Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Auto experts reveal why Tesla’s batteries hold a comfortable lead in range

Tesla's 2170 battery cells. (Credit: Tesla)

Published

on

One of the reasons why the narrative of the “Tesla Killer” has effectively died is due to the pervading lead that Tesla holds over the competition in terms of range. Amidst the long-predicted entrance of competing vehicles from established automakers including Audi, Jaguar, and Porsche, Tesla’s vehicles have proven to be vastly superior in range, as evidenced by the Model S Long Range, which can last 370 miles in between charges. 

Take Tesla’s very first car, the original Tesla Roadster. The vehicle featured Tesla’s efforts at creating a desirable all-electric sports car, and it showed in the Roadster’s robust 245-mile range. There weren’t even Superchargers when the Roadster was released, but the car proved that EVs could comfortably go beyond the 200-mile mark, and then some more. Interestingly, even modern EVs from veteran carmakers are finding it hard to match the Roadster’s 245-mile EPA range. The Audi e-tron, for example, just has 204 miles of range per charge, while the award-winning I-PACE has an EPA rating of 234 miles per charge. 

This, according to veteran auto experts Sandy Munro and Mark Ellis of Munro & Associates, has a lot to do with Tesla’s all-electric platform and the company’s proprietary battery tech. Tesla is only 16 years old, and thus, it only has a fraction of the experience that its rivals in the auto market has. Yet in the EV segment, Tesla is among the veterans, having worked solely on electric cars since Day One. 

All-Electric

As such, vehicles that Tesla releases such as the Model S, Model X, and Model 3, are designed as EVs from the get-go. In contrast, carmakers such as Mercedes-Benz and Audi opted to convert existing platforms for EV production. This reduces costs, but it is a double-edged strategy in the EV segment, which is starting to gain serious ground in several key markets. “If you’re designing something radically different, or if you want to have something that’s going to be a world-beater in the marketplace, that parts bin is the worst thing imaginable,” Munro said.

This could be seen in the difference between the Porsche Taycan and a vehicle such as the Mercedes-Benz EQC. Porsche opted to design the Taycan from a clean sheet, and the result was an all-electric sports car that can attack the track just as aggressively as the next 911. It even has a frunk like a Tesla, albeit smaller. Mercedes, on the other hand, opted to base the EQC on its existing GLC platform, and the result is an EV that still has echoes of its internal combustion roots. Between the two vehicles, it is easy to see which carmaker put more effort, and it shows. Today, it appears that the non-Tesla EV community is far more excited about the Taycan than they are for the EQC. 

Mark Ellis, a senior master of lean design and battery consultant, notes that this is a key advantage that is inherent in Tesla. “One of Elon Musk’s big advantages is, basically, that the vehicle is designed to be an electric car. Musk designed every aspect of this car to be as efficient as possible,” he said

The Secret Sauce

Apart from their all-electric design, Tesla’s secret sauce for its vehicles lies in their batteries, from the design of the pack to the chemistry of the cells themselves. Comparing the Model 3’s battery pack to those found in other EVs such as the Chevrolet Bolt EV, Nissan Leaf, Jaguar I-PACE, and BMW i3, Ellis stated that Tesla’s battery pack is superior, especially with regards to the placement of battery cells in relation to the current collectors. “It’s the best design of any battery pack I’ve seen so far,” he said. 

But this is not all. Ellis added that Tesla’s cylindrical cells have inherent advantages compared to the prismatic or pouch cells used by the competition. Prismatic cells, for one, expand and contract as they charge and discharge, which means that manufacturers using them have to design their battery packs with the necessary parts to handle the expansion and contraction process of the cells. These add unnecessary weight to a battery, which Tesla’s packs don’t have to deal with. 

Advertisement
-

Ultimately, Ellis explained that Tesla’s battery cells simply have a higher energy density than those utilized by its competition. Tesla was able to achieve this because its batteries have superior chemistry, the consultant said. Part of the reason behind this is the fact that Tesla as a company does not really stop innovating. Tesla’s Automotive President Jerome Guillen hinted at this in a previous interview, when he said that the company’s batteries are never frozen since they are always in a state of improvement. “We are improving the design of the cell. The design of the cell is not frozen. It evolves, and we have a nice roadmap of technology improvements for the coming years,” Guillen said.

Range is something that is one of the most important factors consumers consider when purchasing an electric car. With the number of EV charging stations not yet on par with the number of gas stations on the road, it is pertinent for customers for many car buyers to acquire a vehicle that can go the distance. Tesla’s long-range vehicles, together with the company’s Supercharger Network, are a perfect fit for these types of customers.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla eyes supply partners for Optimus mass production

Tesla certified three Chinese suppliers for Optimus mass production, signaling its robot timeline is accelerating.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of Tesla Optimus in mass production

Tesla’s robotics team traveled to Ningbo, in China’s Zhejiang province, on September 16 and spent the following day auditing component suppliers for Optimus, according to a Bloomberg report cited by RobotAIGeek. The visit moved three manufacturers from provisional status to certified mass production partners: Tuopu Group, which handles actuators and chassis components, Ningbo Joyson Electronic, a sensor supplier, and Zhejiang Sanhua Intelligent Controls, which builds thermal management systems. All three already supply parts to Tesla’s electric vehicles, and the audit reportedly came with fresh orders that supply chain reports put at an initial batch of roughly 5,000 units.

Tuopu, Joyson, and Sanhua built their manufacturing base serving the automotive industry, where tolerances and volume requirements are already close to what a mass produced humanoid robot demands. Sanhua in particular has history here. Teslarati reported last October that the company had received a roughly $685 million order for linear actuators tied to Optimus, a volume industry watchers estimated could cover around 180,000 robots once production ramped.

Supply chain reports tied to this week’s audit put Tesla’s near term production goal at about 1,000 Optimus units a week by late September, rising to 2,000 to 2,500 units a week by the end of the year. That pace would put real weight behind the timeline Tesla has been building toward since May, when it wound down Model S and Model X production at Fremont to convert that floor space into a dedicated Optimus line targeting one million units annually. JPMorgan analysts who toured the factory in August confirmed the conversion took roughly four months, a pace Musk has called unprecedented for a facility that size.

New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point

Fremont is only the first phase. A second, larger Optimus plant is rising at Gigafactory Texas, where drone footage shared by Joe Tegtmeyer last week showed the structural steel nearing completion on the north end of the building. Tesla has said that facility is meant to eventually support production of up to 10 million units a year, though volume output there is not expected before 2027.

Commercial sales of Optimus are still targeted for the second half of 2027, but production is expected to start well before then. JPMorgan analyst Rajat Gupta has said Tesla’s “Optimus Academy” program, which uses early units to collect real world training data inside Tesla’s own facilities, is expected to be running later this year. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Ian Ma described the Ningbo audits as “a positive commercialization signal for China’s humanoid supply chain,” noting that sentiment could improve further if the visit leads to confirmed supplier nominations and larger orders. The Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index rose about 1.4% on the news, though it remains down roughly 30% for the year.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point

New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.

Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.

Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.

Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line

The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.

Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading