# Revealing Testing Data with Name ?



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

Guys I would like your input. 

As some of you know I've been involved in the RC battery market for 20+ years. My goal has always been to sell the best possible packs and I have always taken pride in trying to educate my fellow RC enthusiasts. 

As explained in the SMC LiPo Info thread I started in this section C rates have gotten out of control and are used as a marketing gimmick and a way for companies to increase there profits. 

I've purchased an assortment of packs from different companies to study the differences between packs from different manufacturers. The results are very interesting and can easily prove that C rates are pretty much all inflated. I also do cycle life testing to show how different packs react differently. To me this is the most important test as you should care about how much mAh your pack retains over it's cycle life. This is where I find the biggest difference between different brands.

I have a dilemma and this is where I want your input.

My dilemma is that I have come up with these tests I feel show valuable info on different packs from different companies but since I sell packs some may think my tests aren't credible as there is a conflict of interest. I personally do all tests the same on all packs and control the variables to give accurate test results. I think these tests can be a real eye opener and show that not all Lipos are the same. I know of some neutral websites who do tests but I have found some flaws in there testing methods and none of them do cycle life testing which is the most important one in my opinion. I feel my testing equipment and knowledge makes my testing accurate and reliable.

I would like to know if you guys think I should post the data with the specs and name of the pack or if I should just post the data and not reveal the name only the specs and difference over the testing ?

Thanks for your input.


----------



## WNRacing (Dec 26, 2011)

If the other companies truly stand behind their products I don't see why this should be a problem. :thumbsup:


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

For the testing part of stuff I wish I could just be Danny the guy who likes to test packs and educate his fellow RC enthusiasts. 

I find that the Lipo market is so full of BS and has a total lack of info on how packs are rated and I feel it's time to reveal all the BS and hopefully this will help customers better chose there packs.

I really wish there would be an independent site that would test packs properly but there isn't and I can see why as it gets expensive to buy random packs to destroy them in testing and cycle life testing takes a long time.

I think I have allot of valuable info to show to everyone but I will only name the packs if I feel the people want to see the name. If not I will just use the packs specs and results of the tests. 

I will also list my testing method in details so someone can duplicate my tests if they feel like testing packs the same way I do. In the end I have nothing to hide I just want to show to everyone that not all Lipos are the same.


----------



## cneyedog (Jan 22, 2002)

Danny, I've run your stuff before ........ I trust your data , you've always given me info straight and taken the time to explain things about batteries when I've asked.

Save yourself some keyboard time ....... dont name names, just for the fact of the S storm its gonna create .... those who are affected will fire up the bus and run you over with it saying your slandering them to sell YOUR packs ....... regardless if the information is correct or not.

IMHO, You've done your homework, come up with your way of rating packs C rating wise to use as a benchmark in the future at least for your stuff...... focus on that like you have , let the batteries your about to release do the talking and show the difference ..... the important thing is you've done the testing side by side to your stuff with the same test equipment ........ and now you know where your packs stack up against the rest.

If the goal is to get others to adopt your testing method, pointing out they arent up to snuff may not be the best way to get them onboard for a universal benchmark between brands.

Rich


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

Thanks for your input and this is what I want to find out with this poll and thread. In the end I don't really need to name the packs as I can still use the packs specs and show how different packs react differently. 

Maybe some independent person will want to use my method and do the same tests I'm doing but I doubt it as it's expensive and time consuming. 

I tried to reach out to one of the sites that does some testing on packs to try and help them with there testing method but they haven't taken my offer yet.


----------



## Bent Needle (May 4, 2012)

this is double edged, If you include the batterys names, we know what you are testing and will make your batterys look very good, but also to some it will be as if you are bashing the other batterys if they don't perform as yours do if thoes are the batterys they like. 




I will say, your batterys rock.


----------



## FLYING5 (Nov 13, 2006)

well i say yes i have cycled all the current 1 cell packs that are legal and find on the gfx there isnt alot of difference when new its the life cycle of the cell. i rember buying some good packs and only getting 2 weeks out of them and then the seconds at 4 volts number died. to be honest there are 5 single cell companies out there making good stuff so sure please show us new and 50 cycle data. on a side note i bet theres more to be had in somebodies car then in a new pack unless what you have is junk


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

I have so much info I could share about this market with everyone but it wold most likely shock the market so I have to keep it to myself. That being said maybe it's best not to name the packs and only there ratings. I know some will think I'm only trying to make our packs look good but I have always made sure to sell the best possible packs so I have done my homework. We could easily buy cheaper packs and sell them and most wouldn't know as no one seems to pay attention to cycle life.

As far as 1S packs go and the drop off at 4V I think it's normal for high end packs that are tweaked for racing to not hold up as well. In the end performance is what racers want and that may come at the expense of how well the mAh holds up. 

The only way to get rid of this would be to have one company supply the race packs kind of like what we do with the 4000/25C. This way we wouldn't have to push the limits. If we release a 1S pack and it doesn't have the best 4v numbers racers will not buy it and they will buy packs from our competitors. So in the end the racers are pushing companies to release better performing packs. Trust me I would much rather do a solid 5600 pack that holds up better for a longer period of time but no one would race it as others are offering 6000s and 6500s.


----------



## WNRacing (Dec 26, 2011)

Just take a picture of each pack, & cover up the labels. Loophole! :wave:


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

If I wouldn't be so honest I would of just passed on the info to someone else and have him post it but my goal is to try and educate and I feel I need to talk about the data that I will show.

I think it maybe best to not show the name this way I will not have guys bashing me thinking that I'm doing this to promote SMC packs. To be honest it should help promote SMC packs as I have always made sure to buy the best possible packs taking cycle life into consideration. I've also setup a group of 3 guys to do testing based on what happens to the pack over repeated track use. I want to see how these results will be different than my results that come from machine testing. In the end my goal is to have the best possible knowledge about Lipos and share my knowledge with everyone. It makes no sense that no company posts how they get there C rate ratings and mAh ratings. As I get more and more tests done I will post a chart on the SMC site showing the typical mAh , IR and cycle life data for each of our packs we sell. This is a work in progress and cycle life testing is the test that is long to do as 50 cycles takes 4 days per pack and I only use 2 GFXs.


----------



## crisis641 (May 27, 2002)

I say post the names. Other companies can do the same with your packs if they want to right?


----------



## RCRacer6.1 (Sep 5, 2002)

I think you should name the names and they specs they claim. I think this is pointless if you don't.

Craig


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

Thanks for the comments. Maybe I can post the results and not name the packs only the specs of the packs and people who believe in what I'm doing and want to know the brands can email me and I can provide them the names. The info I will reveal will show how messed up the current rating system is.


----------



## FLYING5 (Nov 13, 2006)

rating system aside,if the same yardstick is used to mesasure everyone then the other companies should'nt care. the one thing i see happening is the price of these race sticks creeping up up up.before you know it they'll be 100 bucks a pack,but thats racing cash is fast LOL!!


----------



## caalvord (Mar 12, 2010)

*names*

most people will quickly figure out the pack by the specs they claim, for that matter list the price also that will quickly narrow it down to a couple manufacturers or email max amps and tell them what you are doing, they post info about these "super" packs on here so i am sure they have read your info.....


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

Yes I will post the price I paid for the packs and the specs. Most likely I will not post the names as my goal is to show to everyone how crazy this market has really become and that not all packs are the same as some seem to think. 

I will not test all packs on the market as it gets very expensive and time consuming but the packs I have tested so far and the ones I plan on testing will reveal exactly the info I want everyone to see.


----------



## dr voodoo (Mar 13, 2009)

Why do we need another product to test batterys i guess gfx is no good? when will people learn batterys do not win races! post away


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

The GFX is good but this is not about batteries winning races it's about a flawed rating system that takes advantage of the consumer. There is more to a pack than it's performance figures as some packs I've tested clearly show poor cycle life results versus others. I believe this should be an important part of the equation.


----------



## dr voodoo (Mar 13, 2009)

I respect that but Danny u and i have been around this 25 years and guys will buy what ever they think here or get beat by that raceday. Best of luck This will be a good thread too subscribe too


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

I'm ready for the challenge and I hope I can open up some eyes and make a difference. I believe Lipos are great but there is just to much difference between various brands and I think the consumers need to know about this.


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

Results are up on 3 different packs on this thread. 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=4166540#post4166540

More packs will be posted as I get the testing done.


----------



## ianjones (May 8, 2012)

*batteries*

Well i will say it if no one else will i have raced oval on and off since 1994 , and what i have found is that no matter whos name is on it. IF you want the best cells out there u pay a big chunk for them, and us privateer pay it. We still lose out to team drivers because they get the best out there. We that being said, it doesnt matter.:wave:


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

Your entitled to your opinion but I don't believe this is accurate. When we get a batch of packs they are very similar and we don't cycle them we just sell them. Packs we send to racers we help come from what we have on hand at that time so if the batch is better they get better packs if there not then they are out of luck. Some of you may not believe this but it's a fact.


----------



## ianjones (May 8, 2012)

*batteries*

well maybe so with lipos, but when it was with loose cells and u match them, they got better. i have always bought smc at mylocal track, and have for years. i used to race at msa, lails speedway, blountville win they were open. So if the other packs are not as good as one batch then why are they being sold . interesting?????


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

For sub-c cells we use to match around 40 000 cells per month and sold stick packs so we weeded out all the out of specs cells into the stick packs and then the remaining sells were sold in different ratings. For team stuff we would keep the best cells just prior to a race but once again that was dependent on the batch. If a batch prior to a race had an average of 0.01 higher then the one at race time then our racers would have lower packs than the ones we sold prior to the race. 

With Lipos we don't cycle them so they are what they are. It's normal for any type of battery to fluctuate some from batch to batch there is so many variables that have an impact. 

Maybe we should start cycling packs again and just charge a premium for the extra 0.02 volts and 15 seconds but I don't believe this makes sense. In the end racers will always try and look for every edge possible and there is no perfect solution.


----------



## IndyRC_Racer (Oct 11, 2004)

Here is my take, Danny from SMC can never be unbiased. He is involved with selling batteries to consumers and questions the specs of other battery manufacturers.

Unless a trusted third-party is involved with ALL testing or until Danny's results can be verified by other individuals (using the same exact techniques/equipment), there is no reason to trust the results.

This isn't an attack on Danny, his results, or integrity. It just isn't good science to trust results from one independent or biased expert. If ROAR or another electric R/C racing organization was able to get the same results as Danny, then it would add validity to the testing being done


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

I have no problems giving out all the details on how I do my testing and get my results so someone else can back up my claims. I'm not sure someone else will want to buy random packs or get samples from different factories and spend time doing multiple cycles but if someone wants to do it that would be great. I would even be willing to help pay for some packs as I do understand the info would be more credible if someone else does the testing. Since no one has ever done this type of testing I took it upon myself to show the results as I'm doing this testing to try and find cheaper packs to sell that will not wear out to fast.

In the end I decided to post the info to try and make a difference and show how not all packs/cells react the same. For those who believe in what I do this should be helpful and for those who think I can't be unbiased that is fine as even if I were an independent doing the test I'm sure some would have doubts on my results.


----------



## IndyRC_Racer (Oct 11, 2004)

Danny, thanks for responding to my post.

It is a shame that ROAR requires batteries to be submitted for approval (for safety reasons), but doesn't require battery manufacturers to be honest about their ratings.

As far as other companies being upset with the results of your testing, I would suggest that you find out how they achieve their numbers. If you are unable to test they way they do (due to lack of their type of testing equipment), then I can't see how they would be upset if you are testing their batteries under different conditions.

For example, Ford or GM claims certain fuel mileage for specific vehicles. If I get worse mileage because I drive uphill carrying a significant amount of cargo and post the results of my test, how can they complain? I'm not stating that they lied about their numbers. As long as I stated how I conducted my test there shouldn't be a problem.

Obviously you have a reputation to maintain, so you would want to discuss this with legal counsel. I would think as long as you are using a product for its intended purpose and aren't exceeding the manufacturers safety recommendations, then they should have no room to complain.


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

I think it's best not to name the names at this time. I believed our C rates were accurate as I tend to believe what someone tells me as when your honest you seem to think others are honest. So maybe some of the resellers are just using the specs provided to them by the factories like I was doing. 

There is no standards which is the big problem here but even when cell matching was around a certain large matcher in Europe would also have cells with higher mAh on the labels and higher average voltage even if the specs at which they matched at were listed on the labels. What is funny is that they have continued this trend with Lipos as they increase mAh and C rates to make there packs be more marketable.

As I wrote in the sticky thread above the true best possible C rate I have tested using my C rate testing method on a cell that fits in a ROAR legal case is 35C but the majority of the cells are 15 to 30C. Some factories are adding a certain additive to the cells which lowers the IR so it increases the C rate and performance but this comes at the expense of cycle life. This also decreases the cost of the pack so this is how some of the cheaper packs out in the market have good performance and cost less. This is pretty clever but in the end I think cycle life should be factored in. If you pay 30.00 for a pack that last 100 cycles but can buy one for 60.00 that lasts 300 cycles your ahead with the 60.00 dollar pack.


----------



## shagnat (Mar 26, 2012)

Danny, do one or the other. Most folks will want the name (me included) but for selfish reasons.
Either way, give us the data you have and you can decide later if you'd like to reveal the brand.


----------



## Danny-SMC (Sep 28, 2001)

I've already started posting the data in an other thread and I'm not using the names as my purpose of my testing is to show that not all Lipo packs are the same and C rates are just used as marketing.


----------

