News
Tesla 4680 cells compared with BYD Blade and CATL Qilin structural batteries
The battle for the dominance of the electric vehicle sector would likely be determined by the market’s key battery makers. With this in mind, companies such as BYD, CATL, and Tesla — all of whom are exploring the structural battery form factor — have the chance to become the trailblazers of the next generation of electric car batteries.
During its Battery Day event, Tesla announced its 4680 cells, which are used alongside the company’s structural battery pack. BYD, on the other hand, has also released its Blade batteries, which also adopt a non-modular approach. CATL’s Qilin batteries are in the same segment, with its structural battery design.
Electric vehicle battery enthusiast Jordan Giesige of YouTube’s The Limiting Factor channel recently conducted a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Tesla, BYD, and CATL’s next-generation structural packs. Each battery pack was evaluated according to several factors, such as design, rigidity, packing and energy density, and safety, before being ranked. It should be noted that the figures used in the comparisons are drawn from estimates and materials released by Tesla, BYD, and CATL themselves, not current real-world observations.
As noted by Giesige, Tesla’s 4680 structural battery packs utilize hundreds of cylindrical cells with a cooling ribbon in between every other row of cells. A lid is then placed on top and polyurethane foam is injected into the pack. This polyurethane hardens, and the combination of the foam and the battery cells forms a rigid, honeycomb-type structure.
CATL Qilin batteries, which could be fitted with both nickel and iron-based cells, integrate thermal pads, the liquid cooling plate, and the cross bracing to create what could be described as structural cooling. The structural cooling is placed between each row of prismatic battery cells, and the cells themselves are placed into the pack directly without any modules. BYD Blade batteries use iron-based prismatic cells, though these cells are longer and thinner than those used by CATL. The cells are then stretched across the BYD Blade battery pack, allowing the cells themselves to replace conventional steel beams.
In the rankings of the next-generation batteries, the YouTube host noted that Tesla’s 4680 structural battery pack would likely be the most rigid among its peers. Tesla’s 4680 pack loses out in terms of packing density, however, as BYD and CATL’s use of prismatic cells maximizes volumetric energy density. With this in mind, and considering that CATL’s Qilin batteries can be fitted with high-energy density nickel-based cells, a nickel-based Qilin battery would likely be more energy dense than a nickel-based Tesla 4680 pack or a BYD Blade structural battery, which uses less energy dense iron-based cells.
As for cooling, Giesige noted that the BYD Blade batteries’ plate cooling would likely fall short of the Tesla 4680 pack and CATL Qilin battery’s cooling systems. In its marketing materials, CATL highlighted that cooling the sides of the Qilin battery increases the pack’s cooling area four times. Tesla’s 4680 battery also uses better cooling than BYD’s Blade batteries with its side cooling system, though it would likely not be as good as the cooling of CATL’s Qilin structural packs.
While BYD’s Blade batteries lose out in cooling, they are also likely the safest among its peers. This is because the BYD Blade battery uses iron-based cells, which have a higher decomposition and lower heat release temperature than the nickel-based cells used in Tesla’s 4680 cells and CATL’s nickel-based Qilin batteries. An iron-based Qilin battery comes second to the BYD Blade, partly due to its use of shorter and thicker prismatic cells, which may trap more heat.
A Qilin pack with nickel-based cells was ranked last in terms of safety by the battery enthusiast, as Tesla’s 4680 pack with nickel-based cells features several safety systems, such as an overpressure mechanism on the bottom of the cells themselves. Since 4680 cells are also smaller than the prismatic cells used in the BYD Blade and CATL Qilin, they contain less energy. The 4680 cells themselves are enclosed in a thick shell as well, which are about 2-3 times thicker than a conventional battery.
Overall, Giesige noted that Tesla’s 4680 cells are likely the best all-rounder compared to its peers in the structural battery segment. The overall scores of the BYD Blade and CATL Qilin batteries bode well for Tesla’s future, however, as the companies could become suppliers of the EV maker in the future. CATL is already supplying Tesla with LFP batteries today, and BYD is heavily rumored to be a Tesla supplier as well. In a way, the analysis of the next-generation structural EV batteries shows that Tesla is not alone in pushing the battery industry forward.
Watch The Limiting Factor‘s full analysis in the video below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
