# TS LiFePo4 vs LiFeYPo4 + experience?



## KirillSp (May 17, 2010)

Hello all,

unfortunately I didnt find any battery comparinson here and on the internet.

What are the differences between these types?

Anyone does experience with both types of cells?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## brainzel (Jun 15, 2009)

The comparison to CALB (SkyEnergy, SE) would complete a graet triple test


----------



## roger (Jan 24, 2010)

I´m driving such new type of Thundersky cells in my conversion since 3 months. They should have better performance at cold temperatures but I can´t test it yet. I´m going to see it during next winter... 
I will report then. As a suggest you can see results of compare test at Jack Rickards blog. He has done performance test of old and new Thundersky vs. Calb cells a few time ago without cold temperature.

best regards

Roger


----------



## KirillSp (May 17, 2010)

Ive read on the internet, that LiFeYPo4 batteries have more life expectance than the LiFePo4 ones.

But what about experience? I am sure that some of you folks have some!


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

KirillSp said:


> Ive read on the internet, that LiFeYPo4 batteries have more life expectance than the LiFePo4 ones.
> 
> But what about experience? I am sure that some of you folks have some!


The LiFePO4 only got popular in the past few years when it became cheap enough to attract enough people to it. The LiFeYPO4 from ThunderSky has only been around for a year or so. What I'm saying is, there is no long term experience for life expectancy at all. So far it seems that everyone with these cells has only lost them to overdischarge failures caused by either one specific kind of faulty electronics and a few people who didn't watch their pack, one in particular who didn't know how battery theory for cells in series works and killed multiple cells when he drove them to negative voltage. There is one specific case where there were 4 or 5 batteries that came from an older batch and were combined with a new batch when they were shipped and the older ones were clearly underperforming the rest.

Other than that, I'd say these are doing well for pretty much everyone so far. I don't know of anyone with 50k miles yet and am curious who here has the most miles. If I converted, I'd be at 50k in about 4 years. If I had my old college commute, I'd be there very quick. ...but I don't I drive a 30 mile work commute and only manage about 1000 miles a month when you put all the errands and trips to the other side of the city to meet friends. If I figured out a decent way to get to Madison once a year without stopping to charge more than once, I'd do that but it wouldn't be worth the trouble to me and that wouldn't really count because those would be full cycles if I worked a 6500 watt generator(yes, it would discharge along the way, I'd have to stop midway) into the car to extend the range a little on a super efficient car.


----------



## Pirape (Feb 26, 2009)

Hello, I am trying to figure the weight of the TS battery packs

how heavy are they?
60AH, 90AH, 100AH

Please

Thanks


----------



## efan (Aug 27, 2009)

Pirape said:


> how heavy are they?
> 60AH, 90AH, 100AH


you can find the weight of individual TS cells here:
http://www.thunder-sky.com/products_en.asp


----------



## roger (Jan 24, 2010)

This morning temperature outside was near to freezing point. Charging was done yesterday and I had cold cells at same outside temperature.

While driving to work for about 40 Kilometers I recognized no significant change in voltage sag during accelation.
As it seems, the new Yttrium type Thundersky are much better at cold temperatures. 
But we will see. More much colder nights are coming for sure.
I will report you in future

Roger


----------



## mcrickman (Sep 10, 2007)

roger said:


> This morning temperature outside was near to freezing point. Charging was done yesterday and I had cold cells at same outside temperature.
> 
> While driving to work for about 40 Kilometers I recognized no significant change in voltage sag during accelation.
> As it seems, the new Yttrium type Thundersky are much better at cold temperatures.
> ...


What's the average voltage sag you guys see during a drive? I have 48 Thundersky 100ah and wanted to compare numbers.


----------



## resago (Sep 28, 2010)

how about an update?


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Do the latest Sky (Calb/Calib) cells use Yttrium (LiFeYPo) in their chemistry....does anyone know?

Thanks


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I'm desperately looking for good test results or real world experience on available batteries but it's hard to come by. 

Tesseract froze one of the Yttrium 200ah batteries and it does better than the old ones. Thundersky is the only prismatic cell company I have found that uses this that I've seen. It is a doping agent I think it's called used somewhere in the pot to make for easier ion transfer which lowers resistance and increases life, partly due to lower heat generation I suspect. 

Just a few months ago, before learning of this new TS battery I wrote TS off. *Now it appears they are ahead of the pack* of Calb, which appears to be #2 and HP which appears last, except for Carl Clark for one. He prefers them I know partially because of their doing the right thing when things go wrong.

I've read that TS cells have about a 1% DOA rate but I have suspicions on that.

All I've found is comments from several running these new cells in cold climates saying their low temp sag is much less than older technology. I guess you might say Yttrium is the latest advancement on the market and that Calb and HP are still with the old now.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Here is the MSDS for Thundersky LFP cells. One of the things I like about TS cells is the amount of data that is available on their web site.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Are the T/S cells delivered with test/spec sheets for each cell showing capacity and internal resistance?.... I thought not. I believe the Calb cells are.....

I can't seem to find the internal resistance on the T/S site either???? Calb is listed as =<0.6.

Looks like Thunder Sky has a new name.... Winston Battery .... ???? http://www.thunder-sky.com/products_en.asp?fid=&fid2=&page=2


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Are the T/S cells delivered with test/spec sheets for each cell showing capacity and internal resistance?.... I thought not. I believe the Calb cells are....


 I don't think so. I only received data on Rs, not capacity, with my CALB cells. As far as I know JRP3 is the only one who received such complete data, and he has it for other cells sizes in addition to the size he ordered. In his case I think someone inadvertently left some paperwork in the box that was for internal use. At least I've not seen anyone else saying they received that info. I think it is also highly dependent on whether the middlemen pass it along.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Don't forget that the internal resistance is going to be different for the different sizes of cell too. You'll get higher C from a smaller cell than you will a bigger one, CALB reflects this in their spec sheets too for the maximum current ratings.

I think ThunderSky/Winston is the only company using Yttrium, I'm not convinced that it means all that much though.

It seems we may be behind on testing, previously testing showed Sky Energy/CALB being on top for internal resistance, discharge performance, and Ah tested per Ah rated. Updated testing may be in order but I think both of these two companies are improving as time goes on.

Either way, don't look too much into specsheets, ThunderSky for example have always had discharge charts that don't seem to match their actual performance when tested. Not to say they don't perform well though, just not quite what they show.

"Now it appears they are ahead of the pack" Neither of the three discount LiFePO4 manufacturers are ahead of the pack. Headway, A123, SAFT seem to be ahead by quite a bit more. I think that the newest Hi Power cells may be much better than they once were now that they have released their higher power cells. We really need fresh testing but I think that people will be happy with any of these six. ...well, SAFT doesn't count, they aren't available and neither are the A123 cells as far as I'm concerned for an EV.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

A new take on IR I found on Rickard's comments here somewhere. He says that's a worthless number, Tesseract I think agrees (something those two often don't do!). 

What he thinks, Rickard, is based on his testing results, often rather exhaustive to prove or disprove a notion. He said that the IR changes with amp draw and that at higher currents it is more and not linear I think.

I still want to run on Li as I can't use my truck for trips more than 12 miles or so without concerns of walking. To do so I need some data!

I like some things I've read from owners of all three of these companies. HP concerns me in their posted life cycle. Could be that they are honest and the others are fudging a bit. But I think the TS cells may last longer due to less issues with heat buildup as the reports in the field are that they indeed to perform better at higher amp draws with less sag than their older ones. How do they compare to the other two? Can't draw any conclusions at this point.

Rickard has tested the three but I've not found it yet and don't know if it was with the new TS Cells. That's my next thing to do today.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Here's the link to Jacks testing. He tested the new TS 200ah, Calb 180ah and the old TS 160ah. The tests were quite eye opening to say the least.

Apparently the Calb have the higher initial voltage, overall average voltage (less sag), least temperature climb (lower internal resistance it appears), BY FAR! The newer yttrium based battery had the worst showing by gaining the most in temperature over time!

http://jackrickard.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-05-14T11:36:00-05:00&max-results=7

Apparently Jack has had a run in with someone on likely this site and thus you don't see him much anymore. Said they edited his posts and that pissed him off! Don't blame him but not sure if it was indeed this site. 

Frankly I think a lot of his opinion as he tests then reports, not just spews out unsubstantiated claims. What more could you ask for??? Isn't that why we're here, to learn how to DIY while limiting costly mistakes?


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

ElectriCar said:


> Apparently Jack has had a run in with someone on likely this site and thus you don't see him much anymore. Said they edited his posts and that pissed him off! Don't blame him but not sure if it was indeed this site.


I was around and saw the posts before they got edited.

What happened was someone who made a BMS made a joke that he was making a BMS just for him and showed some pictures. He completely flipped out and took a couple of jokes the wrong way and Jack struck back with a vengeance and Jack's anger was censored. The censoring of his madness and the other person who he was 'arguing with' made him contact the forum owner and Jack took what was said to him as if peoples posts here are being edited all the time or something. He asked to leave and Jack said the forum owner didn't want to delete his account but Jack insisted and so he is gone from the forum now and so people comment on his blog postings that he has linked on his site where he can say what he wants without feeling like someone will change or delete his posts.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I love his wit and sense of humor too! It's not often you find intelligence and humor wrapped in the same package!


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I don't think so. I only received data on Rs, not capacity, with my CALB cells. As far as I know JRP3 is the only one who received such complete data, and he has it for other cells sizes in addition to the size he ordered. In his case I think someone inadvertently left some paperwork in the box that was for internal use. At least I've not seen anyone else saying they received that info. I think it is also highly dependent on whether the middlemen pass it along.


Thanks Tom, I didn't realize that...


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

MN Driver said:


> "Now it appears they are ahead of the pack" Neither of the three discount LiFePO4 manufacturers are ahead of the pack. Headway, A123, SAFT seem to be ahead by quite a bit more. I think that the newest Hi Power cells may be much better than they once were now that they have released their higher power cells. We really need fresh testing but I think that people will be happy with any of these six. ...well, SAFT doesn't count, they aren't available and neither are the A123 cells as far as I'm concerned for an EV.


It's true...we talk about what we can afford and what we can get our hands on.. Electrovaya may be one of the best also.... I once read about the energy density of their Lipo but can't find it anymore..


----------



## roger (Jan 24, 2010)

Hello, first best wishes and a happy new year to all of you. After certain very cold nights during the last few weeks I´m now able to report about the cold behaviour of the new Thundersy Yttrium cells. With more than 8000 Kilometers using them I´m really satisfied, especially at cold temperatures. It is possible to pull 1,5C out of the cells at -10 degree Celsius without problems. While other guys here leave their EV´s in the garage during this temperatures, I still drive my car every day. Voltage sag is a little bit higher and because of higher internal resistance the reach of the car is a little reduced . After a while of driving the pack warms up for self a bit and performance seems a little better. I have no insulation or heating in the battery boxes. The only I would wish is a more flatter discharge curve like the CALB cells. Regarding this I would agree Jacks test results you can watch at his sites. 
Roger


----------



## jankovig (Jan 5, 2011)

roger said:


> This morning temperature outside was near to freezing point. Charging was done yesterday and I had cold cells at same outside temperature.
> 
> While driving to work for about 40 Kilometers I recognized no significant change in voltage sag during accelation.
> As it seems, the new Yttrium type Thundersky are much better at cold temperatures.
> ...



What's your nominal charge per cell that you charge the batteries to?


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I don't think so. I only received data on Rs, not capacity, with my CALB cells. As far as I know JRP3 is the only one who received such complete data, and he has it for other cells sizes in addition to the size he ordered. In his case I think someone inadvertently left some paperwork in the box that was for internal use. At least I've not seen anyone else saying they received that info. I think it is also highly dependent on whether the middlemen pass it along.


Just thought I would close the loop on this... I did receive a test report on all aspects of each of my 67 cells. IR and capacity was stated... thanks...


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I got the report on the cells I ordered via email before I ordered them so I could ok them. Will receive them sometime next month. The report listed IR and capacity, all within 1% on Ah.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> I got the report on the cells I ordered via email before I ordered them so I could ok them. Will receive them sometime next month. The report listed IR and capacity, all within 1% on Ah.


Could you post the numbers? Thanks.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Regarding the above PDF

.1C and 1C = 10% difference? So 200Ah tested by Sky Energy really is 180Ah at 1C according to that document. So according to them, they really are 180Ah.

I didn't figure it would be that high, unless they are trying to give conservative numbers.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

MN Driver said:


> Regarding the above PDF
> 
> .1C and 1C = 10% difference? So 200Ah tested by Sky Energy really is 180Ah at 1C according to that document. So according to them, they really are 180Ah.
> 
> I didn't figure it would be that high, unless they are trying to give conservative numbers.


Yup. It may be closer to 7 or 8% but, ya, it's typical. Peukerts I guess. At 3C... it will be less also...


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

DIYguy said:


> Could you post the numbers? Thanks.


Here ya go. Didn't think you could do that here.


----------



## roger (Jan 24, 2010)

jankovig said:


> What's your nominal charge per cell that you charge the batteries to?


Charge is ended at 3,8Volts per cell after top balancing with Dimitris MiniBMS boards while charger´s 2nd low current stage. Normally the Charger stops at these level automatically. For safety purposes and/or charger malfunction the BMS cuts charger´s main line if cell voltage grows more... 

Roger


----------



## 1-ev.com (Nov 4, 2010)

I've opened a thread for this purpose, with poll, to compare:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...battery-compared-thunder-sky-calib-52817.html


----------



## chiques (Mar 9, 2009)

MN Driver said:


> The LiFePO4 only got popular in the past few years when it became cheap enough to attract enough people to it. The LiFeYPO4 from ThunderSky has only been around for a year or so. What I'm saying is, there is no long term experience for life expectancy at all. So far it seems that everyone with these cells has only lost them to overdischarge failures caused by either one specific kind of faulty electronics and a few people who didn't watch their pack, one in particular who didn't know how battery theory for cells in series works and killed multiple cells when he drove them to negative voltage. There is one specific case where there were 4 or 5 batteries that came from an older batch and were combined with a new batch when they were shipped and the older ones were clearly underperforming the rest.
> 
> Other than that, I'd say these are doing well for pretty much everyone so far. I don't know of anyone with 50k miles yet and am curious who here has the most miles. If I converted, I'd be at 50k in about 4 years. If I had my old college commute, I'd be there very quick. ...but I don't I drive a 30 mile work commute and only manage about 1000 miles a month when you put all the errands and trips to the other side of the city to meet friends. If I figured out a decent way to get to Madison once a year without stopping to charge more than once, I'd do that but it wouldn't be worth the trouble to me and that wouldn't really count because those would be full cycles if I worked a 6500 watt generator(yes, it would discharge along the way, I'd have to stop midway) into the car to extend the range a little on a super efficient car.


With my commute, I'd be able to report in about 8 months.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

chiques said:


> With my commute, I'd be able to report in about 8 months.


Over 200 miles a day would be 8 months in 50k. Are you planning to do that electrically? If so, I will be interested in your build thread when you put one up, I'm sure many of us would be.


----------



## chiques (Mar 9, 2009)

MN Driver said:


> Over 200 miles a day would be 8 months in 50k. Are you planning to do that electrically? If so, I will be interested in your build thread when you put one up, I'm sure many of us would be.



No immediate plans to report on on my commute. I was simply typing out loud.

80 miles / day
5 days per week
'=
400 miles per week
'=
1600 miles per month 
~
32 months
~
less than 3 years. 

sorry for the math error


----------

