More 500-mile range rumors!

[anionic1]

You're confused on a couple of things. Tesla never claimed any increased energy density with 4680 whatsoever. What they did claim is that they are cheaper and lighter for the same energy. That means they can pack in more kWh into a car without increasing the price, and it also means you can get more range out of the same kWh since weight is a significant factor.

The other thing is the thicker steel is meant to enable the truck to function as a (more) capable full size truck while not being body on frame. ie, the truck is built unibody like a Ridgeline, but can do more truck stuff than an F-150. So the weight gain in the skin is more than offset by the lack of a traditional ladder frame.

I didn’t say Tesla claimed there would be more energy density. And what is lighter for the same energy? Obviously their whole goal is to make the vehicle lighter with the structural pack and castings etc.
So the argument I am making is that people are saying the 500 mi is easily achievable because the truck is so light. I am guessing that with a 3000 lb 200 kWh battery and a 3mm stainless body that now clearly has been shown to have an equally substantial interior body, it’s not going to be as light as people might think and it will need every bit of that 200 kWh to get to 500 mi.

Sponsored

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I didn’t say Tesla claimed there would be more energy density. And what is lighter for the same energy? Obviously their whole goal is to make the vehicle lighter with the structural pack and castings etc.
So the argument I am making is that people are saying the 500 mi is easily achievable because the truck is so light. I am guessing that with a 3000 lb 200 kWh battery and a 3mm stainless body that now clearly has been shown to have an equally substantial interior body, it’s not going to be as light as people might think and it will need every bit of that 200 kWh to get to 500 mi.

What you're not grasping is that the 3mm skin eliminates the very heavy ladder frame.

The battery chemistry isn't more dense, but the 4680s have less "filler" material so the cells aren't more dense but the vehicle is. The 4680 is also significantly taller, so more energy in the same footprint.

 

[anionic1]

Tesla never would have said they were going to sell a tri-motor variant with a 500+ mile range unless they knew for a fact that they could do it back in 2019. You know it, we know it. If they have changed their minds about whether to sell a 500+-mile truck that is a different thing. But they ‘can’ do it. Elon said many times that it is very important that the Cybertruck be affordable and that it has been challenging making it affordable, so that may be part of the problem. The delay in the delivery event is probably more related to his alignment email than anything else mentioned here.

But since that reveal in 2019, Tesla has shifted their stance on large battery packs and long range options and has taken action in that ideal shift by getting rid of some of the longer range options. So it’s not unreasonable to think they may do that with the CT. And none of their competitors are achieving that so it’s not like they even have pressure to achieve that.

 

[anionic1]

What you're not grasping is that the 3mm skin eliminates the very heavy ladder frame.

The battery chemistry isn't more dense, but the 4680s have less "filler" material so the cells aren't more dense but the vehicle is. The 4680 is also significantly taller, so more energy in the same footprint.

I completely understand what the idea of the 3mm skin is supposed to do, what I think many are not understanding is that the 3mm body likely didn’t save the weight of the ladder frame, it simply shifted it to the outside of the shell like a unibody. It is likely that it saved some weight but I doubt it’s much. I am sure Tesla engineers worked to optimize the use of the 3mm skin as a structural element and I guess we will find out soon enough.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

They want to increase energy density in the cell, sure. But there was 0 claims about increased energy density from switching to 4680. That was not one of its stated advantages.

I do not understand what you are saying. Tesla never said at the unveiling what battery chemistry or organization the Cybertruck would use. Battery Day came way after the unveiling so there is no way for us to know that Tesla wasn't targeting 18650 or 2170 cells (and performance) when they initially designed the Cybertruck. That the 4680 cell and structural pack were associated with the Cybertruck at Battery Day was the first time anyone heard what Tesla would be doing for the Cybertruck. At Battery Day Tesla said there would be an improvement in energy density but I do not recall them saying what it would be. Some digging shows that they expected energy density to rise to above 300 Wh/kg. Estimates at this time put it between 275-295 Wh/kg.

10% improvement in 4680 energy density:

So please elaborate on what you actually meant.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I completely understand what the idea of the 3mm skin is supposed to do, what I think many are not understanding is that the 3mm body likely didn’t save the weight of the ladder frame, it simply shifted it to the outside of the shell like a unibody. It is likely that it saved some weight but I doubt it’s much. I am sure Tesla engineers worked to optimize the use of the 3mm skin as a structural element and I guess we will find out soon enough.

It saved weight and space. I think you'll be surprised by real world data. Eliminating the ladder while besting classic ice payload and tow ratings is a big deal.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

But since that reveal in 2019, Tesla has shifted their stance on large battery packs and long range options and has taken action in that ideal shift by getting rid of some of the longer range options. So it’s not unreasonable to think they may do that with the CT. And none of their competitors are achieving that so it’s not like they even have pressure to achieve that.

I do not understand what you are saying. Tesla has said for a few years now that there is no point in making a car with less than a 300 mile range, and they dropped models that had only 250 miles. They have only increased the range on the Model S over time and I have never heard of the Model 3/Y LR model ranges going down, have you? If Tesla is trying to keep weight down then they have to keep the Model 3/Y batteries at 75 KwH. So if they reduce the vehicle weight they can increase range but other than reducing drag (which they appear to have done with Project Highland) that is about all they can do to increase range and keep the battery size constant. All this is about sedans.

With the Cybertruck it is all about range, so whatever Tesla said about sedans kind of goes out the window because sedans are not carrying cargo or pulling trailers on a regular basis. To talk about range for a truck in the same breath with a sedan is bordering on silly. I do not think that Tesla is silly.

We 'know' that Tesla competitors are achieving larger and larger ranges on their trucks all the time. The Silverado WT has gained a 450-mile EPA range estimate and real-world range testing has backed this up. They may achieve it with a heavier vehicle and a larger battery but they are achieving it. Would people here be satisfied with a Cybertruck that gets a 450 mile range? I suspect yes.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I do not understand what you are saying. Tesla never said at the unveiling what battery chemistry or organization the Cybertruck would use. Battery Day came way after the unveiling so there is no way for us to know that Tesla wasn't targeting 18650 or 2170 cells (and performance) when they initially designed the Cybertruck. That the 4680 cell and structural pack were associated with the Cybertruck at Battery Day was the first time anyone heard what Tesla would be doing for the Cybertruck. At Battery Day Tesla said there would be an improvement in energy density but I do not recall them saying what it would be. Some digging shows that they expected energy density to rise to above 300 Wh/kg. Estimates at this time put it between 275-295 Wh/kg.

10% improvement in 4680 energy density:

So please elaborate on what you actually meant.

They listed 3 key elements of the 4680 design that would make it dramatically better than previous cells. 1) easier/less capital to produce. 2) less weight for the same capacity. 3) less cost to produce the same capacity. Energy density was not one of them.

An issue in production of early 4680 cells has been energy density. But that's just because they need to improve their process. They are trying to get it to acceptable levels, but it's not about creating a competitive advantage.

 

[charliemagpie]

If Elon wishes to kick ass in Baja, surely he is not going to do it with 300 mile Ctrucks.

So he will not get his wish.

Who wishes to bet against Elon ?

 

[cvalue13]

Tesla never would have said they were going to sell a tri-motor variant with a 500+ mile range unless they knew for a fact that they could do it back in 2019. You know it, we know it. If they have changed their minds about whether to sell a 500+-mile truck that is a different thing. But they ‘can’ do it.

im honestly not sure of the point you’re making in my direction, that *I* know and *we* know

could they *build* a 500mi variant by now? Sure. Just change the trucks dimensions, lower the payload, increase the price, etc.

could they *sell* one? apparently not (in the deeper all things considered sense)

but fair enough correction that come reveal event we’ll likely see one of two angles:

(1) 500mi variant coming [someday], or
(2) Tesla believes not even trucks need 500mi ranges, it’s a waste of pack

I just don’t know if, from a marketing/public perception perspective, Tesla feels it’s time to express (2) even if that’s where they are privately … they’ve given plenty of hints at it though

so we may hear (1) eitherway, with the wild card being some breakthrough in battery tech that negates (2)?

 

[Coolbreeze704]

Please let me know if any of my assumptions are false or need to be tweeted so I adjust.

Assumptions:

1. 4680 Cybercell is 95.2Wh at launch (99.5 available with 4680 2nd line at the end of 2024 for small and large packs), 3.7V, 25.73Ah, 0.783 lbs
2. 108 cells in each string to get 400V and can switch to two strings in series to get 800V.
3. Pack weight is cells + 500 lbs of structural material
4. Usable Pack Capacity is 92-93.5%
5. CoE: 0.345 (average of simulation 0.39 and Elon's best case of 0.30)
6. Length: 227in
7. Width: 78in
8. Height: 75in
9. Ground Clearance: 10.5in
10. rho: 1.225
11. Rolling Resistance is about 5% higher than Model X
12. Dual motor Cybertruck energy usage is about 25% higher than Model X at 48.3mph (EPA average speed)
13. Dual Cybertruck with no battery about 5250 lbs (average between a scaled 4680 Model Y w/o pack and a dual motor model X w/o pack, +5% for stainless)
14. Raised 2019 pricing by 20% (FRED shows about 23% for new vehicles)
15. Lowered pricing based on Tesla passing on 67% of the IRA battery manufacturing subsidy ($35/kWh).
16. All versions of cybertruck will be class 2 trucks. (GVWR <10k lbs)
17. Transport vehicle can carry 37k of vehicles
18. The 2nd 4680 line at Texas is starting to come online in mid 2024

500+ mile is doable with the IRA battery manufacturer credits like @GhostAndSkater mentioned. Factor in the $7500 fed buyer credits and these prices come in pretty close to unveil night. These specs and prices should be the nail in the coffin to light duty ICE pickups. If things get competitive, they can probably cut another $2k each by passing on 100% of the battery manufacturer credit. It may seem like too many trim levels but its 3 pack sizes (which unveil would have needed) and 3 motor configurations (quad would replace tri).

Elon/Tesla's creditability would be at stake if they didn't offer a 500+ mile variant in the near future. The days of Tesla being the only game in town is over. Well unless UAW bankrupts the big 3 and Rivian runs out of cash.

Great post!

 

[CyberGus]

They listed 3 key elements of the 4680 design that would make it dramatically better than previous cells. 1) easier/less capital to produce. 2) less weight for the same capacity. 3) less cost to produce the same capacity. Energy density was not one of them.

It seems like you're using the term "energy density" to mean "stored energy per unit of volume", which is technically correct. However, the term is used more loosely to mean "stored energy per unit of mass" (i.e., "Wh/kg").

So when you say "less weight for the same capacity", this means "higher Wh/kg", which is often called "energy density".

 

[anionic1]

I read that Ford has placed orders for casting machines with Idra so maybe they will start to get their weight down.

Sponsored