# New Sinopoly batteries much smaller & lighter



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

This is the same size Sinopoly has had them for a long time. The ThunderSky 160 through 200Ah used to be the same size and there were two form factors for the 200Ah cells one that was bigger and the other that was the more compact version. It was around and people were buying them in 2009 from ThunderSky and when the Winston split happened the cell as gone. Seems the factory producing this size cell was the original producer of the cell.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I didn't know that MN. Seems like when I compared Calb to TS last year they were very similar but these are the same exact in two of three dimensions. 

Jack Rickard did a story on them back in July I later learned and mentioned they were thinking they could continue to increase the energy/weight ratio 10% per year. The difference in these and my year old Calb is 30.7% decrease in volume and a 21.1% increase in energy density if my math is correct. And all for 10-13% drop in price in less than a year. That's just awesome in my book! 

Lets hope Sinopoly continues this trend and has great quality/performance to go with it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Very interesting. As I remember the TS 200's in the 160 size were just barely 200 Ah's and apparently so difficult to produce in quantity that they stopped. I wonder how these test out in actuality? LiFePO4 prismatics seemed to be stuck for the last 2 years in price and density, it would be nice if this were a real advancement that was consistently available.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Your CALB 200 Ah cells weigh 7.1 kg each? My 180Ah weigh 5.3 kg, so the Sinopoly are about 10% more capacity for about 6% more weight, which could likely be achieved by just changing selection specs for produced cells, and selling the others as their 160 Ah. Your 200 Ah CALB are about 34% more weight than my 180 Ah. A typo on the weight of your cells?


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

MN Driver said:


> This is the same size Sinopoly has had them for a long time. The ThunderSky 160 through 200Ah used to be the same size and there were two form factors for the 200Ah cells one that was bigger and the other that was the more compact version. It was around and people were buying them in 2009 from ThunderSky and when the Winston split happened the cell as gone. Seems the factory producing this size cell was the original producer of the cell.


Hi MN Driver,

I'm not sure if your 100% correct here, feel free to correct me. 

The two older (yellow) versions produced by Thundersky came in a tall and a wide form factor

*Thundersky 200AH Tall Cell*
Height 280mm
Length 183mm
Width 100mm
Total Volume 5.124 Litres
Weight 7.7KG

*Thundersky 200AH Wide Cell*
Height 256mm
Length 362mm
Width 55.5mm
Total Volume 5.143 Litres
Weight 8.3KG

*Sinopoly 200AH 'Black' Cell*
Height 280.5mm
Length 180mm
Width 68mm
Total Volume 3.433 Litres
Weight 5.6KG

GWL power (one of the links on the RHS) have the older dimensions on their site here:
http://www.ev-power.eu/docs/GWL-LFP-Product-Spec-40AH-200AH.pdf

Sinopoly supplied me with a specsheet for the newer cell.

In my opinion,that is a HUGE improvement!

Thanks JRP, I am also told the actual capacity is 220AH rather than 200. Also worth mentioning they have apparently increased the cycle life by 1,000 cycles.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Your CALB 200 Ah cells weigh 7.1 kg each? My 180Ah weigh 5.3 kg, so the Sinopoly are about 10% more capacity for about 6% more weight, which could likely be achieved by just changing selection specs for produced cells, and selling the others as their 160 Ah. Your 200 Ah CALB are about 34% more weight than my 180 Ah. A typo on the weight of your cells?


Two places show the same weight for the CALB 200, though they probably got it from the same place, and one of them shows 5.6kg for the 180: http://www.evsource.com/tls_lithium_calb.php
http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=153


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

skooler said:


> Thanks JRP, I am also told the actual capacity is 220AH rather than 200. Also worth mentioning they have apparently increased the cycle life by 1,000 cycles.



....but has the improved capacity and cycle life been tested independently, or are we maybe seeing spec-sheet 'inflation' to keep up with CALB and climb back into the market? 

I hate to be a cynic, but I'd really like to see third-party testing of our choices ( CALB, Sinopoly, Hi-Power, etc) as it is not something that everybody can do for themselves at home... especially cycle life and capacity under 3C realistic EV load and .1C charges.


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

dtbaker said:


> ....but has the improved capacity and cycle life been tested independently, or are we maybe seeing spec-sheet 'inflation' to keep up with CALB and climb back into the market?
> 
> I hate to be a cynic, but I'd really like to see third-party testing of our choices ( CALB, Sinopoly, Hi-Power, etc) as it is not something that everybody can do for themselves at home... especially cycle life and capacity under 3C realistic EV load and .1C charges.


Hi dtbaker,

Exactly why I said "I am also told"

I am happy to test the cells when I recieve them, but as you said, testing cycle life cant be easy!

I have also suggested to sinopoly that they provide some cells to EVTV or similar to help prove what they claim.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

skooler said:


> The two older (yellow) versions produced by Thundersky came in a tall and a wide form factor
> 
> Thundersky 200AH Tall Cell
> Height 280mm
> ...


Wow, there used to be some discussion about how the 60 amp hour cell had a lower watt hours per kilogram compared to the other sizes of Thundersky cells. Seems that wasn't really the case at all. My Thundersky LiFeYPO4 60 amp hour cells weigh 2.3 kg each. That is as much capacity per kg as the 200 AH tall cells and better than the 200 AH wide cell. Even based on the published weight of 2.5 kg for each 60 AH cell they have a capacity per kg nearly identical to the wide cell.


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

EVfun said:


> Wow, there used to be some discussion about how the 60 amp hour cell had a lower watt hours per kilogram compared to the other sizes of Thundersky cells. Seems that wasn't really the case at all. My Thundersky LiFeYPO4 60 amp hour cells weigh 2.3 kg each. That is as much capacity per kg as the 200 AH tall cells and better than the 200 AH wide cell. Even based on the published weight of 2.5 kg for each 60 AH cell they have a capacity per kg nearly identical to the wide cell.


Currently only the 60 and 200AH cell have the newer technology.

Just to add to the wow factor....

The new 60AH cell weighs just 1.9KG!!!

Afraid I dont have the dimensions.

Specsheet for the 200AH 'Black' cell is below:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-qCHtk0zv3ENTZkYzU4NmMtNTNiNy00ZDNjLThjMjgtODU3YzVjZTBhZWJm

Cheers

Mike


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

skooler said:


> Hi MN Driver,
> 
> I'm not sure if your 100% correct here, feel free to correct me.
> 
> ...


There isn't much for me to correct, I dug up a specsheet from ThunderSky with the following datecode 2010227 that I saved 4/21/2010 which was almost right at the same time that EVC collapsed, which as far as I remember was the only one who actually sold this cell.

The specsheet reads the same details, the 280mm height includes terminals, but the weight is listed 7.3kg +/- 200g. Essentially what Scooter said.

Sorry for the misinformation, it seems that Sinopoly might really be moving forward if their specs match. When I contacted them about distributors in the US, I was directed to lithiumstorage.com http://lithiumstorage.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=45&zenid=ef3756024b30563bf0f809d8ccca6b40
I can't vouch for them as I haven't done business with them and have no experience with lithium storage inc. I'd order samples but if they aren't pushing decent volume I don't think they are going to want to deal with customs on a couple cell sizes, so I haven't bothered. I wouldn't mind having 2 60Ah cells and a 200Ah cell to monkey with, test cold, test capacity, and high load(60Ah at 5C), etc.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

MN Driver said:


> There isn't much for me to correct, I dug up a specsheet from ThunderSky with the following datecode 2010227 that I saved 4/21/2010 which was almost right at the same time that EVC collapsed, which as far as I remember was the only one who actually sold this cell.
> 
> The specsheet reads the same details, the 280mm height includes terminals, but the weight is listed 7.3kg +/- 200g. Essentially what Scooter said.
> 
> ...


This whole thing with Sinopoly is a RED flag. If they are not going to set up a factory distribution center in the US like CALB did, their days are limited. Buyers will not get replacement cells if found defective. This is as bad as buying from Dave in Washington. Those that want to save 50cents will not heed to this warning and will be the first to cry when all is lost.


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

cruisin said:


> This whole thing with Sinopoly is a RED flag. If they are not going to set up a factory distribution center in the US like CALB did, their days are limited. Buyers will not get replacement cells if found defective. This is as bad as buying from Dave in Washington. Those that want to save 50cents will not heed to this warning and will be the first to cry when all is lost.


Hi Cruisin,

I Understand your concerns.

Currently, I do not know of anyone who has actually purchased and used cells from Sinopoly. (I have just placed an order).

I must say that I have been impressed with the quality of their communication so far.

Saying that "Buyers will not get replacement cells if found defective." is completely misinformed and quite destructive.

The fact of the matter is, until someone actually purchases, recieves and uses the goods (and something goes wrong) we do not know!

Cheers Mike


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Hey skooler does your price include freight to the US?


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

cruisin said:


> This whole thing with Sinopoly is a RED flag. If they are not going to set up a factory distribution center in the US like CALB did, their days are limited. Buyers will not get replacement cells if found defective. This is as bad as buying from Dave in Washington. Those that want to save 50cents will not heed to this warning and will be the first to cry when all is lost.


Are you serious? If it wasn't for people who bought cells from ThunderSky and CALB before CALB brought their operation to the US, nobody would be using LiFePO4. To say that they need their own distributor in the US could be a good way to reduce competition to nothing, which might screw us out of LiFePO4 availablility and good pricing if anything happens to CALB. Now that Winston is apparently not going to be selling through anyone but Balqon and Balqon doesn't want to deal with DIY/hobby people, we have limited options now. Limited options is not a good thing.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I just hope Sinopoly's much improved pricing and size will spur Calb on to try and do better.


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

ElectriCar said:


> Hey skooler does your price include freight to the US?


Hi ElectriCar,

No it doesnt, I asked Sinopoly about shipping to various countries and found that shipping seems quite cheap for a large pack(48KWH). ~$400-$800.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Two places show the same weight for the CALB 200, though they probably got it from the same place, and one of them shows 5.6kg for the 180


 Yeah, I confabulated 12.3 lb and 5.6 kg to get 5.3 kg.  Doesn't the much higher weight of the CALB 200Ah surprise you? It is puzzling to me why they are so much heavier for 11% more capacity. I would think they could match the new black Sinopoly cells by just selecting out the 180Ah cells that are at the high end of the distribution. What price was quoted for the new 200 Ah Sinopoly cells?


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

skooler said:


> Hi ElectriCar,
> 
> No it doesnt, I asked Sinopoly about shipping to various countries and found that shipping seems quite cheap for a large pack(48KWH). ~$400-$800.
> 
> ...


FOB China shipping at $400-$800 is not cheap at all. This price does not tell the whole story. By the time you get the pack to your door you will add significant amount of $$$ for port/customs fees and taxes. At the end of the day that $1.00/AH price will turn into same or worse than getting cells from US warehouse, such as CalibPower or other US sellers.

Buying single pack FOB China is never a good deal, I have proven it myself and know many others as well.

Sinopoly or any other cell maker will never dent US market unless they have local US inventory, either directly or via local dealers.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

My price for Calb 200's last year, 51 cells was $1.21 plus freight of about $450 IIRC. So if they can be had for $1.05 or so plus say $500 frt to my door, it's still cheaper than what I paid last December, $10,700 versus $12,342, both plus frt.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Yeah, I confabulated 12.3 lb and 5.6 kg to get 5.3 kg.  Doesn't the much higher weight of the CALB 200Ah surprise you?


Yes, but CALB always seemed to have two different cell densities with the 100's and 180's being high density and the others being lower density. The 100's and 180's are above 14ah/lb and the others are between 12-13.4ah/lb from the numbers at EV source http://www.evsource.com/tls_lithium_calb.php
I never understood that, unless the lower ones actually test out much higher than the others, but that seems unlikely.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Quite a range there! I decided to figure each of them out in terms of oz. per AH (hee hee.)

40, 1.224
70, 1.259
100, 1.128
130, 1.194
180, 1.097
200, 1.252
400, 1.261

What I would expect is a slight improvement as the capacity increased because the case and terminals would make up an ever shrinking percentage of the total weight. 

I wouldn't take any of this too seriously unless you buy a sample of each and weigh it for yourself. My Thunder Sky LiFeYPO4 60 amp hour cells where supposed to weigh 2.5 kg each. The actual weight was just under 2.3 kg each -- almost 10% lighter. If you wiggle the weights around up to 8% from what CALB listed you could get a pretty reasonable progression. 

If you use indicated weights the pack difference really isn't that much anyway. Suppose you where choosing between 35, 180 AH cells or 90, 70 AH cells. The weight difference would be less than 64 pounds, which is pretty trivial in most on-road EVs. (BTW - I want the 90 cell pack with a Zilla Z2k. I could have some serious fun.)


----------



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

well, I think it does make quite a difference,

new 200Ah cell is at around 114 Wh/kg (to use proper units for once^^) while the older thundersky is at 87 Wh/kg. New 1 is more than 30% more energy dense. In terms of pack weight this means that a 300kg 26.1 kWh pack can be replaced by a pack of just the same weight but with a capacity of 34.2 kWh!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Depends on how they test out. The CALB 180's were 102 wh/kg as advertized but came in closer to 112 wh/kg's actual. If the new Sinopoly 200's come in only a little over 200ah's that will be about the same, if they come int around 215 ah actual then it's more like 123 wh/kg. Comparing them to older poorer density TS cells isn't telling the whole story.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I just weighed my Calb 200 spare which specs say should weigh 7.1kg or 15.5 lbs and that's what it weighs.


----------



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

I compared them to the older cells of the same brand to stress the progress that they made (assuming that the company didnt change their "labelling policies"). Even if it merely is a catching up to some other brands, it still is a substancial improvement of their line up I think.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I just weighed my Calb 200 spare which specs say should weigh 7.1kg or 15.5 lbs and that's what it weighs.


 Glad I bought 180's.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> I just weighed my Calb 200 spare which specs say should weigh 7.1kg or 15.5 lbs and that's what it weighs.


What was their actual tested capacity?


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

It's in my conversion thread along with a photo of the pack grouped by IR numbers. I think they were all around 215Ah plus or minus a few. The wh/kg isn't good though based on what I've read can be achieved with Lifepo4.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Your CALB 200 Ah cells weigh 7.1 kg each? My 180Ah weigh 5.3 kg, so the Sinopoly are about 10% more capacity for about 6% more weight, which could likely be achieved by just changing selection specs for produced cells, and selling the others as their 160 Ah. Your 200 Ah CALB are about 34% more weight than my 180 Ah. A typo on the weight of your cells?


Just frickin wow! Wonder why such a huge weight difference? What is your cell dimensions? I was thinking they were in the same package as the 200. The 200Ah is 275mm tall x 180 x 98.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The 180's are one inch thinner. My theory, could be wrong, the 100's and 180's are made on a newer production line than the other cells.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

I only remember the 180Ah being available from Sky Energy back in the day, I don't remember them having the 200Ah until some time after. I'm also curious what the goals are with the gray CE series cells that CALB has now because some are lighter than their blue SE series cells and some are heavier, the sizes I was interested in were heavier. I'm not sure if CALB is improving anything. If the goal is to make a more powerful cell(higher C rate, less voltage sag) then I suppose weight would be the compromise to achieve the goal.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> The 180's are one inch thinner. My theory, could be wrong, the 100's and 180's are made on a newer production line than the other cells.


Well they did tell me they were discontinuing them along with the 400's in March when I bought them in December but they were what I wanted to get me the range I needed. I went with the highest voltage I felt I could so no room there.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

MN Driver said:


> I'm also curious what the goals are with the gray CE series cells that CALB has now because some are lighter than their blue SE series cells and some are heavier, the sizes I was interested in were heavier. I'm not sure if CALB is improving anything. If the goal is to make a more powerful cell(higher C rate, less voltage sag) then I suppose weight would be the compromise to achieve the goal.


The C rates of the new gray cells looked the same as the old cells last I checked, and I didn't see any improvement in energy density over the blue 100 and 180's, so I'm not sure what the point of the new gray cells are, unless they are volumetrically smaller?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I only remember the 180Ah being available from Sky Energy back in the day


 That's correct. Only the 180's were on Sky Energy's website and offered by suppliers here, though the 200's may have been only available in China so left off their website.

ElectriCar, the 180's are 279 (to top of terminal) x 182 x 71 mm, so 27 mm thinner than the 200's, and 3mm thicker than the new Sinopoly.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Swedish forum member with Sinopoly 200's, pictured with an older TS 160
http://translate.google.com/transla...elbil.forum24.se/elbil-about3286.html&act=url

They look slightly taller than the 160's 










And longer


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

What is the yellow 200Ah LFP cell he shows in the first post, TS? It has the same width and thickness as my CALB 180's, and just 3mm taller (top of post).


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think that's the sheet for the Sinopoly 200, before they switched to the black casing.


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

I'm not sure thats the final case style for the black cells, Perhaps this is a prototype?

The casing on the 200AH specsheet that Sinopoly sent me shows a 'striped' casing design.

Furthermore, in one of the EVTV videos it is mentioned that the casing will be the same design as the previous cells.

*200AH Specsheet*
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...NTNiNy00ZDNjLThjMjgtODU3YzVjZTBhZWJm&hl=en_US

*EVTV Video*
http://jackrickard.blogspot.com/2011/07/evtv-in-extremis-two-hours-and-27.html#comments

At 19:50 the cell case is discussed.

Im not sure if the size is significantly different. The video talks about a 71mm width but the specsheet states 68mm.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

"Furthermore, in one of the EVTV videos it is mentioned that the casing will be the same design as the previous cells."

No, the video shows a black cell with a different look than the current cells we see, different than even the black cell in post #37

I thought I remember them saying that the current design was bad and the new design was better because it allowed the cell to be smaller. Can't remember if they said it would be a stronger case or not but they have the new cell, the 60Ah cell with the new design and were describing it as being improved density.


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

MN Driver said:


> "Furthermore, in one of the EVTV videos it is mentioned that the casing will be the same design as the previous cells."
> 
> No, the video shows a black cell with a different look than the current cells we see, different than even the black cell in post #37
> 
> I thought I remember them saying that the current design was bad and the new design was better because it allowed the cell to be smaller. Can't remember if they said it would be a stronger case or not but they have the new cell, the 60Ah cell with the new design and were describing it as being improved density.


Hi MN Driver,

I dont think I have written very clearly.

The point I am trying to make is that the 200AH case will be a different style to the picture shown in post 37. It will be a striped design rather than the patern shown in JRP3's post.

The cell in the video appears to be the same as the picture. They then state that it will look like the 60AH in design (striped), just larger. Watch it from 19:50, its only 30 seconds worth of video.

Am I missing something here?

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

skooler said:


> Hi MN Driver,
> 
> I'm not sure if your 100% correct here, feel free to correct me.
> 
> ...


Hi All,

Sorry to quote myself!

the black cell has grown by 3mm and 190grams on the sinopoly spec sheet compared to the above dimensions.

Interesting!

http://sinopoly.todayir.com/attachment/201202241544293_en.pdf

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Mike, thanks for the update. I've never seen TS/Sinopoly ever post two digits behind the decimal but if they are updating their details to what they are currently offering, having the most accurate information is definitely useful. A 50 cell 200Ah 32kwh pack which is not a small pack, would weigh another 9.5kg or 20.9 pounds for 636.9 pounds total weight. If the 1C chart is correct though, it seems they have a fair bit of capacity over their rating though FWIW.


----------



## arn0 (Aug 19, 2011)

I wish I had read this thread last week... just ordered 16 new 200Ah Tall Winston (Yellow, ex-thundersky) for the same price of the Sinopoly ones.

So i guess they have been sitted since the Winston/Sinopoly split; plus I dont understand why they are marketed at the same price with a such volume difference.

Do you think I should try to return the batteries to get the Sinopoly ones? (is there any advantage keeping the yellow ones?)


----------



## brainzel (Jun 15, 2009)

Your advantage (WB/TS/CALB) would be the well known cell behavior and the possibility to exchange experiences with other ones.

I read not much about the sinopoly, so you could be a pioneer in plague and tread the cells to tell us 

Michael


----------



## skooler (Mar 26, 2011)

Yes! 

If space or weight is an issue then go for the Sinopoly cells!

What are you using the cells for?


----------



## arn0 (Aug 19, 2011)

Thanks guys, it is for a boat... You may think that weight is not an issue, but actually it is directly linked to the number of people on board - So with the Sinopoly I could carry one more children... or one more thin woman 

Well anyway the seller was not keen changing my order after he sent it, I should receive the 200Ah tall Thundersky LiFeYPo4 today.

Too bad I am so geek I would have been pleased to take the risk of the new technology to test it for you!


----------



## brainzel (Jun 15, 2009)

Do not fret about it. Anyhow the TS cells are a good choice.
Take the A123 for the next project and let us know 
Michael


----------

