Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model Y - Gigafactory Texas Production

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
wasn't impressed by the recharge speed on that video.
With a SoC that low it should have been maintaining a much higher charge rate - my '18 Model 3 charges much faster when its starting at 10%.
That video showed it starting at 210 and rapidly falling off.
That charge pattern looks much more like a capacity limited small battery and not a software locked large battery.

Still really want an Austin car, just want that extra 50 mile range and the associated higher charge speeds.
 
That charge pattern looks much more like a capacity limited small battery and not a software locked large battery.

Where did you come up with software lock ?

I thought the charge curve per SoC looked poor, so it was not a matter of a smaller battery. Sometimes Tesla starts off new battery tech with a nerfed charging profile until they gain confidence in its performance. Another possibility is that the the cooling tech is still a work in progress.
 
Last edited:
wasn't impressed by the recharge speed on that video.
With a SoC that low it should have been maintaining a much higher charge rate - my '18 Model 3 charges much faster when its starting at 10%.
That video showed it starting at 210 and rapidly falling off.
That charge pattern looks much more like a capacity limited small battery and not a software locked large battery.

Still really want an Austin car, just want that extra 50 mile range and the associated higher charge speeds.
I could see Tesla having difficulties cooling the larger 4680 batteries and thus limiting the amount of time spent charging at the highest current. Would love to look behind the development current on 4680 and see what factors are driving their implementation (extra weight, lower peak charge current).
 
Where did you come up with software lock ?

I thought the charge curve per SoC looked poor, so it was not a matter of a smaller battery. Sometimes Tesla starts off new battery tech with a nerfed charging profile until they gain confidence in its performance. Another possibility is that the the cooling tech is still a work in progress.
He mentions it in the video as one of the reasons why the range was lower than an LR.
I thought I read it in here as well, but it just sounds like folks are hoping that's the case rather than having proof.

I could see Tesla having difficulties cooling the larger 4680 batteries and thus limiting the amount of time spent charging at the highest current. Would love to look behind the development current on 4680 and see what factors are driving their implementation (extra weight, lower peak charge current).
Sadly, the highest probability is that Tesla have just used fewer cells due to production issues and shipped lower range packs, all the other speculation is just hoping to find a hypothesis that supports shipping a bigger pack.
Folks are forgetting that Tesla have experience with this with the Model 3, it had newly developed cells, new pack etc and those early cars charged faster than Model S&X from the get go. I know because I still own mine.
I'd love to be wrong. I'm still holding out for a full Austin LR.
 
I think they do that to make registration taxes more manageable. In Minnesota my annual tax is calculated from the base MSRP before options. That means I'll pay tax on a $40k vehicle instead of a $60k vehicle.
Many state incentives are based on a max msrp. If msrp was $60k, they wouldn’t qualify. With msrp of $40k they will. Makes them more appealing to buyers if they qualify for rebates.

wasn't impressed by the recharge speed on that video.
With a SoC that low it should have been maintaining a much higher charge rate - my '18 Model 3 charges much faster when its starting at 10%.
That video showed it starting at 210 and rapidly falling off.
That charge pattern looks much more like a capacity limited small battery and not a software locked large battery.

Still really want an Austin car, just want that extra 50 mile range and the associated higher charge speeds.
As you mention later, the locked capcity line of thought was a pipe dream by those who fell hook line and sinker for the battery day hype. And aren’t willing to admit to the reality that 4680 only benefits Tesla from a cost and manufacturing standpoint. No benefit to consumers. Semi and CT don’t need sub 3.0 0-60 and high top speeds. More about overall capacity and ease of manufacturing to keep overall costs down on vehicles needing many more batteries than current ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: house9 and Twiglett
He mentions it in the video as one of the reasons why the range was lower than an LR.
I thought I read it in here as well, but it just sounds like folks are hoping that's the case rather than having proof.


Sadly, the highest probability is that Tesla have just used fewer cells due to production issues and shipped lower range packs, all the other speculation is just hoping to find a hypothesis that supports shipping a bigger pack.
Folks are forgetting that Tesla have experience with this with the Model 3, it had newly developed cells, new pack etc and those early cars charged faster than Model S&X from the get go. I know because I still own mine.
I'd love to be wrong. I'm still holding out for a full Austin LR.
Agree, I don't see any evidence for a software locked battery. Just commenting on possible explanation for extra weight and lower charging profile. Maybe we'll see higher charging current once more people take delivery and there are more data points. There has been lots of speculation that 4680 would deliver faster speeds but that doesn't seem to be the case thus far. And that makes sense to me, larger format battery is more difficult to cool. Maybe Tesla already has that solved and have limited peak current trying to be conservative initially. It will be interesting to see what we learn as time goes on.
 
Interesting article on Electrek about the charging profile. They note that, "[w]hen breaking it down, the 4680 battery cell actually appears to have at least a 10% higher peak C rate and average C rate" and also pointed that the 2170 MY had several software updates pushed out over time that increased the charging rate as more data became available.

 
EDIT: @oholladay beat me to it.

Elektrek's take: Tesla Model Y with new 4680 cells shows impressive potential for faster charging


"When it comes to the energy capacity, the vehicle accepted 59 kWh going from 9% state of charge to 97%. It’s hard to produce a perfect representation of the energy capacity of the vehicle, but it would put the usable capacity around 67 kWh.

As for the charging capacity, the new Model Y owner shared the details of his charging session:

  • 9 to 20 % in 3 minutes
  • 9 to 39% in 6 minutes
  • 9 to 50% in 12 minutes
  • 9 to 80% in 34 minutes
  • 9 to 90% in 40 minutes
  • 9 to 97% in 50 minutes
Going to 50% in roughly 30 minutes is excellent.

Some Tesla fans were disappointed by the fact that the vehicle peaked at 227 kW instead of the 250 kW that the Model Y with the 2170 cells can achieve, but we need to keep in mind that this battery pack has a much smaller energy capacity. When breaking it down, the 4680 battery cell actually appears to have at least a 10% higher peak C rate and average C rate.

Electrek’s Take​

I’d note that there could be room for improvements. After first launching the Model 3 and Model Y with the then-new 2170 cells, Tesla pushed several software updates over time that enabled higher charge rates. Now without further improvements, it is certainly not revolutionary in terms of improvements, but it is a good incremental improvement."
 
EDIT: @oholladay beat me to it.

Elektrek's take: Tesla Model Y with new 4680 cells shows impressive potential for faster charging


"When it comes to the energy capacity, the vehicle accepted 59 kWh going from 9% state of charge to 97%. It’s hard to produce a perfect representation of the energy capacity of the vehicle, but it would put the usable capacity around 67 kWh.

As for the charging capacity, the new Model Y owner shared the details of his charging session:

  • 9 to 20 % in 3 minutes
  • 9 to 39% in 6 minutes
  • 9 to 50% in 12 minutes
  • 9 to 80% in 34 minutes
  • 9 to 90% in 40 minutes
  • 9 to 97% in 50 minutes
Going to 50% in roughly 30 minutes is excellent.

Some Tesla fans were disappointed by the fact that the vehicle peaked at 227 kW instead of the 250 kW that the Model Y with the 2170 cells can achieve, but we need to keep in mind that this battery pack has a much smaller energy capacity. When breaking it down, the 4680 battery cell actually appears to have at least a 10% higher peak C rate and average C rate.

Electrek’s Take​

I’d note that there could be room for improvements. After first launching the Model 3 and Model Y with the then-new 2170 cells, Tesla pushed several software updates over time that enabled higher charge rates. Now without further improvements, it is certainly not revolutionary in terms of improvements, but it is a good incremental improvement."

That's slightly-weasel-y way to claim a better-charging rate. "well, yeah it doesn't charge quite as fast in actual kW, but since it's a smaller battery we can spin it that it gains "percent of max charge" a bit faster. Meh
 
That's slightly-weasel-y way to claim a better-charging rate. "well, yeah it doesn't charge quite as fast in actual kW, but since it's a smaller battery we can spin it that it gains "percent of max charge" a bit faster. Meh
That's the standard way to measure charge rate though.

It's about 20-30 miles less.
I see ~240-250 miles when doing strictly highway (70-80 mph). It looks like he was estimating about the same. Maybe the newer ones with the 82 kwh are different, though. Mine is the 75.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snow Drift
> That's the standard way to measure charge rate though.

Then just re-label "full" on the MYLR as the 80% point and presto - its "charging rate" is faster (for the same amount of range)
I think there’s sorta two separate points being made here.

1) The MYAWD has no advantage over the MYLR
2) A potential 4680 MYLR might charge slightly faster than the current variant.
 
I think there’s sorta two separate points being made here.

1) The MYAWD has no advantage over the MYLR
2) A potential 4680 MYLR might charge slightly faster than the current variant.

Understood, but it is annoying that the facts are the 4680 is observed to actually charge SLOWER in real world kilo-watts but is being spun to the opposite using smaller-pack-size scaling to make the "it charges faster" claim. A theoretical 4680 MYLR pack would have to compete at full-scale-percentage to hit "faster charging".