The LFP 4680 Battery Cell // + LFP with Tesla Silicon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Can Tesla produce LFP in a 4680 battery cell? Yes, all the technologies unveiled at Battery Day are compatible with LFP. However, "Will they?" is a more nuanced and interesting question.
This video will cover the considerations involved in using a 4680 form factor, technology pathways for energy density improvements, and why I think LFP will become the dominant lithium chemistry.
Patreon: / thelimitingfactor
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/limit...
Bitcoin: 3B3UXCZsnoPZxG6vYQ6npsF4TW8f5kK4LH
Teespring: teespring.com/stores/the-limi...
Reddit: / tlfbatteries
Twitter: / limitingthe
Timeline
00:00 Notes on the Q4 2021 Earnings Call
03:54 Introduction
04:56 Is a 4680 with LFP Viable?
10:02 Tesla's hints and my view
12:24 What I'm wrong?
12:59 The potential of LFP in the future
22:11 Is form factor an academic point?
22:57 Any barriers to Tesla LFP?
23:22 Are there an barriers to LFP us for other OEMs?
25:17 Summary: Roadmap and Cost Savings
#BattChat #BatteryTwitter
Intro Music by Dyalla: Homer Said - Наука та технологія
Notes:
1) The 78% figure for the packing density was conservative. By staggered the cells, the packing density can be increased to ~90%. However, CATL/BYD are in reality closer to 400 Wh/l max than 450 Wh/l max, so I was aggressive there. That is, the estimate I provided would still be a good template. The math itself could have been dialled in better, but the results (250 miles), is still a good metric (in my view).
2) Although my assumption is that Drew was implying that the structural battery meant the 4680 structural battery, it could also mean a prismatic based structural battery. It's also worth keeping in mind that Tesla frequenly changes direction with their development plans and their thinking may have developed since Battery Day.
Jordan, curious on your take. After battery day I made some estimates based on the presentation. I came up with the following. I modeled range based on a Model 3.
4680 Per Cell
LFP - 80Wh
Nickel Mag - 110Wh
High Nickel - 120Wh
4680 Structural Pack - 960 Cells
LFP - 77kW, 329 Miles, $2900 Cost, $37/kW
Nickel Mag - 105kW, 448 Miles, $4180 Cost, $39/kW
High Nickel - 115kW, 492 Miles, $5200 Cost, $45/kW
It will be interesting once we see production cells and vehicles. I hope that the biggest surprise is going to be in charge time. I think Tesla is sandbagging on this for 4680. I am guessing we will see at least a 50% reduction out of the gate, with up to 75% possible with tweaks over time.
@@motofunk1 Nice! More aggressive than I would have been, but not out of line with the information we've received from Tesla and Sandy Munro. That is, it's a matter of interpretation, but I can't fault the stats above. I'm just thinking of all the challenges they'll face and the increasing prices we're seeing in raw materials.
@@thelimitingfactor True, rising material costs will have an impact, but I don't really count that. I just look at my cost estimates as 2020 dollars, time adjusted for inflation will happen. Thanks for the feedback.
I feel their structural pack are for all batteries moving forward.
Elon said the best makers of products are toy manufacturers. He is trying to create less variations not more
It's π/4
Why are you not the number 1 you tuber regarding Tesla? Your analysis is literally amazing and informative.
Cause it ain’t clickbait, good or bad.
and it requires a basic level of engineering and technical competency that goes over a lot of peoples' heads.
Jordan's videos are technical in nature and most people don't bother with technical details. Other UA-camrs are more financial in nature which appeals to a larger audience. Personally, I'm interested in the technical details so kudos to Jordan. But I agree, his subscriber numbers should be in the multiple 100 thousands.
@Bob Howard
He is, for those who pay attention.
This is a science learning channel not a marketing channel like most other Tesla channels.
As always your coverage of batteries can't be excelled. The depth and accuracy of your research is beyond anything else out there. Thank you!
I love how you present your material without any kind of hype.You present your material in methodical logical manner knowing the breakthroughs are not quite there at this time.
Another brilliantly detailed but completely understandable for a total pleb, like me. 😁
....and the fact that, "the illustrious James Douma" supports your channel, is THE unparalleled nod. Love it !
Congratulations!
🤜🤛🤠
Another exceptionally thoughtful and erudite analysis by the Limiting Factor
Thanks Jordan, for another well researched and reasoned video! It's becoming increasingly difficult to find, reasoned, fact based discussion about any of this stuff out there as people seem to be hardening into uninformed, unmovable positions.
I gotta say thank you to the author for such a high quality content and thank you for everyone supporting such a content. You guys are awesome!
I just recently found this channel…it’s pure gold
Amazing explanations even for someone like me, who has no educational background in any of these battery topics. It really helps to affirm the investment case of TSLA. Thank you!
my god, your analysis deserve far more audiences. Thank you for your analysis and insight! It's shocking how evidence based your videos are.
EXCELLENT PRESENTATION with logical structured thinking.
Other communicators are guessing, with very little thought, are often calling others idiots. My viewing is limited to those with original well scripted ideas & meaningful visual backing. YOU ARE TOP OF THE LIST..
Always great to hear from you Edward 🙌
Great content, superb delivery! Thanks for spreading science and hope
You can't easily make a structural battery with a prismatic cell; prismatic cells need cages to contain their (limited for LFP) swelling and the long format isn't conducive to torsional loading. A honeycomb structure with a depth relative to "diameter" (which may be why Tesla chose the 4680 ratio/format) allows for a true structural pack. How they physically lock the cells together, regardless of format, will be interesting though.
The trick is that the current incarnation of the Model Y "structural" pack, really isn't used for significant structure! The Berlin (and Austin) Model Y's are still a complete unibody, with essentially just the floorpan missing! The "structural" body in white is a fully-stressed form, with all the lateral and torsional stability of the old design. The structural pack adds the lateral cross-bracing for side-impact protection, but beyond that, it's really just a floorpan that is bolted into place versus welded/glued. Munro and others will inevitably look it over, but 4680s in the "structural" pack will probably NOT be part of the functional structural rigidity of the pack, and honestly, you could argue that a Model 3/Y pack is "structural" since the cell blocks are extremely rigid and directly fastened to the pack casing. Basically, the Tesla structural pack is a production optimization (seats, etc installed from below), not a significant effort to actually make the pack part of the vehicle's stressed structure.
I always find in comical when Tesla fanbois state that Tesla are based on a "skateboard" platform when that is categorically incorrect. ALL current Teslas are unibody vehicles with separate drive units installed independently from below along with a battery pack hung underneath, which has ZERO to do with the actual skateboard concept. A fully-developed EV skateboard will be a structurally-complete system that is the drive units and battery as a complete unit, onto which varying body styes could be mounted.
@@awebuser5914 The Y has multiple modules which are then installed/wired into the pack. The structural pack is effectively a big module removing the concentric casing and with the cell honeycomb giving the stiffness. Your common timber bedroom door contains a weak honeycomb sandwiched between two planes and the doors are very rigid.
@@awebuser5914 4680 only really works as a structural pack. Tesla has to maintain a standardized pack height across their manufacturing. So a pack that contains 2170s or prismatic cells into a series of steel housings with strong lateral bracing is simply not also going to accomodate 4680s with the same requirements. The larger the diameter of the cell, the more cells are lost every time you have a lateral break. If you try to package large diameter cells into discreet modules you loose any packaging advantage those cells have over small cells. Period.
@@patreekotime4578 Ummm, I'm not sure what your point is, but the bottom line is that the 4680's are really a stop-gap concept and so-called "structural" unibody Model Y's (the ones with no floor) being built in Berlin and Austin WILL have alternate packs available in a year or so using exactly the same body, so the concept of the 4680 being critical to a structural pack is obviously incorrect. It's trivial to create a so-called "structural" pack with cells smaller than a 4680, it may be less mass-efficient, but that's essentially irrelevant.
@@awebuser5914 You seem to be conflating two completely different things. Tesla has removed a redundant layer of steel that was an artifact of their original intention for swappable battery packs. But that layer of steel was not structural... thus why it could just be removed. That design revision had nothing to do with structural battery packs.
Meanwhile when Tesla says "structural" battery packs, they mean several things... A: that the cells will be self supporting so that they do not require boxes within boxes of module packaging, B: that they will not require heavy lateral cross-bracing through the pack, and C: that the honeycomb structure will increase rigidity and reduce twisting of the entire vehicle which may result eventually in changes to the vehicle designs to reduce structure elsewhere in the vehicle.
Obviously in the first iterations, the early 4680 vehicles will have redundant structural features which they will require to remain pack agnostic... but in time they should be able to create products that can leverage the structural pack to reduce materials and weight. Just all the more reason why they would want to produce LFP 4680s in house and also why we see their suppliers working to make their own 4680 type cells.
Can’t wait for your sodium ion series since it can match present day LFP density and is theoretically far more abundant and inexpensive!
Love the vids man! Always look forward to them! Keep it up
Your channel is fantastic. Full of real info/facts so well explained that instead of being confused after watching, I feel informed. Thank you sir!
Another fine video with excellent explanations and well-sourced data. I love your channel!
Awesome videos. Happy to support your channel!👍
I always look forward to your analysis.
Great video again, probably have to watch it a few more times to completely get it
Thanks Jordan! This video exactly answers my questions about 4680’s. Can’t wait for your video on sodium.
If I understand it correctly, from a marketing perspective, LFP could then be positioned as a standard energy source providing great range but lacking ultimate performance. The nickel could be positioned as an up sell for its lighter weight and higher performance?
It could, but I'd think it would be better to use Nickel for the upsell. (as always, I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth)
You have the right idea: You can play around with form factor and chemistry to suit a particular need. There is no 'One Best' solution and it's about product-market fit.
Amazing video once again Jordan!
One of your best Jordan!
I finally found a channel to learn from it about batteries. Kudos.
Thinking out loud: Why not use both chemisties in the same car? If LFP has a long cycle life but less density, have a 40kwh pack that is used first, then draw on a 40kwh NCA battery. Even better, have the LFP pack provide power for cruising and then draw on the NCA pack for hills, accelerating, etc. Effecively reduce the cycle time on the NCA by half and the LFP is cycled twice as much.
(1) Tesla 4680 manufacturing plants are certainly designed to handle LFP electrodes & electrolytes.
(2) Tesla vehicle & storage production is effectively limited by cell availability.
(3) Tesla has stated it will purchase as many cells as outside manufactures can provide .
(4) It becomes a question of how fast Tesla can increase its in-house manufacturing.
That is so well researched!
Absolutely amazing content!!
Just think of how the grid will morph by the mid '30s if battery energy storage can come in at $25/kWh.
It will change everything.
Yeah man!
I came here to say "but they said ...", but you beat me to it and covered it :) Another great video.
A large portion of what I know about batteries is from watching your videos. Thanks very much!
As always I understand like 15% of your videos. But i am very greatful for them!
You are so good at this. Thank you.
Gonna sub to your Patreon soon as I get home from work. I don’t know anything about batteries but I love Tesla and I found this breakdown of their new battery fascinating.
Jordon you are a credit to the Tesla Community and Investors. I always enjoy your work and now feel that the lead Tesla has only continues to grow. If I have understood you well, Tesla has OPTIONS and that means FLEXIBILITY which also means they have even more control over their DESTINY that leads to their DOMINANCE so that my outlook for the company as a whole only cements, but it also shows how precarious legacy automakers are in deciding which form factor, chemistry and ability to scale in order to even be in this game.
There is so much here, I may just watch it again! Thank you so much for all that you do and for your Patreon supporters that allow you to do such deep dives.
Oh hey thanks man! I appreciate the kind words. Amen - Tesla has options. That's as important as anything else.
Amazing analysis. Dang, you’re so brilliant.
Great video as usual !
Well of COURSE different batteries have positives and negatives. That's how batteries work! /s
Punny
You're officially discharged from this conversation.
I was SO close to commenting, but it was too bad even for me.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Roger, we appreciate your neutrality…
thank you! you have a great "radio" voice. easy to listen too.
Did not understand much but enjoyed the whole 30:15min presentation..
your voice is hypnotic...
Thank you for your great analysis. In particular when you showed how the energy consumption efficiency of Tesla gives them a competitive advantage to use the LFP chemistry. It is now so obvious - because of the way how you explained it.
Thanks a lot Again Jordan, your video are so clear and valuable Thanks to reply to many of my questions
This was a great video, thanks a lot
great video, dope intro song, left a like (thanks for putting intro song in description👌)
Hey! You're the first person who's noticed out of millions, lol. Glad it was useful.
Bravo! This UA-cam video presciently anticipated Tesla's generally unexpected use of LFP chemistry in the Giga Austin Model Y's structural 4680 Battery Cells.
Thank you for another fab fact video.
Great video! It's likely that Tesla is already developing LFP energy density and chemistry. And as soon as they hit a energy density that is satisfactory, they will apply it to the 4680.
Thanks again for a great video.
Great video! Thank you!
i think the logical path would be for Tesla to offer LFP in structural 4680 packs. I think the reason they offer LFP in prismatic form now is because they aren't (yet) using structural battery packs (giga cast frames). Once they roll out giga cast frames, they'll use 4680 in all of them and forgo prismatic.
So, for the model 3/Y, my guess is they will eventually offer the RWD version (previously SR+) with 4680 LFP and a range of around 325. The LR version will use NCA and have a range of around 400. Just my 2 cents worth.
I see two most probable paths for LFP in Tesla vehicles:
1. Tesla makes 4680 LFP in house
2. Tesla buys Prismatic LFPs from Chinese suppliers
I don’t see the advantage of Tesla spending the r&d and more so the distraction of engineering resources when they can buy off the shelf with enough supply at reasonable prices. I agree both would end up in structural packs.
Great video as always. Perhaps take look at C4V's batteries. Prismatic, Cobalt free LFP, structural packs apparently tab less and using dry battery electrodes. Sounds very familiar
Love Your videos.
In the recent call, Tesla clearly said that LFP will NOT come in 4680 form factor, due to fundamental issues of the cell chemistry. Also, all stationary storage will go LFP.
You didn't watch the video from what I can tell. I said stationary storage would go LFP.
@archie, yes i recall vividly Elon stating this.
I'm interested in the use of lithium phosphate, from low grade spodumene, as a substitute for lithium carbonate in LFP batteries. Seems to remove a step, as well as make use of lower grade resources.
Catl really revolutionizing LFP battery tech. I hope more variety and innovation for all companies.
Thanks Jordan for another great video. This would be assuming that the maxwell dry battery electrode technology is compatible with the LFP chemistry...
Yes my favorite channel!!!!!!!
Great video Jordan also really liked your interview with Dave Lee investing.
Hey thanks man!
Hi Jordan, interesting video as always. I belive that the tabless design might enable thicker LFP electrodes and higher energy densities, which should improve energy/volume density of a proposed 4680 lfp battery. Couple that with reduced cost from DBE, and it seems that this route might become the norm for Tesla for most applications
Enjoy your videos....thanks
👏 Nice work.
Per the point you made at around 6:30 about changing packing density of cylindrical cells, the recent Munro video about the Plaid battery shows that Tesla is now fitting 100kwh AND the charging electronics suite into the same package space as the old 85kwh pack. They have dramatically reduced the number of modules and bracing and all of this points them in the direction that we expect to see with 4680 structural packs. Which is interesting because it means that the lessons they have learned from 4680 designs have already bled over into 2170 designs. Which I think was a somewhat unexpected result. I had figured that the only way they could possibly fit 100kwh into the Plaid would be to switch to 4680s, but clearly there was a ton of room for improvements on the 2170 packs!
Very interesting. Thanks
👌👌 LFP 4680 with genius silicon doping for energy density is my guess as the ruling form factor from what you say Jordan. Luving it, thnx!
This shit will make me invincible when arguing with petrolheads. Thanks a lot for the super high quality video, Jordan!
Nah. There’s no way to spark logical thinking in neuroactively-challenged Petrolheads.
Jordan, great job as always!
One question: have you done any video on battery recycling? The alternative techniques, pros and cons, the players, etc? Would love to hear your take on it. I know getting info on the approach taken by private companies such as Redwood Materials probably is hard, but ABML, Li-Cyle and few others are public and probably share some details. Thanks!
I know Fully Charged channel has done some quite OK work on this
I'd love to see a deep dive video on Na-ion batteries!
love your videos. Based on what Drew said I am still convinced that LFP will stay as prismatic, as they can be form dense and structural if engineered properly and dont require as much cooling. BUT, its possible that 4680 is easier to produce and if so would be could be a driving factor toward a preference in 4680.
I think if Tesla succeed to mine lithium themselves in Nevada, they will put it in their own 4680 as LFP and perhaps with some silicon doping as Jordan said or replacing Iron with Manganese as Elon has twitted.
I agree. CATL and BYD seem to be scaling prismatic LFP so Tesla has a plentiful supply. That can leave Tesla to focus 4680 for higher performance applications. Having a diverse battery supply chain only benefits Tesla and allows their suppliers to keep advancing LFP. Just because they can technically do 4680 LFP, doesn't mean they have to.
@@sparks869 Up-and-coming battery shortage coming this decade (consequently, suppliers increasing prices) speaks towards Tesla needing to bring LFP largely in-house, if they want to compete cost-effectively for the cheaper market segment that requires cheap LFP batteries.
Remember that a power train efficiency can only improve so much. The better it is, the harder it is to improve and the less it will have an impact on range.
Jordan Sir - can you share in your show notes your recording set up please? Love the sound and image quality.
Thank you!
I'm curious as to what Elon and Tesla has in store in being able to produce their own batteries now... Awesome stuff, very insightful!
You Have An Awesome Narrative Voice!
🤠🤜🤛
Excellent. Isn't there a recharging advantage with the 4680 design? Be interested if there is any difference in recharging speed between prismatic and 4680s.
As always, great work, and much appreciated for the strategic comparisons. Overall, I don’t think it’s practical for Tesla to produce prismatic LFP, given the additional R&D and production costs. That’s what the CATL and potential BYD deals are for - LFP coverage for the near term, especially in China. In the meantime, Tesla can focus on its own 4680 production lines, and eventually add in LFP chemistry over time, with or without silicon. Plus, As you note, it fits with their design philosophy.
IMO Tesla bought this silicon battery start up in Colorado for one reason SI
Hi Jordan, your videos are awesome, great work, thankyou.
If Tesla were to make LFP, using the 4680 format might be possible but I can't see it stacking up against a prismatic cell design.
As you pointed out LPF materials are so cheap compared with NMC that recycling LFP is not really feasible. And if LFP is only 20% cheaper than NMC per kW/h due to the cheaper materials then more than 70% of the price related to cell manufacturing.
From the battery investor day we know that DBE will substantially lower production costs. Separately the 4680 cell format also lowers production costs compared with the 18650 cell format and larger cells means fewer cells per vehicle. Prismatic cells are already quite large compared with the 4680 cell format, I don't think Tesla would want to put more cells in their vehicles.
It's the tab-less electrode design that unlocked the large cell format with lower internal resistance and better heat dissipation. A tab-less prismatic cell design would allow for much larger cells to be made at a lower price per kWh. These benefits combined with the benefits of the DBE manufacturing process could see prismatic cells perform almost as well at the current 18650 cells.
It is worthwhile for Tesla to invest in a new form factor for LFP? Yes, If nickel battery’s are projected to only represent 25% of the battery market in the next few years and it was worth while moving to the 4680 cell format, then surely they would see be benefit of optimizing the prismatic cell format for LFP which is projected to be 75% of the market.
Great presentation. I understand that LFP can be charged to near 100% where as the NCA batteries can only be charged to 80% without shortening the battery life. I think this is huge as the advertised range is more closely achievable for the LFP vs 80% for the NCA. I'm not sure that is addressed in the comparisons. Being able to use the full capacity of the battery as well as higher life cycles should make the LFP a clear winner. Now about other chemistries..........
THANKS4GIVING
Any idea what form factor the high energy density Gotion Hi tech LFP cells are? I assume prismatic, but might they be similar to the BYD Blade format?
Thanks again Jordan!
As usual, you've taken my somewhat jumbled thought process, distilled it, dotted most of the i's, crossed most of the t's and I think largely confirmed my thoughts.
Going for the second listen but first....
.....
Did you consider the "system efficiency" improvement from weight reduction of the whole vehicle using the structural pack.
That may put the *vehicle* into the energy to weight band of the current Nickel pack based cars?
........
Would production rate /physical factory volume be a consideration?
If the Wh per hour leaving a given size of factory is much lower for prismatic, that hands the advantage back to 4680?
1) Nope - I was conservative.
2) Yup - But that's a 'should' be true rather than something I can demonstrate or have data on.
🤠
@@thelimitingfactor
1) That's what I thought.
2) I agree, seems likely, but time will tell.
👍
@@thelimitingfactor
P.S....
You're REALLY back in the US, aren't you 😁😁
🤠 👍
Great video! Do you know if there's any difference in the strength to vibration between cylindrical and prismatic cells?
An excellent question that I don't know the answer to. It's certainly a concern.
superb!
I agree, I think Tesla will use LFP with 4680. I recall seeing a hint on Twitter from a Tesla engineer saying that 4680 + LFP would make 2022 a huge year for Tesla Storage. I recall them using the 👀. Great video as always and congrats again on the new digs and wheels bro! 😎
Oh hey man! That would be 🔥. These videos are alwayhs my best guess and mainly to share information, but I always do a little fist pump if I get it right, lol.
Woot woot! Also huge congrats on 80k subs!! 🍻
One benefit of cylindrical structural batteries over prismatic structural batteries is: cylindrical cells offer structural support from all directions. They act almost exactly like a honeycomb structure. Prismatic cells like the BYD blade are much weaker to impacts perpendicular to the largest face on the cell (what most people would call the "side" of the cell).
Just wondering about using/packing multiple form factor cylindrical cells to increase packing efficiency. Is that a reasonable approach to increasing volumetric density?
I think you would enjoy listening to Dr. Shailesh Upreti. Very good video with Ev reporter.
Thank you. M
All hail to the "Battery day"!
Hey, Jordan you remind me of a random guy walking through the background in ten-forward on STNG (lol) cool soundtrack intro,
If we suppose that different form factors are optimal for different battery chemistries, might not the diameter of the cell be the deciding variable? My hunch: Tesla's batteries will be all cylindrical (none prismatic) and 80mm high. This will make them all work in the same battery packs, and Tesla will be able to adapt its manufacturing techniques the easiest. The different chemistries will all have different optimal diameters though. What do you think?
e.g. Nickel 4680, Manganese 5480, LFP 6680, Sodium Iron 7280.
(I made those dimensions up for illustration purposes, as I don't have any insight into how to calculate the optimal form factor.)
Actually, the surface/volume ratio of prismatic cells is greater than cylindrical. It is the packaging density in modules where the aggregate effectively densifies the block requiring another approach to cooling. Small but fundamental point.
In the comparisons of blade to wound cells I'd like to see what the actual "active square footage" is of the 4680 battery material - ie unwind a cylindrical cell ( to get a biggish rectangle) and compare with the active area of a blade battery. Plus be good to see and compare the length of electrical path to the poles (tabless makes for very short paths) - so, how does a blade compared on this???
A video on the Blade LFP battery from BYD, most welcomed.
Hey man! I don't know if you're referring to the one I already made or requesting one. Regardless, thanks for the comment!
@@thelimitingfactor You are right you already made one. Thanks. Any more updates on the Blade cells?
5:49: the picture here shows a situation when the cells are not in honeycomb order. The pictures we have from Tesla suggest a honeycomb order, which uses the available space better. Based on my calculation in this case the packing density can get close to pi/(2*3**(1/2) ) == 90.69 %. (only close, because at the borders things get a bit worse).
Please read the pinned comment. It would have saved you some time.
Diy are already going hard on LFP for solar. They use server rack batteries. Will Prowse has a nice channel.
Just started watching and expecting excellent material from you as usual, but just a quick question: at 4:30 should the battery pack be 56kW (kilowatt, or power aka ability to transform energy) and not kWh (kilowatt*hour, or measure of converted energy)? Am I missing something?
I don't understand the question. The numbers there are correct because I'm talking about storage, which dictates how far a vehicle can travel.
@@thelimitingfactor Sorry, my bad! I missed small “h” in “Wh”. All is great and accurate in your video!
You are really among the best. The amazing thing about Tesla is that they put it out there for anybody to see. Same with SpaceX. Not much hidden. Elon is true to himself and us when he says he wants the world to change. No other company or human has done or is doing innovation this way. If only other companies would learn from this. A good series might be to look for any companies emulating his methodology. Would be interesting. That being said, who could do what Elon does?
The 4680 according to Tesla is the ideal size for tabless Li-Ion battery from what I remember and yes because of the structural battery pack and the removal of framing weight because of it. It seems like a really good solution and when I looked as the prismatic I don't see any way to make a structural battery pack with it.
What we don't know is if that same size would be ideal for LFP. If it isn't, they might have to make another format, but going smaller is not good, and going larger I think means losing more space for battery capacity.
If you assume that cylindrical batteries are packed in a square grid, the figure of 78.5% maximum packing density is correct (Pi/4).
If, however you pack the cylindrical cells in a honeycomb pattern, not only do you get more structural strength, but the packing density approaches 90.6% (Pi/2*sqrt(3)). Bees are pretty clever.
Packing this into a rectangular package wastes the volume of half a cell for each row, but this space could be used for battery management and thermal management components.
Please read the pinned comment. It would have saved you some time.