Why most new EV programs over-spec their battery packs

Almost every new EV program we walk into starts the same way: a target range number lifted straight from a competitor's marketing page, then handed to engineering as a requirement. By the time anyone questions it, the pack size, the chassis, the motor, and the price point are already locked together — and changing one means re-opening all of them.

The honest version is that 80% of real-world rides on a two-wheel commuter EV are under 25 km, and on a light four-wheeler under 60 km. Building for a 200 km worst-case trip means carrying that extra weight, cost, and charge time on every single trip the customer actually takes.

It also pushes you into a different cell format, a different thermal strategy, and almost always a different price tier.

We push founders to separate two questions early: what range does the customer need to trust the product, and what range does the marketing page need to convert. Those are rarely the same number, and the gap is usually closed with charging strategy, swappable packs, or a clearly-communicated 'long range' trim — not by overbuilding the base vehicle.

The programs that get this right ship sooner, hit margin, and have headroom to grow the pack later as cell pricing falls. The ones that don't end up shipping a heavy, expensive vehicle that under-delivers on the spec sheet anyway.