Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Roadster 3.0

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
As I read the e-mail, it can be taken two ways, or perhaps both:

  1. Existing Roadsters can be upgraded to the 3.0 configuration. Would this go back to the original 1.5 that I have?
  2. New production of Roadsters is starting and the new cars will be Version 3.0.
How do you read the e-mail, upgrades for some or all existing Roadsters, new sales of 3.0 Roadsters, or both?
 
At first blush, I'm disappointed. I originally said in a thread here that Tesla should wait until the post-Model S generation of cells was available. This is simply sooner than most owners need an upgrade, and at "only" a 31% increase in capacity. Yeah, the other aerodynamics and drivetrain efficiency improvements get another 10% or so, so the 200 real world Range mode miles (at 55MPH) becomes 280. At 300 miles I can drive to Santa Barbara, and that's enough for me, so maybe that'll be do-able, but 400 real world miles just isn't in the cards. The 400 mile drive will almost certainly be along Highway 1, where doing 50 MPH is often the law.

Tesla should have waited another couple of years, IMO.

But, I'll feel forced to do this upgrade, as Tesla has been pretty bad about keeping Roadster upgrades available for the long-term. Those of us that held off on the sound deadening, or TPMS reset tool, or double-DIN upgrades, etc. missed out. If we don't upgrade our Roadster in 2015 will we also miss out?
 
I'm surprised by the aero and tire upgrades. I think everyone expected them to reach the "400 mile" by battery upgrade alone. 70kWh is less than expected from even a direct Model S cell swap. It'll be interesting to see if cell count went down or they are doing a very narrow DOD.

- - - Updated - - -

There was much speculation back then that the capacity increased to 59 kWh but usable remained at 53.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/bit-about-batteries
Tesla actually posted a lot of details on the DOD they used on the Roadster. They used a ~2%-95% DOD window which roughly gives 93%DOD. Their final advertised 56kWh usable means a 60.2kWh nominal (cell-wise) pack. 53kWh usable means 57kWh.
 
In reading this thread and the email from Tesla announcing the Roadster 3.0 package, my thoughts are:

Supercharging: The extended range of the package is to preclude Supercharging capability. This was mentioned in a previous thread that because of the complexities and cost to adding Supercharging capability to a Roadster, a 400 mile range would negate the need for this ability.
Tires/Wheels: The improved aerodynamics and lower rolling resistance are as important to achieving a 400 mile range as are the higher capacity batteries. Also, the smaller size front tires (175/55-16 Yokohama Advan Neova), provide greater range than the optional 195/50-16 tires, are only available from one manufacturer and no other tire manufacturer makes a tire in that exact size. Going to a different tire, and most likely size, will provide for future options when it comes to replacing tires.
Aerodynamic Changes: Changes to the underside of the Roadster (to include the rear diffuser) could be done less expensively than changing the nose or other body parts. The underside can have dramatic effects on aerodynamics as well as cooling of the motor and PEM.
Other possible benefits: With additional battery capacity, there may be some performance improvements. Increased thermal battery operating range may allow better cabin AC functionality. Future Roadster upgrades may build off of this package - perhaps Supercharging at a later date or motor swap with a more powerful Model S P85 motor with liquid cooling for the motor and PEM.

For how I use my Roadster, driving to work 75-100 miles daily, the 3.0 upgrade is not necessary, especially if it is too costly. But it would enable me to drive my Roadster on trips that I currently do not attempt because the time to complete with charging stops would be impractical.

Just my thoughts.
 
As I read the e-mail, it can be taken two ways, or perhaps both:

  1. Existing Roadsters can be upgraded to the 3.0 configuration. Would this go back to the original 1.5 that I have?
  2. New production of Roadsters is starting and the new cars will be Version 3.0.
How do you read the e-mail, upgrades for some or all existing Roadsters, new sales of 3.0 Roadsters, or both?
I'm sure it's upgrades to existing Roadsters. There are significant barriers to putting anything like the current Roadster back into production. For one thing, it would be illegal to produce new Roadsters for sale in the US because the advanced airbag exemption (which allowed the Roadster to be sold without side airbags) expired at the end of 2011 and (I believe) Tesla's request for an extension was denied.

The Roadster was designed to be hand-assembled on the Lotus assembly line. I'm sure if Tesla wanted to put a new Roadster into production it would be a whole new design and the announcement would be a much bigger deal than that email and blog post. It would have be at least as much fanfare as the D got.
 
I was fascinated about the Tyre and Aerodynamic improvements. Tyres we can fit, like now, once tesla release what they are .. ( and probably at tyre shop prices :) )
As for the aerodynamic improvements, a UK owner has already done loads of mods back in the summer, and get this > improves on the old Roadster World record of 311 miles at 28mph set in Australia in 2009, whereas his car is now exceeding this *but at 50+* mph !

Here is the thread on UK's Speakev > Roadster for the weekend | Speak EV - Electric Car Forums
Looking forward to seeing the details.
 
- - - Updated - - -


http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/bit-about-batteries
Tesla actually posted a lot of details on the DOD they used on the Roadster. They used a ~2%-95% DOD window which roughly gives 93%DOD. Their final advertised 56kWh usable means a 60.2kWh nominal (cell-wise) pack. 53kWh usable means 57kWh.

This would seem inconsistent with the Model S pack rating, no?

It's well understood that the 85kW pack does not provide a full 85kW of energy. Whatever margin for safety/longevity that's reserved is subtracted from the total pack rating, leaving us with something like 75-79kW available... yet it's still called a 85kW pack.

Are you suggesting they changed their rating method?
 
Moving to a 70kWh pack based on current Model S cells should allow for Supercharging. After all, it's a direct connect from the Supercharger to the cells, so if you are in there mucking around anyways, it would seem to be a logical upgrade to do. I had always wondered about just switching the Roadster's charging connection to a Model S connector so that it could use the Model S HPWC.

I'm curious about any improvements to performance, especially acceleration at higher speeds (I think my Model S is faster at highways speeds). Also, I wonder what this does for the Roadster's resale value.

I was hoping to have the money for a cheap Roadster *before* this announcement, but the Roadster's value really hasn't dropped much more and now I'm thinking it won't for some time.
 
I was fascinated about the Tyre and Aerodynamic improvements. Tyres we can fit, like now, once tesla release what they are .. ( and probably at tyre shop prices :) )
As for the aerodynamic improvements, a UK owner has already done loads of mods back in the summer, and get this > improves on the old Roadster World record of 311 miles at 28mph set in Australia in 2009, whereas his car is now exceeding this *but at 50+* mph !

Here is the thread on UK's Speakev > Roadster for the weekend | Speak EV - Electric Car Forums
Looking forward to seeing the details.

I won't be getting any eco tyres on the Roadster. In fact I will be going back to Yokos at the first opportunity.
 
I am wondering if the 3.0 will have the Model S style plug and abandon that large cumbersome Roadster Charger?

Maybe this is why there was a Roadster at HQ with a Model S port?

Maybe this is why new Roadster chargers are so hard to come by?

Hmm...
 
This would seem inconsistent with the Model S pack rating, no?

It's well understood that the 85kW pack does not provide a full 85kW of energy. Whatever margin for safety/longevity that's reserved is subtracted from the total pack rating, leaving us with something like 75-79kW available... yet it's still called a 85kW pack.

Are you suggesting they changed their rating method?

Here's a theory on how they're calculating the ratings:

Roadster

2.4Ah x 3.7V nominal x 6,831 cells = 60.7kWh actual

60.7kWh x 0.93 = 56kWh rated


Model S

3.4Ah x 3.7V nominal x 7,104 cells = 89.4kWh actual

89.4kWh x 0.95 = 85kWh rated


Roadster 3.0

3.1Ah x 3.7V nominal x 6,831 cells = 79.5kWh actual

79.5kWh x 0.93 = 74kWh rated
 
Last edited:
We all know that this upgrade will give 250 miles at real highway speed. But 250,000 miles lifetime would be ok. Somewhere I read the Model S cells last 2000 cycles anyway.
Yes, cycle data from Panasonic shows more than 2K cycles while retaining more than 70% capacity. I was being conservative with the 1,000 cycles, though admittedly generous with the 400 mile range.


Great point! That probably is the greatest benefit of a pack with increased range.

Larger pack gives more miles per cycle, plus being a larger pack it will be that much more lightly loaded since it can operate at lower relative C rates, (assuming the cells have the same or better C rating as the old pack), and it's likely going to be cycled less deeply most of the time. All should add up to great pack longevity.
 
Roadster

2.4Ah x 3.7V nominal x 6,831 cells = 60.7kWh actual

60.7kWh x 0.93 = 56kWh rated


Model S

3.4Ah x 3.7V nominal x 7,104 cells = 89.4kWh actual

89.4kWh x 0.95 = 85kWh rated


Roadster 3.0

3.1Ah x 3.7V nominal x 6,831 cells = 79.5KWh actual

79.5kWh x 0.93 = 74kWh


No. Model S is 85 rated, 78 actual. You can find it in the consumption data on their site.
 
I was fascinated about the Tyre and Aerodynamic improvements. Tyres we can fit, like now, once tesla release what they are .. ( and probably at tyre shop prices :) )
As for the aerodynamic improvements, a UK owner has already done loads of mods back in the summer, and get this > improves on the old Roadster World record of 311 miles at 28mph set in Australia in 2009, whereas his car is now exceeding this *but at 50+* mph !

Here is the thread on UK's Speakev > Roadster for the weekend | Speak EV - Electric Car Forums
Looking forward to seeing the details.

That would be me !


Its nice to know a battery upgrade will finally be made available in the near future, although I'm curious about the cost and if it has an extended battery warranty covering degradation, and whether this also allows Tesla to honour battery replacement contracts. I'm assuming a 70kWh upgrade will see the existing sheets in the ESS removed for future repairs of people who don't upgrade. I'm assuming the upgrade price will be in part-ex for perfectly good existing sheets ? Does it include firmware changes in the PEM or just in the new sheets ? Like others I was hoping this 400mile would be an upgrade using Model S cells alone.


From a personal point of view I find the modifications to the aerodynamics and rolling resistance most interesting ... because I've been driving a Roadster for the past 6 months with some subtle mods that regularly gets doing 250-275 mile trips *at-motorway* speeds of 60-70mph, with a theoretical max of 330 miles on the standard battery and no electrical mods at an average of around 52mph. My car has 30k on the clock now, and the lowest CAC value is around 149 iirc.

My car went in for a routine service a while back and they kept it a suspiciously long time .. it had some of the mods still on it ;-)

Anyway, starting in June 2014 I began a series of subtle experiments on my Roadster involving hundreds of hours of data recording, tuft testing and around 2,500+ miles of R&D on its aerodynamics but only by doing things that are reversible and that do not void the warranty!

After some exhaustive recursive experiments with 11 different modifications areas, I was able to work out the best beneficial combination and also which aero mods tended to cancel each other out. EG, using small aero mirrors actually increased the wh/m because more air was getting into the rear air scoops. But taping up the rear scoops this then provided the reduction in wh/m I was hoping for ! All these tests would be too extensive to write up here as it would be a research paper in itself.


The combination of low rolling resistance tyres and pressure mods yielded around 15+% range improvement alone, with only a small sacrifice in ultimate grip. This can be improved a further 5% just by pumping the tyre pressure up 20% from the 'comfort' settings. Naturally, I have a 2nd set of wheels with the proper sticky tyres on. My aero mods currently add up to a further 15% to 20% or so depending on which combination are "fitted". I also experimented on some more extensive bodywork mods such as wheel covers front and rear, wake boards, deflectors ahead of the front wheel, and so on, all of which were beneficial, but in my view disfigured the car too much so I left these off. I have plenty of photos of this all taking place.

Most of my existing aero mods are to the underside of the car, and to the air intakes, in combination with a number of smaller things like reduced Cda wing mirrors and wiper. I spent some time reducing the vortex that runs up the A-pillar causing much of the wind noise drivers hear, but the mod to fix this is probably not acceptable to most. I also monitored all the motor, PEM and battery temps with zero adverse effects because I've been driving efficiently, and would not be wise on a track day.

Another benefit of all of the above has been an improvement in acceleration because I need less energy to push my way through the air whilst still having the same amount of thrust !

At 60mph, a normal Roadster in ideal conditions uses about 260wh/m and has a max range of around 220miles. At 70mph its 310wh/m and max range of 180miles.

I'm currently running at around 195/200 wh/m at 60mph, and 235wh/m at 70mph, I can reduce this further but at the cost of making some rather more obvious exterior mods which I've been trying to avoid.

But my Pièce de air-résistaunce will be the final modification that I currently do not have fitted to the car. It will noticeably reduce drag at 60mph which I believe will extend the range by another 15%, but I have not made this permanent yet as its a bit drastic ... and I'm waiting for the warranty to run out ... !

Anyway, throughout all of this I've not touched the electronics or battery. A 70kWh battery could extend the range a further 20-25%,


I started doing my own R&D after learning that a 2009 Roadster owner in Australia had set a distance record of 300 miles back in 2009. But he did it at an average speed of just 28 mph, on bone dry roads in thin air at 30'c. I was convinced I could significantly exceed this but at *normal highway speeds* ..

Below are a few photos showing the energy usage stats after one particular two-way average run up and down a British motorway, in amongst other traffic, moving with the traffic, but always faster than trucks etc, and it shows that I was running at the rate of just 174 wh/m. Flipping the VDS into range mode shows that with approx 51% battery remaining I still had an "ideal" 156 miles left in the tank.


In other words I reckon I could beat the existing world record at an average of over 50mph with a possible 330+ miles assuming full battery capacity usage.

With the new battery upgrade, this might mean my car could do just over 400 miles at highway speeds ( and dry roads, zero head wind, 20'c etc). With my 'final' semi-permanent modification, I think this could become 450+miles ... ;-)

The material cost of my aero modifications and tyre changes are under $1,000 .... The time cost has been huge .. but good fun none the less !




300 mile tesla roadster with partial aerodynamic mods.jpg


Blue purple Tesla Roadster with 300 mile range.jpg


slight improvement with rear cover.jpg


tufts  looking back of rear wheel cover 1.jpg


new mirror with aerofoil stem and shroud with cutout 3b.jpg


front aeroplates 4.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mark77a
That would be me !

Nice, most of the areas I've been thinking about which would be significant with reducing drag. Did you play with extending the rear diffuser out 6+ inches?

Nice find on the side vents. What outside temps have you been testing with? I'm sure in higher temps closing those off may cause a rise in temps. But testing would only show the true. Mirrors look great, another key drag reducer.

That rear cowl is a huge drag sponge, nice use of the plastic and wind threads to test the turbulence!

I also feel having a good front splitter will also aid in cutting up the air correctly before it sticks and catch on things as its passing under and around the Roadster. The 2.5 has a splitter that's more functional than the 1.5/2.0.
 
Last edited:
Here's a theory on how they're calculating the ratings:

Roadster

2.4Ah x 3.7V nominal x 6,831 cells = 60.7kWh actual

60.7kWh x 0.93 = 56kWh rated


Model S

3.4Ah x 3.7V nominal x 7,104 cells = 89.4kWh actual

89.4kWh x 0.95 = 85kWh rated


Roadster 3.0

3.1Ah x 3.7V nominal x 6,831 cells = 79.5kWh actual

79.5kWh x 0.93 = 74kWh

But, according to the Roadster Battery blog that 0.93 factor is made by the margin below full charge at the high end (0.05) and at the margin above full depletion at the low end (0.02). Thus in your model all the reserves are accounted for outside the rated capacity.

However with the Model S it's clear that, even with a new pack and a "full" charge, that the car does not allow you to draw 85 kWh of energy. Thus at least a good portion of the reserve is accounted for inside the rated capacity.

So, at appears that either the cell sizes are different that what you suggest OR they have changed how they rate a pack.

Several experiments have suggested that can't draw a S pack down to much more than about 4.1kWh or so... or about 5% of overall pack capacity. Assuming that they also don't charge above 4.15v, that raises questions about the 0.95 number suggested above... it would need to be more like 0.90.
 
@scaesare, I don't think you can get the full 56kWh rated out of a Roadster either. The available capacity is usually quoted as 53kWh, which would be similar to the Model S where some reserves are inside the rating and others are outside.
 
@scaesare, I don't think you can get the full 56kWh rated out of a Roadster either. The available capacity is usually quoted as 53kWh, which would be similar to the Model S where some reserves are inside the rating and others are outside.

Interesting. It seems odd for the blog to actually address the issue of how much margin they reserve at each end, only to have those amounts not match what actually happens.

In any case I appreciate the discussion... it helps to understand what the newly announced Roadster pack might actually be comprised of.