I would say that there are as many different brands of cordless power tools as there are colors in the rainbow, but there are many more than that. At the heart of each brand’s cordless systems are proprietary battery packs that are, with few exceptions, completely incompatible with other brands’ cordless tools and accessories.
The graphic above depicts 7 of the most popular cordless power tool brands on the market today – Milwaukee, Ridgid, Dewalt, Ryobi, Metabo HPT, Makita, and Bosch.
Combined, just these 7 brands alone have 19 different active Li-ion cordless tool systems, and even more if you count limited systems such as Milwaukee M4 or Dewalt 8V Max.
Advertisement
Tool users are eager for a brand-independent interface where the same battery pack can be used across different brands’ cordless platforms.
Are Universal Power Tool Batteries Possible?
Yes, I think so.
As many readers might be aware, you can find 3rd party battery adapters on Amazon, eBay, and other such marketplaces. In theory, a battery maker could create their own battery pack and different interface attachments that allow for cross-brand compatibility.
An independent battery system built for this purpose would be an incredibly complicated and expensive endeavor. Each brand’s interface would have to be reverse engineered, and any resulting products would also have to undergo testing and scrutiny at an independent safety laboratory such as UL.
How would the batteries be charged? Would there be physical incompatibilities depending on the adapted tools?
But this isn’t exactly what users are asking for.
Advertisement
Over the years, a lot of readers have expressed their desire for a standardized tool and battery connection that is adopted by all cordless power tool makers. I don’t think this is at all realistically possible, but it’s always an interesting idea to explore.
What Would be Gained?
The way I see it, universal battery compatibility comes down to two things – increased convenience (or less hassle), and the potential for reduced costs.
If a user owns tools from two or more brands, it would be great to use just one brand’s battery and charger for everything. This would save the end user money, and they could skip the hassle of having to deal with multiple chargers.
Does anyone enjoy dealing with mini USB, micro USB, Apple Lightning, USB-C, and maybe even additional electronic device charging interfaces? Of course not – the fewer, the better.
The same would be true here – most multi-platform cordless power tool users would love for a more simplified battery and charger solution.
The Benefits of Proprietary Power Tool Batteries
I shared my thoughts about the matter 6 years ago, in a post much like this one. There has been a lot of advancement in the cordless power tool industry since then, but my opinion has not changed. If you ask me, we are extremely unlikely to see a universally-compatible cordless power tool battery pack.
Why can’t tool brands simply work with each other to produce a universal battery system?
It’s about money, right? Is this about how tool brands would surely lose some revenue and profit if they weren’t guaranteed to sell high-priced batteries to users locked into a cordless system?
Let’s say that every cordless power tool brand magically updated all of their tools, batteries, and chargers to be cross-compatible with other brands’ offerings. This would be a disaster.
In my opinion, proprietary batteries are about consistent performance.
Let’s say you buy Brand A’s cordless miter saw, but you don’t like the price of their recommended batteries. Brand B’s battery packs have similar charge capacity specs, but at half the price, so you go with that one. If your brand new saw struggles to cut through a 2×6, are you going to blame the battery pack, or the tool?
Proprietary batteries allow cordless power tool brands to control the user experience.
If Brand A’s tools can only work with Brand A’s batteries, they can design new tools around the maximum power output of their highest capacity batteries, while also ensuring that the tool will still function, although usually not optimally, with their lowest capacity batteries.
Although I don’t know if it’s still true, Milwaukee’s M18 drills were said to receive a roughly 10% power boost when powered with an XC (10-cell) battery. Their drills would operate just fine with a compact battery, such as 1.5Ah, but an XC battery, such as 3.0Ah to 5.0Ah, would deliver greater power and torque. Would similar be possible if a tool couldn’t be designed around known battery characteristics and performance thresholds?
As a tool user, I would love for cross-brand compatibility. But if I were a product manager or engineer, this would be a nightmare.
It’s Complicated Enough to Choose Power Tool Batteries
Talking just about 18V/20V Max power tool batteries, here’s a list of battery sizes users can choose from today. Not every brand offers all options, but most tool brands have very broad selections.
- 5-cell standard batteries
- 1.3Ah
- 1.5Ah
- 2.0Ah
- 3.0Ah
- 5-cell high output batteries
- 3.0Ah
- 4.0Ah
- 10-cell standard batteries
- 3.0Ah
- 4.0Ah
- 5.0Ah
- 6.0Ah
- 10-cell high output batteries
- 6.0Ah
- 8.0Ah
- 10.0Ah
- 15-cell standard batteries
- 6.0Ah
- 9.0Ah
- 15-cell high output batteries
- 9.0Ah
- 12.0Ah
- Stacked lithium batteries
- 1.7Ah
It used to be that higher capacity batteries provided longer runtime. Now? Battery selection is much more complicated, even if you do your research.
When shopping for a car battery, you need to know the size and cold cranking amps, and the reserve capacity can be a selling point too.
If cordless power tools and batteries were suddenly cross-compatible, what else would you need to know aside from its charge capacity? Maximum continuous power output at room temperature? And how would you know how much power you needed?
I suppose that brands could provide power requirement specs for their cordless tools. But how would that be determined? Different applications, work materials, accessories, and grades of accessories can greatly affect a tool’s power consumption. Users can also influence a tool’s power requirements, such as if they apply more or less pressure, or if they wait longer to replace dull bits or blades.
A universal battery interface would require several standards to be established and strictly adhered to.
Would Same-Brand Batteries Work Better?
Makita’s XGT tools and chargers treat 3rd party batteries differently than genuine ones. I could envision brands doing the same in the context of hypothetical universally compatible batteries.
Universal compatibility would not mean universal suitability, and so tools might have to be designed to deliver lower performance for lowest-performing batteries users might have sourced from other brands.
While users might save money on less expensive batteries, they wouldn’t get the full performance of the tools they buy unless they stick with that brand’s batteries.
If a tool cannot identify the battery that is connected to it, throttling-down its performance might be a reasonable safety measure.
Would you still find a universal battery solution as appealing?
There are Too Many Obstacles
Is it wrong to wish for a universal-style cordless power tool battery? No. It’s a good thing to ask for, and I know I would surely benefit from it. But it’s not going to happen.
Cordless power tool brands do play well together when they want to. The Power Tool Institute (PTI) is a trade organization that includes the following tool brands – Black & Decker, Bosch, Dewalt, Dremel, Festool, Hilti, Metabo, Makita, Milwaukee, Rotozip, Ryobi, Stihl, and others.
But why would tool brands work together on a universal battery program when it would only complicate everything from tool design to the individual user experience?
There are simply too many obstacles and compromises that would have to be made.
What About Universal Charging?
I really thought that Bosch’s wireless charging could be the key to a universal charging solution, but it never gained traction.
Ryobi is coming out with a new USB Lithium 4V cordless tool system, and while it uses its own battery, it recharges via USB-C.
I keep thinking that a universal charging system with different interface attachments is the best we could hope for, but even that seems highly improbable. Any realistic universal charging option would be fraught with compromises.
What About Monetary Considerations?
I really don’t think that sales, revenue, or profit considerations are the major obstacle here. If corporate sales, revenue, or profit would be exactly the same, would that change anything? I don’t think so – most of the potential obstacles and negative impacts would still stand.
A long time ago, someone told me that power tool batteries are pricey because that’s their true cost. The implication was that cordless kits are heavily discounted, and so battery prices are representative of their true retail costs. I don’t know if this is true or not, but it makes sense.
Some brands do have more affordable batteries, and others tend to have aggressively discounted battery promos during certain holiday shopping seasons, but it’s hard to gauge the true cost or value of cordless batteries.
If users are free to shop around for different brands’ batteries, how would that affect the price of tools? If brands start to aggressively discount their batteries to keep users in-system, would that in turn drive up the pricing of kits or bare tools?
There are too many variables, and I don’t know enough about how brands price their batteries to do anything but guess here.
The only guarantee, I think, is that some users will seek out less expensive battery packs. If a less expensive battery fits, it might be assumed to be on-par or equivalent to that brand’s batteries, without this necessarily being true, and that could lead to mismatched power-performance issues.
Universal Batteries are Great in Theory
Is it a good idea? Absolutely, at least in theory, from the perspective of an end user.
But, I have thought things through many times over the past few years, and the idea seems impossible to implement.
If a magic wand could be waved to make it happen, would the majority of tool users be better off for it? I don’t think so.
What Would You Do?
I always try to look at this objectively, and always arrive at the same conclusion, that universal-fit cordless power tools simply aren’t a good idea. It might benefit some users, but not without the potential and even high likelihood to confuse or negatively impact many others.
I know that some of you will agree with my logical or opinions, and perhaps many of you won’t.
A popular belief is that brands wouldn’t adopt a standardized cordless interface because then they wouldn’t be able to sell expensive spare or replacement batteries to users.
Let’s say you were in charge of the entire industry, and so the net revenue or profits would be the same regardless. Would you implement a standardized or universal battery system? How?
This is where I always hit a wall. Each brand has their own distinctiveness, and the only way a standardized or universal battery system could ever work is if every brand abandoned their existing platforms and started fresh with the same baselines.
For heavier duty tools, Dewalt has FlexVolt, Milwaukee has M18 High Output, Makita has 18V X2 and XGT, Bosch has Profactor, and Metabo HPT has MultiVolt. Where’s the common denominator?
How would you satisfy users’ wishes while also ensuring that tools deliver consistent performance and user experiences regardless of battery? Would might you do – if anything – to prevent a user from choosing an underpowered or lower-spec battery with a tool with high power demands?
Tim
Metabo is promoting it’s CAS system. There are now something like 20 different brands that will be working off of this system.
Meanwhile it isn’t even the best battery platform with the name Metabo on it.
Think of how much more a company like Mafell could engineer around the Hitachi Multivolt system which is capable of being both, very small, and powering corded class tools.
Andrew
The CAS battery functions the same way the multivolt battery does but they don’t promote it.
The metabo batteries under hard testing show that they are superior which is why 30 companies have joined the platform with now over 300 tools.
From experience with my Mafell and Metabo saws they easily hang with the current bread handle cordless stuff on the market…. Except they have several more fictions like cross cutting tracks and ergonomics Milwaukee, Makita, DeWalt, and metabo hpt could only dream of.
But that’s just my opinion
Col. Bud
With all due respect, this reads a lot like an industry spokesperson’s defense that change is simply not possible. Tool engineers have done a spectacular job figuring out how to deliver cordless tools that fully replace their corded predecessors. I believe they can crack the universal battery challenge, if their employers turn them loose on it.
Without battery standardization, we all find ourselves invested in tools we really like, but may have to throw away in a couple of years because we can’t buy batteries for them anymore. It’s the opposite of where the industry should be going in terms of sustainability. I had a 3/8” Bosch drill some years ago that was perfect for my needs and had nothing wrong with it, but I had to throw it away solely because batteries were NLA. My current pair of 12v Porter-Cable drills fit my needs perfectly, work flawlessly, and again I know they’ll be junk soon because almost no one sells batteries for them. OTOH, I have and regularly use my father’s corded drill and circular saw from the 1960s, a Porter-Cable pad sander I bought in the 1970s, and a Makita drill I bought in the 1980s that are still going strong and will certainly outlive my current collection of cordless tools.
The engineers can figure this out.
Stuart
A couple of years ago, “which battery would work best for this tool” was an easy question to answer.
When there were just two battery sizes, maybe a universal battery system could have worked. But now? Definitely not.
Users that can expertly navigate battery-tool selection waters want cross-platform compatibility.
But what about the majority of users who just want a cordless tool that works without having to extensively research battery choices?
Why did Stanley Black & Decker create a separate battery system for Porter Cable when they could have leveraged Dewalt 20V Max? Why did they create a brand new interface for Craftsman V20?
I’ve thought about questions like this for years. I have fielded questions from readers and visitors for more than a decade. That’s where my ideas above come from.
Can power tool brands engineer a universal and standardized battery system? Absolutely. Should they?
As a user, this would be great for *me*. It seems you’re eager for it too. But would this benefit a majority of users?
Stanley Black & Decker has reasons for maintaining separate battery form factors for their different brands. There’s no adapter between Makita 18V and XGT. Kobalt replaced their 20V Max lineup with 24V Max.
If there are reasons for separate systems within tool brands and companies, how can any of them ever be convinced to partner together on a standard interface?
You say “the engineers can figure this out.” Maybe, but how? What exactly do they need to figure out?
How can brands ensure intended tool performance and positive user experiences if they have zero control over the user’s choice of battery?
MM
Brands cannot ensure intended tool performance. There’s nothing stopping me from going out and buying a 20V Max angle grinder, slapping a 1.5 ah battery in it, and being disappointed in its performance. And this is true for every brand of power tool out there.
I think the answer is really simple: different brands have proprietary batteries because they they get to sell you their batteries. That’s really it.
Gordon
I think the point Stuart is trying to make is that a Dewalt 12ah flexvolt compared to a Milwaukee 12ah HO will have different performance characteristics. So DeWalt might be concerned that you blame your angle grinder for poor performance when it’s actually the battery. Or maybe you find you hate the DeWalt battery because you see how much better the M18 is.
MM
Yes, I understand that is the argument. My point is that the “battery brand” variable is just one of a zillion variables which can affect how a user perceives a given tool. Unless you can control all of those variables there’s little point in trying to control any of them.
To run with your example of the “Dewalt angle grinder”, sure, I can see how Dewalt would want to make sure that it only runs on batteries that will let the tool perform its best, lest I blame the tool for my own poor battery choice. There’s two problems though:
1) As it stands Dewalt already lets me make dumb battery choices like putting a 1.5 ah pack on a power-hungry tool
2) Even if Dewalt forces me to use optimal batteries I can still blame Dewalt for my own poor choice of grinding disc or improper technique when using the tool
Stuart
That’s exactly it.
A lot of people already mistakenly believe that power tool batteries are identical across brands.
Dewalt 12Ah vs. Milwaukee 12Ah should be relatively similar.
You can use a Milwaukee cordless table saw with their XC 5Ah battery. It’s not ideal, but it’s perfectly suitable – in my experience – for light to medium duty cuts if a High Output battery isn’t immediately available.
What happens when someone grabs a Ryobi 4Ah battery, thinking they’re getting the same power and performance but just a little less runtime? What about the user that grabs a 1.5Ah Black & Decker battery?
Saulac
“Brands cannot ensure intended tool performance. There’s nothing stopping me from going out and buying a 20V Max angle grinder, slapping a 1.5 ah battery in it, and being disappointed in its performance.” This. Brands cannot ensure performance and thus should not use it as justification. Any “proprietary batteries are to ensure tools performance/safety/world peace…” is just tool industry BS.
There is no need think too hard about what Universal Cordless Power Tool Batteries (UCPTB) would be. There are more “universal” batteries out there and than not. D/C/AA/AAA/9v/button/camera…12v automotive/marine…with different amperage/life. If the standards are clear consumers would understand if they get a cheap/lower specs battery, they will get lower tool performance. On the other hand no tool should be damaged by a better/higher specs battery (in the same voltage). The real reason for there will not be UCPTB is because there would be UCPTB from Energizer, Duracell, Rayovac, Samsung, LG…. But…but… but “standards will be outdated and hinder innovation” you say? Well, please try stop sabotaging standardizing efforts, and help set standards and future standards instead. Just a few years ago, it was the same “the phone charger/cable is optimized for the phone”. It is funny how USB-C have not pose much issue. It is funny that the gut of those “optimized” proprietary batteries are pretty standard looking cells.
Stuart
You might be disappointed in runtime, and you probably won’t see maximum performance from the tool, but the tool is still designed knowing that some users will be using it with a 1.5Ah battery. That brand knows the exact characteristics of that 1.5Ah battery and can design a tool accordingly. And, there are safety measures in place between tool and battery to help prevent damage or other ill consequences should that 1.5Ah battery be over-taxed.
That’s the thing – I don’t know if I believe this. Based on some of the emails I have received over the years, and many user reviews that I read online, a lot of people blame brands/retailers/other parties rather than take responsibility for anything.
You can have 5 different brands of 1.5Ah batteries, each with different power delivery characteristics. How do you design a tool around such uncertainty?
MM
You can have 5 different brands of 1.5Ah batteries, each with different power delivery characteristics. How do you design a tool around such uncertainty?
Most of those variations in power delivery simply aren’t relevant. You design the tool for the specified voltage and with the expectation of reasonable performance with the type of battery that makes sense for most uses of that tool. Electronics inside the tool monitor voltage, current, and temperature, if any of those get out of spec the tool shuts down. Say we’re talking an 18V system, A compact 3/8 drill might be designed around the expectation of a small battery, like 2ah. Most cordless tools would likely be designed around mid-size battery (say, 5ah), those with high current demands like a grinder would be designed around a larger battery. Just as with existing power tool lines if the user picks a smaller battery than would be normal for the tool they can expect low power and short run times.
MM
@Stuart
You mentioned “there are safety measures in place between tool and battery to help prevent damage or other ill consequences should that 1.5Ah battery be over-taxed.”
That’s certainly true, but why are you assuming that technology would only work for in-brand batteries? If the tool monitors voltage drop, current, battery temp, and so on, then that would work with a 3rd party battery just as it does for an in-brand battery. It’s no different than circuit breakers in your home: they don’t care what brand appliances you plug into the wall, but if you exceed the amp rating they’re cutting off the juice.
Deegs
I agree with you 100%
PeterJ
It’s not rocket science, it is about power delivery and that has already been solved.
What does a tool want? It requires a particular level of voltage for desired torque, peak current and sustained current for the tool’s application requirement in a particular temperature range of use. That’s it!
Anything else is for the protection of the battery such as its charging and discharging requirements which would have to reside in the battery. This can already be done through an appropriately designed battery management system.
Let the tool, tool and let the battery manage itself.
It’s not that hard.
A little more expensive if the 3rd party wants to protect it’s battery and demands more transparency for the tool maker and the battery maker to accurately and correctly indicate their power requirements and delivery characteristics.
Nothing more.
Tetedmerde
I’m sorry I gotta call bullshit on this whole article, are we just pretending like those batteries are all just 18650s? It’s as simple as having a universal connection standard they are all essential running at the same volts. It’s just a way to lock you into a brand, but it’s not a.real good policy for the earth 🌎. Countless batteries go to the waste long before their time because of this,
Stuart
That’s the thing – cordless power tool battery delivery is about much more than just voltage.
There are huge differences between different 18650 cells.
Each individual model Li-ion battery cell has a max discharge rating, continuous discharge rating, and operating temperature profiles. Each brands’ battery pack is designed differently with different sensors and power profiles.
18650 battery cells are not all interchangeable.
Joshua Morris
Stuart my thought on this is simple
Cars run on gasoline they only promise their performance figures on certain fuels and such.
Often they do things like publish a 400hp number but 40 pages into the punished material on the vehicle you see you only get that performance on.93 octane gas
They very easily could all make their own batteries that are compatible with each other with the same interface
Then you as the consumer could opt for the batteries you like the most and still grab tools outside your brand when like something someone else makes.
So even if you are brand heavy you can buy milwaukee surge even if you are a dewalt guy
Joseph
They already have, if you consider cells inside the batteries…. That being said a universal multicolor charging system might be come standard, but consider this.. they all terminate in a wall or vehicle plug so is that not standard enough?
Mahalo
Condensing the entire issue into “engineers can figure this out” largely oversimplifies things. This is not a technical problem. We can all converge on the “VHS” standard, for example, but may lose something in the process. Innovation, superior tech, competition, price, etc. may be compromised in exchange for convenience, standardization, and “sustainability”.
As far as that last issue, where you compared the sustainability of old corded tools against battery-powered ones, perhaps the only way to have met your expectations was for battery powered tools to not have been invented at all. Sustainability is not the be all and end all.
Bubbagump
You can rebuild batteries. I do. Most people won’t, however. That’s what the companies count on, repeat sales through planned obsolescence.
Robert Adkins
This is more urgent than we may think. Even as we discuss this, there are factions in our government looking at this “unsustainable” battery situation, or soon will be. If the industry’s brilliant engineers don’t make universal battery platforms, some government bean counter will. Chances are, it will be a nightmare for users AND manufacturers. They should do it NOW, while they are still free to do it.
Charles C
It’s definitely doable just like vehicle batteries – of course when new things like electronic vehicles having their own charging interface and standards but we can see compatible charging stations supporting most of the e-cars already emerging. Though it has to come from pressure of end user experience, government regulation and environmental sustainability etc to see thing moving slowly towards such industry standards.
Jared
That all makes sense. It only gets more complicated as the manufacturers develop more sophisticated batteries and tools to eek the last bit of performance out.
I have tools from many different brands. Though I have at least two batteries for every brand, I’ve purchased 3rd party adapters for a few to use some of my other batteries as a reserve.
There’s compromises and limits to that though. Some work great – my Ryobi tools seem to get a boost when powered by my Dewalt 4.0ah batteries – where others don’t achieve max performance (those same Dewalt batteries in my Ridgid “Octane” reciprocating saw act like my 1.5ah Ridgid packs).
I imagine those are similar effects that would occur if the packs all had a universal interface.
Plus, wouldn’t that erode the diversity between brands? E.g. if a budget brand like Hart or Ryobi had to make sure every tool in the lineup was capable of handling the power of their pro-competitor’s latest and greatest tech, they might need to build to a higher standard for a safety margin.
The reverse might be true too. A brand might want to try new battery tech (pouch cell?) But would now need to check their batteries in their competitors tools – don’t want to accidentally light someone’s house on fire.
Michael
It’ll never happen. It’s a liability issue for warranty work. Unless there was a uniform alliance for a standard that could hold battery makers responsible for quality, lawyers and the bottom line would not allow warranty work covered that could be caused by batteries they didn’t provide.
Robert Adkins
It will happen, and sooner than we think!
Usage and disposal/recycling of rare earth metals is a big deal in Washington. It’s on the front burner. If the manufacturers don’t do this, the government will. The manufacturers and their brilliant engineers will get it right, the pinheads in Washington and their Ivy League advisers won’t.
Joseph
I think it would be possible for the brands under the same umbrella to at least use the same battery connections or make adapters. For example, I use Milwaukee but would appreciate being able to buy a Ryobi tool to test or the once in a blue moon I need it. It’s not always feasible or logical to buy the Milwaukee equivalent.
Probably just wishful thinking on my part
Eli
Sorry to be blunt, but your argument sound much like Apple explaining why it should not follow EU rules about unified chargers, or why applications should not be able to allow payment without their 30% “tax”.
As proven by the new Macs, Lightning is no better than USB-C – only requires royalty to apple. I had “Apple certified” charging cables in the past break within a month because of thin conductors and extremely low quality even though they cost 3 times as much as they are “certified”. Turns out “certified” does not mean “quality” as Apple claims.
The same is true for camera systems – Canon tried for years blocking Sigma lenses on their system, and it was for monetary reasons only – Sigma lenses are as good or even better than Canon’s.
And guess what – the 4/3″ open lens connector works great for years.
USB-C PD charges dozens of different company’s devices, with products as diverse as cell phones, laptops, electric screwdrivers, shavers, flashlights and even vacuum cleaners. Do we really need company specific chargers?
The same goes for battery connector. Why do Dewalt need a separate connector from B&D and a third for PorterCable? Why isn’t Bosch Blue compatible with Bosch green, if Bosch green is good enough to run Dyson level vacuum cleaners and Gardena electric garden tools?
There are high quality parts and low quality in every area. Want to be sure you get the very best quality – buy original Milwaukee batteries. Don’t care – by a Chinese knock-off at third the price. But once done, I am sure you will find that every “official” company in such an alliance makes “good enough” batteries.
I am tired of the “open standards block innovation” mantra of big companies. Open standard are only bad for their bottom line. Every time there is less competition, prices go higher and innovation is REUCED.
Jared
Devil’s advocate here. While your examples provide evidence that claims about inability to standardize might not be based on the “best intentions”, it doesn’t address the specific reasons Stuart has provided why it would be challenging for power tool batteries.
E.g. He’s not suggesting no one could manufacture a battery as good as Milwaukee’s – but rather that there’s more going on than physical connectors. If you bought the M18 Fuel tablesaw but were put off my the price of M18 HO batteries, you might be tempted to buy a Ryobi slim pack instead. Then when you melt it, who is to blame?
I’m being a bit facetious with that example of course. Just suggesting the arguments aren’t meeting each other head-on.
I think Stuart would agree it COULD be done, he’s just pointing out probable adverse affects of that project.
Stuart
If I’m being honest, I want people to give this some thought and figure it out.
This is something a lot of users say they want. So let’s brainstorm.
I present the obstacles as I see them, and hope we can crowdsource potential solutions.
Complaining that “brands just want to milk is for maximum profit” isn’t productive. Is it true? Maybe, but I keep revisiting the idea of universal batteries and keep landing on the same ideas as to why it wouldn’t work.
So how could it work?
I don’t think it can be done, but I’m open to being wrong.
IndianaJonesy (Matt J.)
I think at this point it’s unrealistic to create a universal standard of battery interface. That said, a plausible solution or first step would be an open standard for charging. I would imagine this would still require some small hardware implimentation for batteries under this standard to communicate with a charger for things like overcharge protection, but also for communicating what it is and what demand it has…I’m assuming there would be multiple sub-standards to allow for “universally charging” of different voltages, etc.
In theory, this could be as simple as battery manufacturers providing usb-c ports or similar for power delivery that way, allowing universal trckle charging, but I think the ideal would be some sort of wireless charging mat/dock. I know bosch and ryobi have both played with this a bit, but this to me seems to be a great first step. Yes, you would need to have multiple batteries still, but at least this way you could have one charger mat for your shop/truck/job site instead of making sure you have all your platforms covered. It’s not the ultimate goal, but I think this is a more realistic and attainable stepping stone.
Stuart
Canon cameras still have a proprietary Canon interface, and they are powered by a proprietary Canon battery. The same goes for Nikon and Sony. Sure, there are a couple of brands that have a micro four thirds lens interface, with each brand having their own proprietary battery format.
If you buy a Sigma lens for a Canon EF mount, you cannot use that natively on Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, or Fuji cameras, can you?
Let’s say you buy a Sigma lens for a micro four thirds camera. Because this is a smaller interface, you cannot adapt it to Canon EF or other full-frame lens mounts.
If you have four brands of cameras, you have four brands of batteries and four brands of chargers.
While some of Pansonic’s micro four thirds cameras are popular, that interface lags far behind Canon and Sony interfaces. And despite micro four thirds being an “open format”, how many brands actually use it, or develop unique lenses for it?
USB C is great, but what is it predominantly used for? Recharging electronic devices that have proprietary non-removable battery packs.
With USB C, users need to ensure the charging rate matches the minimum needs of a device or battery, and that’s it.
With power tools, we’re not talking about chargers, we’re taking about the batteries.
Consider a smartphone. The built in battery is designed to handle the device’s power requirements, and it’s designated charging rate. The brands control the battery’s charge capacity and power delivery characteristics.
How can power tool brands control power delivery if users could choose any battery they want?
Laptop and smartphone makers did away with replaceable batteries, and now control power deliver with built-in batteries.
How can tool makers maintain tool performance and consistency, not to mention safety, without controlling users’ battery choices?
bob
Bad example on both cameras and phones. Those are all internal batteries with the camera/phone body designed around it. The complete design of the device needs to factor the battery shape.
For power tools, aside from some difference in barrel type 12V and slide in 18-24V packs, they are pretty much the same in that the power tools doesn’t need to be designed around the shape of the battery. It would be stupid simple to design a universal physical interface. Not going to go into the electrical side.
On the lens side your comparison is even worse and is actually directly going against your argument. In higher end camera systems people spend far more on lenses than bodies. Lenses are a lock in to force you to keep using the camera system. It would be like power tool companies forcing different batteries to lock you into buying their tools.
And if you want to keep going on with the camera comparison, you should know that cinema cameras are mostly standardized on the PL-mount, and many of the lower/mid range ones with external slide on batteries are designed to use the older Canon E6 or Sony L series batteries
https://www.wasabipower.com/pages/blackmagic-camera-batteries
bob
Not to mention a lot of video/cinema camera accessories (external recorders, monitors) are designed to use those Sony L series batteries too. Brand is Atomos but the design it is still the physical and electrical specifications of the Sony L battery (7.2V).
https://www.atomos.com/accessories/5200mah-battery
Stuart
I’m not the one that brought up lenses – my entire point was that it’s a bad example and akin to power tool-like ecosystems.
I’d guess that accessory makers use Canon and Sony battery form factors partially due to their ubiquity, and also to avoid burdening themselves and users with additional proprietary batteries.
But most camera brands still have their own proprietary battery sizes. Panasonic, for instance, doesn’t use Canon or Sony batteries. Canon and Sony also don’t use their batteries across all of their different camera bodies.
Then, you also have situations such as with Blackmagic’s utilization of Canon’s battery form factor in their previous camera. That camera is power-hungry that its battery life is almost unusably short. This led to 3rd party adapters that can use Sony’s battery form factor or one of two universal-style external video batteries. Maybe they figured most users would have external batteries. They switched to Sony-style batteries for their newest camera.
Canon and Sony L-series types of batteries have indeed become industry standards, and there are plenty of 3rd party accessories that are designed around them.
Do Canon and Sony encourage this, do they turn a blind eye, realizing there’s nothing they could or should do?
Some brands make use of Sony’s battery style, others use Canon, and a few allow for either or even both. It’s wonderful. But I don’t see that translating well to the power tool industry, at the least because camera body batteries are all still proprietary.
There are plenty of Dewalt 20V Max, Milwaukee M18, Makita 18V, and other brands’ “replacement” batteries on Amazon and elsewhere. There are cross-brand adapters and cross-industry adapters such as battery adapters for Power Wheels riding toys. These are all no-name aftermarket batteries and accessories from unknown brands.
But none of that has ever brought us closer to a universal battery interface.
It hasn’t happened, why? If it won’t happen, why?
Seaden
With all the video camera talk, we skipped the real industry standards…Gold and V Mount. Those are used everywhere in higher-end gear. Nearly everything that’s not built for those physical connections can be powered via the D-tap from those batteries. These have been around for decades with upgrades inside as tech improves. I’m not sure how relevant this camera talk is but those two battery systems + D-taps are used across all brands.
I cannot believe that a standard couldn’t be created. I’m an optimist when asked, “can it?” Yah it could be…over time…with changes. But should it be done regarding how batteries and the power they deliver is so important to the objectives of the tool.
I’d love to see a standard. It wouldn’t affect mid-level users like myself much.
I think the AA/C/D etc comparison is pretty good but then again I’m seeing 12v car batteries really getting specialized. It’s crazy to pop the hood and the battery looks nearly unrecognizable. I don’t like it but it seems to be happening.
2¢. Can it..yes. Should it? Don’t know. Will it? Highly doubt it.
Flotsam
this is a very thorough discussion on this topic.
i had one comment/discussion on this topic. It seems like these new stacked lithium batteries are coming on all at once from a variety of vendors. It would seem like there is one or two suppliers of the raw battery cells over in China that provide the cells to all manufacturers. Is this the case and who are the companies that make the raw batteries ?
Patrick T
I was thinking along those lines too. Not so much with the stacked batteries though. Regular batteries are made of common cells made by other companies. They’re just wrapped up in red, yellow, green, blue or teal dress with some accoutrements to set them apart.
Seems to me that with the microcontrollers that are already put into a lot of these tools, you could add a little chip and some LEDs to give some indication of battery compatibility/performance. Wrong battery, you get a warning light or a “knock” like an older engine running the wrong octane gas.
If you think about it, there really isn’t much variation in batteries as it. Sure, the list that Stuart posted looks long. But, we’re really talking about two types in most cases. Standard and high-output, with different sizes/capacities of each.
From an engineering standpoint, seems trivial. If a company is smart, I’m sure they can do some stuff with the smarts built into the tool to differentiate and provide as much performance as possible.
If modern F1 cars can all use the came ECU on different engines, then I’m sure these companies could easily use a standard battery interface.
As Carl says below…. It’s all about the money. Just look at the cost of batteries. I’m sure we’ve all had that point where we needed to replace a battery and made the calculation that it would be cheaper to buy a new tool with a battery than it is to buy a battery alone. Batteries are a way into a system through kits and promos and once there, they lock you in.
To Stuarts point about razors and ink, batteries are consumable. They are just consumed at a different rate. Heavy users are going to hit the limits of cycles much faster than I will. But, they still wear out and need replaced.
I hate to say it, but unless consumers just say no, then I doubt anything will change without some sort of regulations. Maybe the EU. They are trying to regulate the connectors that cell phones use to charge. 🤷♂️
Carl Sampson
Universal batteries don’t exist for the same reason universal printer ink cartridges don’t exist. Manufacturer’s make a lot of money in the sale of that accessory in addition to the tool. Proprietary batteries also make the consumer far more likely to purchase additional tools from the same brand to use the batteries they have from their prior tool purchase which creates a future revenue stream.
Stuart
Printer ink and razor blade cartridges are mandatory consumables. If you use a printer you need more ink. If you want to shave, you need fresh blades.
Printer and razor handle brands might lose money on initial equipment sales and earn more on consumables.
But does every tool user buy more batteries? How often do they buy more batteries?
Maybe this factors into things, but I don’t think it’s the predominant obstacle.
Carl Sampson
Tool companies make a significant margin on the sale of batteries vs. their cost even on just the first one sold. Why would they want to cede that revenue stream to another company in the standardized consortium that may undercut their price on batteries? The simple fact that a tool company is the sole manufacturer of batteries for its tools gives them a monopoly on the battery platform and the ability to dictate prices without worry of competition.
Many tool owners will stick with the same brand to economize on battery cost and the workshop space otherwise needed for a multitude of different charging stations. The same battery platform for all will result in this segment of the market now considering tools from other makers when they would otherwise get the same tool from the platform they are somewhat locked into otherwise. A shared battery architecture would be great for the consumer however I am not seeing the compelling business case for the toolmakers to do this in their own self-interest.
MFC
There won’t be a universal charger/battery, unless socialists take over and capitalism dies.
A multi-company co-op is the closest we’ve gotten or will get.
James C
Lol, that’s a bit extreme. The tool industry has many industry-wide standards. The obvious one is with accessories. 1/4″ hex driver bits, 7 1/4″ circular saw blades with a 5/8 arbor, etc. Many more.
Mike
Can it be done, yes.
Will it be done, no.
An industry standardized battery voltage, connection type, and BMS could be done but there’s no governing authority to decree it – and I’d argue that this is a good thing because a governing authority would be slow to adapt/change and would incur undue red tape for OEMs to bring products to market. Additionally Some tools have the BMS in the tool, others have it in the battery. That alone makes it a nightmare. Add to that, that the injection molds are quite expensive for the tool bodies, and all would have to be redesigned for a standardized battery attachment method as well as any internal changes required for the battery to be compatible and safe to use (BMS).
CountyCork
I don’t know. I think there wouldn’t be near the advancement in battery tech if we always had started with universal batteries. Competition is good and we have all benefited from this competition with all the advancements we see today. Battery adapters work ok for this purpose when really needed.
Jared
That’s an interesting idea. I.e. instead of the interplay of manufactures tweaking their tools, then tweaking the batteries, then tweaking the tools, etc. They might have been incentivized to ignore the “universal” battery and tried to one-up each other through tool development alone.
After all, developing a new battery would just make the advancements it provides available to all your competitors.
Philip
The only joint venture I could see happening.
Example. Milwaukee team up with let’s say dewalt to fast track solid state technology. Probably with other battery companies as well.
I am not talking about the finish production being exactly the same.
Wayne R.
We can all get a variety of standardized cells, and have been able to for decades: AAA, AA, C, D. Even larger batteries for vehicles. too. The manufacturers of these cells & batteries are usually fully independent from the manufacturers of the equipment they’re used in.
I think these proprietary battery packs fall into the Econ 101 “externality” solution, and is one reason why governments exist. If a few large markets like North America and Europe passed some laws that demanded a single/few common interfaces for sales to continue, the whole thing would go away in just a few years (as all the proprietary batteries die off). There could be industry competition for standard interfaces, then adopt it/them.
The machines would continue to be made by the machine manufacturers, and all sorts of battery manufacturers could compete on batteries, chargers, rebuilds, etc. Some testing (like UL) would be needed to avoid/minimize disasters.
Who knows what else these common & competitive high power batteries might lead to?
(Yes, I’d expect a lot of dumping on this from those who embrace the “starve government and then complain about poor government” groups.)
Stuart
But how can you relate alkaline battery standards to cordless power tools?
And with car batteries, you can’t just pick one up off the shelf. Each model car has its own power requirements that you need to meet or exceed. Will a similar educated or informed selection process work for handheld power tools?
MM
How could you not relate alkaline battery standards to others? It’s a battery. If you put the wrong one in the device it doesn’t work, or it works poorly. Same as power tool batteries.
As for car batteries, I think way Wayne means is that those have standard sizes too. Someone who doesn’t work with cars very often may not be aware of it, but they are standardized too. Alkaline batteries had A, C, D, etc. Car batteries have Group 24, Group 35, Group 51, etc. And just as with power tool batteries or alkaline batteries, car batteries come in different amperage ratings. Just as how an alkaline “D” cell has higher Ah capacity than a carbon “D” cell, some car batteries have a higher cranking capacity than others of the same group.
nate
Ryobi already makes adaptors for there one plus series to accept Dewalt batteries. Additionally with 3-D printing so cheap now the home brew community is making all sorts of adapters for these tools. Yes it should be universal and there is no good reason why it can’t be
Stuart
No they don’t. Ryobi does not make any battery adapters. Maybe you’ve seen generic accessories that suggest an affiliation with Ryobi?
MM
I have never seen an official adapter made by any power tool company unless it’s within their own brand. For example Dewalt made an adapter to use 20V max batteries in their older 18V nicad system, and Hilti currently makes an adapter so you can use their exisiting 22V fast charger to charge the new Neuron batteries.
There are plenty of 3rd party adapters out there. I have used some firsthand. There are some tool-battery combinations they simply won’t work for, presumably because the adapter cannot handle battery management connections between the tool and the off-brand batt, so if the tool requires those to run then the adapter won’t work. For example, the Dewalt batt to Metabo adapter I purchased off Amazon works on some but not all Metabo tools. It’s binary: It either runs perfectly or it doesn’t run at all, at least with all those I’ve tested it with. Another adapter I have, 20V max to Makita LXT, has worked flawlessly with every Makita tool I’ve used it in. But those are clearly off-brand adapters with no affiliation with Dewalt, Makita, Metabo, etc.
Wayne R.
My main point is that those battery manufacturers and the makers of the devices they go into are (generally) not the same. Both groups of manufacturers compete solely on their products, and there’s no interlock between device & power source.
What would people think if Ford suddenly sold vehicles that only used proprietary Ford batteries? Or a flashlight or kid’s toy that couldn’t use any AAs and had to be something special?
What would people do if Dewalt sold tools that only used proprietary batteries on one end, and also proprietary drill bits or saw blades for the other? No one would tolerate that, but we don’t have a choice for the battery end.
Most of us try to avoid anything that’s unnecessarily proprietary. I’m not suggesting solely generic products for anything, though that would also happen.
Just suggesting that a separation between tool makers and battery makers would lead to better competition, performance and prices.
You know, the American Way (as it used to be!).
MM
Regarding your question about “What would people think if Ford suddenly sold vehicles that only used proprietary Ford batteries?”
The automobile industry used to be a lot like that many years ago. Auto makers would refuse to honor the warranty on the car unless you bought X brand oil, X brand filters, X brand tires, X brand wiper blades, batteries, bulbs, etc, and had the work done by X brand dealership. This lead to a legal fight which culminated in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. According to this law a manufacturer can require you to perform maintenance in order for a warranty to be valid, however they cannot require you to use their own specific brand of service parts or labor. So if you have a Ford, for example, you do have to change the oil and filters when Ford says to, but you are free to use any brand of oil, filter, etc, and use any source of labor, they don’t have to be Ford branded and the work doesn’t have to be done at a Ford dealer. When the battery goes dead you can buy any replacement you want, it doesn’t have to be from Ford, etc. But before that act was passed they absolutely could deny you service for using 3rd party parts.
Joe
Stanley-Black & Decker haven’t probably tried to provide a universal-style cordless power tool battery platform within their brands. I personally do not think that other corporations will work with each other……
Joellikestools
What I think would be neat is if more of the smaller or specialized manufacturers collaborated with bigger companies batteries. Similar to kleins tools using DeWalt batteries. Each major brand keeps their own batteries Makita, Dewalt, Milwaukee etc. Brands with fewer models like Fein would shop and have agreements for other companies batteries. This would keep battery tech competitive and a user like me would be more willing to buy a tool from a one off brand. I would have liked a cordless Fein omt but buying into that system was impractical. If it came with Dewalt batteries I might have joined into that line happily. I would also have been more willing to buy more Dewalt tools too. I think a melange of small independent alliances would be neat. Imagine buying into five battery systems and having access to 30 brands. It would be reasonable to diversify and still fuel competition.
nate
Why would you ever buy anything as far as power tools tha are black and decker?
Steve
A universal battery platform would be incredibly stifling. It would hold back innovation as everything would have to conform to the lowest common denominator in the platform. Then other platforms would have to be developed for higher power. You would have a governing body to get approval from, all these companies fighting with them and each other. You would have a lack of incentive to develop high end tools. High end tools would then be more expensive as they are no longer subsidized by the batteries. You would have to scrap existing platforms and get everyone to agree on one platform. There’s also a number of other things Stu mentioned. It’s a market place as wildly diverse as the user’s needs, while it’s possible, there’s no practical way to go with a universal battery platform.
Andrew
Why did Bosch abandon their wireless charging tech? I actually bought into it years ago thinking the same as you (and still have 3 of them and use them!) I’m curious if you have researched it or would want to. I’d love to read your findings and opinion.
Stuart
Bosch is very unlikely to discuss specifics about it.
It was a great idea, but I don’t think the charger or batteries sold well.
Patrick
Tribalism will be much more difficult when not being locked to specific brands.
PETE
Listen- if we made everything gas powered like the Amish- we’d only have to argue about 2/4 stroke. lol
tim Rowledge
I insist on gas turbines powering my tools…
James C
The enthusiast flashlight world is pretty much the exact opposite. Most any 18650 flashlight will work with any “normal” 18650 battery, albeit with varying performance based on your battery choice. Simply buy a quality unprotected cell. It’s typical for the flashlight driver to have built-in low voltage protection (you’d obviously want to confirm this). Overdriving a battery isn’t a problem for flashlights, which is a key difference compared to some power tools.
There’s actually pushback in the community against brands making lights that use proprietary batteries. Olight is the posterchild for this.
One issue I think the enthusiast flashlight industry will have to come to terms with is multi-cell lights. There’s huge potential for problems if users put mismatched cells into those lights (different chemistries, charge levels, or even age).
I’m not trying to make a point that because flashlights do it power tools can – there are many key differences. For the tool industry, I think “why is it the way it is?” and “why would it change (if at all)?” are two entirely different questions.
Tool Junkie
I have to agree with the posts, “can be done, but won’t happen”. The tool companies used Panasonic batteries predominantly years ago, as the tools worked best with their battery technology. Now a days, the best 18650s and newer batteries come from LG and a couple of other providers. If you pull apart a DeWalt, Makita or Milwaukee battery (like on YouTube videos), you’ll see the same sourced cells from various brands.
If you, as a consumer want a great AA battery, you know which few brands have long life and buy accordingly. When I want my flash to cycle quickly an my camera fit a wedding shoot, I go with Energizer Lithium AA. If it’s just on a scenic vacation, Kirkland AAs. For most impact drivers, any old cheap battery would be fine for around the house. For a table saw on a jobsite, I’d spend the money on a quality high capacity battery, likely from the brand that made the table saw, as it would be designed around the particular till and use intended.
What always passed me off was buying a $100 ink jet printer by Epson with the ink thrown in for free then buying the replacement cartridge for essentially $500 (per gallon) when the actual cost of the cartridge & quantity of ink inside was $5. Then the cartridge & printer were software formatted to only use the proprietary cartridge (and not a third party refill)! I actually went and threw out the printer, cause it was cheaper to go buy another new printer with the free ink inside!
I feel the tool companies are going down this path; but within done kind of government oversite, it won’t change. Regulations can sometimes help, like a WiFi standard does with most household items functioning from the common standard.
Stuart
There are definitely parallels. I know many flashlight enthusiasts are vehemently opposed to proprietary batteries, just like many power tool users are. But when you look at broad user groups from above, it works for a lot of users.
What users are asking for wouldn’t just affect a subset of power tool users – it would affect everyone. There are paths where an independent company could satisfy users’ desires for a universal battery, but that’s where cost/profit and related considerations become a big obstacle.
Gordon
https://xkcd.com/927/
I think we would see fragmentation within the individual tool brands. I think you would see a whole line of low end, 18v, brushed tools. With all the higher end, brushless tools being a premium option, and coming in varying voltages to avoid any sort of legislation.
Cory
To me, there are many benefits to having a universal battery connection.
– being able to use a single battery on multiple tools
– force better designs by tool manufacturers (why stay in one product line if a different product line has a tool that does something better). It’ll also change marketing slightly. Instead of choose my color tool line, why should i choose this color tool.
– battery interchangeability for onsite workers.
– company can buy one large charger. Anybody can charge on it.
– reduce waste of tools that are still usable, chargers, etc.
– how many times have you seen a tool and are, I’d buy that right now if it had this battery platform.
– I think it’ll lead to all kinds of innovation and let smaller companies enter the market with innovative designs.
– If you are a small business supporter, this is how you build them. Let them use a standard battery connection. You can develop a tool and not worry about manufacturing a battery.
– apples to apples comparison of tools.
In my opinion, this will require government action to achieve. Probably in the EU cause they can force companies to do it (push to USB-C). How, my opinion again, say hey companies using 18v-60v removable batteries, were starting a commission. After one year, a battery design will be chosen. Two years after that, if you want all tools/appliances sold in the EU will have to use that battery connection(s) or be sold as tool only with an adapter to the universal connection. The commission can allow for tech updates in the batteries. And a 2to5 year review of tech for connection updates. And a company can add connections to there battery so that it provides more through thru, but it still works in another companies product. Big color tool line can still add a label on their tool, use our battery for a 10% gain in burrito taste.
Cons:
– more tools unworthy of toolguyd
– patent issues/royalties
– there might be a multiple connections: 18v (with subset of 18v higher power), 24v, 36v, 60v, etc.
– current tools may become trash as batteries become unavailable; however, each tool company could create an adapter between their battery line and the universal battery.
– tool ergonomics may be affected.
Jim Felt
Stuart.
I didn’t read through all the Comments above but isn’t the real reason “consumer” tool brands have proprietary battery platforms is simply as a known profit center?
Without the margins guaranteed by the battery packs how would they even break even on their myriad of seasonal consumer oriented tool special deals and sales?
How else could they possibly support these insane “discounts” they occasionally offer? And that the smaller higher end brands never offer at all? Mafell, et al?
Just a thought.
Stuart
Do brands count on battery sales as a *major source* of profit? I don’t think so.
How many tool kits are sold vs. how many battery-only SKUs? Not every user buys spare or replacement batteries beyond their kit purchases.
Consider pricey camera batteries. Do those battery prices balance out seasonal discounts on camera bodies and lenses?
Do power tool batteries have higher margins? Probably. But is this really a major profit center for tool brands?
Saulac
Have you look at the “buy in and locked in” into the system aspect?
Bob
There definitely should be some sort of universal battery. I am in the electrical engineering field and when we design something we always design to a specification. So the way to implement a universal battery is to get all the main manufacturers come up with specifications across the board, much like AA, AAA, C, D batteries work. They come up with dimensions and specifications per the battery platform, and run from there. The manufacturers then design the tools around the battery specs.
They have been doing this on the corded AC side of tool manufacturing for decades. The tool is generally limited to 120V, 15A circuit and tool manufacturers design the tool around that. If the tool like a table saw needs 240V then you design the tool for that and note that is what the tools power input is. This is no different than a battery. Design the tool for 12V, 18V, 36V or what not and make it work for those designs given a certain amperage.
The only reason they don’t do it is money and they would lose a lot of money not selling as many batteries.
Saulac
Yes. This is how electrical devices work. They “draw” only what they needed. The is no such thing as “too much” power (amperage) would damage the devices (only only some electronic components, not devices, such as LEDs need to have the current limit). Devices “draw” more power than source can supplied? Yes, there will be issue: Reduced performance>heat up>tripped breaker. They will lose the business completely to, guess it, battery makers.
Jeff
They don’t make different batteries for a Samsung tv remote and a Panasonic remote. They all take AAA. They don’t make different extension cords for different brand corded tools, they’re universal. Power tools should have universal batteries but it’s too late at this point. I have Dewalt tools but would buy a Milwaukee reciprocating saw if my batteries would fit. The same can be said for any brand.
If batteries were universal it would create pricing wars between manufacturers which is better for consumers which in turn would create more purchases… better for the manufacturer.
James C
When I imagine a world with standardized power tool batteries, all the big companies are still selling and bundling their tools with their own branded batteries (just of an universal type). They’re still trying to lure customers to their tool lineups. They’re still trying to sell their own batteries. On the battery market, they now have competition and need to somehow sway consumers (price?).
Think of all the ugly tool and battery color combinations… yikes.
Bill
I can’t imagine why large companies like Stanley Black and Decker can’t go universal between their brands? Not everyone needs the best tool for every job or just a midlevel tool for every job. Having to dedicate to a single brand because of charging and batteries actually keeps me from buying more.
Stuart
The only reason I could come up with is that they don’t want users trying to power heavy duty Dewalt tools with Black & Decker or other batteries that wouldn’t be up to the task.
Jared
That would be awesome – but also begs the question: “Why won’t power tool companies standardize across their own brands?”
E.g. I own Dewalt, Porter Cable and Black & Decker tools. PC and B&D are so close in battery design, that I don’t own any B&D batteries. I just slap my PC batteries into the tool and it works fine. Yet they aren’t intended to be compatible and I understand that some tools have extra plastic ridges to specifically prevent you from doing that.
What’s more, when Craftsman launched there was speculation it was using PC-style batteries – but once people got their hands on them, they realized the battery connector polarity had been reversed! So basically the same shell and cells, but with a tweak.
That’s three of SBD’s brands with batteries that superficially resemble one another, yet are designed not to fit between brands. Two so close they can fit anyway (though some applications might require trimming).
What is the purpose behind this intentional non-compatibility?
SBD is the company selling the tools and batteries either way. It could very well be that SBD wanted to force PC users to buy new batteries – the only reason I wonder about that explanation is that how could they know PC users would jump to Craftsman and not just jump ship entirely? Seems like compatibility would have fostered some loyalty (and cross-competition would be limited since they basically stopped innovating with PC tools anyway).
Harrison
While there are clearly reasons for proprietary battery systems beyond pure profit… All of those engineering and legal problems can be solved with- you guessed it- money. It’s always about profit in the end.
One way to approach this, is maybe not to mandate a universal battery system outright, but to encourage consolidation of battery systems, and let the manufactures decide if/where it makes sense.
For jurisdictions with sales taxes, or battery recycling fees charged at purchase, you could devise tax breaks, or wave the environmental fees on batteries that are universal, or cross platform.
Realistically, this would have the strongest effect on the bottom half of the tool market, as these tools are most often purchased based on cost.
This wouldn’t be a bad thing… The big tool brands like Dewalt, Millwaukee, Ryobi, Makita, etc. with healthy battery & tool systems aren’t the ones we’re worried about. Users of flagship tools are already used to paying a premium, and of course have access to an extensive catalogue of tools from their chosen brand. Even affordable brands like Ryobi are sold in such vast quantities that they could offset incentives and keep their proprietary battery systems competitive.
It’s the third-rate store brands like Benchmark, Radley, Masterforce found at hardware & farm stores that really have no business with their own pathetic batteries. These tools are mostly impulse buys from the bargain bin, with no real thought by the customer as to where the ‘system’ will be in 5 years. Often nowhere- The customer only ever buys a drill kit before moving on to a ‘real’ brand, and the retailer only bothers to release 4-5 tools before abandoning the system for a new on, with a new OEM. Rinse, repeat. This also isn’t where you find ‘innovation’, so no reason not to incentivize a standard.
Everyone wins- The consumer, the environment, and the OEMs don’t have to dream up a new battery design every time a retailer wants to sell some shitty tools.
If you wanted to go further, you could incentivize brands sold by the same OEM to use the same standard. For instance, there is absolutely no reason for Craftsman, Porter Cable, Bostitch, B&D etc to all have their own 20v battery system. I get that it’s about BS retailer exclusives, but all 20v SBD products should really just use the Dewalt interface. The tools are all designed by the same people… figure it out.
Another approach is to incentivize licensing agreements so smaller manufacturers can use a larger brand’s battery.
Shane
One thing you didn’t cover is that batteries and tools need to work well together.
Each of them can cause damage to each other. Who would pay for the battery if the tool breaks the battery. In the opposite direction, who would pay for the tool if the battery breaks the tool? This is a huge part of the engineering that goes into the tool and the battery system.
Rod Takata
A few years ago, I standardized on the Dewalt 20V Max battery ecosystem. It was the best I could afford at the time and seemed to be designed for longevity. As it turns out, they have managed to stick to it and show no signs of bailing on it. However, there were a couple of tools that I dreamed of that Dewalt didn’t have. One was a Ryobi One+ inflater. I ended up making an adapter from a Dewalt battery to a Ryobi One tool. It continues to serve me well. Recently, I had my eye on a Milwaukee right angle impact ratchet. So I searched for an adapter and found one that was reasonably priced. It works well! I can now power Ryobi One tools and Milwaukee 18V tools with my Dewalt batteries.
Rod Takata
No comment on the impact on warranties.
CountyCork
Could you buy these universal batteries in different colors? hahah
Gruntledlark
Funny, this morning I made this exact comment on another toolguyd article about standardizing batteries across the industry and tonight we have a new article on just that.
The argument that manufacturers need to control the battery landscape is frankly a lot of bovine excrement. The major manufacturers create a design group for this and define how batteries work. They define the output and the tool says, “use this battery designation for optimum performance” whether that be 1.5 AH or 12 AH or whatever the industry group decides to use to define batteries. The computer and phone industries do this ALL the damn time!
It’s even likely that the tool can retain battery usage in memory. You complain to the mfr that your chop saw can’t get thru 3 2x6s? The mfr checks the tool’s log and sees that you used a “level 1” battery instead of the recommended “level 4” battery – claim denied. It wouldn’t take much.
acrosstic
Exactly. The issue presented here is an issue within each battery platform today. Tiny battery on a high demand tool is going to be disappointing.
Sure, a 5ah battery from one brand and another may have different performance characteristics, but it’s unlikely to be hugely different as the internal cells are identical in a lot of brands.
They should honestly publish performance characteristics of batteries and the power demands of the tools. They could recommend batteries characteristics way it would be easy to find recommended batteries that didn’t disappoint.
bob
Two words, electric outlets and gas pumps. Ok, five words. Both of theses universal formats have made life much more convenient and simple.
Electric vehicles will really take off once one can pull into a “station” swap batteries and be on one’s way.
JR Ramos
One important thing that I think was touched on a little here and there is the choice of individual cells that make up the pack. This is very important (or can be) so if tools were designed to accept a universal connection, they wouldn’t be able to “know” other characteristics of the pack itself/cell type…a dumb voltage reading only says so much. I suppose they would have to move some kind of universal bms into the tool itself ($$ all round) but that would be a big compromise. Perhaps a chip could be programmed to read voltage sag under load and such, but some vital aspects of battery management really need to be on/inside the pack itself AND the type of cell needs to be somewhat matched to the potential of the tool’s design. This could be a significant safety concern, not just one of performance or run time. We can’t think of lithium cells as universal or totally stable/mature the way we can with NiMH or Alkaline and such, at this point, because there is a tremendous variety of cell quality and cell capability/limitations even from the four biggest manufacturers. So with the inevitable creep of knockoffs to meet cheap price points, the default would need to be a reduction in performance unless the tool is truly able to “know” and monitor the battery pack in entirety.
Let’s say the tool is designed for higher output, presumably higher current draw and heat…and the tool likes the voltage of the battery pack so it gives the green flag to go all-out. But the universal battery pack was a cheaper one that maybe used lower grade Lishen or Heter cells that have higher internal resistance and also larger voltage sag under load (most power tools demand a significant load from these cells, all things considered), and perhaps they are not as well matched in consistency from the factory. That pack has a lot of potential safety issues, including venting or fire, but at the very least reduced lifetime. Maybe a middle-priced pack uses some Molicel cells that are ok, but not as good as the Sony/Murata or Samsung cells that the engineers designed the tool to work in conjunction with. Etc…etc…etc. Then there are issues with cell consistency while in use and while charging, which could mostly be worked with but again, it’s significant and separating aspects of pack management from the pack to the tool might be too much of a compromise.
I think the current state of affairs with aftermarket pack adapters is probably where things need to stay. Certainly no engineer (or attorney) wants to attempt to deal with such a huge variety of energy potential and quality levels that could occur in this case while lithium cells can be so widely different. The only answer that would make sense is dumbing down the current draw for safety reasons (and which would ostensibly include damage to the tools, warranty, liability, etc…$$$) if somebody’s “universal” pack turns out not to be up to snuff. I don’t see a good way for it to work unless all types of tools are closer to each other in design and material characteristics.
I just wish that manufacturers would quit raping us with the prices of packs. Once you know the basic costs of most packs and account for some engineering costs of bms and such, it’s just obscene what they keep charging for packs. It was this way in the Ni-Cd and NiMH days too, though.
MM
The problems you describe are real, but I don’t think they will be difficult to overcome. A standardized battery pack can have a thermal sensor–or heck, mutiple thermal sensors–inside. The tool monitors the battery temp and if it gets too high the tool cuts power or shuts off entirely. Those can also be used to allow for fast charging without overheating the pack. Also, the electronics inside the tool can monitor the voltage drop and likewise cut power or shut the tool off if it detects that it is overloading the battery.
I think that this technology is already in use, I can think of a few firsthand examples:
1)M18 HO tools will shut down if run hard and the battery gets hot
2)Dewalt fast chargers can detect the temperature of the battery and adjust the charge rate based on the battery’s temperature. If it is too hot or too cold it will charge at a lower rate until the temperature reaches the optimal range for fast charging. There are LEDs on the charger which notify the user of this, and if the battery is too hot the charger will cool it down with a fan. This fan shuts off when it isn’t needed.
3)If I put a small battery in my 20V max angle grinder and go to work it doesn’t vent the cells, bulge, or otherwise damage the battery. Rather the tool seems to “know” that the battery is weak (or too hot) and it won’t even try to run when you press the paddle switch.
I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of this kind of thing, those are just some that I have firsthand experience with. Given that kind of tech I don’t think that inferior cells would be problematic here. They simply wouldn’t run the tool as hard or as long before the overtemp or voltage-under-load cutoff was triggered and the tool stops…..same exact thing that would happen if you compared name brand batteries with different ah capacities.
JR Ramos
Temp cutoff is a failsafe, incorporated for good reasons but is not and should not be the primary focus in a circuit design. One small piece of a larger puzzle. The other parameters are far more important for the actual use of the tool and/or lifespan and performance of the pack. These things must be designed together for a working whole and where there are significant deviations from the specs, it matters, sometimes a lot. There are just far too many changes to make ($$$ for everyone), even if you could get everyone to cooperate…and between liability, brand image, and greed…not gonna happen.
When you learn about the complexities of cell manufacture and why/how the little differences do matter, especially in multi-cell devices that are running at higher currents, and then the complexities of a Good battery management circuit, you see why this is not just an issue of temp cutoff or reduced performance. IR and cell consistency (not just capacity, but other characteristics through the life cycle of the magic jelly roll inside…) are paramount. It’s not like we’re running low-drain single cell devices here.
Tim D.
“In my opinion, proprietary batteries are about consistent performance.“
I would rank profit and control higher than consistency.
Stuart
It’s possible, but completely speculative until/unless anyone here has peeked at sales numbers.
I sometimes see customers buying cordless power tools at Home Depot and other local suppliers, but I never see anyone buying batteries unless there’s a special promo display such as for Black Friday.
Alex Peel
Yes but if you are going to believe one way or the other why would you not default to the more capitalist explanation. It seems a much more logical assumption to believe the companies priorities are profit first performance second (and performance in service of profit).
Customers don’t buy batteries much because they are very expensive vs tool plus battery combos. If there was direct competition in the battery space the price would inevitably fall and you would see people opting to buy batteries instead of just outright replacing tools. I would not be surprised if the price of batteries was specifically set to make this decision hard.
Stuart
I rarely buy power tool batteries, and when I do it’s never at anywhere close to full/regular pricing. Are the margins higher on individual batteries? Yes. But do brands sell a lot of batteries at those prices, or are those prices reflective of lower sales volume?
Alex Peel
My point was more that the brands sell more TOOLS at those battery prices.
You realize your tool battery does not hold a charge anymore. You go to the store and see the price of a replacement battery. You see that new tool that has a battery with it and maybe a couple “new” features/attachments and you go with that.
MM
There is absolutely some truth to what Alex Peel wrote. Generally speaking, whenever I need batteries for my cordless tools the first thing I think of is “maybe I can score a good deal on a combo kit or a promo” because often times one can get a tool + battery for the same price as normal retail on a battery. I’ve picked up a few of my Dewalt tools this way. In fact, for a few months now I’ve been looking for a couple larger Flexvolt batts, and I’d also like two of the small Power Stack 20V. I’m not in a rush though, so I’ll likely wait until I can score a good deal on a couple batteries plus a tool I could use. There are several tools I’d like to have but I don’t need enough to justify running out and buying them now; but if I could get a nice deal with the batteries I want? Yeah, I’ll spend extra and buy the tool too.
I’d also bet that their institutional customers may buy a lot of batteries. Back when I managed a lab the university’s machine shop & tool crib had Milwaukee, Makita, and Dewalt, all 18V with stacks of batteries which could be checked out by students or staff. I was good friends with the shop supervisor and they were constantly buying replacement packs and I am quite sure it was all at 100% retail. Student returned a drill with the battery busted? Oh well, bill their account, call up Grainger and order another one…. It wasn’t their money they were spending so they didn’t give a hoot about shopping around for the best value.
IMO
I would frame the current battery scenario as anticompetitive and unnecessarily resource and intensive.
An a industry consortium like those that exist in the tech industry for Internet, wifi, communication broadcast standards and others would be a good model to begin with. The stakeholders all get a seat at the table and hash out a set of technical standards for each generation of technology. They see that the success of the whole relies on all devices working together.
Compatibility standards do not preclude variations in performance or quality in tech and would not do so for power tools. A set of standards would allow for more competition in the space and possible entry for traditional battery companies lowering pricing and improving battery quality. It would eliminate waste by allowing tool users to have a minimum amount of batteries on hand for their needs.
gene
I think the easiest thing is to create an independent battery company that makes HO batteries but has the adaptability to attach to any tool. I would assume there would be firmware issues to tackle, but Im just throwing in my two cents. I mean my Craftsman ratchet accepts my Snap-On sockets. It seems like the solution should be simple but apparently it is not.
Stacey Jones
I do think it’s a perceived lost revenue item for tool manufacturers. Batteries simply supply amps at the given voltage based on the load. If the battery can’t supply the tool with enough amps to operate properly, the tool could simply display an error code, beep, or whatever. Simple circuit. The battery charger could also test this. So the user could easily tell that the cheap brand B battery they bought wasn’t cutting the mustard.
Stacey Jones
It’s also about brand lock-in, if you buy a into a brand, the more tools and batteries of that brand you buy, the less likely you are to buy another brand because all the batteries you bought won’t work with the other brand. Your also stuck with more chargers.
Saulac
Just want to say that I am thankful that auto manufacturers have not gone the “batteries and vehicles are optimized for each other and proprietary batteries are much better for you” route. I would have to come to a Toyota dealer for “Toyota – compact pick up – 4 cyl – 5sp – AWD – 80′ gen….” battery instead of stopping by a tiny auto-part store and picked up one that “look like it will fit” out of a handful of batteries that they have, when the last time my beat up pickup broke down in the middle of nowhere.
Greg
here’s another facet of this subject.
Even though they’re tools are mainly for on use and probably not rugged enough for commercial industrial applications, this is one reason I like Ryobi. Hurry over 18-volt battery will work on any railway 18 volt tool no matter when it was made and vice versa anything what we will be too work with any reality no matter when the battery was made.
All the other manufacturers keep changing their battery platforms. If you had some older Milwaukee or DeWalt cordless tools the newer batteries won’t fit on them. If you want to update your platform you have to also buy new tools.
Not so with Ryobi.
Saulac
Good point.
John
Just make the battery mounts compatible with basic electronic standards. No different than what the car companies better do or the same nonsense will make car owners pissed in the coming years with plugging stations, plugs, house plugs etc.
Bosch 12v and Milwaukee M12 batts should just be the same size and and mount for complete interoperability. All flat 12v batts should do the same mount. All 18-24v should have the same mount.
I am making charging carriers similar to something I saw on the gram. It has opened up my eye to the 7 different battery platforms I use and roughly 60 plus batteries I have. Only method of consolidation I can do for now.
Saulac
Any more info on the charging thing? It sounds interesting even though I am on the opposite side. Dewalt 20v batteries on Dewalt/Ryobi/Makita/Milwaukee tools via eBay adapters. But most I have are M12. No adapter for M12 yet… but have been looking at Bosch 12v jig saw and router…Hmmmm…
Rx9
I honestly think this era may be the last stop before the advent of a universal standard format. The tool companies not big enough to field complete systems have begun pushing for this kind of system a la CAS in Europe. The real thing that will cause the dam to break is straight battery manufacturers with enough volume to beat power tool firms on margins. Once producing batteries in house becomes unprofitable, tool companies will go back to a tool only focus. Theoretically, there are enough cordless applications outside tools to support an independent cross platform battery ecosystem. Think vacuums, scooters, fans, kitchen applications etc. If a few tool companies shift into that ecosystem, that will be the beginning of the end for proprietary systems. If the new universal system really wanted to push adoption hard, they’d sell adapters for major systems at a rate low enough to undercut the oems battery prices. Conversely, major tool systems might try to push adoption by licensing out their proprietary systems as an ersatz “universal ” format. The biggest hurdle is marketing departments having to complete the herculean, yet possible task of disentangling batteries from brand identities. One way to pull this off is to spin off and restructure the battery department into an independent brand.
MM
I’m not disagreeing with you here, I just wanted to ask a semi-related question.
How does the adoption of CAS look in Europe in your experience? Is it widespread? I looked into it last year when I was deciding whether to run a new Metabo tool off of adapters or if I might want to jump in and buy Metabo packs and chargers. The impression that I got from reading the website and looking at what tools were available was that most CAS brands were either special niches, very expensive, or both. I didn’t get the impression that CAS was in widespread use for common tools (i.e. Drill/driver, circ saw, OMT, recip saw, RO sander, angle grinder, etc). Most of the tools seemed to be very specialized. And that really makes sense: if your company makes some hyper-specific tool for a given trade that the big tool companies don’t make you’re probably such a small operation that you can’t realistically make your own battery system, so piggybacking off an existing system like Metabo’s is a great idea. It reminds of of how you can buy a Surebonder hot glue gun set up for your choice of Milwaukee, Dewalt, and at least a couple other common platforms.
Rx9
As you said, a lot of the firms involved in CAS are niche operators, often with higher end price points. My take is that CAS is a way for them to “circle the wagons” against larger competitors, whilst controlling margins and development costs for the battery system. Metabo’s benefit from this arrangement is a near zero cost, quick expansion in the number of applications served by its battery ecosystem.
While the strategy seems to be working for now, it will need to keep expanding for a while in order to survive. If they can get to a production volume equivalent to what TTi or SBD are moving for their major brands, CAS will be in a lot better place. My suggestion is that they reach out to small electric mobility players for a good volume boost. EU emissions regulations are pushing heavy growth in e-bikes, scooters and other small vehicles.
If CAS batteries start becoming a common feature on them, it will do a lot to build faith in the system. Within the EU, they might even have some success by getting legislation passed to make CAS part of some light power unit interoperability standard. Any connection to a legislated quality standard will do a lot to get corporate customers to buy in. I would sell it to EU pols as 1. a way to cut down on e-waste from multiple redundant battery systems, 2. a way to preserve jobs coming from EU based niche firms and 3. a key and necessary component of future zero emission infrastructure.
That said, the “small player alliance ” model of CAS is just one path to a universal standard. I wish them luck, but some other standard may become the dominant one.
Aandrew
I think of batteries somewhat like an operating system. You can have them integrated with your tool, or you can have them meet certain standards. If they are indeed like an operating system Android and Microsoft have both more variety and greater numbers than Apple. But you can argue that Apple (which itself is based on Unix) provides a better and simpler user experience. I wish we’d have both universal (in a serious way) and propriety batteries. I know which one I’d choose. We could voluntarily mandate universal batteries, with room for improvement, from a sustainability point of view, while at the same time ensuring carve outs for legacy systems as well as their derivatives. Any standards organization could develop criteria for universal batteries, but obviously the industry does not care for that. The solution is not as complicated as it is made out to be. By sewing confusion the author creates the appearance of insurmountability. Just look at alkaline batteries.
I suspect the question is, who would get the royalties out of of a universal battery, who would be the winners and losers? Maybe a new technology comes along and can displace the dozens of propriety solutions because it is simply better, and the rights are held by someone else who only licenses a limited amount of batteries. Hope springs eternal.
Wait, did I just ask for a monopoly? No, no I did not. The legacy batteries and their derivatives are still available.
Rob
The cordless tool industry makes huge amounts of money from their batteries. They will not give up this golden goose without force. If they cared about the consumer at all, they would at least allow companies like Duracell and others to sell batteries for their products. But they don’t. If they did, they would lose a lot of $$$$$. And the Duracell folks would start making better batteries, and at lower prices. When everyone starts buying the Duracell equivalents, the tool makers will lose interest ($$$$) in selling batteries. Then you’ll see the universal battery market created. And perhaps tool manufacturers will go back to designing better tools and leave the battery development to the real experts.
This BS about batteries being designed for performance of specific tools is just marketing crap.
Stuart
What experience does Duracell have making Li-ion battery products?
Where would these batteries be sold?
Rob
Now you’re just being silly.
Stuart
These are valid obstacles, and it’s nothing that brands wouldn’t ask themselves.
You can’t just wave a magical wand and say “Duracell could do it.” Could they? Would they?
Vards Uzvards
Stuart, I think “Duracell” in this context meant “a company with battery-building experience”. Might be Duracell, but also might be APC, or Energizer, or Varta, or XYZ.
Saulac
I could not tell if Stuart is just trolling at this point. As many have pointed out. It is not even a complex subjects. Examples of existing universal batteries are about. And most on here have agree on why it is not happening with tool batteries. It’s $ for the tool companies.
Stuart
I want people to start thinking outside the box.
“Corporate greed” is an opinion that can only be supported or disputed with sales and profit data that none of us have access to.
If brands were sure to make the same money from universal battery sales, would they jump on the idea?
I don’t believe so, because there are so many other reasons.
Let’s say sales/profit is a factor but is ignored for the sake of discussion. Do you agree or disagree with my theories?
@Vards, my objection to the idea is based on how different the product categories are. If we’re talking about consumer product brands that could do this, I would point more towards a brand like Dyson than one like Duracell.
Sam
Hahahaha, the possiblity of this is at best a decade away. The major manufacturers as mentioned have just come out with their newer tools and certainly have the next gen in the background. It is simply pie in the sky until it happens. Way too long of an article to pine for a hope😆😆😅🤣🤣
Rob
Corporate greed trumps all.
Robert Adkins
After 20 years, I finally get to air my frustrations on battery platforms!
From the user’s perspective, there is no downside to a universal battery interface. Period.
From a manufacturer’s perspective, there is nothing stopping them except marketing and sales. There’s no technical reason they can’t easily solve.
They just need to decide on voltages. I think 4, 12, and 18 are all that’s needed, but that’s arguable. Devices can tweak their circuitry to fiesse the voltage. For example, USB chargers are 5.xxx volts, most Li-Ion cells are 3.0-4.2. They could make up for the slightly higher charging voltage by stepping it down, as many devices already do. 36v devices can take dual 18v, 60v can use 3 18v. Devices that big are mowers, miter saws, mini table and mini band saws that 2-3 batteries would not be too bulky on. There, 20 years of frustration out in a 3 minute read! You’re welcome! 😁🤐
Rob
Here. Here. Bravo!
John Banister
What we need is for standards institutions, ANSI and DIN to designate a standard connector for batteries of a given voltage and amperage class. Most manufacturers will ignore it, but a few will either conform to it or make adapters that conform to it, because it’s an inexpensive to implement feature they can advertise. Over time, more and more adapters to the standard will be available for more and more product lines. Then, the companies that don’t do a good job making batteries will give up, and just have ANSI adapters on their tools, and a company that’s good at making batteries will see an opportunity for profit and produce a line of ANSI adapted batteries. Slowly, standardization will creep in, until non-standard battery connectors will be seen as a deficit.
Aandrew
Fantastic comment here. Let’s hope there is a “need” to draw up standards. May happen in Germany or the EU before it happens here, but I’m sure it will eventually spill over, even if it is China that implements standards first.
You want to manufacture your products in low cost countries, you can expect them to innovate and eventually compete with you too. That is after all an explicitly stated objective of theirs. I think the consumer will benefit over time as the competition breaks free of propriety standards and outside toolmakers achieve synergism around a common battery standard. It’ll open up the market to small toolmakers and low cost no name brands the moment consumers aren’t locked in. More innovation, lower cost, more variety and shifting profits from the big guy to the providers of the best tools.
Greenlee
You’re way over complicated battery systems.
Yes, we can have universal packs if manufacturers are forced to use a common specification.
Tools don’t care what the source of power is and will function as intended as long as the power source meets its demands.
From an electrical point of view, you need two things to make a compatible battery pack. Voltage and current. Voltage is always given because anymore it’s used for marketing. Current needs are never given instead it obfuscated with marketing jargon.
If you don’t meet these two requirements the tool will not produce the intended torque and will derate its power output.
Note: Ah is not instantaneous current but big AH battery packs usually have more current due to multiple parallel cells in the pack.
Once you have standards you get useful data for compatibility for example USB chargers. If you want to charge your phone at its fastest charge rate you must buy a charger that meets the wattage (volts*current) needed.
Jeffityykk44
Ya it’s the batteries definitely aren’t priced that way because that’s what they cost…they use the same cells as a $20 vape. and teslas use the same cells too, but instead of 5/10/15 they use ~10,000. If you were to price a Tesla battery pack the same way too manufacturers priced their’s a replacement battery on a $50 grand Tesla would cost well over $250,000 instead of the already ridiculous $15,000 they’re charging now
John Banister
This is an idea. Instead of manufacturing 3rd party power tool batteries whose quality customers might question, make 3rd party adapters that take the customer supplied 17345s, 18650s or 21700s. That would separate the battery quality issue from the 3rd party power tool battery purchase decision.
Stuart
Pro power tool brands’ legal teams would never approve – loose 18650 cells being treated like AA batteries would be a huge liability.
https://toolguyd.com/usb-cordless-tool-batteries-debate/
John Banister
I’m sure they’d never approve of any battery for their tools that they don’t sell themselves, but I don’t think they can prevent 3rd party manufacturers from making something that interoperates with their equipment, particularly across international boundaries. International trade organizations like to require fair licensing of interface specifications to permit the possibility of other manufacturers making interoperable products – hence all the aftermarket power tool batteries one can find on Amazon. I’m just thinking that the organizations who already make those batteries might find better sales making battery packs designed to accept customer supplied cells.
Sunny
All you need are the capacity (Ah) and Wattage (Max and sustained) (graphical curves would be even better of battery pack of any given voltage for any and all brand power tool specifications to be met.
All the rest of the stuff mentioned is just trying to confuse people into believing that this is too complicated. Just make the same physical interfaces and the leave the rest up to battery pack manufacturers.
Dennis CA
Interesting arguments here. I’ll stick with cords where ever possible until the situation changes. I don’t like being locked into an “eco system”