> 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

> 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.