Tesla sales rep said MY with 4680 will NOT have longer range

[advocate8]

Or they could send them out with software locked 4680 packs to equal the 2170 range.

No, extra batteries would be huge waste of resources.
Also poster above is a bit off base. At some point as you reduce the battery count, AT SOME POINT (100?) structural pack will not be as stiff in the ways it needs to be, but reducing from say 900 cells to 700, if they are distributed in reasonable fashion, wouldn’t have a serious effect. More to the point, some dummy cells made of cheap composite tubing would keep the entire structural pack just as stiff as the batteries even if you removed ALL the batteries. And something like that for any filler needed would be light which is what you want. Solid epoxy or similar would simply be a huge waste of money and add scads of unneccessary weight.
The properties being gained by using the batteries as as the core material in what is essentially a metal sandwich composite structure are nearly all derived from the ability of whatever you are putting in there not to deform or crush under load. If you didn’t have to run coolant in there, they could literally be thick cardboard tubes and do OK as long as they were bonded well at each end. A sandwich structure that thick gains unbelievable strength just from its dimensions... you just have to hold the two skins together properly, and maintain their distance from each other.

 

[ElectricIAC]

No, extra batteries would be huge waste of resources.
Also poster above is a bit off base. At some point as you reduce the battery count, structural pack will not be as stiff in the ways it needs to be, but reducing from say 900 cells to 700, if they are distributed in reasonable fashion, wouldn’t have a serious effect. More to the point, some dummy cells made of cheap composite tubing would be just as stiff as the batteries even if you removed ALL the batteries. And something like that for any filler needed would be light which is what you want. Solid epoxy or similar would simply be a huge waste of money and add scads of uneccesary weight.
The properties being gained by using the batteries as as the core material in what is essentially a metal sandwich composite structure are nearly all derived from the ability of whatever you are putting in there not to deform or crush under load. If you didn’t have to run coolant in there, they could literally be thick cardboard tubes and do OK as long as they were bonded well at each end. A sandwich structure that thick gains unbelievable strength just from its dimensions... you just have to hold the two skins together properly.

Yeah, but I like the idea of range on demand.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

No, extra batteries would be huge waste of resources.
Also poster above is a bit off base. At some point as you reduce the battery count, structural pack will not be as stiff in the ways it needs to be, but reducing from say 900 cells to 700, if they are distributed in reasonable fashion, wouldn’t have a serious effect. More to the point, some dummy cells made of cheap composite tubing would be just as stiff as the batteries even if you removed ALL the batteries. And something like that for any filler needed would be light which is what you want. Solid epoxy or similar would simply be a huge waste of money and add scads of uneccesary weight.
The properties being gained by using the batteries as as the core material in what is essentially a metal sandwich composite structure are nearly all derived from the ability of whatever you are putting in there not to deform or crush under load. If you didn’t have to run coolant in there, they could literally be thick cardboard tubes and do OK as long as they were bonded well at each end. A sandwich structure that thick gains unbelievable strength just from its dimensions... you just have to hold the two skins together properly.

Battery day suggested they'd use steel casings for the cells and use structural pack to offset the extra cell weight with vehicle weight reduction.
So they might just use steel blanks for consistency.

 

[advocate8]

Battery day suggested they'd use steel casings for the cells and use structural pack to offset the extra cell weight with vehicle weight reduction.
So they might just use steel blanks for consistency.

That would work, but from the standpoint of weight, perhaps not ideal. If you made the wall thickness of the steel tubes super thin to reduce weight, sure, but then you’re going to make it more complicated to bond them to the top and bottom skins, or “casings” as you call them.
They won’t be welded, that is all but impossible, they will be using an epoxy body agent of some kind and the more area on the two parts being bonded, the better that bonding agent will work.. so think in terms of something light, that looks like I dunno, a 4-inch-long section of tube with thick walls or kind of integral caps at each end, which would give the ideal bonding surface for a permanent bond line.
Also, inside a battery you’re almost always going to be better off with an inert material that isn’t going to react to the swings in heat, coolant chemistry or anything going on with charge.

 

[nero71]

There must be some benefit to being a 400lb lighter car, unless that’s not case

 

[advocate8]

There must be some benefit to being a 400lb lighter car, unless that’s not case

There would be, but that number almost certainly is way off. The EPA paperwork on what appears to be 279-mile range new model puts weight at 25 lbs under the currently MYLR. If that’s 4680, an MYLR getting 330 miles EPA is obviously not going to be lighter, but instead heavier.
I had been guessing maybe 100 lbs less for a 4680 version of MYLR... based on 1) the fact that the 400 number apparently included any savings from the rear casting already in use, 2) my guess that the front casting saves maybe 10-20 lbs and 3) the likelihood that the batteries just wouldn’t be as light as the murky numbers from battery day insinuated.

 

[tangible1]

Yeah, but I like the idea of range on demand.

a fine idea but not if you're Tesla.
not good business to give away range when there's no competitive reason.
Tesla will simply manage the energy density in the pack by managing the number of active cells. Space remaining will be filled by inert cells for structural integrity.

 

[tangible1]

There must be some benefit to being a 400lb lighter car, unless that’s not case

reduced weight buys acceleration, handling, and potential range improvements

however, we don't yet really know what the 'new' MY chassis weight reduction is.
that, and a host of other things remain unknown.
we await the Tesla reveal. welcome to their internet blog marketing tactics.

could be Thursday, might be Earnings Call later this month, might have to wait for customer delivery reports.

 

[brandon8387]

Only The new standard range Y will have the new 4680s

 

[boulder.dude]

I don’t think they’ll increase range on their Y and 3 cars until “real” competition shows up and forces them to go above 400 miles/charge as the new standard.

Right now the issue is simply to build as many cars as possible to meet the insane demand.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Only The new standard range Y will have the new 4680s

Sauce?

 

[Yperformance]

Only The new standard range Y will have the new 4680s

If Easy cost model y performance will not be a 4680 from Texas it could be a ,4860 from Fremont as they have castings and batteries from Kato rd. Don't know how many production lines they have but retooling one would not take that long. Elon never said that 4680 would only be Texas.

 

[jebinc]

Well, then there's the new castings as well. Then again, maybe that helps Tesla's bottom line too, not really an end user benefit (unless they own stock!)

Yeah, more difficult and costly to repair/replace if in an accident.

 

[tangible1]

Yeah, more difficult and costly to repair/replace if in an accident.

actually not much different.
this was a naysayers argument back when rear castings were introduced. Didn't materialize as an issue.
The rear castings replaced 70 stamped/welded pieces. The front casting replaces 85.
But the impact horns are replaceable and the structural stiffness of the chassis is improved overall, so the net/net is that repairs aren't that much different.

 

[advocate8]

It is genius, there’s no way around it. Would love to know exactly how much labor the castings and structural pack save in total.
No doubt elon would like to cast the whole chassis. But he’s gotten close.
I’ll mock the battery day stuff till cows come home. I know BS when I hear it.
And 4680 may not be much of anything….But as far as manufacturing efficiency… these chassis changes are unprecedented moves. Revolutionary.

 

[Yperformance]

It is genius, there’s no way around it. Would love to know exactly how much labor the castings and structural pack save in total.
No doubt elon would like to cast the whole chassis. But he’s gotten close.
I’ll mock the battery day stuff till cows come home. I know BS when I hear it.
And 4680 may not be much of anything….But as far as manufacturing efficiency… these chassis changes are unprecedented moves. Revolutionary.

I think I heard it would save 350 robots.

 

[jebinc]

I think I heard it would save 350 robots.

 

[boulder.dude]

I think I heard it would save 350 robots.

Tesla is starting production of humanoid robots in 2023… so their labor costs will go to zero regardless?

 

[tangible1]

Tesla is starting production of humanoid robots in 2023… so their labor costs will go to zero regardless?

still gotta make 'em, program 'em (FSD ?), maintain 'em, fire 'em.
can't be cheap.

 

[pepperoni]

Yeah, but I like the idea of range on demand.

Yeah, could you imagine… being stuck on the side of the road out of juice, but your Tesla app allows you to unlock that extra 50 miles for an extra $5K.