That wasn't an internal memo. That was a consulting firm making stuff up... (i.e. their predictions, and it covered more than just Tesla.)
-
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
As someone that has come to the Y from the X/S side of the house, this totally reminds me of when the 2170s were first released. Literally, non-stop talk about when the 2170s would go into the X/S and guess what, 5 years later and that still hasn't happened and likely never will.
I honestly think that we could be in the nascent stages of Tesla developing a battery tier system where the 4680 is their budget tier, 2170 mid and 18650 as their top tier. Time will tell though
I honestly think that we could be in the nascent stages of Tesla developing a battery tier system where the 4680 is their budget tier, 2170 mid and 18650 as their top tier. Time will tell though
I actually think this thread has made me a little less gullible about Tesla official spin. And there are some pretty savvy people who have posted a lot here dissecting the nature of the 4680 and castings etc that is helpful to understanding them in a fair and honest way with the battery day spin etc is peeled away.
I think the 18650 not being replaced has more to do with Tesla not wanting to redesign the S&X for the new batteries or cooling systems given the quantity produced. I do agree that the MYLR & P are not likely to see the 4680's (or it will be at least 4 years away if they do). The 4680's at this point are just in short supply and they are going into the Cybertruck and the Semi next year. The CT tri-motor was listed as having a faster 0-60 then the M3P and was almost twice its weight . We won't know the real specs until next year (and they are starting with the Quad motor) but the batteries in the CT and the Semi will need to be top tier to take off road and pull heavy loads.
They will ultimately be the budget battery for tesla since they will make them inhouse .
My prediction is that the Austin MY AWD with 4680 is actually software locked for battery capacity, and is actually the (unannounced) MY LR AWD with 4680. After Austin 4680 production ramps up in about 6 months, suddenly the 2170 will disappear from the MY LR, and both Fremont and Austin will install 4680 in MY LR AWD. Then all the MY AWD from Austin will get a software update and become MY LR AWD with range above 300 miles.
That's wishful thinking at best. Tesla has no reason to do that.
Actually there are 3 reasons why Tesla would software lock the new 4680 Y to hold back the range.
1) Testing the new battery safely. The battery cell and pack are both new, so they want to use the middle part of the battery for charging, driving, testing for a few months, later they will unlock to add more acceleration and range.
2) Continue to sell the Fremont LR Y. With this lower range in the AWD Y from Austin, people will still buy the Fremont LR Y for the longer range, while they confirm the new battery pack is safe driving from 100% down to 0%, the yield on 4680 cells ramps up, and they convert equipment in Fremont.
3) Simplicity in ordering and building the Y. Currently in the US they only sell LR and Performance, only 2 versions of the Y. This is still true today on the website. Maybe they will only sell these 2 versions for the foreseeable future.
If we could just wish it, but sadly much more likely not.
1) Tesla have had lots and lots of previous experience with new cells and have released new cell/packs multiple times with Model S, X and 3 - yet not once have they released a car with a software lock "in order to test" the cells. What they have consistently done is release the pack and modified the charge characteristics as they get data back from the cars.
2) We already know that 4680 production is constrained and is the biggest limiting factor in Austin production. We know this because the other factories not using this cell are rapidly ramping up production. Making a fully populated pack and software limiting it would just compound the problem even further. Even more, we also know that structural battery pack is built for 4860 and that it isn't just a case of slapping in some 2170s to make it all fit together.
3) The reason for Y-AWD being regional and offered "off book" has been repeated for pretty much every car Tesla have released. All initial Model 3 customers where close to Fremont.
OK but let's look at a couple more factors. Did you know that the 4680 pack on the Austin Y still has strong battery regeneration after being charged to 100% ? See Youtube video about that here:
Also, Tesla has only ever introduced new battery cells 3 times.
Model S (18650) and Model 3 (2170) : In both cases, The entire car was brand new, so they tested the motors, wiring, HVAC, software at the same time as the battery. But for Model Y (4680) the car is mature with 3 years of production already. Only the battery and front casting is new. So they can slowly test the new battery while producing cars for customers and ramping up 4680 cell production.
Let me pose a question to you : If you had designed a new long range 4680 battery pack with 300 miles of range, would you:
1) Release it with 300 miles of range, which competes with your Fremont Model Y? Or would you
2) Release it with 279 miles of range, only software limiting 7.5% of the pack, which allows the Fremont LR Y to continue selling with higher range, and allows for longer battery endurance and performance and supercharging testing.
Prediction : The Austin Model Y is a Long Range Model Y with 300 miles range. The remaining 7.5% battery capacity will be unlocked, along with acceleration boost to 4.2 seconds, as soon as they can produce enough 4680 to switch over Fremont to 4680 LR Y. Then both factories will build the same car. Maybe Model Y Performance will stick with 2170 for now, with the large pack and 303 mile range.
sorry - again
Regen braking now behaves consistently regardless of charge level, introduced a few software versions ago. I think 2022.16.x and above.
You still haven't gotten around the issue of not being able to make enough cells. To pass it off as "cell testing" is ridiculous, especially when Tesla are the acknowledged leaders in the field. If they have to reduce the number of cars sold because they know so little about the cell they are fitting to cars, they will be signalling to their competitors that they don't know what they're doing.
To bounce the same question back to you
If you can't make enough cells right at the most expensive part of production (the start), would you then fit more or those (rare and expensive) cells than you need into a pack, then hide what you've done and sell it for less than its worth.
They have only done this a tiny number of times, right at the point where scale meant it was cheaper than building two packs, also when they had little constrained supply.
I'd love it to be software locked - but it just makes no sense.
There are equally compelling posts in this topic that show how many cells are in the small pack compared to fully populated, plus there are pictures of the packs with spacers on either side, meaning fewer cells.
Best part is we can continue to speculate until someone gets diagnostic mode enabled to tell us what's in the pack. Can't believe that hasn't happened yet.
boulder.dude
Member
Best case is there is a software lock and Tesla will later offer a paid upgrade to unlock it. No way it’s gonna be free! 
But the more likely conclusion is the new batteries are cheaper & heavier and less performant than the old batteries. In electronics, smaller is always better.
But the more likely conclusion is the new batteries are cheaper & heavier and less performant than the old batteries. In electronics, smaller is always better.
exactly my point - if you're cell constrained, you fit fewer cells. Then it fits two criteria, its doesn't impact Y-LR sales and you can build more cars.Best case is there is a software lock and Tesla will later offer a paid upgrade to unlock it. No way it’s gonna be free!
But the more likely conclusion is the new batteries are cheaper & heavier and less performant than the old batteries. In electronics, smaller is always better.
Software lock only fits the first part but fails miserably on the second.
It just bad business.
In 2021 it was revealed that they upgraded the MY packs from 77KW to 82KW by hooking up an ODB adapter and using the "Scan my tesla" app.
It shows the usable and actual size of the pack.
Previously it was 68.9 usable out of a 77.8 pack, now it 79.1 out of 82.1.
So it will be really easy to put this rumor to bed if someone hooks their phone to an ODB and scans the AWD with 4680.
It shows the usable and actual size of the pack.
Previously it was 68.9 usable out of a 77.8 pack, now it 79.1 out of 82.1.
So it will be really easy to put this rumor to bed if someone hooks their phone to an ODB and scans the AWD with 4680.
While I don’t believe in conspiracies I actually believe there is some game at play here. Tesla put Way to much time and investment into this new battery tech to quantify they never knew if it would be an improvement. To build a new state of the art mega plant with with years of planning only to guess how it will work is Not a Tesla play. Add to that on the Assumed capacity of making the 4680. They built a state of the art battery line Knowing before pencil hit paper how many that line would need to make. There was no guessing here. Why could all this make sense? Because it’s smart business on Every front. They would completely destroy the back log and existing inventory of parts if the new car was even Remotely close in posted design/capability. Every order would be canceled or shifted leaving they CA plant making Nothing for a year. My guess is they will in fact unlock addition range and likely make additional revenue Selling said unlock. I know I personally would throw money at them to buy an additional 30-50 miles range. There is a reason Nobody knows what’s happening in that fancy new building but it’s certainly part of their plan and we won’t know until they are ready the tell us. They certainly didn’t build the world’s largest factory to have a one day party. Lol
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
I don’t see how the Austin ramp is anything but a failure at this stage. They were supposed to have gone into production in Q1 and if they had followed the Shanghai ramp they would already be cranking out over 1000 cars a month at this point.
Elon said Tesla is chip constrained this year, not battery cell constrained. Also Shanghai didn't have a new battery cell so they scaled up quickly. If there are fires or failures with the new cell it's a nightmare, so if Tesla is smart they will trickle out 4680 cars slowly for testing the middle part of the battery first. Then make adjustments and ramp up and unlock more capacity. I admit I'm totally guessing.
Mrbrock
Active Member
No no no. Some good pints have already been made as to why your theories are wrong. Yet you still don’t want to acknowledge logic and reason and instead believe in clickbait hype.
You even use the wrong range to unlock to. 300. Why 300? Why 7.5%? The LR 2170 is 330. You think Tesla is software locking the 4680 Y by 21 miles? People are going to pay $$$ for 21 miles? It’s still less than LR AWD. There would still be no reason the buy them.
Look back at 4680 production. It is happening in Fremont. We have seen MY structural chassis in Fremont and we know the main factory isn’t building 4680 MY. Kato Rd is building cells and packs and shipping to Austin until 4680 production in Austin comes online. These packs at Kato were out into cars and tested. Tesla got all their data and design done at Kato before transferring to Austin. They don’t need the public to test their cells. it was all done in house.
4680 is about saving Tesla money. If they can out less in the car with less range and people will pay more for them, goal accomplished. With the recent price increase, the SR AWD is now probably the same $63k the LR AWD was. So now you are getting 51 less miles of range for the same price as if you ordered a LR a few weeks ago.
And here is the most important fact. Most people will never need or use the extra 21 miles of range you are betting on. Or the current 51 miles between the SR and LR AWD. The vast majority of people will drive less than 50 miles per day and will be able to charge nightly. And supercharge when they travel longer distances.
interesting - checking my account this morning, the cost of a base Y-AWD was 59,990
Checking again this afternoon and it's gone up to 61,990.
Maybe coinciding with the latest pics from the drone flyers showing a significantly emptied delivery lot.
That about settles it for me, not getting an Austin Y now as it will be the same price as my locked in Y-LR
Checking again this afternoon and it's gone up to 61,990.
Maybe coinciding with the latest pics from the drone flyers showing a significantly emptied delivery lot.
That about settles it for me, not getting an Austin Y now as it will be the same price as my locked in Y-LR
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
Given that we've had photos where we can count the cells in the MYAWD 4680 pack, and it's literally 20% fewer cells in there than the original design, the odds of it being an "80 kwh pack" that's cleverly software locked to 65 kwh are really really low.
This doesn't mean they won't find an additional kw or two in the pack once they get comfortable with managing it - this happened on the 2170 and would be expected. But they are not gonna come unlock 15-20 kwh because they are simply not in there.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
I hear you from a "ramp MY in Austin" perspective.
However Tesla may be seeing it as more of a success on their own long term plans. Austin is about gaining experience and scale on the 4680 because it feeds the CyberTruck and the Semi. They are getting that experience, with a slightly clumsy MYAWD offering, but they can at least get the learning and advance on the CT/Semi products while building MYLR's out of 2170's as long as it makes fiscal and supply sense for them to do so.
Similar threads
