-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model Y - Gigafactory Texas Production
- Thread starter Ron J.
- Start date
This guy goes through all the math and answers a lot of questions around potential range and performance improvements by reducing weight. In a nutshell, he theorizes that if the same kW pack size is used as in the current Y, the curb weight drops to a hair under 4000lbs.
His math says that translates into a range improvement of about 4-6%. He also calculates acceleration with that curb weight, and claims it drops 0-60 by about .5 seconds for both models. His acceleration simulator puts the 1/4 mile of the MYP in the low 11s.
Of course, the big question is how much will Tesla nerf the 4680 Y.
His math says that translates into a range improvement of about 4-6%. He also calculates acceleration with that curb weight, and claims it drops 0-60 by about .5 seconds for both models. His acceleration simulator puts the 1/4 mile of the MYP in the low 11s.
Of course, the big question is how much will Tesla nerf the 4680 Y.
Mrbrock
Well-Known Member
Do you understand how EVs are tested? On a dyno in a warehouse. No wind, steady room temperature, steady low to med mph. That is how they get those figures. Then they use a multiplier to get what they consider real world epa range. Tesla is able to use a different multiplier because of how many different ways they test (or how little, goes both ways) so that is why their numbers seem more optimistic than most. Other manufacturers could do the same testing as Tesla and would get similarly optimistic numbers but they choose not to, to almost underestimate range in some cases (porsche).
I don't know about the other guy, but I didn't know this. It's a pretty stupid method imo since it completely discounts aerodynamics, which are huge when it comes to real world EV range. It also now makes more sense as to why the larger wheels make such a big difference. I'd expect some difference, but not that... which is explained when you look at the testing and what the determining factors are.
Mrbrock
Well-Known Member
How Vehicles Are Tested
Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of...
www.fueleconomy.gov
Detailed Test Information
EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.
www.fueleconomy.gov
Notice unrounded ranges of 495 and 454 miles.
Indeed, that's silly. The fact that they can't bother to have it done at a test track astounds me. With all that's riding on those ranges, you'd think they want some real world results mixed in.How Vehicles Are Tested
Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of...Detailed Test Information
EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.
Notice unrounded ranges of 495 and 454 miles.
It is not likely they'll nerf the 4680 Y, they just won't publish numbers. Which to me looks more like the 4680 models will get the same capacity battery wise and benefit from lower weight..but nothing as far as published ranges, etc will happen until AFTER they've switched Fremont. Once that happens they'll publish new number. For most MY owners, they'll see that newer MY have slightly more range but that's nothing new. For people that actually know (or care) about the difference between the 2170/4680 models, they'll care...but a vast majority of customers won't have the slightest idea or understand it or frankly..really care...To the rest of the world it just looks like improvements on the model..lower weight, better handling, better ride, better range, etc...but in small increments..
Those who have the 4680 batteries will notice a range increase when they look at miles remaining if they charge to 100%.
I feel like the extra glass more than makes up for its weight in its thermal ability to hold in heat thus saving power from the heat pump in the winter... in other words.. i would guess the double glass actually has better efficiency here in colorado in the winter
Not necessarily. My Model 3 LR has the 82 kwh battery, yet the charge at 100% still showed 353 miles remaining. It was only when the official bump to 358 miles did it start report higher on an software update. Now if I did a range test would the car run out of juice at the same time as the old 78 kwh battery or would I been able to squeeze out a few more miles in everything equal and ideal environment, etc and the "distance remaining" was a soft lock or was the bigger battery being used for increased buffer.
Even if that is the case, which it doesn't necessarily sound like it will be, does it really matter? The enthusiasts crowd will know, but for the vast majority, they won't care, they'll be happy about it. Eventually there will be media coverage and an article and a few more people will care but by then they'll likely have been able to shift Fremont over and it will go back to not mattering or just part of the constant innovation.
Obviously this is all speculation on my part...but when I read things about people saying they're going to put a battery pack with less capacity to match the current range of the 2170 batteries, that would be really foolish. It could happen, just makes no sense. I don't know all of the details about certification, etc. but I don't imagine you can nerf a car like that and not expect to be in court. Whereas a company giving you MORE than what you purchased is never an issue and really they're giving you exactly what you ordered, just lighter so it would work better.
I also think any speculation they might fill the car with 4680s and give more capacity is probably not going to be the case. Yes it would be nice and I'm sure, at some point, they will have cars with bigger capacity but no reason they'd do that now. Would be cool, however, if that was available as a bolt on upgrade, not sure how that would work but would be cool. Pay X for Y more capacity as an option.
You forget that Tesla advertises range, not capacity. I have no idea what they are going to do with 4860s but they wouldn't be breaking any promises by delivering say a 78 kw 4860 with the same range as the current model. Honestly I suspect they will just make it 82 kw as present but just reserve more range as a buffer for battery degradation etc.. basically the same they did when going from 78 to 82.
One thing I would put money on (call me out!) Is that they won't ship two LR models from different factories in the US that have any appreciable range or performance differences. If there's going to be a difference it will be a new model or in lockstep with Fremont.
One thing I would put money on (call me out!) Is that they won't ship two LR models from different factories in the US that have any appreciable range or performance differences. If there's going to be a difference it will be a new model or in lockstep with Fremont.
If 4860s provide any substantial performance advantage they will want to make a splash with it. A splash is not to drip out models with marginally improved performance, a splash would be something like announcing performance/range increases across all models, at the same time, on an earnings call, to coincide with other major announcements, price increases etc etc
I would go for that, especially if it came with air suspension.
I'd pay another $6-7k over a performance, but that's about it. For a Plaid... which had better have more than just 4680s.
Yup, I'd gladly pay more for that, gladly. With my hold coming off in 3 weeks I feel like I'm going to be on the cusp of at least getting some more info on the next major update (4680?), whatever that may be. On the other hand, I feel like Tesla could leave the MYP unchanged until October and it wouldn't completely shock me.
Similar threads
