Tell me if I’m wrong but no one is able to get these cells unless they buy a Tesla and strip them out. Finally moving on from the silly little 18650 size. Even on a skateboard it’s too small and we have to do like 4 in parallel.
4 Likes
The 4680’s will be structural elements of the car and it might be near impossible to get them out without damage. We’ll find out in a year or two. 
7 Likes
probably by the end of this year, someone is bound to get a pre-public unit and try to take it apart 
1 Like
That tesla repair guy will probably be the first
2 Likes
Rich?? Dear lord I hope he builds an Esk8 with them, he is seriously lacking in that dept but maybe it’s not his style.
If he rebuilt a Onewheel with a VESC I would sure love that though.
2 Likes
And when will you be stonking those kitty kits???
I thought rebuilding a broken Onewheel XR would be more his style, someday… someday. Anyone visiting the Electrified Garage?
1 Like
Likely never.
1 Like
I had an ad lmao 
take the L
2 Likes
3 Likes
only thing they did was really do it though
2 Likes
The bigger innovation is how much easier it is to build these cells.
3 Likes
I don’t know the full context here but Asher is ignoring some important factors. While there is several mundane packaging “innovations” that any other supplier could have choose to do. None have had the motivation to try.
There is a couple “unique innovations” in my eye. The dry electrolyte assembly method and the tab less design in a cylindrical form factor.
The dry assembly method should result in significant cost reduction and increased ability to scale, this appears to be the most difficult challenge for tesla.
The tab less design will increase peak power output and reduced cost due to less time per cell doing the wrapping.
When you combine those two big ones with several small innovations for manufacturing efficiency and several for assembled pack density. You end up with a vehicle pack that is hard to compete with on cost and KW density.
I really doubt most cell manufactures or automotive manufactures have the aggressive innovation culture and risk tolerance to make this many changes to a cell/pack design in one go. Therefor it’s going to take a while for them to catch up to this version of the 4680 tesla pack.
8 Likes
2 Likes
“Until the text-to-voice tech is perfected, it’s better to have a skilled reader do the voiceover. Also, this video didn’t provide any new info”
good comment
I am 100000% sure the same info has been better reported
6 Likes
You hit the nail on the head it’s all about reducing the time and manufacturing cost. the peak proformance is nothing to right home about compared to P42A it’s way behind when you factor in the size of this cell. 5 and a 1/2 times the size 2170.
In Esk8 peak discharge is a mager factor top of most people list when choseing a cell unless you building massive battry. Just look at the most common cells used Q30 VTC5/6 P42A all high discharge cells
3 Likes
Keep in mind that the “peak” output of p42a’s rate them at the lowest cycle life of basically any mainstream cell on the market, and Tesla has been fighting the oil and gas industries fear mongering of “gas tank magically getting smaller over time” cliche since day one. This is why their chemistries are formulated highly in favor of cycle life vs peak output.
Frankly I don’t find the p42a’s to be remotely “advanced” when you factor a 400 cycle life to 80% loss of capacity. I’m pretty certain almost any manufacturer could do this, and you could probably take numerous existing power cells, that list peak outputs at 80% of the p42a’s, and run them at the same supposed p42a intermittent peaks (and don’t forget that those peak outputs are limited as outlined in the datasheet by temp, so meet the same reqs), and get the same results.
To my mind the p42a’s, while a great cell, are playing a bit loose when it comes to the way they’re spec’d especially since it’s become kind of a defacto standard within lithium “ion” chems to spec to 800 cycles before 80% original capacity.
If you look back on it, every Tesla cell used in production, have had insane capacity longevity compared to the spec of most other top cells in the same power (output) class. However, that’s not only a combination of chemistry, but also, the engineering of the packs themselves, along with power management and cooling.
However yes, I agree, the point of the tabless design and the package change is about production efficiency. They were never touted as being some revolution of chemistry or discharge rates.
I’d also go as far as to say that our community’s obsession with peak output numbers, is both a) a bit overzealous in general, and b) often misguided; the p42a’s are a great example of this, people focus on the number on the sheet, with zero attention paid to the highly specific circumstances and caveats of that number. Then, they’ll go and build 8P packs, and not actually utilize it (which is a good thing considering).
It’s not like we’re really hurting too bad on the specs of the cells we have available anyway, I mean sure we all wanna see more output with more capacity in a smaller and lighter package (or at least size/weight ratio improvement), but most agree there aren’t a huge easy gains to be made with current chemistries.
6 Likes
What data do you base this on?
The datasheet lists the max continuous discharge spec at 45A noting that this temp-limited spec will result in reduced cycle life. This is no different than cells like the 40T, VTC5A, and others with their high max rates.
Agreed, P42A’s are great performing cells but are not what I would call “advanced”.
Many cells are only rated for about 250 cycles to 80% of capacity.
But making blanket statements about other cells is problematic as the conditions for setting the cycle life are critical. Some companies rate that using nominal (low) charge/discharge rates and other set it using the abusive charge rates and max discharge rates (conditions typical for the cell’s intended uses). There will be a huge difference in cycle life for conditions as different as these.
P42A’s are rated for their intended applications, power tools and electric vacuum cleaners. E-One Moli tries to position these as EV cells too but that’s a pipe dream IMO. The datasheet is for the cell’s intended customer, not for us.
The Samsung 40T, a cell that performs similarly to the P42A, also lists a 45A temp limited rating. The same as used by the P42A. These ratings are correct for their intended use too.
I don”t remember ever seeing a 800 cycle rating for a 20% capacity loss for a LCO, NMC, or NCA chemistry cell. Perhaps LTO or LFP but those cells are completely different from P42A’s and we can’t compare their cycle life without pointing out these differences.
Which cells have you seen with 800 cycle specs? Especially set under similar conditions to those used by the P42A’s cycle life spec?
I completely agree. Limiting the depth-of-discharge, charge voltage, and limiting the operating temperature range significantly increases cycle life.
I completely agree with this too. The specifics for the cycle life specs we’re discussing are critical. So often people compare apples to oranges, passing judgement on the durability of a cell, without checking the details of how the cycle life specs were set.
Agreed. But I think we have to look into why this is done.
Our community is only really thinking about safety when it comes to these specs and because of that they can run at the “max” rates even if they are temp-limited. They just aren’t coming anywhere near the point where the cells are becoming a safety hazard due to their operating temp.
I think their lack of knowledge regarding the effect of high discharge rates on performance is why the focus is mostly on safety. IMO, if the community was more aware of why a capacity spec is pretty useless for selecting a cell and how DC IR and other factors affect range they wouldn’t try to run their cells at these “max” rates.
IMO the use of max discharge rates by the community, while completely “human”, is driven more by a lack of understanding of what affects performance rather than a willful ignorance of what they know is a more proper discharge rate.
You brought up some terrific points. Thank you for your post!
12 Likes