How can it be so affordable?

firsttruck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
925
Reaction score
1,150
Location
mx
Vehicles
none
Country flag
I previously posted in this thread that it might be possible with the new production methods to reduce the cost of the M3 possibly down to $25k. I also mentioned the cost of the battery being a substantial barrier to achieve this, however, on another thread I did some numbers like this:

According to Cairn Energy a Tesla 2170 cell battery pack costs around $156kWh.
If a 4680 is 56% less cost it would be around $87kWh.

The largest 82kWh battery in a M3 would cost $12 792 in 2170 cells.
That same 82kWh battery would cost (82x$87kWh) $7,134 in 4680 cells.

That means switching to a 4680 cell pack could cut $12792-$7134 = $5658 off the manufacturing cost of a M3 LR. It would be less for a SR. A 4680 pack would also be considerably smaller and weigh less, so the kWh pack capacity would probably be less too for the same range.

Is it possible to reduce the manufacturing cost (not retail cost btw) another $4-5k to reach a $25k retail cost by using castings etc? I think it should be, we're more than half way there with a 4680 pack alone.

A $25k M3 would be fantastic. Let alone when the infrastructure bill comes through. . :)
Once volume production is achieved, at pack level LiFePo 4680 will be less than $55/kWh.
Advertisement

 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
544
Reaction score
524
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Once volume production is achieved, at pack level LiFePo 4680 will be less than $55/kWh.
Why do you cal it a LiFePo 4680? Have they changed the chemistry?

$55kWh would be $4500 or roughly $8300 less than the current M3 battery estimate. Seems cheap, but still.

That means it would only need another $1700 of savings after a battery swap to make a $25k M3.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
9,317
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
1. Tabless design is either reducing the heat generated from the conductor or increasing it.
No one here argued that the tabless design was increasing the heat generated. This is why your argument is a straw man.

Why do you cal it a LiFePo 4680? Have they changed the chemistry?
Because a high-nickel 4680 would be a different cost.

You don't know what you're talking about, so why should I read further?

-Crissa
 

firsttruck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
925
Reaction score
1,150
Location
mx
Vehicles
none
Country flag
Why do you cal it a LiFePo 4680? Have they changed the chemistry?
4680 is a battery cylinder size. Elon had talked about three chemistries.
Most of the Battery Day stuff (4680, tabless, high silicon, DBE) works with several chemistries. Tabless is probably immediately required to make 4680 cells but the others could be mixed & matched based on how scaling to production goes for each.
CATL, LG Chem, Panasonic are also working on making 4680 size cells.

Later Elon said they might narrow chemistries to only two, LiFePO4 (LFP) and high nickel.
 
Last edited:

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
6,117
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
4680 is a battery cylinder size. Elon had talked about three chemistries.
Most of the Battery Day stuff (4680, tabless, high silicon, DBE) works with several chemistries. Tabless is probably immediately required to make 4680 cells but the others could be mixed & matched based on how scaling to production goes for each.
CATL, LG Chem, Panasonic are also working on making 4680 size cells.

Later Elon said they might narrow chemistries to only two, LiFePo4 (LFP) and high nickel.
I heard a very good suggestion that they might use LFP for the CT1 and CT2 to keep the costs down then Nickel for the CT3 to keep the weight down. We've all been assuming the CT3 will be significantly heavier than the CT2, but that's not necessarily the case. It's almost certainly heavier, but perhaps not as big a gap as some people have assumed.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
802
Reaction score
1,375
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
I previously posted in this thread that it might be possible with the new production methods to reduce the cost of the M3 possibly down to $25k. I also mentioned the cost of the battery being a substantial barrier to achieve this, however, on another thread I did some numbers like this:

According to Cairn Energy a Tesla 2170 cell battery pack costs around $156kWh.
If a 4680 is 56% less cost it would be around $87kWh.

The largest 82kWh battery in a M3 would cost $12 792 in 2170 cells.
That same 82kWh battery would cost (82x$87kWh) $7,134 in 4680 cells.

That means switching to a 4680 cell pack could cut $12792-$7134 = $5658 off the manufacturing cost of a M3 LR. It would be less for a SR. A 4680 pack would also be considerably smaller and weigh less, so the kWh pack capacity would probably be less too for the same range.

Is it possible to reduce the manufacturing cost (not retail cost btw) another $4-5k to reach a $25k retail cost by using castings etc? I think it should be, we're more than half way there with a 4680 pack alone.

A $25k M3 would be fantastic. Let alone when the infrastructure bill comes through. . :)
Yes! Eventually. And you highlight the primary advantage of the 4680 form factor is a lower cost of production.

And not to get too far into the weeds but, while there are heat transfer benefits of the tabless design and slightly less heat generation, the larger size of the 4680 largely negates those in terms of charging speed heat buildup. Improvements in charging speed will come primarily from chemistry improvements, not form factor.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
544
Reaction score
524
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Yes! Eventually. And you highlight the primary advantage of the 4680 form factor is a lower cost of production.

And not to get too far into the weeds but, while there are heat transfer benefits of the tabless design and slightly less heat generation, the larger size of the 4680 largely negates those in terms of charging speed heat buildup. Improvements in charging speed will come primarily from chemistry improvements, not form factor.
I'm not sure you saw this post explaining how the shorter conducter path length actually reduces overall heat creation in the cells because of the resulting lower cell resistance. This is because of the tabless design and could be applied to 2170 or 4680 cells alike, however because it allows for less heat generation and better heat removal you might as well do a few more jelly roll laps and make a 4680 cell to reduce kWh cost. This heat reduction also helps with faster charging/discharging of course.

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/how-can-it-be-so-affordable.3505/post-71509

Otherwise you can go straight to the source here:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/just-how-much-breakthrough-teslas-tabless-battery-cell/
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
3,053
Reaction score
3,232
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
And not to get too far into the weeds but, while there are heat transfer benefits of the tabless design and slightly less heat generation, the larger size of the 4680 largely negates those in terms of charging speed heat buildup. Improvements in charging speed will come primarily from chemistry improvements, not form factor.
Afraid you are going to have to get into the weeds a bit to justify this assertion. The 2480 has 5.5 times the volume of a 2170 hence Teslas claim of 6 times as much energy per cell. Based on the volume it would, then, presumably produce 5.4 times as much heat were the internal impedances the same. But it appears from simple calculation that both these impedances are, in the tabless design, about 10% of what they are in the normal cell. So the (thermal) watts to flow are less (because of the electrical impedance reduction) than 5.4 times bigger but the impedance they must cross is 10 times less so you are better off by more than 10/5.4 = 1.85. Call it 2. You ought to be able to increase charging current by 40% for the same rise.

These are, of course, back of the envelope calculations. If the weeds hide more precise ones, bring 'em on!
 

Arctic_White

New member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
13
Location
Edmonton, AB
Vehicles
Model 3; CT on order
Country flag
Tech prices usually go down.

-Crissa
Yup; technology is deflationary.

If Tesla is a tech car first and foremost, then prices will undoubtedly go down.

Also: if prices go down, demand will go up and Tesla will end up gaining even more market share which then justifies its stock prices.
 
Advertisement

 

TSLA Stock

Advertisement
Top