The general public view of batteries is that NiCad is inferior to NiMH, which itself is inferior to Li-ion. However, the truth of the matter might not be so clear cut as that. In particular there is a view held by some that this public image of the improvement of batteries with each version/type is the direct result of effective marketing, as companies seek to encourage people to spend on new products. Of course, it could be argued that such a view is cynicism at its worst.
Personally, I don't know enough about the technology to distinguish the genuine fact from the marketing blurb, so I try to keep an open mind on the matter. Much like anyone that has been using cordless tools for a few years I have batteries of all three types, and I have had varied experiences with them from good to bad, but the sum total of my experiences doesn't exactly match either school of thought so it is just more anecdotal evidence that proves or disproves nothing.
Amongst the masses of info available online, some of it apparently contradictory, I found this article to be an interesting read. It dates from 2001 and puts itself forward as an independent comparison of the various battery technologies above. In relation to Li-ion it concludes that aging is (or was at the time) an issue. This fits with some of the discussions that arise even now over Li-ion batteries in laptop computers - again, much of this is anecdotal but lots of people report that the length of time a Li-ion laptop battery retains a charge falls away dramatically (some claim by 50%) after about 1 or 2 years.
There appears to be no clear answer to the question of which battery technology is "best". They each have their pros and cons and the definition of what is "best" varies from one application to another, and perhaps from one user to another - in one case a high power output might be more important than a slow discharge time, in another case it may be the reverse, etc.
Personally, I don't know enough about the technology to distinguish the genuine fact from the marketing blurb, so I try to keep an open mind on the matter. Much like anyone that has been using cordless tools for a few years I have batteries of all three types, and I have had varied experiences with them from good to bad, but the sum total of my experiences doesn't exactly match either school of thought so it is just more anecdotal evidence that proves or disproves nothing.
Amongst the masses of info available online, some of it apparently contradictory, I found this article to be an interesting read. It dates from 2001 and puts itself forward as an independent comparison of the various battery technologies above. In relation to Li-ion it concludes that aging is (or was at the time) an issue. This fits with some of the discussions that arise even now over Li-ion batteries in laptop computers - again, much of this is anecdotal but lots of people report that the length of time a Li-ion laptop battery retains a charge falls away dramatically (some claim by 50%) after about 1 or 2 years.
There appears to be no clear answer to the question of which battery technology is "best". They each have their pros and cons and the definition of what is "best" varies from one application to another, and perhaps from one user to another - in one case a high power output might be more important than a slow discharge time, in another case it may be the reverse, etc.
