Roadster 3.0

[doug]

The pertinent point in that article is :

Tesla apparently is betting that automated battery production techniques will have improved, and raw material costs fallen, to the point that it can provide you a replacement pack then for $12K now and at least break even.

This clearly isn't the case, the packs are still hand assembled, and the cells are not materially cheaper (in compatible form). If a 80kWh pack including labour is $29k, a $55kWh is still likely to be the wrong side of $20k The more labour makes up the cost, the worse the problem becomes (assuming like for like kWh / $ between the packs)

Effectively Tesla have lost this bet, are going to lose money on every BRO.

I think the real purpose of the BRO was to help Tesla get some cash at a time when they really needed it. It also had the goal boosting customer confidence that there would a replacement battery option down the line. Tesla probably knew they'd likely lose money on the deal, but on the other hand, they won the bet of still being in business.

Obligatory BRO pic:

 

[bonnie]

Presumably with no mention of degradation guarantees?

IOW you could get a bunch of 7+ year old cells harvested from who knows how many packs, matched as best as possible, and as long as they leave the factory with 53kWh that's your lot?
Hmmm...

I don't recall a degradation guarantee on the brand-spanking-new battery when I bought my Roadster. Did you have one? (Seriously, 'hmmmm'? C'mon. It's like you're looking for a way to make it look like a bad deal.)

 

[smac]

I don't recall a degradation guarantee on the brand-spanking-new battery when I bought my Roadster. Did you have one? (Seriously, 'hmmmm'? C'mon. It's like you're looking for a way to make it look like a bad deal.)

Bonnie, I don't have a Roadster but I would like one, and no I didn't get a degradation warranty on my S (not that it matters as it isn't a "keeper" and will be replaced in 2 years). I am nervous (and I think rightly) of the practicalities of keeping a Roadster.

Whilst faith in the new pack with fresh off the line cells to last until year 7 was well placed (as shown by lots of real world experience). With a cell that has already seen seven years of service, irrespective of it being able to hold capacity now, I'd be much more nervous of it's longevity, and the impact of age related issues leading to accelerated degradation from years 7-14, which is completely uncharted territory.

The a 2.0/2.5 with a BRO would make me nervous, but a 2.0/2.5 with a 3.0 upgrade with fresh cells I'd be much more comfortable lasting 7 years.

 

[PokerBroker]

My CPO warranty on my 1.5 expires in less than 2,000 miles. This whole thing has almost spooked me into dumping it before I get buried in service expenses. Not to mention, my car has been in for service 9 times in 12 months for warranty items.

 

[Sparrow]

I hate spending almost $6000 to replace my current pack in my 1.5 with a refurbished pack because of a sensor issue. I have been driving around with a fault light and a battery needs service indicator for 9 months now (with no apparent loss of range) waiting for the 3.0 battery, because at least I would see a huge jump in range. I probably have to spend the $6000 now just to be able to sell the Roadster for a decent price. I doubt I could get much of a price with that red fault light on constantly.

At least now I will not worry about spending the additional $6000 for the adjustable suspension, I was going to add while doing the 3.0 upgrade for a car I had planned to keep for a lot longer.

 

[Andrew Wolfe]

I think the real purpose of the BRO was to help Tesla get some cash at a time when they really needed it. It also had the goal boosting customer confidence that there would a replacement battery option down the line. Tesla probably knew they'd likely lose money on the deal, but on the other hand, they won the bet of still being in business.

Obligatory BRO pic:
View attachment 93464

Exactly. Given the implied interest rate that Tesla would have been willing to pay on that money at the time, that $12K was a 50-65% discounted price.

 

[dpeilow]

See this post upthread:

I did. That's why I was asking if the BRO was worded differently for the 1.5 and 2.x. If Tesla put the 53 kWh thing in both (as per Bonnie's reply) then they have a problem for 1.5 owners because no way can they make a 53 kWh pack out of second hand cells and they have to go off sourcing something new and compatible. On the other hand, if only BROs for 2.x owners mention 53 kWh then they can give the older cars refurbed packs and be done with it while 2.xs get the new pack. Whether they were thinking that far ahead - or even knew there was a problem - is debatable.

I just can't imagine they designed any of the PEM's to require more than some software changes to make higher capacity cells work properly. As I've mentioned before the 6 year old Curtis 3 phase AC forklift controller I use in my car doesn't care about cell capacity or chemistry, and can easily be adjusted in software to change operating voltage and current draw if needed. My mind is boggled that they were so shortsighted they failed to design some simple capacity to change cell parameters at a later date when their entire business premise is based on constantly improving cell technology.

Who knows? It's speculation, but is there a different charge curve between LCO and NCA? Even if it requires small changes to PCBs, it's probably not worth their time for such a small group of cars. I grant you that it smells fishy though.

 

[qwk]

I did. That's why I was asking if the BRO was worded differently for the 1.5 and 2.x. If Tesla put the 53 kWh thing in both (as per Bonnie's reply) then they have a problem for 1.5 owners because no way can they make a 53 kWh pack out of second hand cells and they have to go off sourcing something new and compatible. On the other hand, if only BROs for 2.x owners mention 53 kWh then they can give the older cars refurbed packs and be done with it while 2.xs get the new pack. Whether they were thinking that far ahead - or even knew there was a problem - is debatable.



Who knows? It's speculation, but is there a different charge curve between LCO and NCA? Even if it requires small changes to PCBs, it's probably not worth their time for such a small group of cars. I grant you that it smells fishy though.

Like I stated upthread, with all of the information we have, there is a big storm of ill-will brewing...

 

[tvuolo]

I don't think there's a storm of ill-will brewing... I'm with AEdennis...

As a CPO/2d owner of a 1.5 predictability of a replacement 2nd pack at the same kWh and range would be fine if it's priced accordingly. ie if the replacement is close to $10k for restoring an old pack to full capacity, that's fine for me as well. We'll take the S on long trips and continue to have fun with my wife's Roadster.

When I need a replacement, a pack with similar range at a lower cost would be fine.

And who's to say the current battery upgrade is the final upgrade. Maybe the 1.5 pack just isn't ready, yet. Maybe it'll be slightly more money since they'll have to add a separate 12V battery.

I do hope some of the other upgrades will work for the 1.5s, though. Especially if they can give us more tire options and better brakes.

 

[qwk]

I don't think there's a storm of ill-will brewing... I'm with AEdennis...

When I need a replacement, a pack with similar range at a lower cost would be fine.

And who's to say the current battery upgrade is the final upgrade. Maybe the 1.5 pack just isn't ready, yet. Maybe it'll be slightly more money since they'll have to add a separate 12V battery.

I do hope some of the other upgrades will work for the 1.5s, though. Especially if they can give us more tire options and better brakes.

So if you had opted for the BRO, you would be ok with getting a pack with used cells?

- - - Updated - - -

For the record, this thread is pretty much all speculation, but I don't see Tesla handing over $30k packs to purchasers of the $12k BRO, and I definitely don't see them developing multiple packs. There has to be some wrong information from the SC's here.

 

[JST]

So if you had opted for the BRO, you would be ok with getting a pack with used cells?

- - - Updated - - -

For the record, this thread is pretty much all speculation, but I don't see Tesla handing over $30k packs to purchasers of the $12k BRO, and I definitely don't see them developing multiple packs. There has to be some wrong information from the SC's here.

It's possible that the pack price of 29K was set in order to take into account the costs of those out there with BROs. In other words, they aren't giving 29K packs out for 12K; they're giving 20K packs out for 12K, and recouping the 8K from other purchasers.

That's speculation, too, but Tesla obviously knows how many BRO contracts are out there, and they could factor these into the "cost" side of the equation when setting the price to recover their costs.

I have to say, as a Model S owner, none of this exactly fills me with the warm fuzzies when it comes to thinking about the possibility that my car might be forced into obsolescence. I know there are a lot of differences between the cars (and the Model S battery cells, or compatible cells, are likely to stay in production for the foreseeable future). Still...

 

[dpeilow]

So either they put up a web page that gives the impression that all Roadsters can be upgraded and it's safe to put down a $5k deposit, or multiple service centres are giving out bad information that leads early adopters to think their cars can't be upgraded when in reality they can. On top of that you have people with a contract which if the latter is true they need to find a way to placate, quickly.

Either way it's a communications goat ****.

 

[smac]

I have to say, as a Model S owner, none of this exactly fills me with the warm fuzzies when it comes to thinking about the possibility that my car might be forced into obsolescence. I know there are a lot of differences between the cars (and the Model S battery cells, or compatible cells, are likely to stay in production for the foreseeable future). Still...

I honestly don't think it's an issue for us Model S owners. 15 year+ life span is perfectly feasible from a parts and business case POV, with so many cars to carry development costs of new packs in the worst case that the current cells become hard to source.

Whether or not it's feature obsolescent is a different matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Either way it's a communications goat ****.

It's becoming a theme, they will soon need more goats

 

[Sparrow]

Got my notification today from Tesla that they will be refunding my deposit for the 3.0 battery because I have a 1.5 Roadster.

 

[supersnoop]

It's possible that the pack price of 29K was set in order to take into account the costs of those out there with BROs. In other words, they aren't giving 29K packs out for 12K; they're giving 20K packs out for 12K, and recouping the 8K from other purchasers.

That's speculation, too, but Tesla obviously knows how many BRO contracts are out there, and they could factor these into the "cost" side of the equation when setting the price to recover their costs.

I have to say, as a Model S owner, none of this exactly fills me with the warm fuzzies when it comes to thinking about the possibility that my car might be forced into obsolescence. I know there are a lot of differences between the cars (and the Model S battery cells, or compatible cells, are likely to stay in production for the foreseeable future). Still...

The BRO and the upgrade are mutually exclusive. You're confusing the issue.

 

[Habious]

Got my notification today from Tesla that they will be refunding my deposit for the 3.0 battery because I have a 1.5 Roadster.

Can you post the actual text of what they sent?

 

[smac]

Got my notification today from Tesla that they will be refunding my deposit for the 3.0 battery because I have a 1.5 Roadster.

Sorry to hear the news

So refurb'd pack then, or just keep it with the light on and drive it for a bit?

 

[JST]

The BRO and the upgrade are mutually exclusive. You're confusing the issue.

Is there confirmation of this? The last I saw bonnie and others were speculating that there may be some benefit given to the BRO holders vis a vis the 3.0 upgrade (i.e., they'd get it for reduced or no cost), but that no one knew for sure.

EDIT: I certainly don't claim any knowledge one way or the other. I only go by what I read here.

 

[Sparrow]

This is just cut and paste, but this is the email I received:


Dear Mr. Taylor,



Thank you for your recent Tesla Gear order for the Roadster 3.0 Battery Upgrade. Our records show that you purchased this for a Roadster 1.5 and unfortunately, the upgrade is only compatible with Roadster 2.0 and higher. We will be refunding your deposit shortly and you will receive an email notification once it has been processed. If you are purchasing the upgrade for a different Roadster, please let us know as soon as possible.



We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.



Best Regards,

Krista



cid:[email protected]



Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters



p 510.896.6417 | e [email protected]

 

[AEdennis]

This is just cut and paste, but this is the email I received:


Dear Mr. Taylor,



Thank you for your recent Tesla Gear order for the Roadster 3.0 Battery Upgrade. Our records show that you purchased this for a Roadster 1.5 and unfortunately, the upgrade is only compatible with Roadster 2.0 and higher. We will be refunding your deposit shortly and you will receive an email notification once it has been processed. If you are purchasing the upgrade for a different Roadster, please let us know as soon as possible.



We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.



Best Regards,

Krista



cid:[email protected]



Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters



p 510.896.6417 | e [email protected]

Thanks.

Bummer. Makes the $29k decision easier. I wonder what to budget for when the pack finally needs to be replaced.