Roadster 3.0

[wiztecy]

1.5 battery is different from the 2.0/2.5.

It was my impression the only difference between the two packs is that the 1.5 uses sheets 1&2 for the 12volt aux. system, and part of those components are enclosed in the ESS, whereas the 2.x has the separate 12v battery / motorcycle battery that's under the passenger front fender. Otherwise the ESS and sheets are identical.

And I believe the PEMs are pretty different and would presumably require a different set of modifications.

Only mods they should need to do is basically an update to the PEMs firmware to accept the new parameters and data bounds of the new ESS. However Tesla in their wording uses the word "upgrade" as if they're changing components. Its vague to say the least if that's referring to the firmware update or not.

 

[djf]

I was told 6 weeks ago by a service tech at the San Rafael SC that he "highly doubted" that the 3.0 upgrade "would be compatible with the 1.5s". He specifically told me not to buy a 1.5 with the idea that I could upgrade. He did not state this categorically but certainly provided an insider's educated opinion. Hopefully a well-intentioned but ultimately wrong opinion!

 

[pharma5]

I went to my local service center yesterday and was told that the new battery was not available for 1.5 Roadsters. I thought he must be wrong now I see this article Tesla Roadster 3.0s $29,000 Battery Upgrade: 330 Miles Or More Of Range that says also it is only for 2.0 and 2.5s. Is there any truth to this?

That can't be correct. Tesla's own announcement does not restrict the 3.0 upgrade to specific Roadster versions. See Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters Roadster 3.0 Battery Upgrade
I have a 1.5 and have placed an order for the 3.0 battery. I have not received anything from Tesla indicating that it cannot be installed in my car. And as far as I know all Roadster versions use the same battery.
Sad that a Tesla Service Center employee could give such inaccurate information.

I inquired to service specifically mentioning the article cited by Sparrow with link/excerpt, and also mentioning the lack of restrictions on the Tesla ordering page, and got the same answer Sparrow got.:frown: I'm in a different spot geographically.

Since Tesla is, ahem, exceptional at clear and accurate communication, this means either:
(a) there's some nuance to it all, e.g., additional work is needed for the upgrade to be released for 1.5's at an unknown later date (note: this is my pure speculation)
OR
(b) not every Roadster is eligible for this thing that has been teased and talked about for well over a year, with no hint of this prerequisite excluding 500 cars / owners

The simpler and less disappointing answer is (a), so I'm going with that for now. I asked again and mentioned that a 1.5 owner apparently had even ordered - will see what comes back. I encourage fellow Roadster owners to check on 1.5 eligibility, regardless of whether you intend to order, and post what you hear.

 

[ML Auto]

1.5 battery is different from the 2.0/2.5.

The sheets and BMB boards are the same. As are the APS and other control boards I have checked. The case and wiring connections are different. There are also extra boards for the 12V system and the HVAC on the 1.5. If they are just upgrading the cells and using the same sheet configuration, the 1.5 should only require a different firmware upgrade.

 

[spaceballs]

The sheets and BMB boards are the same. As are the APS and other control boards I have checked. The case and wiring connections are different. There are also extra boards for the 12V system and the HVAC on the 1.5. If they are just upgrading the cells and using the same sheet configuration, the 1.5 should only require a different firmware upgrade.

Neat, so your saying EES sheets from 1.5 are interchangeable with 2.0 (minus BMB firmware issues).

 

[ML Auto]

Neat, so your saying EES sheets from 1.5 are interchangeable with 2.0 (minus BMB firmware issues).

Yes. I swapped 1.5 sheets complete with the BMB boards into a bricked 2.0 with absolutely no problem. Everything worked and tested fine.

 

[spaceballs]

Yes. I swapped 1.5 sheets complete with the BMB boards into a bricked 2.0 with absolutely no problem. Everything worked and tested fine.

Very cool! I think you made my day learning this

Curious how is the APS the same in both models? if it's only running off 2 sheets vs the 11 of the entire pack, as the APS input label says 250v-420v Input for the 2.0 and only two sheets be like ~80v max for the 1.5.

 

[ecarfan]

1.5 battery is different from the 2.0/2.5.

I see this has been clarified in the past several hours since you posted.
Tesla has confirmed my order for installing the 3.0 battery into my 1.5 Roadster. And the Tesla announcement about the 3.0 battery does not state that it can only be installed in some Roadster versions and not others. So my belief at this point is that the 3.0 battery can be installed in any Roadster.
If it turns out that the 3.0 battery cannot be installed into any of the 500 1.5 Roadsters that were built I will be very unhappy.

 

[ecarfan]

@pharma, your post of 2 hours ago contains two quoted posts, both attributed to @sparrow. In fact the second quoted post in your post is my post. Just want to clarify that. I think a /QUOTE tag got dropped.

I inquired to service specifically mentioning the article cited by Sparrow with link/excerpt, and also mentioning the lack of restrictions on the Tesla ordering page, and got the same answer Sparrow got.:frown: I'm in a different spot geographically.

Since Tesla is, ahem, exceptional at clear and accurate communication, this means either:
(a) there's some nuance to it all, e.g., additional work is needed for the upgrade to be released for 1.5's at an unknown later date (note: this is my pure speculation)
OR
(b) not every Roadster is eligible for this thing that has been teased and talked about for well over a year, with no hint of this prerequisite excluding 500 cars / owners

The simpler and less disappointing answer is (a), so I'm going with that for now. I asked again and mentioned that a 1.5 owner apparently had even ordered - will see what comes back. I encourage fellow Roadster owners to check on 1.5 eligibility, regardless of whether you intend to order, and post what you hear.

 

[dsm363]

@pharma, your post of 2 hours ago contains two quoted posts, both attributed to @sparrow. In fact the second quoted post in your post is my post. Just want to clarify that. I think a /QUOTE tag got dropped.

Are you using Tapatalk? It appears to be a bug. If you use a web browser it looks normal.

 

[AEdennis]

Are you using Tapatalk? It appears to be a bug. If you use a web browser it looks normal.

I can confirm that the bug is on Tapatalk (I use both) and Tapatalk carries the first member for all quotes in a multi-quote situation, but looks normal on browser.

 

[ecarfan]

I am using Tapatalk. But I have created multi quote posts before in Tapatalk and they came out okay, I think. So it sounds like the problem is that if one makes a multi quote post in a web browser it is not properly displayed in Tapatalk.

I can confirm that the bug is on Tapatalk (I use both) and Tapatalk carries the first member for all quotes in a multi-quote situation, but looks normal on browser.

 

[ML Auto]

Very cool! I think you made my day learning this

Curious how is the APS the same in both models? if it's only running off 2 sheets vs the 11 of the entire pack, as the APS input label says 250v-420v Input for the 2.0 and only two sheets be like ~80v max for the 1.5.

The APS powers the car while awake. It is run from the entire pack voltage on all models. The 12V battery (2.0/2.5) and the first 2 sheets(1.5) only seem to power the Tesla ECM (and other minor functions) which controls the APS and monitors the various sensors and inputs. Although on my 2.0 I have removed the 12V battery and the car still performs fine, so the Tesla ECM must get power from somewhere to awaken the car.

 

[pharma5]

@pharma, your post of 2 hours ago contains two quoted posts, both attributed to @sparrow. In fact the second quoted post in your post is my post. Just want to clarify that. I think a /QUOTE tag got dropped.

No confusion intended, but quotes and attribution tags look ok on my setup. First quote Sparrow, thumbs down on 3.0 for 1.5s. Second quote yours, no issue ordering the 3.0 for your 1.5. Did use the multi-quote buttons on TMC interface.

Anywho, point was my service contact also thinks 1.5's are ineligible, in responding to the article reference, its excerpted text, separate observation of no ordering restrictions, and my request for official word. (I replied that perhaps there was some mistake, and maybe will hear back tomorrow).

Since you must have plunked down $5k to order, I think you've got one of the best positions to put the article in front of them and ask for some high-level reassurance. Please share if and when you do. We all want you to be eligible!:smile:

 

[ecarfan]

Thanks @pharma5, for now I'm not going to worry about it and just enjoy my long Labor Day weekend [emoji3]. I will check in with Tesla next week and post if I learn anything.

 

[Strib]

The article in Green Car Reports cited by @Sparrow is vague and the author, Mr. John Voelcker, may not be correct or have all the facts in his indirect implication that 1.5's cannot take the 3.0 upgrade. He wouldn't be the first automobile 'journalist' to publish errors. That would fly in the face of everything we have been hearing all this time, including what Elon Musk has said and what's on the Tesla Store website.

I went into the Fremont SC and plunked down my $5K deposit and, with the help of my service rep, placed the order using his own desktop terminal. Nothing in the transaction or the order confirmation suggests I may be SOL.

Admittedly, the guys in the SC were not really informed yet - especially regarding whether my Battery Replacement Plan would drop the price in the manner NVBOB was told. That's the only way I'd go forward with it, and I had to move quickly because my battery was slated for the no-cost replacement in two weeks so I couldn't let that move forward without jeopardizing the price accommodation.

I'll hear more shortly - will pass it on.

 

[dpeilow]

I got this on Saturday but it was in my junk mail folder

Your service center has informed us that you would like some more information regarding the Roadster Battery Upgrade.



The battery upgrade will increase your range to about 330km. Our testing has shown that upgraded batteries typically deliver about 80 kWh of energy. Unfortunately, you will still not be able to supercharge with the new Battery Pack.



The price for the upgrade will be approximately £20.800,- and you do not need to pay a deposit. The warranty on the 3.0 Battery is three years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first.



Tesla will retain your old battery. All removed battery modules will be fully recycled or reused if possible, and we will reuse many other components from the old battery.

Spot the obvious typo...

 

[Stefan T]

a fast calculation 530km x 145 Wh/km gives 76.85 kW/h

are the cells model S cells?

 

[djp]

a fast calculation 530km x 145 Wh/km gives 76.85 kW/h

are the cells model S cells?

Tesla has already said they've "identified a new cell" so I doubt it's Model S.

Rated range is closer to 140Wh/km which implies 74.2 kWh for the quoted 530 km (330 mile) range.

This is the first I've seen Tesla quote 80kWh for the new pack. Interesting that the upgrade page says "roughly 40% more energy", the December blog put the increase at 31%

 

[m0rph]

are the cells model S cells?

It has been confirmed that they are not model S cells.

I do wonder if the new cells will have a longer life. The previous cells were expected to be down to 70% after ~500 full cycles. The Model S chemistry is capable of more like ~2000 cycles to reach the same degradation point. It would be good to see the new Roadster pack do at least the double as the old pack (so >1000 cycles).