bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Those of us who purchased the battery replacement option have up to 10 years to exercise. My agreement expires in 2021.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Roadster 3.0
- Thread starter DrComputer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster
Those of us who purchased the battery replacement option have up to 10 years to exercise. My agreement expires in 2021.
I'm sure they will honor this Bonnie. They have solved the 2.0+ problem for spare cells for a few years
Was the BRO option available to 1.5 owners? (I honestly don't know, the best I can find is this: Tesla Battery Pack Replacement Would be $36,000 Today, Musk Says - AutoObserver)
But it's the 1.5 owners who are just coming into battery replacement option timescales now. If it was an option how many took them up on it I wonder? How many 1.5s are even still on the road? How many original Roadster owners jumped ship and replaced with a Model S, just keeping the Roadster as a toy and don't care?
I hope I'm wrong, and this isn't just Tesla doing the minimum to meet legal obligations (contractual or statute).
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry this was TeslaClear (tm)
ChadS said:
The switch over from 1.5 to 2.0 happened after VIN 500 which was definitely after that article. 500 belonged to vfx and was delivered in May 2009.
The point of the BRO was that you were getting a pack at least as good as the original one, new, at 7 years +/- 3. If I had a 1.5 and the BRO I'd now be reading the small print very carefully.
The point of the BRO was that you were getting a pack at least as good as the original one, new, at 7 years +/- 3. If I had a 1.5 and the BRO I'd now be reading the small print very carefully.
ditto!
The pertinent point in that article is :
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.
With this in mind, I'd be paying close attention to see if there is a "buyout clause" in the BRO.
Again hopefully I'm wrong, and would love to be proved so. A Roadster would make a great addition to my garage!
I'm just being realistic, and thinking how I'd deal with a situation like this commercially in my own business (and we do have 10 year old clients with legacy product we want to wean them off) so this would be one of the options on the table.
The BRO was definately available for all Roadsters, and many 1.5 owners took the offer. It makes very little sense for Tesla to offer the new pack to 2.0+ cars only, because they will still have to come up with a seperate replacement pack for the 1.5. I'm not sure how reliable the source is that said 1.5 cars are excluded, but it doesn't pass the sniff test.
On a seperate note, Tesla have got themselves in one hell of a mess with the Roadster batteries, as the price of the 3.0 pack is nearly three times the BRO. There is no way they are going to give the 3.0 pack to the buyers of the BRO without additional $$$. What if someone decides they just want a stock replacement for their BRO? Since the old Roadster Sanyo cells haven't been manufactured for a long time, there are only two choices for Tesla to deliver. Used Sanyo cells(this will cause one hell of an uproar), or new 3.0 cells(engineering another pack is very unlikely). Getting my popcorn ready......
On a seperate note, Tesla have got themselves in one hell of a mess with the Roadster batteries, as the price of the 3.0 pack is nearly three times the BRO. There is no way they are going to give the 3.0 pack to the buyers of the BRO without additional $$$. What if someone decides they just want a stock replacement for their BRO? Since the old Roadster Sanyo cells haven't been manufactured for a long time, there are only two choices for Tesla to deliver. Used Sanyo cells(this will cause one hell of an uproar), or new 3.0 cells(engineering another pack is very unlikely). Getting my popcorn ready......
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
There is no buyout clause in my replacement agreement. Only time boundaries (expires after 10 years, whether or not exercised).
supersnoop
Tesla Roadster #334
Where did you you come up with the "<0.5%" figure? The 1.5 version constitutes over 20% of total production, with most of that concentrated in the US market.
Of total ownership. I.e. including Model S (sorry I wasn't specific)
- - - Updated - - -
Thanks for the clarification.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
This just doesn't make any sense to me from a technical perspective. Obviously I'm missing something, but I can't imagine what having the 12V supplied by a section of the traction pack has to do with changing out the cells, or any other differences in the 1.5 that would cause an issue.
There is a modification to the PEM required as part of the upgrade. Pure speculation but could a difference in the 1.5 and 2.0 PEMs be the reason?
Because it seems like they have to re-engineer the PEM for the 3.0 and hence if they also have to re-engineer the 1.5 PEM for those that take up the offer, then we are talking a subset of a subset of a subset. They may just decide it's cheaper to take the flak, even if that is from their very early adopters.
Does the BRO specifically say that you will get a like-for-like brand new pack with new cells, or is the wording sufficiently weaselish that they could get away with putting in the best cells they get returned from the 2.x owners?
It says new replacement battery. That is open to interpetation, as in new to you etc......
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Mine doesn't say 'new', but it does say 'capable of storing at least 53kWh of electricity at time of installation'. The warranty states that all parts will be free of defects in materials and workmanship for 3 years or 36,000 miles from date of replacement service.
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...
This still doesn't pass the technical sniff test - the 12 volt tap is just not a huge obstacle. Excluding the 1.5's could have been hinted at for a very long time.
I'll go back in to the Fremont SC, but I'll wait to hear what ECARFAN hears from Palo Alto and how they 'splain it.
I'll go back in to the Fremont SC, but I'll wait to hear what ECARFAN hears from Palo Alto and how they 'splain it.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
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.
I just called the Burlingame CA Service Center and they told me that the 3.0 battery could not be installed in 1.5 cars. The person I spoke to was very clear, and was very apologetic. He had no other information to offer. I told him that the wording on the Tesla website page for ordering the 3.0 battery needed to be revised, immediately. He did not disagree. He recommended I send an email to [email protected] expressing my concerns and I have done so. I've asked for clarification and asked when the other components of the 3.0 upgrade will be available.
Similar threads
