this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
370 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
3554 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Then decrease the cost. Nerfing the battery benefits no consumer. Make maximum charge level a user controlled setting (up to 100%) and you’ve gained any benefits you’ve mentioned in this thread (faster charging due to lower capacity, less wear) without fucking the consumer over.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't lowering the total battery capacity mean that there is less wear on the battery because it charges less full? Surely they can't cut off a physical part of the actual battery in sofware.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s correct, but you could do this just as easily by allowing the user to toggle a “battery endurance” charge that stops at 80-90%. My friends GM EV does this, she uses it during the work week as a full charge isn’t necessary for commuting needs.

[–] Grippler@feddit.dk 2 points 6 months ago

It will already inform the user that charging above 80-90% is not for daily driving unless necessary, because of increased wear on the battery. They have always done that.