All the speculation will get some resolution by the April 7 Austin GigaFest. If not sooner.
We can go on and on but we're all on hot air until the reveal.
We can go on and on but we're all on hot air until the reveal.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model Y - Gigafactory Texas Production
- Thread starter Ron J.
- Start date
Well.... I for one take offense. I’m not entirely Gigafactory hot air! Am also stuffed with a fair amount of Gigafactory BS.All the speculation will get some resolution by the April 7 Austin GigaFest. If not sooner.
We can go on and on but we're all on hot air until the reveal.
Mateo83
Active Member
Mrbrock
Well-Known Member
All the testing is done on a dyno, no wind, no resistance. These numbers are then adjusted with some factor to the ratings we know. Each range is a different cycle, Highway, urban, cold weather and these are combined and fudged (factored) to get the final rating.
It is the same one as the first one for the new AWD. It is a correction of the initial one.
Pg 55 of the 2/23 submittal. Look at the cover letter, it is the same as the one from 2/2. Tesla dates are the day before and the testing is from 1/27. The initial application is based on testing at Kato while the second one submitted for corrections was done at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory. Probably in conjunction with testing of the new chasis if this is in fact an Austin build, which looks highly likely.
I asked if people had looked deeply referring to the pictures of the underside of the car but didn't look at the obvious images to see the VIN, good spotting! Initial testing at Kato started with odometer at 2588. Testing at NVFEL started at 2988 (400 miles later)
As far as whether Tesla is trolling for clicks, the tag on the bottom of each slide would suggest otherwise. I assume they know the EPA posts these online once they have been approved but maybe they figure by that point there won't be any secrets. Or they hope the EPA just posts numbers and not the slides showing how to test.
-As the facts are pointed out, this is likely the first testing of an Austin Model Y
-It is being certified as a new variant of the AWD Model Y platform simply called Model Y AWD
-The battery appears to be 78.2 kwh including charging losses (28kwh/100miles and 279 mile range)
-For reference, 2022 MY LR AWD is 92.4 kwh including charging losses
-Weight is 25# less at 4356
-AWD has same motor spsecs as LR AWD, 91 kW front and 200 kW rear
-Battery specific energy of 180 wh/kg is the same as the initial 2022 submittal from 10/21/21
Conclusions
-Austin is making a different model with less range
-If charging losses are the same, the battery appears to have usable capacity of around 68 kwh (assuming 80 kwh for current LR AWD)
Confusions and Speculations
-The weight is less, battery specific energy is the same yet the apparent capacity is much less which seems the opposite of what should be coming out of Austin.
-The calculation of volts times battery capacity (in ah) should give wh (v * a = w). 360 x 235 = 84600. 84600 is higher than the amount charged including charging losses. If these numbers are correct, there is a much larger unusable buffer on these cars (16 kwh!). Dropping volts to 350 for the pack like other models gives 82.25kwh which is in line with what people have reported seeing in SMT and other data loggers. Still, 14kwh buffer is a lot. Makes you wonder if this is to allow for faster charging or if they need this extra buffer to protect the batteries as they have found some issues in manufacturing or in being able to reliably cool the larger cells over time.
IMO I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed or may not getting 4860 that only has 78 kWh that will give them 279 miles. Maybe not as they will enjoy getting the latest tech… just won’t go as far.
Next few weeks are going to be interesting
Heck, right now early Austin MYs need human power to move.
Agreed, there is still another shoe to drop here I think.
Probably just to help stem the massive amounts of orders they got last week and will probably continue to get this week. Could be a FOMO move too to get more people ordering cars, who knows why Tesla does what it does lmao
They are still limited by batteries, that is why athey are not selling the CT yet. The CT will neeed much more 4680' but they can sell a reduced range version which uses even less of the 4680's and still make as much money as they were making today with the 2170 packs installed. So once the 4680 plants get up to speed they will have another car to sell which does not change anything except the amount of batteries it needs.
My option, sounds like they are going to sell a shorter range model to start moving the 4680s they have with the Austin capacity (e.g. make some money/cash flow) until the 4680 production rates support cutting over the MYP and/or MYLR. It moves product while also providing a graceful transition to the current model Ys, limiting hold games and should reduce the number of pissed off customers that just miss out on existing reservations.
That’s my theory - that they’re slowly increasing prices on the LR and P to make a space for the shorter-range AWD one.
The specs on the new AWD don’t seem to match up to the efficiencies touted on the 4680s, so I would expect it to be an LFP battery, but we’ll see! I would totally switch one of my cars on order to an LFP one if that’s what it ends up being.
They did say they would ship 4680 out of Austin. They did not specify MYLR or MYP, we just assumed that . Given the amount of 4680's being produced it makes sense now that the austin car is this new lower range varient . They will likely price it where the LR was last summer so they will make just as much money as they are making today.
Farslasher
Member
Sad but understanding sort of, they potentially will come out with a cheaper model that is affordable that is now the price that a lot of us paid 7 months ago when we ordered or even more basically making it unaffordable.
On a side note, I looked at ordering my mom a crossover/suv that is 4x4 or awd for Michigan winters and the cheapest one you can really get is about 31k still 24k cheaper than the cheapest awd Tesla. All cars are getting expensive but electric is still luxury/for people who have assets or more income.
12000 miles would cost 461.5 gallons of gas = $1,846.15 dollars a year * 10 years = $18,465 totaling $49k.
So if you keep the car over 10 years yeah you can definitely come close to being more affordable if not favorable however the issue here is most people don’t have the assets to pay up front or even is 5-6 years for this car which is why people have to buy the gas cars which bring that monthly payment down significantly.
The specs that were spun pretty hard at battery day have always been suspicious. And I think I for one have been too optimistic about the 4680s being a better battery right out of the gate.
Last edited:
It had zero to do with secretary of state. zero. kind of thing that only happens in movies.
And not the way Elon makes business decisions. He has more information about Tesla suppliers than the government ever could.
Sharp stuff, Brock. Next level. Thanks for hacking through it. The resubmission is the critical piece of information that the hype machine on YouTube and Twitter totally missed. If the much vaunted 4680 Austin cars start this way, they are going to flip out.
It does make sense that 4680s would initially be a messy thing at first and maybe in a year and a half or two years grow at least partly into the much hyped Uber-battery role they’ve been seen as.
It won’t be hugely cheaper and with “house-made” batteries may have similar profit margins. It also may be if the battery has to be run with the buffer size Brock describes in his analysis above ... yielding 280 miles for just 25 lbs less (about the savings I expected from the front casting) ... then an MYLR or MYP with these batteries would be a heavy pig. This seems unlikely and there’s def plenty of mystery still hanging out there though.
Similar threads
