BATTERY RANGES
Traction batteries: Lithium vs Lead, two different sizing approaches
This category brings together our traction battery solutions for electric conversions and machine electrification. Here, we deliberately compare two complementary approaches: lithium batteries (often LFP / LiFePO4 depending on the project) and lead-acid batteries (AGM, GEL, flooded). In practice, there is no universal “best battery”: the right choice depends on the current profile, mechanical constraints, the desired mass, usable range, charging strategy, and total cost of ownership.
Lithium vs Lead: when one technology’s strengths become the other’s limitations
For traction, lithium is often selected to reduce weight, improve packaging efficiency, and increase cycle endurance. On the other hand, lead-acid remains highly relevant whenever a solution must be cost-effective, straightforward to operate, or when additional mass is actually beneficial. Weight—usually the enemy in vehicle conversions—can become an advantage: counterweight for forklift trucks, added traction for barn scraper robots (slippery floors in livestock buildings), or even useful ballast on certain sailboats (lead batteries integrated into the keel volume).
Traction comparison: technical criteria and real-world implications
| Criterion | Lithium (often LFP / LiFePO4) | Lead-acid (AGM / GEL / flooded) |
|---|---|---|
| Typical objective | Reduce mass, improve efficiency, maximize usable range | Cost-effective and robust, or mass required (counterweight / grip / ballast) |
| Mass & volume | Compact / lightweight → strong benefit for vehicle retrofits | Heavier / bulkier → sometimes a functional advantage on machines |
| Cycle life | Often higher (strongly dependent on sizing and duty cycle) | More limited; sensitive to deep discharges and charging conditions |
| Power & current capability | Good performance when pack/BMS are properly sized (peaks + continuous), lower I²R losses | Well-known behavior, but more voltage variation and tighter limits under cycling |
| Charging & monitoring | BMS required: protections, balancing, sometimes telemetry | More “traditional” charging approach; operation can be simpler depending on the application |
| Overall economics | Higher upfront cost, often justified for intensive use | Lower entry cost, attractive for tight budgets or mass-driven requirements |
Application examples where the choice is decisive
- Vehicle conversions: priority on weight reduction and usable range → lithium (often LFP) is typically preferred.
- Forklifts / material handling: mass can act as counterweight → lead-acid remains relevant and sometimes specifically desired.
- Livestock scraper robots: traction needed on slippery floors → lead-acid weight can be a functional advantage.
- Marine (sailboats): possible integration into the keel for “useful ballast” → cases where lead-acid can be a coherent choice.
This category lets you compare the two technologies through its Lithium and Lead subcategories, and then access the products best suited to your application. The goal is to select a battery that matches your mechanical constraints, energy needs and operating duty cycle—without unnecessary oversizing and without compromising reliability.
Battery FAQ (lithium & lead-acid):
To help you choose the most suitable technology, we provide a dedicated FAQ covering selection criteria by application, traction constraints, charging, safety, BMS, wiring, and DC protection. You will also find integration guidance to ensure a reliable battery pack installation for your electrification project.
