# It's Battery Day!



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

*It's 🔋🔋🔋 Day!*

Elon just couldn't resist tweeting out some nuggets of data ahead of time.
Here he states that partners are not being thrown to the curb - and that Tesla will be relying on them to increase production!

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308284091142266881
And then he sets realistic expectations. The technology being show today won't be in production for a couple more years.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308148212876812289


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Can’t wait but I feel we kinda know a lot of stuff already. Hopefully the devil is in the details


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

When Elon says no "high volume production" until 2022; can someone convert that to ElonTime for me? I'm not good at math...


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

In as soon as 10 days, we might also get the Q3 2020 production numbers. Sad to say, I will miss it as I need to take my wife for a doctor's appointment and run by the Court House.

Bob Wilson


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

FRC said:


> When Elon says no "high volume production" until 2022; can someone convert that to ElonTime for me? I'm not good at math...


<elon translator>We're actually going to have production online much sooner, but we still need to use other batteries for the foreseeable future, so let's say it's two years out to prevent Osborning ourselves.</elon translator>


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

6 months of build up for battery day and now not much left to likely say. Seems the technology has been leaked and they aren't using it for a couple of years. Maybe some finite details. Likely just confirmation of that same news now and mostly a let down.


----------



## Captain Scarlet (Apr 26, 2020)

Elon’s tweets signal good news not bad. It means Tesla is still battery constrained and going to need all of them they can get. Great problem to have! And I think there’s still going to be a lot to learn today, only a small portion has been leaked and I’m sure Elon is still going to wow us with fantastic tech and positive news.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Personally, battery day should be about just that, batteries and the technology advancements at Teslas. A heads up of what we can expect in future vehicles. The whole "we're buying A LOT of batteries and using them all" is more a business/finance matter.


----------



## $ Trillion Musk (Nov 5, 2016)

Elon mentioned which Teslas will have the latest battery tech initially. Nice!

Also, better to break the 2022 news now than later as it could’ve put a damper on today’s presentation.

Really excited for today!


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Here's the link to watch live:
https://livestream.tesla.com/


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

GDN said:


> 6 months of build up for battery day and now not much left to likely say. Seems the technology has been leaked and they aren't using it for a couple of years. Maybe some finite details. Likely just confirmation of that same news now and mostly a let down.


ok Mr Glass Half Empty 

at least wait until the presentation to be disappointed


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

MelindaV said:


> ok Mr Glass Half Empty
> 
> at least wait until the presentation to be disappointed


Someone truly needs to break Elon's twitter fingers.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Here is the live youtube...seems to be no sound at the moment?


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

Thanks for confirming, I couldn't get sound either.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Here we go...stockholder stuff first, elon after, Battery Day separate and following...I get the feeling this is going to be a long one


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

OK - I just had to laugh when they showed the audience. Truly they have cars in the parking lot facing the stage with people in them. I assume they are watching the stream on their screens. Actually kind of innovative for sure.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

I was just going to say the same thing...it's basically a drive-in movie theater of Teslas!
Welcome to 2020!


----------



## IPv6Freely (Aug 8, 2017)

Oof, two of these proposals about discrimination and human rights issues. "the board recommends voting against this proposal".


----------



## IPv6Freely (Aug 8, 2017)

JWardell said:


> I was just going to say the same thing...it's basically a drive-in movie theater of Teslas!
> Welcome to 2020!
> View attachment 35605


I love that they honk instead of clap.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

There you have it...new smaller car confirmed!!


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

Targeting $25K price. Not only that price, but it is much cheaper to maintain and power than the cars that it will replace (just like we already know today.)


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

IPv6Freely said:


> Oof, two of these proposals about discrimination and human rights issues. "the board recommends voting against this proposal".


Yeah, those "shareholder proposals" are always submitted by interest groups that just buy enough shares in order to be able to submit the proposals. They're basically "trojan horse proposals".

The one proposal was pretty obviously brought forth by the UAW.


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

GDN said:


> 6 months of build up for battery day and now not much left to likely say. Seems the technology has been leaked and they aren't using it for a couple of years. Maybe some finite details. Likely just confirmation of that same news now and mostly a let down.


So, what is your ending impression?


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

iChris93 said:


> So, what is your ending impression?


Well if you wanted to boil it down, indeed we knew some about the technology and it won't be usable for a couple of years, so it isn't like they are going to make big changes in the packs and vehicles for a while. So the edge was definitely taken off what we were hoping for.

On the other hand, it was very exciting and promising to see more of the technology involved and to see the reduction in cost as well as the enhanced power from the cells, along with the new pack Becoming part of and built in to the vehicle vs being a separate entity that is assembled and then installed.

Truly some exciting times and very hard to imagine how anyone else is keeping up with this or getting close. Was just hoping it would be some news that would impact range right away.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

The market was certainly unimpressed. Down $25 at close, and another $29 after close.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Yeah, the market defies logic. Tech must have confused them. Elon should have been using trillions of dollars of revenue instead of terrawatthours I guess!


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

The market is hard to watch. If you are on the train that EV's are here to stay and battery cost is one of the biggest factors, it is hard to see what they just presented and believe that Tesla isn't the big long term winner. I guess we just don't know what others are working on since they don't show their hands.


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

JWardell said:


> Yeah, the market defies logic. Tech must have confused them. Elon should have been using trillions of dollars of revenue instead of terrawatthours I guess!


Lots of mixed messaging. We're building it now but we won't be done for years and its really hard. We need help but we got this. Was this for recruiting? Was this for investors?

Does this mean the cybertruck is dependent on this new battery technology that isn't ready and could delay it? Sounds like a return to production hell.


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

Cool stuff on the engineering front though. I love that they go through the tech and have engineers present. It just isn't great marketing. I also wish they would wait till they have it in production.

You know what is great marketing though. 0-60 <2s and 1/4 mile in <9s.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

M3OC Rules said:


> Lots of mixed messaging. We're building it now but we won't be done for years and its really hard. We need help but we got this. Was this for recruiting? Was this for investors?
> 
> Does this mean the cybertruck is dependent on this new battery technology that isn't ready and could delay it? Sounds like a return to production hell.


Agree with this, I was also concerned about the truck. I can't imagine it being built without this technology in the battery. So my thoughts are the single and dual motor will get the current 2170 cell and the tri-motor will get the new 4680 cell and likely even a longer range than has currently been advertised. This will really help it compete on that top end with the competition and set the bar higher. To accommodate this perhaps they start building the dual motor, then add tri-motor late next year or early 2022.


----------



## Quicksilver (Dec 29, 2016)

We live in a society of instant gratification so presenting a plan that doesn’t have results until 2 to 3 years out, however great the plan will be, puts a damper on things. Tesla is in it for the long haul whereas the market and consumers are wanting results today. 

As I was watching, I was asking myself, which CEO of any major OEM talks tech like Elon? The answer is none that I can think off. Overall, I think they are super innovative in the battery space and today just helps prove that. It’s just it’s going to take a few years to play out. The question now is, will LG, CATL, etc. will see the benefits of Tesla’s plan and mimic it; to also work at improving their own battery production processes.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

JWardell said:


> Yeah, the market defies logic. Tech must have confused them. Elon should have been using trillions of dollars of revenue instead of terrawatthours I guess!
> 
> View attachment 35609


Meh, it's always like this, just like Apple announcements. Give it a few days for cooler heads to prevail and the importance to sink in...


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

At least you guys can watch Raj dance for us...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308521626154262528


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

I was surprised that there was very little talk about cooling. I think the only thing said about "thermal management" was that the tabless design helps the cell itself spread out the heat load instead of concentrating it at the tab, but that's all I remember.

I thought we might end up with something like... fully-immersing the cells in coolant, rather than just running a coolant line along the side in one location as is currently done.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

garsh said:


> I was surprised that there was very little talk about cooling. I think the only thing said about "thermal management" was that the tabless design helps the cell itself spread out the heat load instead of concentrating it at the tab, but that's all I remember.
> 
> I thought we might end up with something like... fully-immersing the cells in coolant, rather than just running a coolant line along the side in one location as is currently done.


Part of their secret sauce, they won't talk about specifics but if any one is curious here's the patent on the new "bath" cooling system which is part of the new pack design for the larger cells
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20190312251.pdf


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

I've gathered a bunch of screenshots of the presentation, some good stuff in there


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)




----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

I was going to say they didn't say anything about charge time but that graph reminded me. It appears that its worse than the 2170. This could be a competitive disadvantage going forward. They must be assuming what they have today is good enough. They are confident everything is going electric but not everyone is sold yet and adding hours to a long trip is still a disadvantage to ICE.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

M3OC Rules said:


> I was going to say they didn't say anything about charge time but that graph reminded me. It appears that its worse than the 2170. This could be a competitive disadvantage going forward. They must be assuming what they have today is good enough. They are confident everything is going electric but not everyone is sold yet and adding hours to a long trip is still a disadvantage to ICE.


No, you read it wrong, it's better, MUCH BETTER. Think about it: 2170 have a tiny little tab where the electrons have to pass through for charging. This limits the charge level they can deliver. The new cells have the tab along the whole length of the roll. Charging rates will be astronomical !


----------



## Garlan Garner (May 24, 2016)

GDN said:


> Targeting $25K price. Not only that price, but it is much cheaper to maintain and power than the cars that it will replace (just like we already know today.)


Was the picture of the $25k car on the screen and wasn't pointed out by Elon?

I couldn't figure out what kind of car that was. Elon likes to sneak things in without talking about it.

It wasn't an S 3 X or Y.

What do you guys think?


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

Garlan Garner said:


> Was the picture of the $25k car on the screen and wasn't pointed out by Elon?
> 
> I couldn't figure out what kind of car that was. Elon likes to sneak things in without talking about it.
> 
> ...


Just pure speculation. A real design being worked on, or a quick photoshop from an intern to just throw on the graphic? He didn't seem to indicate anything further than acknowledging the gap for truly a cheaper entry level EV.

I think @garsh already noted and I would agree, a smaller SUV style, likely must have 4 doors and a hatch back. I'm thinking Honda CRV style. $25K with a 250 mile range.


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

TrevP said:


> No, you read it wrong, it's better, MUCH BETTER. Think about it: 2170 have a tiny little tab where the electrons have to pass through for charging. This limits the charge level they can deliver. The new cells have the tab along the whole length of the roll. Charging rates will be astronomical !


Then why does the Y-axis say Supercharge time increase? I see the 21mm on the far left as the reference.


----------



## TomT (Apr 1, 2019)

2023 or 2024... Or...



FRC said:


> When Elon says no "high volume production" until 2022; can someone convert that to ElonTime for me? I'm not good at math...


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

GDN said:


> Just pure speculation. A real design being worked on, or a quick photoshop from an intern to just throw on the graphic? He didn't seem to indicate anything further than acknowledging the gap for truly a cheaper entry level EV.
> 
> I think @garsh already noted and I would agree, a smaller SUV style, likely must have 4 doors and a hatch back. I'm thinking Honda CRV style. $25K with a 250 mile range.


No, that picture was just supposed to be a Model X.
It looked a little funny/different, so I started wondering if they were going to announce a refresh.
My guess was incorrect.

The "sheet over some kind of car" was used to represent the future $25k vehicle.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

M3OC Rules said:


> I was going to say they didn't say anything about charge time but that graph reminded me. It appears that its worse than the 2170.


You're definitely reading the graph incorrectly.
There are two lines on the graph.
The hard-to-see dotted line is labeled "1 TAB". That applies to all current cells.
The solid line is labeled "TABLESS". It's almost completely flat, meaning the charging time barely increases regardless of how big you make the cell.


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

Another excellent review:





Bob Wilson


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

garsh said:


> You're definitely reading the graph incorrectly.
> There are two lines on the graph.
> The hard-to-see dotted line is labeled "1 TAB". That applies to all current cells.
> The solid line is labeled "TABLESS". It's almost completely flat, meaning the charging time barely increases regardless of how big you make the cell.


I realize the dotted line is for a tab design. If they made a tabbed design at 46mm it would be bad. I think they are showing that they can make a 46mm tabless design that is slightly (no scale on the graph) worse than the 21mm tab design in terms of supercharging time. This is obviously an important design element that enables a lot of benefits so it make sense to show it. But since they used supercharging time as the y-axis I'm not sure how to interpret this in any other way than its worse than (or probably the same as) the 2170 in terms of charging time. I'd love to be wrong here but isn't the 2170 at 0 and the new 46mm at some increased supercharging time?

Now if you can get a 600 mile Model 3 for the same price in three years as the 300 mile Model 3 now you could spend less time at the superchargers by partial charging. Maybe that's a better solution than 900V batteries or some other change.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

M3OC Rules said:


> I realize the dotted line is for a tab design. If they made a tabbed design at 46mm it would be bad. I think they are showing that they can make a 46mm tabless design that is slightly (no scale on the graph) worse than the 21mm tab design in terms of supercharging time. This is obviously an important design element that enables a lot of benefits so it make sense to show it. But since they used supercharging time as the y-axis I'm not sure how to interpret this in any other way than its worse than (or probably the same as) the 2170 in terms of charging time. I'd love to be wrong here but isn't the 2170 at 0 and the new 46mm at some increased supercharging time?


The 2170 cell has tabs.


----------



## JMart (Sep 12, 2017)

The graph makes it look like Tab and Tabless 21mm diameter cells would have the same charge time, but that's not true is it?


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

garsh said:


> You're definitely reading the graph incorrectly.
> There are two lines on the graph.
> The hard-to-see dotted line is labeled "1 TAB". That applies to all current cells.
> The solid line is labeled "TABLESS". It's almost completely flat, meaning the charging time barely increases regardless of how big you make the cell.


Sure, the larger you make a 1tab cell, the longer it'll take to charge that ONE cell. But how does that impact a larger battery pack that doesn't make cells bigger, it just adds MORE of them? Theoretically this would allow more of the "empty space" between cells to be filled by making the cells themselves larger, but how large a cell are they planning on making where this becomes drastically beneficial? I'd imagine a tab-less cell would still be susceptible to the same issues as 1tab cells have (degradation, heat, etc) which would limit how large they can get.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

shareef777 said:


> Sure, the larger you make a 1tab cell, the longer it'll take to charge that ONE cell. But how does that impact a larger battery pack that doesn't make cells bigger, it just adds MORE of them?


The limit on supercharging is that all of the current going through that single tab causes the _tab_ to overheat, rather than the body of the cell. That's why it takes longer to charge a 1-tab design.
Sure, you could go with much smaller cells, and having much more of them, and that would allow you to spread out the charging over more cells (and more tabs). But the primary reason for wanting to go to the larger cell size was to reduce costs. The tabless design allows Tesla to switch to a larger cell without making supercharging take longer.


JMart said:


> The graph makes it look like Tab and Tabless 21mm diameter cells would have the same charge time, but that's not true is it?


Probably not. Given the complete lack of scale and units on the Y axis, I wouldn't read too much into that graph, other than the fact that the tabless design prevents tab overheating from being the bottleneck to faster charging.


----------



## victor (Jun 24, 2016)

*Piedmont Lithium Signs Sales Agreement With Tesla.*

_Piedmont Lithium Limited ( "Piedmont" or "Company" ) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a binding agreement ("Agreement") with Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla") for the supply of spodumene concentrate ("SC6") from Piedmont's North Carolina deposit to Tesla._​_
The Agreement is for an initial five-year term on a fixed-price binding purchase commitment from the delivery of first product, and may be extended by mutual agreement for a second five-year term._​​https://apnews.com/business-wire/7fb231fd5cac4cb6a0eb5c267697e13a


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

I'm going to say that tab overheating is not measured and so does not affect charging time. But the tab design has more internal resistance than the tabless so the cell voltage limit of 4.2V is reached at a lower Amp charge rate so charging takes longer. The higher resistance also means more heat is generated at the same charge rate and has to be removed from the cell which can limit charge rate under certain circumstances.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

M3OC Rules said:


> Then why does the Y-axis say Supercharge time increase? I see the 21mm on the far left as the reference.


Watch the presentation again, you'll see the Y axis drop when they say bigger cells. Remember the S curve for charging, now it's a very flat curve. That's the important metric


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

I cant believe how much media I saw today calling battery day a failure. 
Clearly no one watched a minute of it.
It was nothing but exciting news for the future from every metric!
And typical wall street only cares about NOW, how dare a company plan for years in the future!


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

I am pretty sure that science is not a journalist's first language.

I agree. They took a very logical approach to the WHOLE problem. End to end.


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

Oh boy

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-rival-bill-gates-backed-203948566.html

"Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is expected to unveil a "million-dollar battery" soon - perhaps during the company's Tuesday "Battery Day" event. The new battery is speculated to last for a million miles after one charge. "

Don't they have any science advisors at all?


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

JWardell said:


> IMHO, TSLA price:
> 
> Yeah, the market defies logic. Tech must have confused them. Elon should have been using trillions of dollars of revenue instead of terrawatthours I guess!












An excellent time to hoard more TSLA stock before the 2020 Q3 sales numbers in about 10 days:

S&P500 fallout - prior to the committee skipping Tesla, a lot of S&P500-like, fund managers were trying to buy TSLA cheap but actually bid up the price. Now they can unload, take profits, and pray the price keeps going down. Curiously, as they sell TSLA, it becomes self-fulling.
Never be above exploiting the willful ignorance of Wall Street.
Bob Wilson


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Feathermerchant said:


> Oh boy
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-rival-bill-gates-backed-203948566.html
> 
> ...


You would just need to develop a light-weight 2 million mile battery to lug it around.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Someone edited the Autoline video down to just the parts where Sandy is talking (from 1h34m to 36m).
Some great quotes from Sandy in here.

Sticking cells to a cooling plate and cooling from top/bottom is better than from the sides.
Big cell cheaper than prismatic & pouch cells, faster manufacturing.
"If I was a CEO of a big OEM, I'd be wetting my shorts"
"I couldn't believe it when I saw that the stock went down. That thing should be skyrocketing!"
8m: "That's the slide that says, if you're investing in ICE vehicles, you're screwed" - referencing the "Stacking Up The Benefits Of Tesla's Vertical Integration" slide, found in post #37
"Those boneheads who say 'we're going to sell short' - those clowns? I have no idea - they're not engineers".
"To me, they're not a car company - they're like, Edison's lab"
Munro Assoc. cost analysis: Pack cost for original Model 3 was $156/kWh. Now $108/kWh for the Model Y.
Current vehicles have battery _case_ as structural member. New design incorporates entire pack (including cells) as structural member. Should make a huge difference in resonance frequency/stiffness.


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

garsh said:


> "If I was a CEO of a big OEM, I'd be wetting my shorts"


Besides the patent on the tabless cell, what is stopping other OEMs from doing the same?


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

iChris93 said:


> Besides the patent on the tabless cell, what is stopping other OEMs from doing the same?


Inertia. They're just so far behind in preparing for an EV future.

The traditional OEMs are going to have to figure out how to tear down all of their internal engineering silos as well. You can't produce something like an Octovalve when the passenger HVAC team is separate from the motor team, which is separate from the battery team.


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

Integration is better than dis-integration.


----------



## TomT (Apr 1, 2019)

Actually, I was disappointed by battery day... A number of things that might see the light of day in ten years... I was expecting and hoping for more.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

TomT said:


> Actually, I was disappointed by battery day... A number of things that might see the light of day in ten years... I was expecting and hoping for more.


I don't disagree they are maybe just a little ahead of themselves, and at times I wish they didn't tell all of their secrects, I firmly believe this is now to 2 years - in 10 years this technology will be old news.

These batteries are already being made in low yield quantities and they are planning on going into the semi and Cybertruck at a minimum. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't find a way in to the Roadster and Plaid S.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TomT said:


> Actually, I was disappointed by battery day... A number of things that might see the light of day in ten years...


Where did you get that impression?

They presented everything that they're currently working on and said it would enter "mass production" in two years.


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

If they are making the bew batteries but not getting the yield they want, I guess they could immediately go into low production rate products like the Plaid Model S and the Roadster.


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

BTW Munroe estimated that the Model 3 with a full compliment of the new batteries would have about 130 kWh capacity which gives about 520 mile range. It may be heavier though.
I suspect Tesla will stick with the new batteries and the current 75 kWh capacity. Since they are 15% more efficient you would still get about 45 more miles of range.
Less resistance also means less penalty for driving fast because of lower battery losses.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Ideally, Tesla would use the new battery technology in every product. But it's probably going to be a decade before they're able to ramp up enough production.
The presentation suggests that the first products to use the new batteries will be the semi and cybertruck. The added benefit to this approach is that the existing cars' battery packs don't require a redesign in the immediate future.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

garsh said:


> Ideally, Tesla would use the new battery technology in every product. But it's probably going to be a decade before they're able to ramp up enough production.
> The presentation suggests that the first products to use the new batteries will be the semi and cybertruck. The added benefit to this approach is that the existing cars' battery packs don't require a redesign in the immediate future.


As a caveat to that, I think Elon also stated that the Berlin Factory would also be making these new batteries and using them in the cars. So European Ys and 3s will probably switch over to the new batteries before Ys and 3s in the rest of the world.


----------



## TomT (Apr 1, 2019)

Past track record... You can usually double (sometimes triple) any timeline Elon gives and be about right... 



garsh said:


> Where did you get that impression?


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TomT said:


> Past track record... You can usually double (sometimes triple) any timeline Elon gives and be about right...


They've kind of turned that around with the Model Y. They actually started delivering that car earlier than promised, and the production ramp-up was much quicker.

Just as they were with the Model Y, Tesla is down-playing their upcoming tech. First, they don't want to risk the Osborne-effect, and having everybody wait until "new batteries" are available before buying a Tesla. But second, they can't come out and say that they're planning on replacing all of their battery suppliers, because they still need those suppliers for the next 2-3 years.

So I'm willing to bet that they've actually under-sold the timeline.


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

TomT said:


> Past track record... You can usually double (sometimes triple) any timeline Elon gives and be about right...


I think they have basically admitted to manufacturing hell. They have vehicles with announced timelines that need this technology to meet the specifications. They have also said they have unsolved issues resulting in low yield and probably large portions of manufacturing that haven't even been started. It's hard to know exactly where they are at based on what they said.

I will add that Tesla has lost credibility on a $25,000 car. Games aside they still don't have a $35,000 car.

I think it's fair to question the timelines. They are really putting pressure on themselves which may be necessary since the competition is not there yet. Just don't bet against them. They will get there.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

M3OC Rules said:


> I think they have basically admitted to manufacturing hell. They have vehicles with announced timelines that need this technology to meet the specifications. They have also said they have unsolved issues resulting in low yield and probably large portions of manufacturing that haven't even been started. It's hard to know exactly where they are at based on what they said.
> 
> I will add that Tesla has lost credibility on a $25,000 car. Games aside they still don't have a $35,000 car.
> 
> I think it's fair to question the timelines. They are really putting pressure on themselves which may be necessary since the competition is not there yet. Just don't bet against them. They will get there.


To be fair - Tesla did sell the $35K car, it may have been short lived, but they did, that is common across most business, they sold it, maybe just not what the expectations of the consumers had been. Tesla knows there is a huge gap on the lower end of cars. They really really need a $25K car. You've got to get in to the lower end with a decent EV that brings excitement and younger people want to buy and can afford to buy. I think it will be insanely popular.

As far as putting pressure on themselves, while Elon's timelines are never met, the one thing Tesla has never done is wait on competition to push them. They wouldn't exist if they did. The competition will kill themselves trying to catch up for even a day or finally give up and roll over, it is likely the latter because no one else wants to do this right.


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

I wish Elon had mentioned how clear and clean the air was during lockdown. And then he could have said "We can do that permanently".


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

Feathermerchant said:


> I wish Elon had mentioned how clear and clean the air was during lockdown. And then he could have said "We can do that permanently".


And then they had the fires.

Bob Wilson


----------



## Quicksilver (Dec 29, 2016)

garsh said:


> Someone edited the Autoline video down to just the parts where Sandy is talking (from 1h34m to 36m).
> Some great quotes from Sandy in here.
> 
> Sticking cells to a cooling plate and cooling from top/bottom is better than from the sides.
> ...


Watching the Autoline video I found Sandy to be overly effusive but I can understand that he is geeking out - not to say too much about his wish to buy some of Tesla's components for the three cars he and his partners are developing. Bob Galyen sounded almost like Bob Lutz...saying Tesla has no lead in the tech and that everyone is doing these thing (in different ways) and some of the others may even be ahead of Tesla but they don't talk about it. I wished Sandy would have asked, "Ok Bob, which OEM out there today do you know is going through the entire battery integration from mining to production like Tesla." The answer is most likely none. Bob Galyen is thinking more of LG and CATL which are purely battery manufacturers which may be exploring new processes on batteries but no OEM is going through the level of details that Tesla is going through. Personally, I am excited about the announcement and looking forward to the next two years to see CT and Semi using these improves batteries; but maybe I am just a geek at heart.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

M3OC Rules said:


> Games aside they still don't have a $35,000 car.


Food for thought: Tesla announced the $35,000 Model 3 in 2016.




  






The Model 3 SR+ starts at $37,990


----------



## BluestarE3 (Oct 12, 2017)

Feathermerchant said:


> Oh boy
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-rival-bill-gates-backed-203948566.html
> 
> ...


Oooh... Tesla must be working on Nuclear Diamond Battery technology. A $1 million battery that doesn't need to be recharged for 1 million miles.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

BluestarE3 said:


> Oooh... Tesla must be working on Nuclear Diamond Battery technology. A $1 million battery that doesn't need to be recharged for 1 million miles.


I'll go on record as one to say I'm not sure I believe in the Mars exploration, but if they make it they will need a battery right? There is likely a customer for anything you can make.


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

A little additional information.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310003337752801280


----------



## BluestarE3 (Oct 12, 2017)

iChris93 said:


> A little additional information.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310003337752801280


I think that oh-by-the-way addition to his response is even more significant than his response to the question asked.


----------



## Feathermerchant (Sep 17, 2018)

Yes. Like I said before he said they are able to make them but they are not getting the yield (% passing QC tests). So if they are making some good ones, they could put them in some low rate production cars like the Plaid Model S or Roadster. Better not to waste them. 
Remember when OLED TVs were so expensive? They were also low yield until they refined their production process. The good ones were OK just more expensive to produce because of the bad ones. As they have made the process better and improved their yield, they have become less expensive and more plentiful.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Apparently, Tesla has made some additional moves to obtain Lithium supplies in the near-term, before their "Nevada Lithium Clay" project is ready.

https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/m...s-foundations-of-china-dominated-spodumene-2/

Some highlights:

Piedmont Lithium - a lithium developer aiming to produce spodumene from North Carolina - today, announced an off-take with Tesla for "approximately a third" of its 160,000 tpa spodumene output each year for a five year period.​​Tesla will use a hydrometallurgical process to turn its spodumene concentrate into lithium hydroxide, eliminating the use of sulphuric acid. However, this process has not yet been built at commercial scale so will provide an additional hurdle for Tesla.​​...confusion reigned over Tesla's lithium direction in particular the EV maker's plans to extract lithium from Nevada-clay, which Benchmark understands is more of an early stage idea than a supply solution. Tesla's foray into lithium chemical production is a clear indication that the EV and battery cell maker favors the spodumene route for near term lithium supply.​
Tesla continues to move further up the supply chain.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Tesla Acquires Germany Battery & Powertrain Assembly Line Manufacturer ATW

The company was in distress due to COVID. Tesla's acquisition appears to have saved over 200 jobs!


----------



## victor (Jun 24, 2016)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312128047424782336
Direct link to Battery Day slides:
https://tesla-share.thron.com/content/?id=96ea71cf-8fda-4648-a62c-753af436c3b6&pkey=S1dbei4


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

First look at the new structural battery pack

https://electrek.co/2021/01/19/tesla-structural-battery-pack-first-picture/


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

I'm surprised by the number and complexity of coolant connections, but this no doubt a prototype with more revisions on the way


----------



## Garlan Garner (May 24, 2016)

TrevP said:


> First look at the new structural battery pack
> 
> https://electrek.co/2021/01/19/tesla-structural-battery-pack-first-picture/
> View attachment 36751


I wonder if those are 4680 sized holes.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Garlan Garner said:


> I wonder if those are 4680 sized holes.


They are indeed. A structural pack implies using 4680 factor cells, it's the future pack design going forward for all new car models. Model Ys made in Berlin will be the first existing car design to use it however.


----------



## $ Trillion Musk (Nov 5, 2016)

JWardell said:


> I'm surprised by the number and complexity of coolant connections, but this no doubt a prototype with more revisions on the way


Interesting how the coolant delivery appears to be multithreaded - probably necessary for optimal battery management. But yeah, so many hose connections. Let's see what Sandy Munro has to say.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

$ Trillion Musk said:


> Interesting how the coolant delivery appears to be multithreaded - probably necessary for optimal battery management. But yeah, so many hose connections. Let's see what Sandy Munro has to say.


Given they're not doing modules anymore they need to find a more efficient method of evenly distributing the coolant so doing it from the sides with multiple loops is the way to go.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

A small tidbit surfaced about patents or potential acquisition that could be helping Tesla and their batteries. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tesla-springpower-international-patents-190100400.html


----------

