• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Hobbyking Nano-Tech

fliteadmin

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
#1

In this episode of Flite Test, watch as the team puts two rival batteries to the test. Which one will will shed light on the situation? Watch this episode to find out!

Here is the uncut footage from the three battery tests.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
#2
Good video, I always had a feeling the NANOTECHS were stronger, but never laid out a test. Great job... I guess the video guys found out that "Halogen" lights makes video Yellow!!! No biggy, Been nice to find a test bed that wasn't so brilliant :)
 

themajik1

Monkey/Bear Poker
Mentor
#3
Great video guys! This really helps in deciding which batteries to purchase. It looks like I will be spending more money at HK for batteries very soon... Have to get ready for the flying season! Thanks for the fair way to test without skewing the results.

Thanks again!!!
 

Ak Flyer

Fly the wings off
Mentor
#4
I have been extremely impressed with all of my turnigy batteries thus far. I just received some 460 nano techs for the indoor season that I haven't tried yet. This really makes me feel good about sticking with them. Excellent test. Good to know I'm saving money without giving up performance.
 

pgerts

Old age member
Mentor
#7
Try to do a test outside in the cold winter and you will se that the "standard" Turnigy battery won’t give you almost any flight time but the Nanotech (or other hi c batteries) will deliver almost as in summer. Nanotech high C-rate batteries are not just for extreme wattage but also the best choice for normal flying.
 

Naamis

Junior Member
#8
posted the link to the test on another forum. The answer was just what I expected "wrong, fail, unfair." Objections were "only 4th cycle, everyone knows that nanos die after only a few more" "the TP battery wasn't fully charged" "HK sponsored, bias test".
I was expecting this. Would be nice to see a similar non-sponsored comparison with multiple labels. I personally am very impressed with nano-tech price and performance, so for me it's a no-brainer.

Was very surprised by the Turnigy battery performance. (non-nano)
 
#12
well they were pulling ~100 amps out of a pack that can deliver 44 ams constantly and 66 amps burst... so they were yet another 40 amps OVER the burst-rating of the pack. therefore the outcome was to be expected... in fact i had expected even worse things to happen ;)
 

Naamis

Junior Member
#13
well they were pulling ~100 amps out of a pack that can deliver 44 ams constantly and 66 amps burst... so they were yet another 40 amps OVER the burst-rating of the pack. therefore the outcome was to be expected... in fact i had expected even worse things to happen ;)
Ah, didn't catch that. Was expecting the batteries to all be of the same C-rating.

I'm hearing the life-span discussion in many events saying that Nanos start degrading allready after 5-15 cycles. These are used in Helis. It's not really only about hte power output but also lifespan. So a TP battery might be well worth the money if it outlasts the Nano by 2½ times for example. Now that apparently hasn't really been tested under load. We always get shown the performance of a fairly new pack on one initial run. As the batteries CAN be a big part of the expense of RC (especialli in 3d helis) this would be a valid discussion as well.
 

FlyingMonkey

Stuck in Sunny FL
Staff member
Admin
#14
posted the link to the test on another forum. The answer was just what I expected "wrong, fail, unfair." Objections were "only 4th cycle, everyone knows that nanos die after only a few more" "the TP battery wasn't fully charged" "HK sponsored, bias test".
I was expecting this. Would be nice to see a similar non-sponsored comparison with multiple labels. I personally am very impressed with nano-tech price and performance, so for me it's a no-brainer.

Was very surprised by the Turnigy battery performance. (non-nano)
That's not surprising. There's an anti HK contingent out there. There's also some anti FT folks as well.

On RCG there's plenty of independent reviews of the HK brand batteries against name brand batteries, and the results are similar.

As to the bias. I don't see David participating in something that was fraudulent. Also, the FT guys have a history or showing when a HK product fails. I've not known them to doctor the tests to get better results.
 
#16
Try to do a test outside in the cold winter and you will se that the "standard" Turnigy battery won’t give you almost any flight time but the Nanotech (or other hi c batteries) will deliver almost as in summer. Nanotech high C-rate batteries are not just for extreme wattage but also the best choice for normal flying.
I think fully charged batteries would have the same ratio depending on the temp. Both should preform better in cold in my opinion... Depending on how cold you take it.... Don't freeze them :)
 
#18
well they were pulling ~100 amps out of a pack that can deliver 44 ams constantly and 66 amps burst... so they were yet another 40 amps OVER the burst-rating of the pack. therefore the outcome was to be expected... in fact i had expected even worse things to happen ;)
Yes, But even as quick as it died it did not puff... I was surprised that something didn't blow... And by looking at Bixler, I think he was thinking the same thing. Personally, I think they should have put it in a LIPO SACK....A little Safety :)
 

FlyingMonkey

Stuck in Sunny FL
Staff member
Admin
#19
Yes, But even as quick as it died it did not puff... I was surprised that something didn't blow... And by looking at Bixler, I think he was thinking the same thing. Personally, I think they should have put it in a LIPO SACK....A little Safety :)

But then there would be nothing to film but a smoking lipo sack! :D

That wouldn't be very exciting.