Why hasn’t Tesla published the range & HP on the new great 4680 battery? Sr. VP has been driving around Texas with a new MY (4680) for days now. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Giampigua]

I believe Tesla has under estimated the development timeline. All of the data from Battery Day was prediction. Until they built and started operating pilot production lines, there is no way to know actual cost. I think they have run into roadblocks they didn’t anticipate and are still trying to make up lost ground. Will Austin (and Fremont) eventually move to 100% 4680 production for MY? Yes, but that is a ways out. We haven’t seen any production from 4680 lines at Austin. They aren’t going to go from never been operated to producing 1 million cells every week before the end of 2022 (That’s only 65,000 cars per year). If they are having trouble with production at Fremont and the lines at Austin are different (as predicted by @Giampigua above), they will have a whole new learning and ramping curve to learn. As also stated, they have lots of experience and will leverage that for 4680. That is why I think they expect the lines they have built to produce the supply they need. Unless they are planning Kato to be permanent battery production, those lines will be moved to Austin. So if there are 4 or so at Austin (missing numbers on the production sheet), then you might be looking at 20 lines total there. At 100,000 cars per year, that’s 80 million cells at 800 per vehicle. 4 million cells per line. 11,000 per day per line running 365 days per year. If they scale to 400,000 that’s 44,000 cells per day. Still a huge ramp. Austin will do it’s shakedown with mostly 2170 (maybe a pilot line with 4680 to make the 1000 or so cars with Kato batteries) and continue to do so until 4680 production ramps up. The ramp timeline is unknown but I can imagine it being sooner than 2023.

I agree: it's a huge ramp to produce those number of cells.

Huge, but still 1/5th of the 2170 cells production

I believe that they (or at least Elon) did not expect it was so hard.

In my country, we say "Ofelee, fa' el toh mestèe", which sounds like "If you do your core business you are the best, but if you pretend to do other's..."

 

[nativewolf]

It seems pretty obvious that since Tesla is planning to move all Model Y's to 4680 eventually, they are not planning to keep the above current state of production. Yields at the one plant have been low, and they're iterating to tighten it up. Iterating is best done at small scale - no reason to fire up more lines or have additional suppliers start production until you have the production process itself sorted out.

Yields will improve, this is not Tesla's first battery rodeo, and as they do, Tesla will obviously fire up a lot more cell making capacity since you are right the current rate would not come close to meeting the needs of Model Y production, let alone the future demands from CyberTruck and Semi.

I kind of thought it was Teslas first? They watched Panasonic but did they do it? I like to be hopeful but as battery production overall is the holdback on EV production and PV storage pairing it seems really really slow on the ramp. No wonder no Semi and no CT. They have cells but not the 4680 needed for those products. Hmmm....I wonder what's the holdup...

 

[ThomasD]

Part of the issue could be the cost of materials. Lithium has gone way up in price

 

[Msicario]

Part of the issue could be the cost of materials. Lithium has gone way up in price

I agree; Cobalt is getting harder to come by and more expensive and so is graphite. That had to play into developing the new 4680 …

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I agree; Cobalt is getting harder to come by and more expensive and so is graphite. That had to play into developing the new 4680 …

And those commodity prices have nothing to do with your original question, because the form factor change isn't about changing the chemistry.

Tesla doesn't want people hanging on waiting for a 4680 pack from Austin because Tesla doesn't have enough 4680 production.

 

[Msicario]

And those commodity prices have nothing to do with your original question, because the form factor change isn't about changing the chemistry.

Tesla doesn't want people hanging on waiting for a 4680 pack from Austin because Tesla doesn't have enough 4680 production.

Am I wrong by saying that 4680 doesn’t require any Cobalt ? Aside that it’s very expensive; Cobalt is a health hazard and bad for the environment, causing lung problems for those people working in the Congo Just saying it might be the reason why the 4680 is a great thing.

 

[Mrbrock]

If you look at the battery day presentation, they predict 205 million cells per line (20GWh production). For those wanting to confirm, 20,000,000,000 Wh / 3.6V / 27 ah = 205+ million cells per year or 563,000 cells per day running every day.

They also predict 100GWh in 2022 which fits with 5 production lines at Austin. Even if the lines at Kato are smaller scale, they can’t just increase the size of the machine by 1000 (an 8ft long machine becomes 8000ft).

As far as 4680 being cobalt free, again, that is the goal. Are they willing to sacrifice using cobalt if it allows them to ramp production to come closer to meeting goals? Only Tesla knows that. People need to understand Battery Day was a look at what Tesla hopes is the future with some pretty aggressive timelines included. It is not factual. It is the future, many things can change (covid anyone?) and they will continue to change. Tesla may discover the solution to 4680 production issues tomorrow, they may not.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

My understanding is the 4680 is about the tabless design enabling a much larger cell, which in turn can be used structurally, both of which lead to fewer parts in the car and simpler/cheaper manufacturing.

Cell chemistry seems agnostic in that effort. You could put a variety of formulations into the 4680 cell if you wanted - with trade offs on cost, efficiency, energy density, etc.

 

[Mrbrock]

My understanding is the 4680 is about the tabless design enabling a much larger cell, which in turn can be used structurally, both of which lead to fewer parts in the car and simpler/cheaper manufacturing.

Cell chemistry seems agnostic in that effort. You could put a variety of formulations into the 4680 cell if you wanted - with trade offs on cost, efficiency, energy density, etc.

Agreed. The Battery Day presentation says the goal of 4680 is to be cobalt free. Not because of the people in the Congo but because their replacement material is stronger and cheaper (and less guilty but that comes behind the other 2 benefits). Again, a goal for 4680. They are not saying they will only produce 4680 with no cobalt, just that it is a goal.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Am I wrong by saying that 4680 doesn’t require any Cobalt ? Aside that it’s very expensive; Cobalt is a health hazard and bad for the environment, causing lung problems for those people working in the Congo Just saying it might be the reason why the 4680 is a great thing.

Eliminating cobalt is a separate effort multiple cell manufacturers are engaged in. They will be able to use various chemistries.

To me the key points in its 4680 approach, as detailed at their battery day are:
- a tabless design with vertical charge flow that allows 4680 to be charged almost as rapidly as 2170, making it practical for EVs; it would also allow cell production to be faster
- the use of a dry electrode process that significantly reduces manufacturing energy and footprint
- the use of cheaper steel cell casings, with the cells glued together to form a "structural pack" that results in lighter EVs

 

[MontyFloyd]

As far as 4680 being cobalt free, again, that is the goal. Are they willing to sacrifice using cobalt if it allows them to ramp production to come closer to meeting goals?

or longevity.
LiFePO formula offers the most recharge cycles, potentially decades of use with >80% capacity.

 

[MontyFloyd]

My understanding is the 4680 is about the tabless design enabling a much larger cell, which in turn can be used structurally, both of which lead to fewer parts in the car and simpler/cheaper manufacturing.

Cell chemistry seems agnostic in that effort. You could put a variety of formulations into the 4680 cell if you wanted - with trade offs on cost, efficiency, energy density, etc.

Tabless has nothing to do with it.

It was simple economics: the amount of material to contain a set volume.
Much easier to put 1 gallon of fluid in a gallon bottle, than 16 cup sized bottles.
Going "tabless" was needed to make this happen, a result of the design decision not the cause of it.

Agree on chemistry, have not read about any limits on foruma.

 

[Mrbrock]

or longevity.
LiFePO formula offers the most recharge cycles, potentially decades of use with >80% capacity.

Yes, but much lower energy density so you’ll need more mass for same battery capacity. Offsets the benefits of 4680. This is why LFP will be for lower range cars. Don’t need as much and will better stand duty of daily charge cycles. Think of 2 door M3 with 150 mile range priced at $25k. Perfect SF, LA, NY, PDX, SEA, etc. commuter car.

 

[MontyFloyd]

Yes, but much lower energy density so you’ll need more mass for same battery capacity. Offsets the benefits of 4680.

Which is possible.
Tesla said could fit 960 of 4680 in a pack, however with increased energy capacity about 740 is needed for same range (assuming non LFP (LiFePO) formula)
With LFP option to go 960 to maintain range.
More common materials so price will be less cost than other battery formulas.
But the big caveat, as you rightly point out, is MFG, will need to make even more of the (currently) limited cell production.

 

[Mrbrock]

Which is possible.
Tesla said could fit 960 of 4680 in a pack, however with increased energy capacity about 740 is needed for same range (assuming non LFP (LiFePO) formula)
With LFP option to go 960 to maintain range.
More common materials so price will be less cost than other battery formulas.
But the big caveat, as you rightly point out, is MFG, will need to make even more of the (currently) limited cell production.

Where are you getting 740? Same size as current (82kwh) is 82000 / 27Ah / 3.6V = 840 cells assuming 27000mah based on volume calculations between 2170 and 4680. If only 5x current 5000mah 2170 (per battery day) then you'd need 911. Again, the whole point of 4680 is cheaper manufacturing, lighter weight which allows you to use less batteries for same range. You negate all the savings by needing to use more 4680 LFP cells. Cost and weight. Buying more of something that is cheaper doesn't save you money. Per wikipedia, LFP is 333 Wh/L, Li-Ion (NMC) is 580 Wh/L. To replace the 840 cells of NMC 4680 with LFP 4680, you'd need 1463 cells. How does that save you weight?

 

[MontyFloyd]

Where are you getting 740? Same size as current (82kwh) is 82000 / 27Ah / 3.6V = 840 cells assuming 27000mah based on volume calculations between 2170 and 4680. If only 5x current 5000mah 2170 (per battery day) then you'd need 911. Again, the whole point of 4680 is cheaper manufacturing, lighter weight which allows you to use less batteries for same range. You negate all the savings by needing to use more 4680 LFP cells. Cost and weight. Buying more of something that is cheaper doesn't save you money. Per wikipedia, LFP is 333 Wh/L, Li-Ion (NMC) is 580 Wh/L. To replace the 840 cells of NMC 4680 with LFP 4680, you'd need 1463 cells. How does that save you weight?

Someone else posted in TMC that 740 number.
As for LFP vs NMC, my error on energy density estimate.

 

[Terminator857]

Tesla will post the ratings when feel the time is right.

That is usually after they have delivered a few.

 

[Mrbrock]

That is usually after they have delivered a few.

All the information we are looking for will be part of their EPA certification. For reference on prior 2022 MY vehicles, they were applied on 10/21/21 and issued 11/1/21. Based on that, I would suggest Tesla hasn't even finished testing so they don't have the data to even submit an application.

Regarding the other information, here is a comparison between 2021 LR MY and 2022 LR MY:

2022

Interestingly, the battery specific info was not present on the 2022 application. This will be the data we need to determine 4680 vs 2170. We can assume the 2022 is the same as 2021 which is why it was omitted. Hopefully the new application for the 4680 will have this data.
2021

165*480=79,200Wh. To compare, 2021 has 270kw total motor output vs 291kw for the 2022. 2022 is 35# less and 21kw more powerful yet range is slightly more but acceleration is the same.

Basic Search | Document Index System | US EPA

dis.epa.gov

 

[Terminator857]

All the information we are looking for will be part of their EPA certification. ...

Will it tell us if the battery is software locked with future potential to unlock?

 

[Mrbrock]

Will it tell us if the battery is locked with future potential to unlock?

The weight of the battery will be what it is so the w/kg will be lower than expected based on current energy density if there is a larger than normal portion locked. The calculation will only show the available capacity (79.2 is what is available of 82 total currently). Logic says this is not what Tesla will do. They don't have enough cells to put extra 4680 in each car they produce at Austin.