Page 3 of 3

Re: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by kwilliams
@scott21 To answer this directly: 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: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by chloe.harris7
@kwilliams Genuinely curious - 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.

Re: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by matthew.yamamoto0
@chloe.harris7 I see it a little differently. 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: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by kwilliams
@matthew.yamamoto0 I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly. 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.

Re: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by thomas65
@kwilliams Counterpoint: Idle/standing power draw is often surprisingly close to a meaningful fraction of active walking power draw once you account for onboard compute, sensors, and balance-holding torque - 'doing nothing' still costs real energy on a humanoid. Higher-voltage power architectures reduce resistive losses and current draw through the wiring harness for a given power level, which is part of why some newer platforms are moving away from lower-voltage packs as total system power demand climbs.

Re: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by matthew.yamamoto0
Not sure I fully agree here. 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. 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: Anyone tracking actual measured efficiency losses through a full power chain?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by benjaminsanchez
I can speak to this a bit. 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.