What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
-
benjaminsanchez
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:58 am
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
@thomas65 This is a great summary, thanks.
Regenerative braking on humanoid joints can recover some energy during deceleration phases of walking, but the actual energy recovered is modest compared to a vehicle, since humanoid joints don't sustain the same continuous high-speed rotation that makes regen worthwhile in EVs.
-
charlesbianchi
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:51 am
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here.
The average humanoid in 2026 carries under 2.5 kWh of battery capacity, with real-world runtimes clustering between two and four hours depending on how dynamic the workload is - static, low-motion tasks stretch runtime much further than continuous walking or lifting. Tesla's Optimus Gen 2 reportedly carries roughly a 2.3 kWh pack and manages about two hours of dynamic work, while Unitree's H1 runs a smaller 0.864 kWh pack good for under four hours of largely static operation - a useful illustration of how battery size and workload type both drive runtime.
she/her
-
ananya.novak
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2026 9:07 pm
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Not sure I fully agree here.
Regenerative braking on humanoid joints can recover some energy during deceleration phases of walking, but the actual energy recovered is modest compared to a vehicle, since humanoid joints don't sustain the same continuous high-speed rotation that makes regen worthwhile in EVs.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
-
scott.novikova7
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2025 1:06 am
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
To answer this directly:
The average humanoid in 2026 carries under 2.5 kWh of battery capacity, with real-world runtimes clustering between two and four hours depending on how dynamic the workload is - static, low-motion tasks stretch runtime much further than continuous walking or lifting.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Small correction on one detail:
Thermal margin in a densely packed humanoid chassis is often the real limiting factor on sustained performance, not raw motor power - actuators get thermally throttled well before they'd hit their absolute torque limits, especially during repeated high-load cycles like continuous lifting.
he/him
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
@tmartin Just to be precise about one thing:
A BMS (battery management system) has to guard against transient current spikes from sudden gait changes or lifting motions, not just steady-state draw - peak current headroom and fast-acting protection logic matter as much as total capacity for real-world duty cycles.
-
nancy_lewi
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2025 1:11 pm
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
One nitpick -
Thermal margin in a densely packed humanoid chassis is often the real limiting factor on sustained performance, not raw motor power - actuators get thermally throttled well before they'd hit their absolute torque limits, especially during repeated high-load cycles like continuous lifting.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Just to be precise about one thing:
Hot-swappable battery packs solve the runtime bottleneck for continuous operations (like a 24/7 warehouse shift) without needing a much bigger, heavier pack, but they add mechanical complexity, a failure-prone connector interface, and logistics overhead for managing spare packs. There's no widely standardized safety certification specific to humanoid battery packs yet in most jurisdictions - deployments generally lean on adapted versions of existing standards for industrial battery systems and electrical safety rather than a purpose-built humanoid standard.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
@james15 Counterpoint:
Tesla's Optimus Gen 2 reportedly carries roughly a 2.3 kWh pack and manages about two hours of dynamic work, while Unitree's H1 runs a smaller 0.864 kWh pack good for under four hours of largely static operation - a useful illustration of how battery size and workload type both drive runtime. DC-DC conversion losses across all the individual actuator drivers add up across a whole robot - it's a less glamorous efficiency question than battery chemistry, but power electronics efficiency meaningfully affects real-world runtime too.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
@noah_pate That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit.
Thermal margin in a densely packed humanoid chassis is often the real limiting factor on sustained performance, not raw motor power - actuators get thermally throttled well before they'd hit their absolute torque limits, especially during repeated high-load cycles like continuous lifting. DC-DC conversion losses across all the individual actuator drivers add up across a whole robot - it's a less glamorous efficiency question than battery chemistry, but power electronics efficiency meaningfully affects real-world runtime too.