Pack Analysis: BYD Blade vs CATL Qilin vs Tesla 4680 Structural
Which next generation battery pack is best and are there any advantages to each design? That's the topic for today: A pack level analysis of the BYD Blade vs CATL Qilin vs Tesla 4680 Structural batteries. In short, they're all awesome packs that just happen to take different approaches based on the strategies of the companies that designed them.
Use my referral link to purchase a Tesla product and get free credits you can redeem for awards like Supercharging miles, merchandise and accessories. ts.la/jordan72005
Patreon: / thelimitingfactor
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/limit...
Bitcoin: 3B3UXCZsnoPZxG6vYQ6npsF4TW8f5kK4LH
Teespring: teespring.com/stores/the-limi...
Reddit: / tlfbatteries
Twitter: / limitingthe
Timeline
00:00 Intro
02:05 Why am I Leaving out GM and Ford?
04:25 Basic Design Analysis: Blade / Qilin / 4680
05:49 Caveats and Why I didn’t Include Charge Speed
07:58 Rigidity Analysis
09:32 Energy Density
11:02 Cooling Analysis
11:42 What do I Mean by Safety?
14:20 Safety Analysis
17:27 Cost Analysis
19:43 Initial Summary Table
20:30 Full Table with Commentary
24:16 Final Table: Tesla’s Perspective
26:37 Summary
Intro Music by Dyalla: Homer Said
Simply incredible work, as always, Jordan! Really makes me understand, and I have no professional background in any of the subject matters you talked about
😊 Thanks Julian!
As an all in Tesla investor, your battery comparison presentation is a great anti-anxiety catalyst😅 Thanks!
Glad to hear it man!
Ultimately I think all battery packs from all manufacturers will be close enough that it won't matter too much. Right now the race is price which is largely a race for production capacity. Tesla is growing like crazy so I think you're good. Also, Tesla uses whatever kind of battery it can get from a range of manufacturers in a range of form factors and sizes, so even if the 4680 didn't work out at all, they would just instantly pivot to other different batteries.
Sorry for that...all out would be safer.
Tesla isn't only about cars. They make batteries, power walls, megapacks, solar panels, full self driving payed software and later robotaxi and next generation robots. Don't be afraid, this company will be number 1 until 2030 with more than 5 trillion market cap if everything go normal
The mess about Tesla battery is that the polietherene foam will have downsides when it comes to repairing and recycling and you know where the trend is going. In 5 years Tesla 4680 battery structural pack will not be allowed. Also, the cooling is not the best approach since those bands like they did in previous generation is not the best cost-effective solution. For day to day consumers the best solution would be to have top-bottom cooling. For the architecture off all cylindrical and prismatic cells the conductivity, (which will be the main factor on even cooling) is orders of magnitude bigger in the z axis. For prismatic cells it makes sense, but for cylindrical cells the best solution is to have a good bottom cooling. I dont doubt they are the safest, but over engineering will have minimal impact on overall accidents but a considerably impact in cost. As they say in the video Tesla will be for a high end market wihle Chinese are going for the true poeple's car. I would not be able to grade the battery's packs as he did each is focused on their points. Is like trying to fit a high end bmw to a guy in France who need a small van like a Berlingo. For sure the bmw outperforms the van in multiple points but it fails in it's key point.
Excellent video that not only compares the different structual batteries, but makes the important note that ALL of them are better than anything before, and that CATL and BYD are Tesla suppliers, not competitors, at least for many years to come.
yes, excellent points
Another advantage of using smaller cells are yield rates: like with computer ships, the smaller the cell, the higher the yield rates.
Great point! Hadn't though of that!
If the main issue affecting yield is small random defects on the anode and cathode that would make sense. Is this the case though?
Can you elaborate more? Why do smaller cells have a better yield rate? Even if the smaller cells' yield rate is higher, does it translate to a business advantage? Quantity wise you need 5X # of smaller cells. E.g., 95% yield of 4000 smaller cells means you have 200 scraps. 90% yield of 800 large cells means you have 80 cells. There is a breakpoint but your statement might need some clarification.
by 'yield', do you mean momentary power availability? If so, for sure a huge advantage. Also I might add, more wiggle room for error/dying cells in the future, and with compression resistance overall -say with a side impact of the pack(vehicle) might stunt/eliminate a smaller percent than an entire array of blades due to one end receiving minimal damage.
@@Charles-Darwin Yield rate is the percentage of manufactured cells that are actually usable at point of manufacture.
My favorite episode Jordan! It really shows and draws from all your research you've done over the last couple of years, Thanks for the great overview!
😊 Glad to hear it Justin! I agree with you, it's a good synthesis of the full stack I've been learning about for the last couple of years. Was fun to cover lots of areas at once.
You ROCK. Love your work, and you are always on point. Thanks.
Jordan - great analysis. One item you should double-check. Why the 4680 cell can is thicker than the 2170 cell can. The thicker 4680 cell can MAY help with the pack's structural aspects, but it is likely the primary reason for thickening it up is to prevent the cell can from rupturing in a thermal runaway event. The cell cans are essentially "pressure vessels" that must contain the cell's internal pressure during a thermal runaway event and allow the cell's gasses to vent through the end-cap vent port and not rupture the can's sidewall due to excessive "hoop stress" in the can (picture how a pipe ruptures when it has been over-pressured or freezes). The "hoop stress" for any cylinder is proportional to the internal pressure, cylinder diameter, and cylinder wall thickness. So, for a constant internal pressure, a cylindrical cell that has twice the diameter will require a can with twice the wall thickness to handle the same hoop stress. Note the 4680 vs 2170 cell diameter ratio is 46/21 = 2.19. Now note the 4680 cell can vs 2170 cell can thickness ratio is an average 0.55 mm/0.25 mm = 2.20. Coincidence? Perhaps you should check with any cell engineer contacts you might have about my hypothesis.
Covered in the next video.
So many mainstream media outlets need to watch this. Another great video.
I've been waiting for this! Thanks Jordan!
Your analysis is very exhaustive and specific as far as I have read. Thanks
Thank you, your videos are always the best!
A very thorough and well-presented analysis, thank you!
Clear evidence based analysis. Three (5) outstanding battery packs using significantly different engineering approaches. Actual rather than theoretical units. Excellent relevant and valuable video. Thanks
Bravo! I find your videos to be both compact and comprehensive with the added bonus of being brutally coherent with zero fluff.
Maximum information density 😁
Great video and great reasoning, while also explaining the limitations of the marketing materials.
Got some well reasoned points Bud, tks for the run down.
Thank you Jordan. Love it. ❤️ Your work make a big difference in this revolution we are seeing.
You're most welcome!
Great presentation. Nice and fast, not wasting my time.
Thanks Jordan. Your research and production work are appreciated. 🙂👍
😊
This is awesome work! I enjoy ever second of it.!
🙌 Thanks Bo!
Brilliant analysis with more comparison bandwidth than anyone else has in a densely packed but still understandable video.
🤜🤛🤠
Absolutely awesome analysis. The internet at its best
Really appreciate these videos. If I could add anything to this analysis I would definitely like to see comparisons in potential power density, particularly for fast charging capability. I understand the focus on other factors regarding the value to manufacturers. I also think that longterm adoption for EVs as a major form of transportation depends a lot on the available infrastructure and that includes fast charging. Especially after fully battery electric Trucks start becoming mainstream. That being said. Keep 'em coming, please!
THANKS JORDAN,FOR A “FAIR AND BALANCED “REVIEW 😉💚💚💚
Welcome back, Jordan!
Wow, Gordon! Your research and breakdown of information is fantastic! I owe you so much even to my limited knowledge. Hopefully, someday soon, I will begin to repay ~
You're all good dude! I appreciate the kind words.
Jordan? ;-)
As always, full of content and thoughtful insights. It is interesting to see that with different chemistries and structural designs that BYD, CATL and Tesla are able to look at each other in the eye at present, but the competitive race that will be run over the next decade has only just begun. I suspect that Tesla will have the deeper pockets to secure its success in energy storage as this promises to be an even larger market than the vehicle market.
Thanks for this brilliant video on these 3 next gen pack designs which we will see getting into cars in 2023. It is amazing how quickly things are moving. My 2019 Kia e-Niro has an NMC pouch cell pack with 147 Wh/kg gravimetric density at the pack level. This energy density is now surpassed by iron based packs in the Qilin and Blade designs. The battery in my car was made by SK Innovation and as far as I know there have been no reported cases of fires with these cars which have sold really well in Europe. My understanding is that the Hyundai Ioniq 5, 6, Kia EV6 and Genesis cars all still use pouch cell designs from SK Innovation but are 800v systems. So it seems that pouch cells are not dead yet! After 74,000 km and nearly 4 years I have seen no loss in range, though of course there is 3.5 kWh of ‘headroom' on the pack in my car, something that I believe is not needed in a LiPo chemistry.
Jordan This details within this video Is beyond incredible. I have no superlatives to do this justice.👍👍
Well shit, thanks Thomas! I appreciate that.
Great analysis, right approach!
Excellent comparison and breakdown of the contendors for next gen packs vs legacy systems. I'm glad to see that there are multiple companies pushing the overall pack performance forward, and look forward to seeing real world results! Great video as always buddy! By the way we recently accepted delivery of our 2023 MYLR! So stoked to finally be part of the Tesla owners club!
WOOHOO! Congrats man! I want to buy all the Teslas, lol. 😁
Congrats!!!
Best video of the EV scene so far. Your stuff keeps getting better and better.
🤜🤛😀
Great assessment, even though you're limited by available accurate data. Thanks!
There's a lot of comments coming up in this video about the repairability of 4680 Structural Packs: 1) Repair was always a minimally viable proposition for automotive packs. It creates cell balancing issues because you can't just drop a fresh cell into a pack full of disimilar cells. You'd have to find a cell that's identical to others in the pack, which were matched at the factory. It can be done, but it's more of a bandaid for out of production packs. 2) What about if it's not the cell that's the issue? That's part of the the point of entombing the busbars, wiring, and cooling lines in polyurethane foam rather than bolting everything down: There's not much to break loose. If there is a failure, it would show up pretty quickly and covered by warranty. 3) EV OEMs don't cater to the
when GM decided to recall all Bolt battery packs, they first experimented with in the field module replacement. Quickly determined that was impractical, all packs were processed at a central GM facility. So agree modularity and repairability are false goals.
@@steamtorch GREAT insight.
Good point re: Bolt. That said, do you know whether GM replaced modules at their central facility, vs. scrap-and-replace? Just because a manufacturer decided it's currently impractical or unsafe to do field repairs doesn't mean that'll continue to be the case, or that nobody will come up with a better way to do so. Third-party repair helps keep manufacturers honest and accountable, and gives owners more options.
@@realfutbol1 GM reused cases and electronic components from returned packs with new modules. I assume parts went into common inventory so no pack was really just a simple module replacement. I mean GM put a full 8/100 warranty on them so all parts had to pass testing and inspection.
You might be right but that just means the realistic lifespan of the vehicle is 10 years. Taking into consideration the increased energy and raw materials needed, the sustainability of current evs is very dubious.
Great work very informative.
thank you for battery comparison video
Great Video, lots of help in understanding of the new generation of battery design and chemistry. I will review your site in hopes of finding answers in some of the changes being worked on the anodes chemistry to depart from Cobalt use to graphite either synthetic or mined or 100% silicon or lithium of graphite enhanced silicon. Thanks
I don't think Tesla is primarily concerned with whether the 4680 is the most energy dense. What they want is 1) something they're confident they'll (eventually) be able to massively scale, and 2) that can be made outside of China, to reduce their China battery dependency.
They will need energy density for their future products (cybertruck, semi).
Very interesting, thank you. One additional advantage in Tesla's technique is that multiple pack sizes are possible without changing the pack voltage. Tesla can shrink or grow the pack size by changing the number of cells in parallel, while keeping the same number in series. With BYD, it appears all cells are connected in series, so they may only be able to change the pack size by changing the number of cells in series, which changes the pack voltage...which in turn changes powertrain voltage. They could double each cell in parallel, but that grows the pack size by 100%, which is a completely different vehicle.
Amen!~
Great vdo with lots of detail to digest. From a simple geometry perspective, the blade battery has much better packaging, doesn’t need the foam padding to fill the gaps, and the current collector is vastly simpler. You mention the cylinder form factor is cheaper to produce, and perhaps with the current machines it is, but I would imagine the blade battery will sooner or later be equivalent or maybe even cheaper since the cells are bigger. The blades could be tilted to reduce pack height for sports cars where it’s desirable for the seats to be low to the ground. The blade battery makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m invested in Tesla not BYD.
Yeh, there is something much more elegant and simple about the Blade Battery. I don't see the future of battery packs being 1000's of cells and connectors and ribbon coolers, etc. BYD looks like the future, if all the other criteria are met.
GM's switched off their Ultium blade battery, leading some to think that the 4680 cylinder was underestimated by the critics who could start here and learn the important dimensions of the EV battery. Thanks for the work you do.
Very well done comparison!!!
Thanks man! Glad you enjoyed it
Thanks a lot for this interesting video. I would like to add that fast charging is as important as the energy density . For example you can reduce the pack cost by decreasing his size and quickly charge in order to keep your range to your use case. The combo LFP/Fast charging is quite interesting. The Qilin cool the cell big source because it is the best place (lower contact resistance between JR and casing). In addition I do think that the Qilin design is aimed for allowing better fast charge performance. The use of cooling to stop the TR is theoretically possible , but is has to be performed as soon as the cell reach the first onset temperature. Besides the high temperature may loosen the contact between cell and cooling plate reducing the cooling performances. NMC tends to generate more energy than LFP with lower trigger temperature. But LFP has a lower max temperature but will keep it for a longer time. Therefore the safety performance is highly dependant on your system safety concept or design For the Future it is very difficult to say if Tesla is choosing the best solution , but they have chosen the best for them. In fact the cylindrical cell design is something they already master in term of design and manufacturing ( changing even a slight tooling calibration can be difficult 🧐)
If batteries can be charge quickly, the plus is really short charging time. I think drivers will not mind going to a charging station and wait for 5 mins to charge their batteries. This is especially so for city dwellers. In that sense, do you think that would make BYD blade battery to be the best choice? Additionally, what are the challenges to install very high wattage charging station.
Hey Jordan Took me a while, but I'm here! . WOW! ANOTHER great one! ALMOST as complicated as the World Cup Group permutations.... But not quite!!! 😁👍
LOL! Good analogy
Excellent. Thank you.
Great information / work !
🤜🤛
Thank you!
thanks for the analysis of why you left out GM and Ford.
Great presentation. I liked a lot. But have you think the geometry of BYD Blade has very lower thermal requirement so bottom cooling circuit is prity enough to keep battery temperature in good operation. In this meaning, the BYD Blade has the best thermal efficiency of these pool?
Thanks for the video. Would have been nice to know how these three compare with what we already know or expect from solid state batteries especially on energy densities, safety and cost.
There are no mass produced solid state batteries. There's like 1 GWh of capacity out there from all producers.
Hi Jordan, thanks for the great info, as usual. IMHO, the LMFP Qilin is probably best for most applications: the manganese improves iron energy density, iron based cells are cheaper and last longer, don't have cobalt, are safer (generally), etc. Obviously you know this, but I just wanted to add my $0.02 in the comments. For the time being, it seems Li-ion rules the roost for high-density apps, like performance. I think for the semi though, LFP will be a good solution soon, if for nothing else, durability/cycles.
Fair comments! Yeah, LFP for the short range semi would be just fine.
Excellent analysis - Thanks! On pack density, I thought prismatic cells require extra space to allow for expansion of the cells. It would seem the metal containers may have some empty space to allow for this, reducing the density. This might also reduce the efficiency of thermal systems as air is a poor thermal conductor. Sadly, it's hard hard to find these details from marketing presentations if true.
Amen! Lots of variables there. The packing density of the jelly roll within the cell is better in cylindrical cells and the cell can acts to contain the jelly roll expansion.
Yes thank you very interesting.
Amazing video!
Thanks for this in depth analysis. I'm sure a second watch will be necessary. As I understand: the Tesla motors and control systems give better performance / KWh. If true; that could make up for the battery performances along with so many other factors; like drag, etc. Two days until the Semi event. Yahoo !
Yes! They do! Next video
Detailed analysis like this is what could turn a lot of ICE car owners to EVs, most of them will talk about safety concerns and battery life. Give me an LFP BYD pack in my Tesla and I will never have to worry about these things: too chemistry in top tier software engineering.
Great analysis
Excellent information overview….
Hi Jordan. I had a friend in Florida who pointed out that some EV fires happened there after the Hurricane, due to salt water getting into the battery pack. Of course that is bad, but I assured her this should be very rare, for the same reasons that gasoline leaks are rare. But if it happens, yes that is bad.
I like CATLs design. Clearly the best design with structural cooling and large area of side cooling.
Thanks man.
Great video. two suggestions - BYD also mainly use their battery cell and battery pack for BYD internal vehicle production. The cost should be low - It would be great to consider the battery packs from VW, KIA, etc
1) Correct, just take the Tesla cost chart and invert it. 2) VW and KIA - If in house, then similar to GM/FORD. If purchasing, then on par with BYD, CATL, TSLA...but higher cost. In other words, all this can be inferred based on the information I provided.
As always, very insightful. Much appreciated. Do you have any idea where Tesla stands on its third generation of battery machinery and any further progress on other revenant technology (e.g. dry technology, other chemistry variations, ..).
Those updates come at the earnings calls, and I do updates after every earnings call.
@@thelimitingfactor Understood. Thanks for the reply.
i always thought that larger cells for higher capacity makes far more sense than putting multiple cells in parallel. BYD Blade is amazing. however, though i know these are all long life structural packs, if BYD could easily make their cells replaceable, even if it requires desoldering or re-spot welding, it would give far more confidence that these packs are worth using the resources for when the market does become resource limited. a serviceable vehicle is an immortal vehicle.
Thanks!
Hi Jordan. I noticed you stated cylindrical nickel based pack only option for LONG RANGE Cyber Truck and Semi. So what's your opinion on iron chemistries in these vehicles? To my mind if they simply swap out nickel for iron with similar volume packs the low range 300 mile options will be easily possible with iron chemistry !!!!
Possible. Likely? Depends on cell supply from different sources.
Jordan: There are some of us who want to know how batteries rate, but who flunk chemistry. For us, brief summations of your results would be appreciated. Maybe an occasional "wrap-up" of your findings of recent months; the strengths and weaknesses of a certain battery, but without the how. Thanks.
IDK but suspect that materials will ramp faster than widely predicted given the high prices, permit streamlining and incentives. Price and gov getting out of the way alone should largely remedy this in yrs not decades. Another great production, I'm going to have to start contributing soon.
🤜🤛 You're most welcome!
Omg this is what i want to watch right now!! What a coincidence...
🤜🤛
What about the charge cycle impact of battery chemistry between iron vs nickel? That's surely going to factor into consumer decision making in 5 years time when nickel based cells need to be replaced...
Bravo!
what an awesome video 🤗
Glad you liked it!!
Hi Jordon..Apsolutely sure the new semi is using Supercapcitors... Can't prove it but power requirements are so huge the lithium ion would be getting such a hammering.. Look forward to your vlog on it..
Supercap not required. The energy reserve of the pack is so massive that it has power on demand. That is, the motors are the limiting factor, not power.
One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the round shape and hexagonal arrangement of the 4680 makes it much less likely that it will get punctured or bend.
Will Prowse sent me lol. I don't understand why KZhead has yet to recommend your channel to me given the number of related channels I'm subbed to.
Lol, I just watched his video and saw that! It tripped me out when I heard my theme song on his video 🤣
I loved your video, I just have 1 quesiton. Why does the 4680 batteries get a better energy density score when the last gen 2170 batteries are currently going further and achieving faster 0-60 times in the Model Y? Per Sandy Munro's tear down of the different Model Y battery packs; There are 4400 vs 830 batteries for the 2170 and 4680 battery cells respectively. The 2170 Model Y has 106,700 cm^3 of volume and the 4680 Model Y has 110,350 cm^3 of total battery volume. it looks like the older packs had better energy density when you you crunch the numbers. But I see your chart give the new pack the energy density win. I am just curious why the batteries that take up more room with less power got a better score.
A factor not mentioned is that only tesla 4680 packs have enough cells (1000) to go to 900 volts+ which can significantly shrink & lighten the drive motor & much of the connecting heavy wiring, like Lucid has done. This may also speed up super charging so I've read, but I'm not sure how?
Jordan I'm curious how would you rate 1 to 10 the energy density of M3P with these next gen battery packs? Shenxing M3P might be a 10... Why?! Because it's electrolyte works so well in cold temperatures that it could work without any cooling whatsoever (and save on weight and volume) just like Mercedes EQXX which had 100kWh of LFP battery without cooling. Shenxing M3P could be a 10 battery in Rigidity, Energy Density, Cooling, Safety and Cost. A straight up the best battery pack combo to date. Maybe even the optimal solution in terms of thermodynamics?
No need to copy and paste to both videos. My dashboard shows me everything. I'd have to refactor everything because it's all relative and has to be looked at through the lens of the whole competitive landscape. M3P might come out the best out of everything regardless of pack tech. It's a great balance - no real achilles heal. As for Shenxing, they didn't actually tell us a whole lot, we still need to see specs or I need to do research to guess. "Shenxing M3P" might have some incompatible technologies or may creates trade off decisions, so that's a level of speculation even further.
@@thelimitingfactor"Thermally modulated lithium iron phosphate batteries for mass-market electric vehicles" at ResearchGate. With all this hype about cathodes and anodes, the electrolyte is the one that brings meaningful progress.
Great video but it left me with a big question. Roughly, what is the ultimate likely cost difference for a GM or Ford battery using the older design? Second key question is whether GM and Ford will be switching to this modern design soon too?
The difference between an in house 4680 pack and an external sourced pack using module and beams will be about $88 vs $110-130. No, they haven't even started producing their first gen in volume.
@@thelimitingfactor Yes, the lack of any vertical integration of the cells, has to add cost. I think Ford mentioned LFP, with no signs of using them, and pouches suck.
The blade design is absolutely the winner for LFP. The cylindrical cell is absolutely the winner for NCA, and to a lesser degree NMC, as cylinders under pressure do not expand - the end cap handles any pressure event. We've all seen puffed up prismatic cells and it seems that all prismatic cells swell - blades are fundamentally a stretched prismatic cell.
Amen, Blade is a pretty kick ass design!
You could also include the new Model S/X battery in your analysis -- even though it technically has 5 modules, the overhead of the modules is almost nil.
Yeah, I have to some borders around the video or they grow exponentially 😁 Fair point though
Nice!!
Thanks man!
Has anyone taken the ID MEB battery modules apart yet to see which cells it is using and how it is put together? I've seen Munro and some others look inside the pack, but I've not seen any detail on the actual cells used. Who made them, which chemistry?
Excellent as usual. Question about the pack that I haven't heard discussed (apologies if you have). The 4680 is well suited to a blended pack. It would seem to me that's an obvious solution to global demand for Iron and Nickel . Am I wrong in thinking that you could have different "bandoleers" as needed for performance or range? I know that there is battery management etc, but this is Tesla.
A blended pack really isn't necessary if you're making both a long range and standard range vehicle. Could be done, but not worth the BMS hassles and cell balancing issues. If you want a moderate range vehicle, better to use LFMP or improve LFP.
@@thelimitingfactor i yield to your knowledge. Thanks for taking the time
Any opinions or interest in the NIO Battery swap option?
Admire your work here, but I think in light of the news that the Cybertruck will be able to use the 1000 kw Megachargers, it might be needed to add charging speed as a rating to really compare these battery cells.
Thanks man Given unlimited power, charge rate is determined by chemistry and thermal management for the most part. This will be covered in the next video. Basically, high power charger does not mean fast charging vehicle. You need both
@@thelimitingfactor yes, I understand, but also the amount of heat charging creates is, I believe, a critical advantage of the 4680, but I look forward to the next video. I suspect that the Tesla team have had the objective of ending the "but I can fill my tank in five minutes" argument against EV trucks, especially given range loss when towing. Not saying recharge in five...but maybe ten minutes will be possible for at least to 80%, and if you have five hundred miles range 80% is probably good.
Do you have information from Tesla that they will be doing a 4680 LFP? I've assumed that the benefits of prismatic volumetric packing and the lower volatility of the chemistry meant they would not do a cylindrical LFP cell. Blade seems like the way to go for LFP.
Nope! This was just an excercise in showing why it's viable. I've said in the past the the form factor doesn't really matter, and this video reinforces that. Depends on what you're designing for.
Jordan, both BYD and CATL have deployed these technologies in existing vehicles. CATL has deployed CTP in SAIC vehicles such as the 77KWH MG Mulan. Also the Lotus Electra uses LFP CATL CTP and Zeekr 009 uses CATL Qilin CTP?
I'm not sure how this matters if there is no publicly available information. You get me the data and I'll do the comparison. These packs are all the same generation, whether you call them generation cheese or generation next.
@@thelimitingfactor There is lots of information on these car in China and the EU. I know you are based in the US and that market appears to have completely shut off any Chinese or Chinese bought brand with sanctions.
@@johndinsdale1707 can you please provide more information about catl, and some websites to read more about those technologies weather BYD, or CATL would be great, Thanks in advance,
I think modularity and rigidity are not factors the market or the buyers look for. In any comparison, advantages has to be weighed properly. Cost and capacity will remain a vastly dominant factor for years to come, and are the things that matter.
rigidity while not something the consumer looks for drives the weight performance and efficiency of the whole system.
Are the battery packs of either of the 3 companies adhered to the base metal pan and the metal floor cap. If so it will form a bi-directional composite structural element.
It doesn't need to be adhered to create a sandwhich structure if that's what you mean. Munro has covered this.
@@thelimitingfactor I don't understand how that could be. This is the Wpedia explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich-structured_composite?wprov=sfla1
Very cool video. Where does SK ON and LG Energy sit in this conversation? Is BYD and CATL’s generationally ahead and so SK and LG were not considered (which maybe you already answered by ignoring Ford and GM, who use SK/LG). Anyways, a curious Ioniq 5 owner would like to know 😅
Good question! SK and LG are pretty kick ass, but haven't produced a novel pack architecture as far as I can tell. Great cell manufacturers though. That is, it looks like you answerd your own question. If your vehicle has those cells an packs, they're probably on par with Model 3 packs from a few years ago. No noticeable performance difference to next gen packs, mainly a cost excercise.
As a Tesla investor, I don’t need details like this to feel good about my investment. I trust Tesla’s engineers are always making the best choices. They are driving for cost, reliability, performance all the time. I do however enjoy these details as an engineer.
Glad to hear it!
I generally agree with your points, but we can also trust the smart engineers at other companies making the great choices as well, especially at places in Japan where they already have proven track records of good efficiencies and quality management. If you agree with that, how will that impact your bias towards investing in Tesla over in others? BTW, I'm looking for insights, not trying to prove who's right or wrong.
Number of charge discharge cycles is surely a very important attribute that you haven't considered. By this criterium LFP are better than CoNiMn as I understand.
I did consider it but as long as they hit the minimum number of cycles required they're good.
For a second car that’s irregularly driven and used as a house battery for people on time of use plans or solar owners I see charge cycles as very important. Also resale value/secondhand market is much more focused on reliability and that includes maximum charge cycles not just getting it past the warranty period. Resale value is obviously very important for any purchase cost calculation.
Jordan ,you always compare to a future 4680 gen3 theoretical implementation. Tesla has many challenges with supply of materials and there are huge process validation confirmation. Scale is all a pipe dream at the moment , so I would compare on what is currently testable?
Because pack energy density is somewhat independent of cell energy density. Tesla won't have an issue with the pack. It will be the cell that they struggle to increase energy density. They are separate and distinct things.
Thanks for the great overview. One thougth: service and recycling. Tesla seems to be the worst concept when it comes to this. At least that's what I think when I see the foaming. On the other hand, when a blade cell goes bad, it should be easily replaceable. Regulatory action like "right to repair" and "fit for recycling" could influence the scores of future packs. Circular economy is a big goal, that could influence lawmakers. And it makes sense as well, because we could make more use out of limited resources.
Making the pack serviceable is a waste of time. I'll eventually do a video on this. As far as recycling goes, they designed it to be recyclable. ... Grind to physically separate and then chemically separate
When it comes to the fire safety issue, I think the problem is many EVs have caught fire while parked, charging ,or while just driving while most ICE fires are a result of a car accident. We all know how many car serious accidents we have been in and how very rare that is, but everyone parks/charges/drives their EV daily so it FEELS more dangerous because it’s something we do frequently and that makes the chances of fire feel greater than it really is.
Bingo. I think I noted this briefly in the video, but maybe I didn't call it out clearly enough
@@thelimitingfactor Plus I think we all feel like we have some control in limiting our chances of a car accident by being a good defensive driver, whereas a electrical/battery fault is completely out of our control and feels scary.
@@Weezedog Yes! The battery fires seem more chaotic. Which frightens people.
I don't think this is accurate: There are many more potential points of failure in ICE cars, and even more so in hybrid ICE platforms. So actually allot of ICE fires also come from defects or wear and tear. One of many infamous and recent demonstrations of this inherent challenge is BMW's woes with their cars randomly catching fire, to the point where their offices were raided by police in south Korea to investigate coverup. One of many that media covers on page 69 for benefit of their ad sponsores, while EV fires makes headlines, despite statistical reality.
If the rate of fires really is as different as claimed then even a relatively rare ICE fire while parked could be more common than an EV fire. I'm not sure parked ICE fires are "relatively rare" either, but I haven't found a decent source.
Small disagreement: Qilin and Blade internal connections that provide the necessary output voltage/current values are still connections. So it seems that they shouldn't get extra points for fewer connections. However, that is nitpicky. What is not nitpicky is that this report is amazing in its comprehensiveness, especially given the paucity of engineering details available. Jordan is the go-to guy for the global view on batteries! (and a whole lot more)
Thanks man 😊
It's been years so the industry changed. I don't think you can extrapolate cylindrical cell E density to prismatic. That is because at the edges of the prismatic cells the corners are too tight and also the stress will distribute unevenly and so you can't lay the sheets as closely compared to cylindrical. I investigated this years ago and found prismatic cells with same chemistry always far lower volumetric E density. I'd be interested what you think about that?
It's a good point! Overall, it appears that cylindrical has a slight advantage at the cell level. However, prismatic takes the cake at the pack level because it more than makes up for the cell level difference. I'd need to do more research, but that's the gist of what I've found.
@@thelimitingfactor I think the cell level advantage is more than slight isn't it? It's been years but i saw a substantial difference much larger than packing factor losses. I'd love to see you comment more or investigate more!
What about the CATL battery with Manganese , BYD and CATL Sodium batteries
Covered in a couple months. Did the scripts last week, but I'm backlogged. Too early to masturbate over those chemistries.
Are the Tesla batteries harder to recycle due to the foam?
Nope! Just grind those fuckers up separate - just like ore
For the moment, analysis is justified. In less than half a decade batteries will be significantly efficient. Price will be the major consideration for consumers