Actually, I would argue it is less engineering time to use mostly Model S components. A complete redesign of the physical layouts of the bricks, but everything after that is easier since you already have well sorted out Model S components. Roadster bricks were already liquid cooled, so they could assemble new bricks using Model S components and layout cooling design but restricted to Roadster brick physical dimensions. It will be interesting to see what they chose to do.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Roadster 3.0
- Thread starter DrComputer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster
Actually, I would argue it is less engineering time to use mostly Model S components. A complete redesign of the physical layouts of the bricks, but everything after that is easier since you already have well sorted out Model S components. Roadster bricks were already liquid cooled, so they could assemble new bricks using Model S components and layout cooling design but restricted to Roadster brick physical dimensions. It will be interesting to see what they chose to do.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about this too. It'll save them some manufacturing overhead. However, that way seems like it'll be an integration nightmare because the packs will be both physically (size wise) and logically (no longer 11 sheets in series with 9 bricks each sheet) different from the original Roadster pack. Probably much easier/cheaper to just do a cell swap and just deal with the extra overhead of the low volume manufacturing (the pack as a whole would be low volume anyways even if they use the same modules).
Actually, with Model S cells, they may have to choose a different cooling jacket layout. Further, there may be an optimal physical and weight design that is not the same number of cells. Again, if engineering time is the biggest dominating factor, I would argue that having the engineers layout a new brick format using Model S components is easier and faster than qualifying a new cell and power electronics, unless they are going to use this a platform to test a new generation of cells. In no way are they retrofitting bricks... the labor would be too high. I'm betting this is a new brick layout design using well proven Model S components that is constrained by the existing physical dimensions. This is assuming both the lowest engineering time and lowest manufacturing cost.
It may even be possible to create a Model S style sheet to Roadster brick carrier... basically an adapter fitting the sheet into a brick. If it doesn't fit, creating two different rectangles of Model S style sheet layout could be fitted to the Roadster bricks. However, the actual electrical layout of the sheets is likely very different, but easy to program into the robots doing the assembly.
Last edited:
There is much more to liquid cooling than just routing the pipes. roadster's heat exchangers, sensors, pumps etc are different from MS's and are most likely not suitable to cool (and heat?) those cells in sufficient manner. the devil hides in details.
That's why I'm saying use the Model S power electronics. The heat, on the other hand, may actually be far lower per kWh in the Model S than in the Roadster. The Model S doesn't need to kick up the fans the same way doing 110v charging as a Roadster. As soon as I plugged in 110v into a Roadster, the loud fan kicked in to cool it.
I would be fascinated with the details... at some point, I hope Tesla provides the background information like the ones people can get about other automotive projects.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I thought the Model S cell connection format might take up more physical space with the two external fused connections and cell support structure. If so they might not be able to fit Model S cells. I would expect Tesla to take the easiest and most cost effective approach to building this upgrade.
I don't think they are changing the PEM, so the ESS probably needs to put out a voltage range similar to what they got with the old cells.
Does Model S get more capacity per cell by allowing a larger range of voltage from the cell (between 'min' & 'max') ? Maybe they have to use cells with a similar voltage range to the old cells?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I don't believe so. Should be the same voltage range, or close enough. There should be some leeway in the control electronics anyway.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that the Model S modules are in 16 modules of 6 in series (96 total, ~346V nominal) for the 85kWh and 14 modules of 6 in series (84 total, ~302.4 nominal) for 60kWh. Roadster's sheets are in 11 sheets of 9 in series (99 total, 366.3V nominal according to ERG).
Lots of idle speculation here; however, I sincerely doubt that any Model S technology will be applied to the Roadster pack. It's a completely different platform, and the moment they start straying from that it will ripple through the entire design and they'll have to change a lot more than the battery pack. The PEM is an expensive component - they won't touch it.
Realistically, they're purchasing a more modern cell that has the same physical parameters and safety features as the Roadster cells (fuses at each end) because that's what the Roadster's pack is designed to use. They'll build the bricks in the exact same fashion as before because that's how the cooling system and electronics were designed to work. They'll modify the firmware to be aware of the chemistry and capacity differences - that's it.
Realistically, they're purchasing a more modern cell that has the same physical parameters and safety features as the Roadster cells (fuses at each end) because that's what the Roadster's pack is designed to use. They'll build the bricks in the exact same fashion as before because that's how the cooling system and electronics were designed to work. They'll modify the firmware to be aware of the chemistry and capacity differences - that's it.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
PokerBroker
Member
stevejust
T E S L A x (≡)
I'm just not following your logic. Tesla literally could have polled 2,500 Roadster owners and said, would you prefer 1) a pack with 400 miles or 2) a lighter pack with 250 miles that makes the car weigh xxx pounds lighter, accelerate faster, etc.,. (but will require some suspension tweaks) and/or 3) supercharging, etc.,.
Yes, we all knew they said supercharging wasn't going to be available for the Roadster back when it was explained why you can't take an AC charging system and make it compatible with DC fast charging, but most of us thought then the upgrades were going to be new cells in the same bricks, and put back in the same general case -- not a complete redesign.
I don't know how much of the PEM would need to be changed for supercharging -- and no one here's quite put forth any of the factors to be considered. But if the pack is all-new, then it seems like supercharging should be possible with a swap of the charging receptacle and not a whole lot else hardware-wise. This could be my naivete.
As for your comment that "the market just isn't there" -- this makes no sense. 1) If the market isn't there -- why roll out Roadster 3.0 at all? Why not just to the bare minimum to engineer replacement battery bricks?
And the fact that you'd only be adding a max of 2,500 cars to the supercharging network seems to me to be an argument FOR a retrofit supercharging Roadster upgrade, not an argument against it.
I don't think I understand anything of what you're saying in this thread.
It's not that I'm ungrateful for Tesla giving some due to the Roadster -- hell, my pack gets about ideal 163 miles on a charge so I need the upgrade maybe more than most anyone on this thread.
Last edited:
My best guess is that they did just do the bare minimum to engineer replacement battery bricks. But, given the constraints of fitting in the existing sheet design, as well as size and electrical characteristics, that fell short of Elon's pre-announced 400 miles. So, they also did some aero and tire work to hit Elon's mark. Even then, they couldn't get it done in time for the promised end of the year, so came out with an outline announcement instead.
If you look at Tesla's support for Roadster over the past couple of years, the words 'bare minimum' pretty much sum it up nicely.
None of the above is intended as criticism of Tesla. The roadster is the past. S, X and 3 are the future. I would rather Tesla did the bare minimum on roadster (given the limited market, and very limited engineering resources) so that they can concentrate on the future of the company (and of sustainable transportation in general).
Botbldr45
Member
Yes, it is
The forum has beat this to death. No Supercharging!
If you want to hit the Supercharger Network ....... Buy an S, reserve an X, pray for an E.
Tesla is allowing us to stay on the road with our daily commutes, weekend road trips and quick nimble slalom driving (when needed) for a lot longer with this upgrade. Audi hasn't done **** for my 2004 TT, Volkswagon hasn't done squat for my 2000 turbo Beetle and Honda surely hasn't even thought about how to repair my 2005 hybrid whose battery is dgrading to extinction.
Put your stuff into perspective and accept that your 163 and my 170 can be doubled...... Very cool!
smorgasbord
Active Member
Sounds about right to me. What's ironic is that about a couple years ago there was a big Roadster proponent at Tesla working on cool things like limited-slip differentials, revalved suspensions, new Firmware to yield about a 10% better torque curve with almost no additional power consumption, etc.
Unfortunately, Joost de Vries left Tesla before these things came to market - and apparently they died with his departure. I think most owners would rather have a better performing Roadster than a travel further on a charge Roadster. Sigh.
If Elon really wanted to do something cool for Roadster owners, he'd have gone in a different direction. Making Roadster the longest travel on a charge production BEV while the large 2-ton Model S is the quickest from 0-60 is completely backwards when you think about it.
MartinAustin
Active Member
Yes, and you could even say that the Roadster 3.0 will have more battery capacity than their long-term flagship car, the Model S - also backwards! However, the Model S will soon be the recipient of the oft-discussed more capacious battery pack, perhaps 110kWh. I project the RWD S60 will be retired.
I'm a Tesla bull as much as anyone on here, but here are some cautious thoughts -
It's only 2,600 cars that can be upgraded, at most. That's really a boutique project.
Even with the low volume involved, which drives up costs, hopefully Tesla will still make decent profit - 30% is their corporate goal. I understand if they would want to charge less, as part of the obvious support for "those who would evangelise," and also those who supported Tesla Motors during the critical early years. By all means, discount away - just please don't lower the overall TSLA profit margin.
The publicity they are garnering from this upgrade isn't bad, but anything that grows the company's image or brand attractiveness only leads to more demand, which they can't meet, so one wonders what value that provides.
It'll get great goodwill from 2,600 owners - who are probably already evangelising the company, so, what are they going to say after they've upgraded? "Tesla is awesome" - nothing different! Even if Roadster 3.0 causes the purchase of 2,600 more non-Roadster cars later on - they'd just be orders added to the waiting list... doesn't speed up production at all.
There is a slim chance that Roadster 3.0 R&D may be partly amortised across future models, but I don't think that'll be much - cars are too dissimilar, and Tesla Motors already puts big bucks into battery research, Roadster or otherwise.
Hopefully, Roadster 3.0 publicity has just begun. There'll be press and owner reviews of the upgraded car. Does it accelerate faster than P85D? How is the track performance now? Road trip videos - L.A. to San Francisco or Las Vegas, etc.. And of course, Top Gear UK Review Redux where the Brits realise what the range of the car really is, and kiss+make up with Tesla Motors. Their headline will read "Tesla Motors finally took our review feedback and improved the car"
I've often wondered if JB Straubel will use the 2,600 old batteries as a demonstration of the battery recycling tech at the Gigafactory; I am sure the company will want to deflect FUD that old batteries go to a landfill.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Supercharging has NOTHING to do with the batteries and everything to do with the PEM. The old Roadster cells could easily handle the current. But the electronics cannot. From my view this is best as I CAN use the extra range but there are few super chargers being built. So I need range. Now I just hope I can afford it.
spaceballs
Member
If tesla were to add in SC to the roadster there would be an switch to disconnect the PEM and connect it directly to ESS.
Don't quite agree on that one. Tesla needs to keep the audience interested, now with the X delayed, and GEN III coming in even later. This announcement is a great opportunity which they perfectly seize.
And remember, the S hasn't got a very long waiting list. Anywhere in the 2 or 3 month-ish category. Some of the would-be S-buyers who haven't completely made up their mind yet, might be persuaded with the roadster 3.0 news as it tells a story about their future S as well.
Similar threads
