South Korean media reported that Samsung is set to manufacture a new generation of Full Self-Driving (FSD) chips for Tesla’s Level 5 autonomous vehicles. These chips will be utilized in Tesla Hardware 5 (HW 5.0) onboard computers, with production expected to commence after 2025. The chips will be manufactured using Samsung’s 4nm process.

TrendForce’s analysis:

Samsung May Competing with TSMC for Tesla HW 5.0 Chips

In the early stages of Tesla’s autonomous driving technology, the company collaborated with Samsung for FSD chips used in various vehicle models, including Model 3, Model 5, Model X, and Model Y. However, in 2022, Tesla chose to work with TSMC, citing TSMC’s better yield performance in 4nm process technology at that time.

In response, Samsung has been actively improving its 3nm and 4nm process technologies within a short period. While Samsung’s 4nm process yield has reached 75%, it still slightly lags behind TSMC’s 80%. Despite this difference, given their previous collaborations, it is not ruled out that Tesla might place orders with both TSMC and Samsung this time. The main reason being Samsung’s plan to advance to the 2nm-level SF2 process technology in 2025 and further progress to the 1.4nm-level SF1.4 process technology in 2027, aligning its overall roadmap with TSMC’s. This advancement will assist Tesla in accelerating the production plan of its DOJO supercomputer, facilitating the transition to Level 5 autonomous driving.

(Photo credit: Tesla)

Tesla’s Shanghai factory has reportedly initiated layoffs among its battery assembly workforce. Industry sources suggest that the majority of the layoffs will affect employees in the first phase of battery assembly, with the reduction expected to exceed 50%. While most of the affected individuals will be offered compensation through negotiations, a small number will be reassigned to other positions. Additionally, the equipment in the first phase of battery assembly will either be dismantled or relocated.

From a production capacity standpoint, Tesla’s Shanghai factory currently operates at a capacity of approximately 100,000 vehicles per month. In order to maintain product scarcity and brand image, the output is expected to be controlled within the range of 75% to 85%.

According to TrendForce’s understanding, the layoffs in the first phase of battery assembly are expected to be related to US government policies. The US government has imposed restrictions on subsidizing batteries imported from China and requires the use of locally manufactured batteries. As a result, export orders for batteries from Tesla’s Shanghai factory have been cut, leading to excess production capacity. Tesla, known for its efficiency-driven corporate culture, is intolerant of resource wastage.

On another note, the reduction in capacity and production volume of the first phase of battery assembly by Tesla may indicate preparations for transferring some of the capacity to the United States. By completing the battery pack manufacturing process in the United States, Tesla aims to increase the proportion of the value chain related to battery production in the US, in order to qualify for the full subsidy of USD 7,500 per vehicle in the United States.

(Photo credit: Tesla)

The global automotive industry is pouring billions of dollars into SiC semiconductors, hoping that they could be key to transforming vehicle power systems. This shift is rapidly changing the supply chain at all levels, from components to modules.

In the previous piece “SiC vs. Silicon Debate: Will the Winner Take All?,” we explored SiC’s unique physical properties. Its ability to facilitate high-frequency fast charging, increase range, and reduce vehicle weight has made it increasingly popular in the market of electric vehicles (EVs).

Research from TrendForce shows that the main inverter has become the first area for a substantial penetration of SiC modules. In 2022, nearly 90% of all SiC usage in conventional vehicles was in main inverters. As demand grows for longer range and quicker charging times, we’re seeing a shift in vehicle voltage platforms from 400V to 800V. This evolution makes SiC a strategic focus for automotive OEMs, likely making it a standard component in main inverters in the future.

However, it is common for now that SiC power component suppliers fail to meet capacity and yield expectations – a challenge that directly affects car production schedules. This has led to a struggle for SiC capacity that is impacting the entire market segment.

Device Level: Burgeoning Strategic Alliances

Given the long-term scarcity of SiC components, leading OEMs and Tier 1 companies are vying to forge strategic partnerships or joint ventures with key SiC semiconductor suppliers, aiming to secure a steady supply of SiC.

In terms of technology, Planar SiC MOSFETs currently offer more mature reliability guarantees. However, the future appears to lie in Trench technology due to its cost and performance advantages.

Infineon and ROHM are leaders in this technology, while Planar manufacturers like STM, Wolfspeed, and On Semi are gradually transitioning to this new structure in their next-generation products. The pace at which customers embrace this new technology is a trend to watch closely.

Module Level: Highly-customized Solutions

When it comes to key main inverter component modules, more automakers prefer to define their own SiC modules – they prefer semiconductor suppliers to provide only the bare die, allowing chips from various suppliers to be compatible with their custom packaging modules for supply stability.

For instance, Tesla’s TPAK SiC MOSFET module as a model case for achieving high design flexibility. The module employs multi-tube parallelism, allowing different numbers of TPAKs to be paralleled in the same package based on the power level in the EV drive system. The bare dies for each TPAK can be purchased from different suppliers and allow cross-material platform use (Si IGBT, SiC MOSFET, GaN HEMT), establishing a diversified supply ecosystem.

China’s Deep Dive into SiC Module Design

In the vibrant Chinese market, automakers are accelerating the investment in SiC power modules, and are collaborating with domestic packaging factories and international IDMs to build technical barriers.

• Li Auto has collaborated with San’an Semiconductor to jointly establish a SiC power module packaging production line, expected to go into production in 2024. 
• NIO is developing its own motor inverters and has signed a long-term supply agreement with SiC device suppliers like ON Semi.
• Great Wall Motor, amidst its transformation, has also focused on SiC technology as a key strategy. Not only have they set up their own packaging production line, but they’ve also tied up with SiC substrate manufacturers by investing in Tongguang Semiconductor.

Clearly, the rising demand for SiC is redrawing the map of the value chain. We anticipate an increase in automakers and Tier 1 companies creating their unique SiC power modules tailored for 800-900V high-voltage platforms. This push will likely catalyze an influx of innovative product solutions by 2025, thereby unlocking significant market potential and ushering in a comprehensive era of EVs.

Tesla, the driving force behind the next-generation electric vehicle(EV) battery standards, has been vigorously promoting the 46800 cylindrical battery cell in recent years.

Being Tesla’s key collaborator, Panasonic had initially scheduled mass production of these batteries for April this year. However, in a recent announcement, they revealed that their production plans would be delayed by at least a year, with full-scale production not set to kick off until between April and September 2024.

This strategic pivot is aimed at optimizing performance, but what we care about is the implications it might hold for the EV supply chain – could this mean that the strong alliance between these two giants is beginning to waver? And if so, what sort of ripple effect could this have on the relevant market?

Tesla’s secret weapon in the EV price war

Given the capacity of 46800 battery cell is five times that of the 21700 battery, it means fewer cells are required to achieve the same total battery pack capacity.

For instance, a 75kWh-based Model 3 uses 4,416 units of the 21700 battery cells packed in the traditional way of Cell to Module (CTM), which assembles batteries into modules which are then encased into a battery pack and then fitted onto the vehicle’s chassis.

In contrast, a Model Y with the same battery capacity would need only 828 units of the 46800 battery cells, leading to a 14% saving on battery costs. Coupled with Tesla’s integrated chassis technology (CTC), where batteries are not assembled into modules but instead directly encapsulated under the cabin floor, this provides an ultimate, cost-effective solution for Tesla.

When Tesla first announced its 46800 battery plan in 2020, its battery capacity was pioneering among all batteries. Taking advantage of this favorable environment, Tesla has been both expanding their production and involving cylindrical battery manufacturers, like Panasonic, in their comprehensive plans.

Tesla has set up a 46800 battery production line at their Fremont factory in California. As of the end of 2022, their production capacity was about 4GWh, which can only support 50,000 to 60,000 75kWh EVs and is far from their sales volume.

In terms of a long-term strategy, Tesla not only aims to ramp up their production capacity but is also heavily reliant on external suppliers like Panasonic to support its ever-growing demand.

Hence, ever since the launch of Model S in 2012, Panasonic has remained Tesla’s primary supplier of power batteries. And thanks to Tesla’s booming sales, Panasonic has dominated the power battery market for quite a while.

Roadblocks for Tesla and Panasonic’s Alliance

So, what does Panasonic’s delay mean for its position in the market? In fact, as an important chess piece in Tesla’s battery market strategy, Panasonic has been under considerable pressure.

Externally, there’s the relentless price cuts from Tesla. In 2018, as Tesla’s sales skyrocketed, they started purchasing batteries from more suppliers, thereby indirectly pressuring Panasonic to lower prices.

In addition, the internal discord has also been shadowing the project. On one hand, the long-term supply to Tesla has not brought as impressive profit performance as anticipated for Panasonic’s battery business. On the other hand, sticking to Tesla’s technology route, Panasonic has missed a great deal of opportunities to partner with Japanese car makers due to its conservative investments in the mainstream hydrogen energy batteries, which has in turn stirred internal questioning.

Since 2020, both South LGES and CATL have become suppliers to Tesla, causing Panasonic’s market share to fall to third place globally. But even then, Panasonic’s many years of expertise in cylindrical batteries made it Tesla’s Top choice when deciding to manufacture the 46800 battery. This was widely seen as Panasonic’s best chance to regain its leading ground and to solidify long-term partnership with Tesla.

Is Panasonic about to miss out on its prime opportunity?

All in all, we believe that this delay could not only disrupt Tesla’s price war strategy but also make Panasonic miss the golden chance to secure its dominance in the new technology. With multiple battery manufacturers, such as CATL, LGES, and Eve Energy, announcing that they will start mass production of the 46800 battery in 2024 or 2025, Panasonic will face unprecedented competition.

As of Q1 2023, Panasonic has seen its market share fall to fourth place. Obviously, maintaining its industry leadership becomes more of a daunting task for the company in the race. Although they’ve announced plans to build at least two 46800 battery factories in North America, it won’t serve as a panacea for their problems.

Beyond overcoming technical hurdles and expediting mass production, Panasonic also has a mountain to climb in terms of diversifying its customer base, further lessening the risk of an over-reliance on Tesla. These are inevitably long-term challenges that Panasonic cannot sidestep.

Tesla, the world’s leading electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, has announced its collaboration with BYD, a leading player in the EV and battery industry. The partnership involves Tesla incorporating BYD’s lithium iron phosphate (LFP) blade batteries into the rear-wheel-drive entry-level version of the Model Y, which will be produced at Tesla’s Berlin factory in Germany. Deliveries of this model are slated to commence in June 2023. Let’s delve into the significance of this collaboration from the perspectives of both Tesla and BYD.

Tesla’s Perspective

Tesla’s Berlin factory has thus far been responsible for manufacturing the premium variant of the Model Y, equipped with Panasonic’s 21700 lithium-ion batteries. In contrast, the entry-level version of the Model Y had been imported from Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai, China, with CATL’s LFP batteries installed.

With this collaboration, Tesla will now produce the entry-level Model Y directly at its Berlin factory, integrating BYD’s LFP blade batteries with a capacity of 55 kWh. This battery configuration will offer an approximate range of 440 kilometers. Although this variant features a reduced capacity of 5 kWh compared to the CATL battery-equipped Model Y, the BYD LFP blade batteries boast improved energy density. This enhancement results in an increased range per kilowatt-hour, from 7.6 km/kWh to 8 km/kWh.

Additionally, the adoption of BYD’s blade batteries provides Tesla with cost advantages. The blade batteries employ cobalt- and nickel-free battery materials, which are more affordable. Consequently, Tesla stands to save approximately $750 in battery pack costs when considering a battery cost of $150 per kilowatt-hour. Moreover, the square-shaped design of the blade batteries enables tighter and more efficient packaging, leading to higher energy density. This design also facilitates Tesla’s integration of Cell to Chassis (CTC) technology, which reduces packaging material usage and overall costs.

Considering these factors, the decision to utilize BYD’s blade batteries aligns with the cost-effective preferences of the entry-level Model Y’s target consumer group while fulfilling Elon Musk’s commitment to cost control.

BYD’s Perspective

In 2022, BYD overtook Tesla as the world’s largest EV manufacturer, boasting sales of 1.86 million electric vehicles. As a result, BYD’s market share in battery assembly has steadily increased, owing to its self-supply capabilities. As of the first quarter of 2023, BYD stands as the second-largest global supplier of power batteries, with a market share of 16.2%, surpassed only by CATL’s 35%.

Despite BYD’s remarkable growth in the electric vehicle sector, its battery production capacity initially struggled to keep pace. This resulted in a period during which BYD could only fulfill its own demand and was unable to export batteries, impeding the growth of its battery business in terms of customer quantity.

Apart from its use in BYD’s own EVs and the recent collaboration with Tesla for the Model Y, BYD’s batteries primarily find application in Changan Ford vehicles. Furthermore, a staggering 98% of BYD’s electric vehicle sales currently originate from the domestic Chinese market. This high market concentration poses the dual risks of relying excessively on a single market and a single customer for battery sales.

BYD’s inclusion in Tesla’s supply chain with its blade batteries marks a significant step toward diversifying sales risks. Nevertheless, for BYD to maintain its position as the second-largest battery supplier in the future, the company will need to adopt a proactive and diversified market strategy, expanding its presence in the supply chains of various automakers.

(Photo credit: Tesla)