3 ms·

I would give the OP the benefit of the doubt that they understand both are structural batteries and is wondering how they compare in other battery metrics. Fro

by eloff 6y ago

I would give the OP the benefit of the doubt that they understand both are structural batteries and is wondering how they compare in other battery metrics. From this article, Tesla's blow these ones away - except possibly as a structural element - and they're much closer to being a real product.

vlovich123 6y ago
I tried but this phrase stood out to me: > They're also supposed to eliminate unnecessary material by making the battery itself a part of car's structural chassis. That implies they're believing the article isn't talking about a structural chassis. Why are you treating this like a fanboy competition? It can both be true that Tesla is coming to market with a real product & that this announcement is an important advancement in the state of the art for structural batteries. They are totally different ends of the spectrum with the latter portending where the tech may be heading whereas the former is focused on proving that it's ready for large scale prime time.
- eloff 6y ago
  > That implies they're believing the article isn't talking about a structural chassis. "The're also" The use of the word also means they fully understand that both are structural. > Why are you treating this like a fanboy competition? WAT? > It can both be true that Tesla is coming to market with a real product & that this announcement is an important advancement in the state of the art for structural batteries. Why not? If we take Tesla's statements at face value, it does seem like they intend to reduce weight by using the battery cells between two sheets of metal to function sort of like corrugated cardboard and provide structural support to the frame - as opposed to just being dead weight. If we look at this article, these guys have made a battery using carbon fiber and fiberglass to make a material that can store energy and provider structural support. Why would you think only one can be true? They're independent.

by eloff 6y ago

vlovich123 6y ago

I tried but this phrase stood out to me: > They're also supposed to eliminate unnecessary material by making the battery itself a part of car's structural chassis. That implies they're believing the article isn't talking about a structural chassis. Why are you treating this like a fanboy competition? It can both be true that Tesla is coming to market with a real product & that this announcement is an important advancement in the state of the art for structural batteries. They are totally different ends of the spectrum with the latter portending where the tech may be heading whereas the former is focused on proving that it's ready for large scale prime time.

eloff 6y ago
> That implies they're believing the article isn't talking about a structural chassis. "The're also" The use of the word also means they fully understand that both are structural. > Why are you treating this like a fanboy competition? WAT? > It can both be true that Tesla is coming to market with a real product & that this announcement is an important advancement in the state of the art for structural batteries. Why not? If we take Tesla's statements at face value, it does seem like they intend to reduce weight by using the battery cells between two sheets of metal to function sort of like corrugated cardboard and provide structural support to the frame - as opposed to just being dead weight. If we look at this article, these guys have made a battery using carbon fiber and fiberglass to make a material that can store energy and provider structural support. Why would you think only one can be true? They're independent.