What will surprise you at the event?

[scottf200]

In this case, I’m *pretty confident* the pack space is full of 4680s, and the limiting factor is instead density per cell.

Separate or in addition to my reasons for the the above, I’d like to understand how it would work/make sense to have a partially full pack. The “structural” quality of the pack results from its rigidity in design as a combined unit. @JBee is really the expert here in this point, so I’d defer to his correction, with a structural pack, it would seem to require engineering different packs that are identical in volume and that have different materials “stand in” for missing cells?

that said, it’s the same question of how in 2019 they anticipated having such large range deltas between models that presumably shared the same frame in which the pack attaches.

regardless, separate from the above interesting conjecture, I’m *pretty confident* the present real world constraint is pack density full of cells, not a pack with sn artificially constrained cell number.

And cells aren’t the only limiting reagent to vehicle numbers

Thanks for the interesting questions related to the structural pack. I would guess they designed a technically equivalent "filler" structure out of something more abundant. Admittedly I've never seen this in a video or picture so I don't have any thing to back that up. Seems like it would stick out in my mind but I've not considered this structural back + range issue before.

I do not understand how the pack is physically different in the 'standard' (260 miles) vs Long range (330 miles) TMY with a structured pack. Do you think they have the same number of batteries in the structured case?

Nor how Tesla was planning on a 250 mile single motor vs twice the distant 500 mile tri motor back in 2019 using the same physical pack. Do you think they have the same number of batteries in the structured case?

.

Sponsored

 

[Arctic_White]

Two hundred would just be about the weight of the motor and maybe a few other things?

While having a single battery pack at launch would be very Tesla... I don't expect that to stay the same.

-Crissa

Crissa, I will say that people get all bent out of shape about a spec sheet which is clearly non-official and has so many formatting inconsistencies that I wonder if it's even real.

Tesla has always under-promised and over-delivered, and we cannot and should not jump to conclusions re: battery sizes, range, and weight until official numbers are released.

 

[RVAC]

The 4680 pack on the short lived Model Y SR AWD would suggest a partially full structural pack to be possible. Unless those 'bolsters' running down the sides are there for side impact protection. In which case it's going to be many years before we see a 500mi range Cybertruck given a ~40% increase in energy density is no joke.

 

[cvalue13]

I do not understand how the pack is physically different in the 'standard' (260 miles) vs Long range (330 miles) TMY with a structured pack. Do you think they have the same number of batteries in the structured case?

Admitting I’m not a super agile expert on these small model differences, I think there is only a single MY with structural pack, and (in the Us) only built at FGTX. They were built in small numbers, were scrapped months ago, and are no longer being built anywhere.

“MY AWD” had 4680, offered 279 mi of range 19” wheels and ~269 mi with the 20”. The non-structural versions of the LR have 300+ range. MYP do not come with structural batteries at all.

Prior to release of the GFTX MY with 4680s, the battery day etc claims regarding 4680 MY had people predicting when it finally began production the 4680 Model Y would have a 475-mile range.

When it came out with 279mi, people freaked.

After a bunch of grumbling, Tesla “explained” why the 4680 had the lowest range of any MY:

“Introducing the new cells meant introducing a new variant of the Model Y. We’ve designed Model Y AWD to have an attractive combination of range, performance, and price that will be the best fit for many customers and will make Model Y accessible to more customers, furthering our mission. Those interested in an even more capable Model Y should explore Model Y Long Range & Performance. We have chosen to put a lower energy battery pack in Model Y AWD, resulting in a lower range, acceleration, and price point.”

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



I recount all this because it’s possibly instructive to thinking about what will now be the only 4680 vehicle Tesla is selling come Nov 30: the Cybertruck

Whether you believe (1) or (2) above, the outcome in the MY may be the explanation for the outcome in the CT.

There’s a single structural pack, and either by density limitation or corporate philosophy about making the CT accessible and volume-focused, price-wise.

 

[cvalue13]

Tesla has always under-promised and over-delivered,

can you give examples? And since, you say “always”, can you give every example?

Because there’s also here an equivalence going on about what people *think* was “promised” vs reality

 

[RonM]

Show me the LOTTO results, then I won't be surprised at the last minute trying to get transportation to the event!

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Exoskeleton.

You need that in quotes, friend, because Tesla has never changed its use of the term. As far as they, or almost anyone, is concerned the thick SS outer skin carries load and adds rigidity that a traditional unibody skin does not. You already won the argument that it isn’t any longer a pure exoskeleton. You should absolutely expect to see a thick SS outer skin that carries load and adds rigidity.

 

[cvalue13]

You should absolutely expect to see a thick SS outer skin that carries load and adds rigidity.

@JBee concedes and agrees it “carries load and adds rigidity” exactly like Tesla says

and exactly what Tesla says is laid out in detail in its patent titled “Vehicle With Exoskeleton”

he agrees with everything that patent explains in detail, with precise terms, diagrams, and examples.

The problem, the “disagreement” if you will, is that NOT-Tesla (eg you) go on to explain something that Tesla does *not* explain in that patent.

because the patent says it “carries load” of things hanging on the panels (eg interior door trim and door mechanicals), and “adds rigidity” where intrusion is concerned, and replaces traditional structural members where intrusion is concerned

that’s all

and aside from that patent, the only things Tesla has said, that *some* people interpret to the contrary, are musk’s comments at 2019 unveil which - unlike the Patent - were brief (3 sentences), imprecise, and ambiguous.

if you need any proof how ambiguous and imprecise the comments are just **GESTURES BROADLY TO THE PAST 4 YEARS OF DISCUSSION**

Which is all to say that, contrary to the explicit language of Tesla’s patent titled “Vehicle with Exoskeleton”, it’s *you* who are not expecting what Tesla has said

that’s just to level set

 

[Arctic_White]

can you give examples? And since, you say “always”, can you give every example?

Because there’s also here an equivalence going on about what people *think* was “promised” vs reality

Model 3 range and specs announced vs. delivered. Model Y range and specs announced vs. delivered.

Will the Cybertruck follow the same?

What they have never done is announce one set of specs and deliver an inferior set. The only thing close to it was Plaid Plus which was announced but never delivered as the Plaid is so good as it is (according to Elon though I'd have paid for the Plaid Plus). Now it is very possible that Telsa may not bring out the 500+ mile variant right away but I'd then expect pricing to be lower than the initial $69K. Let's find out soon!

Tesla also has been sandbagging their installed capacity/production numbers lately. Giga Shanghai was pumping out 70K+ vehicles per month but Tesla stated that its installed production capacity was 550K+ in their past few shareholder decks. Just recently they updated the deck to say 750K+ for Giga Shanghai and 125K for the Cybertruck.

Could they be sandbagging the production for the Cybertruck? So many unknowns!

 

[cvalue13]

Model 3 range and specs announced vs. delivered. Model Y range and specs announced vs. delivered.

Will the Cybertruck follow the same?

What they have never done is announce one set of specs and deliver an inferior set.

so you’re limiting your “never underdelivered specs” to what, range only?

just wanting to be clear

 

[Arctic_White]

so you’re limiting your “never underdelivered specs” to what, range only?

just wanting to be clear

Range & performance, yes. *Not* price. Prices will adjust as per demand.

My take is that Tesla will likely offer a low(er) initial price and will adjust if the demand is insane.

In other words, price is one thing no one has a clue about as it could be relatively cheap, or it could be quite high. But we do know that Tesla will continue to change and adjust prices to market-clearing prices.

I think the CT will be priced similarly to the Lightning but with better specs (range and performance).

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Admitting I’m not a super agile expert on these small model differences, I think there is only a single MY with structural pack, and (in the Us) only built at FGTX. They were built in small numbers, were scrapped months ago, and are no longer being built anywhere.

“MY AWD” had 4680, offered 279 mi of range 19” wheels and ~269 mi with the 20”. The non-structural versions of the LR have 300+ range. MYP do not come with structural batteries at all.

Prior to release of the GFTX MY with 4680s, the battery day etc claims regarding 4680 MY had people predicting when it finally began production the 4680 Model Y would have a 475-mile range.

When it came out with 279mi, people freaked.

After a bunch of grumbling, Tesla “explained” why the 4680 had the lowest range of any MY:

“Introducing the new cells meant introducing a new variant of the Model Y. We’ve designed Model Y AWD to have an attractive combination of range, performance, and price that will be the best fit for many customers and will make Model Y accessible to more customers, furthering our mission. Those interested in an even more capable Model Y should explore Model Y Long Range & Performance. We have chosen to put a lower energy battery pack in Model Y AWD, resulting in a lower range, acceleration, and price point.”

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



I recount all this because it’s possibly instructive to thinking about what will now be the only 4680 vehicle Tesla is selling come Nov 30: the Cybertruck

Whether you believe (1) or (2) above, the outcome in the MY may be the explanation for the outcome in the CT.

There’s a single structural pack, and either by density limitation or corporate philosophy about making the CT accessible and volume-focused, price-wise.

The "structural" pack essentially means that the battery casing IS the floor of the car, instead of having a pack sitting IN the floor. It simplifies manufacturing, etc, 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. They can just fill the remainder of the pack with other materials or supports.

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.

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. 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.

 

[HaulingAss]

The wording of the poll question needs to be changed for it to even make sense.

From "what will surprise you" to "what would surprise you".

As it stands, I'm not sure what responders are actually saying.

 

[CT_Traveler]

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest this, so I think it will be a surprise for everyone: The entire dash lifts up to reveal a massive storage compartment!! I'm just guessing, but its a space that begs to be used for something...

 

[PilotPete]

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest this, so I think it will be a surprise for everyone: The entire dash lifts up to reveal a massive storage compartment!! I'm just guessing, but its a space that begs to be used for something...

Why do you think it's NOT used for something?

If you read back to some of the pictures we have seen of the frunk without the liner, there is a TON of stuff up in there. But it's all systems stuff. A good place to hide it. But I don't think there are many empty cavities in this beast.

Of course, that would surprise me as well. Maybe if they lift the dash up and there is a pizza warmer to keep your togo order warm until you get home? Maybe under the middle seat in the back you flip it up and it's a matching beverage cooler to keep whatever you're drinking with your take out nice and chilled?

Aw, who am I kidding. I'd be surprised if they did the steel ball on the window trick again!

Sponsored