News
Dissecting Tesla Model 3’s 2170 lithium ion battery cell, what’s inside?
A teardown video featuring Tesla Model 3’s 2170 lithium-ion battery cell was recently uploaded on YouTube, showing the components of the cylindrical cell and how it stacks up against the Model S and Model X’s 18650 battery cell.
Aries RC, a channel dedicated to battery improvements in the remote control aircraft market, indicated that they acquired a 2170 lithium-ion cell from Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada. The host noted that the first thing he did was to connect the battery to a resistor, in order to completely drain the cell. Next, he made a cut at the positive terminal of the battery unit to expose a plastic dielectric barrier on the cell. This barrier is utilized by Tesla as a means to prevent the jelly roll inside from physically touching the top of the battery, which would cause a short circuit. As noted by the YouTube channel’s host, the negative terminal of the 2170 lithium-ion cell also features a similar dielectric barrier.
The Model 3’s 2170 cell features a thin layer of insulation on its interior, which, according to the RC enthusiast, is an outer layer of material that protects the cell wall’s integrity during a thermal runaway. In instances when the lithium-ion cell does heat up, however, Tesla has implemented a safety system in the form of three small cooling holes at the top of the battery. These small holes are about 0.5 mm wide, and are designed to vent out gases when the cell reaches high temperatures.
The jelly roll of the 2170 battery is wrapped in a copper sheet, which acts as a ground for the battery. A grounding strip is also attached to the copper strip using tap welding, which, according to the YouTube channel’s host, is particularly impressive, since tap welding is notoriously difficult to accomplish on thin pieces of metal.
The jelly roll of the Model 3’s battery cell features a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide that’s responsible for storing energy in the battery. Fully unrolled, the strip fitted with the compound measured roughly 32 inches long, roughly a third longer than the strip in Tesla’s 18650 battery, which is roughly 24 inches long.
RELATED: Watch this Tesla Model S battery teardown performed by veteran EV modders
As could be seen in a side-by-side comparison of the jelly rolls of the 2170 and 18650 cells, Tesla’s newest form factor 2170 cell features a roll that is significantly longer and thicker than the latter. Overall, the YouTube host suggested that Tesla seems to be accurate in its estimates that the 2170 cell carries roughly 30 percent more charge than the 18650 lithium-ion cell in the Model S and X.
Tesla uses thousands of 2170 cells to enable its mass market Long Range Model 3 to travel up to 310 miles on a single charge. Produced in partnership with Panasonic at the Nevada Gigafactory, Tesla’s 2170 lithium-ion battery modules proved to be one of the sources of the Model 3’s production bottlenecks last year. As revealed by recent building permits, however, Tesla is currently conducting large-scale improvements to the Gigafactory, aimed at automating its battery module production line.
Apart from the Model 3, Tesla also uses its 2170 lithium-ion cell for its Powerpack and Powerwall battery solutions. As confirmed by Tesla CEO Elon Musk through Twitter, however, the 2170 cells will not be making their way to the Model S and X, at least as of writing.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
