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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
if he’s correct, a lower energy content 4680 pack weighing 35 kg more than a long range 2170 pack is quite disheartening.

So I guess some of the weight savings from removing the underbody is currently used up by lower density cells?

That seems to answer the puzzle why the vehicle is not much lighter than a LR 2170.

Hopefully Tesla pushes in more advanced chemistries relatively quickly! They claimed a 56% range increase (by 2025 IIRC) which only makes sense as a referral to pack energy density.
Remember the pack Is structural meaning its likely Tesla has to use very sturdy/heavy dummy cells To maintain structural integrity. Its possible a long range structural pack Model Y will not weigh much more (maybe even the same) as this standard range model Y.
 
What Stuart is saying in the weight comments is that it’s not a direct comparison to the battery of the Y they tore down in 2020.



The difference is that this battery pack has a bunch of steel and aluminum for structural purposes that replace mass that previously was part of the body-in-white. When this currently-unknown savings is accounted for, the 35 kg extra will probably be canceled out and then some.

This is what Elon meant at Battery Day when saying that the cells cans and pack case effectively have negative mass with the structural pack design; they save more structural mass from the body-in-white than their own mass.

We also don’t know yet whether this battery pack is software-limited such that there’s extra unused energy in it than the nominal rating. The Munro team needs to tear down more to find that out. We’ll know the answer soon.
Given the cutaway photos from Germany, the interchangeability with non-structural 2170 packs, and the Q1 call comments regarding conservative approach, I'm inclined to think the vehicle+structural pack are currently overbuilt and the only mass savings between the two versions is the loss of the additional floor pan, and that is partly offset by the seat cross car beam slip sheet.
Also, from the Limiting Factor 4680 tear down, those cell cans are thick.
 
Given the cutaway photos from Germany, the interchangeability with non-structural 2170 packs, and the Q1 call comments regarding conservative approach, I'm inclined to think the vehicle+structural pack are currently overbuilt and the only mass savings between the two versions is the loss of the additional floor pan, and that is partly offset by the seat cross car beam slip sheet.
Also, from the Limiting Factor 4680 tear down, those cell cans are thick.
Good point, and if so, there’s an opportunity to reduce the mass over time as they gain more real world usage data on exactly how overbuilt it is and adjust the safety margins.
 
WTF?

Tax the environmental SOLUTION in order to generate revenue to fix the environmental PROBLEM?

California is completely backward. So instead of taxing oil refining or something like that, they tax the new clean energy side. Bunch of brilliant folks they have running the show over there.
Never forget, Gov. Newsom's entire political career has been funded in large part by the Getty family, as in Getty Oil.
 
Never forget, Gov. Newsom's entire political career has been funded in large part by the Getty family, as in Getty Oil.
So what is their current investment in oil? The surprising Newsom, Pelosi and Harris ties with the Getty oil dynasty makes it sound like they sold out of Getty Oil back in 1985 to Texaco, with the $10 billion proceeds ending up in four separate trusts. Some LA Times article claims they tried to make up for the damaging heritage of their money after that. This is all relevant IMHO to understand policy impact on Tesla, so not as OT as you might think.
 
Last edited:
if he’s correct, a lower energy content 4680 pack weighing 35 kg more than a long range 2170 pack is quite disheartening.

So I guess some of the weight savings from removing the underbody is currently used up by lower density cells?

That seems to answer the puzzle why the vehicle is not much lighter than a LR 2170.

Hopefully Tesla pushes in more advanced chemistries relatively quickly! They claimed a 56% range increase (by 2025 IIRC) which only makes sense as a referral to pack energy density.

Let’s wait for the cell count and the individual cell energy. We don’t know yet if the pack is software limited.
 
LOL 🤣
TSLA up 2.5% today and Reuters posts this Tweet a few minutes ago.

1657072210963.png
 
If you are tired of boring articles about technology I highly recommend these 2 gems.


and


Not fanboy written, not hater filled, and not written by an MBA, PHD, or run of the mill journalist.

OK, they are Boring articles, but I assure you they aren't boring.