The 4680 has a number of advantages: lower internal resistance, better heat shedding, and a new chemistry. While that should translate to faster charging, Tesla will be conservative with the tapering so that they're not replacing vast quantities of $20,000 packs under warranty.
The jury is still out on what effect the 4680 will have on charge times. It is designed to shed heat better, but it is bigger which makes it inherently more difficult to shed heat. It may just be a wash.
Well if it has 6 times the volume it will produce 6 times the heat while the surface area would only increase about 3 times so there would be trouble but we showed in an earlier post that the conductivity goes up by a factor of about 10 with the tabbed design. Clearly this is what Tesla had in mind and clearly we're OK.
Don't know how fast the Y charges but the X averages just under 1C. The AWD CT with a 125 kWh battery could do that from a V2 or V3 charger but a 220 kWh TrMotor would obviously require a V3;
It is funny to me how so many people have strong opinions about how big the battery is going to be on the Cybertruck will be. Without knowing the weight of the truck, we can't know how big the battery will need to be. We don't even know for certain what the battery chemistry will be which will ultimately affect the weight of the truck.
Don’t forget you’re talking cost, not wholesale and definitely not retail.
My understanding is the pack will be a structural part of the truck.
Yep for sure. Cheapest I've been able to buy batteries is around $240kWh.
I would assume the structural pack would however reduce the cost of the car structure, possibly netting an overall reduction in cost because the cells themselves would actually be used to carry load, which isn't the case with 2170 etc. where the car had to carry the battery cells instead.
It is saddening to me that so many people understand Englsh as little as they understand basic science. One does not make strong assertions using the subjunctive.
One doesn't need to know the weight to estimate the battery pack size. He needs the consumption which, depends to some extent, on the weigtht, of course, but much less so in a BEV than in an ICE vehicle because regen recovers much of the inertial load. We can bound the CT consumption quite easily and probably fairly accurately. But what we get is nonetheless an estimate. The engineers here (of whom there now seem to be more than in the past) will understand this. We know that the CT consumption will be more than that of a Model X (282 Wh/mi) and less than that of a R1T (437) and that it will be closer to that of the R1T than the X because of size, weight and Cd. We can look at either end of the range implied by those two vehicles and estimate battery capacity as between 84.6 and 131.1 kWh for the AWD and between 141 and 218.5 kWh for the Tri.
Given what little we do know (see Tesla slide in No. 1) the new tech promises a 56% cost reduction. Compared to the 100 kWh battery in the X the Trimotor CT battery would cost 0.56*(210/100) = 1.176 times what the X battery does. Entirely reasonable. That same slide talks about 54% improvement in range. I don't know what that means exactly but clearly increasing the amount of battery gloop in each can by a factor of 6 increases the energy stored in it by a factor of 6 while the amount of "can" the gloop goes in increases by only a factor of 6^(2/3) = 3.3. The slide is obviously marketing hype but even so suggests higher energy density in the cathode, anode structure etc. If we interpret this 54% in the same way as the cost the weight of the 210 kWh battery would be 1.13 times the weight of the X battery. Not sure we really should interpret it that way. The Trimotor battery is going to be a big battery for sure and it has got to weigh more than the X battery but it's not going to be double the weight of the X battery.
Classic ajd nonsense. Pointless arrogance followed by a giant math bomb underpinned by a bunch of huge assumptions. You are building the foundation of your house of math on sand.
I'm not doing anything other than offering a reasonable engineering estimate of the battery sizes for the two vehicles based on sound engineering principles which, like it or not and whether you understand it or not are quantitative. If you don't understand that math is the sand upon which the house of engineering is built and that these trucks are engineered products you would best remain silent in order to avoid looking foolish.
