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.
My biggest disappointment with this whole announcement is that ANY of my Roadster owning brethren could possibly have anything to complain about. This may be the first time in history an OEM has invested ANY resources into upgrading/retrofitting a previously made model, even one they are still producing let alone one that is discontinued. This is absolutely unprecedented support and to be anything but grateful is a bit absurd. Porsche/BMW/MB would simply say "if you want the new features, buy the new car."

Very well said. I have to admit I have been dismayed over all the 'but what about this? I want that!' responses, or even 'well it's not really 400 miles ...'.

It's AWESOME. That's what it is. I had no expectations of any upgrade, so this is just downright awesome. There is only one response to the upgrade information (imo): Thank you, Tesla & Elon.
 
Agree with the majority here - a huge thank you to Tesla & Elon.

Even for those who do not need extra range the key point is that Tesla are continuing to support Roadster owners. We can be sure that our cars can be kept on the road for many, many years to come and if / when any of us want to sell the resale value will be higher as a result of this support.

Personally I value acceleration & handling more than range for the Roadster so at a first glance these improvements may not offer much, seems like a team of engineers have been set a project to increase the Roadster range. Lets wait however for the full details - perhaps the new battery can deliver higher peak currents or weighs a bit less. The new aero will reduce the average power consumption at speed so the motor will heat up a little less & power limit less, perhaps it will also direct air flow to the motor more. Unsure of any of this but lets wait and see. If it does not help acceleration then I guess there is always the P85d upgrade option!
 
Not a Roadster owner, although I wish (!) .... Just a thought.
Tesla and Solar City may be needing some used paks to set up for stationary storage. Where space and weight are not primary, perhaps the original Roadster paks will demonstrate what is to come for Model S batteries down the road. ..... and more nice press releases in 2015.

If that's the case; then where did these come from?

Lithium Ion 18650 EV Module - 57 Volt, 3kWh, EV West - Electric Vehicle Parts, Components, EVSE Charging Stations, Electric Car Conversion Kits
 

Aren't those ones that were made for Smart EVs?
Smart Fortwo - Tesla Battery Pack Technical Data | Forums | Tesla Motors

- - - Updated - - -

Battery Upgrade

I'm disappointed that the cell capacity is less than Model S, let alone a next gen chemistry, but any improvement helps...

I am guessing that they didn't want to completely redo the Roadster hardware, and the Model S cell characteristics were not compatible with the Roadster design. I guess they found some different cells that were close enough to the Roadster behavior that they could incorporate them mainly with firmware changes.
 
2008 Tesla Roadster Battery Pack = 56 kWh maximum capacity
2015 Tesla Roadster Battery Pack = 70 kWh maximum capacity

That's an increase of 14 kWh in maximum capacity of the Battery Pack.

14 kWh / 56 kWh = 25% increase

Would that be a correct calculation?
 
I'll make that bet with you. And a lot of other people would, too. We would win whether you succeeded or not!

I've often thought about modifying my Roadster for supercharging. With the new pack you might be able to do about 50kW (based on cooling system capacity). There are several BIG hurdles after the hardware mods. First is the proprietary serial communication. It may very well be encrypted. The SC checks the VIN of the car so you'd have to spoof that somehow. I don't know what other validation and self-tests it does before it even starts. The hardware would be easy by comparison (contactors, cabling, new inlet, comm interface boards, etc.), but the hardware alone would still be a massive undertaking!

When you're ready to make the bet, just let us know. :smile:

Any chance you could get it working with CHAdeMO?

- - - Updated - - -

Very well said. I have to admit I have been dismayed over all the 'but what about this? I want that!' responses, or even 'well it's not really 400 miles ...'.

It's AWESOME. That's what it is. I had no expectations of any upgrade, so this is just downright awesome. There is only one response to the upgrade information (imo): Thank you, Tesla & Elon.

I'll explain the disappointment thus:

We knew Tesla was obliged to provide a replacement pack. We all originally expected that to be using whatever commodity cells were prevalent at the time.

Then Elon comes out with the SF to LA claim. I think many, myself included, expected this to be using the same old EPA method that brought us the 244 mile ideal range currently - i.e. very hard to achieve but nowhere near real world everyday driving for highway speeds. We conceded that was doable using the latest cells and maybe Tesla would allow owners to use those at a price.

However, it is clear that Tesla did go the commodity cell route and to meet this goal they are going to have to drive in a manner that really isn't representative of real world driving. It's a publicity stunt.


So while I am grateful that Tesla has taken care of its contractual obligations to produce a new pack, once again they fail at expectation management. If they just said it's a 320 miles pack in the first place, we'd all be rejoicing.
 
Last edited:
Aren't those ones that were made for Smart EVs?
Smart Fortwo - Tesla Battery Pack Technical Data | Forums | Tesla Motors

- - - Updated - - -



I am guessing that they didn't want to completely redo the Roadster hardware, and the Model S cell characteristics were not compatible with the Roadster design. I guess they found some different cells that were close enough to the Roadster behavior that they could incorporate them mainly with firmware changes.

The EV West modules do not look like the ones Tesla made for the Smard ED. If I remember correctly the smart pack was a different shape and too small to have these modules inside it. Perhaps they are for the B-class?

I don't think the Roadster can use the exact cells as the model S. It could have used the same jelly roll in a consumer electronics style can that has the current interupt device and thermal interupt device like the Roadster cells do.

However, Panasonic may not make a consumer version of the model S cell. They do make consumer 3400 mAh cells, but pricing and availability for Roadster quantities might be an issue for a tesla (just speculation).

GSP
 
Another interesting outcome of this is proof of real pace of development in cells.

The original Roadster used the commodity cell available in Spring 2008. This new pack will come out in Spring 2015.

We always hear that batteries improve at 8% per year. So we would expect the new pack to have 1.08 ^ 7 = 71% more capacity. Instead it's only 31%.

This suggests annual improvement is more like 4%.
 
Last edited:
If they just said it's a 320 miles pack in the first place, we'd all be rejoicing.

That might address some that are disappointed, but not all. Supercharging-capability, lighter pack, and more all have been mentioned by multiple people. Sometimes we need to manage our own expectations.

Publicity stunt? It's a bit more than that. It's a LOT more than that. I appreciate the company squeezing every possible value out of every thing that they do. And as a Roadster owner, I appreciate the fact that we have not been left behind. They didn't need to do this, any of this. We had plenty of discussions here on this forum about what the real world miles would be. We all manage our own perspective of things, mine is that I just received something I wasn't expecting.
 
When I get around to tinkering more with the supercharger protocol, I may just do that. :)

Something to consider, and not to discourage you from the undertaking, but wouldn't charging a non SC enabled car be considered theft of service?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the Roadster can use the exact cells as the model S. It could have used the same jelly roll in a consumer electronics style can that has the current interupt device and thermal interupt device like the Roadster cells do.

However, Panasonic may not make a consumer version of the model S cell. They do make consumer 3400 mAh cells, but pricing and availability for Roadster quantities might be an issue for a tesla (just speculation).

GSP

That is an excellent point that I had not considered.
 
When I get around to tinkering more with the supercharger protocol, I may just do that. :)

There was a thread here previously that had documented much of the car-to-supercharger physical layer interface as well as sniffs of the protocol exchange between them. There was good progress on decoding the conversation.

The effort has since been taken offline... but I remember a name or two. If you decide to pursue it, drop me a PM.
 
All Tesla has an obligation to provide is access to replacement parts of original specification, including the battery. I am jumping for joy at anything that improves my car in any way because I know Porsche would never dream of it. By offering retrofitable batteries with increased range, Tesla is doing something other OEMs have been unwilling or unable to do for over 100 years. I actually hope they don't invest too much into this type of activity as I would much prefer to see progress on future tech and vehicles.
 
Publicity stunt? It's a bit more than that. It's a LOT more than that. I appreciate the company squeezing every possible value out of every thing that they do. And as a Roadster owner, I appreciate the fact that we have not been left behind. They didn't need to do this, any of this.

Here's a point I think many people are overlooking. One of Tesla's stated goals is to advance "sustainable transport." The most obvious part of that is clearly the move away from fossil fuel powered vehicles. Perhaps less obvious is the idea that each vehicle should be able to last longer than a conventional vehicle. And what better way to make a car last longer than to offer in-place upgrades? Model S already does so with its software.

While I don't know for sure if part of Tesla's intent here is to show that all its cars are meant to be kept longer and periodically upgraded, rather than traded/recycled/junked in exchange for brand new ones. But upgrading the Roadster like this is certainly a good way to try to prove the concept, before they consider offering a large scale battery (or other) upgrade to Model S or future models.
 
Another interesting outcome of this is proof of real pace of development in cells.

The original Roadster used the commodity cell available in Spring 2008. This new pack will come out in Spring 2015.

We always hear that batteries improve at 8% per year. So we would expect the new pack to have 1.08 ^ 7 = 71% more capacity. Instead it's only 31%.

This suggests annual improvement is more like 4%.

This ignores the constraints of the rest of the existing system, however. Just because newer chemistries are available doesn't mean that they would just slide in to a 7+ yr old engineered system.

For instance, we already know that the Model S has a different thermal management system for it's pack as compared to the Roadster. There are many things to consider: temp characteristics, can design, energy profile, charging characteristics, energy density per kg, etc...

If they were designing the roadster from the ground up today along with it's PEM, charging system, thermal mgm't system, wiring, etc... you would likely be able to accommodate even more advanced cells.
 
Here's a point I think many people are overlooking. One of Tesla's stated goals is to advance "sustainable transport." The most obvious part of that is clearly the move away from fossil fuel powered vehicles. Perhaps less obvious is the idea that each vehicle should be able to last longer than a conventional vehicle. And what better way to make a car last longer than to offer in-place upgrades? Model S already does so with its software.

While I don't know for sure if part of Tesla's intent here is to show that all its cars are meant to be kept longer and periodically upgraded, rather than traded/recycled/junked in exchange for brand new ones. But upgrading the Roadster like this is certainly a good way to try to prove the concept, before they consider offering a large scale battery (or other) upgrade to Model S or future models.

Advancing sustainable transport simply means that the technology will get better with time for new production models. Apple isn't expected to make original iPhones better to support early adopters as they are advancing smartphone technology. They are just expected to keep them operational to original spec for the duration of reasonable expected lifespan aside from wear and tear and natural degradation.
 
I don't think it's a thermal management issue, I think GSP may have nailed it. The Roadster cells had protection built in, Model S cells do not. So instead of just putting new cells into the existing structure Tesla would have to redesign the way the pack is physically constructed if they were to use the Model S cells.
 
I would start with all upgrades except the battery. Mine still is at 98% but doing 6000km/month now. If it lasts another 2-3y I would be happy. Maybe 4.0 hardware with 500 miles and solar roof will be ready by then :)

My 2 remaining Qs are: Price? Warranty?