Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • The final cut of TMC Podcast #21 is available now. We covered the recent wide release of FSD Beta and shared our experiences. We also discussed the best times to charge and Tesla's official CCS adapter. You can watch it on YouTube.

Model Y - Gigafactory Texas Production

the Peabody MY is VIN 000194, an AWD, not LR.
So not an example we can learn from.
Yes it is. They need to see where to look to see if the LR from Austin are using the front casting. I am not saying to see if the Peabody MY has the front casting because as it is a MY AWD it has the front casting. But using it as a demonstrator to compare to Austin LR is perfect. People think they need to disassemble the frunk or remove wheels to verify the casting and this is just false. Someone just needs to take snaps inside the front wheel well of an Austin LR MY and we can compare to Austin MY AWD and Fremont LR MY to see what construction they are using. Simple. Fast.
 
No, a waste would be standing up a duplicate of an outdated process that requires hundreds of extra parts/robots, and welding. The casting isn't what is holding up 4680 based vehicle production.
I am hoping they combined a few processes and are using the front megacast attached to the current floorpan and 2170 battery assembly just like they swapped out the multitude of rear pieces for the rear megacast. That would eliminate all your extra parts and robots and save re-engineering the 2170 battery pack.

Front megacasts were produced long before any of the floorless bodies in white were made and transported to Austin. Without those floorless bodies, they’d have nothing to match up the front megacasts to (or rear for that matter) so they designed them based on what they were currently producing, Fremont MY with standard 2170 pack. There may have been so,Ed early prototypes of 4680 packs at Kato but logic follows that if they designed the rear megacast to work with 2170, why wouldn’t they do the same with the front? They had to know they weren’t going to switch all production to 4680 in the near future so shipping all those front casts to Fremont was just a waste of money if they aren’t compatible with 2170. Anyone who suggests the front megacasts will only work with 4680 are ignoring the timeline and facts. The structural 4680 pack likely came after the megacasts so it was made to match them. Likely they were easier to integrate in the 4680 assembly process since it was brand new from scratch so they started using the there.

For those of you who need this disclaimer, the above is my belief based on the facts as we know them and what logically follows. If you don’t believe in facts and logic, enjoy the 500 mile MY LR+ you are currently driving…
 
I am hoping they combined a few processes and are using the front megacast attached to the current floorpan and 2170 battery assembly just like they swapped out the multitude of rear pieces for the rear megacast. That would eliminate all your extra parts and robots and save re-engineering the 2170 battery pack.

Front megacasts were produced long before any of the floorless bodies in white were made and transported to Austin. Without those floorless bodies, they’d have nothing to match up the front megacasts to (or rear for that matter) so they designed them based on what they were currently producing, Fremont MY with standard 2170 pack. There may have been so,Ed early prototypes of 4680 packs at Kato but logic follows that if they designed the rear megacast to work with 2170, why wouldn’t they do the same with the front? They had to know they weren’t going to switch all production to 4680 in the near future so shipping all those front casts to Fremont was just a waste of money if they aren’t compatible with 2170. Anyone who suggests the front megacasts will only work with 4680 are ignoring the timeline and facts. The structural 4680 pack likely came after the megacasts so it was made to match them. Likely they were easier to integrate in the 4680 assembly process since it was brand new from scratch so they started using the there.

For those of you who need this disclaimer, the above is my belief based on the facts as we know them and what logically follows. If you don’t believe in facts and logic, enjoy the 500 mile MY LR+ you are currently driving…
You are correct that new BiW (body in white) chassis examples were shipped to Austin (and Berlin btw) from Fremont last summer.
As for whether the chicken or egg came first, it's doubtful it matters. The new chassis bits were all designed together.
Only the chassis shipments to Austin were shown to be 'floorless'. Not the ones to Berlin, but the video documentation of that factory building wasn't as comprehensive.

Elon said long ago that a 2170 version of the structural pack was designed, and intended as a backup plan in case 4680 was delayed (hello! it ain't soup yet)
Further, the Giga Berlin and Austin open house events showed both packs - the 4680 and 2170.
The difference in implementation was the 2170 pack requires a chassis floorpan, while the 4680 pack IS the floorpan.

Consequently, the fabrication process for the two chassis is different, and sufficiently so that two lines (or a carve-out line) would be necessary in the factory.
If you really sit down and look at the process, the addition of the floorpan changes how all the follow-on bits (like dashboard, seats, the whole interior) come together.
Without a floorpan, it's clearly simpler and faster, requiring fewer steps and robots. It's easy to see why Tesla would be reluctant.

However, you are also correct in assessing that front megacasts can be used with either pack.
It's conjecture, but it seems that the added steps for the 2170 pack negate the time/process/cost savings of the newer chassis design, so Tesla has been reluctant to implement it.

Which brings us to: we would like to see an MiT (made in TX) MYLR to confirm or deny whether they're using front megacasts, or not.
Personally, I'd like to see a 2170-based structural pack chassis, as it's a step forward with several benefits.
But I don't think they're doing it.....logistics, order backlog risks.....there are many issues.
 
You are correct that new BiW (body in white) chassis examples were shipped to Austin (and Berlin btw) from Fremont last summer.
As for whether the chicken or egg came first, it's doubtful it matters. The new chassis bits were all designed together.
Only the chassis shipments to Austin were shown to be 'floorless'. Not the ones to Berlin, but the video documentation of that factory building wasn't as comprehensive.

Elon said long ago that a 2170 version of the structural pack was designed, and intended as a backup plan in case 4680 was delayed (hello! it ain't soup yet)
Further, the Giga Berlin and Austin open house events showed both packs - the 4680 and 2170.
The difference in implementation was the 2170 pack requires a chassis floorpan, while the 4680 pack IS the floorpan.

Consequently, the fabrication process for the two chassis is different, and sufficiently so that two lines (or a carve-out line) would be necessary in the factory.
If you really sit down and look at the process, the addition of the floorpan changes how all the follow-on bits (like dashboard, seats, the whole interior) come together.
Without a floorpan, it's clearly simpler and faster, requiring fewer steps and robots. It's easy to see why Tesla would be reluctant.

However, you are also correct in assessing that front megacasts can be used with either pack.
It's conjecture, but it seems that the added steps for the 2170 pack negate the time/process/cost savings of the newer chassis design, so Tesla has been reluctant to implement it.

Which brings us to: we would like to see an MiT (made in TX) MYLR to confirm or deny whether they're using front megacasts, or not.
Personally, I'd like to see a 2170-based structural pack chassis, as it's a step forward with several benefits.
But I don't think they're doing it.....logistics, order backlog risks.....there are many issues.
This is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. Thanks for spelling out all the minor intricacies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: advocate8
Does the floor pan add more structural integrity to the 2170 pack to make up for the lack of the robust can of the 4680?

The 2170 pack is not designed to carry structural load, so yes its contained by surrounding pieces which do that job.

As discussed, there are two main options for a Texas MYLR. You either make em pretty much like Fremont with the existing 2170 pack design, or you create a new third kind of battery pack that somehow puts the shorter 2170 cells into the format of a 4680 pack with enough added material inside the pack to allow it to do the structural job.... which is charming from an assembly standpoint and pretty messy from an engineering perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerbyCityY

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
19,442
48,336
Oregon
As discussed, there are two main options for a Texas MYLR. You either make em pretty much like Fremont with the existing 2170 pack design, or you create a new third kind of battery pack that somehow puts the shorter 2170 cells into the format of a 4680 pack with enough added material inside the pack to allow it to do the structural job.... which is charming from an assembly standpoint and pretty messy from an engineering perspective.
Or they make a structural load floor assembly that accepts a standard 2170 pack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerbyCityY
I just picked my 2022 Austin built MY LR. I stuck a magnet rod to the inter fender and it stuck. It’s not aluminum. Therefore, I believe my very recently built MY LR does not have the casting.
Thank you for checking.

Can’t believe they still want to build this:
1660020353780.png

when they could be building this:
1660020295252.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerbyCityY
The 2170 pack is not designed to carry structural load, so yes its contained by surrounding pieces which do that job.

As discussed, there are two main options for a Texas MYLR. You either make em pretty much like Fremont with the existing 2170 pack design, or you create a new third kind of battery pack that somehow puts the shorter 2170 cells into the format of a 4680 pack with enough added material inside the pack to allow it to do the structural job.... which is charming from an assembly standpoint and pretty messy from an engineering perspective.
Why does everyone insist the front megacast is so different than the rear? They swapped the rear in without a structural pack. Why wouldn’t the front be the same? 2170 Fremont isn’t structural so why won’t the front megacast bolt onto the existing Fremont platform? You keep saying it won’t but not why. And please dont say because it requires a structural pack. Why is this so? What about the front megacast doesn’t allow it to bolt to the existing structural parts of the 2170 chassis?
 
Or they make a structural load floor assembly that accepts a standard 2170 pack.
They already have a structural load floor assembly. They have had them since 2020. It is also confusing since the “floor” of the 2170 that is structural is above the battery. The battery bolts to the underside of this structural floor. By bolting this floor in you make it structural then the battery attaches to it. Notice how similar it is to the 4680 pack top.
1660021378866.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike
Thank you for checking.

Can’t believe they still want to build this:
View attachment 838427
when they could be building this:
View attachment 838426
Nice get on the assembly docs.
I'm sure Tesla would prefer to be making the newer chassis exclusively. Time/Cost/Quality etc etc benefits.
However, mice and men haven't gotten a handle on 4680 battery manufacturing at volume as yet. It's on Elon time.
And so, the muddle. It could be better, but the MY seems to sell pretty well as it is.
It seems the addition of yet another MY product iteration adds more 'other' complications than the manufacturing process benefits can cover for.
Perhaps it'll all work out after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: advocate8
Why does everyone insist the front megacast is so different than the rear? They swapped the rear in without a structural pack. Why wouldn’t the front be the same? 2170 Fremont isn’t structural so why won’t the front megacast bolt onto the existing Fremont platform? You keep saying it won’t but not why. And please dont say because it requires a structural pack. Why is this so? What about the front megacast doesn’t allow it to bolt to the existing structural parts of the 2170 chassis?

I know it feels nice to think of it as "just use the front mega-cast and throw the 2170 pack behind it" but those mega casts include all kinds of detailed formed bolt points, fittings, even cable-routing details in them and the front and top of the packs are simply not identical enough to think that everything would just work. Yes, you certainly could make changes in either the 2170 pack or the front mega-cast to get there. Since there's an incredibly finite supply of mega-cast machines, my assumption is that you either go with a stock 2170 pack and the matching Fremont style surrounding pieces, or you modify the 2170 pack sufficient to make it a drop-in replacement for the 4680 pack including bolting up to the front mega-cast.

It would be great if you could just put a 4680 front cast on a stock 2170 pack - I just don't think that the details work.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
19,442
48,336
Oregon
I know it feels nice to think of it as "just use the front mega-cast and throw the 2170 pack behind it" but those mega casts include all kinds of detailed formed bolt points, fittings, even cable-routing details in them and the front and top of the packs are simply not identical enough to think that everything would just work. Yes, you certainly could make changes in either the 2170 pack or the front mega-cast to get there
So you think the Tesla engineers are so inept that when they knew they were going to be making both 2170 and 4680 based vehicles at GigaTexas that they designed a front casting that was incompatible with one of them? :eek: o_O

Where is your proof that the front of the packs are so different? (The top really doesn't matter, of course it is different one has the floor as part of it and the other has the floor separate.)
 
I just picked my 2022 Austin built MY LR. I stuck a magnet rod to the inter fender and it stuck. It’s not aluminum. Therefore, I believe my very recently built MY LR does not have the casting.
It would seem then that Tesla Fremont and Austin factories are being consistent with their MYLR chassis builds.

The conclusion I would draw from this evidence is that the MY AWD is a proof-of-concept and production line validating vehicle for now.
Further, that Tesla will not build v2.0 MYLR chassis (F+R castings and structural pack) until 4680 manufacturing volume can fully support it.

Since the Austin Cathode plant won't be done until early calendar 2023, it's hard to see that volume available until well after the CT launches.
And, the planned U.S.-based Panasonic 4680 factory won't be completed construction until summer 2024. So no relief there.

CT, SEMI, Roadster 4680 needs must be concurrently supported with the MY, and they launch next spring/summer.
There's a lot riding on getting 4680 volume ramped up.

There's a wildcard in the mix, however.
That being Tesla's desire (and need) to develop multiple battery chemistry solutions for their vehicles, particularly the M3 and MY volume products.
Which may bring us back to the 2170 pack floorpan-required chassis with F+R castings (v1.5 chassis type).
This would enable Tesla to expand the MY model line to multiple range designations, such as SR (LFP), MR (??), LR (2170) and XR (4680), at increasing price points.

Lots to see.
 
So you think the Tesla engineers are so inept that when they knew they were going to be making both 2170 and 4680 based vehicles at GigaTexas that they designed a front casting that was incompatible with one of them? :eek: o_O

Where is your proof that the front of the packs are so different? (The top really doesn't matter, of course it is different one has the floor as part of it and the other has the floor separate.)

No one said inept. Simply that the two designs are unlikely to be identical and the mega-cast doesn't have any option to have "oh here's the 11 extra bolt points and 7 cable/cooling routing clearances that the non structural 2170 pack expects and are not identical on the 4680" because there's one huge press making the mega-casts one way.

PS there's no need to get upset and yell about proof - we're having a discussion, with people's opinions here. I'm saying this is what I think is likely, not claiming I have gods word on it.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
19,442
48,336
Oregon
PS there's no need to get upset and yell about proof - we're having a discussion, with people's opinions here. I'm saying this is what I think is likely, not claiming I have gods word on it.
Ok, but the way you said things it was not an opinion, you stated it as fact that the packs were too different to be compatible on one production line. If you had just said that it was your opinion that they were too different I wouldn't have asked for proof of your assertion of facts.

I'm saying that I think Tesla fully knew how things were going to go and planned ahead, such that the front casting would be compatible for using either a structural 4680, or non-structural 2170, pack.
 
Ok, but the way you said things it was not an opinion, you stated it as fact that the packs were too different to be compatible on one production line. If you had just said that it was your opinion that they were too different I wouldn't have asked for proof of your assertion of facts.

I'm saying that I think Tesla fully knew how things were going to go and planned ahead, such that the front casting would be compatible for using either a structural 4680, or non-structural 2170, pack.

Here's my exact quote:

"It would be great if you could just put a 4680 front cast on a stock 2170 pack - I just don't think that the details work."

That sure seems presented as an opinion, which is what it is.

Teslas "plan" was to roll forward with 4680 cells for MYLR in Texas, and it didn't converge - they've gone with some kind of backup 2170 based plan, which is what we're speculating about, and as a backup plan might not be ideal.
 

Yelobird

Active Member
Aug 24, 2020
1,033
1,365
Illinois
Here's my exact quote:

"It would be great if you could just put a 4680 front cast on a stock 2170 pack - I just don't think that the details work."

That sure seems presented as an opinion, which is what it is.

Teslas "plan" was to roll forward with 4680 cells for MYLR in Texas, and it didn't converge - they've gone with some kind of backup 2170 based plan, which is what we're speculating about, and as a backup plan might not be ideal.
But do you have proof your opinion wasn’t assumed or a theory? Lol. Everyone on this forum is Guessing and any point should be assumed as an opinion. There is no award for being right or wrong. It’s not happening now and we will in time find out when it does.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
19,442
48,336
Oregon
Here's my exact quote:

"It would be great if you could just put a 4680 front cast on a stock 2170 pack - I just don't think that the details work."

That sure seems presented as an opinion, which is what it is.

But here is where you state as facts that the batteries are too different:

I know it feels nice to think of it as "just use the front mega-cast and throw the 2170 pack behind it" but those mega casts include all kinds of detailed formed bolt points, fittings, even cable-routing details in them and the front and top of the packs are simply not identical enough to think that everything would just work. Yes, you certainly could make changes in either the 2170 pack or the front mega-cast to get there.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top