Comment by calmbonsai

The real issue with "clay-like design freedom" is the collective knock-on effects of thermal and conductive inefficiencies.

We've had "clay-like design freedom" since the early days of carbon-zinc batteries, but it turns out that it's far better (both for manufacturing, chemistry, and safety) to have a continuous volume of relative thermal and electrolytic quiescence that's, largely, isolated from physical strains.

That this is even being highlighted as a "feature" makes other claims even more dubious.

Suffice to say that any battery ("electrolytic cell") that's undergoing dynamic strains will have vastly different levels of conductivity (hence power output and contribution to thermal load) than one that is geometrically static.

Put another way, the performance gains from utilizing the motor as a "stressed member" (akin to F1 monocoque) in combustion vehicles was only possible circa 50+ years after the invention of the 4-stroke cycle. Talk to me in ~20 years.

FWIW, my degree is in electrical engineering and I worked on our college's solar car back when "solar car racing" was "a thing".

You do not want the stressed members of any structure being a salient contributor to its power-train. Not related, see mammalian, reptile, fish, and insect physiologies.