CT end of life

[CostcoSamples]

Here in the frozen wasteland of the north, distances are vast, charging network is limited, and cold weather kills range. Battery degradation can quickly kill the overall utility in this climate.

Sponsored

 

[Throwcomputer]

I see a lot of folks talking about swapping out the battery pack on a CT at some point, years down the road. With the pack being truly structural, will it be possible to swap out the 4680 cells? In the non-structural packs, the battery pack (which includes the cooling system, the battery modules (made up of the cells, the thermal management system, the battery management system), the HV bus barand other components and can be dropped out fairly easily, but a structural "pack" is actually the cells being glued in place into the honeycomb which is glued to the floor of the vehicle and the outside plate. It seems that once in place, it will be very difficult to disassemble the structural pack to replace the cells.

Uhh..

It's structural pack shell is bolted into the frame. Unbolt the pack and remove the pack and replace it with a new pack. This does not mean using a can opener to crack it open and physically swap the cells in the can!

It is structural because without it bolted in place the rest cannot support road use forces. If you have looked at or watched any videos of the structural pack accepted into the cars you will see the it's a removable object. There is a hole in the base of the car between front and rear casts that it slots and bolts into. When in place and attached to both front and rear casts, those three parts make up the strength of the vehicle frame. The seats and center console bolt onto it before inserting into the car. It's not some permanent structure unable to be removed once installed. Just remove the seats from the surface and swap onto new pack then reinstall into car.

Cracking the can to replace the cells is in the recycling factory for the old recycled structural packs, not in the shop while up on a lift!

I urge you to take a brief look at any video or photo of these structural packs so you can see what it is.

 

[Tinker71]

Uhh..

It's structural pack shell is bolted into the frame. Unbolt the pack and remove the pack and replace it with a new pack. This does not mean using a can opener to crack it open and physically swap the cells in the can!

It is structural because without it bolted in place the rest cannot support road use forces. If you have looked at or watched any videos of the structural pack accepted into the cars you will see the it's a removable object. There is a hole in the base of the car between front and rear casts that it slots and bolts into. When in place and attached to both front and rear casts, those three parts make up the strength of the vehicle frame. The seats and center console bolt onto it before inserting into the car. It's not some permanent structure unable to be removed once installed. Just remove the seats from the surface and swap onto new pack then reinstall into car.

Cracking the can to replace the cells is in the recycling factory for the old recycled structural packs, not in the shop while up on a lift!

I urge you to take a brief look at any video or photo of these structural packs so you can see what it is.

I agree. Going further the structural pack is not a magic bullet. Everybody is doing it to some degree. Based on the Model Y 4680 cut out the cell are now arranged in modules vs a slab. They span the car but that is about it. There are also corrugations in the pack design which means they aren't relying on the batteries for structure as much. That is for a standard range unit. Since the standard range doesn't require as many cells that might explain the gaps but.???? I assume the long range version would be dense packed and the long range CT will be dense packed and double stacked.

I think Tesla might be struggling with the 4680 full on structural pack. They are being very cautious anyway in deployment.

 

[charliemagpie]

Yea, I get that feeling too.
I reckon they want to reduce the rejection rate...its an ideal time. Then they need to apply the necessary adjustments to the equipment before they can start to ramp.

Cathode factory is being built as we speak. By December hopefully the stars align and production of new models will begin in earnest.

 

[Ogre]

I agree. Going further the structural pack is not a magic bullet. Everybody is doing it to some degree. Based on the Model Y 4680 cut out the cell are now arranged in modules vs a slab. They span the car but that is about it. There are also corrugations in the pack design which means they aren't relying on the batteries for structure as much. That is for a standard range unit. Since the standard range doesn't require as many cells that might explain the gaps but.???? I assume the long range version would be dense packed and the long range CT will be dense packed and double stacked.

I think Tesla might be struggling with the 4680 full on structural pack. They are being very cautious anyway in deployment.

Tesla just deployed their first ever battery factory. With a brand new method of creating cells.

Think about that for a minute. These things are potential driving bombs. They also need to verify their tools for checking the cells are working right.

It makes a ton of sense they are being cautious. If they screw this up they can kill people. They aren’t plugging Panasonic cells into these cars, they are using their own brand new processes.

This is likely its more about those cells and their new battery factory then it is about the structural pack.

 

[Tinker71]

Tesla just deployed their first ever battery factory. With a brand new method of creating cells.

Think about that for a minute. These things are potential driving bombs. They also need to verify their tools for checking the cells are working right.

It makes a ton of sense they are being cautious. If they screw this up they can kill people. They aren’t plugging Panasonic cells into these cars, they are using their own brand new processes.

This is likely its more about those cells and their new battery factory then it is about the structural pack.

No harm in being cautious at all. 2170 are a proven cell. If I were in a market for a Y I don't think I would have a preference.

The GM bolt recall affected 110,000 units for $2B not to mention brand damage and EV adoption damage/set back. As a stock holder, I would say avoid this at almost any cost.

I guess my only hang up is if they are looking for 6 months worth of data before they finalize the CT manufacturing plan. Then another 6 months to implement the last round of changes. So best case first trickle of deliveries May 2023 ramping in December. Realistically first deliveries in August 2023.

So many things have to go right for volume production. Cathode plant in operation, hopefully the dry electrode chemistry implemented, figure out the folding/bending machinery.

I am just impatient.

 

[SpaceYooper]

Your example isn't expressing what you think it is.

Yes it did. I was commenting specifically on @Ogre 's comment about range depletion on higher mileage vehicles.

I have to ask, how many miles does your oldest/ most beat up vehicle have on the odo? How well does it run? I think ~83% capacity after 200k miles is pretty decent. Not exactly 1:1 with ICE vehicles, but ICE engines tend to get less efficient over time too.

I posted the miles on my vehicles, and noted in terms of range ability, that I didn't lose any range with over 200k miles on one of my vehicles and approaching 200k miles on another. I didn't comment on cost because I didn't think that was the question.

Loss of range is far more common in EVs then ICE vehicles. That was my only point. It's one of many points to consider when choosing to buy an EV over an ICE vehicle. There are pros and cons and that is OK.

Your range anxiety is blinding you.

I'm not going to get into it again here. I've expressed many times on this forum why my truck has to have 500 miles of EPA stated range. It boils down to the fact that I don't expect to get 500 miles and the charging infrastructure is not yet built out in some areas (near where I need it to be). Could I make it work today? Yes, but with massive concessions on my part that I would not be willing to make when I could just buy another gas truck for less $ up front.

 

[SpaceYooper]

You may lose some capability (as if your diesel tank got a little smaller) but at 200,000 Miles, at 80% of 500, you'd still have 400 miles of range.

But with an ICE truck I'd still have 500 miles of range.

In 5 years or so by the time we start seeing high mileage CTs, it may very well be cheap and easy to upgrade battery packs.

I hope so. That would be awesome. Time will tell. It would be great if we knew before buying the CT if the structural CT pack is built for swapping in the future. However, swapping becomes less of an issue as the charging infrastructure gets better and charging becomes faster.

 

[Crissa]

But with an ICE truck I'd still have 500 miles of range.

No, as pointed out, you'd have a bunch of small other things. Metal would be worn and scored, and the engine would be just a tiny bit weaker, just a tiny bit less efficient. And you'd have already spent thousands of dollars on maintenance to keep all those seals, sealed. Heck, oil changes alone would have cost you $3K! That's a big chunk of a new battery.

-Crissa

 

[SpaceYooper]

@Crissa you're taking mostly about cost to go 500 miles. I wasn't. Per my previous post on this subject I would still be able to drive 500 miles on one tank of gas or diesel.

 

[Crissa]

@Crissa you're taking mostly about cost to go 500 miles. I wasn't. Per my previous post on this subject I would still be able to drive 500 miles on one tank of gas or diesel.

But you wouldn't.

• An engine becomes less efficient over time. Sure, it'll only be a couple percent, but it will be less efficient.
• And that older engine will have lost a couple percent of power, too. So it'll be less good at getting those miles.
• And you'll have spent thousands of dollars maintaining that engine to get there.

If you could only get 500 miles before running out of fuel you'd make it 490 or so. Less under a load, because it would be less powerful than before. You're still losing miles. You're still losing power. And most importantly...

...It's still dollars put in to maintain those things.

-Crissa

 

[anionic1]

I am very skeptical about the longevity of the structural battery pack. The glues in the pack will be undergoing constant stress and strain, which I am sure has been tested, but resins are volatile and do breakdown over time so really only time will tell. But in general that lines up with your battery replacement comment. I think for the next ten years battery resources are going to be in very high demand and that will keep the battery replacement cost, even aftermarket, very high. The structural pack will also be harder to replace do to it being more integral to the structure. I also have to imagine that these structural packs are going to be much much harder to recycle due to a massive amount of adhesives.

Trucks tend to hold their value very well and in my experience with ICE trucks is that almost always the cost of repairs is well under the resale value so it makes sense to do the repairs. At ten years the wear and tear on vehicles in my experience is still usually acceptable with minimal upkeep along the way. I have found that its usually closer to 15 years that the seats and plastic are faded or cracking, the suspension is making too many noises, the seals are tearing or cracking, the exterior plastic and lights are very oxidized. And in general there are just numerous cosmetic issues. Obviously the CT won't have paint issues, but that usually seems to be done around 15 years also.

Usually for me its all that other nonsense that makes me want to get a newer vehicle. I don't want to spend a bunch time and money replacing cosmetics and seals because it feels like a money pit. I feel like at that point your keeping up a classic car vs. a daily driver and the question is less is this financially wise rather do I want this car in my life enough to keep it up. I am thinking that due to the very high upfront cost, the CT will be considered a lifetime vehicle for many and if the CT resale is still above $20k and making the major repairs doesn't put me too far in the red then I would probably spend the money to do the repairs.

Last paragraph I promise. I am very hopeful that battery technology is going to have some major breakthroughs in the next ten years. Depending on the production and popularity of the CT, I am hopeful that there will be updgraded batteries made to retrofit the CT at that 10 year mark that would increase the range. If not, I suspect that may be what kills the EV increased life. If there are much better trucks out there with better battery tech, I think people will opt for those rather than dump money into their old stainless CT. My economics professor told us in the very first class that people are greedy maximizers. We will generally always do what gives us the most bang for the smallest buck.

 

[anionic1]

I think it might be because the CT with 4680 cells will now only have one layer of battery pack, instead of potentially two layers.

My guess is that the longer range CT will in fact have two layers sandwiched as a structural battery pack. or at least a partial stack. looking at that patent for the coiling bed cover and how it rolls up under the truck I don't really see how they couldn't stack them.

 

[SpaceYooper]

But you wouldn't.

• An engine becomes less efficient over time. Sure, it'll only be a couple percent, but it will be less efficient.
• And that older engine will have lost a couple percent of power, too. So it'll be less good at getting those miles.
• And you'll have spent thousands of dollars maintaining that engine to get there.

If you could only get 500 miles before running out of fuel you'd make it 490 or so. Less under a load, because it would be less powerful than before. You're still losing miles. You're still losing power. And most importantly...

...It's still dollars put in to maintain those things.

-Crissa

Ok. I would not compare 2% loss to 18%... especially when a good portion of that 18% loss with an EV is in the first 1/2 of the 200k miles we're talking about. Also, the couple % loss with an ICE vehicle you mention has not been my experience. My fuelly stats show that I didn't lose a couple percent. I'm not saying it does not happen. But withe the last 4 vehicles we've owned it has not. Given I only have fuelly stats for the one vehicle. It's also the oldest one with the most miles on it.

Sponsored