What will surprise you at the event?

[cvalue13]

The "structural" pack essentially means that the battery casing IS the floor of the car, instead of having a pack sitting IN the floor.

Yes, that is clear.

because the battery casing is strong enough to just connect front/rear casting, bolt the seats to it, etc. It doesn't mean that a vehicle using a structural pack has to have the same number of cells inside the pack.

This is where our understanding departs. Unless you can point me toward specific, expert, explanation of your statements above, I remain deeply skeptical given what I've learned elsewhere from folks who appear to be pretty expert.

Namely, you appear to suggest that what's 'inside' the pack has no bearing on whether it's 'structural,' and that's inapposite to my prior understanding that indeed what is inside, and how it is configured, is itself a material component to the pack's overall structural integrity.

Happy to be instructed otherwise, but so-far confused and unmoved.

Also, see below.**

It was explicitly stated that 4680 cells are supposed to provide greater range and power on the same footprint. Their yields were just so poor initially that they couldn't make enough cells to make Y's. So they made packs with a small number of cells and then just gave up.

This in particular seems inapposite to available facts. Remembering there was only ever a singular MY AWD structural pack, there's zero available information that suggests the pack wasn't filled to capacity with cells.

Munro's breakdown of the structural pack, showed the 4680 cells are all glued together (and to the steel enclosure) using a pink polyurethane (**reference above about overall pack structural integrity), making the batteries themselves (plus the pink) the structural integrity of the pack - not its outer casing.

At this point one could rightfully say it's the pink polyurethane that provides the gap-filling structure in a "partially full" pack - and that may well be true, but I know of no information that suggests there's (A) a known intended density of cells in the pack, vs (B) what Munro found, or what Tesla's said publically.

Do you have that?

If the CT has, as you suggest, a 115kWh pack, that's either a choice (the minimum needed to top Lightning's 320 mile range) or a result of really poor quality (low density) 4680 cells to date. It is definitely NOT a limitation of the size of the truck and its battery pack.

First, I've never finally hung my hat on 115kW, but I have suggested this is what folks have in mind - subject to the fact that Tesla is surely still, even at this late hour, trying to improve that figure incrementally. The end release spec may be nominally greater than 115kW, but not by much - certainly not by enough to breach 400mi, etc., is my position.

Second, based on what do you assert that it's not a limitation of the size of the packaging limits of the pack?

Because otherwise, your comments seem contradictory: "If the CT has, as you suggest, a 115kWh pack, that's ... a result of really poor quality (low density) 4680 cells to date... NOT a limitation of the size of the truck and its battery pack."

If the issue is due to poor quality/density cells, why wouldn't they put more cells in? Cost to manufacture?

Regardless, this entire point about whether they can fit more cells in seems to be merely a violent agreement. I've only said, "range will be about [X], resulting in about [Y]kWh, which one way or another reflects that they're unable to get the density in the pack - one explanation for not getting the density would be physical constraint, others exist, including that they "can't" for broader philosophical reasons (such as cost or not believing the higher ranges are the correct strategy compared to infra)."

This is what I meant above, when describing the Model Y with structural:

Personally, I take this corporate speak to have at least two interpretations:

(1) they couldn’t get the density they wanted, or

(2) the mean it, and intentionally viewed 4680 packs to be not a performance-boosting tool, but an economics tool

Perhaps elsewhere I've said something nominally or apparently to the contrary, in which case it was an error or a miss-speaking in a given context of discussion. Maybe even in this thread (egg on my face).

The added height of the 4680 cells alone would mean greater than 115kWh would be possible in a pack the same size as the Model X. The larger vehicle and the superior packaging of 4680 cells should allow packs significantly larger than the X, if the cells are of quality and if Tesla chooses to do so. And this can be done without altering the structural shell.

Inclear what this comparison to the X is about? That the pack can be larger and have superior packaging than the X is obvious - the CT is larger, and the 4680 should have greater density. But also obvious is that for the same reasons, for a vehicle like the CT it would require a pack substantially larger than the X to achieve an end result range identical to the X.

At the end of the day, it seems we at least agree on two possible alternate realities:

(1) Tesla is choosing for philosophical/business reasons to fit fewer cells in the pack envelope (and fill it with pink), because they don't want to offer greater range for some all-things-considered reason (including e.g., resulting MSRP, etc.), or

(2) Tesla has put every cell possible into the pack envelope, and the energy density result is such that the range we see will be the present ceiling constraint of a full 4680 structural pack in a CT.

End result the same, and per my last post, to this extent bares some similarities to the outcome of the Model Y structural pack expectation vs reality.

Sponsored

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Yes, that is clear.



This is where our understanding departs. Unless you can point me toward specific, expert, explanation of your statements above, I remain deeply skeptical given what I've learned elsewhere from folks who appear to be pretty expert.

Namely, you appear to suggest that what's 'inside' the pack has no bearing on whether it's 'structural,' and that's inapposite to my prior understanding that indeed what is inside, and how it is configured, is itself a material component to the pack's overall structural integrity.

Happy to be instructed otherwise, but so-far confused and unmoved.

Also, see below.**



This in particular seems inapposite to available facts. Remembering there was only ever a singular MY AWD structural pack, there's zero available information that suggests the pack wasn't filled to capacity with cells.

Munro's breakdown of the structural pack, showed the 4680 cells are all glued together (and to the steel enclosure) using a pink polyurethane (**reference above about overall pack structural integrity), making the batteries themselves (plus the pink) the structural integrity of the pack - not its outer casing.

At this point one could rightfully say it's the pink polyurethane that provides the gap-filling structure in a "partially full" pack - and that may well be true, but I know of no information that suggests there's (A) a known intended density of cells in the pack, vs (B) what Munro found, or what Tesla's said publically.

Do you have that?



First, I've never finally hung my hat on 115kW, but I have suggested this is what folks have in mind - subject to the fact that Tesla is surely still, even at this late hour, trying to improve that figure incrementally. The end release spec may be nominally greater than 115kW, but not by much - certainly not by enough to breach 400mi, etc., is my position.

Second, based on what do you assert that it's not a limitation of the size of the packaging limits of the pack?

Because otherwise, your comments seem contradictory: "If the CT has, as you suggest, a 115kWh pack, that's ... a result of really poor quality (low density) 4680 cells to date... NOT a limitation of the size of the truck and its battery pack."

If the issue is due to poor quality/density cells, why wouldn't they put more cells in? Cost to manufacture?

Regardless, this entire point about whether they can fit more cells in seems to be merely a violent agreement. I've only said, "range will be about [X], resulting in about [Y]kWh, which one way or another reflects that they're unable to get the density in the pack - one explanation for not getting the density would be physical constraint, others exist, including that they "can't" for broader philosophical reasons (such as cost or not believing the higher ranges are the correct strategy compared to infra)."

This is what I meant above, when describing the Model Y with structural:




Perhaps elsewhere I've said something nominally or apparently to the contrary, in which case it was an error or a miss-speaking in a given context of discussion. Maybe even in this thread (egg on my face).



Inclear what this comparison to the X is about? That the pack can be larger and have superior packaging than the X is obvious - the CT is larger, and the 4680 should have greater density. But also obvious is that for the same reasons, for a vehicle like the CT it would require a pack substantially larger than the X to achieve an end result range identical to the X.

At the end of the day, it seems we at least agree on two possible alternate realities:

(1) Tesla is choosing for philosophical/business reasons to fit fewer cells in the pack envelope (and fill it with pink), because they don't want to offer greater range for some all-things-considered reason (including e.g., resulting MSRP, etc.), or

(2) Tesla has put every cell possible into the pack envelope, and the energy density result is such that the range we see will be the present ceiling constraint of a full 4680 structural pack in a CT.

End result the same, and per my last post, to this extent bares some similarities to the outcome of the Model Y structural pack expectation vs reality.

I didn't mean that what's inside the pack is irrelevant to the strength of the structural pack. What I meant is they can design to a certain exterior size pack and fill it with cells, or something else, based on how much battery they want in there. Whatever they use besides cells will have to provide the same strength, obviously, mostly against compression.

The relevance of the X and the Y in this discussion, is that Tesla claims the 4680 can provide significantly more energy storage per square foot of vehicle than previous designs. So the Y being lower range was likely due to poor quality or expensive results from initial 4680 production. Same with the CT, knowing the X can fit 100kWh in a smaller form, either they aren't filling it with all of the cells they can, or the cells aren't performing (yet) where they hoped. But for certain the truck is physically capable of housing a bigger battery, now or in the future.

 

[RVAC]

there's zero available information that suggests the pack wasn't filled to capacity with cells.

While not conclusive there is evidence that suggests that may have been the case:

 

[CYBRSMTH]

Franz being barred from the building.

Let me get my balls out and then hammer that truck.

 

[cvalue13]

But for certain the truck is physically capable of housing a bigger battery, now or in the future.

this is the crux of where I’m confused

I guess I’m not certain what you mean by ‘physically capable of housing a bigger battery’

do you mean kWh, or the physical pack size?

because it’s the latter, a larger physical pack size, I don’t get.

it’s uncontroversial if all you mean is that they could have designed the entirety of the cab and casting structure differently. Basically a whole different truck.

but if you instead mean they could fit a larger physical pack in *this* truck, that I don’t get

it’s analogous to say the windshield. They could design a different truck with a different windshield, sure. But now, there is a structural engineering design based on and limited to the exact dimensions of the windshield. Neither a smaller nor larger windshield can fit.

if instead you’re suggesting only that in this physical pack they could fit more cells, that’s … I guess theoretically possible but unknown, no?

Just because the MY has a 113” wheelbase and the CT has a 143” wheelbase does not mean necessarily there is an “extra” 30” of space for a pack

 

[SparkChaser]

The analysis of MY structural pack showed that there was room for additional batteries. If this is true with the CT then we may not see the proof till Munro Tears on down.

 

[KScheidt]

I’ve not seen it mentioned here (or maybe I’ve overlooked it) but there were multiple sources (in 2019/2020) indicating that the Tri-Trim originally proposed in 2019 was intended to have a double stacked battery which was the main driver of its significant increase in range over the other trims. Battery constraints and inefficiencies aside, they simply may have also decided that they needed more interior space than a double stacked battery would allow.

 

[cvalue13]

The analysis of MY structural pack showed that there was room for additional batteries. If this is true with the CT then we may not see the proof till Munro Tears on down.

You know where that was discussed? I tried looking but didn’t find anything.

I’d like to know exactly what “room for more” means. I’m just not sure how they differentiate between “it was designed to hold more but isn’t” vs “looks like they could have fit more cells over here and over here” sort of armchairing.

 

[cvalue13]

I’ve not seen it mentioned here (or maybe I’ve overlooked it) but there were multiple sources (in 2019/2020) indicating that the Tri-Trim originally proposed in 2019 was intended to have a double stacked battery which was the main driver of its significant increase in range over the other trims. Battery constraints and inefficiencies aside, they simple may have also decided that they needed more interior space than a double stacked battery would allow.

@JBee I’ve seen cite chapter and verse, CAD files and all, around how double stacking is largely unworkable

I don’t understand any of it very well, but it feels convincing ?

 

[SAVFPV]

Tilting screen like S/X?!? ?

 

[SolarWizard]

Let me get my balls out and then hammer that truck.

That would make for quite the awkward presentation

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Pick an option or post your own. I may recycle your response and add it to the options. It does not have to be serious.

Other: Right Hand Drive ( Australia, UK, Japan, New Zealand etc.) SERIOUSLY

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

There are a lot of things about the Cybertruck that I had been anticipating almost 4 years ago, that now as we get closer to deliveries(finally) that I now think won't be available.

1. Prices they said the vehicles would cost.
2. Center front seat (6passenger).
3. Spare Tire (It is an off-road vehicle).
4. Stainless Steel bed with T-tracks (w/rubber filler pieces). Also, T-slots inside the tailgate for mounting tools.
5. Mid-gate or at least roll down rear window to allow climate control in the bed for camping.
6. Built-in ramp.
7. Built-in air compressor. (haven't heard anything for years).
8. A single motor was all I needed originally.
9. Sail storage, but actually I'd thought possibly the whole rear quarter panel could be used for storage at one point.

Only new addition that Tesla has been talking about actually doing is 4wheel steering.

4 years later I'm a little disappointed, but I still have every intention of purchasing my Cybertruck. Just hurry up and build it Tesla, (while I'm young enough to enjoy it)!

BTW Diehard, Sail storage and/or storage under the dash, would be a nice surprise.

It's a 'BOAT'......Who needs 'SAILS' anyway (?)

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

The analysis of MY structural pack showed that there was room for additional batteries. If this is true with the CT then we may not see the proof till Munro Tears on down.

I'll be shedding 'Tears' if Munro is NOT the first to do so!
'Make it so' Sandy!!!!!!!
ps. Badly wanna tear on down the Dragstrip with the CT. It's gonna be BLOODY QUICK.

 

[Sirfun]

It's a 'BOAT'......Who needs 'SAILS' anyway (?)

Obviously you've never been on a sailboat. Sails are for chillin.

And sometimes they make you go!!!

Sponsored