The question that Tesla is asking themselves is how do we solve the puzzle of battery constraint? AKA make the largest amount of cars using the least amount of batteries? To be more efficient. You figure for every 1.5 to 2 standard range cars equals one long range car. I'm just purely guessing. But the point is they're trying to solve the formula cost versus quantity sustainable car manufacturing. And it just seems like long range is not the most efficient model for the current state of battery supply. The analogy here is look at a bag of potato chips. Manufactured takes out a few more chips for the bag lowering the ounces just slightly that consumers notice but learn to accept that they're getting less chips per bag. But not much you can do right? You have to accept the fact of buying that bag of Chips. If you want more potato chips then you have to spend more money and buy the bigger bag. What they're just basically tweaking their manufacturing formula is all I'm saying. They could manufacture and set up the car line all they want but the batteries is where the bottleneck will ultimately be. Hopefully we all get our cars soon because the current ev situation is not sustainable cost wise in the long run.
-
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
diep89
Member
Tesla Model Y Standard Range AWD to be priced at $59,990 USD, set to launch in the coming weeks
Tesla started deliveries of the new Model Y Standard Range AWD made at Giga Texas last week, delivering up to 20 of the cars at the Cyber Rodeo. We already know the electric SUV is […]
driveteslacanada.ca
$59,990 for MY Standard Range AWD
BGOwner
Active Member
Wow, 3k is not much cheaper. What is the incentive to go with the SR then? Well, delivery time, at least at first.Tesla Model Y Standard Range AWD to be priced at $59,990 USD, set to launch in the coming weeks
Tesla started deliveries of the new Model Y Standard Range AWD made at Giga Texas last week, delivering up to 20 of the cars at the Cyber Rodeo. We already know the electric SUV is […]
$59,990 for MY Standard Range AWD
Parcel cover and magnetic console…
There’s massive disapproval / unhappiness over this price point over on Twitter and much discussion of how close it is to LR price, and if that means another LR price hike is coming.Tesla Model Y Standard Range AWD to be priced at $59,990 USD, set to launch in the coming weeks
Tesla started deliveries of the new Model Y Standard Range AWD made at Giga Texas last week, delivering up to 20 of the cars at the Cyber Rodeo. We already know the electric SUV is […]
$59,990 for MY Standard Range AWD
I don’t know what to think about it. It’s not a car I’d want, really, so I can’t get excited one way or the other.
Someone makes a good point that the pricing may be really sucky, but as long as Tesla can sell more than its making, it makes sense for it to make more money and reinvest in production facilities that can eventually be turned to putting out volumes of cars at more affordable price points.
Some of the other more interesting discussion is about whether this means batteries, 4680 or otherwise, are already becoming the main constraint and Telsa is trying to figure out how to make 1.25 cars or whatever with same amount.
It’s kind of mind-numbing to try to think through -- especially without any official projects on ramp-up, word on the nature and timing of any switchover at Fremont, word on whether LR will continue to be offered etc...
It does though smell like a price hike is coming.
Last edited:
A
s someone waiting on a 330 miles MYLR, that is a terrible deal. Plus that is the more popular model right now, no way they dump it for a low range and performance only.
I kind of wonder if this is Osborne-prevention. They need to ramp Austin, and Austin makes 4680 cars. But even if there's a small difference in 2170 vs 4680 cars, you can imagine people holding out. This way they can ramp Austin and *only* when it is going well, they can retool Fremont and shift all LR to 4680 as well. So this price point allows them to sell the # of cars they can make currently, doesn't cannibalize LR orders. Given they are churning out cars as fast as possible, it doesn't make a ton of sense to sell anything much cheaper...
As someone who also is waiting on an LR -- and one ordered at a couple of thousand under that -- I’m right there with you.
If it didn’t mean resetting my order and waiting till 2023 though I’d happily pay another $5k for that parcel shelf...
Highly unlikely that Fremont will shift to 4680 anytime in the next couple years. (What would they do with all of the 2170s that Panasonic is producing?) Remember they are cell constrained, and have delayed new products as a result.
Mrbrock
Active Member
Pure speculation on his part based on EPA recharge values. I have never seen a 98wh/4680 number mentioned and he acts like its on the internet for everyone to see (probably based on 5x power numbers from battery day). See below for more accurate analysis. Also pretty sure current LR packs are 82kwh, not 81kwh.
That image was posted in This thread in March amd in the main battery thread in the M3 forum around the same time where the most knowledgeable battery people tend to hang out. No responses in over a month.
Totally agree. Perpetuating the battery day overhype of 4680. Current 2170L are about 5000 mah at 3.7V which is 18.5wh. From battery day, 5x this is 92.5wh. If Tesla was getting more than 5x increase they’d be talking about it in a big way. We have heard 69kwh for this new AWD pack. That is about 83.3 wh per cell, about 4.5x current cells which is much more in line with the hushed marketing of the current 4680. It’s about 90% of what they expected but that isn’t exactly something you tell everyone.
Looking at this price in relation to current orders assumes everyone who is buying a MY needs 330 miles of range and doesn’t care how much money they spend. Since there is no current RWD standard available, the current LR is the entry level model. People who feel they need the extra space and height of the MY over the M3 have only the LR to consider. For many people, saving any money and still getting a MY would fulfill their need. Some people are stretching to make the LR fit their budgets. Saving $3k would be huge for them. Its not as good a value but it still represents savings and fits under many state rebate programs’ ceilings.
Agree. And they’d need to shut Fremont Y production down since there’s not enough 4680 to produce at both factories.
Maybe not. But there's a benefit to selling only a single design of a car, especially since they've said it's cheaper for them. Regardless, I find it hard to imagine that Austin won't ultimately make 4680 LR. It's the most popular version of their most popular car, after all...
We are thinking in the same way. I believe it's pretty clear their MIT AWD pricing strategy has two objectives 1) somewhat limit crossover/holds from exiting LR orders 2) exploit 4680 hype and charge a premium for it. They can't have a mixed LR battery config at two factories, so you want in on all the hype... pay for it. You want MIT, pay for it. Once the hype normalizes, and the MIT and LR backlogs normalize, look for a cutover point where both factories can produce the same. I think there is a lot of value in 330 and "long range" from both a practically and marketing/psychological standout (range anxiety) so at crossover the LR lives on while the MIT AWD trim dies, so my question is, at that cross over point do they have to increase cells, or is there a sw update to recapture 330? I wouldn't be surprised if the crossover point is a year plus down the road... there stability in the 2170 battery and I'm guessing lots of stock/purchase commitments to burn down.
Given it's been reported from a number of sources that Fremont literally has thousands of MY front mega-castings in stock, these are a clear sign that Fremont will be making a change-over to the new chassis, which also requires a structural battery pack. The two questions are when will this happen and will they start off using the backup plan with a structural battery pack containing 2170 cells rather than 4680 cells (as is already being done at gigaberlin). I suspect (i.e., pure speculation) this change over to the ver. 2.0 chassis will happen within the next month or two. As for what cell will be used this will probably depend on how fast gigatexas can ramp up 4680 production. Elon did say at cyber rodeo (and shown in a video) that 4680 cells and structural battery packs are now being produced in Austin. Perhaps battery production in Austin will ramp up much faster than vehicle production and in that case Austin may be able to supply batteries to Frement to go along with 4680 production at the Kato Rd. factory.
This would at least make sense of why seemingly every MYP EDD has been pushed back as of late. Most of the April deliveries look like end of March rejects.
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
There's about a 0% chance those aren't coming to Fremont production in the next few months.
That's a great thought. Also seems to lend credence to why the drone footage on YT has noted a significant decrease in car output at Fremont since EOQ push...has to make one wonder. Also interesting that most of the Tesla galleries are now without vehicles in their showrooms. I see a few Model S deliveries coming through, but otherwise it's empty.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
I would imagine you can adopt the front mega-cast without doing anything different with the battery if you want.
Yeah, went to the Tesla store this weekend, forgot to take a pic though
, but yeah it was empty, scary, not sure what happened, they sold all their cars, this usually happens EOQ, or something's happening?Similar threads
