Roadster 3.0

[hcsharp]

And as much grief as we give Tesla, I don't know any other OEM that has any kind of upgrade program for 10+ year old vehicles. That's pretty darn cool and may be contributing to the resale market for old Roadsters.

Sorry but I'm not giving them any kudos for almost completely flubbing an obligation that they KNEW was coming. Providing packs to those of us who purchased them in advance was NOT an optional upgrade program. They knew this was coming but are still barely doing anything about it. They've got hundreds of contracts to fill but are only allocating enough resources to build 3 packs a month? And what about the $3,000 they owe me under the contract? They are refusing to pay it until I get my new pack installed, which due to their poor planning will be almost 2 years late! No wonder some people are suing them.

 

[IslandRoadster]

Sorry but I'm not giving them any kudos for almost completely flubbing an obligation that they KNEW was coming. Providing packs to those of us who purchased them in advance was NOT an optional upgrade program. They knew this was coming but are still barely doing anything about it. They've got hundreds of contracts to fill but are only allocating enough resources to build 3 packs a month? And what about the $3,000 they owe me under the contract? They are refusing to pay it until I get my new pack installed, which due to their poor planning will be almost 2 years late! No wonder some people are suing them.

one can always sue. That might get a bit more prioritization.

as I’ve noted in other threads, Tesla should open up all the Roadster IP so others can build packs. If I buy a Ford, Ford will replace the engine for a while when it fails. When they stop providing that support, there’s always a third party who will build me a new engine.

Problem is that Tesla’s the only game in town and they aren’t eager to let others step in where they’ve failed. I cynically wonder if they are intentionally making it hard on Roadster owners hoping we’ll all trade them in and the problem will just go away.

 

[hcsharp]

we need an enterprising electrical engineer to build us good packs from scratch using cells we know are good. Is that too much to ask?

This is not an easy thing to do. Several people have looked into it who are well qualified including Gruber and others with extensive Roadster and EV experience. It would take a LOT of resources to reverse engineer all the BMBs, create expensive injection molds for parts, and a mountain of validation testing before you could safely put them on the road. You can't just use Model S cells. Most modern Li-Ion chemistries have very different discharge curves than the original Roadster cells. Using those chemistries would require a complete re-design of the PEM which is simply not possible.

 

[Timothy]

Regarding Tesla grief, consider that GM was the other OEM to take perfectly good cars off the road and destroy them. Google "EV-1." But, yes, it is cool that we can get a new battery for an old car.

And if you haven't seen them (or if you need a refresher!), be sure to watch the movies "Who Killed the Electric Car" and "Revenge of the Electric Car."

 

[JRP3]

Most modern Li-Ion chemistries have very different discharge curves than the original Roadster cells. Using those chemistries would require a complete re-design of the PEM which is simply not possible.

They are all cobalt based chemistries and should have the same cutoff voltages. I think the Roadster stopped at 4.15V to slightly undercharge the cells and extend service life which would have the same effect on modern cells.

 

[hcsharp]

They are all cobalt based chemistries and should have the same cutoff voltages. I think the Roadster stopped at 4.15V to slightly undercharge the cells and extend service life which would have the same effect on modern cells.

The high cutoff voltage is not the problem. They were able to change that by modifying a small board in the PEM for the 3.0 cells. The issue is the low voltage. To get the full capacity out of the Model S/X cell variants they go down to 3v or slightly lower. The original Roadster cells went down to about 3.5v, below which you would not gain any more capacity and the cells could be damaged. The Roadster charging system is not able to adequately control the current below 3.5v so it can't safely charge cells that are discharged below that. They used a little bit of a kluge to get around that with the LG 3.0 cells. Some of you may have noticed this if you discharged a 3.0 battery to 0 miles in range mode. The reason Tesla used the LG cells for the 3.0 when they had plenty of S/X cells was that it had a roughly similar discharge/capacity/voltage curve. There were other problems with using the S/X cells at the time but I won't bore you with the details.

 

[JRP3]

To get the full capacity out of the Model S/X cell variants they go down to 3v or slightly lower. The original Roadster cells went down to about 3.5v, below which you would not gain any more capacity and the cells could be damaged.

I didn't realize the low end was that far apart.

 

[IslandRoadster]

The high cutoff voltage is not the problem. They were able to change that by modifying a small board in the PEM for the 3.0 cells. The issue is the low voltage. To get the full capacity out of the Model S/X cell variants they go down to 3v or slightly lower. The original Roadster cells went down to about 3.5v, below which you would not gain any more capacity and the cells could be damaged. The Roadster charging system is not able to adequately control the current below 3.5v so it can't safely charge cells that are discharged below that. They used a little bit of a kluge to get around that with the LG 3.0 cells. Some of you may have noticed this if you discharged a 3.0 battery to 0 miles in range mode. The reason Tesla used the LG cells for the 3.0 when they had plenty of S/X cells was that it had a roughly similar discharge/capacity/voltage curve. There were other problems with using the S/X cells at the time but I won't bore you with the details.

I love reading your detailed explanations of these things. Don’t ever hesitate to elaborate as it’s interesting and I always learn something!

 

[TEG]

I was bringing up the same point here earlier: New Roadster 4.0 Battery developement with Model S cells

 

[smorgasbord]

Can someone who had the first-round of 3.0 battery upgrades done DM me? I just got my advance Service Invoice and I'd like to compare part numbers.
Thanks!

 

[Sparrow]

If I am reading my invoice correctly the battery part number is 1076092-00-A. That is for a 1.5 Roadster and and the work was completed 6-7-16.

 

[smorgasbord]

If I am reading my invoice correctly the battery part number is 1076092-00-A. That is for a 1.5 Roadster and and the work was completed 6-7-16.

OK, that appears to be the "Roadster 3.0 Upgrade Program" part number. The corresponding part number on my invoice is different, but my vehicle is a 2.5.
And if you look further down there may be two other part numbers for the specific items "replaced," one for battery and one for PEM.

 

[Sparrow]

I PMed you a picture of the page with all the parts for the 3.0 upgrade.

 

[Prime Mover]

Hello all. I haven't communicated on this forum in years but I have just been contacted about the Roadster 3.0 Battery Upgrade program. My car is low mileage and the existing battery pack is doing well but I feel that if I can upgrade the batteries now, I will (hopefully) be extending the useful service life of the car, though I have no solid data to back up that assumption. Naysayers, please be kind in any responses.
The rep had almost no details on the specifics of the upgrade. He said the battery pack and the PEM would be exchanged. He could not tell me how many kWh the new pack would hold or the battery technology involved. He believed the batteries were different than those used in the R80 packs but, again, he had very little information other than, as an earlier post said, the batteries would store 40% more than the original batteries and provide 330 miles Ideal Range.
We shall see...

 

[TEG]

Did you previously purchase the battery replacement option? Have been on the waitlist for a long time?

 

[gregd]

Besides the battery cells, the other thing I would want to understand is what exactly they do to the PEM as part of the refurbishment. Firmware, sure. But of intense interest is whether they re-do the insulation under the power IGBTs. That's a longer-term issue, at least it was 10 years ago, but now?

 

[IslandRoadster]

Besides the battery cells, the other thing I would want to understand is what exactly they do to the PEM as part of the refurbishment. Firmware, sure. But of intense interest is whether they re-do the insulation under the power IGBTs. That's a longer-term issue, at least it was 10 years ago, but now?

Well, hopefully the won’t remove insulation in good shape. I say that because many have had Gruber or Medlock do insulation upgrades and replacements. Would hate to see all that good insulation trashed for a battery upgrade.

 

[Prime Mover]

Did you previously purchase the battery replacement option? Have been on the waitlist for a long time?

Hello TEG. I have long admired your posts and dedication to all things Tesla!! Thank you for all you do.
When the 3.0 Upgrade Program was first made available in early September, 2015, I immediately put down my $5K deposit. Over the years, I have patiently waited to see if the program would get sorted out. I only have about 18K km on the car (11,200 miles) and last night I tried a full Range charge to see how well the batteries are holding up against a full charge. The Ideal Range came back as 352km (218.7 miles). Not bad for a 2010 Roadster.

 

[TEG]

Thanks for the info. You should go out and drive your Roadster more often !

 

[Prime Mover]

Thanks for the info. You should go out and drive your Roadster more often !

Agreed (but then it wouldn't be "low mileage")!