ICE engines use a bunch of physical space for accessory components related to the engine. Li-ion powered e-cars reclaimed a ton of that space (i.e. Tesla has a frunk)
Perhaps next using a bit more space for a less dense sodium battery in exchange for a vehicle that is 0% explodable is a worthy trade (if claims are true).
Putting part of the battery in the front, in the crash zone, is going to reduce safety, not improve it.
One of the main things that improved EV safety over ICE cars is the frunk itself. By removing that massive engine from the front and replacing it with a crumple zone, the car becomes much safer in front impacts.
Do you have a source for that or is it just a conclusion you reached?
The reason I ask is that I vaguelly remember of seeing somewhere that the way the front of modern ICE cars is designed makes the engine literally fall when a high-speed frontal collision happens exactly so that the front can act as a crumple zone rather than the engine being pushed inside the passenger compartment. That being so, things aren’t quite as simple as you say and I think we need actual real world test results showing that difference in safety rather than mere expectations extrapolated from superficial knowleged about cars.
I looked it up. 2022 IIHS crash tests showed the Tesla model 3 as being much safer in front impacts.
Modern cars may make the engine fall in a crash, but it’s still better not to have that mass there in the first place. Having said that, the safety advantages of a frunk may be reduced if you have a bunch of heavy cargo in there.
Leave the weight as is, accept lower range which is offset by faster charging speeds. Or just buy a car with a lithium battery if you cannot accept this.
The issue with that is that your range at least needs to make it between charging stations on the highway to be a realistic choice for many people. That might not be a problem in major corridors, but in sparser areas like the US midwest, it’s a legitimate concern.
Doesn’t mean Na+ is bad, it’s just a young technology. In the next few years I expect to see the energy density increasing rapidly.
We have faster charging speeds with lithium today, 800v cars that can charge at 300KW+ have been on the market for half a decade, BYD has launched cars that can charge at 2-3x that speed. The charging infrastructure is the bottleneck there, even if all new cars could charge at those speeds it wouldn’t mean much because hardly any chargers can support it.
Besides it’s almost moot, most EV owners aren’t charging via fast chargers like you would fill up an ICE car, they’re charging at home at much cheaper rates and only using fast chargers for particularly long trips.
Same compromise I made when I bought the base range version of my car with LFP chemistry. But I would not go lower in range than that. LFP is already much safer than any gasoline engine. I would like sodium just for the reliable range on low temperatures. Probably in the next years we will reach comparable density for sodium.
ICE engines use a bunch of physical space for accessory components related to the engine. Li-ion powered e-cars reclaimed a ton of that space (i.e. Tesla has a frunk)
Perhaps next using a bit more space for a less dense sodium battery in exchange for a vehicle that is 0% explodable is a worthy trade (if claims are true).
Is frunk what elon rebranded his fupa? His fat upper penis area?
Putting part of the battery in the front, in the crash zone, is going to reduce safety, not improve it.
One of the main things that improved EV safety over ICE cars is the frunk itself. By removing that massive engine from the front and replacing it with a crumple zone, the car becomes much safer in front impacts.
Do you have a source for that or is it just a conclusion you reached?
The reason I ask is that I vaguelly remember of seeing somewhere that the way the front of modern ICE cars is designed makes the engine literally fall when a high-speed frontal collision happens exactly so that the front can act as a crumple zone rather than the engine being pushed inside the passenger compartment. That being so, things aren’t quite as simple as you say and I think we need actual real world test results showing that difference in safety rather than mere expectations extrapolated from superficial knowleged about cars.
I looked it up. 2022 IIHS crash tests showed the Tesla model 3 as being much safer in front impacts.
Modern cars may make the engine fall in a crash, but it’s still better not to have that mass there in the first place. Having said that, the safety advantages of a frunk may be reduced if you have a bunch of heavy cargo in there.
The safest car is the one that crashes less.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2025/02/11/tesla-again-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/
Battery density is energy per kilos. The problem is not only were to put the battery, but also the added weight.
Leave the weight as is, accept lower range which is offset by faster charging speeds. Or just buy a car with a lithium battery if you cannot accept this.
The issue with that is that your range at least needs to make it between charging stations on the highway to be a realistic choice for many people. That might not be a problem in major corridors, but in sparser areas like the US midwest, it’s a legitimate concern.
Doesn’t mean Na+ is bad, it’s just a young technology. In the next few years I expect to see the energy density increasing rapidly.
We have faster charging speeds with lithium today, 800v cars that can charge at 300KW+ have been on the market for half a decade, BYD has launched cars that can charge at 2-3x that speed. The charging infrastructure is the bottleneck there, even if all new cars could charge at those speeds it wouldn’t mean much because hardly any chargers can support it.
Besides it’s almost moot, most EV owners aren’t charging via fast chargers like you would fill up an ICE car, they’re charging at home at much cheaper rates and only using fast chargers for particularly long trips.
Exactly. Fast charging is for long trips.
Same compromise I made when I bought the base range version of my car with LFP chemistry. But I would not go lower in range than that. LFP is already much safer than any gasoline engine. I would like sodium just for the reliable range on low temperatures. Probably in the next years we will reach comparable density for sodium.