There are many ways to connect batteries and cells. One generally uses series connection to achieve increased operating voltage, and parallel-like connections to increase capacity.
There are many electrical means to interconnect disparate batteries. I have calculated the power losses which would be due to, for example, diode isolation of series strands, and they are minuscule: Power = V^2/R, so square-law applies. E.g. 0.7V^2 is small in comparison to (as in your example) 116V^2.
What I am suggesting is that, due to the way Li-ion batteries work, it is advantageous to avoid charging and discharging the same region of the capacity of the cell repeatedly. People tend to think the battery does not have a reaction surface, because it changes ("rebuilds itself") from one charge cycle to the next, but the cells do have cathode and anode reaction sites where the ion activity occurs: Each cell forms its own unique fractal reaction site as charging progresses. But that portion of the reaction 'forming reaction site which corresponds to a particular charge percentage of the cell' is formed and reformed from the same material which is located in a particular physical location of the cell. Hence the materials become fatigued by being repeatedly formed into fractal electrode during charge, and changing back essentially into part of the electrolyte environment as the cell discharges. A particular "clump" of material can only be formed and reformed a few thousand times before it becomes fatigued.
Hence, it would make financial sense to prevent "topping off" the same region of your large expensive battery over and over again, and, instead, charge and recharge a "throw-away" consumable smaller battery.
However, your point about power being dependent upon the aggregate surface area of the reaction site available ("size of the battery") is well taken.
In his biography, Musk claims that Lithium batteries are an enabling e-vehicle technology not due to their energy:mass or volume ratio, but due to their ability to deliver huge currents quickly and for prolonged periods. A battery's internal resistance is the sum of 2 components, one of which is called the "ion resistance." In other battery technologies, apparently the ion densities in the electrolyte surrounding the electrodes is quickly depleted, and the chemical reactions to replenish the ions produce ions at a slower rate than the ones that had built-up around the electrodes as the battery sat idle while not under load. (It's very much like capacitance.) The depletion of the ions in the region near the electrodes then shows up electronically as an increase in the ion-resistance component of the internal resistance of the battery which grows while the battery is under load. At least that's my understanding.
I was unaware that the the entire aggregate surface area of the batteries' electrodes are always "in play." I.e. that there was not more current available than required when you max out the throttle. What I think you are telling me is that the parallelism of the battery (2 dimensions of its size -- effective electrode area, the 3rd dimension being proportional to voltage) all contribute to the "off-the-line" acceleration performance of an e-bike.
I was unaware that that is the case, and I thank you for your time and effort in explaining that to a newbie like me.
It is interesting to me that the small Zeroes, for example, have the smaller batteries. I thought that was due to the reduced requirement for energy storage. But what you are telling me is that the size of battery determines the max "short-circuit" current (power) available, and that, in turn, determines the torque and thrust available. So the size of the battery determines the mass of the bike in can accelerate at a given performance level, versus NOT BEING the size of the bike determining the size of battery it can carry, and the energy it requires to transport the larger bike for reasonable range, as I thought. It follows, then, that only a smaller bike can be run at reasonable performance from a smaller battery. I was under the mistaken impression that a larger (more massive) bike could be run from a smaller battery, but only for a shorter distance and time.
I'll have to think about this and run some numbers. You have aided my conception of the boundary conditions of the problem immensely. Thanks, again!
