My little rant was more against HPI's specs, advertising and overall lack of detail in their advice for the Flux. For a RTR basher vehicle that will be sold to a lot of inexperienced people, the lack of good advice, and worse, the promotion of bad advice is irresponsible to their customers IMO and will cost everyone a lot of money needlessly.
However, the comments I see coming out of Castle are also confusing.
This is all the relevant specs I see of the MMM combo the Flux is based on:
ESC:
Cells: 6s LiPo
Continuous: 120A*
(I guess they've done away with the ambiguous "More than you can handle" )
Motor:
Max Input Volts: 25.2
Amp Rating*: 120
The Flux manual just says upto 3S batts and recommends 25C batts. No where does capacity get mentioned. CC's site says little about batteries other than Brian @ Tanic can make you A123 packs (
which I swear to God at one point I saw people blaming A123s for MMM poofing back at the v1 era.)
Not only that, you get information from CC guys themselves that further the confusion:
Previous post
Quote:
Sorry guys,
I think this was a misunderstanding on the part of one of our Tech support guys -- he wasn't aware of the newer Maxamps packs that could handle more than 15C.
The official stand of Castle is that any pack that can handle 75A continuous, and 150A peak is sufficient for use with the MMM.
Austin -- Sorry about that! You are right, there was a misunderstanding and it wasn't meant to target Maxamps in particular.
Patrick
Patrick del Castillo
President, Principle Engineer
Castle Creations
|
So that was a little while ago, but the same problem is still on going. The MMM manual says nothing other than to look for "low resistance" cells, and not use Tamiya connectors, and better batts give better results.
Nowhere, nowhere does anyone give some useful information in an absolute sense. Everything is relativistic. Todays "cheap" cells (like zippies and others) would have been kings just a few years ago when the MM came out. Then the expensive packs were 20C. So are 20C FP and TP packs crap now and will blow up a MMM? Seriously.
How is someone just going to a LHS (or even running one) supposed to make good decisions? Not only are these batts prolly not even available at LHSs, but the people working there are not likely experts on highend lipos and "ripple voltages" in ESCs. On top of that you have CC guys running around the internet saying you can void your warr by using sh1tty cells, but won't say what are the sh1tty cells and which are not.
By reading what Patrick wrote once upon a time, a 10C/15C TrueRc 8000 mah pack should be plenty for a MMM. Those are cheap cells, prolly fairly high resistance, but they meet the specs. So does a 30C/50C 2500 mah pack. Really? I have one from Neu I use on a CRT.5, but I wouldn't trust it on a Flux w/ a 1Y on 6S. (and happens to put out no more power than a 25C 2100 pack from zippy on the ET...)
Ok, I understand why CC wants to not disqualify some vendors packs, and can't be expected to test every cell out there. But, that doesn't mean they should just then be vague and expect people to listen to others online (who may or may not be FOS.)
Why can't CC at least have a few "Tested and Approved Packs" list to go with the hardware. I've worked with a lot of computer components, and at least they give a few part#s that have been tested and known to work. An end user can find those, or try to use his own that meet the same specs, but its considered untested at that point.
EG.: A motherboard maker: MB x123 has been tested with Ram modules:
Patriot #23423 1gb CL2 168pin 3.3V
Crucial #34534 512mb CL2
Infineon #234234 1gb CL2
Etc etc.
They are not endorsing or slandering any particular Ram, but at least give end users information and practical specs and examples to go by. Right now information just seems dodgy. "Oh, your MMM flamed out on XyZ batts? What C rating? 22C?! Ohh... Yeah you should know not to use
those. Too bad you just ruined $200 worth of equipment... Better luck next time. Make sure you spend a lot more on the next ones"