Bench Test Results: Aspire 35A 3000mAh 18650...preposterously overrated, incorrect Aspire data

[Mooch]

These tests below only note the estimated ratings for these batteries at the time I tested them. Any battery that is not a genuine Samsung, Sony, LG, Panasonic, or Sanyo can change at any time! This is one of the hazards of using “rewrapped” or batteries from other manufacturers so carefully research any battery you are considering using before purchasing.

Misusing or mishandling lithium-ion batteries can pose a SERIOUS RISK of personal injury or property damage. They are not meant to be used outside of a protected battery pack. Never exceed the battery’s current rating and keep the plastic wrap and top insulating ring in perfect condition.

Testing batteries at their limits is dangerous and should never, ever, be attempted by anyone who has not thoroughly studied the dangers involved, understands the risks, has the proper equipment, and takes all appropriate safety precautions.

If the battery has only one current rating number, or if it only says "max", then I have to assume the battery is rated at that current level for any type of discharge, including continuous.




Bottom Line
This one made me angry. Aspire has a good reputation so my expectations were high. But for this cell they decided to roll us back a couple years and use a hugely exaggerated current rating without mentioning it is some sort of “pulse” rating.

The wrap on this cell just says “35A”. We can only assume, since there is no (useless) “max” or pulse” designation, that it means this cell is rated to 35A even for a continuous discharge. Except that during a continuous discharge at that level the cell gets hot enough to boil water and one cell failed during its first discharge at 35A.

Some other concerns...

- A paper insert included with the cell seems to indicate that they are claiming this cell has a continuous rating of 20A. A “Vaping Simulation” rating of 30A is also given by them on the insert. Where does the 35A rating on the wrap come from then?

- What happens if this paper insert is lost or cells are taken out of their boxes for display in a shop? There would be no indication as to how exaggerated the 35A number on the wrap was.

- The discharge graph for this cell on Aspire’s web site, now deleted but included below, showed temperatures about 20°C lower than I measured, a huge difference. I am unable to explain this. The temperatures on Aspire’s discharge graph don’t match those on their paper insert either.

- The four cells I tested delivered 2944mAh, 2964mAh, 2989mAh, and 3077mAh at 0.6A (0.2C) down to 2.5V. Only one of the four met its 3000mAh rating. One other came close though. But every cell should easily beat the capacity spec as it’s just a minimum guaranteed value. It should not be the maximum you can expect.

These cells performed a bit worse than LG HG2’s but it’s probably not noticeable in a regulated mod. The shorter run time of this Aspire versus a 30Q or VTC6 might be noticeable though.

I am estimating this Aspire’s ratings at 20A and 2900mAh. It appears to be a China manufactured cell, probably from Yong Deli New Energy Company, Ltd., which Aspire has used before.

Immediately after testing I fired off an email to Aspire basically yelling at them for all the things mentioned above. We spent a lot of time talking and I agreed to include a statement from them in this test report. I’m happy to say that they are willing to take the unsold stock of this battery and rewrap them all with more accurate ratings.

Four cells were donated for the purposes of testing by Aspire (Aspire® Official Site - Best E Cigarette, Vape, Tank, Mod). Thank you!


Aspire’s Statement



Continuous Current Discharge Graphs



Aspire’s Insert and Discharge Graph



Ratings Graphic



Performance Specs
- DC Internal Resistance = 19.8mOhms (milliohms) average for the two cells.
- Total energy delivered down to 3.2V at 10A continuous = 6.8Wh (Watt-hours) average
- Total energy delivered down to 3.2V at 20A continuous = 4.7Wh (Watt-hours) average

I want to work for the vaping community full time! If you feel what I do is worth a couple dollars a month and you would like early access to battery availability and testing news and a say in what I test then please consider becoming a patron and supporting my testing efforts: Battery Mooch is creating battery tests and educating vapers | Patreon.

Aspire paid a fee to be moved to the front of the testing queue, which currently has a 10-12 week backlog. This cannot influence my test results as they pay in advance, have no say about what is in this report, and I don’t care if any company never does this or donates batteries again. My reputation is a lot more important than any battery donation or payment.

 

[ilporcupine]

Aspire's statement is freakin' hilarious. We already know the Chinese have a different "industrial standard". HAHAHAHA.
Thanks for the tests, Mooch. We do appreciate it.

 

[Baditude]

Aspire's statement is freakin' hilarious. We already know the Chinese have a different "industrial standard". HAHAHAHA.
Thanks for the tests, Mooch. We do appreciate it.

Yes, those of us "in the know" are aware that China's industrial standard is different from the Japanese, Korean, and the rest of the world. But what about those consumers who are not "in the know"?

I appreciate Aspire's statement in that they are allegedly open minded and willing to change their industrial standard to fit in with the rest of the world, especially and specifically the vaping community.

Thanks, Mooch, for being our consumer advocate and going the extra mile by calling out Aspire. Time will tell if Aspire changes their ways.

 

[Robin Becker]

About which industrial standard are they exactly talking about? Aspire is not a manufacturer of the batteries, they just relabel them!
Almost every beginner knows that 3000 mAh batteries you can get from Samsung (30Q), Sony (VTC6), or LG (HG2). Mooch tested them all...none of them can be defined with more than 20A CDR.
If Aspire would really care, they could read Mooch tests...or they could have said, first we let Mooch test them and according to his results we would move further...but they didn´t...

 

[mimöschen]

The manufacturers -even chinese companies- provide the correct datasheets.
The rewrappers use their exagerated specs just for marketing purposes.
A german ecig magazine confronted Golisi with their overrated cells, and Golisi's (shortened) surprisingly open statement was like this:
"People want higher rated cells, because they think accurately rated cells suck.
So we have to compromise between scientific data and market expectation, to be competitive on the market."

Source (german only):
Golisi Akkuhärtetest im RMR Testverfahren - www.dampfer-magazin.de

And I'm inclined to agree. Only a small fraction of all vapers - like the folks on ECF - care for details or hard data. The rest buys what sounds best to them, and they don't even care what Mooch, Mountainprophet, lygte or any other battery testers say, because they just don't give a f**k.
So in the end it's up to us interested vapers to keep the people we know from harm. Mooch & Co just do the highly appreciated groundwork.

 

[mimöschen]

Aspires statement - in contrast to Golisi's - is plain and simple verbal diarreah, because the industrial standards in China, Japan and Korea are roughly the same, and they keep on lying although they've been caught pants down.
This truly earns them my middle finger, if they want me to buy their rewrapped batteries in the future.

 

[Mooch]

The manufacturers -even chinese companies- provide the correct datasheets.

I’ve seen datasheets from some China manufacturers with very exaggerated ratings compared to how Samsung, Sony, etc., would rate the same cells. Many companies feel that a “capability” of the battery can be made the rating, e.g., “it didn’t vent when discharged at 40A for 60 seconds so we will rate it at 40A since no one will run it for 60 seconds at a time.”

 

[mimöschen]

Ok. That's new to me.
Just curious, which manufacturers overrate their CDRs that much?

 

[Mooch]

Ok. That's new to me.
Just curious, which manufacturers overrate their CDRs that much?

I don’t remember their names as I wasn’t interested in their cells after seeing the ratings and deleted the datasheets. No names I had ever heard before though. They use a different standard for rating compared to outside China.

 

[sonicbomb]

Aspire, the shame bell is ringing just for you.

 

[Robin Becker]

How much I agree with you all...
It seems like when it comes to batteries, the Chinese "brands" can not offer better prices to the same known brands like Sony, Samsung, LG etc. in comparison to known retailers like Nkon.nl, Liionwholesale.com etc.
They are obliged therefore to create "new" marketing instruments, in order to sell.
Why should any one buys the 30Q as rewrap, if that cost him more? Most probaby the only way will be to rewrap this 30Q and offer it as a "magic" battery with 3000 mAh and 35A.
There are many people out there, that don´t read mooch, mountain prohpet, or Lygte and they think they can get a better battery with more power.

 

[Violetti Usva]

A german ecig magazine confronted Golisi with their overrated cells, and Golisi's (shortened) surprisingly open statement was like this:
"People want higher rated cells, because they think accurately rated cells suck.
So we have to compromise between scientific data and market expectation, to be competitive on the market."

I feel like a good compromise would be an industry standard definition of max pulse discharge parameters and labeling both CDR and max pulse on every cell e.g. 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off until 3V is defined as pulsing. Having some cells state max pulse rating only, especially if pulse is defined as, say, 1 seconds on 29 seconds off, is really, really dangerous and leads to confusion, but even those parameters would be somewhat useful if that was industry standard.

 

[ilporcupine]

I feel like a good compromise would be an industry standard definition of max pulse discharge parameters and labeling both CDR and max pulse on every cell e.g. 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off until 3V is defined as pulsing. Having some cells state max pulse rating only, especially if pulse is defined as, say, 1 seconds on 29 seconds off, is really, really dangerous and leads to confusion, but even those parameters would be somewhat useful if that was industry standard.

Staying with the CDR insures that even if your mod "self-fires", you will be within the rating of the battery. This is a "safety first" method, and the user takes the responsibility for ignoring it. I think this is the proper way to rate batteries for vaping.

 

[Violetti Usva]

Staying with the CDR insures that even if your mod "self-fires", you will be within the rating of the battery. This is a "safety first" method, and the user takes the responsibility for ignoring it. I think this is the proper way to rate batteries for vaping.

I agree and I do stay within the CDR myself - I do literally mean as a compromise between the desire to stick overzealous labels on batteries. Hell, I didn't even particularly convince myself it would be a good idea...just a better idea than false labeling, provided the true CDR was always labeled.

 

[sdennislee]

Thanks Mooch, I can honestly say most of what I know about battery safety I've learned from you.

Friends don't let friends buy cheap rewrapped batteries.

 

[Robin Becker]

Aspires statement - in contrast to Golisi's - is plain and simple verbal diarreah, because the industrial standards in China, Japan and Korea are roughly the same, and they keep on lying although they've been caught pants down.
This truly earns them my middle finger, if they want me to buy their rewrapped batteries in the future.

I went to the explanation of Golisi on the german vaper magazin:
Golisi Akkuhärtetest im RMR Testverfahren - www.dampfer-magazin.de

Golisi says, that they overrating their batteries, because everyone does?! Otherwise they would not be able to sell their batteries, if their competitors still use those exaggerations.
Excause me...this worst than a diarreah, this is a fraud! It does not give anyone an excause to lie, just because the others do the same.
Beside of that, in this case of Golisi, some of their batteries were "down-graded" by the Testers (Mountain Prophet), because all of a sudden bare cells have been replaced with others.
Just for comparing and understanding, Nkon.nl sells VTC5 for 4,25€ and VTC5A for 4,99€. If Golisi uses both batteries for the same type they offer and just let the version with VTC5A being tested...you can see, what a great margin they can have.