4680 MYP Acceleration Boost Upgrade prediction.

[Joske007]

Are first Telsa's Y's with 4860's already shipped to clients? or when can we expect first reviews?

 

[ScoobyDoo82]

In Elons world it is. One day it may happen but so far never has. Going on past history here.
Hey I’d love to see a sub 3 sec PM3 and a 3 sec PMY. Again I just feel they would only do this if the slowest MS is 2.6/2.7.

I’d love to be wrong here!

Exactly this.. Tesla would never allow the MY/M3 to cannibalize their more expensive models. This is why the M3/MY are configured the way they are.. the cars are capable of going much faster but are restricted via software - and for $2k you can dial it up a smudge.. proves my former point.

 

[Epradox]

Exactly this.. Tesla would never allow the MY/M3 to cannibalize their more expensive models. This is why the M3/MY are configured the way they are.. the cars are capable of going much faster but are restricted via software - and for $2k you can dial it up a smudge.. proves my former point.

I feel like you guys are missing some points here. Why couldn't a model 3/Y PERFORMANCE be faster than an Long Range Model S? They're 2 separate classes of vehicles. Performance/Plaid vs Long Range. If a model 3/Y performance was faster than s/x plaid that would be absurd and respectively if a long range 3/y had more range than an s/x long range that would be absurd. A model 3 performance with track mode being faster than a long range s with air suspension, cooled seats, etc etc. isn't a big deal for either of the targeted buyers.

If they are keeping the same range estimates as to not upset current 2170 owners, that means they will use less cells or have a bigger buffer for degradation. I would assume the new 4680 structural pack will be significantly lighter and thus translate to higher performance. They could stunt that performance and range via software but honestly with all the new competition coming out in the segment (ionic 5, ev6, gv60, q4 etron, id4, ix, eqs, lucid, rivian, etc etc.) they need something to keep them on top and some head turning specs on efficiency will solidify that. If they come out with 4680s and they turn out to be duds like all the naysayers here are predicting, I am pretty sure the other manufactures offer a more compelling product in terms of fit and finish/luxury. I personally think the 4680s are going to be awesome and will be the new benchmark to beat in the industry.

 

[dagug]

My point was that lighter weight vehicle does not mean that their will be a performance boost upgrade. Like they did they did with the $2k acceleration boost.

Not arguing that the car wouldn’t be faster. I am saying strictly that lighter weight does not imply that their will be an option to purchase a performance increase.

Ahh I see what you mean - and yeah I agree with you... the lighter battery definitely does not 100% mean there will be an option to purchase a perfomance increase - and furthermore might not even translate into any performance increase if they go with option 3 below. I think there's three potential scenarios when it comes to how Tesla handles the lighter batteries, with the first one being most likely imo.

1) You end up with more range/faster accel right out of the box. They update the specs on the website and if you're lucky enough to have the upgraded battery, you'll have upgraded specs.
2) They'll keep the specs the same but either acceleration boost will be even bigger or they'll have a second one available or something. Point being, they'll offer the increased speed/accel benefits behind a paywall.
3) They'll take the weight savings from the lighter battery and come out with the Model Y Beefy with 22" wheels that weight 60lbs each. (/s) But in all seriousness though, they could take the weight savings from the battery and then swap out existing components with heavier/cheaper parts to reduce manufacturing costs. End of the day, the new version would have pretty much the same range/acceleration and lower manufacturing cost, but with the better battery and some downgraded components that the consumer would likely never notice.

 

[samori01]

I feel like you guys are missing some points here. Why couldn't a model 3/Y PERFORMANCE be faster than an Long Range Model S? They're 2 separate classes of vehicles. Performance/Plaid vs Long Range. If a model 3/Y performance was faster than s/x plaid that would be absurd and respectively if a long range 3/y had more range than an s/x long range that would be absurd. A model 3 performance with track mode being faster than a long range s with air suspension, cooled seats, etc etc. isn't a big deal for either of the targeted buyers.

If they are keeping the same range estimates as to not upset current 2170 owners, that means they will use less cells or have a bigger buffer for degradation. I would assume the new 4680 structural pack will be significantly lighter and thus translate to higher performance. They could stunt that performance and range via software but honestly with all the new competition coming out in the segment (ionic 5, ev6, gv60, q4 etron, id4, ix, eqs, lucid, rivian, etc etc.) they need something to keep them on top and some head turning specs on efficiency will solidify that. If they come out with 4680s and they turn out to be duds like all the naysayers here are predicting, I am pretty sure the other manufactures offer a more compelling product in terms of fit and finish/luxury. I personally think the 4680s are going to be awesome and will be the new benchmark to beat in the industry.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 4680s are going to be duds. The argument is that the consumer isn't going to see much benefit from it, at least not in the short-term. I am not sure why the focus is on quickness/speed. As someone mentioned previously the motors are quite important to any motion of the vehicle. What I would think people would be suggesting is a "range boost". I am still firmly in the camp of there will not be any appreciable difference between the two to the consumer. I hope I am wrong.

 

[advocate8]

My guess is they will just shut Fremont down on MY once Austin is up to capacity. Then Fremont can focus on CT, Semi and Roadster.

except the CT will be built in Austin.

 

[dagug]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 4680s are going to be duds. The argument is that the consumer isn't going to see much benefit from it, at least not in the short-term. I am not sure why the focus is on quickness/speed. As someone mentioned previously the motors are quite important to any motion of the vehicle. What I would think people would be suggesting is a "range boost". I am still firmly in the camp of there will not be any appreciable difference between the two to the consumer. I hope I am wrong.

The focus on speed (side note, speed =/= acceleration. You can increase acceleration without increasing top speed. In fact, in traditional ICE vehicles, they are often inverse.) is due to presumed weight reduction improvements. The 4680s have better efficiency/capacity and therefore will smaller and thus require less weight to produce the same amount of power. So if there is no increase in available power, there will be a weight reduction, which should translate into increased acceleration (but not necessarily top speed... well maybe a bit since you're not changing gearing [no gears] and you're decreasing weight).

If they decide to keep the dimensions of the battery pack the same as the old, then arguably there will be more net stored power since you can "cram more power" into the same amount of space. There will not be much of a net reduction in weight in this case so that change would translate into more range instead.

 

[tm1v2]

In Elons world it is. One day it may happen but so far never has. Going on past history here.
Hey I’d love to see a sub 3 sec PM3 and a 3 sec PMY. Again I just feel they would only do this if the slowest MS is 2.6/2.7.

I’d love to be wrong here!

Exactly this.. Tesla would never allow the MY/M3 to cannibalize their more expensive models. This is why the M3/MY are configured the way they are.. the cars are capable of going much faster but are restricted via software - and for $2k you can dial it up a smudge.. proves my former point.

I've seen this rumor around these forums before and I'm really wondering where this idea comes from. An S 100D is slower than an M3P, at least for 0-60, not sure about higher speeds.

Yeah the new Palladium S base model is very very quick but I doubt any decision makers at Tesla care if M3P or MYP end up quicker. I'm sure the 3/Y won't be allowed to match the S/X top model (i.e. Plaid currently) for acceleration, but I'm very skeptical that the base Model S/X are untouchable. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

[charlesoris]

The 4680s have a longer life span and I would not mind getting one.

 

[tangible1]

Just my common sense and Teslas past practice. The new (4680) model Y performance we'll probably have the same performance statistics, to provide a level sales field with the Fremont. It will just be lighter and more rigid with the potential for better acceleration due to being lighter.

Weight is the key to acceleration. The 4680 contribution is indirect.
The structural pack replaces the floorpan for the new chassis. Saves weight, adds stiffness.
The front megacast, along with the rear megacast already in the v1.0 chassis, reduces weight further by replacing many stamped/welded steel parts.
How much total weight reduction isn't fully known yet and the new EPA docs only show 75lbs reduction for the MY SR, but there are more EPA certs coming.

So unless Tesla changes the motors in the MY (doesn't matter if it's a P or a LR), the primary thing the 4680 will likely bring to the table is reduced weight.
It will help. By how much, only Tesla knows, and they're not telling just yet.

 

[Tha_Ape]

I'm about to make a lot of assumptions, so I'm prepared to get smacked down here...

How does range loss physically manifest itself? Is it one of the 1000's of cells going bad or is it evenly spread across all cells? If its the former, it sounds like the 4680's might show a larger degradation as there are fewer cells each with higher capacities. if one goes bad, its worse than a 2170(?) cell going bad because there are fewer of them in a 4680.

Ok, I'm ready to get smacked now

 

[ScoobyDoo82]

I'm about to make a lot of assumptions, so I'm prepared to get smacked down here...

How does range loss physically manifest itself? Is it one of the 1000's of cells going bad or is it evenly spread across all cells? If its the former, it sounds like the 4680's might show a larger degradation as there are fewer cells each with higher capacities. if one goes bad, its worse than a 2170(?) cell going bad because there are fewer of them in a 4680.

Ok, I'm ready to get smacked now

This is akin to trying to determine the fate of a sports team during preseason. We can assume and speculate as much as we want, but time will tell! Obviously the technology has improved but we also know that Tesla is software restricting the range to keep the older (2170) customers happy. As they roll out updates to “unlock” more of 4860 capability it’s super hard to say. It’s probably going to have the capability to be faster, but only once Tesla allows it.

 

[chillmode]

I'm about to make a lot of assumptions, so I'm prepared to get smacked down here...

How does range loss physically manifest itself? Is it one of the 1000's of cells going bad or is it evenly spread across all cells? If its the former, it sounds like the 4680's might show a larger degradation as there are fewer cells each with higher capacities. if one goes bad, its worse than a 2170(?) cell going bad because there are fewer of them in a 4680.

Ok, I'm ready to get smacked now

That is a good question. Not sure what the answer is. Also, curious if the 4680s will have a lower likelihood of degradation. So there are a few variables to consider. So, IF the degradation happens to one cell, instead of a general reduction across all or many cells, AND the 4680s are just as susceptible to this degradation as the 2170s, then I agree.

I hope there is someone here that has some insight around this to help enlighten us. For some reason I am assuming that the degradation is more likely spread across multiple cells and the 4680s will be more resistant to this. I could be wrong though since I am basing this on nothing.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Are first Telsa's Y's with 4860's already shipped to clients? or when can we expect first reviews?

Zero 4680's in customer hands.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

I'm about to make a lot of assumptions, so I'm prepared to get smacked down here...

How does range loss physically manifest itself? Is it one of the 1000's of cells going bad or is it evenly spread across all cells? If its the former, it sounds like the 4680's might show a larger degradation as there are fewer cells each with higher capacities. if one goes bad, its worse than a 2170(?) cell going bad because there are fewer of them in a 4680.

Ok, I'm ready to get smacked now

Range loss is mostly aging of the cathode and anode across all the cells. A single bad cell could take out the entire pack (unbalanced voltage). Instead what you get is that after hundreds of cycles, all of the cells have some wear and tear at the microscopic level inside the cells chemistry which results in them not being able to store quite as much energy compared to brand new. Your 80 KWh pack becomes more like 75 KWh or so. Still works fine - just like a gas tank that simply has some sediment in the bottom which reduces it from 20 gallons to 18.

The dream of 4680 is that the more advanced cell design makes the accumulation of "sediment" much slower or almost a non-issue.

 

[advocate8]

Range loss is mostly aging of the cathode and anode across all the cells. A single bad cell could take out the entire pack (unbalanced voltage). Instead what you get is that after hundreds of cycles, all of the cells have some wear and tear at the microscopic level inside the cells chemistry which results in them not being able to store quite as much energy compared to brand new. Your 80 KWh pack becomes more like 75 KWh or so. Still works fine - just like a gas tank that simply has some sediment in the bottom which reduces it from 20 gallons to 18.

The dream of 4680 is that the more advanced cell design makes the accumulation of "sediment" much slower or almost a non-issue.

Elegant explanation. Perfect technical translation for laymen.

 

[Suns_PSD]

Would rather see a lower weight car, with the same range and power. It would naturally improve in performance with the weight being reduced.

Throw in some CF 18" aero performance wheels while they are at it as a proper performance option.

 

[TomServo]

I’m prepared to sell my 2020 Y and order a new Y the minute I can buy a Y with 4680 batteries so I have a vested interest in these discussions. But my question is:

How will Tesla sell Y’s being built in Fremont with the 2170 batteries and from Austin with 4680 batteries at the same time? Pricing, specs, performance, range?????

 

[ZenRockGarden]

I’m prepared to sell my 2020 Y and order a new Y the minute I can buy a Y with 4680 batteries so I have a vested interest in these discussions. But my question is:

How will Tesla sell Y’s being built in Fremont with the 2170 batteries and from Austin with 4680 batteries at the same time? Pricing, specs, performance, range?????

The current answer is: No one knows.

We will probably learn more at the April 9th Austin Factory event.

The two seemingly-likely scenarios are:

1. Tesla starts making 4680-based cars in Austin, but with range and performance roughly equal to existing 2170's and sold as simply MYLR

2. Tesla puts initial 4680 packs into the recently certified MYSR+ configuration with (ironically) lower range of 279 miles per EPA and somehow juggles shipping that at some unknown price alongside existing 2170-based MYLR cars.

Scenario 2 looks... very messy. I think they'll do (1) since other than us enthusiast-nuts, most people won't experience a huge difference in the cars

 

[Whatstreet]

The current answer is: No one knows.

We will probably learn more at the April 9th Austin Factory event.

The two seemingly-likely scenarios are:

1. Tesla starts making 4680-based cars in Austin, but with range and performance roughly equal to existing 2170's and sold as simply MYLR

2. Tesla puts initial 4680 packs into the recently certified MYSR+ configuration with (ironically) lower range of 279 miles per EPA and somehow juggles shipping that at some unknown price alongside existing 2170-based MYLR cars.

Scenario 2 looks... very messy. I think they'll do (1) since other than us enthusiast-nuts, most people won't experience a huge difference in the cars

Or, they build the Y at Fremont the same as Austin. Fremont is stocking up on castings. Fremont can make 4680 batteries, though I don't know how many. It would be far simpler to not have so many variations in manufacturing at the same time.