Cybertruck Range Prediction + Cell Calculation + More [Sources]

[samroy92]

I’ve been hearing rumblings around this 100 kWh/ 350 mile pack size.

I'll eat my hat if they can do 100kWh 350 miles

Sponsored

 

[MonkeyDeLuffy]

It can be partially stacked to achieve the required kwh for long range.

 

[Regenshire]

I'll eat my hat if they can do 100kWh 350 miles

The 2023 Tesla Model X LR AWD with 20-Inch tires is rated at epa rated at 348 miles and it is rumored to have a 100 kWh battery size, plus or minus a few kilowatt (does anyone know for certain the battery size? Has it been confirmed?). I assume the Cybertruck will have worse efficiency due to the tire size alone, so I assume it would need to have a larger then 100kWh battery to achieve the rumored 350 mile range, especially if it is using the same motors as the Model X and Model S and not something more efficient.

 

[JBee]

I'll eat my hat if they can do 100kWh 350 miles

That would be around 285Wh per mile and just 1050pcs 4680 cells in the current capacity, just 945pcs in the Cybercell capacity. That's only 2sqm (21sqft) of batteries in one layer and would weigh 372kg(826lbs). It could easily hold twice those in one layer, so 500miles is easy in one layer.

"IF" they get the consumption that low, they're doing better than 0.30Cd and 0.008Crr.

 

[Coolbreeze704]

 

[cvalue13]

I'll eat my hat if they can do 100kWh 350 miles

At EPA test conditions, the Lightning is 131kWh, at 320mi range, though shaped like a breadbox

For the CT to get 320mi** out of 100kWh the CT drag coefficient and operational efficiency would need to be 24% better than the Lightning at EPA test conditions

that seems not impossible?

**Sandbagging here for the fact that Tesla’s EPA reporting is notoriously optimistic, compared to Ford’s, such that a Tesla-reported “350mi” is likely equivalent to a Ford reported ~320mi

 

[scottf200]

On the earnings call Tesla mentioned the new 4680 “CyberCell” will have 10% higher energy density.

I need to listen to the whole thing, but they called it the CyberCell. Seems like a not so subtle hint.

Just saw this nice comparison table.
NOTE: that the Pan.2170 has higher Energy Density than the Gen2 4680 Cybercell.

19:47 into this from above text:

 

[GhostAndSkater]

Just saw this nice comparison table.
NOTE: that the Pan.2170 has higher Energy Density than the Gen2 4680 Cybercell.

19:47 into this from above text:

As always, Troy with wrong info

Current 4680s are 86.5 Wh, making the 10% increase be 95 Wh

I'm on the team double stack of 4680s for sure, copying my latest speculation from somewhere else, and this is was before the earnings call, so numbers are better than this

2500 cells for 216 kWh, 887 kg in cells and at $100/kWh it is $21600 in cells alone

We can also try to extrapolate pack weight from the ratio of cells to pack weight from other Tesla vehicles, which is around 1.4, so 1240 kg or 2733 lbs, thick boy

With more recent discussions it might be possible that Tesla can get to 500 miles with a sub 200 kWh pack. Model X is rated at 287 Wh/mi EPA, and with recent pictures side by side I think it's fair that assume Cybertruck will consume 25% more, or 360 Wh/mi EPA, which would mean a 180 kWh pack for 500 miles of range

Just as a bit more data for the comparison above, Model S has 15% less frontal area and it's 15% more efficient, there is also a 9% weight difference built into that

Cybertruck has around 11% more frontal area than a Model X, add more weight and worse drag coefficient and 25% more consumption seems reasonable if not quite conservative

All in all, if they can do 180 kWh, improve cell to pack weight ratio and get the 4680s cost down to $70/kWh, the pack might weight as "little" 960 kg or 2116 lbs and cost $12600 in cells

Add the $45/kWh IRA credit at a 500 mile Cybertruck pack might cost Tesla less than $5000, even if there is none of the improvement above and the pack ends up being huge, the credits will still make it costing less than $12000 in cells

Seems reasonable to sell that for $80k, or at least makes me confident that the lower range version but not the lowest will be bellow the $80k cap for the IRA credit

 

[scottf200]

As always, Troy with wrong info

Current 4680s are 86.5 Wh, making the 10% increase be 95 Wh

I'm on the team double stack of 4680s for sure, copying my latest speculation from somewhere else, and this is was before the earnings call, so numbers are better than this

Thanks for those details.

Title: Tesla 4680 Cell - November 18, 2022
Via: https://www.batterydesign.net/tesla-4680-cell/

 

[scottf200]

Current 4680s are 86.5 Wh, making the 10% increase be 95 Wh

FYI, on where he came up with that 81.2 Wh per cell.

 

[GhostAndSkater]

FYI, on where he came up with that 81.2 Wh per cell.

Again, Troy confusing things

One is usable energy, another is gross capacity, there is a bottom buffer

When we talk about pack size it should be the gross capacity

 

[scottf200]

Again, Troy confusing things
One is usable energy, another is gross capacity, there is a bottom buffer
When we talk about pack size it should be the gross capacity

When we talk about "Cybertruck Range Prediction" tho that is based on usable energy.

 

[CyberGus]

When we talk about "Cybertruck Range Prediction" tho that is based on usable energy.

True, but is "usable" defined as "pack shows 0%" or "car won't move"? Tesla sandbags the very bottom of the range to help any foolhardy optimists

 

[cvalue13]

True, but is "usable" defined as "pack shows 0%" or "car won't move"? Tesla sandbags the very bottom of the range to help any foolhardy optimists

Isn’t “car won’t move” even not the whole pack?

I believe “useable” is always far wont move, as there is always a software-limited floor to retain a minimal battery reserve for critical systems that is literally unusable

 

[CyberGus]

Isn’t “car won’t move” even not the whole pack?

I believe “useable” is always far wont move, as there is always a software-limited floor to retain a minimal battery reserve for critical systems that is literally unusable

Sure, "0%" does not mean "zero volts". Below a threshold voltage, it's just not useful anymore.

My only point is that there's no requirement for the display of battery percentage to be accurate, just like I can drive another 20 miles after the fuel gauge pegs below "E".

Sponsored