Double stacked 4680 cells for the Cybertruck long range version?

[Tinker71]

Who thinks Tesla will double stack the 4680 cells for the long range version?

I just can't see it.

1.) Unless the lower range version is a lot different than the long range version there will be a 80 plus mm void or wasted space on the standard range models.

or

2.) There would be a deeper belly (less clearance on the long range)


3.) Many of the interior components would be different if the floorboard height was different between models. Tesla doesn't like to do that.

4.) A double stacked structural battery pack would be much more complicated than single stacked.

I suspect that Tesla will max out the range based on single stack battery. That will likely be less than 500 miles. Over the next couple years as the 4680 power density improves Tesla will increase the range. Tesla can always remove rows of cells for shorter range vehicles, but it may not be worth it at the start of production. They might start with one battery pack.

Note that the Lucid high range model gets part of it's extra range by double stacking modules which negatively affects rear passenger comfort.

Maybe Tesla will use the space under the seats for batteries to avoid a complete double stack at the floor board areas.

Sponsored

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

For what it's worth, they told Motortrend before the prototype reveal that they did intend to have a double-stacked battery on the tri motor. They also intended a double stack on the new Roadster. For single layer they likely wouldn't change the floor height or anything, just fill the extra space with something.

 

[GhostAndSkater]

Yes, impossible to have 500 miles of range on a Single layer with current battery tech

And there is space for it

 

[Crissa]

The battery cell is the bottom of the truck, yes.

But it's not the limiting factor. The suspension and motors stick down.

It's plausible that yes, the different versions have slightly different mounts for the seats or whatever. It's not like traditional vehicles where the floor is stamped into the sides of the truck.

-Crissa

 

[charliemagpie]

Maybe its double stack pack to rule them all

Longer range pack is full of batteries

Shorter range has buoyancy and is he 'boat' version


Jist wait for the first idiot to take a long range out to sea

 

[MonkeyDeLuffy]

double stacked like semi, yes. Much complicated? Probably not with higher density structural battery.

 

[Buster Highman]

I have never seen someone propose a question that nobody has asked and then answer it in a way that explains why nobody should have wasted their time asking it.

No,.it's not going to be double-stacked. The vehicle's wheelbase is more than adequate for a 150+kWh battery, and double stacking creates unnecessary load forces.

 

[cvalue13]

I suspect that Tesla will max out the range based on single stack battery. That will likely be less than 500 miles.

I don’t have a position on this, only interested in what your underlying assumptions are in terms of available space, and what “double stack” configurations are available

AVAILABLE ENVELOPE:

for starters I’m curious about your views on the total available area under the truck, in LxW and how rust relates to the size of say the Model X equivalent space

Available width appears to be somewhere materially less than 80” (roughly the total width of widest point of vehicle, including the waistline bulge, then undercarriage components that might be to the sides. For scale, the interior bed width is about 60”

Available length appears to be somewhere materially less than the wheelbase of ~140” (before accounting for the encroaching suspension, etc., front and back). Probably nearer to 80-90” available (wide margin of error in this guesstimate)

What’s the relative size of a Model X pack LxW?

AVAILABLE DEPTH:

your inferences seem to assume that a “double stack” requires two equally sized complete packs? Is that a known manufacturing constraint of Tesla?

because if there isn’t that constraint, seems more possible that they could fit in an additional, smaller, pack somewhere that doesn’t have all the consequences you mentioned?

Not at all to any scale, but only to clarify via a cartoon the sort of arrangement I’m trying to describe:

coincidentally, the above sort of approach is similar in principle to what Ford takes in the Lightning, in that their “packs” are a somewhat modular collection of 8-9 (depending on if ER) module units. They even have a small pack, which provides 11.95 kWh, and a larger pack that provides 16.44 kWh. The ER adds on a single 11.95kWh module. The 8 others, are unevenly stacked in the pack in a place within the truck that has the “headroom” to fit the doubled portion of the stack

the small ER pack with blue arrow

clearly that Ford approach is different from the sort of engineering approach Tesla takes, so I’m not at all suggesting Tesla would have a similar approach in the details.

but conceptually there could in theory be an approach in the CT on a similar principle?

but again I’m not familiar with Tesla’s manufacturing constraints on the sub-units of their packs, and whether they’d be able to simple move some around to adjust to the constraints under the CT

 

[firsttruck]

I would like a double stack of LFPs in my Cybertruck.

Safer (reduced fire risk), use full capacity ( 5%-100%), more charge cycles.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I think this is relevant to this discussion. The CT will use 4680s, which are 14% taller. So effectively the CT battery would be "14% double stacked" compared to a Model S. Taking it a step further, the overall packaging of the new cells means more energy can be packed in the same size pack. Sandy Munro estimated it at around 50% more storage. If you're at 100kWh for a Model X, you're up to 150kWh using 4680s on the CT. The truck is bigger, so maybe you can fit some more cells in there, and you're up to around 175kWh. Then, Tesla estimates the weight savings at 56% from he new battery, and the corresponding range bonus is 16%. That would mean the equivalent of a 200kWh battery with no stacking. That probably gets you to that 500+ mile range, with far less cost, weight and energy use than we're seeing from options like Ram.

 

[cvalue13]

I would like a double stack of LFPs in my Cybertruck.

Safer (reduced fire risk), use full capacity ( 5%-100%), more charge cycles.

almost make it sound worth not receiving the fed tax credit

 

[firsttruck]

I would like a double stack of LFPs in my Cybertruck.

Safer (reduced fire risk), use full capacity ( 5%-100%), more charge cycles.

almost make it sound worth not receiving the fed tax credit

The federal credit for LFP cells might not be available today but that might not be true years in the future.

My revervations are so far back in the line that I do not expect to see the first one until late 2025.

Tesla has said they expect LFP cells to be in more than half of all cars & light trucks they sell.

CATL & Tesla are building a battery factory in U.S.
Also other suppliers are talking about building LFP factories in U.S.

In 2025 or 2026, Tesla will probably have access to U.S. made LFP cells.

 

[Tinker71]

I don’t have a position on this, only interested in what your underlying assumptions are in terms of available space, and what “double stack” configurations are available

AVAILABLE ENVELOPE:

for starters I’m curious about your views on the total available area under the truck, in LxW and how rust relates to the size of say the Model X equivalent space

Available width appears to be somewhere materially less than 80” (roughly the total width of widest point of vehicle, including the waistline bulge, then undercarriage components that might be to the sides. For scale, the interior bed width is about 60”

Available length appears to be somewhere materially less than the wheelbase of ~140” (before accounting for the encroaching suspension, etc., front and back). Probably nearer to 80-90” available (wide margin of error in this guesstimate)

What’s the relative size of a Model X pack LxW?

AVAILABLE DEPTH:

your inferences seem to assume that a “double stack” requires two equally sized complete packs? Is that a known manufacturing constraint of Tesla?

because if there isn’t that constraint, seems more possible that they could fit in an additional, smaller, pack somewhere that doesn’t have all the consequences you mentioned?

Not at all to any scale, but only to clarify via a cartoon the sort of arrangement I’m trying to describe:

coincidentally, the above sort of approach is similar in principle to what Ford takes in the Lightning, in that their “packs” are a somewhat modular collection of 8-9 (depending on if ER) module units. They even have a small pack, which provides 11.95 kWh, and a larger pack that provides 16.44 kWh. The ER adds on a single 11.95kWh module. The 8 others, are unevenly stacked in the pack in a place within the truck that has the “headroom” to fit the doubled portion of the stack

the small ER pack with blue arrow

clearly that Ford approach is different from the sort of engineering approach Tesla takes, so I’m not at all suggesting Tesla would have a similar approach in the details.

but conceptually there could in theory be an approach in the CT on a similar principle?

but again I’m not familiar with Tesla’s manufacturing constraints on the sub-units of their packs, and whether they’d be able to simple move some around to adjust to the constraints under the CT

I was really thinking about a double stacked structural pack with the same footprint as the floorboards. Yes I think partial double stack is possible under the front and rear seats and maybe under the dash somewhere. These probably wouldn't be considered structural.

Batteries under the rear seat would take up storage that would be available on the standard range unit. If there is some space under the dash, I am not sure if it would have been accessible anyway. Handling would be slightly worse.

I guess my point is when you nearly double the pack size between the 300-500 range, one of the base designs will probably suffer.

Hence my original premise. They don't make the 500 mile range until the batteries improve and maybe start with a 400 mile top end.

It is po

Sponsored