Page 3 of 4
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Sat May 23, 2026 1:51 am
by benjaminsanchez
@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.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Wed May 27, 2026 11:30 am
by charlesbianchi
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.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 4:52 pm
by ananya.novak
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.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2026 4:58 pm
by scott.novikova7
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?
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2026 7:28 am
by tmartin
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.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2026 7:15 am
by lbianchi
@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.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2026 7:58 pm
by nancy_lewi
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.
Re: What's the realistic weight savings from moving to a higher-voltage architecture?
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2026 8:03 am
by james15
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?
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2026 1:53 pm
by noah_pate
@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?
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 1:19 am
by mia.weber
@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.