Ok I have been waiting for the official count of the number of cells in the battery pack
of the 4680 Austin Model Y.
I have been humoring and entertaining options so I can look at it from all angles.
But I don't think there's much point in waiting any more, it is obviously going to be 828,
I was just humoring a lower battery count to cover all bases.
So there you go, I am officially calling the cell count as 828.
Now a lot of people like to speculate on the future Tesla is headed.
Whereas here, we try and predict the future.
We analyze as much data as we can possibly collect, I analyze it, report it, and then
100s of people give me credible feedback, rinse and repeat.
We don't just simply think of some vision and talk about how wonderful that might be.
We assess everything we can, and we see what future directions they are pointing.
We can then assess certain futures an assign a potential weighting factor on them.
We can then use said probable outcome as an element in our investing or trading decisions.
We aren't doing this purely for fantasy, we are trying to predict the future here, which
is what investing is, the sport of predicting the future.
As you know, I have been covering 4680 cells
in some fairly intense detail.
Including every characteristic of the new vehicles.
And I have to say, the evidence is starting to look pretty stacked that these vehicles
range, is not adding up to the claimed range, implying that Tesla are limiting the range
of the vehicles with software.
Something not only is Tesla capable of, it's also something they have done in the past.
If you were wondering why Tesla would limit the range and performance of these vehicles,
when they are battery constrained, I have explained in the past, that it may be a necessary
requirement for structure, but even if it is not, then it is still more profitable including
the extra cells inside the vehicle.
So we are going to explore all the reasons that I think Tesla is using software upgrades
with the 4680 battery packs.
Let's face it though, the ability to buy a
car at lower cost now, that is more standard, with the ability to upgrade it later is going
to be one seriously cool product.
Some people look at it as Tesla trying to upsell the product to you after the fact.
But I think in reality, it is a pricing model that is enabling consumers to purchase the
product at a lower cost initially.
But for example, imagine spending $60,000 on an EV, only to discover buyers remorse
due to the insufficient range.
Well if you knew that you could remedy that one day with a $5,000 software upgrade, it
probably wouldn't bother you so much.
In fact it might have made the initial purchasing decision easier.
For example some consumers may be concerned about spending $60,000 on an EV that only
has 280 miles of range, what if that's not enough range?
Would you have to sell it, then buy another more expensive long range EV, and having to
go back on a long waiting list.
From a marketing perspective, for price and product, this is absolutely fantastic.
I am 100% behind the software upgrade, from a consumer stand point, an investor, and I
think for the overall mission.
And just remember if Tesla sold all these Model Ys software unlocked for $60,000, then
the waiting list just gets too long, which is bad business.
It's good business to make a product so coveted everyone wants one.
But you need to manage such an insane demand.
So what is in this cell that may give it that
much more range.
What if its still the same chemistry as the 2170.
We do know that Tesla were using cobalt, due the The Limiting Factor's video with the tear
down on 4680 cathode.
This was however a kato road cell, we don't know if it's the same for Austin.
But to be honest the cathode doesn't actually
make much difference in energy density or range.
That wasn't the revolutionary new chemistry that increased range, no it was the anode,
the additional silicon added in with the graphite.
This in so under rated, it is the biggest deal in the cell as far as range improvement
is concerned.
We do not however have a break down of how much silicon is being used in the new anode.
Silicon can contain a lot more lithium than graphite and improve the energy density of
the cell dramatically.
In other words, this is where the magic is happening.
Basically speaking, and I mean that literally, all the progress in energy density is going
to be felt at the anode, it is that basic.
And we simply don't know what progress Tesla have made there.
But they have been working on it for about 3 years, so there is a chance they have made
some progress.
And like I keep saying, this is where there is the most improvement for energy density,
so there's a good chance they really were working on it quite hard.
This energy density is imperative for the Cybertruck and Semi Truck.
What might be a realistic battery size of
the 4680 battery pack then, if it is software limited?
Well we know the size and quantity of the battery cells in the 2170 Long Range, and
the Austin 4680.
With that we are able to calculate that the 4680 battery pack appears to have about 3%
more volume for jelly roll.
Thus a higher volume would mean more space for a higher kWh battery.
Well if the current Long Range usable battery pack size is 75 kWh, then an additional 3%,
takes it to 77 kWh.
Then we have the improvements in the chemistry.
Now the chemistry was still going to take a few years to perfect, refine and improve.
On the other hand, it is also required to reach a certain standard as early as next
year for the Cybertruck.
Look I am going to estimate that the chemistry may have improved the density by as much as
10%.
Implying that the battery pack is close to 85 kWh.
That does sound quite large, and this was just the usable battery, so the actual gross
battery capacity might be in the region of 93 kWh.
Of course there are also people in the community who think this might be due to the first iteration
of the 4680 cell, not being very energy dense, but this is pretty bad.
Do we really think that Tesla's latest, state of the art, with billions invested, with the
brightest minds on the planet working on it, over years, that they ended up with a battery
that has 20% less energy density?
Really ask yourself, does that sound likely?
That's a reasonable sized battery, but not
that excessive, I mean there are plenty of EVs with batteries in excess of 100 kWh.
In fact it's actually not that big a deal if you have a large battery, if it ends up
weighing less than a smaller battery.
Vehicles are built with a structure, there is a lot of metal used to maintain the vehicles
structure, and stiffness.
Tesla decided to also used said structural metal, as the cans for their jellyroll.
So remember, Tesla are not adding cells into the car, they are adding jelly roll into the
structure.
The actual can of the cell, these were pretty much free as far as weight was concerned,
as they were necessary for the structure.
All Tesla have done, is alter the structure of the vehicle into a honeycomb, and then
filled the honeycomb with jelly roll.
That is what Tesla's cell to vehicle integration is all about, and no one else is doing this.
Anyway, long story short, we also know that through this process, and perhaps a few others,
Tesla have managed to shave off at least about 143 lbs of weight, it may be more officially.
Let's just gather all the data we have here.
We have one vehicle with a smaller 75 kWh battery pack, an additional 143 lbs of weight,
but also an additional 50 miles of range, or 18% more range.
Compared to the Austin Model Y, that potentially has an 85 kWh battery pack, weighs 143 lbs
lighter, and gets about 50 miles less range.
Do you see where I am coming from?
Alright, so what kind of range could this
vehicle be capable of?
Well given the fact there is an additional 10 kWh, with an extra negative 143 lbs of
weight.
Then look, the numbers are pointing towards 400 miles of range.
Now I ask you, would you pay an additional $10,000 to get an extra 100 miles of range?
And what if you had the entire lifetime of the vehicle on which when to decide to upgrade?
I even have a theory, that the recent Model
Y price rises for the Long Range, well they were a big jump.
Perhaps that's because by the time we get to that date, well Tesla would have stopped
producing the Model Y Long Range from Fremont, and replaced it with an upgrade for the Austin
version.
Implying something like this, it costs $60,000 for a standard Model Y, from there you can
upgrade it to a Model Y with similar range to the current Long Range.
That upgrade would cost $6,000, hence why the Long Range now costs $66,000.
Because by the time the waiting list is exhausted for the lower cost Model Ys.
The 2170 will no longer be for sale, and consumers have to buy the 4680 version Long Range instead.
Tesla would have affectively under promised and over delivered.
Under promised on a 2170 Long Range Model Y, over delivered on a lighter weight, better
handling, better braking, safer, more upgradable vehicle, for the same price.
And let's face it, it was a big price jump, which might justify a new Model Y.
A larger battery isn't just offer increased
range and performance, there are other such benefits too, all of which would add to the
Tesla experience.
For example it means that you can charge faster, it also means that regenerative braking is
more effective.
Anyway, my point is that if these batteries are so much more efficient than the previous
versions, like 2170, then I would say it likely that the Model Y from Austin could probably
achieve the 280 mile range with a 50 kWh battery.
However, we are now estimating that this battery could be in excess of 80 kWh
This is really interesting, and going to be
detrimental to Tesla's business model moving forward.
It would be seriously cool, if you range unlock these cars, and we suddenly discover they
have ranges of mid 300 miles.
The stock price might also have something to say about that.