Roadster 3.0

[JRP3]

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.

At what point in their lifetime? The Model S cells are a different chemistry than the original Roadster cells and even high mileage S's are showing minimal degradation. I would say that not until well after 200,000 miles will the average Model S have enough capacity loss to "need" a new pack, and I'd say 200K is beyond the lifetime of most vehicles. Most ICE vehicles would also need a substantial investment to stay on the road at that point.

This upgrade turned out to be substantially more than I was hoping, obviously more was involved than I realized, but assuming Tesla is pricing it at cost I guess it's the best they could do. A bit of a shame about the weight gain, hopefully it's not much, (less than 100lbs?).

 

[WarpedOne]

less than 100lbs?

That translates into less than 6g / cell. Probably about half of it.

 

[ecarfan]

I suspect the added weight of the 3.0 battery will be inconsequential in terms of 0-60 time, but since there is some weight gain Tesla felt obligated to mention it in the announcement. I do wish they had quantified it.
I'm hoping that the new battery and PEM "upgrades" will surprise us with a slight 0-60 time decrease.

 

[hcsharp]

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



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.

Don't you mean 1/69 amounts? I don't think you would have a problem with too many amps with the new cells since they will almost certainly have a higher C rating. Well, OK, if you dropped the total kWh to less than 53 you might have to think about it.

I wonder if we could ask Tesla to perform a study to determine the cost of adding supercharging to the 3.0 upgrade.

 

[spaceballs]

Don't you mean 1/69 amounts? I don't think you would have a problem with too many amps with the new cells since they will almost certainly have a higher C rating. Well, OK, if you dropped the total kWh to less than 53 you might have to think about it.

Yep your correct it's 1/69 amounts.

I wonder if we could ask Tesla to perform a study to determine the cost of adding supercharging to the 3.0 upgrade.

I wonder who be the proper contact?

Maybe one reason is Tesla doesn't want add in supercharging in this upgrade, as it has minimal changes so there is less certification that needs to be done overall, and then add in their limited timeline, man power, etc..

 

[dpeilow]

Well I did have the right contact there but he appears to have moved on...

A quick trawl of LinkedIn turns up some possible names.

 

[WarpedOne]

spaceballs:

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

Thanks, you are correct:

The ESS contains 6,831 lithium ion cells arranged into 11 "sheets" connected in series; each sheet contains 9 "bricks"
connected in series; each "brick" contains 69 cells connected in parallel (11S 9S 69P).

So, yes, they could have built bricks with less than 69 cells. In steps of 1 cell per brick or 99 cells in total (around 5kg and 990Wh).

Assuming the new pack is full i.e. it consists of 6831 cells, same capacity pack would consist of 4950 newer cells, using only 50 per brick. Such packs would still cost more than $21.000 because those 29.000 includes work that does not scale linearly with cell count. Old cells weigh around 45g amounting for ~308kg. The other ~300kg is in casing, cooling etc.

Say newer cells weigh around 50g. 4950 of them would weigh 248kg. Newer pack would thus weigh 60kg less. This would require new crash tests and softer suspension. Where would tesla get roadster to crashtest? They don't make new anymore and old used ones can have hidden defects that invalidate crash test results or make them "non-generalizable" .

Who would pay (much) over $21,000 for a same capacity pack and 60kg lower weight assuming no crash-testing is needed and no suspension work is done?

We can go midway: Who would pay (much) over $25.000 for a pack with only 20% higher range and 30kg less weight?

In this situation where there are many fixed costs and almost impossible requirements (valid crash testing) it is only plausible for tesla to choose an option with most benefit. And this is "full pack" with +40% range at $29k.

One can also disbelieve them their cost being ~$30k and continue the talk about 15k and supercharger capability.

 

[FANGO]

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.

Option "the best": 50kwh pack, same range as original, hundreds of pounds lighter, much cheaper.

If I were tesla, I'd offer option "the best"

Also, it is strange to me that so many people are surprised by this price. If the original battery was close to 40k and this is using the same amount of cells but newer and higher technology, then of course this battery is going to cost a similar amount. Remove profit and add a credit for trade in and you get about 30k, which is on the low end of what I predicted would be the case all along (and was doubted on).

 

[smac]

Option "the best": 50kwh pack, same range as original, hundreds of pounds lighter, much cheaper.

If I were tesla, I'd offer option "the best"

Best for who?

Best for Tesla, claim a 400 mile range to grab headlines, say they are looking after their most loyal early fans, all in the run up to launching their much more significant Model X.

As dpeillow suggests then bury the reality, of what customers wanted vs what they got under the press of the X "launch".

I think the investors got the "best" possible outcome out of this, and at the end of the day Tesla isn't a charity. Does the ends justify the means or is Tesla just morphing into an old school corporate.

 

[Doug_G]

Moved a bunch of posts to Roadster Supercharging Kit?

 

[strider]

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.

Let's be careful about need vs want here. You only NEED a new battery when your current range drops below your daily needs. My commute is 50 miles round trip. Add in a 25-mile buffer for errands and I can have a LOT of degradation before I NEED a new battery. So for people here it's about WANTing a new, higher range battery vs NEEDing. I think for Model S that threshold would be when you couldn't make the next supercharger. But even then it could last a very long time as an "around town" car. Further, if this becomes a significant problem Tesla could roll out a "pack rental" service where you could swing by a service center before a trip and borrow a high-capacity battery and then swap back when you return. In that case our Model S pack could degrade ~75% before we would NEED to replace it.

 

[ecarfan]

@WarpedOne, thank you for your helpful post laying out why Tesla has to work within some very 'real world' constraints when modifying a vehicle that is long out of production. Sure many would like a much lighter battery with the same capacity using a more modern cell type, but one can understand why Tesla would not take that approach, preferring instead to offer significantly longer range with a (we hope) minor weight penalty but a very positive PR impact, and of course a substantial benefit for those owners wanting more range or more confidence when using HVAC in adverse climate conditions while still having enough juice to make their destination.

Who would pay (much) over $21,000 for a same capacity pack and 60kg lower weight assuming no crash-testing is needed and no suspension work is done?

We can go midway: Who would pay (much) over $25.000 for a pack with only 20% higher range and 30kg less weight?

In this situation where there are many fixed costs and almost impossible requirements (valid crash testing) it is only plausible for tesla to choose an option with most benefit. And this is "full pack" with +40% range at $29k.

One can also disbelieve them their cost being ~$30k and continue the talk about 15k and supercharger capability.

 

[richkae]

Is there no credit for my old battery which is within 5% capacity of new? ( Probably close to 4% )
I am not excited to pay $29K to get a new 3.0 battery when mine is very close to new ( old battery ).

I actually posted this a couple years ago when the numbers were guesses, but now they are not.
If there is no credit for my old battery, is anyone with a tired old battery interested in my almost new one for $10K?
Both our cars go in to Tesla, my battery comes out and goes to you. Yours comes out and goes to Tesla. I get a new 3.0 battery.
I pay Tesla $29K. You pay me $8K. You pay Tesla $2K to do the labor of swapping your battery.
Net cost to you $10K, you get an almost new battery with ~235 miles range.
Net cost to me $21K, I get a new 3.0 battery.

Anybody? Please discuss.

 

[ChadS]

I think it's a great idea; I'm not going to upgrade my perfectly good battery for $29k, but I might consider an arrangement like this. One of the questions I sent in was about credits and does it really not matter what battery we turn in (if any). We'll see if I get an illuminating answer.

This seems like it could/should work in theory, as some people just need any old battery rather than the full $29k for extra range. Though in practice it might be hard finding such a person in physical proximity at the right time.

 

[ecarfan]

Okay, so here's a burning question regarding the 3.0 upgrade: once you do it does Tesla stick a new badge at the rear of the car to visually indicate it's been upgraded? Like "3.0"? After all, it's then a new version of the Roadster.
I'm just speculating, I think there will be no added badge included with the upgraded.

 

[dsm363]

Okay, so here's a burning question regarding the 3.0 upgrade: once you do it does Tesla stick a new badge at the rear of the car to visually indicate it's been upgraded? Like "3.0"? After all, it's then a new version of the Roadster.
I'm just speculating, I think there will be no added badge included with the upgraded.

Did any of the versions of the roadster have a version number behind them?

 

[richkae]

Okay, so here's a burning question regarding the 3.0 upgrade: once you do it does Tesla stick a new badge at the rear of the car to visually indicate it's been upgraded? Like "3.0"? After all, it's then a new version of the Roadster.
I'm just speculating, I think there will be no added badge included with the upgraded.

If I get the upgrade, and there is a badge, I will happily sell my badge to anyone who wants it.

 

[spaceballs]

Is there no credit for my old battery which is within 5% capacity of new? ( Probably close to 4% )
I am not excited to pay $29K to get a new 3.0 battery when mine is very close to new ( old battery )...

I might be interested in something like this.. as soon as I find an old dead (or near dead) 1.5 ESS.

 

[ecarfan]

Did any of the versions of the roadster have a version number behind them?

Not that is shown externally (or inside) on the car. You tell the differences between Roadster versions by the way the center console looks, front bumper style, top central area of dashboard, etc., not by badging.

 

[Mitrovic]

Well, I am happy that they offer a battery replacement.
I hoped it would cost much less. At this price I will wait, as long as my battery is ok, I will not replace it, but I hope that the replacement will be around in 3 to 4 years.