Model Y - Gigafactory Texas Production

[Ron J.]

Source / links please.

I think there has been some reading between the lines as far as 4680 cell performance or lack thereof, Below is what we do know.

During the 1at quarter 2022 earning call Drew and Elon responded to a question about the 4680 achieving the goals stated at battery day (Sept. 2019) by saying:
________________________________________________________________________
Martin Viecha: (22:03)
Okay, let’s go to the next question. Next question is how are the current 4680s performing versus expectations set during the battery day in terms of expected range increase and dollars per kilowatt hour?

Elon Musk: (22:15)
Yeah.

Drew: (22:16)
Yeah. We’re working in all the areas we shared on battery day and we have consistent progress across all of those areas towards achieving the five year cost trajectory goals for the costs within our control, but we do not control all of the commodity costs, so that’s an exception I need to call out. Similar to Model 3, it will take us several years to get rate and yields to the point where everything that we’ve discussed is achieved. Our priority was on simplicity and scale during our initial 4680 and structural battery ramps and as we attain our manufacturing goals, we will layer in new material technologies we are developing and higher range structural pack revisions.

Elon Musk: (23:02)
I think maybe in a nutshell, I think it probably is fair to say that 4680 and structural pack will be competitive with the best alternatives later this year and we think will exceed the best alternatives next year.
______________________________________________________________________________________

That final statement by Elon could be read to mean the 4680 performance is currently not quite at the level of the 2170 cells but it expected to improve to matching the 2170 performance by the end of 2022 and further improve to exceed the 2170 cell performance in 2023. However, Elon might have been just talking about the cost to manufacture MYs with the 4680 cells and structural battery pack vs. the current MYs using 2170 cells.

Also, the expected weight reduction predicted at battery day does not appear to have been realiized based as the vehicle weight numbers in the EPA certification document for the MY AWD (Std. range) are only a little less than the current MY LR and MY P models, both of which have a higher capaicty 2170 based battery pack.

 

[CRIMSON_DATE]

I think there has been some reading between the lines as far as 4680 cell performance or lack thereof, Below is what we do know.

During the 1at quarter 2022 earning call Drew and Elon responded to a question about the 4680 achieving the goals stated at battery day (Sept. 2019) by saying:
________________________________________________________________________
Martin Viecha: (22:03)
Okay, let’s go to the next question. Next question is how are the current 4680s performing versus expectations set during the battery day in terms of expected range increase and dollars per kilowatt hour?

Elon Musk: (22:15)
Yeah.

Drew: (22:16)
Yeah. We’re working in all the areas we shared on battery day and we have consistent progress across all of those areas towards achieving the five year cost trajectory goals for the costs within our control, but we do not control all of the commodity costs, so that’s an exception I need to call out. Similar to Model 3, it will take us several years to get rate and yields to the point where everything that we’ve discussed is achieved. Our priority was on simplicity and scale during our initial 4680 and structural battery ramps and as we attain our manufacturing goals, we will layer in new material technologies we are developing and higher range structural pack revisions.

Elon Musk: (23:02)
I think maybe in a nutshell, I think it probably is fair to say that 4680 and structural pack will be competitive with the best alternatives later this year and we think will exceed the best alternatives next year.
______________________________________________________________________________________

That final statement by Elon could be read to mean the 4680 performance is currently not quite at the level of the 2170 cells but it expected to improve to matching the 2170 performance by the end of 2022 and further improve to exceed the 2170 cell performance in 2023. However, Elon might have been just talking about the cost to manufacture MYs with the 4680 cells and structural battery pack vs. the current MYs using 2170 cells.

Also, the expected weight reduction predicted at battery day does not appear to have been realiized based as the vehicle weight numbers in the EPA certification document for the MY AWD (Std. range) are only a little less than the current MY LR and MY P models, both of which have a higher capaicty 2170 based battery pack.

The only way I read that statement is that they are talking about "five year cost trajectory goals for the costs within our control" What they are talking about is by the end of the year the cost of a 4680 Pack will be similar to that of a 2170 pack and by next year the 4680 will be cheaper to manufacturer then a 2170. This says nothing about performance of the batteries. Material cost and yeilds are their current problems.

 

[boulder.dude]

That final statement by Elon could be read to mean the 4680 performance is currently not quite at the level of the 2170 cells but it expected to improve to matching the 2170 performance by the end of 2022 and further improve to exceed the 2170 cell performance in 2023.

Translation: If you were waiting until 2022 to order an MY LR with a ‘superior’ 4680 battery pack, then you need to wait another year.

 

[MontyFloyd]

The only way I read that statement is that they are talking about "five year cost trajectory goals for the costs within our control" What they are talking about is by the end of the year the cost of a 4680 Pack will be similar to that of a 2170 pack and by next year the 4680 will be cheaper to manufacturer then a 2170. This says nothing about performance of the batteries. Material cost and yeilds are their current problems.

Agree.
Being a new design, new tooling is needed, and A LOT of that new tooling, as in THOUSANDS of 4680 making machines.
Once made and producing, the price-per-battery will go down (assuming that tooling is part of 4680 cost, which seems like it is)

 

[Mrbrock]

Source / links please.

For what? Look at the battery day slides. Then look at the epa certifications for how much energy Was used to get the 279 mile rating. You work backwards and you get pack size and range and weight savings then yiu can calculate what it would be for 82 kWh (current size) and its more weight than current. More weight at same capacity equals less range. The math has been done in prior posts of this thread. It’s long but you should read through it.

 

[TJ21CT]

For what? Look at the battery day slides. Then look at the epa certifications for how much energy Was used to get the 279 mile rating. You work backwards and you get pack size and range and weight savings then yiu can calculate what it would be for 82 kWh (current size) and its more weight than current. More weight at same capacity equals less range. The math has been done in prior posts of this thread. It’s long but you should read through it.

Then what would be the significance of a move to 4680? Why invest as a company?

 

[Mrbrock]

Then what would be the significance of a move to 4680? Why invest as a company?

Because in the long run it will be much cheaper. Even if they don’t realize the performance they expected and only match 2170, it will be cheaper to produce. 4680 is all about saving money and resources. Or switching to more available resources would probably be a better term. But the hype machines have focused more on performance because Tesla let some marketing hack put inflated numbers on the battery day slides. All of the numbers should have said “up to” 5x capacity. Etc. But they didn’t so people expected 4680 to be 20% better than 2170 in the same physical size hence the 400 mile range claims. Based on 279, 400 miles would need 43% more batteries if extra weight play 0 role in range. So more accurately, at least 50% more battery or 105kwh (estimated 69kwh in Austin 4680). Needing 105 kWh to get what people expected to get with about 90 is vastly underperforming based on battery day hype.

 

[MontyFloyd]

For what? Look at the battery day slides. Then look at the epa certifications for how much energy Was used to get the 279 mile rating. You work backwards and you get pack size and range and weight savings then yiu can calculate what it would be for 82 kWh (current size) and its more weight than current. More weight at same capacity equals less range. The math has been done in prior posts of this thread. It’s long but you should read through it.

It is simple, list your sources.
How hard is that?

Tesla had 2 (3?) battery days, and then you also mention an earnings call?
So, yes, list the sources, please.

 

[MontyFloyd]

Because in the long run it will be much cheaper. Even if they don’t realize the performance they expected and only match 2170, it will be cheaper to produce. 4680 is all about saving money and resources. Or switching to more available resources would probably be a better term. But the hype machines have focused more on performance because Tesla let some marketing hack put inflated numbers on the battery day slides. All of the numbers should have said “up to” 5x capacity. Etc. But they didn’t so people expected 4680 to be 20% better than 2170 in the same physical size hence the 400 mile range claims. Based on 279, 400 miles would need 43% more batteries if extra weight play 0 role in range. So more accurately, at least 50% more battery or 105kwh (estimated 69kwh in Austin 4680). Needing 105 kWh to get what people expected to get with about 90 is vastly underperforming based on battery day hype.

I agree with the fundamental production costs
Model Y has 4,416 cells in the 2170 format.
TxMY has approximately 847 cells in the 4680 format.
that is less than 1/5 the number of cells, that is massive cost savings.

So as you said, even if the energy density is not as good as equivalent number of 2170, the lower production costs is still a win, and other factors would not be diminished, so at very worst this is a WIN for Tesla. As best a WIN-WIN.

 

[CRIMSON_DATE]

and to be fair we know nothing about the energy density of the batteries. We don't know where the extra weight of the car is coming into play. and while we know the range of the car but we don't know the actual size of the battery pack ( how much is in reserve) .

I personally think that the energy density is known . You don't start mass producing batteries if the chemestry isn't setteled. They can still modify it to improve things furthur but this would be on top of their expectations not to meet them.

 

[blinkme323]

I think one of the other problems is that people get a little too caught up on 0-60 times (admittedly, myself included). At the end of the day though, the success/failure of the 4680s will hinge on cost efficiency for Tesla and energy/range efficiency for the consumer.

If performance increases as well, then it will be a convenient byproduct, but I wouldn't say it is likely for the first few years. Look no further than the Plaid, which is using packs that are a few generations old at this point. It would not shock me at all if Performance variants continue to use the "legacy" packs for years to come.

 

[Brolan]

The 4680 has been touted as this magical product all this time but the only magic it seems to have is helping Tesla’s bottom line.

 

[CMPT PAD]

The 4680 has been touted as this magical product all this time but the only magic it seems to have is helping Tesla’s bottom line.

I am from Missouri so someone has to prove to Tesla owners that the 4680 is the "magical product". It will take at least 3 yrs of empirical data in my technical world to provide performance trends
4680 will improve the bottom line of Tesla, but rarely cost reduction be transferred to end consumers until Tesla has to reduce pricing to compete. It's not if but when

 

[CRIMSON_DATE]

The 4680 has been touted as this magical product all this time but the only magic it seems to have is helping Tesla’s bottom line.

Remember , the 4680's were requirements for the Semi's and the Cybertruck mainly because of the energy density would save weight and they would be cheaper to produce ( so you aren't paying 30K for 150KW battery) There was never anything "MAGICAL" about it.

The structural Pack in the MY is a way for Tesla save money today and the potential to expand the range in a future varient but its use in the Y is secondary to the trucks.

 

[CyberGus]

The 4680 has been touted as this magical product all this time but the only magic it seems to have is helping Tesla’s bottom line.

I'm always amused by this argument, that somehow a manufacturers' cost-savings are not beneficial to the customers.

The Free Market does not care how much something costs to make, it is swayed by the value to consumers. Tesla sets prices based on supply and demand, just like everyone else. If they can make additional profit, then it strengthens their financial soundness, allowing for further investment and growth.

I would agree that "cutting corners" and reducing quality to save a few pennies is a horrible and self-defeating practice, but this usually happens when profit is lagging. That is not happening with the 4680.

 

[Brolan]

I'm always amused by this argument, that somehow a manufacturers' cost-savings are not beneficial to the customers.

The Free Market does not care how much something costs to make, it is swayed by the value to consumers. Tesla sets prices based on supply and demand, just like everyone else. If they can make additional profit, then it strengthens their financial soundness, allowing for further investment and growth.

I would agree that "cutting corners" and reducing quality to save a few pennies is a horrible and self-defeating practice, but this usually happens when profit is lagging. That is not happening with the 4680.

I’m amused at your straw man argument that has little to do with my post.

 

[Richbot]

Considering what a revelation in performance the 18650-based powertrain in the X/S refresh has been, I don't think "which cell" matters nearly as much as the Tesla clickbait would have us believe

 

[pepperoni]

I'm always amused by this argument, that somehow a manufacturers' cost-savings are not beneficial to the customers.

The Free Market does not care how much something costs to make, it is swayed by the value to consumers. Tesla sets prices based on supply and demand, just like everyone else. If they can make additional profit, then it strengthens their financial soundness, allowing for further investment and growth.

I would agree that "cutting corners" and reducing quality to save a few pennies is a horrible and self-defeating practice, but this usually happens when profit is lagging. That is not happening with the 4680.

Huh? If the free market doesn’t care how much something costs to make, then manufacturers’ cost savings ONLY benefits the manufacturers, NOT the customers.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

There are Austin vehicles licensed/registered and on the road. There are pictures of them in the wild driven by aTesla employees. This means they have passed whatever testing is needed or they wouldn’t be able to be registered and driven on the street.

And look up Tesla Model Y crash test info. They don’t do it every year. We know they switched to one piece rear cast at Fremont which would be a major structural change and there is no reported additional testing of Model Y since its introduction.


So they are double dog secret hiding all the cars there are producing where? We see them parked outside and being loaded onto transporters. Where are they going? Why has every single post from an owner of these vehicles been tied to a Tesla employee and immediately removed from whatever platform it was posted on? They are Model Y with the same wheels and dual motor badging as every LR MY produced in Fremont.

You can be as skeptical as you want but please provide a valid viable alternative as to what is happening to the hundreds of cars per week that Austin is producing. If you don’t have a viable alternative theory then the best theory is the one in front of you. It is known that Tesla energy around Austin is driving SR AWD MY as work vehicles. Employees have posted that they took delivery after/at the rodeo and those posts were taken down shortly after. , ,

The Austin Model Y's look exactly like every other Y out there. Not hard to "hide" them. Just slightly challenging to keep all the employees quiet, which they appear to have accomplished - I would imagine with a seriously sweet internal-testing-price on the car which you lose if you talk about fight club

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Considering what a revelation in performance the 18650-based powertrain in the X/S refresh has been, I don't think "which cell" matters nearly as much as the Tesla clickbait would have us believe

Actually 6000-odd small thin 18650 cells are -great- for power output and cooling. They're just not fun for cost of manufacturing and assembly which is what the 4680 is really all about.

The continuous-tab of the 4680 presents potential for lower resistance and thermal losses, which partially compensate for the inherently harder to cool thick chunky cylinder package. But the real deal is all about needing to make 8x fewer cells per car, and maybe getting rid of some redundant structural material around the pack.