Roadster 3.0

[FutureOwner]

$29K is way over the top 4 a THANK YOU to the origional buyers of the Tesla Roadsters.

A more reasonable price is $10K.
Instead of 245 mile range,the Roadster will top out at approx. 345 mile range,far less than the projected 400 mile range.
Plus a trip to Austin ,Tx from Houston and back, without the ability to use the Super Charger Stations is cause for RANGE Anxiety.
For $29,000 one can buy a Prius, as it stands, we will eventually have an expensive" Paper Weight" when the Roadster batteries fail to maintain a decent charge range.
This is an on going PR problem forTesla, in the future, as the Roadsters begin to loose the ability to charge to a decent range.
The future buying public will look back on Road and Track magazine articles discussing " How Tesla Failed its buyers as the DOWN FALL of Tesla Motors and the Electric Automobile.

The Price of a Prius

The original MSRP for the Roadster was the price of 5 Priuses, Prii, Priem, Pri... what's one more Prius?

 

[Doug_G]

But I don't think a lot of lessons really apply to the Model S.

Agreed. I think the Model S battery is more of a drop-in (okay lift-in) replacement. Surely the Model S inverter electronics are more flexible than the first-gen Roadster PEM, and more likely to be able to handle different chemistries with only firmware changes. The Roadster pack is hand-built; the Model S pack is robot-built. The labor required to simply remove and install a Roadster battery pack is substantial.

 

[SteveG3]

$29K is way over the top 4 a THANK YOU to the origional buyers of the Tesla Roadsters.

A more reasonable price is $10K.

If you go back to post 695 in this thread, Tesla says they are charging what they project the cost will be. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I take them at their word for this... and I doubt that they factored in the cost of engineering and management time in making this happen.

 

[Timothy]

I wonder how much the extra weigh is? And how will it affect handling?

 

[SteveG3]

As a Model S owner, thinking about the future, this price is...concerning.

It doesn't alarm me, exactly, but it does tend to underline that any total cost of ownership calculations are incomplete if you're just comparing the cost of electricity and gasoline. You also need to add in some sort of per mile/per month calc for the battery.

Not new info, I guess, but something I (and probably a lot of others) have been sort of willfully ignoring.

The letter in post 695 in this thread addressed this... the Roadster battery is more expensive than a Model S battery mainly due to the dramatically lower volume of hand made Roadster battery production. That said, I could see this causing some confusion with consumers... quite likely the $29K price without the context of the low hand made volume will show up as a bear talking point.

I think more than anything, this shows Tesla doing something for customers they did not need to and will not make money from.

 

[JST]

The letter in post 695 in this thread addressed this... the Roadster battery is more expensive than a Model S battery mainly due to the dramatically lower volume of hand made Roadster battery production. That said, I could see this causing some confusion with consumers... quite likely the $29K price without the context of the low hand made volume will show up as a bear talking point.

I think more than anything, this shows Tesla doing something for customers they did not need to and will not make money from.

Did not need to? Well, I suppose. But hasn't the story for some time been that Tesla stopped making the original battery packs? So it's not like they didn't need to do *something,* unless they just decided to completely cut off parts support for the Roadster.

I take Tesla at their word that they aren't making money on this, and I assume Model S packs will a) last longer, and b) be cheaper on a per kWh basis (though since MS packs are bigger, they may not be cheaper overall). I'm not drawing a direct comparison, just observing that this is a reminder that all of these cars will eventually need a sizable investment to stay on the road.

 

[bobinfla]

Well, I have to admit that I've had $40k rolling around in my head since the upgrade was announced way back when, so $29k is actually kind of a relief.

Current battery does me fine for my day to day driving, so I don't really need the upgrade. However, the added range would expand the envelope for being able to drive a round trip without having to charge back up to get home. In my case, that means I can drive to Orlando and back on a single charge, so I can take the Roadster, which right now I wouldn't do because of the charging hassle. Is that worth $29k? Probably not, but I will be doing it anyway.

But do want to know more about the whole "range extending package" that was discussed, i.e., aerodynamic changes, wheels, etc. Is that part of this $29k, or is that another expense down the road, or did those get dropped in favor of only doing the battery? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[dhrivnak]

Well, I'm sad to say that the pricing isn't going to do much to prop up the value of our cars.

I said a while ago that if the upgrade to 3.0 is perceived as too high, the value of used Roasters would likely decrease:

Best Roadster deal ever? - Page 2

Not only Roadsters but Model S and Model X as well. $30K for a new battery in 5-8 years??? Hardly lower cost than an ICE. So I agree it is nice to have an option but with extra weight and 1.5x the cost of a Leaf battery (on a KWh basis) it is doubtful I will bite.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius

I understand but the Volt is a great alternative and much more fun to drive. And I can get one for less than the new battery.

 

[SteveG3]

Did not need to? Well, I suppose. But hasn't the story for some time been that Tesla stopped making the original battery packs? So it's not like they didn't need to do *something,* unless they just decided to completely cut off parts support for the Roadster.

I take Tesla at their word that they aren't making money on this, and I assume Model S packs will a) last longer, and b) be cheaper on a per kWh basis (though since MS packs are bigger, they may not be cheaper overall). I'm not drawing a direct comparison, just observing that this is a reminder that all of these cars will eventually need a sizable investment to stay on the road.

Yes, not making more packs at all at this point would have been leaving customers out in the breeze. Designing and validating a new bigger pack, with new cells... that may not have been necessary. Certainly the other changers (aerodynamic mods, etc) were nothing they needed to do.

I just imagine there were people working extra long hours on top of normal Tesla long hours to make this happen. It might be disappointing to them if a low percentage of people end up not taking the option, that's life... but what we can realize just doesn't make sense is going in the "$29K give me a break" direction (NOT saying you did that JST, just think maybe it's a good idea to point out why that doesn't make sense, and the effort of some Tesla people it would overlook).

 

[Odenator]

My bet is on August 32nd.

Wow, you were right on the money

 

[Bifff67]

I just saw this:

The Tesla Roadster now has a 400-mile range—for a price - Fortune

Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters Roadster 3.0 Battery Upgrade

 

[mpt]

I'll take same capacity with less weight and hence better acceleration and supercharger access for $15,000. Thanks.

 

[Botbldr45]

I am really happy to see the battery becoming available. I charge at 168-170 now with 40,000 miles on #992. CAC has fallen to 144 and I get pesky charging and line fault errors a lot more. Nothing predictable but ever present. All that doesn't bother me for now but the tread is undeniable. I can't afford the new battery at this point......going into retirement. I just hope the upgrade doesn't disappear like the soundproofing upgrade or tire sensor calibration tool did. Maybe if Tesla could let us know how long this upgrade will be available some of us could plan ahead to afford the upgrade.

Just a thought. Great to see they came through for us though.

 

[dpeilow]

That's the irony here. The vast majority of people (offline as well as on the forum) are asking for less wait / same range it would seem. That would require less cells and hence in theory be cheaper.

As they say there is a weight gain, I wonder if they managed to do it without crash testing. If the weight was significantly less, could they have done it without testing as well? Perhaps it was in their interest to work with the aftermarket.

 

[Stefan T]

I'll take same capacity with less weight and hence better acceleration and supercharger access for $15,000. Thanks.

+1
i like this

 

[Mark77a]

If It works out at £19K in UK for a replacement battery, which also has extra range I'll be happy.

This assumes my battery continues its gentle decline (after 4.5 years its over 94% of original capacity), so I wont need it for a few years yet. I'll also extend the warrantee one more year to the max (6 years total) .... so barring accidents and major issues after warrantee runs out this may extend 'the fun' until 'Maximum Plaid' roadster comes out. Still many if's to try and answer.

(Just cross-posted more on a similar thread on SpeakEV forum in UK > Roadster 3.0 Battery - August | Page 2 | Speak EV - Electric Car Forums )

 

[WarpedOne]

As they say there is a weight gain, I wonder if they managed to do it without crash testing.

Weight gain is small enough so they don't have to repeat the testing as long as they don't increase max vehicle load.
In effect they just decreased how much people/luggage you can load into the car.

They could also go the other way, decrease the weight a little bit. Just as much as not to invalidate the tests.
Price and performance would be lower and higher, and range a bit lower.

I guess that the simplest configuration with less capacity comes in with to low weight. ESS consists of 11 modules, one module powers auxiliary systems and 10 of them move the car.
One module contains 621 cells in 69S9P configuration. They cannot decrease the series count as it would change ESS voltage. They could however remove one parallel string form each module and make them 69S8P, reducing the cell count to 552 per module or 6072 in total. Capacity would be 12% lower than "full pack". 53*1,4 = 74, 74*0,88 = 65kWh. 65/53 = 1,22. So, such "reduced" pack would offer 22% higher range.
It would contain 759 less cells. One cell weighs in about 50g, so the weight reduction would be ~37kg or about 80 pounds. Or even less as new cells weigh a bit more than original.
Removing 2 parallel strings from each module would remove another 37kg and reduce capacity down to ~57kWh. Same as original roadster.
Roadster weighs in 1,305 kg. 37kg less weght means -2%, negligible in everyday driving.

I can see why tesla did not go this way of less weight. Offering "full" pack means they can tout 40% range improvement. By offering a bit smaller pack range would only improve by 22% with only a bit less weight and price would still be above $27,000 (29,000 *0,9).

Options:
a) +40% range and a tiny bit higher 0-60 time for $29,000
b) +22% range and 2% lower 0-60 time for $27,000
c) +8% range and 4% lower 0-60 time for $24,000

If I was Tesla, I'd offer option a.

 

[smac]

a) +40% range and a tiny bit higher 0-60 time for $29,000
b) +22% range and 2% lower 0-60 time for $27,000
c) +8% range and 4% lower 0-60 time for $24,000

Why do you think it's the 0-60 time that's the only benefit of losing the weight. Every dynamic aspect of the car would improve.

 

[Jaff]

I agree Michael...I think the $10,000 - $15,000 figure is what many of us were thinking as our "top" price that we would pay ...although now that the price has been announced, I think that more folks might consider $29,000 if full Supercharging was "included"...$29,000 doesn't sound like much of a deal without Supercharging ability...

I'll take same capacity with less weight and hence better acceleration and supercharger access for $15,000. Thanks.

 

[spaceballs]

... ESS consists of 11 modules, one module powers auxiliary systems and 10 of them move the car. ...

2.0 ESS all sheets are used to move the car, I'm pretty sure 1.5 is also the same.

... in 69S9P configuration. ...

I think you mean a sheet has 9S69P, so you can remove cells in 1/64 amounts, i.e. in 0.015625% increments.

Biggest problem is max amps peak on each cell.. i.e. ~600 amps over each brick of 69 cells.