This post is to anyone planning on buying fusion batteries for christmas. Fusion batteries are FALSELY advertising 1.18v battery packs. When I recieved my battery pack the cut off rate was set at .095 not the INDUSTRY STANDARD .090 cutt off so when the battery was cycled the pack came out to 1.15 or maybe 1.16 no where close to the 1.18 as advertised I have real 1.18's and they dont even compare. And the battery bar deal doesnt seem to have any different effect on or off the track than any other pack. thank god I only bought one pack. I work hard for my money as I'm sure everyone else does I just dont take kindly to being mislead or ripped off so spend your money wisely I let them know how I feel now I'm letting you know the real truth............OUT

Dougefresh and the get fresh crew

I noticed that when a guy I race with got a few packs... His 4 cell stuff cycles up to 4.72 as a pack which would equate to 1.18 as a cell though. His run great just wish the numbers and labels were to industry standard....

At what discharge rate did he use to get 4.72, 20amp or 25amp.........OUT!

he used 30 amps... They came up 401 runtime 4.72 voltage and like 11.8 IR so they really arent that bad...

Never had a problem with the three packs I bought, although the guys don't put shrinkwrap over the the battery performance labels, so after taping them in the car for one race you rip the labels off. I have to admit I don't think the heat sink battery bars help any, but I've never had a performance issue with them.

Guys 4.72 at 30 is not that good of a pack. If it is a good pack it should be around 4.77-4.79. with at least 380 to 400 secs. The IR shouldn't be over 11.0. I've never run any fushion batts so i can't say any thing neg about them. I think the numbers are way low for 30 amps. Just to let u know I have some packs that cycle out at 35amps 340 64 9.4 4.70 4.71. These packs r not dead shorted. I tray them right b4 i charge them. You guys might want to some other manufactures to see if u get better numbers. Just my thought so dont bash me.

Ritchie Mac
KSG
PRS
KCR
SRC
DanKim Graphics

Im just saying they arent that bad... I never said they were great... But 1.18 at 30 is the best thing I could get my hands on when I bought them and they run great on the track. I have the track record in stock at my track with an old Trinity pack that cycles up 4.70 at 30 so If I could get my hands on packs like you have man I bet I could pick up even more....

I noticed that when a guy I race with got a few packs... His 4 cell stuff cycles up to 4.72 as a pack which would equate to 1.18 as a cell though. His run great just wish the numbers and labels were to industry standard....
Vinnie- I hope you dont take offense to this but what your saying is that a "RACER" someone other than yourself has a 4.72 pack with 11.0 IR to me this is "HEAR SAY", "HE SAID, SHE SAID" alot of people will say alot of things at the track, I have the hard facts in my hands.

Cbear- performance was never the issue, Yeah they perform, they perform just like a 1.15 I just dont care in being "DUPPED" in to believing I'm buying something that they are not, thats all.

Did you contact Fusion with the problem you are having with them?

I definitly voiced my displeasure with the product I received and got a return phone call and anyone that wants to know what their reply was can email me at squingeely@comcast.net

Guys 4.72 at 30 is not that good of a pack. If it is a good pack it should be around 4.77-4.79. with at least 380 to 400 secs. The IR shouldn't be over 11.0. I've never run any fushion batts so i can't say any thing neg about them. I think the numbers are way low for 30 amps. Just to let u know I have some packs that cycle out at 35amps 340 64 9.4 4.70 4.71. These packs r not dead shorted. I tray them right b4 i charge them. You guys might want to some other manufactures to see if u get better numbers. Just my thought so dont bash me.
not everyone has access to packs over 4.75.. unless you are a team driver...

Burbs i have several packs from different places that are not team packs just bought off the shelf and mail order (RC4LESS) and they were 4.75 to 4.77 on the first cycle.. i'm sure they have come up since then being dead shorted and run as a pack.....

Good packs are not that hard to find .... only time good packs are harder to find is when you run mod...... then you need to be looking for 35 amp numbers anyway.....

still if you look at the adds in the latest car action all the packs in the pictures have a 0.90 cut off. and I just went to there website where they car advertising 1.18 packs like crazy but there is no mention of the mathcing setting anywhere on the site.


i think the biggest lesson to be learned here is look into things more before you buy them. but this guy is right all the picture lead you to believe that the cells are cut off @ .90.

I had the chance to run some of there stuff at the birds last year and it was like a 1.175 which according to there adds sould run like Forrest Gump we it didn't run all that special. I had 2 New wave packs that ran the same. with lower numbers.

Burbs i have several packs from different places that are not team packs just bought off the shelf and mail order (RC4LESS) and they were 4.75 to 4.77 on the first cycle.. i'm sure they have come up since then being dead shorted and run as a pack.....

Good packs are not that hard to find .... only time good packs are harder to find is when you run mod...... then you need to be looking for 35 amp numbers anyway.....
your right good packs aren't hard to find. honest numbers are!!!!!!!

i get my packs right from my buddy who is the matcher for hefty cells.. i dont get the top stuff..but i get to see it.. and 1.19 or 4.78 i have never seen... the highest cell he has seen was a 1.189 at 30... im sure the 1.19 pack s exist.. but not in enough quantity for people to buy... people can say what they want... to promote there cells.. but i dont think so..

all i can say is we ran faster then we've ever run after almost a year off, car not set up ,and the only new thing we tried was our fusion batteries.Thanks to team fusion for the power and we'll continue useing them.

Guys 4.72 at 30 is not that good of a pack. If it is a good pack it should be around 4.77-4.79.

So a "good" pack is 1.192-1.197 volts per cell. You better send your turbo in for recalibration. But seriously, they do vary alot.

Get the car right or numbers wont mean anything.
I TQ'd the Norrca nats in stock on a 338, 4.67, 10.5 pack
Which by most people's standards is not that special of pack so you dont need the 4.75's @ 35 to be quick.

The question here is not if you need them or not, but more "I want what I paid for or what is advertized!!!" If they advertize 1.18 and you get less then you are getting ripped off.

If you want more, you have to trust someone that has been doing this for over 15 years, you need to buy SMC. Your numbers will be higher than the advertized sticker. Danny Sullivan knows his cells. He is the Battery Wizard hands down! I beat my SMC's and they get stronger.

I find it very amusing when I see some guy buy a couple of Turbo Matchers and Voila...he becomes a "battery matcher". Owning a ratchet set does not make you a mechanic!

For shear experience and knowhow stop fooling around and call Danny Sullivan at Superior Matching Concepts. You will not regret it!!!

Antonio De Nino

About 3 months ago i picked up some Hurricane packs, ran them about 5 times and cycled them and the numbers her higher than what was on the label. I have ran SMC, Pro-match, B&T, New Wave, World Class, Trinity, Orion, and pole position packs. From my personal experience the only 2 matchers I have ever felt a difference in speed with were the pro-match and Hurricane. I am very happy with my hurricane packs. Both matchers numbers are right on the dot if not better when I put them on my GFX.

Your right you should get what you pay for, and I understand your point. I would just rather judge what I get from the performance and not the numbers. I have had many packs that the numbers were lower but the pack as a whole was faster.

Many companies falsely advertise, and I have to give them some credit because a lot of time they don't know they are doing it. I think the only solutions is to find a matcher or matchers you trust and stay with them. I know from now on I am going to stay with my hurricane cells. Just my .2.

The numbers I gave are not he said she said I watched the pack get cycled on a GFX at 30 amps... I race with this person every week and pit with him every week... He then went on and cycled a promatch pack I purchased that had lables at 30 amps of 1.184 and that cycled up almost exactly the same other than the IR was only 9.8 the voltage came up 4.74. I know each machine reads different and all but those numbers are not hearsay they are exactly what the machine put out... Each machine is different and not every company is going to have the same numbers. I bought 2 packs from SRC and 2 packs from Promatch. the SRC say 1.175 and the promatch say 1.184 all 4 packs run just about identical on the track.... The numbers mean nothing to me as long as the pack runs good on the track...

I can only add to lilvinnie statement.is how they perform. I have One pack of 4 cells that are old.bought second hand. Low low numbers on the cells. But it will outperform any new pack I have 35 amp discharge cells.with these big impresive #'s. So I don't judge a battery by it's No's on the cells.

I quit buying batteries from trinity and the other BIG companies due to the numbers always were low. That's why i use SMC now numbers are correct and have ALWAYS got better as i beat on them. Their service can be beat either.

TheJuice?Man
Tony

i remember about 2 yrs. ago there was a thread on here bashing world class cells when chuck owned them and everyone was saying he made his numbers look good by doing diff. things. and then i watched the bat up here at k/n go out and win both stock and 19T at the blast and i ended up running the A-main and it was with world class batts also.so i also agree numbers are 1 thing and sometimes on track PERFORMANCE is another.i think if your not happy with a product thats fine but keep it to yourself and switch companies.I think the last time i looked there were more then enough matchers out there,maybe even more matchers then racers lol

I usually run SMC and B&T cells. I just recently purchesed some Hefty Cells from Team One for 4 cell stock. They were 1.17 @ 30 and the I.R. was 2.5 per cell. Point is they cycled out higher than the label said and ran great on the track. They were close to my SMC 1.67 @ 35. Now I don't know If I just got one of those lucky packs.... but for $ 39.99 I'll buy another to find out..lol Nice job Team One.

Hello fellas,
Let me introduce myself in case you dont know who i am. My name is John Malin. I work at Fusion batteries. For those who dont know I am the one responsible for matching all of the cells at Fusion. I beielve that there is some mudslinging going on here that needs to be addressed. So I will start with that and then I will explain why we chose to do something different.

Dougefresh or should I say Doug Miller. Lets not hide behind handles lets say who we are. I know who you are and you know who I am. I will state nothing but the truth here. First you ordered your 1 pack back in September. You must have run it more than once since then because you told me that you did on the phone. You never contacted me until 2 1/2 months after you got and ran the pack. I would think that if you had a customer issue that you would have addressed it with the company before trying this smear tactic. I got your e-mail that you were upset yesterday morning . I replied to your email within 20 minutes of you sending it. I followed that up with a message on your answering machine for you to call me. You promptly returned my call when you got the message. So far so good. I asked when I got you on the phone what i could do to make you a happy customer. The response that I got was less than polite. I offered to replace your pack or refund your money or even to let you suggest what you wanted. The answer I got was to change my process and then when I told that we would not be doing that you hung up on me. I thought that was very adult of you. Here is a company willing to do just about anything to make you happy and you didnt want to give us a chance. It became apparent to me that we have an old photo in our ad in the magazines that shows a 0.90 label. We never intended to falsely advertise anything. We have been matching our cells at 0.95 for at least 6 months. As for the performance of the cells I do not know what your method of treatment is for them so I can not rebut anything you said regarding their perfomance. I would have liked the opportunity to find out why those were not performing as they should. I was not given that opportunity. We stand behind everything that sell here. You will be hard pressed to find more honest people than us. Please stop trying to smear our company. We value our company image very much. I have not tried to bash you or attack you in any way. I am mearely stating how you responded to getting good customer service. After this post is read by the people on here they will see a different side to the story which you told.

OK on to the issues with using 0.95 as a cutoff instead of the standard 0.90.
We have done a lot of research into pack match longevity. We have found that using 0.95 has more than one benefit. If you folks will all look at your turbo 35's for a second I am going to show you something.(some of you will already know this). If you got to the data screen on page 2 you will find that there are two average voltage readings displayed. The first one is set wherever the user set his cutoff point at. The second one is set to 1.0v and is not adjustable. Outside of the R/C world 1.0v is the standard for battery analysis for determing capacity etc.... I would personally perfer to match 1.0v but everyone would scream bloody murder. oh wait they already are. J/k
If you look at the discharge curve for a standard sub-c ni-mh cell you will see that when the battery is nearly exhausted the voltage goes over a cliff metphorically speaking. 0.90 is on the back side of the cliff. Therefore the voltage is hurtling towards zero at a very vast rate given a 30 amp discharge load. Conversly 0.95 is just at the brink of the cliff. The next thing to know is how does your turbo matcher sample and calculate average voltage. This is the tricky part. I am told by the software guy at Competition Electronics that a turbo matcher samples the voltage once every 1.6 seconds. They then take the last 5 consecutive samples to show a running average of the voltage on the display which eventually becomes your cell label. Knowing this it is easy to see that you last sample can be way below 0.90 cutoff. Thus skewing your average voltage and runtime measurements. By changing to 0.95 the standard measurements do change just a tick. The runtime shows about 3 seconds less anf the voltage goes up .001. Anyone who syays they can feel .001 per cell is lying. Your packs will stay matched longer if they are matched on useable energy. That in itself is room for argument but it is what our testing have shown. We have done a lot in the last 12months. Just look around and ask why is there so much good testimony about our battery performance? Fusion is always willing to learn and try new things to improve our processes. As for someones earlier post that a tool kit does not make a mechanic. That may be true however I am not new to this as I have been rc racing for 19 years. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Bashing is not.

John

Wow!! sounds like you did all you could to please your customer. Some people like being angry and when they find a reason they tend to hold on to it so that they can continue to be angry. Oh well can't please everyone. If you did what you said you did. That kind of cust. service is a rare thing these days. Keep it up...And send me a Battery I won't complain......lol

John, I think the way you explained yourself on here and gave us the other side of the story was very professional. Like I said earlier some companies tend false advertise on accident due to outdated marketing material or whatever other situations may arise. I am very impressed to hear about how you personally handled the situation, but am even more impressed at the solutions you proposed. Offering to refund the persons money or replace with another pack is in my opinion going above and beyond what should be expected of your company. I would have been happy with a simple explanation!

I like to hear about companies that are going in a different direction trying to inovate instead of imitate. you might be hearing from me soon to order some new packs. Take care.
-Jeff Patch

John, I have had very good luck with the packs that I got form you. The guy that vinnie is talking about is me. I have cycled stuff, and the #'s that are on the packs that I have gotten from Fusion are right on par with the labels. Last time I cycled one, the runtime on the label was 420, voltage was 1.180, IR's were 2.2-2.3 After several runs, and dead shorting the pack for about a month, the pack came up 388 for runtime, 4.74 av voltage, ( 4.76@ 1volt) and the IR was 10.8 The pack originally cycled 417 for runtime, 4.71 average voltage, and the ir was 11.1 I'd say that the labels are relatively close, and I have no problems with them. the fact that I ran a 59 flat @ K/N last weekend in the 3rd qual with this very pack tells me that the on track performance is good too, there's only 1 guy that has ever gone faster than that, and of course, that's the one guy that beat me last weekend too. John, keep up the good work, and send me a p.m. or an e-mail when you read this (ljo524@aol.com)

Jason Lambert

I emailed John at fusion to metion this thread and ask about this whole 090-095 thing and recieved a call maybe 20 min later.I may have picked up a sponser from them a bit ago but getting a call surprised me and he answered all my questions and was pleasent to deal with.I also noticed shortly afterwards he was on here straightening things out.we not only drive for fusion but will stand by their products with the service they offer why would we change.


John,Judy,and Jeff at fusion keep up the Great work

edited post

John thanks for the input. i also have recently became apart of team fusion and have no complaints about there stuff. i'm still running stuff over a year old that i got from them only 1.17 average and the ontrack performance kicked the crap out of any 1.18+ that i had and i had as high as 1.189. also it is nice to see a company try to improve and invent new things as stated by someone else in a post. dougfresh have you ever thought that maybe it is you turbo and it needs to be recalibrated? John keep up the good work you got my vote and let me know when you got 1.18's back in i'll be buying some and i'm sure many others will. email me at bringbring97@aol.com

thanks, Brad Sousa

In the end its all about on track performance anyway. Ink and paper are cheap. anyone can print labels.

John

i think the name of this thread should be deleted or renamed to a fusion batteries discussion or i'll start one my self. the name of this thread can be misleading if someone does not read all the posts made especially by John Malin. and people will get the wrong idea and fusion will end up with a bad name for no aparent reason. hope someone deletes it or renames it i'll be starting a fusion batteries thread so feel free to hop on in and post away.

Brad Sousa

I agree HANK you shoulod delete this tread, sounds like bashing more then
a racer that needs help! Fusion more then tried to help this guy.
NICK

yes I agree the name needs to change.

new threead posted. hank please delete this one.

John

I see there is a new thread started. At this point I don't think it would be wise to delete this thread. Those that may have seen it yesterday may have not had a chance to read John's reply. That could leave the wrong impression if it would just happen to disappear.

It will also allow the original poster respond to John's comments if he wishes.

Any time a "bashing" thread disappears I end up getting accused of playing favorites ;)

Anyways, this thread does teach a good lesson. First, there are always two side to every story... don't take the first thing you read as the gospel truth... do a little research yourself.

BTW John, I have some battery thories I would like to share if you have the time. You can see some work I have done at http://www.hobbytalk.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=listarticles&secid=5 Feel free to email me if you wish.

First of all I would like to thank John for coming on here and explaining the reason why they use a .095 cuttoff rate its more of an answer than I got over the phone, I didnt come on here to pimp anyones cells or to bash anyones cells although thats not what it sounds like. I did it to let everyone know what fusion is showing in the mags and on the internet in their pictures and what I received are two different things and that eveyone should be aware of this. As for the .095 vs. .090 only changing the voltage .001 in my opinion i find that hard to believe and it probably could be debated until the sun goes down. I didnt want another pack or my money back I just wanted fusion to be honest to everyone about their cycling methods thats all when you pay 80.00 a pack they ought to be right and seeing the numbers like that only leads me to believe I was being dupped. Maybe 6 months ago you should have given an explanation in your ads why you are now cutting them off at .095 and why the picture shows .090 and all this could have been avoided. I also find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that has brought this to your attention. Now the public knows all of the facts and can make up their own minds on the situation. As far as yesterday I was EXTREMELY irrate and I would like to apologize to John for hanging up on him but better that than saying something I really regretted and again I would like to thank John for his explanation.......OUT!

Doug Miller

P.S oh yeah I've owned the pack for two months now and i practiced with it and cycled it hoping it would get better

Well now that puts a new light on things. I am glad that you were bold enough to admit that we had a hard time communicating. I do see your point and its already being addressed. Like I have said since the beginning we stand behind our product. You willbe hard pressed to find better customer service. Regardless of your state of anger when we were on the phone I still am willing to make a happy customer of you. You can pm me if you like and we can work this out like gentlemen.

John

yes but it seemed like you were not at all bitching about .90-.95 it seemed like you were bitching about a 1.18 being a 1.15-1.16 that is why you should send your turbo back and have it recalibrated i had the same problem once and i was using my dads charger and then bought a new gfx numbers came right up hmmmm....... 4 year old turbo 35 bl and brand new gfx i'de say it was the charger since the gfx put out higher numbers. just my .02


Brad Sousa

Brad- Your missing the point when you change the cuttoff .095 v .090 it changes the voltage and theres nothing wrong with my gfx all my other packs cycle out right on the money........OUT!

I'm glad this thread was started. I've only had 1 fusion pack and was pleased with it. I've never known much about the company and now I do. Mr. Malin I just want you to know that you will get more of my business, I like a company that stands behind their product!

thanks for the vote of confidence.

joesmo or who ever u r. Lets get one thing straight. R u calling me a liar. All I said is that the pack didn't look that good if that was 30 amp numbers. I run SMC packs in 19t and they r bought off the shelf. the lables show 1.173 2.1 347 at 35 amps. when cycled at 35 they cycle out at 4.70 340 9.2 so if u do all the math the pack would be 1.193 at 30 amps. So if u r buying 30 amp numbers I would look 4 at least mid 1.18 to 1.19. just trying to help guys not bashing anyone. Like I said b4 i've never run any fushion packs but if someone offerd me a pack to try I would try them. As for my turbo needing calabratied it matches the numbers perfertly so I know my packs are right.

Ritchie Mac
KSG
PRS
KCR
DanKim Graphics
Bandit

rjm 70 who r u referring to as joesmo? i would like to know

Doug, Your comment about the difference between .95 and .90 cutoff being more then .001 and could be debated until the sun goes down got me to thinking... what really is the difference.

I do have the data available so we don't have to debate. I've run a lot of different tests on batteries over the years and have actual test data with amp and voltage readings taken every second. This data has been imported into Excel so it can be graphed. You can find one such samle at http://www.hobbytalk.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=64 Feel free to download the data and look at it yourself.

This is somewhat old data in that it tests Sanyo 2400 cells at ~20 amp discharge rate. With a little extrapolating we could cut the 20 amp figures by 33% when discharging at 30 amps to get a ball park figure. All numbers are for 6-cell packs.

Numbers .90 (5.4v) cutoff - 426s @ 6.920492958v / 6 cells = 1.153415493v per cell
Numbers .95 (5.7v) cutoff - 421s @ 6.934123223v / 6 cells = 1.155687208v per cell
Differenence 1.155687208 - 1.153415493 = .002271715 difference per cell (at 20 amps) between .90 and .95 cutoff
Extrapolated numbers to compensate for lower discharge
.002271715 * 66% = .0014993319v difference per cell (at 30 amps) between .90 and .95 cutoff
5s runtime * 66% = 3.3s difference in runtime at 30 amps

The above does make a few assumptions but we can see that the difference between .90 and .95 cutoff is very little indeed.

hank you have a lot of good points but with the difference between 20-30 i do believe it would only be .001 as shown on your results it was .014 difference at 20 so divide that by 6 for each cell and you have .0027 so at 30 it is safe to say it would be about .001 just would i think could be wrong. thanks for sharing the info it's appreciated and just proves that it's only a .001 of a difference between .90 and .95

Brad sousa

Guys 4.72 at 30 is not that good of a pack. If it is a good pack it should be around 4.77-4.79. with at least 380 to 400 secs.

Not calling you a liar, just thanking you for letting me know to look for 1.192-1.197's in the case at the hobby shop. There probably behind the 75 watt monsters.