RunRyder RC
 5  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 1 page 1429 views POST REPLY
Helicopter
e-
Electric General Discussion
› I think C ratings are B.S.
06-05-2012 04:23 AM  5 years agoPost 1
Scott1115

rrElite Veteran

Greenwich, CT

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I’m new to electrics and have been reading A LOT, trying to learn. I’ve got most of it down pat now. But!!!!!! This C rating thing drives me crazy.

Companies claim C ratings from 20C to 65C and over. There seems to be little or no consistency. Company “A” claims to have a true C rating, implying others do not. Who really knows? Is there any way for us to tell?

I read here and on the “other” heli site that some brands’ lower C rating is much more powerful than their competitors, and equal to another brands much higher C rating. Of course this is here-say.

I’ve read several threads where people claim the Gens Aces are under rated. Spyder says right on their site “while their (Spyder) C ratings may be 30-100% lower than other brands, you'll find that Spyder packs will regularly outperform their competitors' higher rated batteries. Spyder Batteries products are always advertised with their actual C ratings…” Not picking on these two brands, just that they are easy examples to prove my point.

Bottom line, does the C rating really mean anything since we really do not know what we are getting anyway? Since there is no consistency within the industry, it appears these companies can say/claim whatever they want. We have no way to know if we are getting a 25-35-45C pack. Are we getting a 25C pack that’s really 25 and acts like a 45? Or a 45 that’s really an over rated 25?

On another note, since there are only three plus manufacturers of Lipo sheet, my guess is many of the batteries we claim are better than others are the same batteries, made by the same factory with the same components, with only different labels. Too bad there is such little disclosure regarding the manufacturing of our batteries.

Oh, shoot me now.

Compass 7HV, Trex 550E
RCRCC

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 04:30 AM  5 years agoPost 2
Gregor99

rrElite Veteran

Western Wa

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The Lipoly Objective Performance Database
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1578001

Actual C rating and FOM calculation tool
http://www.jj604.com/LiPoTool/

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 04:43 AM  5 years agoPost 3
Scott1115

rrElite Veteran

Greenwich, CT

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thank you. very interesting - virtually no brands meet their claimed C ratings. Some less than half!

Compass 7HV, Trex 550E
RCRCC

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 04:54 AM  5 years agoPost 4
Gregor99

rrElite Veteran

Western Wa

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They are not all bad. Just need to know how many grains of salt are required when purchasing. Its useful to remember that for the same manufacture, same pack weight you trade discharge capability for capacity and vice versa.

When a pack is designed, it can be designed for high discharge, high capacity, or high cycle life. But not all three. Usually the higher C packs are actually a different cell that has reduced capacity for the same weight as lower C cell.

Find a balance that works for your current and flight time requirements and go fly.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 04:57 AM  5 years agoPost 5
Scott1115

rrElite Veteran

Greenwich, CT

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That makes a lot of sense. I just wish they were more forthcoming.

Compass 7HV, Trex 550E
RCRCC

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 05:20 AM  5 years agoPost 6
OICU812

rrMaster

Edson, Alberta, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

True to their word over time has been TPs overall. I hear Thor are on par with their ratings as well but have not tried them.

...Once upon a time there were Nitros, flybars and frequency pins...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 01:47 PM  5 years agoPost 7
Scott1115

rrElite Veteran

Greenwich, CT

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

OICU812 - not according to the database. On 02/11/12 BOBSMITH posted a chart (pg3 of 5) whereby the 5 TP packs actual C ratings averaged 57.2% of their stated C ratings. They claimed 13C, 25C, 25C, 25C and 15C and were actually 11, 13,14, 9, and 9.

While they may be better packs (I do not know) this particular data base shows their actual C ratings to be almost 70% inflated.

Compass 7HV, Trex 550E
RCRCC

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 01:58 AM  5 years agoPost 8
JOLT

rrVeteran

Baltimore, MD

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I think the OP brings up a good point. I generally buy the same packs for a heli. I have found just from seat of the pants flying, that some packs deliver more power then others, even though they were bought at the same time, broken in the same, and flown back to back.

No scientific data to support this, just an observation. Also found that some of the more expensive packs are not worth the money--dropped cells after a low number of flights. Won't name names, but I think you might have an idea who I am referring to....VERY EXPENSIVE.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 02:06 AM  5 years agoPost 9
Gregor99

rrElite Veteran

Western Wa

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I have found just from seat of the pants flying, that some packs deliver more power then others, even though they were bought at the same time, broken in the same, and flown back to back.
Even the same packs from the same vendor purchased less than a few weeks apart can be very different batteries. See:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1659178

Also one thing to note, though the use of IR to evaluate a pack's performance is emerging the up and coming gold standard, it should be understood that IR measurement is still far from consistent from user to user, and device to device. Temperature makes a huge difference and the folks that are logging the IR I in the threads above have tried to set a standard there. But even between devices, the results vary. For instance my Powerlab8s generally read lower than my ESR meter from Wayne. In some cases half as much as Wayne's meter. Which is correct? Hard to say.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 11:12 AM  5 years agoPost 10
GetToDaChopper

rrElite Veteran

Las Vegas , NV

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey have you heard about the new B&S brand batterys they are C rated at 190C and have an IR of 0.001 and last up to 20 times longer than the leading brands plus they never puff up !!!

there make with a very rare element called "nonexistnium" !!!

    ▲
  ▲ ▲
▲ ▲ ▲ One of a Kind !!!

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-07-2012 01:53 AM  5 years agoPost 11
bathmagic

rrVeteran

Berwick,Victoria, Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thank you for adding this thread, its a very interesting one and helpful too.

ENV - Still laying it down !….Ohhh yeh !!!

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
06-13-2012 10:48 AM  5 years agoPost 12
Richardmid1

rrProfessor

Leeds, England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey have you heard about the new B&S brand batterys they are C rated at 190C and have an IR of 0.001 and last up to 20 times longer than the leading brands plus they never puff up !!!

there make with a very rare element called "nonexistnium" !!!
These blow TP out of the water big time, the power is crazy!.... Haven't got any yet but.....

Turnigy's are true manufacturer ratings not rated by whoever gets the cells and puts some shiny bright heatshink on them claiming they are 50C+! Thats why my 20-30C's have lasted over 150 4 minute 3D flights!

TP's might be close to there claimed C rating but they are 4x the price! Remember your paying more for the 2 year warrenty not simply because they are just that good!

60% of the time, it works every time!

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-13-2012 11:13 AM  5 years agoPost 13
Climax

rrVeteran

West London, United Kingdom

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's a funny old world...

As part of my job I often have conversations with the actual LiPo manufacturers (nearly all in China these days). Anyway when you talk to their technical guys they all pretty much say the same the thing. The best overall performance you can expect at the moment is around the 30/35C mark, and this is based on their premium cells. Of course this can be exceeded but it will ultimately shorten the life and damage the performance of the cells. They also recommend 1C charging for the same reasons.

Mix in the law of averages and lots of marketing and then somehow try and make your choice!

Electronics, Physics, Helicopters, Fixing Things...

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-13-2012 12:59 PM  5 years agoPost 14
hootowl

rrProfessor

Garnet Valley, Pa.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No excuse for blatant lying IMHO. Ir's one thing to be off by 10% or so but to regularly be stating double the actual performance is enough to cause you to lose all confidence in anything they say.

This is where lawsuits are justified.

Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-13-2012 01:15 PM  5 years agoPost 15
Richardmid1

rrProfessor

Leeds, England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The thing is though that C ratings can be proved most of the time, its whether the battery will be usable again after the test!

Take Burst C ratings for instance, some manufacturers test for 8-10 seconds, some only 4 seconds, obviously the battery tested to only 4 second bursts will be able to claim much higher burst C ratings.

Lithium cell manufacturing processes have improved drastically over recent years so any packs you buy will be good for what we want them for.

THE TRICK IS TO DO YOUR OWN QC WHEN YOU RECIEVE A PACK AND TO SEND IT BACK IF IT IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, i.e. badly out of balance, puffed slightly etc.

60% of the time, it works every time!

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-13-2012 06:43 PM  5 years agoPost 16
KC

rrElite Veteran

WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

gregor99 nailed it, you just got to take the BS claims divide by 2...

I've used dozens of hobby king packs and from just a lot of flying figured HK packs were half their claims. It is nice to see scientific data confirming that....but years ago I started to set up my powerplants around half whatever any battery manufacturer claimed and charged under 1c no matter what....ZERO problems ever since.

Treat your packs like gold, even if they are the worst HKs...all this equipment nowadays is so much more powerful and reliable that you can build helis that fly for 50% of the cost of a glow but with as much power or more......you have to really suck at flying, or using a calculator to multiply "volts x amps = watts", to 'need' more power.

If you still feel you got to have the highest performance, it is really simple: buy TPs and run them to the claimed limits, then cry like a baby to them when you trash a pack and get a second one for half off....

or you can get 4 HKs of oh 20% more capacity or voltage, pay the weight penalty, and double your stick time.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-18-2012 04:04 AM  5 years agoPost 17
RM3

rrElite Veteran

Killeen, Texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'll add that not only are the C ratings BS but so is the cost of the battery itself

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-18-2012 04:20 AM  5 years agoPost 18
Zaaaguy72

rrElite Veteran

MN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I remember when Kong used to say that you could not damage their batteries by over discharging them, that was bs too. They ended up being horrible!!

Team Sanjel!

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 1429 views POST REPLY
Helicopter
e-
Electric General Discussion
› I think C ratings are B.S.
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 5  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, May 27 - 6:16 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online