Gasgoo Munich-A batch of ride-hailing cars that have hit 150,000 kilometers are seeing their batteries swell up collectively.
Recently, multiple models equipped with 177Ah lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells have been reported to suffer from concentrated cell swelling, leakage, and insulation failures. The deformed cells, curved like bananas, have been dubbed "banana batteries." The vehicles involved are primarily ride-hailing cars, with failures occurring between 150,000 and 250,000 kilometers. That lands squarely on the manufacturer's warranty threshold of "8 years or 150,000 km."
This isn't a quality control issue for a single company, but a proposition the entire industry must face: as ride-hailing becomes a key scenario for new energy vehicles, can current battery safety standards, warranty systems, and liability mechanisms keep pace with the real-world intensity of commercial operations?
Image Source: Doubao
What exactly are ride-hailing batteries going through?
Typically, private passenger cars drive less than 10,000 kilometers a year. Power batteries are designed for 2,000 full charge-discharge cycles, enough to last over a decade. But ride-hailing cars don't run that way.
A full-time ride-hailing vehicle typically drives about 80,000 kilometers a year, charging once or twice daily, hitting 160,000 kilometers in just two years. This means the battery endures thousands of deep charge-discharge cycles in a short period, approaching or even exceeding certain design thresholds. High-frequency fast charging, prolonged high-load operation, and continuous service in summer heat are conditions private cars rarely encounter.
Crucially, battery degradation in ride-hailing cars isn't linear. Industry insiders point out that power batteries enter an accelerated decay phase after around 1,000 cycles, with internal resistance rising and the risk of gas generation increasing. For a private car, reaching that mileage might take seven or eight years; for a ride-hailing car, it takes less than two.
This creates an awkward timing mismatch: just as the battery enters a high-failure period, the warranty expires.
Image Source: VCG
Current warranty standards for new energy vehicle batteries are almost universally "8 years or 150,000 km, whichever comes first." This standard was crafted around private car scenarios. For private owners, the 8-year time limit usually arrives before the mileage cap.
But for ride-hailing cars, the logic flips. With an annual intensity of 80,000 kilometers, they hit 150,000 kilometers in two years—mileage arrives first, leaving six years on the clock. This means ride-hailing vehicles "naturally fall out of warranty" early in their lifecycle, precisely when the battery enters the sensitive window of lifespan decay.
Once the warranty lapses, repair costs fall entirely on the owner. Industry data shows replacing a new power battery typically costs between 40,000 and 80,000 yuan, while refurbishing runs around 30,000 yuan. For many ride-hailing drivers, that equates to six months to a year of net income.
Even more concerning is the safety risk. Cell swelling, leakage, and insulation faults aren't just about range loss; in severe cases, they can cause power interruptions while driving or even trigger thermal runaway. With ride-hailing cars on the road for over 10 hours daily, a failure during operation could have far graver consequences than for a private car.
Warranty Extension or Recall: Where Is the Line?
When failures erupt in batches, automakers and battery makers typically opt for warranty extensions to cover the costs, rather than initiating a statutory recall. The legal consequences of the two are starkly different.
A recall implies an official admission of a batch defect. Companies must file with regulators, devise a unified repair plan, bear all costs, and accept regulatory oversight. A warranty extension, meanwhile, is a voluntary service extension that involves no formal finding of defect, with scope and conditions set entirely by the company.
In the "banana battery" incident, automakers extended the warranty for affected models to 8 years or 300,000 kilometers, while battery firms opened direct repair channels. This solved the repair cost issue for some owners, but left questions lingering: if the faults are indeed batch-specific and common, why not initiate a recall? Where is the boundary between an extension and a recall?
Currently, China's new energy vehicle recalls rely mainly on the "Regulations on the Administration of Recalls of Defective Automobile Products." The determination standard is whether there is a widespread existence of non-compliance with national or industry standards for safety, or other unreasonable risks to safety, due to design, manufacturing, or labeling issues within the same batch. In practice, however, determining whether a battery fault constitutes a "defect" often requires a lengthy testing and verification process.
Image Source: Doubao
For commercial owners, time is money they don't have. Every day a vehicle sits unrepaired is a day without income. At the institutional level, establishing a rapid defect identification and recall mechanism for commercial vehicle batteries is an urgent gap that needs filling.
Behind the ride-hailing battery issue lies the broader backdrop of a price war in the power battery industry.
In recent years, automakers have continuously squeezed battery procurement costs, pushing pressure down the supply chain. To battle for market share, battery makers have expanded capacity and cut costs. While technology routes like large cells and CTP (Cell-to-Pack) boost energy density, they also demand higher standards for process consistency and thermal management.
When cost control becomes the core competitive edge, design redundancy for high-intensity commercial scenarios is often the first thing compressed. Battery solutions verified for private cars might expose flaws when subjected to the high-frequency fast charging and prolonged high-load conditions of ride-hailing.
This isn't the choice of a single enterprise, but a collective tendency across the industry. In a price war, no one dares raise prices lightly, so cost pressure ultimately trickles down the supply chain. Commercial vehicle owners, as the group with the highest usage intensity, are the first to feel the risk.
Several industry insiders point out that for commercial vehicles, the industry needs to rebuild the system on three levels.
At the product level, scenarios must be segmented. Ride-hailing cars are commercial vehicles; there should be options for high-cycle-life cells, reinforced thermal management systems, optimized BMS fast-charging strategies, and even battery packs specifically designed for commercial use.
At the standards level, commercial operating conditions must be added. Current national standards for battery testing and verification are based mainly on private car scenarios. Specialized testing for commercial scenarios—including high-frequency fast charging cycles, prolonged high-load operation, and continuous operation in high heat—should be added.
At the warranty level, differentiation is needed. Allow commercial owners to purchase extended warranty products that match their usage intensity, or let automakers and battery makers jointly launch exclusive warranty plans for commercial vehicles. At the same time, a unified standard for battery health detection and a transparent repair pricing system should be established so owners can access reasonable service even after the warranty expires.
At the responsibility level, lines must be drawn clearly. When a supplier's cells have batch issues and the automaker covers the cost for the owner, there is currently no unified industry mechanism for how the two parties share the repair costs. As more vehicles enter high-mileage stages, establishing clear rules for responsibility division and cost sharing has become an industry necessity.
The ultimate cause of the "banana battery" incident awaits official conclusions, but the alarm it has sounded is clear enough: usage scenarios for new energy vehicles are diverging, and warranty standards, safety systems, and responsibility mechanisms must evolve with them. For the millions of ride-hailing drivers across China, the battery is not just a component—it is the tool of their livelihood. Its safety and reliability should not be sacrificed to cost competition.
