnigy 4500mah 40c = 180amps & 75.6 watt/ hrs

Well, wadda ya know, the order is almost exactly the same as the test results, who’d have seen that one coming? Oh yeah, that would be anyone with a calculator & 2 ounces of common sense. It seems however that the Ace lipo did better than expected- I suspect this is down to some inflated specs on the part of venom, otherwise the packs performed exactly as they should have done according to their ratings. It boggles the mind that you were surprised the lowest rated pack ( runtime and C rating ) came last in the test, and the highest rated pack came first; these are the sort of observations that I would expect a 10 year-old to make, not a bunch of so-called experts who give advice to people based on some horrifically flawed understanding of raw data.

Weight comparison: You have go to be kidding me?! You score packs with different mah capacity & energy densities based on weight, and again, wadda you know, the smallest and lowest spec pack wins the weight contest! What kind of jokers are you? That’s like saying a 500g weight is lighter than a 600g weight, so the 500g weight wins the contest. The results are barely worth looking at because, one last time now, you cannot compare lipos of different specs and then group them in the same table- the mah capacities atleast should all be matching, then you might be able to draw some conclusions / results about their energy density & C rating vs their weight ( highest C rating being the heaviest is the logical conclusion is the way I see it.. ). As it is, the results table you arrived at is a no-brainer pretty much- the turnigy is the smallest pack so therefore the lightest, Venom & Ace seem to have traded places once again due to some over-rated specs most likely in the venom department, checkpoint is heaviest due to having the largest mah capacity- the more lipo material you have to store energy, the larger and heavier the pack has to be...

As for the actual driving test results, no surprize really about the results there, though it was nice to see the Ace lipos getting great results as I’ve been recommending those to people as a state-side alternative to the Turnigy lipos.

Overall I have to say I am deeply disappointed with how poorly carried out your testing is, and how ridiculous the results were due to a total lack of common-sense when interpreting the results. I would strongly recommend in future that you either consult someone who has some proper electrical knowledge whom can assist you in turning the raw data into a results chart that has even the slightest bit of meaning or relevance, and I would also strongly suggest that you only compare LIKE WITH LIKE to reduce the horribly skewed test results you are producing with out accounting for different specs between each pack.

Yours Faithfully, Neil Ward ( aka SuicideNeil & Army of Darkness ).

Seriously, its like a bunch a 10 yearolds conducted the test, its so hopelessly flawed & skewed the results are as good as worthless... :no:

Very nice, Neil! /EPIC /RANT :lol:

<---------Agrees with Neil.

It's easy to see they were biased against the Turnigy Packs from the start.

They weren't comparing apples to apples at all.

By weight, and volume, if it were possible to compare different Lipo chemistries, the truth would come to the top.

hmmm. lighter weight, lower mah, lower c rating. they must be the same.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.word...obinamused.jpg

I'm not sure the unfair was intentional. I'd bet that it wasn't even on their radar. They have no reason to be biased toward any pack do they?

Speaking of 10 year olds...

Quote:

Originally Posted by suicideneil (Post 389335)

Seriously, its like a bunch a 10 yearolds conducted the test, its so hopelessly flawed & skewed the results are as good as worthless... :no:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoober (Post 389410)

I'm not sure the unfair was intentional. I'd bet that it wasn't even on their radar. They have no reason to be biased toward any pack do they?

More like biased against- they singled out the Turnigy pack in the discharge/ voltage under load test and said it performed poorly compared to the other lipos; hardly frickin' surpizing given that it was only a 4500mah 40c pack against a 5300mah 65c Thunderpower, and all the other packs were 5000 or more; little wonder it had the shortest run/ discharge time. Saddly though it does appear very much like they didnt realise the test would be completely unfair, they just didnt account at all for the very differing specs of the packs and put them all in the same results table- very amature really. The reason it annoys me so much is because they are posting these results to try and help kids and newbs/ noobs make purchasing decisions; worse than maxamps posting inflated specs almost..

*derp derp* bigsquid r/c; blind leading the blind.. *derp derp*

Neil, you are BRUTAL! lol. I like it! Please post up the reply from them when/if you get one.

Let's re grade their results, maybe in % so it is easy to compare. I'm re-reading the shootout. My point was really that I doubt that they "set out" to intentionally make Turnigy lose.

Capacity test

1 Turnigy 4500 102%
2 AcePow 5000 101%
3 Venom 5000 100%
3 ThunderPower 5300 100%
5 Checkpoint 5400 99%

This capacity comparison is quite fine to compare apples to oranges (doing it my way) and the new winner is turnigy , but I'm guessing that a retest might provide different winner since they are so close to 100% that it isn't even worth mentioning.

Top speed test

I can't argue with too much. I suppose I am most impressed by the Turnigy especially as I keep it's price in mind as I view the top speed numbers with a smile. The only thing I can say about a top speed test is that since the speed isn't great and the load was very small that ANY battery with 4S would top out at the same speed (even a junky e-bat type pack would fair well if it is geared like this) As neil pointed out there isn't much load on the packs at this speed and weight.

Voltage test

I can say alot about this since it is what I do. It is pretty much the same story as the speed test. A 10 minute test is 6C and none of the packs are even close to breaking a sweat. I'm most impressed with the Turnigy and the AcePow. The temp ratings actually can tell more than the graphs and to me the AcePow pack might do very well if the current were doubled or more. This one really is an unfair comparison , but could've been a fair comparison if the "C" rating and the capacity of the pack were taken into account when selecting a discharge current. Instead they selected the same current for all packs and did so because the equipment is maxxed out.

FWIW I do notice that the capacity even at 30 amps still remains in order according to the pack's labels. Again a 30 amp test isn't any kind of load for these packs.

Weight test

I can't say much about it. I agree with it. I like a light pack hehe.

Price test

This is the one that is unfair to all the larger packs. It is obvious that a smaller , lower rated, lighter pack would cost less. Even if it were adjusted to a % test the Turnigy would blow the others away with the AcePow in second. It really is an unfair comparison , but nonetheless I would consider nothing but the top two.

Driving test

There's a reason that the Acepow "felt better" and has to do with it's power. If the discharge test and the top speed test were done at higher loads then this "feel" would show up on the numbers.

Fit test

I don't even know what to say

Final results

My take is that the venom is a dog and is properly in last place. The acepow is winner and I agree. I do like the turnigy though too (I'm a miser)

You've got completely overboard. I am positive no one singled any packs out for any reason.

And actually its not worse than MaxAmps, not even close. Its far better than MaxAmps because AT LEAST THEY ARE TRYING. Think you can do better testing with better methodology? Then do it. Don't like their methodology? Then start a civil discussion, not a bunch of name calling. Geesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoober (Post 389426)

...

Good summary. And even a civil one. :)

If I had the samples I would do a higher current discharge test and post graphs. To me this is the most important test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thzero (Post 389440)

Actually i do think they are biased against Turnigy. There are 2 most talked about lipo manufacturers and they are Turnigy and Maxamps. Maxamps is a sponsor on their site, which is why they have never tested a maxamps pack. In the test they even said some smart ass comment about the "cheap turnigy packs"

Quote:

Turnigy 4S 4500- Anyone that says “Turnigy packs are every bit as good, and cost 1/3 the price!” hasn’t looked at the numbers. The Turnigy did not put out the voltage of the other batteries in this test. The lack of voltage will show itself as less speed when drag racing your neighbor and while trying to clear the big triple at your local track. Temp at the end of test was 89F, it put out 4495 mah, in 541 seconds (barely over 9 minutes).

Just the way they are talking about the Turnigy packs you can kinda tell they are biased against them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by josh9mille (Post 389467)

That's exactly the impression I got too. :yes:

I also feel they blew it on this run....very poor experimental design and assumption. Even the data analysis was way off as pointed out by others.

Reading thru this "review"...

Heres an interesting quote

"In our last shootout, we used a truck set up strictly for high speed, one that was geared to the moon running a high kv brushless motor. Doing it that way pushed each battery to its limits, and helped separate the men from the boys. This time, we decided to take a different approach, to use a power set-up that you’d actually use on a track. Using only moderate gearing and a mild kv motor would not push the packs very hard, making the gap between a great pack and weak pack very small."

So they intentionally did not really load the packs. So this test was a waste of time...

The capacity test was not something you could grade, only if the battery exceeded its capacity claims... Not that I care if a battery mfg gets its specs wrong, in either direction. Not really a worthwile test, as the deviation for all of the packs is so minor. Good thing to point out, but not really a grading matter. Since they did not test capacity under load, the test did not provide "usable capacity" which I have always found turnigy packs to do very well with, and also enerland packs.

The "under load" test was decent, as it showed what a constant 30 amp load would do, which is pretty close to what some popular setups pull ON AVERAGE.

The turnigy actually put out more than its rated capacity and stayed cool. Looks good there.

Weight test is silly, unless they are trying to show that a mfg cannot weigh a pack correctly. Lower mah and c rating equals less weight, duh...

As far as price goes, you can get 6 turnig for the price of the TP... I would be interested to see how well the ACE stand up to use, as that was the main complaint with the turnigy, construction quality. Still , you can get them so cheap...

THe data was nice, the BS way they grouped and organized it was not. Of course a higher spec battery will outperform a lower spec, and I am guessing the weight of the ACE suited the buggy the best. That along with the higher output potential compared to the venom and turnigy made the ACE the favorite.

You know how they improve the next one? With some constructive feedback (sorry, and not in the way neil put it... if I was them and received it, I'd just hit delete). There have been lots of valid points; if everyone summarizes them in a constructive way and sends them individually to them then hopefully the next shootout (because who else has taken the time to do this?!) will be better. Bitching about it here doesn't do a lot of good.

And no, I still believe that you are reading way too much into it the whole Turnigy thing. They did a Zippy in the last test I do believe and didn't seem to care one way or another. And they didn't seem one way or another with Ace, which is yet another Chinese cell company.

I dont think there is anything wrong with the way Neil put it. That test was 99% retarded. I am not a lipo guru but even i knew it was a complete waste of internet space.

Its worth mentioning that the email I sent is how it appeared after moderating it myself; twice. I know it is very harsh & lots of derogatory remarks are made, but like I said, the results are as good as worthless in most cases since the packs on test are not of the same spec.

I agree though, if the people who drew their own conclusions would kindly email those thoughts to Bigsquid I would be very greatful; they might even make a post aknowledging their methodology was flawed and redraw the results in a much more sensible & meaningful way, or atleast when they do another test compare like with like ( which is the main issue with their tests to begin with ). Cheers guys :angel:

Brian@BigSquidRC.com
Squiddy@BigSquidRC.com

I agree with thzero.

It is easy to criticize what they are doing, and point out all the flaws. IMO at least they are trying. They are the only group I'm aware of that are at least making an attempt to test lipos and give some type of results. It is a work in progress and hopefully it will improve each time.

The tests they actually do are fine, if a little feeble ( 6C discharge test & low load/gearing to test runtime & speed are easily improved ), but its the fact they test dissimilar packs together that creates almost useless comparison charts. All the batts should be the same mah capacity, and they should all be the same C rating too, or no more than ~200mah difference at most in order to create a fair test.

In esscence the results were that the buggy they had worked just fine with all of the packs. So you can save your self 220 bucks on the tp pack and just buy a turnigy. Or if you want a little more runtime can the hardcase requirement, build/use a decent battery tray and just buy a higher capacity soft pack from HC (or buy 2-3) and pocket the cash.

If they just want to do the CBA test, low draw capacity tests and skip the subjective stuff I would be just fine. Do it to every battery they can get their hands on and we would have some great data to look at.

As bad as the test was run, I believe if they WERE biased against turnigy they failed miserably.
They did however solidify my decision to pickup a pair of 4S 5000mah turnigy packs for my current build. At ~$109 shipped for 10,000mah's at 40c constant it will be a long time before I spend 4 times as much to buy a label...

The test showed me that turnigy performs close enough to advertised to warrant a purchase.

Now I'm waiting for the "nano-tech" turnigys to hit the warehouse here in America.

Off topic, but do you plan on using 2 of the 4S 5000mah packs in parallel for 10,000mah? That's going to be pretty heavy in a 1/8 buggy (or it's for a different project?)

Off topic: yes, 2lbs of 4s lipos in parallel with a MMM/1518. A very heavy buggy :-) but the idea is to switch over to 8s 5000mah when the Mamba XL HV hits the shelves.

I may pick up a few 4s 2650mah turnigy nanotechs for racing later on.

Suicide, you made the front page...

http://www.bigsquidrc.com/ask-cub-re...010/#more-7766

Yay Neil! guy is full of crap though.. They want to know the best pack... Well the turnigy is still the lowest rated pack not rocket science to figure that it will be the lowest performance pack.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...thumbnail1.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by thzero (Post 389982)

Suicide, you made the front page...

http://www.bigsquidrc.com/ask-cub-re...010/#more-7766

Hahaha.. maybe Neil has a future as an American diplomat. I look forward to future leaked cables on Neil's thoughts of what a drunk the president of Nigeria is, how many hookers the Italian PM visits or what a small peen the president of Iran has. :) Comedy gold. :intello:

The response was pretty weak IMO:

Quote:

BigSquid has an enormous reader base because we cater to the non-hard core types, the guys that simply want to know which of these packs will make their car run the longest.

Quote:

Points Manufacturer/Battery Capacity
1 Checkpoint 5400 5340 mah
2 Thunder Power 5300 5305 mah
3 ACE 5000 5050 mah
4 Venom 5000 5001 mah
5 Turnigy 4500 4580 mah

Seems like a NSS moment. "Hey the biggest battery has the longest runtime."
Come' on Neil, only hard-core guys would know that without being told. Stop being such an elitist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thzero (Post 389982)

Suicide, you made the front page...

http://www.bigsquidrc.com/ask-cub-re...010/#more-7766

:rofl::lol::rofl:

I responded:

Quote:

I’ll address your response to my email.

"This 4S Lipo shootout was done specifically to show where you gain (or lose) performance in batteries of different capacities and “C” ratings."

Really, I don’t recall that being mentioned during the shootout even once. What I do recall is you stating you asked manufacturers to provide some packs that you thought 'would perform well in our tests'. If the purpose of the test was to determine how well different spec packs perform in the same tests, then you should have stuck to one brand and tested different spec packs from their range to find the point at which a higher spec doesn’t yield better performance.

"Alas, we have already done a shootout like that, just look back at our Lipo Shootout 2 if you want to see packs of similar capacities go at it head to head."

Yep, I saw those tests and also pointed out to one of your team how pretty much useless those tests were too ( bit of a pattern emerging here... )

"We do our shootouts based on what the readers want. The bulk of the emails looking for the next shootout were requesting we do a best of 4S, and that’s exactly what we did."

Uh-hu. I think you misinterpreted what the word 'best' means in that case. Your readers asked for a test to compare the best 4s lipo packs to see which actually performed well and which were over rated/ over priced, instead what you gave them was a test on a random assortment of packs of varying spec/ quality; that’s not testing the best is it? No, and nor did it help them to decide how to spend their money with comments such as ”The Turnigy was the lightest of all the packs tested, making it a good choice for some applications. We didn’t have any problems with the Turnigy, it didn’t overheat during any of our testing, but it was down on raw power compared to the rest of the field.” Like I said before, you cant compare a 40c 4500mah pack to a 65c 5300mah pack and then complain the lower spec pack didnt have as much punch- that’s sheer naivety of the highest level.

"So why would our readers even want to see batteries of different capacities battle each other? Well, have you ever seen a track that ONLY allowed 4S 5000 mah “40C” packs to race? Ever see a bash spot that only allowed 4S 4500 mah “20C” packs? No you haven’t, nor have I. The bulk of our readers walk in to a hobby shop and see a vast array of capacities and “C” ratings, they simply want to know what the highs and lows of each pack are, and more importantly, which one is the best for their individual needs."

Oh me, oh my. Please refer to my earlier point about different spec packs being tested against each other to determine the point at which you don’t gain any performance from using a higher rated pack. Your observation that there is a vast array of specifications to choose from is entirely valid, but it doesn’t take into account how people should choose which specification to opt for; like I said before, you cant compare a 65c 5300mah pack against a 40c 4500mah pack and declare 'the TP pack am bestest'- it simply doesn’t work like that. If you want to show readers which brand is best then compare the same or very similar packs from different manufacturers. If you want to show readers which spec is best value for money then compare different spec packs from the same manufacturer, or a range of specs from different manufacturers & arrange the results into league tables for each spec. Once again you fail to exercise common sense and logic in your testing methodology.

"At the end of the day, just like the masses, we at BigSquid drive our cars/trucks, and don’t care what the sticker says, we care more about having longer run times, higher top speeds, with more power than the next guy."

Well no kidding, of course people will use different spec packs in their trucks against each other whilst racing or bashing; point being that serious racers tend not to use $50 lipos and expect top-end performance, hence why most racers opt for the likes of Hyperion or Thunderpower packs- the crème de la crème. Bashers like myself however aren’t so much bothered by blistering performance and lasting the whole 20 minutes of the A-main final, so I’m more than happy to use cheaper packs so long as they aren’t overpriced and over-spec'd. Oh yes, it does matter whether you are getting ripped off- we really should care about what it says on the label even if we are buying cheaper packs for bashing purposes. Maximum runtime for bashing is a bit of a spurious requirement however, since it is nearly always much more economical ( logical too ) to buy a couple 5000mah packs say, vs a single 8000mah pack- you will get greater 'runtime' by simply swapping over packs vs running the truck non-stop for the whole bashing session; many guys I talk to state that they get bored ( or cold, especially at this time of year ) if running continuously for such long times, or they find that their motor and/or esc is on the verge of going into meltdown because they neglected to check temps during their run- a very important thing to do as it happens.

"Capacity- Neil would liked to have seen the pack that went over it’s rated capacity the most be declared the winner, but the masses want to know which one simply has the longest runtime, so that’s how we gave out the win in that category. BigSquid has an enormous reader base because we cater to the non-hard core types, the guys that simply want to know which of these packs will make their car run the longest. Fortunately for everyone, we listed and posted a graph of the results of our capacity test, so anyone can look at that info to determine a “winner” with whatever criteria you care to use."

The masses cant surely me that ignorant to basic math & reading/reasoning ability surely? The pack with the longest runtime is the pack that has the highest capacity, since all other things being equal ( or not- you see my point by now hopefully ) mah capacity = runtime, simple as. I cant possibly believe anyone over the age of about ~5 years old couldn’t work out that a 1ltr jug of milks gives you more to drink vs a 500ml jug of milk; this is common sense and math at its most basic level. My word....

"If the QC stinks on capacity, it’s going to stink on other performance parameters as well."

Says you. If you want to determine whether a company has poor quality control regards discharge rating & mah capacity, you should get a sample of cells from the same vendor ( of identical listed specs ) and carry out all your tests again on each cell, then plot the results to see if the cells give the same or very similar performance, or whether they vary quite widely. Otherwise, idle speculation and insinuations should be avoided if I were you..

"In the previous two shootouts we had trucks set-up for higher top speeds to really differentiate the packs, but in the last shootout we took a different approach using a buggy set-up for standard track racing as a change of pace just to see what the differences might be. This lower load resulted in all the packs being bunched tightly together. The TP was able to nudge out one extra mph, a very impressive achievement indeed considering how the test was set-up."

Your previous test made much more sense n that it was able to differentiate between good and mediocre packs; your last test made little sense as there was no way to tell the men from the biys as it were- the load on the packs was simply insufficient and all the packs were able to provide the current output that was demanded from them. A 1mph difference is almost laughable and not outside the relms for the margin of error your equipment may produce. I would strongly suggest a higher load through gearing, or test smaller capacity packs so that the resulting discharge rate is much higher relative to their output potential; eg a 30amp load on a 6000mah cell is only 5c, where as a 30amp load on a 2000mah cell is 15c; big difference. All things being equal, the results you get testing the smaller packs should scale more or less perfectly meaning that you can draw some solid conclusions about how well the larger packs would preform too.

"Voltage Under Load- Some readers might think that the battery with the highest mah and “C” rating will inherently win. Once again, not so, that’s why we actually test these packs. It’s entirely possible a kick-ass 4500 20C COULD beat a 5000 30C, and some people don’t seem to realize that. For example- even in our 4S shootout the Ace 40C pack produced higher voltage than the Venom 50C pack. If a higher “C” pack always puts out more voltage, then the Venom should have done better than the Ace, and it clearly did not. For an even clearer example, take our first shootout where the Thunder Power 5400 25C averaged 7.12 volts under 30 amps and the SMC 8000 28C only averaged 7.10 volts. We never assume any pack is better than another, regardless of what its sticker says, we TEST them to separate the great, from the good, from the downright awful."

If the ratings/ sticker was accurate, the the higher spec packs would be the best- that’s just common sense. The whole point of testing these lipos is determine which manufacturers are honest about their lipos performance & which are telling porky-pies ( lies ) on their labels **cough** maxamps & venom **cough**.

continued..

Quote:

"Weight- Some readers might also believe that the highest capacity and “C” rate pack will always be heavier. Not so. Do I really need to state examples? Sure! Take our first shootout where the SMC 5000 was lighter than the Speed Power 4000. Or in the second shootout where the JGB 5200 35C was lighter than the Common Sense 5000 40C. Sometimes packs will fall right into line with assumption, but not always, that’s where our hard work comes in handy for you guys looking at buying new packs."

If the packs are hard-cased then you need to take into account that the plastic used and it's thickness may vary somewhat, resulting weights that don’t seem to correspond to what you were expecting. Looking at the pictures from your previous two lipo shootouts it seems that you had a mixture of hard-cased and soft-cased packs both times; go figure that the weights vs mah capacity / C ratings were a bit out of whack.

Well, you tried your best I suppose, but you have a long way to go to impress anyone who does know the difference between series and parallel...

Yours faithfully, Neil W.

I dunno who Cubby is but he aint too bright it seems... :no:

Quote:

Originally Posted by suicideneil

Well, you tried your best I suppose, but you have a long way to go to impress anyone who does know the difference between series and parallel...

BIGGEST :lol: EVER!

Quote:

Originally Posted by suicideneil (Post 390141)

I responded:

continued..

So did you ever get a response from this?

Not to my 2nd email I sent them after they responded on their website, though there is this:

http://www.bigsquidrc.com/ask-cub-re...on-12-16-2010/

I dont think they know the meaning of a hardcore test.

I also noticed they had 'news' of an amazing 150amp esc from Leopard thats totally new and original, if by that they ment 100% identical to the older hobbywing 150amp esc:

http://www.bigsquidrc.com/ask-cub-re...on-12-16-2010/

The more I read on that site ( havent looked at the forum, I cant imagine what horrors await in there... ), the more I cant help thinking its written by the same kind of 'tards that write RCCA- just utter nonsense and biased reviews. Lame.