If/when Li-Pos become legal

[cjm_2008]

Originally Posted by DCM

don't get me started on the potential issue's with LiPo.....

As long as they are on a LiPo capable charger, with the correct mAh setting and the correct cell number, they are fool proof.

As soon as you start saying that LiPo got to be charged in sacks and you got to do this and that in the name of 'safety' then you got to do the exact same thing with NiMH's. In fact, right now, I reckon NiMH's are far more dangerous than a LiPo pack.

In the end, if you want to be a tit, and not charge correctly, then you don't deserve to be racing, LiPo or NiMH's, thats my opinion!!

you've got to BALANCE CHARGE! (club joke)

[DCM]

don't get me going on that Craig, still a tad hot under the collar there.... lol

[gps3300]

I had to buy new BRCA legal batteries this season and leave my pefectly good 2 year old 4200's at home. After 4 months use (5 National meetings!) all my 2008 cells have had cells go down despite equalizing every use. They are easily the worst batteries I've ever bought.

I'm keen to see Lipo's in off-road as I'm fed up with the lottery of NiMh buying, plus no more assembly and the other outdated crap NiMh's require.

I don't know all the Lipo risks hinted at on this thread. Why can't someone list them? I understand they can catch fire if damaged or charged incorrectly, but as somebody has already stated, I'd rather face the risk of a fire than exploding NiMh shrapnel inside a tent at point blank range.

[Body Paint]

Originally Posted by gps3300

I had to buy new BRCA legal batteries this season and leave my pefectly good 2 year old 4200's at home. After 4 months use (5 National meetings!) all my 2008 cells have had cells go down despite equalizing every use. They are easily the worst batteries I've ever bought.

I'm keen to see Lipo's in off-road as I'm fed up with the lottery of NiMh buying, plus no more assembly and the other outdated crap NiMh's require.

I don't know all the Lipo risks hinted at on this thread. Why can't someone list them? I understand they can catch fire if damaged or charged incorrectly, but as somebody has already stated, I'd rather face the risk of a fire than exploding NiMh shrapnel inside a tent at point blank range.

Have a look in your latest BRCA circuit chatter, there is a full Lipo charging guide it. Do exactly what that tells you to do and you'll be laughing.

[mobile chicane]

also as far as I know the brca aproved packs are tested so only serious abuse in the charging process or substantial damage from an extreme acident would cause a fire.


awaits rebuke

[modelimages]

As i said the debate on safety etc is not something i want to get into, i was pointing out the issues referance an AGM proposal, a couple of issues that would need discussion are can you run both Nimh and Lipo together?.
if you did you would double the approval process and obviously have two lists, if you say Lipo only then you could lose a lot of drivers who don't want to go Lipo. At the moment how many of the A finalists at southport would have used them if they could have? my answer would be none of them, currently Nimh have the edge in terms of raw grunt,that will obviously change as the development continues, several of the drivers would not use them simply because the cant fit them in!, 4wd is a major problem at the moment as you can count on the finger of one finger the amount of available saddle packs capable of competing with a Nimh pack, again more will come onto the market but at the moment you couldn't go lipo exclusively and run a 4wd event. 1/10 off road cars at the moment are designed around the 6 cell stick or saddle layout some can use lipo and some cannot, car manufacturers need to address the lipo specific car which again they will but in time for next season?.

[DCM]

I got to disagree there.... the LiPo produces better power over a 5 min run than a NiMH pack, the cheaper ones, no, but then you buy cheap NiMH's and they don't produce the grunt.

As for the running together, I don't see why not, as long as the cars are hitting the minimum weight, there isn't really an issue.

[Body Paint]

Originally Posted by modelimages

As i said the debate on safety etc is not something i want to get into, i was pointing out the issues referance an AGM proposal, a couple of issues that would need discussion are can you run both Nimh and Lipo together?.
if you did you would double the approval process and obviously have two lists, if you say Lipo only then you could lose a lot of drivers who don't want to go Lipo. At the moment how many of the A finalists at southport would have used them if they could have? my answer would be none of them, currently Nimh have the edge in terms of raw grunt,that will obviously change as the development continues, several of the drivers would not use them simply because the cant fit them in!, 4wd is a major problem at the moment as you can count on the finger of one finger the amount of available saddle packs capable of competing with a Nimh pack, again more will come onto the market but at the moment you couldn't go lipo exclusively and run a 4wd event. 1/10 off road cars at the moment are designed around the 6 cell stick or saddle layout some can use lipo and some cannot, car manufacturers need to address the lipo specific car which again they will but in time for next season?.

Are you freekin nuts? Have you even tried Lipo? I strongly suggest you get your facts right before posting what you think is factual information. I'm sorry to come accross so strongly but you really are very very wrong.

[SlowOne]

Originally Posted by mark christopher

i hate to point the obvious but, the there is a brca lipo list, that is being used by the on road section, how could they say no to one yet ok for another??

Each Section decides what it will or won't use, not the EB. 12th have just announced that they will allow NiMh from teh 2007 list so that our drivers, who have perfectly usable cells from last year, don't have to buy new ones. We also decided last year that we would allow sintered rotors in any BL (contrary to EB homologation lists) to save our scrutineers the problems of finding them. Section decisions, not EB decisions...

Originally Posted by burgie

Lipo's are not dangerous in my opinion. Use the correct charger and follow the instructions an they are safer than ni-mihs.

This statement also applies to NiMh - use the right charger at the right charge rate and they're fine.

Originally Posted by Kopite

i haven't got any LIPO's yet (!), but am on edge charging my NiMH cells when i'm near them now, having seen them explode.

I kinda miss the days when the dangerous nature of cells just wasn't an issue

Then use EnerG or EP NiMh - just like the good old days.

Originally Posted by Lee

I totally agree but you do not get the gains from a nimh that you do from a lipo by overcharging

No, but you can get gains by charging at higher rates - equally foolhardy, undetectable, and with poor results.

Originally Posted by DCM

In the end, if you want to be a tit, and not charge correctly, then you don't deserve to be racing, LiPo or NiMH's, thats my opinion!!

And not one that is in the minority, I'll wager!

Why is everyone in a lather about this. Someone propose it to the AGM, and then vote on it. There's plenty of evidence that LiPo is OK, and apparently plenty of people wanting to use them. Propose, vote - is it that difficult??

[bigred5765]

already been proposed, and a bunch of going to vote hope they rented a big enough room pub for us all lol,

[Chrislong]

John, your word is usually quite reliable but you are wrong on this topic.


Proposed = done.
Vote = lets get on it.

Equally, those who don't want it, you got to opose it. Get to the AGM. As are many of us who strongly want it.

[DCM]

the proposal is only a concern if you race off-road at national/regional level, as I don't really do nationals and the regionals down here.... I won't even go into (ask Millzy), then for club, it isn't an issue.

But it would be good to see the rules amended to cater for 2S stick packs and 2S2P saddle packs.

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by DCM

the proposal is only a concern if you race off-road at national/regional level, as I don't really do nationals and the regionals down here.... I won't even go into (ask Millzy), then for club, it isn't an issue.

But it would be good to see the rules amended to cater for 2S stick packs and 2S2P saddle packs.

not all the saddles are 2s2p

[matt]

I thought the TC rules were 2S and any amount in P

[Jonathan]

Im UK based but I remember reading that ROAR seem to do some pretty hardcore testing (NimH charge ! dead short discharge !) and for exampe the popular Trakpower 3200 saddle is ROAR approved.

Not saying we should be complacent about any aspect of LiPo but nice to know these checks are being done.

Copied from http://www.centralbooking.org/cbs/in...ent&Itemid=109


8.3.2.4 Overcharge Test

The Overcharge Test simulates a common condition of user error where the pack is being incorrectly charged. The pack is allowed to puff and/or vent, but the pack is not allowed to show open flame at any time during the test procedure. A vast majority of Lipo destructive failures (puffed/vented/burned packs) happen while the pack is on the charger, and a vast majority of them happen because of simple user error in selecting the correct pack voltage to charge at, or charging them with anything other than the correct Lipo battery mode. Forgetting to set the charger to Lipo mode, and then charging the Lipo pack with NiMH mode is an excellent example of what this test simulates.

8.3.2.5 External Short Circuit Test
The External Short Circuit Test basically puts a discharge load on the pack, and then discharges it all the way down to zero volts. The pack is allowed to puff and/or vent, but not allowed to show any open flame for the duration of the test. This test simulates driving a vehicle without using a proper 6v cutoff all the way down to where it won’t drive any longer, or a similar case of leaving a Lipo pack plugged into an ESC for an extended period of time which will also drain it all the way down.

[modelimages]

Originally Posted by Body Paint

Are you freekin nuts? Have you even tried Lipo? I strongly suggest you get your facts right before posting what you think is factual information. I'm sorry to come accross so strongly but you really are very very wrong.

on every point? or just some, of course i have tried lipo's and i do not have any issues over them being used, i still think they are under developed in terms of "c" rating and i think you can get more from a nimh cell at the moment, some cars would be a pain to try and fit lipo's in but not impossible, there is a lack of choice in saddle configuration.
as i said earlier its not about lipo v nimh but the assumption that a yes vote will automatically mean it will be used. we seem to be debating the wrong things here, safety issues have been done over and over, the real points are how you can implement a yes vote within the constraints of a national meeting, will scrutineering be affected?, will there be an unfair advantage using/not using a cell, does the rapid improvement in lipo cell technology mean any rules made in december will be useless by march. etc etc.
i am not anti lipo, if you vote for something and you get a yes and then the people responsible for its implementation say sorry that cant be done because of A,B and C and you have no counter argument because all you have done in the months previously is debate safety issues or jumped down the throat of anybody who is not 100% lipo convinced then be prepared for disappointment.

[cjm_2008]

Originally Posted by modelimages

on every point? or just some, of course i have tried lipo's and i do not have any issues over them being used, i still think they are under developed in terms of "c" rating and i think you can get more from a nimh cell at the moment, some cars would be a pain to try and fit lipo's in but not impossible, there is a lack of choice in saddle configuration.
as i said earlier its not about lipo v nimh but the assumption that a yes vote will automatically mean it will be used. we seem to be debating the wrong things here, safety issues have been done over and over, the real points are how you can implement a yes vote within the constraints of a national meeting, will scrutineering be affected?, will there be an unfair advantage using/not using a cell, does the rapid improvement in lipo cell technology mean any rules made in december will be useless by march. etc etc.
i am not anti lipo, if you vote for something and you get a yes and then the people responsible for its implementation say sorry that cant be done because of A,B and C and you have no counter argument because all you have done in the months previously is debate safety issues or jumped down the throat of anybody who is not 100% lipo convinced then be prepared for disappointment.

all the issues you mention are blown out of the water by the fundamental issue of cost.

a racer can realistically expect to turn up to a national and do the whole meeting with only 2 packs of cells - and the total cost will be way less than the latest and greatest matched zapped nursed nimh. and they'll deliver more raceworthy cycles.

more manufacturers will release packs in a saddle pack configuration.

the rules can be written to stipulate a maximum C rating.

this is all a little silly as the technology is ALREADY legal for TC - so what exactly is the difference between TC and offroad?

if the yes vote is passed, but the powers that be decide to look at A, B, and C as you mention, and then turn round and say we can't use lipo....? I can't see that ever happening - too many people would split away.

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by modelimages

on every point? or just some, of course i have tried lipo's and i do not have any issues over them being used, i still think they are under developed in terms of "c" rating and i think you can get more from a nimh cell at the moment, some cars would be a pain to try and fit lipo's in but not impossible, there is a lack of choice in saddle configuration.
as i said earlier its not about lipo v nimh but the assumption that a yes vote will automatically mean it will be used. we seem to be debating the wrong things here, safety issues have been done over and over, the real points are how you can implement a yes vote within the constraints of a national meeting, will scrutineering be affected?, will there be an unfair advantage using/not using a cell, does the rapid improvement in lipo cell technology mean any rules made in december will be useless by march. etc etc.
i am not anti lipo, if you vote for something and you get a yes and then the people responsible for its implementation say sorry that cant be done because of A,B and C and you have no counter argument because all you have done in the months previously is debate safety issues or jumped down the throat of anybody who is not 100% lipo convinced then be prepared for disappointment.

how are current cell rules policed?
if you have a list as the tc section, whats the difference?

[Lee]

I dont think safety is the main issue when it comes to lipo, it is the point of not being able to regulate the individual cells in the car. For instance if only 3200 cells were legalised (it sounds like a drug ) then they are the equivelant to a 4200nimh i am told, so everyone is happy but...... there is a possibility of someone with the identical cells that you have in your car to have 40% more capacity and voltage in their cells due to the way they charge them. This is what the brca will be worried about. (we all know it will happen at some point) this then obviously shortens the life of the cell and they are no longer the cheap alternative

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Lee

I dont think safety is the main issue when it comes to lipo, it is the point of not being able to regulate the individual cells in the car. For instance if only 3200 cells were legalised (it sounds like a drug ) then they are the equivelant to a 4200nimh i am told, so everyone is happy but...... there is a possibility of someone with the identical cells that you have in your car to have 40% more capacity and voltage in their cells due to the way they charge them. This is what the brca will be worried about. (we all know it will happen at some point) this then obviously shortens the life of the cell and they are no longer the cheap alternative

tc have a cap of 5000mah i think, simple solution, make it clear if somone is found charging outside brca guide lines then make it clear that they will be banned from the brca for a year, if they want to take that chance. i doubt in off road it would be an advantage.