# CALB quality slipping?



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Two recent cell deliveries that came with a large resistance spread, some sloppy looking cell construction, cells out of sequence, and questionable crating, have me wondering if CALB cell quality is not as good as it used to be. My order from three years ago was much more closely grouped and packaged better than these two orders:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/1930-model-roadster-build-59659p33.html

Has anyone else seen similar resistance spread and sloppy cell construction?


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Can you quantify your observations?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It's all in the linked thread, basically my cell resistance range from three years ago was .28-.35 for 100 ah cells and the new shipments came in with twice as large a spread, plus some sloppy looking cell construction:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=302235&postcount=329

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=302238&postcount=330


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

My appologies for not reading the linked thread.

The resistance/capacity values being referenced to,is what they supply with the cells as a data log?

Not having read the whole thread that you linked to, Did you verify the data?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My cells came with a sheet listing the serial number, tested capacity, and tested resistance for each cell. I also had the data sheet for the entire shipment of cells, it was an early order for EVComponents. All cells were more closely grouped than the two recently reported deliveries mentioned in that thread, and the resistance numbers were lower overall for the shipment three years ago compared to the two recent shipments in that thread. I also saw none of the reported sloppy cell construction that they mention, and my shipping crate was of good construction and the packaging was tight and proper.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Two recent cell deliveries that came with a large resistance spread, some sloppy looking cell construction, cells out of sequence, and questionable crating, have me wondering if CALB cell quality is not as good as it used to be. My order from three years ago was much more closely grouped and packaged better than these two orders:
> 
> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/1930-model-roadster-build-59659p33.html
> 
> Has anyone else seen similar resistance spread and sloppy cell construction?


 Looks that way. Wonder if it is temporary due to part of the production line down or similar. Quality was looking good with the shipments to diyguy and electriccar. Sorry to see this. I think I would ask to have some replaced to narrow the spread.


----------



## lowcrawler (Jun 27, 2011)

I got mine from Keegan last fall and they were tightly grouped and well packaged.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

FWIW: I don't see the 130ah cells listed on the Chinese (company) website in either the blue, SE or the (newer?) gray, CA series. Does anyone know if they're still being produced or are they discontinued?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Two recent cell deliveries that came with a large resistance spread, some sloppy looking cell construction, cells out of sequence, and questionable crating, have me wondering if CALB cell quality is not as good as it used to be. My order from three years ago was much more closely grouped and packaged better than these two orders:
> 
> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/1930-model-roadster-build-59659p33.html
> 
> Has anyone else seen similar resistance spread and sloppy cell construction?


Did you get them from the CALB factory in LA or did you order them from an obscure site from China? Sure they are CALB's? Seems a bit odd that CALB would sell you crappy cells and sell you poorly built ones as well. I'd expect to see that from Hi-Power maybe but even they have gotten better. Odd indeed. 

Pete


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't know where they got their cells, I assumed from Calib power, the US CALB distributor.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Who? I would have thought you would have gone directly to them. Since they are in the US there is no need to use a middle man. Me thinks you got screwed. Demand a new batch and then send back the crappy ones you got. Do it before you can't. If that time has come and gone thanks for the heads up. But who sold them to you?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

You need to read the thread I linked to, I did not buy the batteries, I'm reporting what others have recently received.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Aaaaaa! I thought it was YOU. So this is all third hand. I will go back and re-read the article.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

A bit more clarity on the issue. I'd check with CALB in LA. When I get mine it will be from there personally. I will make the drive. I won't ship from China when I can get them here. I may still opt to go with A123 cells. Much more power. I'd rather have the power for a larger vehicle. That will be important. Also if I decide to race a bit. Well actually my wife but you know a few times down the track and it WILL make her happy. 

Pete 

Crappy cells and out of sequence cells are indicative of getting rid of left overs from other orders that never happened. 

Dumping off mismatched batches.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

What's really concerning is that the factory can even produce cells of such high internal resistance. Even if a whole batch is at .60 resistance for a 130 amp hour cell that's more than twice what it should be for that size cell.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

They were from calibpower, at least mine were through a group buy but shipped to me by Keegan. The issues I've observed I'd attribute to rush/not caring about some small fry when dealing with $100K+ orders.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

I will try to get some close up pics of mine this weekend. The case color difference, the way the seams are glued and even the factory data sheet to show all of you.

I may merely be worried about nothing, but it will take a year or two to really show up....too late

Miz


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

About the colors, is the difference as extreme as it seems in the pic? I looks like some are an aqua color and some the normal blue.

With mine the one cell that is sealed funny is a slightly different color and texture, and the ridges are at slightly different heights. The battery number is a low 8 digit, so I don't think it's a repair job, but one they found hiding in a corner somewhere forgotten. It's probably several years old, but if quality really is slipping, it may outlast all the others (IR is 2nd from bottom and capacity 2nd from top).


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

> About the colors, is the difference as extreme as it seems in the pic? I looks like some are an aqua color and some the normal blue.
> 
> With mine the one cell that is sealed funny is a slightly different color and texture, and the ridges are at slightly different heights. The battery number is a low 8 digit, so I don't think it's a repair job, but one they found hiding in a corner somewhere forgotten. It's probably several years old, but if quality really is slipping, it may outlast all the others (IR is 2nd from bottom and capacity 2nd from top).
> __________________


Yes, blue tops to aqua bottoms.









hard to see in this pic, center cell is darker.

"Hiding in a corner" LOL, that is exactly my thought too.

One additional small complaint. Do NOT take their cell measurments as gospel. 5 cells are 1/4" larger than they were supposed to be, causing me to re-do some battery box lining, thankfully not the frame.

As far as cell ampacity goes, I cant complain. All were WAY above their rating. The lowest was maybe 137AH. (130 nominal) But I am limited as to the weakest cell, but still over advertised rating.

CALB is the only manufacturer with a cell in the 130AH range, to my knowledge. It fit my car and budget nicely.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

This is just a hunch, take it for what it's worth, but I can't help think that your difficulty to get the 130Ah cells might have something to do with the larger than what we expect as a difference from cell to cell. Whether it was a difficult to produce size or if you got a bunch of cells that were from mismatched batches or something. :Shrug:

Not that this is bad or anything, possibly just a plausible explanation.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

mizlplix said:


> CALB is the only manufacturer with a cell in the 130AH range, to my knowledge. It fit my car and budget nicely.


That's good that you found a good fit. The fit for my imagined budget would be 80AH. 60 is borderline and 100 is really more than I need. Maybe the 40s I have now will incrementally grow into an 80AH pack that will last me until the nano-space megas are affordable.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> That's good that you found a good fit. The fit for my imagined budget would be 80AH. 60 is borderline and 100 is really more than I need. Maybe the 40s I have now will incrementally grow into an 80AH pack that will last me until the nano-space megas are affordable.


The closest available thing would be to buddy up some 40Ah cells? ...or raise your voltage to get the capacity you need and you'd get increased performance. It looks like boosting your voltage would require you to swap out most of your electrical components though.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Yes, the cells I have now will be for a lead/lithium hybrid experiment on parts of my pack, and if successful I'll likely expand it to be a full pack booster, then another string of 40 could be added to replace the lead entirely and give me the 80AH I need. Someday I'll upgrade to at least 144V, but my current setup would be more than adequate with some weight loss.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

OK, just a P.S. to everything. Whilst putting my pack together, I found a really bulged cell.









It is one with .45 resistance. 

To make matters worse, the bar code serial number ends withXXX0013

But, maybe it is really the best cell in the lot...Time will tell.

Miz


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

This is a REALLY bulged Cell from being driven into reversal with full pack amperage and a fully discharged cell. It actually still holds power but remains bulged. Capacity has not been tested.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

The Thundersky manual recommends that bulged cells be compressed in a giant clamp/vise thingy to bring it back to square before further use. I would be interested if such an operation could "save" this beastly looking cell.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> The Thundersky manual recommends that bulged cells be compressed in a giant clamp/vise thingy to bring it back to square before further use. I would be interested if such an operation could "save" this beastly looking cell.


We tried compressing several bulged TS cells with a 20T bearing press.... After gradually increasing the pressure over a period of several hours for each one we got them back to *looking* normal, but they never did act normal again. The internal resistance remained elevated and the rate of self-discharge went from being practically non-existent to very noticeable. The cells bulge in the first place because the electrolyte has been dissociated into gaseous components (like passing current through water creates hydrogen and oxygen) and those aren't ever going to reform into electrolyte again just by squeezing on the container!

Note that it is possible for the higher volatility solvents in the electrolyte solution to selectively "boil" which would also cause a cell to swell. If that is the culprit then putting the cell in the fridge for a few hours will reverse it; that won't work if the electrolyte has been dissociated from overcharging (above 4.3V) or reversal (below -0.4V).


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I think if there were anything to gain through compression, it would be in applying before swelling, or gradually after swelling and over a number of cycles. 

The only way compression could be of an actual benefit (rather than the cosmetic band-aid many think it is) is if applying pressure changes the evaporation point such that the electrolyte stays electrolyte longer or reforms after damage has occured.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I agree that a re-compressed cell will not be the same as it ever was. 

My understanding was that air space was created around the cathodes during the swelling event. The re-compression pushes the electrolite back against it.

Obviously, you have tried it and it didn't work very well, which is to be expected with that kind of abuse. Even a cell that can be "half" recovered still must be pulled from a pack.

Has anybody tested whether the factory aluminum plates with banding is effective at preventing swelling under conditions that would normally cause damage? I would assume the cells would still be damaged whether compressed or not.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

If you saw Jacks latest show you will know that banding or confinement will NOT prevent swelling. I have proof of that as well.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Can you point me more specifically to what you are talking about, onegreenev? I just watched as much of the latest issue as I could stand and all I saw on the subject of swelling was another attempt at casting A123 pouch cells ending as a bloated disaster.

I have a hard time seeing how my cells are going to swell with 1/4 inch aluminum end plates being strapped together with 1/2 inch wide stainless steel banding.

My understanding is that swelling allows gas space between the positive and negative plates. This make the ion path longer as the Lithium ions have to travel across the surface of the electrolyte on one plate until they reach an electrolyte connection to the other plate. Clamping the swelling out (which I have seen demonstrated) is supposed to push some of the gas out from between the plates and distribute what is left so that there can be more points of electrolyte contact. It can help reduce the cells internal resistance some, but not having been gassed internally is better.

I'm not overcharging, over discharging, or giving my cells any chance to swell. They continue to dish out 6C peak on demand while holding at or above 2.7 vpc (360 amps from 60 amp hour cells made in 2010.) I set my low voltage light at 103 volts for a 38 cell pack. Unless it has been cold I cannot make that light. My controller isn't set to cut back until the voltage gets down to 95 volts so it isn't limiting current before the warning light lights.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

"They continue to dish out 6C peak on demand while holding at or above 2.7 vpc (360 amps from 60 amp hour cells made in 2010.) I set my low voltage light at 103 volts for a 38 cell pack. Unless it has been cold I cannot make that light. My controller isn't set to cut back until the voltage gets down to 95 volts so it isn't limiting current before the warning light lights."

I'm planning to use 100 60Ah cells(Sinopoly's smaller and lighter 60Ah(B) size cells if they manage to show up here), if it is difficult to get them to sag to 2.7v at 360amps, my 1900 pound car(pre-conversion) is going to fly! 270v * 360a = 97200kw. I'll take it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack Rickard keeps trying, and repeatedly failing, to cast the A123 pouch cells into a solid block. It's obviously a bad idea since most of them seem to fail in the same manner, but he won't give it up. His weak layer of expanding foam plastic certainly can't provide any substantial force the way a real strapping system does, so it's no example of anything, other than a bad design.


----------



## JoeG (Jul 18, 2010)

Hi guys,
I received 44 100AH Calib cells from Keegan at Calib Power in Pomona, Ca on 2/8/12 that had an internal resistance range of .28-.41 m ohm and a stated capacity of 106-108 Ah. I then decided to get one more cell, which came in with .32 Ohm and 107Ah capacity, and about 60 numbers off on the barcode, but similar on the S/N. I also noticed that the bar code numbers were sequential, but the S/N on the cells were all over the place. Don't know what that means, or if it has any bearing on when the cells were manufactured. My cells were all flat/ not swelled and were the same color. The cell spec chart had a date of 10/30/11, 3 months prior.
The cells were all about the same voltage3.30, except for one which was 3.28v(not the last one purchased). When I finally got around to topping off the cells,3 months later, most took about 50Ah to get to 3.55v, using my Icharger 110, rc charger @ 10A charge rate. The low cell, now 3.24v took 70Ah. This kind of worries me, but time will tell. 
I drove the car, a 1991 Geo metro HB with a 5spd/ 9" ADC motor for the first time today and the batteries performed well. Starting in 4th gear and excelerating to 45mph briskly on flat ground with a max Amp draw of 142A, faster that the stock metro, showed the cells in the 3.2v range, at the low voltage sag point, according to my celllogs.
Joe


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Thanks for the data, that's more inline with what I would expect, though the lower overall capacity compared to my three year old cells is disappointing, as is the slightly higher resistance spread. I've been hoping to replace my one slightly weaker cell and add two more to increase the voltage, but if they are of lower capacity and higher resistance than what I have I may not bother.
One thing I've been pondering, the 100ah and 180ah cells have always had the best energy density of all the CALB cells, and they are the most popular sizes, I wonder if they are made in a different factory or on a different line the the other sizes. Might explain some of the differences.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Jack Rickard keeps trying, and repeatedly failing, to cast the A123 pouch cells into a solid block. It's obviously a bad idea since most of them seem to fail in the same manner, but he won't give it up. His weak layer of expanding foam plastic certainly can't provide any substantial force the way a real strapping system does, so it's no example of anything, other than a bad design.


 I just saw the latest episode of EVTV and he blew up his brand new $900 12v 200ahr battery. Apparently he put it on the charger and then went to answer some emails. LOL. Where was the HVC? I am still pondering whether to go with a BMS or not but I would never put expensive Lithium cells on a charger or power supply without a HVC. I learned that lesson with some Headways and fortunately it was only a $40 lesson.


----------



## swoozle (Nov 13, 2011)

A little late, but here's my similar recent experience with cells:

I received 45 130Ah cells about 6 months ago, internal resistance clustered in the low 0.30's. 
Purchased 4 more from probably the same master shipment as the OP's, received week before last. All four have internal resistance in the mid to high .40's. 50%-ish higher.
Boy, the capacities are sure nice though.

Batt #....... Barcode............... IR.... V .....Cap
201009181 NSA1301204060045 0.45 3.310 145.6
201006644 NSA1301204060046 0.46 3.309 145.4
201009650 NSA1301204060047 0.47 3.311 145.7
2010061510 NSA1301204060048 0.48 3.309 145.4

Does anyone know what the "battery number" makeup is? It looks suspiciously like some kind of date code. The ones I got last year all started with 11. These all start with 2010. Mean anything?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Gotta love Rickard. It's getting pretty expensive to keep the "no bms" thing going along...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

swoozle said:


> Does anyone know what the "battery number" makeup is? It looks suspiciously like some kind of date code. The ones I got last year all started with 11. These all start with 2010. Mean anything?


All 262 cells from the bulk order produced in May of 2009 start with 09 for the battery number but the other digits don't seem to correlate to anything, they are all over the place, some with more digits than others, but all the barcode numbers are sequential and start with 0906, which was the shipping date, June 2009.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Gotta love Rickard. It's getting pretty expensive to keep the "no bms" thing going along...


Nary a problem with his cells in any of his cars totally BMS free. The busted and ruined cells are test cells. Not cells in a car. I totally go BMS free too.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Jack Rickard keeps trying, and repeatedly failing, to cast the A123 pouch cells into a solid block. It's obviously a bad idea since most of them seem to fail in the same manner, but he won't give it up. His weak layer of expanding foam plastic certainly can't provide any substantial force the way a real strapping system does, so it's no example of anything, other than a bad design.


It is not designed to be a strapping system, It is only for holding them still. It has nothing to do with swelling cells either. If you over charge or over discharge your cells your banding or strapping can and will fail. Guess you don't remember my issue with prius cells that bloated and blew the strapping system to pieces. Same with Jacks. The only issue I have with what Jack is doing is building such large packs before figuring out exactly what is causing the failures. Again he over charged. Not sure why he did not monitor them properly but what the heck. 

It does create a nice tsunami of BS that follows. No one is privy to the really reason for the failures but everyone has their own idea. Too bad. I have my way and will be doing some testing soon after I build my package up. I am waiting for my charger to arrive. Still working on a secure lid. Got some more Ideas. 

My idea of why there is failures? If you watch you will see that his package that he used only the foaming urethane is still going strong. The others that failed all failed when he used that hard urethane mixture and that stuff steams off hard. You did not see it on the film but rest assured it steams and that is some mighty hot. The cells only have mylar between all that heat and the edges of the cell where maybe the heat is causing the internal leaves to separate within and shorting out on the edges that were exposed to that extreme heat. The foam casting did not heat up enough to cause damage. That is my take and I do not think that casting them will be the key. I think the key is going to be making a plastic case with lid just like you have with the CALB cells. I will also put tyvek between the cells before putting the pack together. I do not want any cell casing touching any other. 

But to prove it I must build mine and run it through a gambit of tests to see if there are failures or not. I will let Jack cast all he wants. I think he is on to something but I think the casting is way too hot for the edges of the cells. It does not take much and like he said, the cell covering is not very strong. Be very careful. 

I plan on building 100 AH or maybe larger AH cells then just connect as we currently do now. If there is a failure it will only be the one cell. Not 4. Loosing a $1000 pack is not in my budget but for Jack it is just pocket change. So for hime it is no big deal. 

He does garner a crowd. We still watch. So he does something right. If he was just a complete moron no one would watch. Right?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't know, millions of people watch Jackass too  Even if the casting process "works" it does not allow for any real heat dissipation and it does not allow for individual cell replacement, which just seems foolish. Plus it adds weight and cost. I think your plan is much more reasonable, and closer to the way I would do it.


----------



## swoozle (Nov 13, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> All 262 cells from the bulk order produced in May of 2009 start with 09 for the battery number but the other digits don't seem to correlate to anything, they are all over the place, some with more digits than others, but all the barcode numbers are sequential and start with 0906, which was the shipping date, June 2009.


So I got a passle of 2010 cells. Wonderful.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Except that the 2011 cells started with 11, right? So I'd think the 2010's would start with 10. I also doubt they had cells sitting around unsold for two years. I'd be surprised if they changed the numbering system in 2010 and then changed it back, but I guess it's possible. My data sheet had the order build date and shipping date on it.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> I don't know, millions of people watch Jackass too  Even if the casting process "works" it does not allow for any real heat dissipation and it does not allow for individual cell replacement, which just seems foolish. Plus it adds weight and cost. I think your plan is much more reasonable, and closer to the way I would do it.


Well the heat from charging could be, but the one he used, the foaming one, I think would be no different, but it lives a happy life in an ugly box. I do not expect to do any single pouch replacement but my way would allow that. Or it will be built so one could if absolutely needed. Heat under normal use is not an issue either. Actually the cells should be warmed and be warm anyway. My life with my Leaf also confirms that. My battery temp never ever gets into the danger zone even in 110 degree weather and a full drive at freeway speed. In the winter they need to be warm. In the summer they really do not need cooled. Really. I agree with that. Much of this information is not just from one source. As time marches forward we are finding out what these cells will do. As for the A123, I hope we can find a safe secure way because I really want to buy a pile of them and use them. I like the power. I want to race too but do not want LiPO cells. I want LiFePO4 cells. 

I will not be strapping my cells but I will build them in a snug box and pack those boxes in the larger box snugly. If you do not over charge you will NOT get swelling. If you do not over discharge you do not get swelling either. This has been proven already. I concur with the results. Those that swelling are over charging and usually using BMS and charging to the old max of 4 odd volts per cell. They also loose cells or bloat cells at the bottom too because of the ragged bottom. I know first hand that problem. 

My pack was well secured and being secured no cell was visibly swollen but when I released the tension on the pack two cells bloated like two fat little pigs. So the strapping only HID the swelling issue. Not a good thing. If you do not know you have swelling how will you know if a problem is looming by over charging a little at a time. 

So Jacks change of charging to only 3.5 is a good move but it gives a bit less AH per cell but not a huge hit because at 3.5 they are nearly charged anyway. I'm good with 3.5 volts per cell. I can do the change with my Elcon. The most I can charge to is 3.75 anyway overall. So some might go higher. I will check my charge discharge when my rendition is finalized. I will post the results even if a disaster arrises. 

I like drama too.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Warm cells increase performance but decrease lifespan. If you don't need the extra performance and would rather have a long pack life you're better off keeping cells cooler than warmer. Just because you see no degradation in the short term doesn't mean it isn't adding up over the long term.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> Jack Rickard keeps trying, and repeatedly failing, to cast the A123 pouch cells into a solid block. It's obviously a bad idea since most of them seem to fail in the same manner, but he won't give it up. His weak layer of expanding foam plastic certainly can't provide any substantial force the way a real strapping system does, so it's no example of anything, other than a bad design.


While the heat from the non expanding resin may be to blame I though I remember something mentioned about a lot of faulty a123 cells being produced that would short unexpectedly and with no real way of predicting, part of why the karma is no more. If part of parallel/series pack buss bars on him from 1 faulty cell it would explain all of his troubles with the a123 cells. Even if he'd have a HVC if once cell goes to 0 and drags the other 5, or whatever number of cells you have in parallel, go to the same and are destroyed and inexerobably swell; the cause the others to swell from over charge; because the HVC is useless once you take one bank of cells out of the 4s/?P pack. This is just a theory, but it would make sense. 

I think the way he's trying to do it is inherently flawed to begin with though. Make a whole bunch of 1s2+p cells and make the case out of 1/4" sheet PVC. Have a few hundred sets cut out from someone with a 4'x8' cnc flat bed router. Glue them up. Mount the cells and if you really want fill the inside with expanding foam to lock the cells up after the fact. This plastic casting in a flexible, hard to deal with rubber mold, built into a 12v pack seems like a loosing battle.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Warm cells increase performance but decrease lifespan. If you don't need the extra performance and would rather have a long pack life you're better off keeping cells cooler than warmer. Just because you see no degradation in the short term doesn't mean it isn't adding up over the long term.


I would rephrase that to HOT cells decrease lifespan. Not warm cells. My cells do not need to be hot. But they need to be warm. So far with a well balanced pack and even with hard driving I never had a HOT pack. Only warm. So far I still have full capacity in my Leaf. This is after 13,000 miles. Charged and driven daily. Once the cells are in the 70 degree range the cells provide real good power and range. In the cold it sucks. These cells live in the warm and do so quite well. I see LiFePO4 doing even better. I will know the exact capacity of my cells next time I go in for a check up. Should be real soon. If the lithium cells really lost capacity of 20% within 8 years or so you'd start seeing a loss of capacity right out of the gate. So far there is no difference. Driven of course within the safe confines of the cells abilities. 

Warm cells are fine and live just fine. Hot cells! I have no clue. I know of no one that drives with HOT cells. 

Pete


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

JoeG said:


> Starting in 4th gear and excelerating to 45mph briskly on flat ground with a max Amp draw of 142A


Wow, that's some low amps for a 4th gear start! What do you have measuring the current?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> One thing I've been pondering, the 100ah and 180ah cells have always had the best energy density of all the CALB cells


Do you have a list of all the densities? I would expect larger cells to be better because less packaging/AH, but it would be interesting to know if it is more than just that, as you suggest.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

> I drove the car, a 1991 Geo metro HB with a 5spd/ 9" ADC motor for the first time today and the batteries performed well. Starting in 4th gear and excelerating to 45mph briskly on flat ground with a max Amp draw of 142A, faster that the stock metro, showed the cells in the 3.2v range, at the low voltage sag point, according to my celllogs.-Joe G.


Oh, would we all have that type of performance/draw. I would call that about perfection (for the EV world).

In my 2,500# vehicle, I am expecting somewhere around 250-300 sustained amp draw with an AC50.

Miz


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I would highly recommend using the gears a bit more. Not only will you see better efficiency, but it is MUCH easier on the motor/brushes. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. 

2nd -3rd -4th is probably best, although it in some cars 3rd- 4th works pretty good, depending on factors such as gearing, weight, voltage, motor size, etc.

Nice job on the conversion! 

Cheers


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> ...If the lithium cells really lost capacity of 20% within 8 years or so you'd start seeing a loss of capacity right out of the gate. So far there is no difference. Driven of course within the safe confines of the cells abilities. Pete


 Depends on the mechanism. If you saw "lots of loss right out of the gate" that would mean most loss occurs quickly, then the loss decreases with time, if it is only 20% after 8 years. If it were linear, you would see steadily decreasing capacity, same rate, over time, so 1/8 of 20% per year. Or, it might show no loss for years, then start decreasing fairly rapidly. Who knows? All this talk about lifetime is just pure speculation. Wishful thinking. No data. In general the more you stress a system the faster it fails, so you might expect that if you regularly run cells near the limit of their specs -high C discharge currents, high temperature, etc - they will have shorter life. But is this linear? Is there some threshold that has to be passed to show much effect? Who knows? No data.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JoeG said:


> Hi guys,
> I received 44 100AH Calib cells from Keegan at Calib Power in Pomona, Ca on 2/8/12 that had an internal resistance range of .28-.41 m ohm and a stated capacity of 106-108 Ah. I then decided to get one more cell, which came in with .32 Ohm and 107Ah capacity, and about 60 numbers off on the barcode, but similar on the S/N. I also noticed that the bar code numbers were sequential, but the S/N on the cells were all over the place. Don't know what that means, or if it has any bearing on when the cells were manufactured. My cells were all flat/ not swelled and were the same color. The cell spec chart had a date of 10/30/11, 3 months prior.
> The cells were all about the same voltage3.30, except for one which was 3.28v(not the last one purchased). When I finally got around to topping off the cells,3 months later, most took about 50Ah to get to 3.55v, using my Icharger 110, rc charger @ 10A charge rate. The low cell, now 3.24v took 70Ah. This kind of worries me, but time will tell.
> I drove the car, a 1991 Geo metro HB with a 5spd/ 9" ADC motor for the first time today and the batteries performed well. Starting in 4th gear and excelerating to 45mph briskly on flat ground with a max Amp draw of 142A, faster that the stock metro, showed the cells in the 3.2v range, at the low voltage sag point, according to my celllogs.
> Joe


 Faster than stock acceleration with 144V*142A = 20.4kW = 27 HP, so around 20 HP motor shaft power? What was the original engine, 3 cylinder?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> All this talk about lifetime is just pure speculation. Wishful thinking. No data. In general the more you stress a system the faster it fails, so you might expect that if you regularly run cells near the limit of their specs -high C discharge currents, high temperature, etc - they will have shorter life. But is this linear? Is there some threshold that has to be passed to show much effect? Who knows? No data.


Well actually there is lots of DATA. For the Leaf we have 1+ years. Jack Rickard has like 4 years. So far I'd say that the capacity loss is very non-linear. VERY. So that points to somewhere down the line we may actually start seeing a loss. OR the loss IS linear and its so slow that it will take a very very long time to start seeing the losses. 

But don't say there is NO DATA. Far from NO DATA. 

I do agree to not abuse the cells.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

tomofreno said:


> Depends on the mechanism. If you saw "lots of loss right out of the gate" that would mean most loss occurs quickly, then the loss decreases with time, if it is only 20% after 8 years. If it were linear, you would see steadily decreasing capacity, same rate, over time, so 1/8 of 20% per year. Or, it might show no loss for years, then start decreasing fairly rapidly. Who knows? All this talk about lifetime is just pure speculation. Wishful thinking. No data.


That's one thing I've wondered about with CALBs. I've heard they are rated for 80% after 2000 cycles at 80% DOD, but have frequently arrived 10% over spec. If it's linear, depending on how they run the numbers that could mean you lose 1% per 100 cycles, or 1.5%.

For production cells like a Leaf there's no telling what your actual capacity is. The Leaf may tell you X while you have a safety margin above that, and you'll never know until it begins creeping below X.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> That's one thing I've wondered about with CALBs. I've heard they are rated for 80% after 2000 cycles at 80% DOD, but have frequently arrived 10% over spec. If it's linear, depending on how they run the numbers that could mean you lose 1% per 100 cycles, or 1.5%.
> 
> For production cells like a Leaf there's no telling what your actual capacity is. The Leaf may tell you X while you have a safety margin above that, and you'll never know until it begins creeping below X.


And 1.5% is a measurable loss and a noticeable loss. It also does not matter if the cell comes shipped at 10% over capacity. Capacity is capacity. 

As for the Leaf, they actually do capacity checks when you go in for check ups. Its part of the routine. When I go in I will have a capacity check done. I am not sure exactly what the time frame is for checking but they do capacity checks.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> Well actually there is lots of DATA. For the Leaf we have 1+ years. Jack Rickard has like 4 years. So far I'd say that the capacity loss is very non-linear. VERY. So that points to somewhere down the line we may actually start seeing a loss. OR the loss IS linear and its so slow that it will take a very very long time to start seeing the losses.
> 
> But don't say there is NO DATA. Far from NO DATA.
> 
> I do agree to not abuse the cells.


It's interesting with the Leaf because the guys on the Leaf forum have mixed results, there are a couple of people who have lost 1 bar of range(if I remember the forum attributed it to 100% charging using most of the capacity during the commute in a very hot climate) already and people with higher mileage and smaller DOD's have no perceived losses. To me it's expected but then again there is a luck of the draw which seems to be a clear thing for the Toyota and Honda hybrid users with the NiMh packs, different chemistry but you still get lucky or you don't in some cases.

At least with the prismatic cells if you get unlucky, the situation is isolated to a cell or a few while the others are fine, otherwise it is a conditional thing.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

onegreenev said:


> Well actually there is lots of DATA. For the Leaf we have 1+ years. Jack Rickard has like 4 years. So far I'd say that the capacity loss is very non-linear. VERY. So that points to somewhere down the line we may actually start seeing a loss. OR the loss IS linear and its so slow that it will take a very very long time to start seeing the losses.


One year of OEM use is not lots of data, and Jack has changed packs enough times that I'm not sure of how old his oldest complete pack is, how much capacity remains, or how many cycles it has, which is more important than time in use. There is not lots of data, there is some data.
Some of the long term cycle curves I've seen show more loss down to around 80% capacity left then leveling off around 70% left, others have been pretty linear and gradual. Different cells, chemistry, conditions, etc., it's hard to draw general conclusions at this point in time.


----------



## JoeG (Jul 18, 2010)

Hey Ziggy,
I'm using a Cycle analyst meter that is reading the current thru a 0.25 m Ohm shunt between the Neg battery terminal and the negitive side contactor. I've verified the shunts readings with my DC clamp Amp meter. The Amps are low due to the combination of a big motor, little light car, and 144V pack. The negitive Amp reading is due to inductance in the meter wires, not regen.
Joe


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> Well actually there is lots of DATA. For the Leaf we have 1+ years. Jack Rickard has like 4 years. So far I'd say that the capacity loss is very non-linear. VERY. So that points to somewhere down the line we may actually start seeing a loss. OR the loss IS linear and its so slow that it will take a very very long time to start seeing the losses.
> 
> But don't say there is NO DATA. Far from NO DATA...


 Not far really. Like JRP3 said we have some data. Some early adopters have data for maybe 8 years use (not Jack, he was late to the game compared people like Juka, he just likes to think he was the leader), but none for 10 years or more, and most is for less than 5. So statements like lithium cells last 10 times longer than lead acid (which you said here: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=303145&postcount=5 ) are unsubstantiated - at least to most of us. The military or companies in China might have some data. Roland on EVDL ran the same lead acid pack for about 10 years, so 10x would be 100 years. He babied them of course. Roland is not your average user. Lifetime will likely have quite a bit of variability due to the variability in use - from guys like Roland puttering around in town running to 50% DoD or less, to guys regularly abusing packs with high discharge rates, heating, and low DoD. It will be a long time before we have some confidence in how long a pack will last under specific use conditions - well at least for those of us that require data with large enough sample sizes to generate confidence intervals.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

JoeG said:


> The Amps are low due to the combination of a big motor, little light car, and 144V pack. The negitive Amp reading is due to inductance in the meter wires, not regen.
> Joe


Sounds like you're getting some great performance. Have you done any experimenting to eliminate that inductance? My JDL shows some anomalous readings that prevent me from AH counting during a charge and I'm wondering if that may be part of the cause.


----------



## otedawg (Apr 23, 2012)

I just received my order of 52 CALB 100Ah cells and installed 50 of them in my 96 Solectria Force. I have yet to measure the internal resistance (I'll get to it eventually) But the cells look perfectly fine. I charged them up to 3.44V per cell sitting, and I'm reading a little over 125A on my controller's sense shunt. I'm pretty happy with that, but is that normal? I know that most of the lithiums come higher than they are rated, but I was surprised to see 25% more capacity. I'll have to verify my readings once I figure out what's wrong with my other built in ammeter. (Open somewhere in the circuit.)


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Didn't you get a data sheet with the CALBs, listing each cells resistance and tested capacity? Did you get them from Keegan at Calib Power?


----------



## otedawg (Apr 23, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Didn't you get a data sheet with the CALBs, listing each cells resistance and tested capacity? Did you get them from Keegan at Calib Power?


I did not - I ordered them from Evolve Electrics, but they shipped from Calib. The data sheet is probably still in the box - I looked through one, and (I thought) I didn't see any useful info, so I just put them all in one box and continued with the 'manual' labor of moving the cells. I can check the sheet when I get home.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

Overall lessons learned from a Lithium cell purchase:

Call/email warehouse. Confirm cells are in stock (for sure). Nail down a ship date.

Then do wire fund transfer immediately. Get cells. Painless.

That is the most secure, safe way I know.



Avoid paying for a *possible future date* and be wary of vague answers.

Some people get really busy after you paid the funds and* do not return emails in a timely manner*. In this day and age, there is absolutely no excuse for it. The truth is* they didnt want to answer you.*

AND if any of the parameters of a business deal change after you paid, cancel and get a refund immediately. Especially if dealing with a foreign shipment. Some businesses use that as a sales tactic to up the order or to "Bait and Switch" you to something else you do not really want, they just have it to sell.

Miz


----------



## Elithion (Oct 6, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> my cell resistance range from three years ago was .28-.35 for 100 ah cells and the new shipments came in with twice as large a spread


Just a moment, please. 

The spec sheets list the AC impedance at 1 kHz (yes they call it "resistance" but that's NOT the DC resistance). 

There is NO relationship between the AC impedance at 1 kHz and the DC resistance (at 0 Hz). I already knew that from reading scholarly papers, but I also decided to try for myself.

I measured the honest to goodness DC resistance in a batch of CALB cells; I then plotted CALB's numbers for "resistance" (AC impedance at 1 kHz) versus the actual DC resistance, and there is absolutely no correlation. 

What matters to users such as you and me is the DC resistance: that's the only thing that affects voltage sag under load. The AC impedance only affects the amount of electrical noise generated. So what.

You may or may not be correct in being concerned about CALB's quality, but the spread in the "resistance" numbers in their spec sheet should not be it.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

So, to be clear, you are saying CALB's "resistance" test is worthless and should be discounted as meaningful?

Then why was it even included? 

Interested,Miz.


----------



## Elithion (Oct 6, 2009)

mizlplix said:


> you are saying CALB's "resistance" test is worthless?
> Then why was it even included?


It's not just CALB. Roughly, 70 % of Li-ion spec sheets give the 1 kHz impedance, 5 % give true DC resistance, and the rest give nothing.

Why AC impedance? Because cell manufacturers have ready access to equipment that can measure AC impedance. 

Why at 1 kHz? because the impedance of Li-ion cells has a 2-lobe shape, and there is a dip at around 1 kHz, so the numbers look better there. Also, at 1 kHz the impedance is more consistent than at other frequencies.

Why not DC resistance? Because it varies a lot, from cell to cell, as SOC changes, as temperature changes, and as the cell ages. And because they may not know how to measure it, or do not have access to equipment that does so.

Why does CALB publish each cell's AC impedance? Because it gives the user a sense that the manufacturer is thorough and therefore it imparts a sense confidence in the user.

Why does CALB ship cells with such a wide variance of AC impedance? Because those values are all well below their self-imposed cutoff threshold.

How do I know? I did a lot of research in the process of writing the Li-ion BMS book. Still, there are some holes in my understanding, so please forgive me if I missed something.

Davide


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That's an interesting point which needs to be cross checked and verified. Certainly something seems to have changed in the cell manufacturing to increase the "resistance range", however it was tested. Could be just a change in the way they are testing, and it could indeed be meaningless. I think Tomofreno had extensive voltage plots under load which could be correlated to each serial number and spec'd resistance.


----------



## otedawg (Apr 23, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Didn't you get a data sheet with the CALBs, listing each cells resistance and tested capacity? Did you get them from Keegan at Calib Power?


After looking at my data sheets, all of mine have resistance between .32 and .37, and all had a date of 11 on the side. I'd say those numbers are just fine.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That's the type of spread I would expect, what was the capacity range?


----------



## otedawg (Apr 23, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> That's the type of spread I would expect, what was the capacity range?


109-111Ah. I should've realized. My controller has been having issues, and it's sitting in my living room floor right now so I can work on it. I think you have to set the battery voltage, and it uses that and an internal reference to measure the current. I sure wish I knew more about these stupid UMOC440 controllers.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

We could actually over think this thing...LOL

OK, Maybe the AC test might not reflect the DC test, but it might have some bearing on cell condition as manufactured and by that a grouping criteria. 

Either way, I'm sticking with my plan.

1.Figure my average daily usage and by that my pack size.
2.Then oversize the pack 1/3 rd. 
3.Buy from a known company.
4.Buy all pack cells at the same time. (maybe same batch)
5.Monitor cells in the beginning to find one that deviates, then install a monitor.

I am a car guy, I always watch my toys closely and do not abuse them.

If I lose a cell or two, It is my fault for ignoring advice.

Miz


----------



## Arthas (Jun 28, 2012)

electro wrks said:


> FWIW: I don't see the 130ah cells listed on the Chinese (company) website in either the blue, SE or the (newer?) gray, CA series. Does anyone know if they're still being produced or are they discontinued?


Sorry sir, 130Ah batteries are no longer produced.


----------



## swoozle (Nov 13, 2011)

Arthas said:


> Sorry sir, 130Ah batteries are no longer produced.


That explains why those of us who took receipt of 130ah cells recently seemed to get the crappy floor sweepings.


----------



## mk4gti (May 6, 2011)

Finding replacement 130s in the future will be a total PITA ...

Anyone know why they discontinued the 130s ? It seems it was the "perfect size" for small cars with moderate range ... (my opinion)


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My guess is that more people looking for smaller size cells were buying the 100ah's size, which had better energy density, and those looking for larger sizes jumped to the 180's, which also had better density. More cost effective to build fewer sizes.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Just to confuse things even more, I got this e-mail response from the US CALB distributor a month ago when I inquired about the future availability of the 130Ah cells:
"CALB still product SE130AHA model, we still have some stock in our Pomona, CA warehouse. Those cells were just arrived in 2 weeks ago.

Please feel free to contact me if you want to order.

Thanks,

*[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Keegan Han*[/FONT]
 *[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Sales Director*
*[email protected]*
_*Tel: 909-865-8809
Cell: 626-383-2957 "
*_
[/FONT]


----------



## Arthas (Jun 28, 2012)

electro wrks said:


> Just to confuse things even more, I got this e-mail response from the US CALB distributor a month ago when I inquired about the future availability of the 130Ah cells:
> "CALB still product SE130AHA model, we still have some stock in our Pomona, CA warehouse. Those cells were just arrived in 2 weeks ago.
> 
> Please feel free to contact me if you want to order.
> ...


 Sorry to confuse you. Actually, 130AH battery is not general mass production anymore. We cannot promise the stock of 130AH ones everytime you want.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

electro wrks said:


> Just to confuse things even more, I got this e-mail response from the US CALB distributor a month ago when I inquired about the future availability of the 130Ah cells:
> "CALB still product SE130AHA model, we still have some stock in our Pomona, CA warehouse. Those cells were just arrived in 2 weeks ago.
> 
> Please feel free to contact me if you want to order.
> ...


As long as we're here, how long until you expect Grey Cells to be (mass) available?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I'd suggest emailing Keegan to ask.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Seems as if Keegan might have different information or different policies than the home factory. I'm not sure CALB is happy with some of these recent mismatched shipments from Calib power.


----------



## Arthas (Jun 28, 2012)

somanywelps said:


> As long as we're here, how long until you expect Grey Cells to be (mass) available?


Thanks for your questions. Actually, we are trying to stop manufacturing SE series, while CA seris have been mass-produced already. You can figure it out in our CA catalog, the sizes are CA40Ah, CA60Ah, CA100Ah, CA180Ah and CA400Ah. You can still order SE130Ah from Keegan if he has, but my suggestion is do not depend too much on 130Ah batteries in future.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Arthas said:


> Thanks for your questions. Actually, we are trying to stop manufacturing SE series, while CA seris have been mass-produced already. You can figure it out in our CA catalog, the sizes are CA40Ah, CA60Ah, CA100Ah, CA180Ah and CA400Ah. You can still order SE130Ah from Keegan if he has, but my suggestion is do not depend too much on 130Ah batteries in future.


The CA series is not currently shown on the Calib site, only SE.


----------



## Arthas (Jun 28, 2012)

tomofreno said:


> The CA series is not currently shown on the Calib site, only SE.


Thanks for reminding. This will be changed in near future. For CA series you could go straight to CALB's website: 
http://en.calb.cn/product/?id-116.html


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Arthas said:


> Thanks for reminding. This will be changed in near future. For CA series you could go straight to CALB's website:
> http://en.calb.cn/product/?id-116.html


 I can't find a spec sheet for the cells on this site. What is the advantage of the CA type cells? Why do you want to abandon the SE type for these?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Jack R has multiple blogs/shows discussing the differences.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Jack R has multiple blogs/shows discussing the differences.


Well, his info is ok, but a bit skewed. His latest cold testing is a great step in testing except he is comparing the cold-weather loss against the original capacity. The SE loses more, but also started with more. He never actually compares the total capacity of one vs. the other which is only about a 3% difference. Not much.

Also, the factory specs on charge/discharge would be nice rather than just Rickard's untested assurance that the cell will do 12C.

How about weights for each cell size? Nothing.

If I want to plan a 425v 600A batt I need that info...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes it appears that the new CA series do have better cold weather performance but no increase in energy density, which is unfortunate. I can insulate and heat a pack to avoid cold weather sag, but there isn't anything I can do to improve energy density outside the cell. Hopefully they really do provide higher C rates and longer cycle times.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

ruckus said:


> Well, his info is ok, but a bit skewed. His latest cold testing is a great step in testing except he is comparing the cold-weather loss against the original capacity. The SE loses more, but also started with more. He never actually compares the total capacity of one vs. the other which is only about a 3% difference. Not much.
> 
> Also, the factory specs on charge/discharge would be nice rather than just Rickard's untested assurance that the cell will do 12C.
> 
> ...


He actually does show percentage loss between the two. The CA looses about 7% capacity vs. the SE cell that looses about 14% capacity and shows this as a real value in w/h; since the voltage is lower on both cells during the cold soaked test. He also says he's going to test the C rates in the coming weeks on 40 ah cells, when he gets some in. He notes this won't be quite as good as a 180ah test; since the smaller cells will put out slightly more current than the larger cells, but he doesn't have the equipment to do the kind of amperage needed to properly test the larger capacity. So far he's shown that the numbers he's gotten from calb are good.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

He could stick a few CA cells into one of his existing vehicles, slap a cell log 8 on them and neighboring SE cells, and get direct real world graphs under load.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Arthas said:


> Thanks for reminding. This will be changed in near future. For CA series you could go straight to CALB's website:
> http://en.calb.cn/product/?id-116.html


The English site's 'Product information' link hasn't worked for months. It seems I need to go to the Chinese site to get a product information sheet but then that product information doesn't include the information for all of the offered cell sizes and I'm looking for the current details of size and weight for all sizes to determine cell placement and battery box design and how to spread out the weight in the car.

I don't know if CALB knows that the product information isn't there, can you please see if they know and hopefully get the full information to the english part of the site?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

jeremyjs said:


> He actually does show percentage loss between the two. The CA looses about 7% capacity vs. the SE cell that looses about 14% capacity and shows this as a real value in w/h; since the voltage is lower on both cells during the cold soaked test.


My point exactly. He makes you THINK he gave you good comparison data but actually focuses on the wrong numbers. Now, before I go any further, please know I am very grateful for his testing and give him many kudos for doing cold testing.

But please look at the actual watt hours reported:

Batt Hot Cold Avg
SE.. 621 535 578 = BETTER Capacity
CA.. 595 549 572 = WORSE Capacity (ok, not by much)

He doesn't tell you that the new cells will make your car LOSE 4% range in summer, but only gain 2.6% in the most extreme winter conditions. If you take the average the SE cells are still better. As others have pointed out it's not that hard to heat the batts just a bit overnight in most instances so in that case the SE cells would give better range for most users most of the time.

However, the REAL selling point of the new cells is their ability to give greater amps with less voltage sag. This allows a lighter and smaller pack to give greater performance (at the cost of range). At 10C the CE60ah batts should deliver 600amps. With the old SE series you would probably need 130ah to do that. This means I can cut my pack weight in half and get the same performance. (If I cared nothing for range)

This 'advance' is really a compromise already seen in the Headway line-up. You can have more capacity and less power, or more power and less capacity. Not both.

Cheers


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

The SE 40Ah, 60Ah, and 70Ah have been rated at 10C for 10 seconds already for over a year now. This would mean that the new cells should be the same or slightly better than 10C for 10 seconds. This is another reason why I want to see some up to date CA series specsheets that aren't on the CALB site.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

ruckus said:


> My point exactly. He makes you THINK he gave you good comparison data but actually focuses on the wrong numbers. Now, before I go any further, please know I am very grateful for his testing and give him many kudos for doing cold testing.
> 
> But please look at the actual watt hours reported:
> 
> ...


Thats an awfully small sample size to make that kind of determination.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

MN Driver said:


> I'm looking for the current details of size and weight for all sizes to determine cell placement and battery box design and how to spread out the weight in the car.


The sizes were there for the ones I looked at. For weight, just assume the same as the old cells. Density hasn't changed, so weight should be very close to what it was.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

jeremyjs said:


> Thats an awfully small sample size to make that kind of determination.


Very much agree. But I'm not buying a case of CALBs to run them into the ground.

You?

I forgot to mention another positive point of the new batts is the hope for even better longevity in terms of charge cycles. Obviously, we all like the fact that they are less saggy under load.

Wasn't trying to diss the new batts, just giving the old ones credit for having good capacity.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm actually pretty disappointed in the new cells. After three years or so there is zero improvement in energy density. That suggests to me that the LiFePO4 chemistry is stuck without some sort of major breakthrough, and we won't be seeing any significant price reductions either. The cells are more expensive now than when I bought mine in 2009.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I'm actually pretty disappointed in the new cells. After three years or so there is zero improvement in energy density. That suggests to me that the LiFePO4 chemistry is stuck without some sort of major breakthrough, and we won't be seeing any significant price reductions either. The cells are more expensive now than when I bought mine in 2009.


Yup. So is diesel (more expensive). No major breakthroughs happening in batts. Motor efficiency is the place where gains can currently be made. But you know my thoughts on that...

Just think, the lead guys carried the torch for 100 years waiting for that new 'just-around-the-corner' chemistry. That is serious patience.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Unfortunately motor efficiency gains aren't going to cut it, a few percentage points just aren't enough to matter. However there are going to be battery density improvements, it's already an ongoing process, it just doesn't seem to be happening with the LiFePO4 chemistries.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

There are a number of advances in the works, but who knows if they'll ever be ready for prime time.

Most established battery manufacturers are only intereted in tried and tested chemistries, and the new manufacturers grow up around specific university lab discoveries to either fizzle or focus on that one tech. A123 was one of the few that was even making significantly distinct cells, and we've seen where that got them.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Unfortunately motor efficiency gains aren't going to cut it, a few percentage points just aren't enough to matter. However there are going to be battery density improvements, it's already an ongoing process, it just doesn't seem to be happening with the LiFePO4 chemistries.


Well, you can leave your 5% at the door if you want, but not me.

It's better than the -4% you would get from using the new CALBs. (or at least it would offset the loss in range)

Together that makes 9%. 

I would say, take your gains every where you can.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

5% = 2 miles on a 50 mile pack, 5 miles on a 100 mile pack. Nice, but not a big deal. Also, as of yet it's an unproven 5%, so....


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> 5% = 2 miles on a 50 mile pack, 5 miles on a 100 mile pack. Nice, but not a big deal. Also, as of yet it's an unproven 5%, so....


Not sure what you want. Gains are gains whether they are in the motor or battery or transmission (lack of?).

You would be jumping for joy at 5-10% battery improvement but turn your nose at the same in motor improvements. Ok, that is your choice.

The difference between the efficiency of brushed and brushless motors is well known. Gee, I wonder why most of heavy industry has switched over? Maybe it is just the reliability issues of brushes?

The Chinese have tried both and have completely dropped brushed tech in EV's. But here in America where we know everything, you are convinced a motor change is not worth it. 

Funny the difference between experience and theory. 

Name one OEM using brushed motors. Reason?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I thought you were talking about some advancement over AC motors. I'm using an AC system, as are OEMs, so the motor efficiency gains you talk about don't exist for most vehicles.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I thought you were talking about some advancement over AC motors. I'm using an AC system, as are OEMs, so the motor efficiency gains you talk about don't exist for most vehicles.


Hello,
Most conversions in the U.S. are using brushed DC. Most on this forum use brushed DC, most on EValbum use brushed dc.

AC and Brushless DC are a tiny minority of conversions.

Some claim 50% improvement in range between brushed dc and permanent magnet dc. I am not going to say that. I am just going to test and report the results.

Netgain, Evnetics, etc... are all rumored to be working on AC/BLDC systems. (which is why they aggressively attack any newly released competing systems) 

There is no long-term future in brushed dc systems. Efficiency and reliability are each on their own sufficient nails in the coffin.

How does this relate to battery quality slipping? Not sure. I think the relevance is that every little tiny bit counts for something.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Hello,
> Most conversions in the U.S. are using brushed DC. Most on this forum use brushed DC, most on EValbum use brushed dc.


Most EV's are not conversions at this point in time. People have used brushed DC because they were available and relatively cheap.



> Some claim 50% improvement in range between brushed dc and permanent magnet dc.


Some are full of it, or had other efficiency problems in their system.


> Netgain, Evnetics, etc... are all rumored to be working on AC/BLDC systems. (which is why they aggressively attack any newly released competing systems)


I don't see any aggressive attacks on new systems. I do see some people promoting a new system overly sensitive to any criticism.


> There is no long-term future in brushed dc systems. Efficiency and reliability are each on their own sufficient nails in the coffin.


The real efficiency differences are not enough on their own, but combined with all the other issues your conclusion is correct.


> How does this relate to battery quality slipping?


It doesn't. Not sure why you brought it up.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Most EV's are not conversions at this point in time.


So why bother posting on a DIY site to discuss CALB's which are only used in conversions?


----------



## StanSimmons (Sep 3, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> I'm actually pretty disappointed in the new cells. After three years or so there is zero improvement in energy density. That suggests to me that the LiFePO4 chemistry is stuck without some sort of major breakthrough, and we won't be seeing any significant price reductions either. The cells are more expensive now than when I bought mine in 2009.


I just ordered 48 of the CA60FI cells from Keegan at CALIB. The total price, including shipping, fees, busbars, etc. was well under $1.50/Ah... This compared very favorably to the pricing (w/ s&h, customs, etc) that I was getting from Sinopoly, and I was able to pay with a credit card.

The spec sheet he sent showed 245mm x 115mm x 44mm and 2kg for the new 60Ah cell. That is quite an improvement over the SE60AHA at 217mm x 142mm x 46mm and 2.5kg. If my math is correct, that is 12.5% smaller and 20% lighter. The specs put the new CA60FI cell squarely between the Sinopoly 60(a) and 60(b) cells for density and weight.

He said that he is expecting a large shipment of that model cell at the end of July.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The 100's and 180's always had better energy density than the other sizes. Mine were shipped at under 1.25/Ah in 09 and the SE100s weigh the same as the CA100s as far as I know, and have the same dimensions. Also my cells all came in at 110ah or higher actual capacity while I think the newer CA 100's all come in lower than 110ah.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Yup. So is diesel (more expensive). No major breakthroughs happening in batts. Motor efficiency is the place where gains can currently be made. But you know my thoughts on that...
> 
> Just think, the lead guys carried the torch for 100 years waiting for that new 'just-around-the-corner' chemistry. That is serious patience.


I'd call it lack of initiative rather than patience. We would still be using lead if it had been up to them. Many here seem to just want to go fast for a short time, so their main interest is power density. For ev's to be widely accepted transportation the cells need much greater energy density, and much lower $ density, their power density is good enough as is. The CA cells seem like kind of a weak me too product response to the Thundersky Y containing cells. I never had a problem with winter range. I'm more concerned with hot summer temperatures, for which these seem to offer no improvement. So yeah, disappointment.

In Jack's testing did he account for energy losses in the cells while charging and discharging, or did he assume the losses were the same for each cell despite their differences in behavior when cold, and just assume the product of cell voltage and Ah gave the energy, ignoring losses?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

StanSimmons said:


> I just ordered 48 of the CA60FI cells from Keegan at CALIB. The total price, including shipping, fees, busbars, etc. was well under $1.50/Ah... This compared very favorably to the pricing (w/ s&h, customs, etc) that I was getting from Sinopoly, and I was able to pay with a credit card.
> 
> The spec sheet he sent showed 245mm x 115mm x 44mm and 2kg for the new 60Ah cell. That is quite an improvement over the SE60AHA at 217mm x 142mm x 46mm and 2.5kg. If my math is correct, that is 12.5% smaller and 20% lighter. The specs put the new CA60FI cell squarely between the Sinopoly 60(a) and 60(b) cells for density and weight.
> 
> He said that he is expecting a large shipment of that model cell at the end of July.


Nice Work! (on the battery order)

Good to get some actual data in this thread instead of just BS. And good to see somebody actually doing something. Steering wheel testing is the only thing that matters.

I thought the new cells might be lighter based on thinner plastic ribs, but 25% is significant.

I was eyeing the 60ah cells myself. What was your distance and cost for shipping?

Thanks


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Mine were shipped at under 1.25/Ah in 09


The Thundersky 260ah used in the 37 Jaguar came in under $1.00 per ah. 

-of course, I had to make a deal with the devil (Morrison/Kois). 

I think the only reason they got delivered is nobody else ordered such a crazy big size. Had they been 100ah they would have disappeared with the rest.

So I guess there is some benefit to marching to a different drum..


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think TS cells were cheaper than CALB cells at the time as I remember.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> In Jack's testing did he account for energy losses in the cells while charging and discharging, or did he assume the losses were the same for each cell despite their differences in behavior when cold, and just assume the product of cell voltage and Ah gave the energy, ignoring losses?


Why do you think there are different efficiencies between the two cell types when charging at normal temperatures?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Why do you think there are different efficiencies between the two cell types when charging at normal temperatures?


I don't know if there is or not, but no reason to think they are one way or the other. If different, then the difference in useful energy may be greater or lesser than what it appears if assuming they are the same. Was just curious.


----------



## StanSimmons (Sep 3, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Nice Work! (on the battery order)
> 
> Good to get some actual data in this thread instead of just BS. And good to see somebody actually doing something. Steering wheel testing is the only thing that matters.
> 
> ...


The shipping he quoted was $200 for UPS Freight to Dallas, TX for 48 cells and hardware. The cost of shipping and customs from China to California are already rolled into the price of the cells.

The 25% weight difference is based on spec sheets from CALB/CALIB. How accurate those spec sheets are is anyones guess. I'll post my measurements of the CA60FI after they are delivered.


----------



## StanSimmons (Sep 3, 2011)

My cells from CALIB arrived yesterday afternoon. They came UPS Freight and arrived in two small crates on a single pallet. 

I uncrated them, counted and verified barcodes with the pick list. They were extremely well protected with lots of Styrofoam sheet packing. Unfortunately the busbars, bolts and washers didn't make it in the crates. I've sent an email to Keegan to have him remedy that oversight.

According to the CALB paperwork they all tested 65Ah to 67Ah. Two were 65Ah, 25 were 66Ah and 21 were 67Ah. The "Open Circuit Voltage" listed was 3.304v or 3.305v for 45 cells with two more at 3.306v and one at 3.309v. 

I consolidated them down to one crate with no packing material for storage, and will be testing them with a Revolectrix PowerLab6 to verify the capacity and charge/discharge curves.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Thanks for the data! Looks like you have a very nicely matched pack. Did they send cell resistance data also?


----------



## StanSimmons (Sep 3, 2011)

Yes, the Internal Resistance ranged from 0.35 to 0.53 MOhms. 

From what I've read, IR seems to vary wildly with charge state and temperature, so I'm not as concerned with IR as I am with Ah.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'd expect that cells from the same batch would be measured for resistance at the same time, therefore same SOC and same temperature.


----------

